Structural Engineering Inspections,Helical Pile Foundation Supports,Carbon Fiber Structural Reinforcement,Stablwall Foundation Bracing Systems,Foundation Repairs,Foundation Underpinning,Pile Caps,Structural Repairs,House Jacking,Floridian Sunrooms,Shoring,Grade Beams,Basement Excavations,Sill Repair,Drain Systems,Title IV Inspections, Kingston, Massachusetts, Cape Cod

Your Neighborhood Convenience Store: Beer & Wine ~ Liquors ~ Cigarettes ~ Lottery ~ Groceries: Monday to Friday: 6:30 to 10:00 ~ Saturday: 7:00 to 10:00 ~ Sunday: 7:00 to 9:00
Support Kingston's Business Community. Please Patronize Local Advertisers.

Published On: Tue, Mar 12th, 2013

(VIDEO) Kingston resident thinks KWI Turbine is “illegally sited”

casnabreenTOWN HOUSE- “There is no flicker study, do you want one?” That was Jack Breen’s question to Leland Road-resident Dan Alves at last night’s Board of Health (BOH) meeting in the Town House.

Alves wasn’t shy about his thoughts. “No, I don’t want [a flicker study] now because I think it’s illegally sited,” Alves said to Breen as he became visibly emotional. “It never should have been zoned.”

Breen rolled his eyes as Alves clarified.

“I don’t want a flicker study now…[the turbine] is illegal,” Alves proclaimed last night.

Last month, in a Feburary 7 report, the Journal first reported that the KWI Turbine had never been the subject of a site-specific flicker study…that was enough for Dan Alves.


KWI Turbine seen from Summer Street in Kingston.

“Here’s your flicker study,” Alves said to the BOH. “I had two 9-year olds in my kitchen on Saturday. After 10 minutes of flicker, they had to go down to the basement because they both felt nauseous and had headaches.”

Alves said that shadow flicker from the Kingston Wind Independence (KWI) Turbine lasted for 70 minutes at his home on Saturday. “That’s not a study, that’s reality,” Alves said.


About the Author

Displaying 5 Comments
Have Your Say
  1. Curious George says:

    If the Town wants to purchase software to predict and model where flicker occurs and under what circumstances, what is the problem with that? That is a reasonable thing to do. But it should be done immediately and mitigation should happen as soon as possible. The flicker is not fair.

  2. Dennis Randall says:

    Under our Wind Bylaw a flicker study is required prior to construction. Shadow/Flicker Wind facilities shall be sited in a manner that minimizes shadowing or flicker impacts. The applicant has the burden of proving that this effect does not have significant adverse impact on neighboring or adjacent uses through either siting or mitigation.

    The applicant NEVER proved that this effect does not have significant adverse impact on neighboring or adjacent uses. Without a pre-construction flicker study there was no chance to change the siting of the turbine or provide for mitigation as an order of condition.

    What would a flicker study today accomplish? I’m not opposed to one, but I am asking.

    If the study shows “significant adverse impact on neighboring or adjacent uses” what will happen then? Which board is prepared to take action? The selectmen? The Board of Health? The Planning Board?

    Boards have already been presented with compelling testimony about the impact of flicker on several households and no action is forthcoming. How will a flicker study today change anything?

  3. GlowGolf says:

    This letter from Ruiz to BOH from Oct 2012 makes it seem like KWI has already done a flicker study. Or at least makes it seem like they have the capability to do one, unfortunately the devil is in the details.

    In other words, in the letter Ruiz states that flicker is max 30 minutes for a few days a year when the sun is just right, and on average only 4 minutes per day. Someone did the math wrong if Alves is saying 70 minutes of flicker and should be held accountable.

    Also, if the BOH and the BOS were presented with incorrect facts at the time of the application then that would likely void any obligations they have to KWI.

    And Brad, were you laying down in the middle of the road to take that picture?

  4. Serenity now says:

    Mr Randall, you are right, the boards have heard compelling and truthful testimony BUT they fail to ACT.

    Mr Breen for example has repeatedly said sorry I don’t consider your evidence as indicating a nuisance (paraphrasing).

    This is the guy who, when asked if he’d ever gone to the neighborhood to check it out said “no”. That might have been right before or after he winked at a certain female relative of Mary O’Donnell.

    This whole process seems corrupted. There is only 1 member of the board who has supported those that are crying out for relief …

    Then you have town employees like Mr Bott who claim “annoyance” is not a health problem…in spite of testimony proving otherwise….

    Town hall needs a serious flushing out

  5. breen shows his ignorance once again says:

    jack breen asks the suffering and clearly frustrated mr alves if he wants a flicker study?

    what an asinine question…mr alves does not need a study to tell him what he and his family have been exposed to with the strobing dates and times.

    why spend the money on a “study” to tell kingston officials and residents what they could and should already know…

    that is the strobing IS a nuisance and it needs to end in whatever means possible.

    mr breen has been NOTHING but antagonistic toward the residents and his barbed comments and idiotic questions are downright disrespectful.