[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

when your community is targeted

Get weekly updates

RSS feeds and more

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate via Stripe

Donate via Paypal

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Campaign Material

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005.

News Watch Home

Freedom wind farm in new challenge 

FREEDOM – The latest appeal of a proposed wind project on Beaver Ridge is set to get an airing tonight.

The Board of Appeals is scheduled to meet at 7 p.m. at the Congregational Church to hear arguments filed by Steve Bennett, Erin Bennett-Wade and Jeff Keating against Portland-based Competitive Energy Service’s plan to erect three, 400-foot turbines.

The Board of Appeals also has scheduled meetings for Sept. 12 and 26to continue the hearing process.

After more than a year of legal wrangling, the planning board approved Competitive Energy’s building application July 12.

But in the appeal they filed last month, Bennett, his daughter, Erin Bennett-Wade, and Keating argue that the permit should not have been issued because the company must trespass over private property to get the large turbine tower and blade pieces to the construction site.

“The decision of the (code enforcement officer) and the planning board should therefore be reversed,” the three wrote in the letter to the Board of Appeals.

The appeal is just the latest attempt to prevent the $10 million project.

Competitive Energy first applied for a building permit more than a year ago, but the company agreed to retract its original application to give the town time to develop a commercial development review ordinance, which voters approved in August of last year.

The company resubmitted its application in September of 2006 and in December the Planning Board agreed by a 5-1 vote that the project complied with the ordinance.A group of abutters, led by Bennett, appealed that decision.

In March the Board of Appeals determined the project did not meet the ordinance standards for noise and bonding and overturned the Planning Board’s ruling.

In the June election, however, residents voted to repeal the commercial development ordinance, thus opening the door for Competitive Energy to reapply for a building permit.

In the letter to the Board of Appeals, the appellants focus on three reasons the permit should be revoked, beginning with use of the narrow Sibley Road to access the construction site.

“The CEO and Planning Board did have not have authority to grant permission to the developer to expand or enlarge the Sibley Road in order to accommodate (the) equipment without proof of right, titleand interest being demonstrated by the developer,” the appellants wrote.

Moreover, the final 1,000 feet of Sibley Road has been abandoned, which means abutters own to the road’s center line, the appellants wrote. Again, Competitive Energy failed to show right, title andinterest to use the road.

“Further, the developer did not provide evidence in this application showing right, title and interest in the property to be developed,” the appellants wrote.

Competitive Energy officials have said the project will not need state Department of Environmental Protection approval, but Bennett said during the July 12 meeting that department officials have told him the project likely will need to be approved.

“The CEO and the Planning Board of the Town of Freedom have established a history of not giving local approval to a project until the appropriate state authority has already given their permission, particularly when it has concerned the DEP and environmental issues,” the appellants wrote.

“By approving this project without any demonstration by the developer that they have an approval from the DEP … the CEO and the Planning Board have acted inconsistently with their past practice.”

By Craig Crosby
Staff Writer

Kennebec Journal

5 September 2007

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial educational effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Contributions
   Donate via Stripe
(via Stripe)
Donate via Paypal
(via Paypal)


e-mail X FB LI M TG TS G Share

News Watch Home

Get the Facts
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.


Wind Watch on X Wind Watch on Facebook Wind Watch on Linked In

Wind Watch on Mastodon Wind Watch on Truth Social

Wind Watch on Gab Wind Watch on Bluesky