DIXFIELD — Selectmen accepted a petition from opponents of a wind turbine project Monday night that seeks to ban such development through the establishment of zoning.
Town Manager Eugene Skibitsky said Tuesday afternoon that the petition question will likely appear on the Nov. 2 general election ballot.
That question will appear on the same ballot as a proposed wind ordinance, which is being created by Selectmen Norine Clark and Steve Donahue.
When residents Dan McKay and Freemont Tibbetts circulated the petition last month, more than 250 signatures were gathered, said McKay.
McKay said in an e-mail that the petition asks voters to create an ordinance that would prohibit industrial development, except logging operations and communication towers, above 1,000 feet elevation in the areas of the Colonel Holman Mountain range and Sugarloaf Mountain.
He further said that he hopes to set up regular public meetings so that Dixfield residents may “obtain or relay information about wind turbines and their implications to the River Valley.”
Skibitsky said if the petition question is passed in November, either selectmen or the Planning Board would likely be required to write a zoning ordinance that would cover the entire town, which in turn would have to be acted on by residents at another special town meeting.
“A zoning ordinance can be simple or very complicated. It would have to treat the whole town,” Skibitsky said.
Patriot Renewables LLC, Quincy, Mass., has proposed constructing a 20-megawatt project on the Colonel Holman Mountain range, which could mean installing from seven to 14 wind turbines, depending on the size of the turbines.
The wind energy company is currently making plans for a similar project in neighboring Carthage and in Woodstock.
Patriot Renewables’ representative Tom Carroll also attended Monday’s board meeting to introduce himself to the board’s two new members, Katherine Harvey and Malcolm Gill. Carroll has staffed an informational site at the former Holmes Market for several months.
The town’s wind moratorium, which will have been in effect for a year, expires in October.
A public hearing on the town’s proposed wind ordinance will be held sometime prior to the November election.
Report a correction
Kant would find the petition proposed ordinance unethical
Kant would find the petition proposed ordiance unethical because it permits one man to errect a tower on the same piece of land it prohibits another. It permits one man to cut trees and construct roads and prohibits another from doing the same on the same land in the same location. The ordianance permits one man to conduct his livelihood unincumbered and prevents another from the peaceful enjoyment and operation of livelihood on the identical land.
- 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.Conflicts of interest and ethics?
If the issues are the construction of access roads which are required to an even greater extent for timber harvesting thand wind turbines and deforestation which timber operations definitely have a greater impact than wind turbines why are timber harvesting operations of all things being exempted from this petitioned zoning ordiance? The exemption for communications towers makes even less sense since you have the road, you have the cleared pad as in a wind turbine and a tower often higher and definitely uglier than a wind turbine. So I have to ask do Tibbetts and McKay own land above 1000 ft within this zone that they lease out for timber harvesting or for communications towers or are they in the timber or communications business and would be adversly effected by there not being these exemptions? What of the people who own property who might want to use it at some point for commercial hunting or fishing and say tie flies on the premises. That would be an industrial use and that would be prohibited under this proposed ordiance.
JAlbreicht you cant twist Kant with so many common sense Mainers on these pages. Nice try though. In Kant's treatis on ethics to which you refered, he spoke of if everyone did the samething, not if everyone built the same thing on every location. Using your distortion nothing would be ethical including brushing your teeth. Imagine everyone walking around town, city, office, subway etc with toothbrush and toothpaste in hand brushing and spitting where they may, GROSS, and unethical. Now everyone brush your teeth and spit in your bathroom sink and you have ethical and COMMON SENSE. Thank the gods Kant has had more common sense and gave more credit to his fellow man's ability to exercise their's than JAlbreicht.
- 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.Sorry
I have no idea why that posted three times!! Feel free to remove two. :)
- 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.Cumulative Effect
Queen, I'm sure your heart is in the right place. Many in this fight felt the same way you did. But it's not just one wind project. It's not just Woodstock or just Carthage. Wind companies want to take vast swaths of undeveloped woods, streams, habitat, mountaintops and put huge turbines on the highest points. That's fragmentation and a total lack of respect for nature and the citizens who reside nearby. And they want to do this not on just one peak, but many. No one really knows what the cumulative effect would be to people and wildlife and tourism and ecosystem. The wind companies don't know (and I assure you they do not care about anything but the money) and the DEP doesn't know. And if they do know, they won't tell you. Try asking them a direct question at a meeting and see if you can get an answer that's not on their stale PowerPoint presentation. On top of which, your desire to be green is not going to be fulfilled with these projects. They're not going to stop the next oil spill. I wish it were true.
Drive 'em off the land.
- 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.Cumulative Effect
Queen, I'm sure your heart is in the right place. Many in this fight felt the same way you did. But it's not just one wind project. It's not just Woodstock or just Carthage. Wind companies want to take vast swaths of undeveloped woods, streams, habitat, mountaintops and put huge turbines on the highest points. That's fragmentation and a total lack of respect for nature and the citizens who reside nearby. And they want to do this not on just one peak, but many. No one really knows what the cumulative effect would be to people and wildlife and tourism and ecosystem. The wind companies don't know (and I assure you they do not care about anything but the money) and the DEP doesn't know. And if they do know, they won't tell you. Try asking them a direct question at a meeting and see if you can get an answer that's not on their stale PowerPoint presentation. On top of which, your desire to be green is not going to be fulfilled with these projects. They're not going to stop the next oil spill. I wish it were true.
Drive 'em off the land.
- 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.Cumulative Effect
Queen, I'm sure your heart is in the right place. Many in this fight felt the same way you did. But it's not just one wind project. It's not just Woodstock or just Carthage. Wind companies want to take vast swaths of undeveloped woods, streams, habitat, mountaintops and put huge turbines on the highest points. That's fragmentation and a total lack of respect for nature and the citizens who reside nearby. And they want to do this not on just one peak, but many. No one really knows what the cumulative effect would be to people and wildlife and tourism and ecosystem. The wind companies don't know (and I assure you they do not care about anything but the money) and the DEP doesn't know. And if they do know, they won't tell you. Try asking them a direct question at a meeting and see if you can get an answer that's not on their stale PowerPoint presentation. On top of which, your desire to be green is not going to be fulfilled with these projects. They're not going to stop the next oil spill. I wish it were true.
Drive 'em off the land.
- 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.No wind turbines in Dixfield
In the 1700's Immanuel Kant proposed a procedure for determining if an action was ethical or not. He wrote - imagine that everyone took the action you intend. If the result would be good, then take your action. If the results are bad, the action is unethical. Would a 400 ft wind turbine on every hill in Maine have good results or bad. I conclude that the result would be bad for tourism, forests, mountains, birds, wildlife, and people who make a living from any of the above or people living near the turbines. This unconstrained wind development is bad for Maine. But well planned development in limited areas where the downside is minimal and the upside significant might be possible. But that can't be done town by town. Has to be done statewide. And if its not going to be done, then no wind turbines in Dixfield.
- 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.The ordinance must be
The ordinance must be specific because the wind lawyers will pick it apart for loopholes, but it is a good idea. Lincoln zoned the Rollins project rural residential with no building more than 40 ft. high. First Wind ignored the rules and went ahead anyway with the complicity of the Town Council , Planning Board and Appeals Board who were also in on the scheme. The few who were trying to be responsible were overrun by the crooks. Industrial wind turbines would belong in the industrial zone. RR is for dwellings. It is not a difficult concept. Good luck. Save the mtns, big and small.
- 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.such a shame :(
such a shame :(
- 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.