Some residents have filed a lawsuit appealing the special permit granted for two wind turbines in town. I have scanned the suit and uploaded it here. The suit seeks to have the grant of a special permit annulled. The crux of the suit seems to be that the Select Board cannot issue a permit in this case because they are the executive board of the town as well as the special permit granting authority. The arguments seem to be pretty scattershot to me, at one point claiming the Select Board ceded their authority to the Alternative Energy Committee ...
... and in another that the Select Board exceeded their authority by issuing the permit. Other claims include harm to the abutters, lack of proper notification, and that the bylaw set up a flawed process for approval.
You can read the suit yourself at this link
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Wind turbine permit appeal lawsuit
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
107 comments:
Are all the members of the AEC and the SB aware this letter was written as a personal letter ?
http://www.env.state.ma.us/dpu/docs/electric/09-71/10509drthcom.pdf
Ronald DiPippo, Ph.D.
RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSULTANT --GEOTHERMAL& WIND SPECIALIST
October 2, 2009
Dear Ms. Collins:
As things stand now, the draft Tariff calls for the Rate Class to be determined through negotiation between the Host Customer (in our case the Town of Dartmouth) and the Distribution Company (in our case NSTAR). More specifically, there is a wide spread between the lowest and highest commercial Rate Classes (i.e., the established retail rate of payment for generated electricity). The range in Massachusetts has recently run from approximately 8¢ up to 18¢ per kWh. Community wind projects are marginal propositions at best. Too low a rate will make many of these projects uneconomic, killing them outright, and discouraging future projects.
We encourage the DPU to specify a single, favorable Rate Class in its final Tariff, rather than leaving in place an open-ended, ill-defined process whereby the utilities are turned into regulators, and the future of renewable energy development in Massachusetts is left to chance.
Specifically, the DPU should establish a simple net metering tariff in which full retail value for all excess generation is either credited to the customer’s next bill or paid to the customer monthly in cash. This would replicate the successful systems in place in thirty-one
This would also be the simplest approach from an administrative perspective, for all parties involved.
If we are to make real strides toward achieving the Governor's and the ISO region’s renewable energy capacity goals, the Tariff needs to set the highest reasonable Rate Class for community wind and other eligible projects. Otherwise, we risk that most if not all of these projects will not be financially feasible, will be unable to get financing, and will never be built.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. B r ,
Ronald DiPippo, Ph.D. Chairman, Dartmouth Alternative Energy Committee
Members of the Dartmouth Alternative Energy Committee: Edward F. Iacaponi, Ex-Officio; Nathalie Dias, Kevern Joyce, Arthur Larrivee, Paul Lopes, Raymond Medeiros, Roger Race, Saul Raposo and Joseph Sousa
The SB made a huge mistake by publishing their perception of the information before them .
The Select Board lacks the qualifications for safety and health risks of the residents around the wind site !
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100113/OPINION/1130319
YOUR VIEW: Wind benefits outweigh risks
January 13, 2010 12:00 AM
Concerned Resident
Bill , I think there should be a moratorium as to the postings about the Chase Road project . There is a real possibility of a second legal action by residents in town with concerns in the near future . It would be more prudent to remove the recent blog and comments " Wind turbine permit appeal lawsuit" Sat Jan 30,2010 . Let's wait until all the litigation is complete . This recent post is exacerbating an already inflamed situation .
To call this a "lawsuit" is an insult. It looks like it was thrown together by a second grader. Case dismissed.
A lawsuit is public information and I don't see how posting it or making a comment about it is inflammatory.
The real question is will the economic assumptions be valid.
The following email sent by Ron DiPippo indicates that the assumption of net metering may not be valid:
Subject: Game changer
Hi everyone,
Mr. Henry Lamontagne of NSTAR called me at 2:15 PM this afternoon (1/28/2010) to discuss our application for an Interconnection and Net Metering. He informed me that today the DPU made a determination on how applications for net metering will be handled. Everyone thought this was a decided matter but apparently not.
The cap on megawatts is set by the legislature at 1% of NSTAR’s peak load. That cap is 49 MW. We had been told and everyone understood – until today – that making an application to NSTAR for an interconnection reserved a place in the queue for net metering. NOT SO with today’s ruling by the DPU.
The remaining space in the queue is determined by the OPERATING megawatts as they come on-line, not by the IC application. Henry told me there are 12 MW in operation under net metering and 24 MW in the current queue, but he did not know how much of that 24 MW is under construction and how much is in IC application queue (this is where we are).
This is to me an incredible ruling. It asks us (and others in the same boat) to move ahead with huge expenditures with no clear knowledge of whether we will qualify for net metering until the turbines are put into operation! How the DPU could make such a ruling is beyond me.
NSTAR for its part maintains a monthly web page showing the numbers I just cited, but now they will update it to list operating, under construction and in the IC queue. Then everyone can know where they are in the race to net metering.
This is a huge game-changer. If it weren’t for the law suit, we might be able to squeeze through the rapidly closing window of opportunity. Henry thinks the window will stay open through the summer, but could not say how much longer.
The only solution I can see is to lobby the daylights out of legislature to raise the cap from 1% to a more reasonable value. This ruling in effect nullifies the intent of the Green Communities Act by subjecting communities to unacceptable financial risks.
Our meeting for tomorrow morning was well-timed but now we have a new agenda item.
Ron
Ronald DiPippo, Ph.D.
Chairman, Alternative Energy Committee
Town of Dartmouth
Bill, I would not take any advisement of keeping a closed mouth about the lawsuit, or anything pertaining to the turbine project. You are doing a great justice for the Town since you are well informed and keep us proponents well advised. Keep up the great work. It would be nice if we could also hear from your other SB members in order to get a number of proponent comments.
Then again, maybe net metering is valid,
Hi all,
Just got a call from Gerry Bingham who was with Paul Lopes at the DOER and got more insight on what is happening.
It is not as dire as might have first appeared. First, NSTAR listed and counted everyone who had either applied for an IC or had turbines on-line. That came to 36 MW or about 73% of the cap, 49 MW or 1% of their historic peak load. It is becoming clear to me that this was done, not in accordance with any DPU decision (as confirmed by Shaela Collins, DPU, yesterday in my talk with her), but rather to give the impression that the cue was filling up rapidly. It would naturally elicit precisely the reaction that I had when I heard it, especially if one had not already filed an IC application. That is, projects not that far along would be discourgaed from going ahead.
Second, Jerry told me that the legislature pulled the 1% cap out of the air (my words) as a trial figure. They intend to track the progress of net metering - how many apply and how fast the cap is approached - and intend to adjust the cap upwards as the limit is approached. This will keep the projects moving with the likelihood of getting net metering. We meet all the other requirements for net metering and everything we have used in our calculations remains valid, including getting the G1 rate for stand-alone turbines with a parasitic load of less than 100 kW.
hird, I asked Jerry and Paul to find out which committee on Beacon Hill is doing this and to get me the contact person(s). I will speak to them. I will pass their contact inforamtion around so everyone can reach them.
So the bottom line is that only 24% of the cap is currently filled. We are certainly further along than many communities and other projects. We should continue to move ahead as expeditiously as we can. There is still plenty of time for the legislature to adjust the cap as more and more of us line up our projects to go online.
This does not mean we can be complacent, but rather we - all of us involved in wind projects - should keep the pressure on Beacon Hill to encourage rather than discourage net metering projects.
Regards,
Ron
I would like to hear the date the wind turbines were changed from 80 Meters to 100 Meters along with the notification to the residents about the changes .Also like to hear from Nat Dias about the vote by the AEC to change the height and how did she vote ?
How was the special permit approved without the approval from the FAA . I can't even find an application from the Town of Dartmouth at the FAA website . There has only been a review done - no permits .Where are the airport obstructions studies for these turbines ? http://www.faa.gov/
I believe the date may have been Feb.9, 2009, at the Select Board meeting where the AEC was present. Wind speed was discussed, and it was mentioned that turbines of 80 meters or above got the positive wind speeds.
The process went to fast ....we'll need to hear from all the AEC members under oath in court .
Does this mean no noise or shadow flicker study was done for the turbines at 100 meters ? On Aug 26 th 2009 when the turbine were raised to 100 meters the AEC members decided "The noise issue was not considered a discriminant" and "The members generally viewed the environmental impacts of the two cases as about the same, especially in light of the mitigating factors for shadow-flicker."
Does it make a difference ? What were the pros and cons brought up at that meeting ?
Hear is part of the minutes to that meeting. :
http://www.town.dartmouth.ma.us/Pages/DartmouthMA_AECMin/MeetingMinutes08-26-2009.pdf
4. Consideration of pros/cons for the 80-m vs. 100-m tower cases.
During the discussion, the AEC members expressed themselves regarding which tower height should be favored. Various factors were weighed. The membership generally agreed that the 100-m case had the more favorable financial-economic outcome. They also liked going higher because of the lesser risk of missing the expected wind speed there as opposed to missing it at the 80-m height. “You cannot build them
too tall” was a lesson learned from other wind turbine projects built in New England, and in particular in the SouthCoast.
The members generally viewed the environmental impacts of the two cases as about the same,especially in light of the mitigating factors for shadow-flicker. The visual impact will be viewed differently through the eyes of different beholders. While the tower will be 20 m (66 ft) taller for the 100-m case, the blades will be the same length (40 m or 131 ft). The noise issue was not considered a discriminant since the added impact is so small anyway. One by one, each AEC member explained the reasons why they preferred one cases over the other, and in the end, the AEC came to a unanimous decision.
A motion was made and seconded;
Read the special permit posted at the town website, the shadow flicker and acoustical analysis for the 100m case are there as well under the Alternative Energy Committee.
This is my personal blog, had no connection to the town, people can comment here if they choose. I don't seek out anyone to comment.
Bill...your markings are interesting!?
Seems there are a lot of Perry Mason wanna be's on the site these days. I wonder where all these legal eagles have been for the last 5 years? I love the going 'too fast' comments. There has been no other project in Dartmouth's recent past that has been presented more than this one, and now 'it's going too fast'
Rules of the "Pig in the Parlor'. The pig is the wind turbine and the parlor is the residential neighborhood. The simple question is ,does the pig cause a nuisance to the residents and how will they be compensated . Landowners suffering from noise,shadow flicker ,airport strobe lights etc from neighboring commercial wind turbines hope to find relief in the courts for the harm caused to their property .The pig question a second possible litigation is time-consuming.Ths project has drawn national attention . It may be better to look for a better location with greater setbacks from residents . The problem here is that there may be no location in Dartmouth with setbacks safe enough for safety and health concerns .
The best way to handle this is or the second litigation is to depose the AEC,SB and the engineering firm that was hired . The depositions should be taken to perpetuate the testimony of all the witnesses.The people requested to testify (deponents) are a party to the lawsuit or someone who works for an involved party, Town of Dartmouth ,notice of time and place of the examination before trial can be given to the other side's attorney. The engineering firm is an independent third party, a subpoena must be served on him/her if he/she is recalcitrant.
As the executive board in town the Select Board gets sued all the time. If you think that this lawsuit is scaring people, you're mistaken.
It is a FACT that once the turbines were moved to the new location (wetlands issue) with the south's turbine being moved as much as 650ft, both the noise study and the Windpro shadow flicker modeling was not revisited. Dr Depipo in his 30 Sept 2009 AEC meeting minutes stated, and I quote:
" (5)Given the very low noise impact determined for the original locations,it is expected that the new configuration will not change the conclusion that the incremental sound from the turbines will still be below the threshold for hearing detection
" (6)Shadow-flicker pattern will be affected in detail but it is expected that roughly the same general pattern will be seen as in the previous case.
WE ARE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE NOISE AND SHADOW EFFECTS BECAUSE DR DIPIPPO "EXPECTS" SOUND AND SHADOW FLICKER TO BE OK? I believe that by his using the "expects" position ,the Town could be setting themselves up for a "hold harmless " position if noise and or shadow-flicker become a lawsuit since no specific data is linked to the current positions of the turbines.
Bill, get you facts correct. Read the 30 Sept 09 AEC minutes. I don't care what the permit says. No noise test, no shadow-flicker analysis was accomplished for the 100M turbines in their present location. Am I right Bill, just answer yes or no, without a long dissengenuous comment.
"Scaring people" is not the intent of the lawsuit. I would like to get into what the specifc reasons are but it's safe to say we oppose the way the project was developed and that can result in families like yours, if you happen to have on, being negatively impacted.
The property values around the wind turbines will probably drop between $25,000.00 to $50,000.00 per home maybe more . You have got to be realistic about buying a home for a family a few hundred feet from two commercial wind turbines this size. More residents around the turbines should get involved in a second law suit ! . It is worth a weeks pay to hire an attorney to bring this to court .
The SB and the AEC both weighed the decision about the safety and health of the neighbors around the wind turbines . Each and every member of these boards is a grown up and understands the legal implications of using their personal judgement about the welfare and safety of the general public. Some of the people are on both boards .None of these people are qualified to be making these types of judgements .The SB ans AEC lack any type of study for ice and blade throw only a special permit application . Everyone of these members should be asking the town attorney if the town will pay for their defense !
The members of these boards should remember what happened with the police incident . Will the town pay for you ? What goes around comes around !
frank 1 - you state things as if they were facts. There was no evidence presented at all that property values would drop besides conjecture and guesswork. Quite the opposite was presented at the various hearings.
You are trying to scare people in fact. Constatly talking about depositions, demanding dates etc.. when all you had to do to know the answers to your questions was pay attention.
The bullying tactics will serve no purpose.
I also thought there was no evidence that said they wouldn't drop, too.
Any proponents want to answer this??
It is a FACT that once the turbines were moved to the new location (wetlands issue) with the south's turbine being moved as much as 650ft, both the noise study and the Windpro shadow flicker modeling was not revisited. Dr Depipo in his 30 Sept 2009 AEC meeting minutes stated, and I quote:
" (5)Given the very low noise impact determined for the original locations,it is expected that the new configuration will not change the conclusion that the incremental sound from the turbines will still be below the threshold for hearing detection
" (6)Shadow-flicker pattern will be affected in detail but it is expected that roughly the same general pattern will be seen as in the previous case.
WE ARE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE NOISE AND SHADOW EFFECTS BECAUSE DR DIPIPPO "EXPECTS" SOUND AND SHADOW FLICKER TO BE OK? I believe that by his using the "expects" position ,the Town could be setting themselves up for a "hold harmless " position if noise and or shadow-flicker become a lawsuit since no specific data is linked to the current positions of the turbines.
LOOKING FOR AN ANSWER HERE !!!!
WHY THE HOLD UP ???????
Any proponents want to answer this??
It is a FACT that once the turbines were moved to the new location (wetlands issue) with the south's turbine being moved as much as 650ft, both the noise study and the Windpro shadow flicker modeling was not revisited. Dr Depipo in his 30 Sept 2009 AEC meeting minutes stated, and I quote:
" (5)Given the very low noise impact determined for the original locations,it is expected that the new configuration will not change the conclusion that the incremental sound from the turbines will still be below the threshold for hearing detection
" (6)Shadow-flicker pattern will be affected in detail but it is expected that roughly the same general pattern will be seen as in the previous case.
WE ARE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE NOISE AND SHADOW EFFECTS BECAUSE DR DIPIPPO "EXPECTS" SOUND AND SHADOW FLICKER TO BE OK? I believe that by his using the "expects" position ,the Town could be setting themselves up for a "hold harmless " position if noise and or shadow-flicker become a lawsuit since no specific data is linked to the current positions of the turbines.
January 30, 2010 8:42 PM
These posts against the wind turbines are really boring. I haven't read anything that makes any sense at all NOT to go forward with the project. Just a lot of nonsense and saber rattling. Why don't some of you complainers start a contest to name the turbines? Maybe naming them after the smartest one in your household? Let me suggest a couple of names for you. How about Spot and Fido?
LOOKING FOR AN ANSWER HERE !!!!
WHY THE HOLD UP ???????
Any proponents want to answer this??
It is a FACT that once the turbines were moved to the new location (wetlands issue) with the south's turbine being moved as much as 650ft, both the noise study and the Windpro shadow flicker modeling was not revisited. Dr Depipo in his 30 Sept 2009 AEC meeting minutes stated, and I quote:
" (5)Given the very low noise impact determined for the original locations,it is expected that the new configuration will not change the conclusion that the incremental sound from the turbines will still be below the threshold for hearing detection
" (6)Shadow-flicker pattern will be affected in detail but it is expected that roughly the same general pattern will be seen as in the previous case.
WE ARE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE NOISE AND SHADOW EFFECTS BECAUSE DR DIPIPPO "EXPECTS" SOUND AND SHADOW FLICKER TO BE OK? I believe that by his using the "expects" position ,the Town could be setting themselves up for a "hold harmless " position if noise and or shadow-flicker become a lawsuit since no specific data is linked to the current positions of the turbines.
January 30, 2010 8:42 PM
Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer, although Bill may give you an answer and say that your concerns are baseless. Anyone else may answer you and call you some sort of name and imply or outrightly state that you are stupid or something else for even being concerned.
Have you noticed that the proponents have no patience let alone compassion for those whose lives they have destroyed?
I found the pdf file that you can copy and paste to your browser for a full review of the September 30 ,2009 meeting :
The question remains the same , Any proponents want to answer this??
It is a FACT that once the turbines were moved to the new location (wetlands issue) with the south's turbine being moved as much as 650ft, both the noise study and the Windpro shadow flicker modeling was not revisited. Dr Depipo in his 30 Sept 2009 AEC meeting minutes stated, and I quote:
" (5)Given the very low noise impact determined for the original locations,it is expected that the new configuration will not change the conclusion that the incremental sound from the turbines will still be below the threshold for hearing detection
" (6)Shadow-flicker pattern will be affected in detail but it is expected that roughly the same general pattern will be seen as in the previous case.
WE ARE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE NOISE AND SHADOW EFFECTS BECAUSE DR DIPIPPO "EXPECTS" SOUND AND SHADOW FLICKER TO BE OK? I believe that by his using the "expects" position ,the Town could be setting themselves up for a "hold harmless " position if noise and or shadow-flicker become a lawsuit since no specific data is linked to the current positions of the turbines.
http://www.town.dartmouth.ma.us/Pages/DartmouthMA_AECMin/MeetingMinutes09-30-2009.pdf
"Chairman DiPippo related what the consequences would be of the new locations relative to the previous locations.
1. Wetlands would be skirted so as not to encroach upon them.
2. The access road to the south turbine would be significantly shorter, thereby reducing the costs for site preparation; if the existing access road to the north site can be used it would also be a less expensive proposition than constructing a new road.
3. In their new configuration the turbines will not interfere with each other wind-wise.
4. There are relatively small changes in distances to nearest neighbors.
5. Given the very low noise impact determined for the original locations, it is expected that the new configuration will not change the conclusion that the incremental sound from the turbines will still be below the threshold for hearing detection.
6. Shadow-flicker pattern will be affected in detail but it is expected that roughly the same general pattern will be seen as in the previous case. "
Sounds like "we" had preconceived notions.
Once again, look at the application for special permit. It clearly shows the position of the turbines on a site plan and the position for acoustical analysis and shadow flicker. The positions shown on the site plan match the position of the turbines in the acoustic and shadow flicker analysis.
Bill, you can put anything you want on the permit to tie the analysis and study to the current location but you keep skirting the real question. Was there and analysis and study done after the move? Sept 30 Dr Depippo's AEC minutes say NO!!! Just "expectations"
I rest my case!!!
Forget it. You won't get answers.
They've got what they want.
They always expected to get what they want.
End of case, in their minds.
Being a proponent for the project I am encouraged by Bill's responses to all the questions and keeps us informed of the real truth!!!
There is always a cost for progress. For example, we institute a "pay as you throw" program and all of a sudden all the neighborhood is recycling, not just a few. Is it a pain buying the bags? Of course. Are we better off in the long run? Of course. The wastewater treatment plant on the proposed site was another issue back in the day. Has it worked out? Of course. What about the high school? Wasn't that an issue for a long time? Did it work out? Of course. On and on. I do not see this situation as being materially different from those projects in cause and effect. And I am glad the vast majority of the town meeting voters felt the same. I am sure it would pass a general referendum just as well. Let's move on please.
Ah, and I see you feel the "cost of progress" is the sacrifice of other people's lives.
And "progress" justifies this sacrifice?
We lose $70,000 A DAY without these turbines. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
Sorry that it's all "about $$$$$'s. We loose American soldiers every day for a cause. The opponents are fighting for their cause, health,safety ,and well being. Please volunteer your local for these turbines, we'll be glad to give them up.
"Please volunteer your local for these turbines." Volunteer my local WHAT??
I'm not understanding your post. If you are an opponent of these turbines, I'm ON YOUR SIDE.
Ronald DiPippo, Ph.D.is a wind specialist as stated on his own stationary that he had all the members of the AEC sign .
This guy does not have a Ph.D in the wind turbine field. He has a background in geothermal .
There are many people in town that think he is an expert on winf turbines - he is not !
I have a hard time understanding how some of the people on the AEC could ever vote for a wind turbine considering what happened to them !
DARTMOUTH - One of the many casualties of this weekend's storm was a windmill installed by former state Rep. Mark A. Howland. Arthur Larrivee paid Mr. Howland $16,000 for a windmill and solar panel system for his home at Tucker Road and received everything he asked for: two windmills atop 35-foot-high poles, four solar panels and electrical equipment to convert the power generated into electricity. But on Monday morning, he woke to find that the steel poles of one windmill had snapped clean off about 4 feet above the ground, leaving the windmill lying on the ground. "I honestly couldn't believe it," said Mr. Larrivee, a real estate broker and Republican activist. "It had to be a flaw in the piping."
April 19, 2007 by Aaron Nicodemus in South Coast Today
http://www.windaction.org/news/9037
Hey ! What are friends for ? Those guys were lifelong buddies !
It does not appear there are any shadow flicker or sound studies either !
How could there be any they still don't know how high or where the FAA approval will place these turbines !
I'm taking a page out of frank's book, and reposting a comment from another page...
Bill:
Any chance you could create a "wind turbine only" section of your blog and move all comments related to this project to that section? Maybe that would prevent the copious repostings from frank and his gang?
It seems that the group of opponents are afraid that we have missed the numerous postings of the same arguments over, and over, and over again...the move of all turbine project related posts to one section could relieve their fears?
(Plus it would allow us to read and post about other subjects for without the constant "frank-isms" for a change....)
This is a great idea . We can go through each member of the AEC and the SB and find their affiliations with all the wind turbine deals on the SouthCoast .
Better idea!
http://www.bristolda.com/DA/Home.htm
C. Samuel Sutter
Bristol County District Attorney
Bristol County District Attorney's Office
888 Purchase Street, New Bedford, MA 02740
(508) 997-0711
I heard Ray Medeiros of the AEC has a history with the WT at Portsmouth Abbey
Do you know anyone who conjured up the facts from a presentation of data that wanted to convey and conveniently leave out other facts that would be detrimental to the wind turbine position? Has anyone made a misrepresentation that could create civil liability that will results in a pecuniary loss? Has any board member been told by any government officials they can't always be honest because the public can't handle the truth?
I've never hear the opponents answer to the question or comment about their homes being located near a waste water treatment plant, stone and sand quarry and the transfer station. Guarantee, if I started researching that situation I nwould find there are more public safety risks than what turbine offers. Bill, since property values are down its worth it to the the town to purchase those homes from folks that do not want to be there.
The # of homes the Town would need to buy today would ruin the town financially...and the #'s keep growing!!!
Have the opponents to the turbines visited any other turbine site? I am sure that if they spent time at other sites and spoke with neighbors, their fears would be alleviated. As I town meeting member, I did my homework and visited other turbines. I couldn't find a neighbor with a complaint. We have not "sacraficed" any residents for this project. Please do your homework and visit other sites.
I personally did go to MMA and spoke with neighbors. Of the three I spoke with 2 have their houses for sale because of the shadow flicker. Another person was a visiting nurse and she said they were moving the elderly lady from her home because of the shadow flicker also. Also, the majority of the other turbines are 50 meters not 100 and are not in the wind shear. Wind shear puts more stress on the blades as while some of the blades are in the slower air another enters the faster air stream which causes more stress, more noise, and more wear and tear.
Did you hear, Obama is announcing today that he is cutting alternative energy money for credits to the stated because we as so broke. Now, can the state afford to give the credits?
Do you feel the AEC and the SB have been up front and honest with the residents around the turbines ?
Do you feel that more than 100 homes will be affected by the shadow flicker and noise ?
Closer to 500 ?
Has the AEC or SB ever said anything negative about the wind turbines ?
Do you really think they will shut down the turbines in the morning and afternoon when the shadow flicker happens ?
Do you think Ron DiPippo Ph.D is out of touch when he talks about shadow flicker at high noon or is he trying to throw people off about when shadow flicker really
happens at sunset and sunrise ?
Is Arthur Larrivee the AEC member they used as a real estate expert ,the same guy that got ripped for $16,000 on some bogus turbines ?
Did Nat Diaz originally object to the 100 Meter poles ?
What made her change her mind ?
When was a shadow flicker,noise,ice and blade throw study done on the unknown locctions of the turbines ?
Will the town insure the 500 homes around the site against property damage and damage to life and limb?
How will we hold these public officials and board members legally accountable for the actions they have taken ?
Can either Mrs. Stone or Mr. Maloney provide the names of the property owners or addresses of the residences they visited and spoke with regarding living near turbines??
Your starting to be obsessive and more than a little paranoid. Seek help now.
Ah yes, those dreaded wind turbines! The blades will shoot of the towers so fast that they will fracture the ground into new tectonic plates. Volcanoes will emerge from the ground. Lava flows will consume the grvel pit, the capped landfill and the wastewater treatment plant. Residents will stand trans-fixed, hypnotized and oblivious to these dangers due to shadow flicker. Some will get a hot foot, some worse. Prior to the blades falling, noxious fumes from the wastewater treatment plant will be blown over the neighborhood causing people to ask Mr. Travers if he suffers from vapors or is merely consuming too much linguica and beans. The proposed site area is doomed! Or, 5 years from now, everyone will be talking about what a great idea it was and how much money it saves the town. Personally, I think the latter will occur.
If these things are so great put them out on Round where the martini glass was or Salter's Point .
I'll bet when all 500 homes around the wind turbines site figure their property loss this will be a pretty good litigation that could last years if not a decade !
Round Hill . I mean.
By the time this lawsuit gets heard wind turbines will be out of date !
The world will end in 2012. The Mayans predicted it and I saw it on a DVD. Many thousands of people now believe that's true. Who are you to discount them? Search the internet and you will find their testimony. See,I've proven its true.
this is what is going to happen to the residents :
Wind turbine syndrome (WTS) is sleep disturbance,headache ,tinnitus (pronounced "tinn-uh-tus": ringing or buzzing in the ears) ,ear pressure, dizziness (a general term that includes vertigo, lightheadedness, sensation of almost fainting, etc.) ,vertigo (clinically, vertigo refers to the sensation of spinning, or the room moving) ,nausea ,visual blurring ,tachycardia (rapid heart rate) ,irritability ,problems with concentration and memory and panic episodes associated with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering, which arise while awake or asleep.
And then on Dec 21, 2012, the WORLD WILL END!!!!
There was opposition to the building of CV Variety, residents were afraid of the increased traffic, the smell of gasoline trucks and the noise associated with both. We now know CV Variety did not cause any problems in that area. Before that residents opposed the high school at its present location. Again compaints related to noise, traffic, loss of land, and the kids were surely going to be on busses for hours because the high school is in such a remote location. This too did not actually cause any significant problems. How about the waste water treatment plant, that too had significant opposition. Traffic, trucks, smell were all going to cause significant harm to our residents. Once again, it did not prove to cause any significant harm. Before that, the issue was the mall. This project affected everyone in town. But I don't believe peoples lives were sacraficed. I wish there were a way to compare the pollution we all have to suffer from the production of electricity against the turbines.
The opponents are probably the same people who listen to the hum of their air conditioners in their bedroom windows all night long. Maybe they are the ones driving their big SUVs or leaving their cars running needlessly.
Without new ways to generate electicity, the world WILL end!
Wind turbine syndrome (WTS)
is a fact of life .
check out the new SOCO Magazine :
www.socomagazine.info
Our opinion; The Wind is Blowing Strong in Dartmouth Massachusetts
check out page 45 :
From the actions of the board,it seems that if a man covered in blood were brought into their meeting on a stretcher,it would simply say "We see a man on a stretcher"
3:43: you hit the nail on the head. The key word is "sacrificed."
Other than the mall, which I can understand would be a major shock to a neighborhood, I don't think you can reasonably conclude that the wastewater treatment plant and sand and gravel pit are of the same magnitude as a wind turbine.
With respect to the mall, its stores are not opened 24/7. And the Chase Rd. residents have all said that the sand and gravel pit is a good neighbor, so apparently the owners are doing something right if they have had no complaints from abutters. And from what I understand, the owners are working to keep the good neighbor status between themselves and their abutters. That's a heck of a lot more than the turbine proponents are doing, despite declarations to the contrary.
CV apparently was willing to cooperate with abutters to insure satisfaction for both parties, and apparently that was achieved.
The high school? Probably just congestion from traffic and/or the possibility of litter. I don't know about the former, but it, too, is not 24/7, and I haven't seen much litter, certainly not as much as is thrown out between Cumberland Farms and Johnson St., the length of that distance on Slocum Rd.
The band practice might be a "disturbance" for those who have an ax to grind about the high school being in their locale.
Wind turbines are of a far greater magnitude than any of the above. You DO NOT hear mall or school traffic or practicing bands 24/7. You are not subjected to daily foul odors from the wastewater treatment facility, if at all. CV does not operate 24/7 and its lights are extinguished after a certain time in the evening.
What will alleviate the adversity of noise and shadow/flicker on a 24/7 basis?
Sorry, your argument just does not cut it. But then, the turbines will have no effect whatsoever on you, or I'll bet that, since you are so dismissive of the Chase Rd. residents' concerns, you could care less, since the location is "not in your backyard."
It would be SO INTERESTING if the shoe were on the other foot and all those proponents of the turbines were to find them located in their neighborhood. I'll bet you could hear the screams and indignation all the way to Portsmouth.
6:23, not according to the experts.
What good will lawsuits do when the world is going to end on December 21, 2010. The Mayans predicted it and there are tens of thousands of people who know this and they have websites to prove it. Why no posts here about the END OF THE WORLD!?
Property values won't get you anything when the WORLD ENDS!!!
This is to Bill Trimble and your wind turbine group '
Feeding Christians to the lions was seen as entertainment in Ancient Rome. You encourage debate of the issues facing our town on this blog? You and your pals sit around reading these blogs about a wind turbine lawsuit so you can gloat in pleasure at people about to lose values in their homes. The people in these homes around the wind turbine site don't have the big bucks like other people in town have . These people only have their homes as their life savings !
These people should all pray this doesn't happen to them what you and the others have done . The afterlife is not of particular interest to the AEC or the SB only money.
Do you think all of you could stand in front of your Lord on the Day of Judgement after what you've done to others ?
Flicker isnt 24/7 either..you need sunlight for that...do you fly to the sun only at night so its not that hot
Flicker may not be, but the noise is 24/7.
As long as it's not in your backyards, you could care less. AEC/Select Board proud of themselves. Mission accomplished. Case closed. Go home and enjoy your homes, yards, and peaceful life and pat yourselves on the back. Job well done. Must have been a lot of backslapping and congrats after the Town Meeting. Everyone's a hero.
There is flicker at night also. When the moon is full and the sky is clear you can actually have flicker from the moon. It can make it hard to sleep also. Medeiros Sand and Gravel is a business operated during the day. They keep their business neat and clean and even power brush Chase road of the dirt and stone that can get dumped on it. The sewerage plant does smell at time and does make noise some nights. When the town is called they claim they can't smell anything. Same thing with the town transfer station's compost pile. When they add the sludge from the SWT and turn it over it stinks in my yard. Calling the town they come by and again, can't smell anything. That is why we know as neighbors to these turbines they will not address the problems when they happen as they don't address the problems now. The neighbors will be calling the state everytime these turbines break the decibel readings. Dipippo and Trimbel both know that it will be impossible to get in touch with anyone in the state at 11:00 at night. That is what they are counting on. This will not deter us and we will get our calls thru. We will get them shut down when they are too loud.
The ball is rolling, thank goodness. Don't underestimate the "little guy."
Nazi's, feeding Christians to the lions, proponents roasting in hell for eternity? And this ladies and gentlemen is what the turbine opponents would have you believe. How about looking at this for what it is? Usage of town property for the betterment of all. To complicated? Not self serving enough? Haven't got the big municipal handout yet? How disappointing it must be.
Everyone should read the letter to the editor from a Fairhaven resident who is upset that the owner of a proposed industrial business (a transportation terminal) seeks to locate in a business-only zoned neighborhood. She makes some of the same points regarding the the erosion of the neighborhood residents' quality of life that our turbine opponents make.
I find it interesting and somewhat sad that both a proposed transportation terminal and two mammoth turbines generate the same reaction from those who stand to be affected by them, while in varying degrees, as in the Fairhaven situation compared to the Dartmouth Chase Rd. situation.
Apparently people value their quality of life more than those who could care less that it is destroyed, believe. After all, it is just "20-30 of the surrounding neighbors" to the transportation terminal who will be affected, and somewhat more in Dartmouth with the turbines, so it apparently is a miniscule number of individuals who will suffer and, that being the case, they can be overlooked and dismissed.
If I truly believed even just one resident would "suffer", I would certainly stand up in opposition to the turbines also. The opponents would have you believe that the proponents are just cold-hearted and money-hungry. But the truth is that the proponents have researched turbines, interviewed neighbors near trurbines, visited turbines, and thought long and hard about the issues regarding the turbines. That facts have shown that the turbines will not cause significant harm to anyone and that is why we chose to vote 'yes'.
The the proponents are just cold-hearted and money-hungry!
You need to read the most recent article in SOCO magazine.
The proponents only looked at positive information .
You proponents know what you've done . Your going to have to compensate these people sooner or later . It going to cost Dartmouth some big cash
You just can't pass a by-law ,zoning ordinance or special permit and think you can just take peoples property- your going to pay - A jury of your peers (not from Dartmouth) will decide the cash amount to pay these 400 to 500 residents !
I hope I'm on the jury! Ask yourselves if you were in the situation of these residents and you were on a jury for the same situation in a different town how would you vote ? - Be honest !
Mega-Mega-Megabucks -These people will have MacDollars !!!
SOCO Magazine now gives us moral and legal guidance?????
Did you know that merely using the computer you are on now is detremental to your health. I think I'll file a lawsuit with Steven Jobs. I found it on the internet, it is true.
Computer use can cause:
1. Eye Disease
Prolonged computer use could be linked to glaucoma, especially among those who are short-sighted. Our eyes are very badly affected by how long you stare at that bright screen. We stop blinking and start staring which makes our eyes strain and dry out.
2. Bad Posture
Bad posture is enemy number one.
Long periods of time at the computer while blogging, working or reading often leads to pain in the lumbar region of the back. Neck and shoulder problems also result from poor seating and the poor organization of equipment on the desk (stretching for the telephone or files etc).
3. Hurting Hands
Research in recent years has found that things like typing and sewing cause carpal tunnel.
4. Computer Stress Injuries
Many people suffer from structural problems related to the physical stress of sitting incorrectly, or for too long in front of their computers. So there are chances you’ve experienced a fair amount of computer stress, from minor frustrations here and there to a virtual visit to computer hell.
High levels of stress can kill you, don’t make mistakes! Highly stressful workers have a higher risk of developing heart diseases and even cancer.
In an earlier article a few months ago ,town officials met an talked with a reporter from the SOCO magazine.
What the representative from Dartmouth told the magazine was not exactley the truth. The magazine is upset about who in the older article was telling the truth!
The recent news story brings to the attention of the public the lack of notification to all the residents around the wind turbine site . This was documented by the hugh amount of emails that went out only when the hearings started.
It's obvious to an outsider that the AEC and the SB did not listen to neighbors health and safety concerns!
The news articles about this project reflect that a jury pool of any group of people will find against this roller coaster that rushed this plan through to get in line for Net Metering Credits .
This project is not about the environment it's about taking property from our own residents and making a few dollars .
You have all been taken hook line and sinker on this project . This is the biggest Three Card Monte game I have ever seen .
This is a scam - your going to pay all the money back just to keep this thing running after three years !
This is like ownining a 9 million dollar car - they breakdown !
We are reasonable citizens who didn't ask for this fight. Please picture your loved ones and family members living in our homes and being subjected to this noise 24/7
I was not contacted nor did I talk to anyone who identified themselves as being from SOCO magazine about the wind turbine project. I think that since I was extensively mentioned that the magazine would have talked to me. They did not. Draw your own conclusions from that.
Chase Rd. neighbors say they weren't contacted about the public meetings about the turbines' location. Draw your own conclusions from that.
Noise? As stated in the letter to the S-T this morning, I too am not aware of any noise issue. I have visited Portsmouth Abbey on a number of occasions and have stood very close to their wind turbine. Yes, while it is smaller than the proposed ones here, I can't imagine noise being a problem. The turbine there was so quiet I had difficulty distinguishing it at all from the breeze off the Bay. Why don't people who complain about the "noise" simply educate themselves with the facts? I guess that is not the point is it?
That "breeze off the Bay" might be an immense help in keeping the noise down. Too bad no seashore location could be found (or taken by eminent domain) in our Village/gated areas.
Oh, wait, we know THAT would never happen.
May I just ask a few questions of the proponents? Do you feel that any of the statements/studies done on adverse health and safety issues are all bogus?
Do you think the people who state they have health issues are making them up? Are crazy to begin with? Hypochondriacs? Suffering from Munchausens? Publicity seekers? What???
WHY is it so easy to dismiss them?
Why would anyone make this stuff up?
Is someone out there, preferably on the AEC, willing to answer that and identify themselves? (Probably not on the AEC, though, but I'm sure Bill will have a rebuttal. Don't want to hear his, thank you.)
How about it, AEC members? Also, Ms. Stone? Mr. Watson? (Mrs. Dias is also an AEC member.) Mr. Michaud?
I challenge you.
Forgot: Don't say they are "classic NIMBYs."
May I just ask a few questions of the opponents? Do you feel that any of the statements/studies done on alien abductions are all bogus?
Do you think the people who state they have alien abduction stories are making them up? Are crazy to begin with? Hypochondriacs? Suffering from Munchausens? Publicity seekers? What???
WHY is it so easy to dismiss them?
Why would anyone make this stuff up?
http://www.abduct.com/
http://www.ufocasebook.com/alienabductions.html
Is someone out there willing to answer that and identify themselves?
How about it, opponents?
I challenge you.
Proponents of wind turbines often resort to making fun of grammer mistakes or talking about aliens or NIMBY's just to throw off those people seeking some sort of education on commercial wind turbine .
You'll notice by the post how foolish it makes them look .
The end result here will be the court action and how much more the taxpayers of Dartmouth are going to have to pay over 400 residents .
These commercial products running 24/7 do not belong anywhere near a residential home .
The jury comes in with a big guilty on this one ,
Dream on! Massachusetts will pass a state siting law and the suit will be thrown out. No payment to anyone except the town when NSTAR cuts checks for the generation from the turbines.
To 12:30
Wrong again. You will pay through your nose for a blood sucking lawyer who will fail on your behalf to fleece the town. Then you will have some of your tax dollars go to paying the town's lawyer. I call this a lose / lose. For you.
The plaintiffs around the wind turbines ,up to 500 residents, will argue that just compensation for the partial takings of their properties must include "the diminution of value based on the development restrictions imposed by the wind turbine special permit." In other words, the plaintiffs contend that the effect of the special permit should be considered in the "after" valuations of their properties, but not the "before" valuations.
The town wind turbine special permit will show a lower value to the condemned property (500 residential homes) where the restriction is imposed to freeze or depress the value of land. Those homes being the homes the AEC and SB refused to take evidence into consideration.
I.E. Pay UP - Big time - This case is a win -win for the residents you can't just pass a rule and take property rights .Compensation
Compensation Compensation Compensation Compensation Compensation Compensation
No reported Massachusetts decision has determined that a governmental regulation caused so great a physical invasion as to entitle a property owner to compensation. Apparently in Massachusetts, the regulation (i.e. zoning) must go extremely far because state courts have always found some residual value to land made less valuable by a regulation.
Better dust off the law books!
Question your attorney skeptically!
None of this would have happened if people weren't looking for the money and looking for their fifteen minutes of fame for doing it. And if the turbine project got scrapped because enough people felt human beings were more important than money, a lot of people involved in the turbine project would have egg on their face, wouldn't they? Can't let that happen.
Compensation? The blood sucking lawyer you have retained will get lots of compensation. From you! Wait till his invoices start coming in! Ha Ha!
These reseidents could not have found a better attorney. It's interesting to see that some people are "up in arms" at the mere fact that he is representing them!!
I am still waiting to hear more about net metering tariff.
the state siting recommendations are for at least 3x hub height. Dartmouth's is too close even for the state recommendations.
I'll be willin to bet the Town of Dartmouth ends up paying the equivilant to a new car to at least 100 homes and buys the groceries for the other 400 for a year !
The is WILD MONEY and the town voted to do this !
This a case of eminent domain abuse! There are plenty of eminent domain pay-outs in Massachusetts !
Don't hold your breath waiting for the setback to be changed. Not when it was the AEC that wrote the bylaw with its 2x setback in the first place.
As Bill said in a previous post here, "Dream on!"
The AEC controlled this project from start to finish.
The Chase Rd. residents never stood a chance. They could present adverse effects from the turbines until they were blue in the face, for all the good it would do.
One more time!
NO reported Massachusetts decision has determined that a governmental regulation (like a zoning bylaw)caused so great a physical invasion as to entitle a property owner to compensation. Apparently in Massachusetts, the regulation (i.e. zoning) must go extremely far because state courts have always found some residual value to land made less valuable by a regulation.
GET IT!! Reduced value is not a taking! Foggeddabout eminent domain. Not applicable, no taking.
Do you really think your wild fabrications and predictions of financial doom SCARE anyone at town hall? Your rantings mean absolutely nothing. You know why? You don't have any idea what you're talking about. Move.
The last two posters are correct.
Had you attended one of the many FinComm meetings where the wind turbine bylaw was discussed or one of the many Select Board and FinCom meetings where this project was discussed, you wouldn't think that the AEC had gotten a pass on anything. This bylaw and project has gotten more scrutiny than any other project in the history of the town. There is no basis to believe that the bylaw and project have not been thoroughly vetted.
Maybe you need to read the complaint again!
The whole process was flawed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do you see anything in the complaint about flicker?....no
Adverse Health Effects?....no
Can't wait to hear from Enviormental and Conservation..?????
STATE SENATE ADOPTS WIND ENERGY SITING REFORM ACT
Yesterday, the state senate passed the Wind Energy Siting Reform Act.
The Act was controversial enough that not a single senator was willing to put his or her name on it by requesting a roll-call vote. So it was adopted with a simple gavel vote.
If this Act becomes law, Massachusetts will be the only New England state that disenfranchises towns, citizen groups, and even some neighbors from being able to go to court to challenge the construction or operation of industrial wind turbines, and their associated roads and transmission lines.
We will be the only state in the region that gives any industry a blanket exemption from environmental laws. Instead, standards will replace those laws and will be applied or waived by a state energy board whose purpose is to promote energy development, not environmental protection, and which has never turned down an energy project.
This Act will lay our towns open to an industry that is being sued throughout the United States. Here in New England, wind developers are being sued for impacts that they promised would never happen. Stripped of our legal rights, how will we fare against a global industry with powerful political connections and virtually unlimited financial resources fueled by our subsidies?
It is not true that this act would invalidate any environmental law. The act states, "the energy facilities siting board shall not issue an approval the effect of which would be to grant or modify a permit,approval or authorization which, if so granted or modified by the appropriate state agency, would be invalid because of a conflict with applicable federal water, air, historic or threatened and endangered species standards or requirements."
This link is to the bill, Senate Bill 2245
http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st02pdf/st02245.pdf
The purpose of the act to to prevent lengthy delays in siting wind power facilities just as has been done with other power generating and transmission facilities in the state.
Dipippo said Dartmouth wasn't a wind farm because it only had two turbines. Funny, Princeton Municipal Light Department had eight and has replaced them with two and they call it a wind farm. Of course, they are on a mountain with no houses around. Not in a valley like Dartmouth. The real culprit in all this is Deval Patrick. Will the laws he has passed he is making all these towns make bylaws to "shoe horn" these turbines into places they don't belong. Funny how the liberals that are supposed to be for the people always hurt the people with more government influence.
Post a Comment