“Grant of Easement and Easement Agreement”

(a) Noise Easement. Owner grants to HAYS WIND a “Noise Easement” for the right and privilege to generate and maintain audible wind turbine noise levels on and above the Property in excess of forty-five (45) dB(A) at any or all times of the night (”Noise Easement”) and in excess of fifty (50) dB(A) at any or all times of the day. Day hours shall be defined as those from 7:00AM to 11:00PM and night hours shall be defined as those from 11:00PM to 7:00AM. If, twenty percent or more of the time on an annual basis, noise levels emanating from the turbines exceed forty-five (45) dB(A) during the night or fifty (50) dB(A) during the day thirty (30) feet from the outer wall of any presently existing occupied residence on Owner’s Property, as measured by an independent professional as agreed to by both HAYS WIND and Owner and at the expense of HAYS WIND applying commonly accepted measurement instruments and standards, HAYS WIND shall take all commercially reasonable measures to reduce the turbine caused noise level 30 feet from the outer wall of the residence to forty-five (45) dB(A) during the night and fifty (50) dB(A) during the day so that such levels are exceeded less than twenty percent of the time on an annual basis. Reasonable measures to be taken by HAYS WIND may include installing landscaping, insulation or other sound barriers at agreed locations on or off Owner’s Property; installing insulation or sound deadening material in the offending turbine(s); or, changing the operation of the turbine(s) to reduce noise output.

(b) Light and Shadow Easement. Owner grants HAYS WIND a “Light and Shadow Easement” for the right and privilege to cast light from FAA required lighting and shadows of the turbine towers and rotors and Met Towers, wherever located, onto Owner’s Property. If in Owner’s reasonable judgment the light and shadows cast at any presently occupied residence on Owner’s Property substantially interfere with the use and enjoyment of the residence, HAYS WIND shall promptly investigate the nature and extent of the problem and the best and commercially reasonable methods of correcting any problems found to exist. HAYS WIND, at its expense, with agreement of Owner, will then promptly undertake reasonable measures such as tree planting or installation of awnings, draperies or other window treatments necessary to mitigate the effects of the offending light or shadow.

(c) Television Reception. Owner grants to HAYS WIND the right to test television signal strength and reception at any residence on the Property before and at reasonable intervals after HAYS WIND builds the Project. In the event that existence or operation of the Project significantly interferes with or degrades television signal reception at any residence on the Property, HAYS WIND shall at its expense, with the full cooperation of Owner, promptly investigate and within a reasonable time find reasonable ways to correct any significant degradation of television signal reception actually caused by the Project. Reasonable correction measures may include installation of television signal boosters serving the general area of the Wind Farm, installation of antenna or signal booster equipment on the Property, installation of and payment for cable, dish TV or similar devices serving the Property, or repair or replacement of television receivers.

(d) Construction Impact. Despite efforts to control dust and noise during construction of the Project, HAYS WIND recognizes that some neighbors of the Wind Farm due to their location next to roads or construction areas may be inconvenienced by construction noise and dust. Additionally, construction traffic in some areas may inconvenience Owner or require Owner to travel by unaccustomed routes to avoid construction traffic. As stated in HAYS WIND’s application for a Conditional Use Permit with Ellis County, HAYS WIND will make all reasonable efforts to coordinate activities in public roadways with the Ellis County Public Works Department in order to minimize any disruption or inconvenience to the public.

(e) Should Owner experience effects, in addition to what is defined above, that Owner reasonably believes to be in excess of industry standards for such effect, Owner shall promptly notify HAYS WIND of such fact and allow HAYS WIND 90 days thereafter in which to investigate the nature and extent of the problem and the best methods of correcting any problems found to exist in excess of industry standards. HAYS WIND, at its expense and with the agreement of Owner (which shall not be unreasonably withheld), will promptly undertake such measures as are commercially reasonable to mitigate the problematic effects.

(f) Owner hereby acknowledges that HAYS WIND intends to install subject to approval of the Board of Ellis County Commissioners wind turbines located as close as, but no closer than, 2000 feet from an existing occupied residence on Owner’s Property. Owner’s approval of this Agreement further confirms Owner’s consent thereto.

(g) Owner hereby agrees not to engage in any activity on or outside the Property that might cause material interference with the construction, installation, maintenance or operation of the Project.

6. Release. Owner, in consideration of the terms listed in Exhibit B, the sufficiency of which Owner hereby acknowledges, does individually and for each of Owner’s successors and assigns, releases and forever discharges HAYS WIND LLC, and each of its past, present and future attorneys, principals, agents, representatives, insurers, partners, predecessors and successors in interest, assigns and all other persons, firms, corporations, and other entities (hereinafter referred to collectively as “HAYS WIND”), of and from any and all past, present or future claims, demands, obligations, actions or causes of action, at law or in equity, whether arising by statute, common law or otherwise, whether for compensatory or punitive damages, of whatsoever kind or nature (hereinafter referred to collectively as “Claims”), including without limitation, claims which are known and unknown, claims for known and unknown damages, claims for anticipated and unanticipated damages, and claims for anticipated and unanticipated consequences of damages on account of, arising out of or in any other way related to the Project.

8. Covenants Running with the Land. The parties hereby agree that the covenants and agreements contained in this Agreement touch and concern the real estate described in this Agreement and are expressly intended to, and shall, be covenants that run with the land, and accordingly shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and the successor owners of the Property and the Project.

Download “Wind Farm Neighbor Agreement”

Thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Wendy Todd. I am from Aroostook County. I am a resident of Mars Hill and live approximately 2600 feet from the Mars Hill Wind Project. I am here today to offer testimony that residents around the project are suffering. There are 18 families that I know of that are negatively impacted on a regular basis from the noise, strobe effect and shadow flicker from the turbines. Most of these 18 families live less than 3000 feet from the turbines. There is no one that I know of from 425 East Ridge Road to 212 Mountain Road that does not agree that there are issues with noise. Issues that are changing the way residents view life around the mountain. We have formed a group called the Mountain Landowners Association in an attempt to share information and come up to speed on the issues of living this close to turbines of this size and generation. We have had to struggle through massive amounts of documentation from the Internet and from other towns that are dealing with the same issues.

We have tried and I believe have succeeded in finding the answers to many of our questions but it has all been from our own efforts. We have received very little help from our town or the company that sited the windmills. Nick Archer with the Maine Department of Environmental Protection has been a helpful resource, but I believe even he would say that the State has a ways to go to educate itself on the pros and cons of wind turbines and how to best site a project. It would be a recommendation from our group for the State to look to California and other states in the nation that have been dealing with these issues for years, as well as other countries who have gleaned a great deal of information from years of studies, to help form guidelines to protect not only the land but the residents that live nearby proposed projects. We should learn from those who have gone before us. We shouldn’t have to reinvent the wheel.

Let me make it very clear that no one in our group is opposed to wind turbines. We are for alternative, renewable forms of energy. Some from our group supported this project from the beginning. Some hated the project from the beginning and still do. Some were on the fence, but because of the points of renewable energy, landowner rights and proposed benefits for our town, county and state were swayed to sacrifice precious views of Mars Hill Mountain and our quiet with the disruption of the construction phase of the project. Nobody really knew or realized what was about to happen and how it would change our lives.

My husband and I moved to Southern Maine after we were married. We left for the adventure and for good paying jobs. We lived in Portland for 2 years then purchased our first home in Buxton, Maine. That house sat about 40 feet from the edge of Route 22 (a major route leading to/from Portland) and was directly in the path of the approach to and from Portland International Jetport. The noise at that little house could reach unbelievable levels, but somehow we learned to deal with them. After 10 years of planning and saving we moved back home to Mars Hill where I was born and raised. The desire was to get away from the craziness of the corporate world, the noise that surrounded us and to seek solitude and a place to raise our children.

My family has owned land on Mars Hill Mountain for almost 100 years. My father and grandfather were potato farmers. I learned from a very young age to have a close connection with the land from my parents. They allowed us to carve out a small lot in the center of the family farm and we began the process of building our dream home.

Part of that process was to ask questions about the proposed wind farm. We learned early on that the town residences would not have an opportunity to vote on this $55 million dollar project. I attended the Evergreen / UPC TIF meeting in Mars Hill, in November of 2004. At the meeting the question of noise was posed. The answers are documented. Basically the noise was described as silent, nearly silent and you would have to be 500 feet or less from the site to hear it. Printed documents and the UPC, Evergreen Web site stated that, “You will not be able to hear any noise at all at the bottom of the mountain.” The morning after the TIF meeting I was at the town office and got to speak directly with Peter Gish from UPC. I told him where my parents lived and described where we hoped to build and asked whether noise would be an issue. He said, “You won’t hear anything from these things.” Our town manager confirmed that this was true because he had visited a site in Canada and heard very little noise being emitted from the site.

Perrin and I on a visit to PEI took a drive to the north shore to stand under the turbines there and found them not to be intrusive. We felt we had enough proof on the issue of noise that we went ahead and built our home. We figured that if we could deal with the aesthetics and the construction phase that we would be fine. If we had known then what we know now or if we had been made aware of the noise section of the permit with the sound analysis from RSE, we would never have built where we did. The report from RSE clearly stated that some residences would experience noise levels at or above DEP level limits. My parents own over 200 acres of land, many of which are much farther away from the turbines.

Clear cutting began in the fall of 2005. I believe the figure is 150 acres of land that was cleared. Heavy equipment started the process of developing roads and in April of 2006 blasting started. We watched with heavy hearts as the North end peak was literally blown away. No one ever notified us of the blasting, but our houses shook, silverware and dishes rattled, and sheet rock dust fell as it took place. Soon the huge trucks arrived with the components of the wind turbines. Traffic was interrupted which made daily comings and goings difficult. The cranes arrived and the towers began to rise. People came from all over to watch. Cars stopped in the middle of the road to view the spectacle. People repeatedly left their vehicles to take pictures with not even a thought to oncoming traffic. Residents with small children started keeping them inside due to the uncertainty of the increased traffic.

In early December #9 turbine was turned on and some residents knew immediately that there was something wrong. The noise from just that one turbine was unbelievable. That is when residents began to make calls, first to UPC, then to the town and then to the DEP.

I’m not sure why, but we are not getting used to the noise levels from the wind farm. In an attempt to find out why, we started researching the topic on the internet and I finally called a noise expert out of Massachusetts who was able to instruct us on why the noises that come from wind turbines are so offensive. I have those documents if any one would like to see them.

Are there other issues with wind turbines? Yes. Most of which were discovered after the wind turbines were already in place. Noise is the largest problem but shadow flicker and strobe effect are close behind for some of the residents. The rising and setting sun pierce through the blades of the turbines creating a strobe like effect in some of the resident’s homes. For some it is blinding, even the best curtains and blinds can’t remove the total effect. Some find that it makes them dizzy and disoriented; others find that it can cause headaches and nausea. It is only for 20 to 40 minutes a day (when the sun is shining) depending on the season of the year, but it is still an intrusion into the homes and lives of the people who live near the site. The strobe effect can be similar to the sun cutting through the trees as you drive (sun — shadow — sun — shadow).

Shadow flicker is when the shadow from the blades passes over the land and homes of people who live within a mile of the site. It too can make people feel disoriented. Some people complain that as they drive over a road that is being shaded that the motion draws them toward it (left or right) they find themselves veering into the wrong lane.

Residents are very concerned that the value of their properties has been greatly diminished. This brings fear to many of us because we have tied up most of our resources in our homes. What will there be for our children? Is it the same as it would have been before the turbines? Some residents have said that their way of life has changed so dramatically since the project that they would move if they thought for 1 minute that they could recover their investment. Please, keep in mind that these are people who dreamed of living behind the mountain. Who sacrificed many things to build the homes of their dreams with no intention of ever leaving. Imagine being driven from your home by a neighbor. Imagine feeling like you have no recourse and that there is nothing you can do about it.

Other issues that keep coming up are the risk of the turbines catching fire (consider fighting a fire 200 feet off the ground.) If there was a dry spell and the mountain was to catch on fire many of us would lose our homes.

Another issue is the potential for ice and snow build up on the blades in the wintertime, which during the melting process can be thrown hundreds of feet. (two teens at Big Rock ski resort witnessed an ice throw this winter)

There have even been documented cases of improperly anchored turbines falling over or collapsing and of blades breaking off and being flung. These are very rare cases but that doesn’t make residents feel any better about the possibility. Some of these residents are only about 700 feet from turbine #1, which sits very close to East Ridge Road. So close that if it fell toward the road it would likely be in the road. Also posing a danger are the blades that are likely to break off and be thrown into nearby yards and homes.

We are only 5 months into the operation of this site. We are learning something new almost every day. The Mountain Landowners Association is requesting that the State of Maine put a moratorium on all siting of Wind Farms in the state until the issues at Mars Hill are reviewed and resolved.

My husband says . . . It is sad when corporations are free to prey on small towns and small town government. He believes that corporations should not be able to push and bully their way into an area to take clear advantage of the inhabitants by withholding information, by leading them to believe fabrications, stretching the truth in order to achieve corporate goals at the suffering of Maine residents.

We have been asked by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection to remain patient while the sound analysis is being conducted and reviewed. Resource Systems Engineering (RSE) of Brunswick, Maine is performing the sound analysis. They (RSE) also happen to be contracted by UPC/Evergreen (the company responsible for the Mars Hill Wind project). This fact raises questions within our group as to whether the analysis will be fair. We have been assured by the DEP that this is a fair process. Unfortunately we have become skeptical of many things. Both the DEP and UPC have told us, that this could take a long time to resolve. The residents of Mars Hill will try to remain patient but we want for everyone to know that our patience is growing short with no hope of resolution in sight.

Originally posted at Ellis County (Kan.) Environmental Awareness Coalition.

“The concept of public welfare is broad and inclusive. … The values it represents are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary. It is within the power of legislature [to have] determined that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well balanced as well as carefully patrolled. …

“The County found that placing the complexes of wind farms, of the size and scope necessary to accomplish their intended purpose, would have a dramatic, and adverse, effect upon all of the general welfare issues found in the comprehensive plan. …

“A review of the certified record finds repeated documents and minutes of meetings, both of the commissioners themselves and of public hearings, wherein the pros and cons of wind farms were discussed.

“The Court finds there is substantial evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the conclusions reached by the County.

“[I]n the County’s denial of placing wind farms in the entire county[,] [t]he County didn’t take any existing rights away but only refused to expand the existing rights including wind rights.”

Download “Wabaunsee County Ruling”

Download “Guidelines for landowners”

Contents include:

• Key reasons why political leaders and regulators are facing problems when attempting to deal with wind energy
• Activities underway in Kansas illustrate the problems associated with attempts to force greater use of wind energy
• Facts about wind energy that are often ignored by federal, state and local officials when considering wind energy policies or facilities
  1. Electricity produced by wind turbines is lower in quality and value than electricity produced from reliable generating units
  2. Building wind turbines will not replace the need for building reliable, dispatchable generating capacity
  3. Published information on the cost of electricity from wind per kWh generally is not valid or reliable
  4. True costs of electricity from wind are much higher than often admitted because important elements of cost are ignored
  5. Local economic benefits of “wind farms” are generally exaggerated
  6. Environmental benefits of wind energy are typically overstated
  7. Wind Energy Advocates try to ignore adverse environmental, ecological, scenic and property value impacts of “wind farms”
• Additional comments on Kansas wind energy evaluation activities
  1. The Governor’s charge to the KCC
  2. Makeup of the KEC may not give adequate protection of taxpayer and electric customer interests
  3. Is wind really a valuable “energy resource” for Kansas?
  4. Do “community wind” projects make sense for electric customers and taxpayers?
  5. Insidious effects of “Renewable Portfolio Standards” (RPS)
• Lessons for all government officials faced with wind energy issues

Download “Stretching or Ignoring Facts and Making Unwarranted Assumptions When Attempting to Justify Wind Energy”

A recent report by the “Kansas Energy Council” illustrates how government officials in many state capitals and in Washington create bad government policy by relying on misinformation, bowing to lobbyists, and failing to look at the true costs and benefits of their proposed actions and recommendations….

Download “Wind Farm Misconceptions”