Library filed under Zoning/Planning

Wind not a stormy issue in Readsboro, Searsburg

READSBORO — Officials from the two towns most affected by a proposed wind facility met on Wednesday night to discuss the economic impacts of a 30-turbine development. The Readsboro and Searsburg Select Boards met in the Central School gym to discuss the financial benefits and strains that can be expected by a town hosting a wind farm. Robert Ide of the Vermont Department of Public Service attended, as did about 10 residents. Searsburg is now the home of the state's only existing commercial wind facility. There are 11 turbines producing about 6 megawatts of electricity. A 30- to 45-megawatt plant with 20 to 30 new turbines has been proposed for ridgelines spanning both Readsboro and Searsburg.
17 Nov 2005

Public Hearing for Wind Farm in Ogle Co.

The idea has been brought up in just about every county in the Stateline. Wednesday night in Ogle County members of the public were invited to come up and voice their opinions to the zoning board of appeals. The room was packed with concerned citizens, so much so that some were forced to listen to testimony from the hallway. Every person that stood up to talk was against the proposed wind farm.
17 Nov 2005

Full Text of Governor Romney's Letter to Interior Secretary Norton

"..I urge MMS to wait until it establishes guidelines to all offshore wind projects before it acts upon an individual project, such as Cape Wind. In my opinion, the review of this project at this time would make little sense and would undermine the goal of developing comprehensive guidelines that establish the specific criteria for reviewing such projects, including those that specifically protect the interests of any state affected by the project.
15 Nov 2005

Rancher describes experiences associated with wind farms

Rose Bacon, member of the Governor's Energy Task Force and a rancher who owns property in the Flint Hills, spoke about the vulnerability of communities facing proposals from international companies that want to build commercial wind farms in rural areas. She pointed to the lack of “teeth” in regulations, and the attractive tax write-offs granted to wind energy companies, and the inexperience of local officials in dealing with such monstrous deals, depicting a state-wide scenario akin to the “wildcatter days in the oil business.”
1 Nov 2005

Planning for Wind Power Developments in Hilltown Communities

Planning_for_wind_power_developments__2_1__thumb The Hawley Wind Study Committee was established by town meeting vote and was directed to issue a report to the selectmen. Interested citizens were asked to submit a letter of interest to selectmen who then selected the committee. The committee first examined potential positive financial benefits to the town. Community based wind development was explored for a piece of town-owned land with the assistance of the UMass Renewable Energy Resource Lab. The committee determined that development of the site was not feasible. Lengthily discussions on the associated various negative impacts of wind plants followed. It was determined that our current bylaws would not require any form of local review to minimize these impacts. A report outlining the above was provided to the selectmen concluding that the appropriate course of action was to establish a wind power bylaw.
1 Nov 2005

Proposed Hawley (MA) Wind Facility Bylaw

The purposes of this wind-generated energy production facilities section are to: A. Protect the scenic, historic, environmental, and natural or man-made resources of the community without prohibiting alternative energy technologies to be developed. B. Provide standards and requirements for regulation, placement, construction, monitoring, design, modification and removal of wind facilities. C. Provide a procedural basis for action within a reasonable period of time for request for authorization to place, construct, operate, or modify wind facilities. D. Preserve property values. E. Locate wind facilities so that they do not have negative impacts such as, but not limited to, attractive nuisance, noise, falling objects, general safety, welfare and quality of life, wildlife and the environment in the community. F. Require owners of wind facilities to configure them so as to minimize and mitigate the adverse impact of the wind facilities.
27 Oct 2005

Reply Submitted By The Kingdom Commons Group to Vermont's Public Service Board re. East Haven

Response_to_prop_fof_and_col_1__thumb There is no question in this proceeding that EMDC bears the burden of proof with regard to each of the criteria for a Certificate of Public Good ("CPG") under 30 V.S.A. Section 248. See In Re: Petition of Tom Halnon, 174 Vt 514; 811A. 2d 161, (August 20, 2002); Petition of Vermont Gas Systems, Inc., Docket No. 5314 at p.17 (August 2, 1989); Petition of Champlain Pipeline Company, Docket No. 5300 at p. 32-33 (August 21, 1989); Petition of David and Jan Blittersdorf, CPG NM-11 at p. 3 (May 26, 2000). ("The Board has consistently held in cases under Section 248 that the burden of proof is on the applicant.")
27 Oct 2005

Jurisdictional Ruling by Vermont's Environmental Board

Jurisdictionalopinion2-227_thumb The Windham Regional Commission asked the District Environmental Commission if the proposed commercial wind energy development on Glebe Mountain requires an an Act 250 amendment as well as a permit under Section 248 (30 V.S.A Section 248). Act 250 is designed to protect Vermont's ridgelines above 2500'. Section 248 authorizes the Public Service Board to issue 'Certificates of Public Good' for electricity generating projects. The District Environmental Commission concluded that construction of the wind measurement towers and the proposed wind energy project represent material and substantial changes to existing Act 250 permits and thus require an amendment.
6 Oct 2005

http://www.windaction.org/posts?p=441&topic=Zoning%2FPlanning
back to top