Last night, the Finance Committee gave a thumbs up to the wind turbine project bonding in their recommendation to the Special Town Meeting on January 26th. Finance Committee member, Mr. Walker , reports
"the finance committe voted unanimously to recommend the turbine article to town meeting based on favorable economics and overall environmental benefits."In other news on the project, the town has received word that the FAA will not allow the 100 meter height ...
... at the north tower site. The maximum allowed height according to the FAA will have to be 86 meters at the hub or a high accuracy survey meeting 2C standards would be needed to permit an 89.5 meter height.
The ALternative Energy Committee has this report regarding the impact on the finances of the project. ·
The two turbines, if built on 328-foot towers, will conservatively produce 8,016,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity annually, more than enough to cover the 5,429,000 kilowatt-hours used by the DPW. Moreover, they will supply about 49% of the entire electricity demand of all Town public buildings. Using 295-foot towers, they will produce 7,472,000 kilowatt-hours. Turbines will be built as tall as allowed by the Federal Aviation Administration and the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission.
Posts
44 comments:
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100109/OPINION/1090331/-1/news
GUEST VIEW: Noise, debris serious issues with turbines
Text Size: A | A | A
Print this Article Email this Article
ShareThis
By WILLIAM K.G. PALMER
William K.G. Palmer is a licensed professional engineer who presented papers in 2007 and 2009 at the International Conference on Wind Turbine Noise. He lives in Paisley, Ontario, Canada.
January 09, 2010 12:00 AM
While I am not a resident of your area, I was disappointed to read your article on SouthCoast Today.com of the unanimous decision of the Dartmouth Select Board to go ahead with the installation of two wind turbines on municipal property to be located within less than 1,000 feet from four homes, and in a neighborhood with some 50 residents.
The article ("Dartmouth Select Board OKs permit for two wind turbines," Jan. 5) notes that the next step is a vote on Jan. 26 at a special Town Meeting when a decision will be taken on the roughly $9.2 million project.
It is a sad statement on society when a decision is taken that will have such a significant impact on some citizens of your community on the basis of financial gain.
Quoting from your article, "Select Board Chairman Joseph L. Michaud said he is aware the decision won't be popular with some people, but the board had to perform 'a balancing test,' weighing the enormous financial benefits to the town against the concerns of the neighbors. He said he feels neighbors' concerns can be addressed through the conditions approved by the board and proper oversight of the turbines."
Similarly I note from your article, "Board member Lara H. Stone thanked the neighbors for their involvement in the discussion, saying the project will be better because of their involvement. She added she understands the risks, but feels the turbines can be built 'as a community' and working together, safeguards can be implemented to reduce them."
I suspect from what I read that the members of the Select Board do not have an appreciation for the risks that the citizens will be put under, nor an appreciation of how undesirable the situation will be in the citizens' homes. I would strongly advise that when Dartmouth votes on the expenditures associated with their decision, they also include the costs associated with relocating the neighbors out of the radius of up to one mile from the turbine towers.
The article notes that some homes will be within 1,000 feet of the turbines as approved. Using a sound level calculator for a Vestas V82 wind turbine, based on the International Standards Organization (ISO) code 9613-2, if the two such turbines are located within 1,000 feet of a home, the sound level at the home could be 52 dBA (A-weighted decibels).
Continued>>>
Because of the cyclic nature of the sound from wind turbines and the predominant low frequency component that is largely not attenuated in standard building construction, the sound level inside the home could be nearly 50 dBA. The World Health Organization identifies that for restful sleep, the sound level in a bedroom should be less than 30 dBA.
This is a huge difference, as the dB scale is logarithmic, and the only justifiable solution would be to provide residents with the compensation to permit them to move. That is often an undesirable situation given that a person often has a deep emotional attachment to their home, but at least it would prevent them from being placed in an impossible situation.
At a distance of one mile, the sound level from the turbines will be about 35 dBA outside the home, still above background sound levels at night, but coming into the range that can be justified.
From a pure physical safety point of view, the Select Board should understand that even if the outer 10 percent of such a wind turbine blade becomes unattached (due to a lightning strike or whatever) they have been observed to travel up to 1,640 feet and hit the ground with the same impact as a Ford Crown Victoria dropping a distance of 289 feet. Ouch!
Do they really understand the risks? Do they really understand that there have been at least 34 such incidents with pieces of wind turbine blades hitting the ground at distances of up to 1,640 feet from the turbine tower within the last two years?
Hopefully, Dartmouth will understand that profit at the cost of community well-being is not the sign of a healthy community.
Even though perhaps only a few voters will be living within the impacted zone, hopefully the community will understand that when some are hurting in the community, the entire community suffers, and will act accordingly, either to relocate the turbines so that they are further from residents, or by giving residents the chance to move from their homes without financial penalty.
I do not believe any town board can legally justify harm to residents in the name of financial gain. Best I can tell, the town board does not believe the warnings raised by the residents. Had they bothered to speak with the other towns in New England dealing with these towers they would have taken a more precautionary approach.
This from a 2006 article :[ http://www.canada.com/cityguides/winnipeg/story.html?id=1393e10e-2e85-468f-86ef-a581e527060d&k=92678 ]
Excerpted :
{ In Saugeen Shores, William Palmer has applied the engineering skills he honed doing risk assessments for nuclear power plants to produce a report on wind turbines that was instrumental in convincing the local council to adopt the 250-metre setback. }
250 meters is 820 ft .... we meet that standard.
The article continues :
{ "When you get more than one turbine together, noise from the two combines and you get a rumble," Palmer added. "People describe it as an endless train." }
This is true and illustrates the difference between treating each turbine separately as a 'single point source ' or in combination as a ' line source ' . In the latter case the noise degrades over distance at only half the rate as a single point source. This can be expected to produce higher sound levels where the two overlap. I have asked, but have not yet gotten an answer to, whether this was taken into consideration or not in the acoustic studies.
If you are interested NASA produced a study on the sound propagation from large Wind Turbines 20 years ago that describes in clear detail the physics involved. Today's machinery is orders of magnitude quieter than just a few years ago but the laws of physics have not changed. [ http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~ns2/AE4803/Wind.Turbine.Acoustics.by.Harvey.pdf ]
I spent two days walking the neighborhoods around the Portsmouth Turbine(s). I conclude there is no doubt that some will hear something, sometimes, and others will not. It will not be as noticeable as some fear and it will be more noticeable than others would like. The same can be said of traffic noise generated by allowing malls, Wal-Marts, medical facilities and schools.
Everything we, or individual property owners, do will cause a change in someone's life and surroundings. The only way to avoid it is to do nothing, as they have done in Westport ... and there is something to be said for that too in preserving a way of life.
The benefit derived for Dartmouth can be considerable IF we manage it wisely .. if not it will have been a waste of a little of what makes Dartmouth, Dartmouth.
The Town Meeting will decide.
Greg Lynam / Fin Com
So now we have a blood sucking engineer trying to extract hefty fees for himself out of this. C'mon NIMBY's, ante up thousands for the lawyer and the engineer. Nevermind that you bought property next to town land that can be used by the town for the best interests of the entire town. By law.
I'm glad, Mr. Lynam, that you acknowledged "preserving a way of life." As it appears, that aspect is lost to the Select Board and others who see only $$$ and prestige and accolades for being the "architects" of the turbines and making Dartmouth the model for the SouthCoast.
Someone even mentioned a short while back their being a "tourist attraction." That is almost laughable, if it weren't for the fact that a lot of people will come by just to see these behemoths behind or quite close by to residents' homes.
With respect to Palmer's characterization of the turbines' "rumble" as that of an " 'endless train,' " you stated "This is true and illustrates the difference between treating each turbine separately as a 'single point source ' or in combination as a ' line source ' . In the latter case the noise degrades over distance at only half the rate as a single point source. This can be expected to produce higher sound levels where the two overlap. I have asked, but have not yet gotten an answer to, whether this was taken into consideration or not in the acoustic studies."
Why could you not receive an answer to your question? This statement and situation in itself is disturbing, at least to me. I would think it would/could make a significant difference, no? And, if not, why wasn't your question answered by whomever it was asked of? I should think a positive answer would be something an expert who would have the answer would have no problem sharing with you and with other interested citizens, particularly the residents residing near the two Dartmouth turbines. Would the answer to the question be of significant value to the residents to know?
With respect to traffic around malls, highways, hospitals, etc.: my personal feeling is that one does and can get used to that type of noise. I would think, also, that that type of noise is not as constant as that of wind turbines. I once asked a resident living near St. Luke's how he could live with ambulances arriving at the hospital without any timed warning, with sirens blaring and he said you get used to it.
As a child, I lived within hearing distance of the Rte. 6 fire station, and remember waking up in the middle of the night when the alarm sounded, and waiting for the volunteer firefighters in my neighborhood to come racing down the road en route to the station. There were two of them, as I recall. I got used to it and fell back asleep. I would imagine one could get used to living near a church that rang its bell at a given hour each day, or the lights outside a mini-mall, or the local watering hole. Sure, maybe all could be considered "nuisances" of one kind or another, but I do think that all of them COULD be gotten used to.
I'm not sure we could say the same thing about a wind turbine, at least not one(s) located that close to residences, even if the distance is legal/approved, etc.
And I'm not sure a turbine is quite the same as living near a wastewater treatment plant or a sand/gravel pit, as some posters here seem to think when they discount the Chase Rd. residents' concerns and fears.
And, for all intensive purposes, in my opinion, at least, the Select Board Monday was just giving lip service in an attempt to appease the turbine opponents by "accepting any new information" they may have had to present to the Board. From the sounds of it, there was some new information or I think Mr. Michaud would have rightfully cut the presentation short if all had heard or read it before.
If the need was for the Board to make a decision on the turbine permit before the Town Meeting so that it could appear on the warrant, then that was just a "need" that could have been postponed for the meeting in June or for another Special Meeting sooner. Goodness knows, we've held them before.
We are not talking an "inconvenience" here. We are not talking about busing students a longer distance to school, mile-wise and timewise. We are not talking about larger classrooms, a situation that CAN be eliminated. There are options and alternatives to both the above, and resolutions to each, though they may take time.
There is NO RESOLUTION to living near a turbine, as I can see, anyway. These residents are STUCK. IF they can sell their homes at a fair market value (that is, before the turbines in their backyard) then who would buy them? Would you? Would I? No, not me, at least not if I had a choice.
THAT'S the reality they will live under. Tell me how that is "fair"? I guess life isn't fair, that is what some will say, and sometimes some must sacrifice for the "greater good of all." This, however, is more than a "sacrifice." This is a nightmare that none will wake up from. (And that's putting it quite mildly. I'm sure the Chase Rd. residents have much better descriptions of what they foresee their life and lifestyle to be like, because I sure do, but I won't print it here.)
I'm probably being dramatic here, or at least may be accused of being. I WANT to say I am in favor of the turbines, but (stupid me) I can only see it, for the most part, in terms of the human side of the coin. Irregardless of whether the turbine distance meets all requirements, to me, if that distance affects the quality of life of even just one resident, that is one resident too many.
Conditions will be put in to determine if a resident is affected medically/emotionally/mentally? Let the resident jump through hoops before he/she can get any relief from the town/turbine controllers.
Maybe I'm wrong, who knows? This is, after all, just my opinion and I thank Bill for my opportunity to express it.
May I qualify above: I DO NOT think a fire alarm or an ambulance (or police) siren is a "nuisance," should anyone mistakenly read that into my statements.
As Shakespeare said "much ado about nothing". I predict you will hear no complaints within a year, tops. The selfish and irrational complaints are disgusting. And futile.
If I can see one of these windmills from my house will I be able to get in on the lawsuit? I got fired 6 months ago and could really use the money.
To Anon 11:21 & 11:22
The answer to my question about the acoustic study has not yet been received only because there has not been sufficient time for them to reply.
This project has been the most thoroughly investigated project I have ever seen in my time on the Fin Com. Every single concern expressed by residents and every single doubt I and others have come up with has to be, and is, investigated to the fullest extent possible. The difference is that we have to find data to confirm or debunk each utterance that is not colored one way or the other by proponents or opponents. That is not easy. Reviews such as the one I cited from NASA I regard as factual, others from biased web sites I do not.
Don’t think for one moment that what you witness on TV is the extent to which this has been considered. The Select Board and the Fin Com have all lost a lot of sleep vetting each and every concern expressed while searching and searching for answers from facts.
Dr. DiPippo does not enjoy any status above the public ... in fact he is more readily available so catches the brunt of questions and suspicions from the Select Board as well as the Fin Com. Every detail is demanded to be backed up with fact and evidence ... but the fact is that some things are subjective in nature or simply incalculable ahead of time. In this case there is no substitute for visiting existing facilities, talking to those already living with them and experiencing it for ourselves. I and others have spent a lot of time doing just that and continue to even today.
I too see the human side first which is why I have agonized so much over this these past few months – years really. In 2008 when the bylaw was being debated at Town Meeting I argued against locating commercial generating facilities in residential areas and argued for greater set-backs for all the reasons being expressed now. I was the lone vote against that bylaw. But that decision is behind us now.
Progress has changed the Town I grew up in from one where cows lazily grazed in silence in grassy fields along the Paskamansett river at Smith Mills, to one where shoppers graze frantically on miles of blacktop amongst a cacophony of noise and congestion. The price of ‘progress’ has been steep for our Town and I don’t like it, to be honest.... anymore than those potentially impacted by this project like it. I understand, but I also understand that despite our collective disdain progress pushes forward in step with the conditions that support it.
We need revenue at a time when the taxpayer can afford no more and these wind generators are the fad of this particular decade. It is enormously expensive to generate power by wind. The political decision to subsidize the industry in order to encourage alternate energy production is the only thing that makes this, and similar projects, worth while. In another 10 - 15 years this fad will have passed us by. The balance between these intermittent alternate energy sources and reliable fossil fuel generation will have been satisfied and the incentives will evaporate. It is unlikely that at the end of their useful life these machines will be rebuilt in the absence of subsidies. New technologies and energy conditions will require new approaches.
Approval to send this to Town Meeting has not been entered into lightly by any means. It won’t be any easier for Town Meeting either.
Greg Lynam
Fin / Com
Several years ago we went through a similar set of issues when the the Target store was built. People complained fiercely about that land being developed. People who bought land and built houses next to a large commercially zoned property, complained about that property being developed. They tried to make it the town's problem. Hello???? These people do not have any legitimate right to complain about how the town chooses to use the land when it is for the betterment of the town. Don't keep trying to make your mistakes the town's problem.
Mr. Lynam, would there be enough time for a reply before Town Meeting, so members will be able to hear it?
I will agree, I am having a difficult time weighing the financial gain to the town versus the heavy loss to the residents nearby, except that I am thinking of lives here, and what would be sacrificed by a few for the many.
Also, I do think Target does not quite equate to a wind turbine. The turbine is a major disturbance to the nearby residents, far more so than a Target or mall, but I understand and respect your comparison.
I wish Dartmouth residents would contact their Town Meeting members with their opinion about the turbines. Their names can be found on the town website (follow links under "departments" and "town clerk.")
This is a major decision and it affects every resident financially and otherwise, depending on where one lives. It would be good to know how residents other than those on/near Chase Rd. feel about these turbines. This is why residents elected their Town Meeting members.
I think every town meeting member wants to make an educated, informed vote. Residents' import is part of this process and should count heavily in their decision-making.
To Anon 1:08
{ Mr. Lynam, would there be enough time for a reply before Town Meeting, so members will be able to hear it? }
I'm sure it will. It is likely that the software took this into account but not being familiar with that program I can not be certain, so I ask the question.
.... and this is how it goes with each and every question or ambiguity that arises.
Greg Lynam
Fin /Com
To: Bill Trimble
Please post all the incoming and outgoing correspondence with the FAA in the past thirty days including the dates of the correspondence. Thanks 1/09/10
I get the comparison to the development off Cross Road. Why? Because I live near there. Trucks going by in the wee hours of the morning. The parking lot being lit up like "close encounters of the third kind" at night. Traffic flow issues. Litter being thrown out of cars. Little, if any, of this existed before. Did I know this was possible when I bought property near there? Yes I did. Am I happy about it? No, but so be it. Lifestyle issues exist all over the place. Near UMass, the public schools, businesses, restaurants, major roads, etc. I feel that I am one of many thousands in this town that is in a similar situation.
To Frank1,
This is my personal blog and not an official anything. While I can and do post publicly available information here from time to time, it is because I think it is needed for discussion. The request for FAA review and the responses from the FAA are just as they have been said to be by me and others. If you want that information go into town hall and request it. I am sick and tired of your conspiracy theories and I don't plan to help you out with them here.
Although Frank1's post was politely worded, it was an order not a request. I'm glad Bill cut him no slack. Who does he think he is?
Hopefully, residents in the area of the 40R Lincoln Park Smart Growth Overlay District (LPSGOD) and the proposed 40R Reed Rd. project extension to the LPSGOD will be attentive to these projects' further development. While these projects have been overshadowed by the turbine issue, at some point they will be in the limelight in full force, and residents affected by them should be alert to the developments as these projects go forward.
It would be a shame to be totally ignorant of what plans the town has for your neighborhood.
Thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Wendy Todd. I am from Aroostook County. I am a resident of Mars Hill and live approximately 2600 feet from the Mars Hill Wind Project. I am here today to offer testimony that residents around the project are suffering. There are 18 families that I know of that are negatively impacted on a regular basis from the noise, strobe effect and shadow flicker from the turbines. Most of these 18 families live less than 3000 feet from the turbines. There is no one that I know of from 425 East Ridge Road to 212 Mountain Road that does not agree that there are issues with noise. Issues that are changing the way residents view life around the mountain....
To read the entire statement, copy & paste this link into your browser: http://www.windaction.org/opinions/9373
Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/maine/50917-wind-turbine-noise-problem-mars-hill-11.html#ixzz0c9z07RKz
Frank1 is a little to demanding and this web site is not his . For the sake of any conspiracy theories the town should post all the materials and documents as they would with the minutes to meetings . It does sometimes look like the town only posts positive material about the wind turbines. Who decides what goes on the town web site anyway ? Why not post everything and get everything out in the open and there will be no conspiracy theory ?
It's all public information isn't it ?
The following is being offer for those who believe the town should not construct the wind turbines on town owned property along Chase Road. The wind turbine project will be approved by town meeting. The wind turbines shall be constructed at the mentioned site. The town tax system was changed to include less taxation to the home owners, and increase taxation for business. Personally, I believe this is an unfair policy of taxation, but there are less business people in town, than private home owners.
Money is needed to provide the town with public services. These services are needed for schools, police, and all other departments that provide a town service. The state, due to it's uncontrollable spending, and lack of revenue, have cut state spending for local aid to city/towns.
I'm happy to say that I do not live where the turbines will be located. I would not be a happy person. But I'm also happy that the town will be producing clean energy, and can produce electrical power to the treatment plant, along with offering additional money to continue with providing public service and less additional taxes.
In fairness to all those who believe they are getting the short end of the stick, I would like to provide you with an offer to buy your homes. I'm not kidding. If you so desire, I shall provide you with additional information on how you can contact me, but not on Mr. Trimble blog. Within a short period in time and shall be sending out information to each home owner who lives within the area of the wind turbines.
In other words; I'm a real estate speculator, get ready to get screwed because you don't want to live near a wind turbine. Your loss will be my gain. Muwahh...ahh...ahhh....aahhhh!!!!
Is this by-law still on the books :
Possible zoning violation at cell tower site
Town investigates incident unrelated to tower's construction
By CURT BROWN, Standard-Times staff writer
DARTMOUTH -- Construction of a court-ordered cell tower off Russells Mills Road in Dartmouth, designed to resemble a flag pole with Old Glory flying proudly above it, is moving steadily along.
But during a routine inspection of the site, Pontes Excavating Co., 1073 Russells Mills Road, a zoning violation might have been discovered.
David J. Silveira, the town's building commissioner, said a significant amount of gravel might have been illegally removed from the site without permission from the Soil Conservation Board and Zoning Board of Appeals.
He said the discovery is unrelated to the cell tower.
Steven Pontes, who owns the excavating company, denied the allegation and said there is no gravel on the site, just fill. He said it is a staging area to process loam, sand and gravel so when he needs materials for jobs in Dartmouth it is readily available.
Rhode Island Towers Inc. of Marshfield is building the tower, which must not exceed 165 feet in height and is required to resemble a flag pole "in all respects," according to the decision filed by U.S. District Court Judge Edward F. Harrington.
"The tower shall be constructed to resemble a flag pole in all respects and an American flag of appropriate size for the pole size shall be regularly flown from it in accordance with national flag etiquette of the United States of America with the flag regularly replaced so as to always be of good appearance, untattered with good color," according to the judgment filed Dec. 7, 2001.
"The tower shall be unlighted but the flag may be illuminated with unobstructive lighting so as to conform to flag etiquette when displayed between sunset and sunrise," the judge's decision said.
Judge Harrington said the pole will be white with the users' antennae inside.
The judge also ordered that the pole be situated at least 165 feet from the northerly property line.
Kenneth Ira Spigle, the attorney for the petitioner, said yesterday he and John A. Birknes Jr., town counsel, reached an out-of-court settlement and Judge Harrington approved the conditions of their agreement.
He said the compromise called for the tower to be reduced in height from 190 to 165 feet and the design was changed and has been approved by the Historical Commission.
Mr. Silveira issued a building permit for the cell tower on April 29.
The Zoning Board of Appeals originally denied the cell tower on May 1, 2001. The petitioner needed a special permit from the zoning board to locate the tower in a residential district.
The board complained the proposed tower "was aesthetically unpleasing," and said the petitioner was unwilling, because of economic reasons, to design the tower so it resembled a tree to make it less offensive.
This story appeared on Page A4 of The Standard-Times on June 3, 2002.
Anonymous 2:41 A.M.
Unless you work the night shift for some unknown company or town department, why in Gods good name are you not sleeping? Are still worrying about the wind turbines and how it may affect your quality of life. Just poking fun, no other intention of doing so.
I'm not, as you have suggested, a real estate speculator. I do know a money maker when I see it. As mention in the previous post, I shall make contact with all property/home owners living within the wind turbines location, for the sole purpose of purchasing any, or all land/homes.
I certainly have a purpose for the properties. I'll provide you with some insight. If allowed by the town, and supported by the planing board, zoning board of appeals, I shall construct a show-place, or observation facility. A place of observation, listening, and watching, as wind turbines are in the process of producing energy. The home/building shall provide spacious rooms, dinning, observation towers, and several night rooms, for those interested in a guest sleep over. I'll recoup my investment within a short period of time. Wind energy is here to stay, at lease for this decade, many officials from cities, towns, states, and countries, have a interest in such projects. Because there are so many wind turbine unknown factors, I shall provide comfort, information, and a place to stay.
To Anonymous 7:30 AM
Question about the old cell tower height on Russels Mills Road?
The Zoning Board of Appeals originally denied the cell tower on May 1, 2001. The petitioner had to get a special permit from the zoning board to locate the tower in a residential district. The board complained the proposed tower "was aesthetically unpleasant," The compromise called for the tower to be reduced in height from 190 to 165 feet and the design was changed and was approved by the Historical Commission.Mr. Silveira issued a building permit for the cell tower on April 29.2002 .
The decision was filed by US District Court Judge Edward F. Harrington.
In addition the Dartmouth Wind Turbine By Law Section 34 - trumps the Historical Commission
The Dartmouth Historical Commission (DHC) is out of the picture with the wind turbine special permit application section 34 .
Bill, it's high time to shut down these discussions. Conspiracies theories, outright lies, even "testimony" from people who claim they are from Mars (Hill). Please give us a break. Can't we talk about something else?
Relax - This wind turbine special permitting process will not create conflict between this bylaw/ordinance and an existing (or future) bylaw/ordinance, the more restrictive provisions of either would apply end of discussion!
11:05, if you read the link provided by 6:16 pm, Jan. 9th, I think you might find that it is an actual testimonial. If you follow the next pages, you will even find one from a woman from Fairhaven, MA.
I have two financial questions :
1) When the town issues the (RFP), Request for Proposal , and Vestas wins the bid here is the question : From what I understand Vestas has to approve the site plan including the setbacks to residential homes. Lets say Vestas does not approve the site plan what then ?
2) The board had to perform 'a balancing test,' weighing the enormous financial benefits to the town against the concerns of the neighbors. Does the town have a professional indemnity policy that would insure the town against wind turbine syndrome (WTS) ?
Ed, why don't you just start your own blog where you can ponder the same things over and over. And save us from having to listen to it.
Am I mistaken, or did I understand that this particular piece of town-owned property is the only possible site feasible for the turbines, for whatever reason? Other town properties were not favorable to the project?
That being the case, maybe even this site should not even have been a consideration if there is any remote possibility even that it will disrupt or harm nearby neighbors' life, health, or safety.
"A balancing test"? What, between the value of a person's life and health in favor of the $$$$?
Maybe, just maybe, OUR neighbors, as someone on the Select Board recently acknowledged the Chase Rd. residents close to the turbine to be with the rest of the town's residents, should be valued more than the almighty $$$$. Sometimes you can't always get what you want (remember the Rolling Stones?) and I'm not sure how the potential for harm of any sort to these residents can be justified by the $$$ stream that is supposed to flow into Dartmouth.
Finance question ;
The law of nuisance involves a balancing test, weighing the social value of the activity
against the social value of your use and enjoyment of your property.
We need an impartial and unbiased forum for neighbors to talk about nuisance and health issues . The town has determined this in the balancing test at the SB meeting approving the special permit .The neighbors have been ignored .
The shadow-flicker or (WTS) wind turbine syndrome has the potential to affect about 94 residences in total, but 75 of these would be for nine hours or less per year. Eighteen residences might receive between 10-19 hours per year, and only one residence might see slightly over 20 hours per year. The result wind turbine syndrome (WTS) is sleep disturbance,headache ,tinnitus ,ear pressure, dizziness,vertigo ,nausea ,visual blurring ,tachycardia ,irritability ,problems with concentration and memory and panic episodes associated with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering, which arise while awake or asleep.
Bitter divisions are often caused as neighbors suffering by the advent of turbines in communities. How in the balancing test is the town prepared to compensate more than 100 residents if not more for nuisances and health problems ?
The balancing test is between the unfounded fears of neighbors and a huge, huge benefit to our town and planet.
Wind turbine syndrome is nonsense. And it has nothing to do with shadow flicker.
Nobody needs to be compensated for anything unless they can prove damages. You NIMBYS with your hand out can forget it. Not gonna happen.
"the finance committe voted unanimously to recommend the turbine article to town meeting based on favorable economics and overall environmental benefits"
We passed a special permit, and the special permit does not create an opportunity for residents to resist these projects just because they may have a health concern. This is for the greater good of the town !
What a shame. Such a pristene neighborhood. No environmental issues, no large commercial businesses in the area, very little traffic, no town facilities, etc. Just like down by the water in South Dartmouth. Well, maybe not. Just a bunch of NIMBY's looking for a big payday from our tax dollars for their dumpy little neighborhood.
NIMBY's forget them - lets get making some money maybe we can turn the lights back on and get the town on its feet !
STATE SENATE SET TO VOTE THURSDAY ON
ANTI-HOME RULE WIND BILL (SENATE NO. 2206)
PLEASE CALL YOUR STATE SENATOR NOW TO OPPOSE IT
The Patrick administration is pushing for passage of the Wind Energy Siting Reform Act (Senate No. 2206), and the state senate could vote on it this Thursday.
The Act remains a bad deal for communities, citizens, wind facility neighbors - and our environment and economy - and should be defeated.
Despite a few small changes to the Act, it still allows an unelected board appointed by the governor to override a decision on a wind-facility application by the local town board. The wind developer does not need approval from the local board before proceeding to the state Energy Facilities Siting Board for a permit. If the town denies a permit, and the EFSB permits it, the latter prevails.
The Act replaces environmental laws with new, weaker standards which the EFSB is empowered to establish, apply, and waive. In fact, even if a wind facility does not comply with the EFSB's standards, the EFSB is required in some instances to issue a permit if it meets lower thresholds.
There are no protections for rare species; the Act requires standards for protecting their habitat, but none for the species themselves. (The only exception is if a rare species using the wind-facility site happens to be a bird or bat considered by the state to be vulnerable to wind turbines.) There are no opportunities for anyone to sue in state court to protect the rare species against impacts from the wind facility.
Almost all meaningful rights of participation and appeal are lost under the Act. Municipalities no longer have standing to appeal an EFSB permit to the courts.
The Act creates an unprecedented benefit for a single industry.
No other New England state exempts wind facilities from environmental laws or full judicial review. In Massachusetts, developers of conventional power plants must first make all reasonable attempts to obtain local and state permits before seeking exemptions through the EFSB. For them, EFSB proceedings are subject to judicial review through the court system.
In all respects, the Act does not create a level playing field with conventional power plants, it tilts the field steeply in favor of the wind facilities at the expense of town home rule, environmental protections, and the existing safeguards for citizen participation and rights of appeal.
If this Act is enacted, other special interests will seek the same special exemptions from local and state laws.
With the state now funding studies for wind facilities in areas with marginal wind speeds, more than 150 communities in Massachusetts will be vulnerable if this Act is approved. If you want to see if your community has developable wind resources, please email me, and I'll send you a copy of your county wind map.
The only way to stop this bill is if enough citizens protest to the state senate.
What report or analyis data was given to the Finance Committee, that they used as a basis for their recommendation??????
Bill or any SB member????????
Why did Peter Friedman leave the Finance Committee??
Anyone know?
Mr. Friedman's reasons
http://dartmouthhitcingpost.blogspot.com/2009/10/finance-committee-chair-to-step-down.html
Sure....why don't we all just turn over our money and jobs to China...they build the damned things!!!! They are not going to create jobs for the US.
The town meeting members provided the $$$ - you don't need grants - you will all see an increase in taxes and electrical bills!!!
Now all you can do is plan!
Post a Comment