See FHMNA article: âTown Meeting, April 10, 2023: Voting RESULTS Article 15â
Article from The Falmouth Enterprise (link + excerpt):
âFalmouth Town Meeting Backs Select Board Denial Of Wind Developerâ
 On Monday night, April 10, Falmouth Town Meeting voted down Article 15, a citizensâ petition that would have reversed a Select Board vote to deny offshore wind developer SouthCoast Wind Energy LLC access to public lands in Falmouth Heights for further soil testing and engineering studies. âŚThe discussion carried on for an hour and a half, ⌠It ended in a 116-to-72 vote against the article. ⌠Supporters stressed that approving Article 15 is not a green light for the project. Opponents begged to differ, saying even one small step in favor of the project would lead down a slippery slope.
LETTERS to the EDITOR, pages 4-6 (with excerpts; click on links to read full texts)
On behalf of the board of directors and the 1,256 members of the Oak Grove Cemetery Association of Falmouth, I am submitting a formal objection to the proposed site for the SouthCoast Wind converter station. Located at 396 Gifford Street, the land is presently owned by Lawrence-Lynch Corporation and abuts the eastern property line of Oak Grove Cemetery. Installation of said facility here would dramatically and severely impact the cemetery; not only its peaceful and therapeutic ambiance, but its economic future as well. Oak Grove Cemetery (OGC) is a nonprofit and nondenominational 22-acre active garden cemetery. Established in 1848, it has the distinction of being one of the few cemeteries in the country to be listed on the National Registry of Historic Places by the US National Park Service. Furthermore, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts includes OGC on its Cultural Resource List, as does the Town of Falmouth on its Cultural Resource Inventory.Â
âTown Meeting Voteâ by William E. Laberis (Acapesket Road, East Falmouth)Â
Kudos to a clear majority of Town Meeting members who voted to back an even clearer majority vote of the town Select Board, âŚfor those who didnât agree with votes, donât fret. If the project is viable at all, it wonât take SouthCoast long to find a new route to bring its cables ashore. ⌠there will end up being no âobstructionâ of the wind farm construction, as your editorials have continually alleged. Instead, weâll see the preservation of the integrity of one of the townâs most prized neighborhoods, Falmouth Heights.Â
âSewerage, Wind Diggingâ by Stephen Wagner (Woods Hole Road, Woods Hole)
⌠on the one hand the select board sides with Falmouth Heights to not have a windfarm power line âlandâ in Falmouth Heights. âŚOn the other hand, no one seems to object to disturbing Falmouth Heights to bury a sewage outfall pipe and then have it terminate 1,000 to 3,000 feet off the shoreline. If the beach at the Grand Avenue/Clinton Avenue intersection is used as a reference point, 1,000 feet puts the end in nine to 10 feet of water and about twice the distance the Falmouth Harbor jetties extend into Nantucket Sound. The longer 3,000-foot distance is in about 24 feet of water and just shy of the #26 buoy off the entrance to Falmouth inner harbor. Either way, not much.
âNow What?â by Geralyn Schad (Chestnut Street, Falmouth)Â
âŚThe climate crisis is real and it is now, and Falmouth is already seeing the effects of it. So, now what? âŚwhat happens as sea level rise continues to come through our neighborhoods and Main Street, ⌠What happens when Worcester Court is flooded more times than not? âŚinaction is not an option. âŚLetâs keep this conversation going, together, until we have a plan that works for all of us! Whatâs our next move?
âYes On 15â by Peter L. Clark (Woods Hole Road, Falmouth)Â Â
âŚmy yes vote was to stand against these other factors: The degree to which ..the select board was swayed by the angry, fearful resistance of Falmouth Heights; âŚdevelopers were demonized; …we feel we should get final design guarantees before the soil sampling; âŚusing state avenues of appeal became mischaracterized (40B housing regulations were triggered by restrictive zoning); âŚwe were bombarded with false equivalencies to our wind turbine mistakes and other skewed information; âŚanimal welfare drove false issues of harm to whales and other creatures.