Anyone catch the article in yesterday's Standard Times. Headlined "Fairhaven selectmen clash over turbine bylaw, complaints", the article addresses the board debate over the the planning board proposed by-law amending the existing bylaw for siting.
In discussing the position of Selectman Espindola, the article notes:
In an interview Friday, Espindola said the existing complaints haven't been addressed, and if the town allows more turbines, "there is a certain level of complaints that could come in."
Before the new bylaw is accepted, he said he wants to hear from Board of Health members on whether they have any concerns.
"I think people need to know the order of magnitude of the complaints before we grant a bylaw that will grant certain permissions for development," he said.
NOTE: Having not been privy to the interview I know not about accuracy, intent or context. I only deal with what is printed.
The proposed amended bylaw does not create the right to allow more turbines in town. That right all ready exist under the bylaw/code provisions that exist. The proposed amendment doesn't create the grant for certain permissions for development. It is, as I understand it, an attempt to "tighten" the standards that exist.
Admittedly there are those who believe it doesn't go far enough, but I think it is in fact very important to note that the proposed by-law is an attempt to strengthen the existing bylaw. Again, maybe some want some really sharp teeth put in, and a whole lot of them, but from what I can figure out, the intent is not to loosen the standards.
Tonight should be very interesting at town hall, between the selectmen meeting and the board of health one can see much potential shall we say.
But that is tonight, right now I am trying to muddle through the whole premise of what seems the underlying concept of having to deal with the existing turbines before we amend the existing by-law. Not sure I grasp the concept.
I understand there are those who may feel the amendment doesn't go far enough. That's fine. It is worth noting that the "amendment" has been finalized yet. As such, it is just a tad premature to make a determination about its shortcomings.
You have to ask, are we going to be better off doing nothing, leaving things "as is"? Doesn't that leave the door wide open for further development? Whether the final proposal will be enough for most people remains to be seen, but that vote I would hope will be conditioned upon whether that final product is better than what we have.
Another point that seems to keep getting lost, I mean so lost that it is totally off the radar: Whatever new bylaw gets passed, even a future ban, will not alter the existing turbines one bit.
What is going to build a consensus here? Is it in fact a further ban on industrial turbines? Is it a ban on all turbines?
Are we going to end up with alternate articles? Are we going to end up with contradictory votes like the community on the Cape?
Can there be a discussion the proposed bylaw without resurrecting the battle on the two exiting turbines? I am not advocating banning discussions about the complaints regarding the existing turbines. Certainly, those matters should be addressed in formulating siting standards for future turbines. Like it or not though, there is a point as to where the discussion about the existing turbines becomes irrelevant for siting future turbines.
What I cannot not figure out is just what the end game for some is, and maybe there is a reason for that.
But I am just a spectator in this one so, I am just watching this one play out.
Well that's it for today. Be safe.
Regarding complaints: I believe that the BOH should send a survey to all the households supposedly at risk within whatever the parameters are surrounding the existing turbines. It should be a non-biased form, similar to a medical history checklist one completes at a doctor's office. This way there would be positive or neutral opinions along with the complaint forms available to the citizenry in order for bylaws and such to be debated and voted on. If people are experiencing negative health effects, in order for their complaints to be considered they should provide documentation from their physician that states the symptoms did not occur previous to the turbines being turned on and that they could be considered manifestations of wind turbine syndrome. Such proof should be provided to voters and town agencies just as the safety and environmental impact studies are.
ReplyDelete