Draft Planning Board Minutes
Public Hearing
November 20, 2006


Chairperson Nancy Bailey Farrar called the meeting to order at 6:35. Other members present were Bill Pickford, Prentice Grassi, Kim Holmes and Drew Fales.

Nancy began the meeting by stating that it was a public hearing to review the Beaver Ridge Wind Project. She then introduced Bill Kelly, an attorney recently hired to represent the Planning Board. Mr. Kelly opened the meeting by explaining that he first wanted to determine, with all parties present, what evidence has been submitted thus far in the record before the Planning Board regarding the CES project.

He referenced the original CES application, the Anthony L. Rogers sound study and the ground lease as documents he understood to be in the record. Additionally CEO Jay Guber noted the letter from the Maine Historic Preservation Commission. Andy Price of CES also mentioned the packet of supplemental materials that was submitted to the Board on October 5th. He pointed out that they were summarized (13 items) in the October 5th Planning Board minutes.

Andy Price added that he had three documents (one for each tower), from the FAA, titled “Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation” that he wanted to add to the record. Ed Bearor, the attorney representing Steve Bennett, pointed out that the ordinance requires that any document presented to the Board be submitted 14 days prior to a hearing. Mr. Kelly stated that the intention of such a provision is to allow the public to review any technical or statistical information in advance of the hearing. He added that before the meeting was over Mr. Bearor, the Board and others could review the FAA document and decide whether more time was needed to understand it.

Mr. Kelly also noted that Ed Bearor’s letter from October 26th would be part of the record. Bill Pickford added that the October 13th letter from CES would be part of the record. Steve Bennett requested that his letter, submitted on October 26th, be noted as part of the record. Mr. Kelly asked whether there was any other material that had been presented to the Board from individuals or parties with standing on the application. He explained furthermore that the only information considered evidence for the Board’s decision comes from individuals or parties with standing before the Board. Other individuals (i.e. non-abutters) may present compelling ideas or information that might influence the Board’s process, but would not be considered as testimony of evidence.

Ed Bearor stated that it was his opinion that Mr. Kelly should not take such a narrow view of what should or should not be considered as evidence for the Board’s decision. Additionally, he asked that the question be brought to the members of the public in the room as to whether there was anyone else who thought they had submitted something for the record. There were no responses.

Nancy then asked Andy Price if he would like to speak on behalf of CES and the application. He agreed and continued by reading a prepared letter to be submitted for the record.

Next Nancy asked that just abutters and Board members address CES with questions.

Erin Bennett Wade requested she be able to read a prepared letter to the Board for the record. Her letter suggested that Kim Holmes is unable to approach this application in an unbiased manner, and she formally requested that the Planning Board remove Kim from further proceedings on the CES application. Following the letter, Nancy asked Mr. Kelly how to proceed. He indicated that this issue should be, in his view, addressed immediately. He explained that typically Kim should have an opportunity to defend herself and then the Board should vote on the matter.

Kyle Price encouraged the Planning Board to consider staying with the agenda and bypassing this “curveball.” Mr. Kelly explained that, like it or not, there is no requirement that bias issues be given any notice, and that it is common practice for such an issue to be raised at the hearing.

Nancy solicited Kim to speak on her own behalf. Kim stated that she had suggested that she get her nephew to write a letter about living near windmills. She also stated that she is “for wind power in Freedom or anywhere else.” She disputed the June 29th statement.

Bill then asked Kim whether she felt she could make an impartial decision on the application, and she answered that she believed she could. He also pointed out that all the substantive allegations came before the application was submitted. Prentice stated that he had not before considered that Kim would be incapable of making an unbiased decision, but wanted to talk it through further before a vote. Nancy suggested that perhaps anyone could have made these comments during the lengthy process. Prentice pointed out that the task before the Board now is, in many ways, less complicated than crafting the ordinance, and the question is only whether Kim can impartially decide whether the application conforms to the relative ordinances.

Kim added that her conversation with Andy Price and Richard Silkman on October 26th regarded a property owner in Troy that would be interested in wind turbines.

Prentice asked if Kim could go over the alleged statements again. She reiterated her earlier comments. She added that it was her experience that one does get used to noises in the environment.

Bill made the motion that the members of the Board not ask Kim Holmes to step down. Prentice seconded the motion. In discussion, Prentice added that, while he does have the impression that Kim is supportive of wind power and this project going forward, it is his opinion that Kim is capable of making an unbiased decision. Mr. Bearor asked that comments be taken from the public. Mr. Kelly suggested that the Board just review the letter and make their decision. The motion then passed unanimously.
Maryann Bennett asked whether the Rogers study took into account the scenario of the blades getting noisier with age. She stated that the tour guide in Hull had suggested that wind turbines do get noisier over time. Andy Price responded that Mr. Rogers is very knowledgeable on the subject and that he has indicated that they would be in compliance with the Freedom Ordinance. Maryann continued by stating that she had learned in Hull that they had put Hull 2 where they did because they couldn’t get the votes to put it closer to town. Bill Pickford asked Mr. Price whether dirty blades could create more noise. Andy said he wasn’t sure but pointed out that if they are noisier they are operating at a decreased efficiency and may warrant cleaning.

Diane Winn asked to speak next. Nancy assured her she would be able to address the Board but asked that she wait until after the abutters. Bill asked Diane if she considered herself to have standing. She replied that she does receive certified notices with the abutters. Phil Bloomstein, as an abutter then asked if Diane could represent him. To this, Bill Kelly stated that that was not suitable for the record.

Phil then followed by asking what is the remedy if the project eventually does not comply with the ordinance noise limits. Bill Kelly stated that the simple answer is that there is an enforcement plan in the ordinance. He added that the Board may choose to make a condition to an application approval that requires that the project to operate within, for example, the noise limits of the ordinance. Phil pressed on as to what would happen if the project were in non-compliance. Mr. Kelly described a scenario of how to take action in that circumstance, but added that at this point, all the Board can do is review the evidence that describes the project. Mr. Kelly continued by stating that the Town might adopt a set of performance standards for all commercial activity in town. Prentice asked if Mr. Kelly was aware of such standards in the existing ordinance, and that it was his understanding that such standards were laid out. Mr. Kelly questioned whether they were application standards or performance standards for the future. Both Jay and Nancy indicated that they were application standards.

Steve Bennett commented that he was unclear how the CEO would monitor the project and determine if the project was operating in violation of the noise standards. He asked who would pay for such monitoring. Jay Guber was asked to give his opinion and he described a possible scenario. Bill Kelly clarified that it was not the job of the Planning Board to predict potential enforcement scenarios. He continued that the job of the Board was to review the evidence and determine whether the evidence suggests that the project would or would not comply with the Ordinance.

Prentice stated that it was his opinion that the Board should consider attaching performance standards to the permit if granted.

Andy Price pointed out that it was his understanding that the noise provision in the Ordinance which allows the turbines to operate above the set limits for no more than 8 days in 365 days was included only to allow some reasonable time to correct any operational problems.

Jeff Keating asked whether the Planning Board had done a study as to the effect on property values of such development. Bill Pickford answered that the Board had not done such a study. Bill Kelly pointed out that it was not their place to do such a study.

Ed Bearor asked to speak as a representative of Steve Bennett. He referred to the Rogers study and made the point that no ambient noise readings had been taken on Beaver Ridge. He then cited the report that states that its findings assume ambient noise readings of no more than 35dB(A). He stated that there has been no evidence brought before the Board to illustrate this condition and suggested that such information is the responsibility of CES. Andy Price pointed at that the study has used conservative parameters for its conclusions and it was his opinion that CES has illustrated compliance with the applicable standards.

Ed Bearor followed by asking if CES had determined which type of turbine they planned to use. Andy Price responded that they have not. Mr. Bearor wondered how they had chosen the particular models for the Rogers study. Mr. Price answered that these models were probable choices and in use elsewhere in the Northeast. Mr. Bearor then asked if the sound report addressed the issue of whether turbines are noisier with age. Mr. Price responded that he did not believe it was mentioned in the study. Mr. Bearor asked if CES had asked Dr. Rogers to consider this factor. Mr. Price responded that they had not but had asked him to take a conservative approach to determining whether the project could meet the Ordinance standards.

Next Mr. Bearor asked how CES intends to access the property. Mr. Price answered that they intended to use the Sibley Road. When asked what improvements CES would need to make to existing roads, Mr. Price responded that they would certainly need to improve the private road on Ron Price’s property, but was unsure what other improvements would need to be made. He added that both the Best Management Practices referred to in the Ordinance, and the transport manual in the application materials would serve as references for the necessary work.

Mr. Bearor asked what CES intended to do to minimize the visual impact of the project, and cited Article 5, item 15 in the Ordinance. Andy responded that he did not believe the project would impact the scenic beauty of the area, and that he did not know how one would mitigate any such impacts. Nancy added that they would be painted an unobtrusive color.

Mr. Bearor asked how the Hull trip had been arranged. Mr. Price answered that there had been some interest and CES had agreed to organize the trip.

Mr. Bearor asked whether CES still hoped to have the Planning Board waive the 12-month permit restriction as described in the Ordinance. Mr. Price responded that they would hope to have this timeframe extended but would accept a 12-month permit if an extension was not possible.

Mr. Bearor asked about how the transmission lines would be configured. Mr. Price responded that the power company had been to the site to review the project plan and that they would intend to use the existing distribution infrastructure to run the new lines.

Mr. Bearor asked again about the delivery route to the site. Mr. Price reiterated that they plan to use the Sibley Road, and that CES would anticipate working with the appropriate authorities to select and plan a delivery program.

Dave Bennett, an abutter and Assistant Fire Chief, submitted a letter for the record expressing concerns that the Freedom Fire Department is not equipped to handle a fire in the turbine nacelle. He stated that, while the letter was from him, he had the Department’s backing. Mr. Price responded by saying that these units have relatively little combustible fluids, do not tend to catch fire, and will be equipped with a fire suppression system.

Steve Bennett asked Mr. Price to describe the fire suppression system and what substance would be used for the system. Mr. Price described the basic configuration but said that he was not sure of the specific type of chemicals used in such a system.

Erin Bennett Wade stressed that she felt it would be important to understand what chemicals would be housed in the nacelle for fire suppression prior to its installation. Mr. Price emphasized that CES would prefer not to install the fire suppression system but will consult with the Freedom Fire Department to choose a satisfactory option.

Jeff Keating asked whether the manufacturers suggested setbacks were greater than those adopted in the Ordinance. Bill Pickford suggested that the question was not relevant to the current process. Mr. Price did add that there are examples of turbines installed closer to residences and property lines than the Freedom Ordinance would allow.

Steve Bennett stated that Mark Isaacson of CES had said, at the April 3rd informational meeting, that a portion of the corner of the Sibley Road would have to “be taken.” Mr. Bennett followed that until this meeting he had not been sure that the Sibley Road would be used at all, and requested that Mr. Price elaborate on what CES intended to do. Mr. Price stated that it might be possible for the transportation company to make the Sibley Road turn as it is, but, if not, would intend to restore any necessary modifications to their original condition. Mr. Bennett asked if trees would need to be removed on the Sibley Road or if power lines would need to be temporarily disconnected. Mr. Price responded that he did not think so.

Steve Bennett submitted a letter for the record that Bill Pickford offered to read.

Nancy asked if there were any other questions or comments from abutters or Board members. None were heard.

Nancy then asked for comments from the general public.

Diane Winn asked to submit a letter titled “Concerns and Questions: Sound Pressure Frequency Estimates at Proposed Beaver Ridge Wind Farm in Freedom, ME” as part of the minutes if not the record. She then summarized her letter.

Prentice asked if Diane, having leant her sound meter to individuals on Beaver Ridge, had a sense of what the ambient noise levels were. She asked Phil to comment. He stated that levels at their lowest were about 28 dB(A), but would “very quickly and very often hit 32, 35, 37decibels” when, for example, a car drove by. Phil added that he did hope that the Board considered Diane’s comments carefully.

Nancy asked if Andy had any response to Diane’s comments in her letter. He said he would prefer to let the study stand for itself, particularly given the technical nature of her critique. He added that he had requested that Diane forward him her concerns before the meeting so that he could have solicited a response from Dr. Rogers, but that she had declined to do so.

Diane encouraged that the Planning Board ask Dr. Rogers to respond to her concerns. Bill Pickford asked Mr. Kelly if it was reasonable to ask CES to provide information from Dr. Rogers with regard to Diane’s questions about the study. Mr. Kelly stated that CES would most likely provide such information, if requested, and the Board should do so if it is their opinion that they need more information to go forward.

Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Bearor if he needed 14 days to review the FAA document. Mr. Bearor stated that he did not but merely wanted to point out that the document should have been submitted 14 days prior to the hearing.

A discussion ensued as to whether the members of the Board deem that they have enough information to close the hearing. Prentice suggested that they review the Rogers study and request additional information of the applicant at the next meeting if they see fit. Nancy said that it was her opinion that the Board has an adequate body of evidence, and that the Rogers study is adequate to address many of the sound issues.

Prentice stated that he was unsure whether he thought the Board had adequate information on the sound issues. He followed by conceding that he was not clear how far the Board need look into the sound question given the fact that the Ordinance would be enforceable to the standards therein.

Bill asked Andy Price if, based on the discussion, he felt that CES should provide supplemental information. Andy responded that he was inclined to rest on the current application. He added that Dr. Rogers considers the study to be “the best that current engineering practice can provide.” He said that it was his interpretation that the study does take into account all available factors. Prentice commented that he felt the study should include site-based information. Andy responded that he was given 10-minute wind data from the site that included wind speed and direction.

Nancy then chose to allow additional comments from the public.

Lainie Kertesz addressed the Board about rumors in Town that abutting property owners have been recently harassed. She did not choose to expound on the rumors but wanted to know if the Board would comment. Mr. Kelly interjected that it was his opinion that the Planning Board was not the body to address such concerns. Nancy concurred with this opinion.

Scott Holmes expressed his anger at the allegations brought against Kim Holmes.

Rhoda Waller addressed Andy and said that she felt CES should pursue the comments made by Diane Winn.

Kyle Price stated that he had a video from the Hull, MA trip and submitted it to the Board. He went on to say that he believed the board should consider the rights of personal property owners. He added that farms and farmland are good for the community. He stated that a study was done in the Northwest that showed there was no loss in property value associated with wind turbines.

Steve Bennett stated that it was his understanding that both the ambient noise levels and the prevailing wind direction were factored at zero in the study. He asked how the Board could continue without accounting for that information. Andy Price responded that that was a misunderstanding of the study, and he urged the Board to read the study closely. He added that he would be happy to go back to Dr. Rogers at the Board’s request.

Nancy reiterated that she felt the Rogers study was adequate and that it was her opinion that the Board had enough evidence to close the hearing.

Bill Kelly pointed out that if the Board members wanted to review the video submitted by Kyle Price, they should do so at a public forum.

Bill Pickford made the motion to close the public hearing and cease accepting evidence on the application except to the extent that there may be qualifying questions during deliberation. The motion was seconded.

Bill and Prentice engaged Diane further as to her concerns about the noise study. Mr. Kelly cautioned the Board to not go too far in considering technical information from someone who is not before the Board as an expert. Diane agreed. Phil stated that the issues Diane has raised are a concern to him.

Ed Bearor stated that it was going to be very near impossible to enforce the performance standards. Therefore, he continued, the Board should be sure that the project would meet the standards, not depend on the enforcement component.

Prentice continued to probe the questions raised by Diane Winn. He asked Diane directly if the fact that Dr. Rogers had 10-minute interval data from Beaver Ridge regarding prevailing wind data was enough to satisfy her. She responded that it was up to the Board to decide.

The Board then unanimously passed the motion on the floor.

Lastly, Mr. Kelly emphasized that the members familiarize themselves with all the evidence before them as well as the Ordinance. He added that the members are not to discuss any of the information with others outside the meeting. Finally, he briefly outlined the process for the next meeting.

Nancy adjourned the meeting at 10:05.

Respectfully Submitted,
Prentice Grassi, Secretary