RUMFORD — Wind turbine sound, safety setbacks and operational licensing were the major topics discussed at Thursday night's wind power ordinance workshop by selectmen.
Rumford selectmen worked Thursday night on finishing details of a third wind power ordinance. Residents are expected to vote on the proposal either late this year or next spring.
The board has until Sept. 29 to draft their third attempt at a wind ordinance, if it plans to present it to voters on the Nov. 8 ballot. If unable to do so, residents would most likely have to wait till June 2012 to vote on it.
Selectman Jermey Volkernick, who took issue with trying to rush a wind ordinance to the voters by November, was absent Thursday night.
The operational license was the first item that was discussed with three concerns from Selectman Greg Buccina. Language to allow ongoing monitoring of a wind project, both pre- and post-construction, was discussed.
Buccina also suggested hiring a wildlife biologist for a pre-construction study of the area and also to allow a continuing study for up to three years after the wind turbines are in operation.
Erosion control was brought up because of recent concerns over flooding during Tropical Storm Irene and the effects of how a logging project could have factored into the destruction caused by the storm surge.
"I think we should take care of concerns ahead of time instead of dealing with issues after the fact," Buccina said.
Selectmen Brad Adley and Jolene Lovejoy said they believed there were already regulations with the state Department of Environmental Protection concerning erosion.
Selectman Jeff Sterling informed the board that the Board of Environmental Protection voted 5-4 to drop the decibel level of wind turbines from 45 to 42 from 7 p.m to 7 a.m. The regulation has to be passed by lawmakers before it goes into effect.
"If we went with DEP on sound decibels and it gets voted in, we are on the same page, and if it doesn't, then we are more stringent," Buccina said.
Lovejoy addressed how every community is different and that's why an ordinance needs to vary from community to community.
"We can't have the same set standards as DEP," Lovejoy said.
A resident mentioned hiring a unbiased acoustical engineer for a study on the matter.
Safety setback items were also slimmed down in the ordinance. Initially, the ordinance had language that included setbacks for property lines and residential lines. Selectmen agreed to do away with the residential line language and only have a property line restriction.
The safety setback language was changed to require a wind turbine to be 4,000 feet from a property line.
Report a correction
"We can't have the same set
"We can't have the same set standards as DEP," Lovejoy said. why not we are not that special are we? The is the way the selectmen are going to stop anything coming to the area by delaying and dragging it out so they will leave! I would feel better if the selectmen would come up asn state personal at a selectmen meeting if they are for or against the project (any project)
- 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.We will lose landowner rights
We will lose landowner rights if this ordinance is approved by the voters. You can tell it will be totaly against the wind industry because the anti wind crowd thinks they are doing a good job. What will happen is that we will see these towers all around us from town but will not be able to reap the benefits. So the efforts of the fab five to protect the views ( and you know that's what it's all about) will have all been in vain.
- 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.what part do we not understand?
WIND = 75% does not blow...5% "parasitic" draw from GRID...10-30% loss in transmission. WIND kills birds, bats, bugs, tourism, property values, cheap electricity.
WIND creates money for rich, out of state corporations.
Rumford knows the windfall in the form of tax revenues will dry up in five years and then the property adjacent to these turbines has devalued, then bankruptcy.
Oh and who controls the mountaintops then? No more recreating on our ridges.
- 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.Some say "Why Bother"?
The majority of the board wants to block wind power. They have an ordinance that will do exactly that. If they just put that same ordinance in front of the voters and it passes (because people are tired of hearing about wind) the developers could bring a legal challenge against the town. However, if they craft a new ordinance that seems more lenient, (but still in effect blocks wind) the town may not face a legal challenge, or may be able to better defend itself against a challenge that does come up. Still, we are effectively asking unqualified people to draft an ordinance, so they must be getting direction from the outside lobbyists.Drafting an ordinance of this magnitude requires much more expertise than is available in this town.
- 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.Well said Kevin
the majority of the Rumford Board are anti-winders and are being governed by the anti-winders of the River Valley Region. They do not have the expertise to write this ordinance and the people are fedup with their bull. Accept the state regulations and work on what the wind companies will do for the town is what they should be concentrating on. There are more pressing issues that need attention. These items are mentioned and then pushed to the wayside. They still are not working in the best interest of the town. RECALL!!!!!!!
- 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.