RUMFORD — Selectman Jeff Sterling's recent rewrite of the defeated wind ordinance and the Board of Selectmen's subsequent additions will go before town meeting voters on June 14.
Authors of the first proposal and Selectmen Greg Buccina and Jeremy Volkernick claim the new ordinance caters to wind developers and won't protect the town.
They are asking voters not to accept it, saying it needs to be reworked.
The new proposal's backers say otherwise, that it allows and regulates such development, and is more stringent than the Maine Department of Environmental Protection's rules.
Seeking a compromise in April and to expedite the document onto the June town meeting warrant, Sterling hacked the 45-page defeated proposal — widely regarded as a permanent moratorium on wind power — down to 26 pages.
Among the items removed were:
* Required operational licenses and anything pertaining to such, which Sterling and Selectmen Brad Adley and Mark Belanger considered duplicative and unnecessary.
* Definitions for Background Sound, C-Weighted Sound Level, Good Utility Practice, Qualified Independent Acoustical and Spectrum Management consultants, and Sound.
* Sound modeling, standards and enforcement procedures. These were replaced with a simplified version allowing no more than 45 decibels during nighttime and no more than 55 decibels during daytime at protected locations. Both are 5 decibels more than the first ordinance.
* Sound-limit language and distances for low-frequency and audible sounds.
* Protections that required the Planning Board to evaluate the developer's risk assessment plan and to require a surety fee to cover damage. However, the applicant is still required to pay for any damage to public ways.
* Requirements for signal interference and blade glint, and a shadow flicker study. Blade glint is allowable in the new ordinance.
* A requirement for turbines to be inspected after construction is completed but before becoming operational.
* Requiring an applicant to set aside money to cover the town's cost of enforcing ordinance violations and a site permit application fee of $2,500 plus $100 a turbine.
* Violations, complaints, penalties and appeals. Instead, these will be governed by Rumford's site plan ordinance
* Requirements for pre- and post-construction sound measurements and studies.
Additions include:
* Definitions of Protected Location and Short Duration Repetitive Sounds.
* Exempting developers from providing any financial details between developers and landowners when filing mitigation waivers.
Among the changes from the first ordinance are:
* Reducing from 90 to 45 days the time in which the Planning Board must deem an application complete or incomplete and seek more information by notifying the developer in writing.
* Requiring the Planning Board to conditionally approve or disapprove applications within 60 instead of 120 days of a public hearing.
* Appealing decisions of the board go before the Rumford Board of Appeals instead of Oxford County Superior Court in Paris.
* Developers must identify all adjacent properties and natural and habitat areas within 3,000 feet of wind turbines instead of 5,280 feet.
* 3,000 feet as minimum safety setback from turbines to structures instead of a mile, and 3,000 feet from turbines to scenic or special resources instead of 2,500 feet.
* Increasing the total turbine height from 400 to 450 feet.
* Requiring applicants to file a blasting plan with the code enforcement officer.
* Setting limits for sounds generated via construction as opposed to blasting.
* Allowing no more than 24 hours of shadow flicker annually instead of no more than 10 hours annually.
* Motor vehicle access points to wind farms do not have to be gated.
* Applicants are given 10 years to get decommissioning monies in place instead of the first day.
* The operational license fee was reduced from $1,000 to $250.
Report a correction
Tom Fallon
If a land owner does make money, how much money can a landowner make?
You see my town fathers are selling out for a short term gain.
Wind turbines do impact neighbors.
Neighbors want their fair share.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Mr. Fallon and Rumford citizens, please answer on these points
Quite to the point really,
1. Do you (Mr. Fallon) have, had or will have benefited financially from this or other wind projects in your area?
Are you a self-server?
2. Do you know if the selectmen have had secret meetings, financial dealings or other arrangements with representatives of First Wind in crafting this ordinance, and can they meet the transparency and ethics standards as put forth in my post below, (which are indeed the law in NY State). Are any selectmen self-servers?
...Remember, Maine has no such ethics laws, and indeed, a cash transfer to a town father would have to be caught on camera to declare it a violation of ethics in Maine, as Maine basically has no law in this area?
3. Mr Fallon, should selectmen declare that they follow the ethics code posted in your belief, and if not, why not?
4. Do selectmen take an oath in Rumford upon gaining office, and to whom is it?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Get an Ethics code NOW for the town first, you are being had
by secret dealings ......The AG of the state needs to act before you go further.
Has the below been part of the process in Rumford?
Has the minimum of 1 through 6 below been met in Rumford?
Because of the scope, size, environmental impacts, health and property value impacts, and potential permanent changes to this rural community, we the People of Lincoln(applies to all towns in Maine) and surrounding communities must know all the facts, so we, the citizens, are sure that all the standards of ethics and integrity of legal process have been upheld. The history of the dealings of the above aforementioned company must be completely scrutinized, as is being done in New York State at this moment. We have every reason to believe, and do insist, that the Code of Ethics governing these companies recently adopted in New York State be applied in Maine to assure that the public is properly protected and has the time to fairly evaluate the values and pitfalls of this new industry to our area.
We therefore request that the Attorney General of Maine establish this code that:
1.Bans wind companies from hiring municipal employees or their relatives, giving gifts of more than $10 during a one-year period, or providing any other form of compensation that is contingent on any action before a municipal agency.
2.Prevents wind companies from soliciting, using, or knowingly receiving confidential information acquired by a municipal officer in the course of his or her official duties.
3.Requires wind companies to establish and maintain a public web site to disclose the names of all municipal officers or their relatives who have a financial stake in wind turbine development.
4.Requires wind companies to submit in writing to the municipal clerk for public inspection and to publish in the local newspaper the nature and scope of the municipal officers financial interest.
5.Mandates that all wind easements and leases are in writing and filed with the County Clerk.
6.Dictates that within thirty days of signing the Wind Industry of Maine Code of Ethics, companies must conduct a seminar for employees about identifying and preventing conflicts of interest when working with municipal employees.
In addition, the establishment of a Citizen Review Board with direct legal consul from the Attorney General will be created to oversee and monitor the above Code within Maine.
The above Maine Ethics Code for Wind Industry companies is essentially the same as that which Attorney General Cuomo of New York State established on October 30, 2008. It was created because of the ongoing legal investigations initiated by citizens against First Wind and Noble Environmental Power in New York State. These investigations remain ongoing.
The Citizens of Maine must have this code to ensure that fair and ethical dealings be established by Windpower companies in Maine with it citizenry.
We cannot allow the ‘Windrush’ in Maine to undermine integrity of legal process, as well as impact communities in a multitude of ways,some of which may be detrimental , without a full , transparent process in place.
At this moment no such process exists in Maine. We insist on a statewide moratorium on wind development until the Maine Ethics Code for the Wind Industry is established.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Not Rumford voters or citizens...
Gary Steinberg is a citizen of Lincoln, Maine. Alice Barnet is a citizen of Carthage, Maine. They are not Rumford voters or citizens. I agree they should comment on the wind turbine situation in their own towns, they should vote on any issues related to wind turbines, as they wish, but they should stay out of the wind turbine situation in Rumford. They are not Rumford voters or citizens.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Wind Scamming is everyones responsibility in Maine, sorry!
I suggest you get more involved in getting more facts and help stop the farce that is occurring in Rumford with First Wind.
We went through this in Lincoln, and they had a ten year secret head start here.They never let us vote here, because of the lies and secret dealings with inside town players and financial self-servers were too well seated. THey love perverting your town process; that is what they do for a living!
Indeed, the Lincoln project is in a rural residential zone , non-rezoned as required by law. Legal actions remain fully open here and in Maine. Citizens are aghast at the damage to the lakes , hills and area by this scoundrel company here .
Legal actions are in the works , and noise and real estate damage issues remain.
Beware, you are being had.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.My vote...
approved the Rumford wind ordinance. After reflection, the name-calling and bullying of the opposition, I decided it was wise of me to accept the rational work of the Rumford selectmen.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.This "REVISED ORDINANCE" is a DANCE WITH FIRST WIND LIARS!
This REWRITE is a Travesty, a PRO-WIND REWRITE by and for scoundrels ans self-serving interests!
If Citizens of Rumford accept this piece of trash, you get what you deserve!
In Lincoln, as hjas probably been done already in Rumford, the slect folks were influenced, bribed, coerced, and lied to.
The same things occur wherever they go. NY State developed and ethics code against the underhanded dealing, but Maine has no effective protections, other than aware citizens defending their rights.
First Wind is a cabal of underhanded liars!
This is the same old crap modus operandi used wherever these scoundrels go.
They have disdain for you and the law. Their pretty faces hide their sinister goals.
You can, and I repeat this, you must ordinance them out!
THIS TRASH REWRITE IS PRO FIRST WIND ONLY!
REJECT IT TOMORROW, or be ruined like Lincoln was. Those opponents of the project are heroes in Rumford.
They are responding with facts and knowledge.
Listen to them. Ordinance out First Wind, or be ruined, for naught.
Come to Lincoln, and see for yourself what has occurred.
Go to Mars Hill and talk to the residents on the east side. Talk to the abutters on Vinalhaven.Go to Freedom, speak to the Bennetts.Visit Lincoln.
Don't be fools.
Do not let your isolation define your decisions and fact procurement. You are being played as if you are foolish fish, biting at a juicy worm.
Do you not have more brains than a haddock?
Haddock never destroy their own spawning grounds, but Rumford is about to, and thinks they have no control because the fisherman says the hook won't bite!
There is time to do the right thing.
REJECT THIS SINISTER LIE OF A REWRITE!
THEY ARE PLAYING YOU FOR IDIOTS!
ORDINANCE THEM OUT, OR BE RUINED!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.rumford is going under
For those who saw Tom Powell speak. If turbines are bullying their way into our valleys get your money's worth.
Say no to this rushed ordinance and start thinking of how to recoup the loss of property values.
The State law says " NO LESS THAN $4000 per turbine " The law says this " Community Benefit Package " is above and beyond property tax assessment which I think means the state can't touch this money by reducing State Revenue Sharing or Education Allotments. Of course many towns use TIFs to keep money from from being used to reduce State Revenue Sharing and Education Allotments, but these towns are not allowed to establish TIF contracts without citizen approval. With this Community Benefit Package allowing for a similar avenue to " shelter money " and the law specifically states this Community Benefit Package money CAN be used to reduce individual property taxes, why shouldn't this be brought forth for citizen approval ?
There will be law suits Rumford. Protect yourself. This ordinance does not protect you.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.