Court ruling means Freedom turbines will stay
Village Soup|Ethan Andrews|May 9, 2009
The ruling upheld the findings of Freedom's code enforcement officer Jay Guber, dismissing an appeal by Steve Bennett and two other residents with land abutting the three-turbine Beaver Ridge Wind development. The suit claimed that developers Beaver Ridge Wind had not "substantially commenced" work on the project when a six-month building permit expired Dec. 26, 2007.
The ruling upheld the findings of Freedom's code enforcement officer Jay Guber, dismissing an appeal by Steve Bennett and two other residents with land abutting the three-turbine Beaver Ridge Wind development. The suit claimed that developers Beaver Ridge Wind had not "substantially commenced" work on the project when a six-month building permit expired Dec. 26, 2007.
FREEDOM: A decision May 5 by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court spells the end of local attempts to have the turbines removed, said town attorney William Kelly.
The ruling upheld the findings of Freedom's code enforcement officer Jay Guber, dismissing an appeal by Steve Bennett and two other residents with land abutting the three-turbine Beaver Ridge Wind development.
The suit claimed that developers Beaver Ridge Wind had not "substantially commenced" work on the project when a six-month building permit expired Dec. 26, 2007.
The ruling also stated there was "no evidence of bias" in the conduct of a member of the Freedom Board of Appeals who was "a member of an advocacy group supporting BRW's project."
On the matter of the building …
... more [truncated due to possible copyright]FREEDOM: A decision May 5 by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court spells the end of local attempts to have the turbines removed, said town attorney William Kelly.
The ruling upheld the findings of Freedom's code enforcement officer Jay Guber, dismissing an appeal by Steve Bennett and two other residents with land abutting the three-turbine Beaver Ridge Wind development.
The suit claimed that developers Beaver Ridge Wind had not "substantially commenced" work on the project when a six-month building permit expired Dec. 26, 2007.
The ruling also stated there was "no evidence of bias" in the conduct of a member of the Freedom Board of Appeals who was "a member of an advocacy group supporting BRW's project."
On the matter of the building permit, the court cited a 1993 case in Ellsworth in which the city's ordinance required "'significant progress of construction' be made to maintain the validity of a building permit."
In that case, the court ruled the city's ordinance was "satisfied by activities which were 'necessarily a part of the overall building project.'"
Freedom town attorney Kelly attributed the May 5 decision to the more general wording of Freedom's ordinance. Rather than "significant progress of construction," Kelly said, the ordinance requires the "work" to be "substantially commenced."
"In 'construction,' you're thinking of construction on the site," he said.
Kelly said BRW had contracts for the towers, consulting agreements, and had negotiated with Central Maine Power in addition to performing test borings on the construction site.
Guber's findings were confirmed by the Environmental Protection Agency and were upheld in a Superior Court decision before going to the Supreme Court, Kelly said, adding the ruling cannot be appealed.
A second suit to determine ownership of three roads leading to the site awaits trial in Superior Court. Kelly said the case is unlikely to go to court before next year. A ruling in Bennett's favor would not affect the fate of the turbines, he said.
Bennett said he was "disappointed but not surprised given the climate [surrounding wind development] in the state of Maine at the present."