A prominent point of contention was the appeal related to Wind Turbine Two, spearheaded by Attorney Alexander Watt, who argued that the Andersons, residents affected by the turbines, were not properly notified about the building permit for Wind Turbine Two. Watt insisted that the town’s failure to provide actual notice to the Andersons regarding Wind Turbine Two’s permit raised questions about the fairness of the 30-day appeal period. He emphasized that knowing about Wind Turbine One did not obligate the Andersons to investigate Wind Turbine Two.

Attorney Christopher Senny, representing other concerned residents, echoed these concerns and highlighted the enforcement request regarding Wind Turbine Two. He pointed to the Supreme Judicial Court’s earlier ruling that required a special permit for such installations, arguing that the town’s actions were inconsistent with district use regulations. Senny noted that Linda Okagawa, a resident living near the turbines, only learned of Wind Turbine Two after the 30-day appeal window, further complicating the town’s position.

The meeting also brought to light the severe health complaints from residents like Linda Okagawa, who attributed her headaches, ear pain, and mental confusion to the turbine operations. Okagawa described an instance on November 11, 2015, when the noise forced her to leave her home for relief. Her testimony emphasized the perceived failure of the special permit process to adequately investigate and mitigate these impacts. Similarly, Christie Funfar read a statement from Barry Funfar, who criticized the town’s handling of the wind power initiative, alleging deceit in the construction of the turbines. Funfar claimed that the larger-than-expected turbines had adversely affected residents’ well-being and called for Wind Turbine Two to be shut down, as was done for Wind Turbine One.

The legal principle of “laches” was frequently debated, with attorneys and board members discussing whether the delay in filing appeals against Wind Turbine Two was reasonable. It was argued that waiting nearly five years to contest the project could invalidate claims due to the detrimental effects on ongoing projects and funding sources. The complexities of the notification process were scrutinized, with questions about whether the town’s voluntary notices to nearby residents were sufficient to establish constructive notice.

Further complicating the issue was the lack of judicial determination for Wind Turbine Two, unlike Wind Turbine One, which had been shut down by court order. The board grappled with whether residents had standing to challenge Wind Turbine Two’s operations, especially in light of the alleged health impacts and the town’s previous assurances that a special permit was unnecessary.

Public comments contributed to the nuanced debate, with residents expressing their frustrations and concerns about the turbines’ effects on their lives. Some speakers questioned the adequacy of the town’s public notification and the board’s responsibility in protecting residents’ interests. Others raised questions about the legal obligations and potential remedies available to address the ongoing issues.

As the meeting concluded, the board faced the challenging task of balancing legal precedents, resident concerns, and procedural requirements in determining the future of Wind Turbine Two. The decision, due by December 23rd, will likely have implications for zoning enforcement and the ongoing relationship between the town and its residents.