GRAFTON — Following more than an hour of discussion on an article regarding proposed commercial wind development here, voters at Grafton's annual Town Meeting on Tuesday overwhelmingly agreed to table it “as if it never existed,” according to Moderator Bill Kearns.
Many voters later said the the article struck them as unclear or ambiguous.
In contrast, Article 4 passed unanimously. It allows Grafton residents to “vote on any issue regarding commercial wind energy production facility(ies) project or the regulation of such by Australian ballot.” A resident explained that a 2011 amendment to the state law allows discussion on a vote on the same day as the vote.
Article 3 asked, “Shall the Selectboard continue conversations with Meadowsend Timberlands and their developer, Atlantic Wind (Iberdrola), for the purpose of collecting information to share with the voters of Grafton? Once the MET tower data has been collected, and the potential effect on Grafton has been reviewed, the voters of Grafton will hold a non-binding vote to accept or deny the proposed project. The outcome of that vote will be sent to the Public Service Board.”
But voters said they did not understand what a “yes” or a “no” vote would set in motion.
Selectboard chair Alan Sands clarified that a “yes” vote would direct the Selectboard to continue gathering and disseminating information from Iberdrola on the Stiles Brook project; a “no” vote would signal that voters wanted to weigh in on the data and officially convey their views to the PSB.
He also discussed legislation, S.30, now headed to the Senate Appropriations Committee, which could change the way that process works. S.30 requires taking into account a town's plan as well as the will of the electorate in deciding whether to site such a project.
“But that's not how it stands now,” he said.
Resident Anna Vesely observed that the Selectboard is already tasked with performing due diligence on projects affecting the town - “You do so already” - and said she didn't see why this project should require the article.
Addressing voters who wanted to know what benefits the wind project might bring here, Sands said “There could be a sum of money from the project paid to the town, and a sum of money paid to the Board of Education.”
But, he emphasized, gathering sufficient data from the MET (meteorological) towers will take up to a year, and Iberdrola needs that data in hand to decide if it wants to build here.
Iberdrola likely would not share that data, Sands said.
Approximately an hour into this discussion, resident Keith Hermiz said that he still wanted more information about the project, and that Article 3 was essentially unclear. He moved to table the article, and this was promptly seconded.
Kearns changed the motion to “passing over” Article 3, one person opposed, and the motion carried.