[ 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

Wind turbine rules given nod by Town Meeting voters 

ESSEX – Bill Holton, chairman of the task force, presented the lengthy article and initiated discussion, which included changes to the wording of the proposed bylaws governing use of the turbines. It was decided, for example, that the term “wind farms” does not apply to the uses recommended for private buildings, as it has become a common term elsewhere to describe commercial and industrial uses with large numbers of turbines and lends confusion to the concepts being recommended for homes.

The turbines, which can rise to a limit of 150 feet per structure, are designed to harness energy to reduce reliance on other energy resources. They are expensive, at about $20,0000 per unit, but over time they could significantly alter dependence on commercial utilities for homeowners.

Changes to the proposal were minor and in the spirit of encouraging use, such as allowing heights to rise above taller roofs and gables where needed and to allow noise from turbines near lot lines if abutters give permission.

Jane Adams of Belcher Street rose to thank the Planning Board and committees that worked on the proposal.

“They really tried to address the issues from all sides,” she said.

“They went over this with a fine-toothed comb,” Andrew St. John of Forest Street added. “I believe this is the best match for what Essex needs.”

A question was raised about density and the possibility of these units being put to commercial use, perhaps in large numbers, on properties that have enough acreage to create a virtual forest of them at one per acre. Holton reassured voters that care had been taken to discourage this.

“We really tried to strike a balance,” he said.

Susan “Scottie” Robinson said the Planning Board had been very explicit in limiting the density to one unit per acre, following a public hearing in February where the density issues had been addressed at length.

John Guerin told voters he thought the WECS proposal represented a good compromise plan for the town, and suggested neighborhoods get together to explore the option of pooling resources to share a wind turbine to increase usage across Essex.

The measure passed by a two-thirds margin, by voice vote.

By Pamela Campbell Cleaves

Cape Ann Beacon


9 May 2008

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