July 20, 2007

Comments to the Wind Power Task Force
By Steve Bennett
	
 I am writing these comments as a citizen of the Town of Freedom, as an abutter and as
 an opponent to the proposed wind turbine project in Freedom. I am a retired teacher, a business
 owner, former chair of the town Planning Board and the Board of Selectmen.

As I read the objectives that have been set forth for this committee; comparing Maine’s policies with approaches used in other jurisdictions, development of policies and a regulatory framework for evaluating wind power projects, creating guidelines to help developers identify areas appropriate for wind power development and avoiding areas that are not appropriate for development, I applaud Governor Baldacci for the position he has taken and for creating this task force. The State of Maine should recognize and take advantage of its potential for development of wind power, but it should also recognize the harm that can be caused if these projects are poorly sited. I realize the difficulty this task force faces in trying to develop guidelines that will appeal to a majority. In our rush to bring development and business to Maine and to create renewable energy resources however, let us not forget the reasons we reside in Maine in the first place.  
 
The recent repeal of Freedom’s Commercial Site Review Ordinance, the subsequent approval last week of a $12,000,000 wind turbine project by the issuance of a simple building permit stipulated by the town’s building ordinance, and the convoluted series of events that led the town to this point provides an interesting case study for this task force as it develops statewide guidelines for wind power development. I urge this committee to look at this example.

On March 1, 2006, Richard Silkman of Competitive Energy Services (CES) presented a plan for three 1.5 MW wind turbines on Beaver Ridge in Freedom. The town did not have a Comprehensive Plan to guide any development or land-use activity, only a smattering of specific ordinances addressing different issues. Thus, all that was required of CES was a simple building permit.

CES understood at the time of this initial application, that to ensure broad support of the project, the town and CES would best be served if the town could develop an ordinance under which the project could be reviewed more thoroughly and that would address town, abutter, land-use and other impacts of this or any other proposed commercial development in Freedom. CES therefore withdrew its initial application allowing the town some time to develop such an ordinance. 

The ordinance that was developed by the Planning Board over the next four months of tiresome, contentious and difficult meetings resulted in the passage of a less-than-perfect ordinance. To the abutters it seemed that the ordinance was being crafted to accommodate the wind project.

Nonetheless, support at town meeting for the ordinance was nearly unanimous, and everyone agreed it was sufficient to protect the town and clear enough to guide developers. Many people also assumed the ordinance would result in an approval of the wind project by the Planning Board. 

CES then put forth its application. Each turbine would have a tower 262 feet tall and 130 foot blades. The overall height of each turbine would be just under 400 feet. Setbacks from abutter’s lines, given the size and shape of the property, would be approximately 350 feet, as measured from the center of each turbine. Eleven different abutters would be as close 350 feet from at least one of the three turbines. Nevertheless, since the ordinance defined acceptable setbacks in terms of multiples of the height of the turbine from occupied structures, or four times 262 feet, the height of the tower, setbacks from the nearest occupied structure would have to be at least 1048 feet, and since the nearest home was approximately 1050 feet, the application met the terms of the ordinance. In total, there are eight homes less than 2000 feet from one or more of the turbines, and another seven homes within 3000 feet. There are at least another six property owners that have purchased land over the years to either build homes for themselves or to be able to give land to their children so they could one day build homes. All distances were approximate as no current survey was provided by CES or required by the Planning Board. The only survey of the property was done in 1980 and outparcels have been made since. Hand-held GPS readings taken by CES were relied upon to define all distances and setbacks. 

The project would also require approximately 1000 feet of discontinued/abandoned town road to be rebuilt and widened, as well as another 4000 feet of new road across hay fields. All access roads when done would be 20 feet wide. As stated publicly and in writing by CES, land would have to be taken through eminent domain from landowners in order to widen a corner and allow for the turbines to get onto the access road leading to the project site. In spite of the large amount of new impervious surface area created by the widening of 1000 feet of old road, the construction of 4000 feet of new road, and the necessity for hardened staging areas of at least an acre around each turbine as evidenced at Mars Hill, CES has consistently maintained that the new impervious surface area created by this project would add up to only 5/100th of one acre, therefore a storm water management plan would not be needed. The Planning Board agreed. In my opinion, this project would create new impervious surface area closer to five acres than it would 5/100 of one acre. 

The Planning Board did want to know from CES if the DEP would need to review or permit this project. CES’s reply as stated in their first application and again in the newly approved application, is “the Beaver Ridge Wind Project does not require any approvals from any agency in the State of Maine.” At the initial meeting March 1, 2006, I asked if a three turbine project was economically feasible. The reply from Richard Silkman of CES was that the footprint of the project was so small, it would not come under state regulatory (DEP) guidelines and CES would not be required to spend a lot of money doing impact studies. Clearly what CES would like to avoid is the costs associated with the state’s Storm Water Management Law and the Site Location of Development Law. I understand the need for any business to try to keep their costs within reason, but not by avoiding our environmental laws. 

The ordinance, however, did require a sound study and did require a decommissioning bond in case the turbines had to be dismantled. A sound modeling study was done by a consultant hired by CES in order to show that sound levels would not exceed 45 dbl at the nearest home and 55 dbl at property lines. The individual doing the sound study reported that these limits could be met assuming ambient noise of no more than 30 dbl. He never actually visited the site, and no ambient noise was ever measured. The Planning Board waived the decommissioning bond and in spite of these and other issues raised by the abutters, approved the project.

Once the permit was granted, a long list of abutters and concerned citizens appealed the decision. Much of the debate centered on the sound study conducted by the consultant hired by CES, and whether the ambient noise levels assumed by the consultant were realistic. In spite of repeated requests by the Appeals Board for further documentation from CES that it would be able to meet the standards set forth in the ordinance, no further information was provided to address these concerns.

The appeal was upheld by the Appeals Board primarily over the issues of noise (The Appeals Board determined CES did not sufficiently demonstrate that it could and would stay within the sound limits in the ordinance), and the waiver of the requirement to post a decommissioning bond.

Instead of complying with the terms of the ordinance and reapplying, CES chose instead to support and encourage a repeal of the same ordinance that they supported passage of the year before. In a letter to residents, CES characterized the repeal of the town’s Commercial Site Review Ordinance as a vote for wind power. CES further stated that they would slow blade rotation, if necessary, to reduce sound output; second, it would appoint a community liaison to hear complaints and communicate them to CES; and third, would establish a 24-hour phone number for calling in complaints. While these pledges gave the appearance of good will toward the concerns of the abutters and neighbors, they did not solve the main problems.  Instead, these assurances were used to bolster the case to repeal the ordinance. 

One has to wonder why CES didn’t offer these assurances in the context of the appeal process. Its failure to do so led the town to a contentious and fractious vote that framed the recent debate as a vote for or against the turbines, using the ordinance as proxy for that vote, rather than working within a process that could allow for fair treatment of all parties—the company, the landowner, the abutters and all townspeople with an interest in the project.

One of the wind turbine supporters wrote a letter to the residents claiming that the three turbines would pay $200,000 per year in taxes, almost half of all taxes collected by the town. The idea of a significant reduction in property taxes and other stories spread around town spelled doom for the ordinance, and the town voted 59% to 41% in favor of repeal. CES will not need to worry about violating sound ordinances or any other nuisance rules in Freedom; we don’t have any more rules.

The debate in Freedom this past year was and still is about process, and whether a small town is able and prepared to gather the information necessary to make an informed decision about an issue as complex as this, and whether they are able to understand the need to treat all landowners fairly, and the importance of having planning tools like ordinances to facilitate a fair process.

Now that the CEO has issued a new permit and the Planning Board has given its stamp of approval for a second time, the abutters are left to wonder if anyone really cares about our welfare. We trust that the state’s environmental laws will be enforced, CES’s denial of DEP review not withstanding. But what about the other issues associated with turbines of this size being located so close to people’s homes and property? What is so different about all of this is the turbines themselves. Does it require ten turbines to disrupt people’s lives, thirty, or only one? Are setbacks to be measured in such simple terms as multiples of turbine height? Does it matter if someone is upwind or downwind from a turbine? Do we really know the health impacts associated with living too close to turbines?
Are the impacts upon wildlife and adjoining property values to be addressed? Will the issues of noise, health, ice throw, blade flicker, and fire safety be examined by this task force as well? We hope so, and we hope that this task force will consider the ongoing experience of the Town of Freedom as it works to develop guidelines for the state so that other towns will not be faced with the approach utilized by the developer that chose to come to Freedom.

Sincerely,



Steve Bennett