Falmouth Wind Farm Nuisance Injunction Upheld (Again)

erial view of Wind 1 at the wastewater treatment facility on Blacksmith Shop Road in Falmouth.

Nuisance Injunction keeps Falmouth’s tormentor on ice.

***

Back in November 2013, we reported on the orders made by a Court in Falmouth, Massachusetts that pulled to a halt the operation of a couple of Vestas V82s that have been driving townspeople nuts, since they kicked into gear over 5 years ago (see our post here).

We’ve also reported on Barry Funfar, a former Marine whose own country has forsaken him and his family, by aiding and abetting the local wind power outfit to ride roughshod over the rules; and decent Americans, like Barry (see our post here).

We gave an update on the Falmouth case in March 2015:

US Wind Farm Litigation: Update on the Falmouth Case

And again in April 2015:

Wind Turbine Infrasound: an “Acoustic Trespasser”

And again in September:

Wind Farm Nuisance Case: Falmouth Zoning Board Orders Turbine Shutdown

And now, here’s the latest in a 6 year battle by locals to restore their ability to sleep in, and otherwise enjoy, their very own homes.

Appeals Board Denies Special Permit For Wind 1
The Falmouth Enterprise
Ryan Bray
14 April 2016

“The special permit has been denied.”

Those words spoken by Falmouth Zoning Board of Appeals chairman Kimberly A. Bielen on Thursday, April 14, concluded a months-long hearing on the Town of Falmouth’s request for a special permit to keep one of its two wind turbines in operation.

The appeals board voted 4-1 on April 14 in support of a draft decision to deny the special permit. Board member Edward Van Keuren voted against it.

The Massachusetts Court of Appeals ruled in February 2015 that Wind 1, which was built in 2010, requires a special permit from the appeals board in order to continue operation. The turbine has been out of service since September.

Abutters have long fought Wind 1 and Wind 2, citing negative health impacts of living near the turbines including headaches, lack of sleep, and depression.

“I’m pleased with the decision,” J. Malcolm Donald, an Ambleside Drive resident, said following the appeals board’s decision. “The facts have come out. The town tried to act above the law.”

The appeals board’s decision took into account several issues, including whether Wind 1 is an accessory structure in which the 50-foot height limitation for community service uses in public use districts applies, or whether the turbine fulfills a “municipal purpose” and is therefore exempt from the requirement. The decision also considered whether Wind 1 meets the performance standards set forth in the town bylaw, and whether adverse effects of the turbine outweigh its benefits to the community.

Among the aspects of the draft decision discussed by the board was a finding that complaints from neighbors are “credible.” The decision also found evidence of excessive noise at neighbors’ property lines during high wind speeds, as well as excessive noise during low wind speeds. These findings make mitigation on the basis of wind speeds “difficult if not impossible,” said Mark Bobrowski, special counsel to the appeals board.

The draft decision also found the overall effects of the wind turbine on the town to be “negligible.”

Mr. Van Keuren, the lone vote against the draft decision, said the town should work on preparing a mitigation plan for abutters to the turbine. At the board’s last hearing in March, Mr. Van Keuren spoke in favor of approving the project with conditions.

“I don’t see that anywhere in here,” he said of mention of a mitigation plan in the draft. The decision says the appeals board was not presented with any evidence to show that mitigation would be successful.

A copy of the draft decision was not immediately made available following the decision, as amendments made to language in the draft during the meeting were not yet finalized. Town manager Julian M. Suso declined comment yesterday, having not seen the amended draft decision.

“The people of Falmouth won,” David R. Moriarty, a resident of Lower Road, said after the decision. “They beat the local government. They beat the state government. This is a win for anyone who’s ever been impacted by wind turbines.”

Despite the board’s finding, Mr. Bobrowski said the town could come back to the appeals board again to seek a special permit for Wind 1.

“If they want to come back with a new plan, all they have to do is show material and substantial change,” he said. “It’s state law. That’s their right.”
The Falmouth Enterprise

judges-gavel

And then the hammer came down … again.

About stopthesethings

We are a group of citizens concerned about the rapid spread of industrial wind power generation installations across Australia.

Comments

  1. Good questions Natalie. Vesta’s responded to complaints in Australia with their disputed and mindless Act on Facts propaganda, continued scorning rural residents being adversely impacted and reinforce the mindlessness allowing turbines to operate in a harmful manner. Turbine engineers and I presume electrical engineers are another automated cog in this system devised to keep the green feelgood lies aloft. The decision of a nuisance injunction above is to act responsibly and Australia must, as a democratic country follow suit and stop suppressing the truth. Supporting poorly sited, poorly operated, poorly legislated and this useless industry is to support a cog-like engineered system based on bad assumptions and bad projections; which continue to cause distress and harm to many wonderful individuals. People having the courage to face reality and speak out for themselves or others about the pain and suffering endured which has been allowed and endorsed for too long is an authentic and ethically mindful meaning of acting on facts. Thanks STT you posted the Vestas farce; https://stopthesethings.com/2014/03/08/the-facts-exposed-vestas-knew-about-the-annoyance/

  2. The wind power industry is like a tick that gets into your skin and requires painful and/or toxic and dangerous methods to get rid of. The best protection is to keep it from invading in the first place. If you choose to do the dance with it, you may become exhausted. They now have an unending money tap and an army of attorneys that will even prosecute you for opposing them. What does this tell you?

  3. Is it possible that the nuisance experienced at Falmouth is something unique or similar to other “82”models turbines?
    Perhaps Vestas’ ’82s’ are as problematic as the RePower (Senvion) MM 82s installed at both Deeping, St Nicholas Uk and at Cape Bridgewater in Victoria?
    If 82 turbine models routinely cause complaints of nuisance, have subsequently installed turbines found an engineering solution?
    Any turbine engineers prepared to elaborate?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: