[ 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

Wait and see for wind farm; BNE wants to see votes for Colebrook plans 

Credit:  by Quannah Leonard, Special to the Citizen's News, www.mycitizensnews.com 17 May 2011 ~~

PROSPECT – The company that wants to build the first commercial wind farm in the state will see how the Connecticut Siting Council votes on its two wind projects in Colebrook before it decides whether to appeal the denial of its wind project in Prospect.

Last week, the council voted 6 to 2 to reject a proposal by BNE Energy Inc. of West Hartford, citing “substantial visual effects.” The company wanted to install two 1.6-megawatt wind turbines on a 67.5-acre parcel at 178 New Haven Road.

The council’s decision can be appealed within 45 days from the date of notification.

BNE President Gregory Zupkus said the company is reviewing its options, adding it is important to see how the council judges the Colebrook projects.

Zupkus said the council’s vote was a blow to the Prospect project, and it sends the wrong message to the wind industry. Connecticut is the only state in New England without a large commercial wind project, he said.

BNE remains encouraged with the board’s new leadership, and the remarks made by Chairman Robert Stein, who opposed denying the project. Stein stated he believes the facility would not affect public health or safety.

BNE is proposing to build six wind turbines on two sites in Colebrook. The council is expected to take up draft findings for both projects Thursday. A final vote is expected June 2 for petition No. 983, and June 9 for No. 984.

The council’s decision in the Prospect case only cited visual effects as sufficient reason to deny.

However, in its five-page opinion, the council evaluated the project on its impact on the natural environment, public health and safety, and scenic, recreational and cultural values related to quality of life. It concluded those effects are in conflict with state policies and are sufficient reason to deny the project.

Members who rejected the Prospect project cited the size of the turbines and proximity to neighbors.

In a straw vote May 2, members suggested the facility would be out of place in a residential area.

By BNE’s numbers, 51 homes are within 2,000 feet of the proposed project, and some 860 buildings, mostly homes, are within 1.25 miles. According to numbers by Save Prospect Corp., a local group opposed to the project, the project would be within .6 of a mile of 234 homes.

While the sites in Prospect and Colebrook are different, opponents to the wind farms say the issues in the Prospect case will reach north to the rural community of Colebrook.

Save Prospect Corp. President Tim Reilly said the council mainly cited the mass of the turbines and visual effects, and he would fully expect that same issue to crop up in the Colebrook case.

He has visited the sites and said beautiful homes are built on the side of a hill, and the soaring towers of the turbines is what they will look at, and listen to.

He said the council gave a denial, but missed out on strong evidence illustrating an impact to quality of life.

Attorney Nicholas Harding, who represents FairWindCT, said the council tried to craft a decision very narrowly to apply only to Prospect, but it will have meaning for Colebrook.

He said Colebrook is a much harder site than Prospect in many ways, such as BNE’s plan to fill in 10,000-square-feet of wetlands, a historic property being evaluated by the state Historic Preservation Office for effects by the turbines and about 15 to 20 homes sandwiched between the north and south sites.

The area is zoned residential, Harding said. He said Colebrook has no traffic light and no bank, and the turbines would stand taller than City Place 1, a 38-story skyscraper in Hartford.

The council concluded in the Prospect application that noise is a serious public-health concern, and the council is cautious about noise impacts to a densely-populated neighborhood close to the proposed site.

In Colebrook, the proposed turbines are much closer to properties, making the noise impact greater, Harding said.

The distance from one of the turbines to the closest abutting property line on Flagg Hill Road would be 140 feet, according to BNE’s numbers.

“Those people are going to be hammered with noise in both directions,” Harding said.

Joyce Hemingson, president of FairWindCT, said a denial on the Colebrook petitions is looking more hopeful than when the process started. The council typically has a 97 percent approval rating.

“We didn’t know what we were up against,” Hemingson said. “I think they have taken everything that is brought before them very seriously.”

Source:  by Quannah Leonard, Special to the Citizen's News, www.mycitizensnews.com 17 May 2011

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