DCP Down! The early resistance: September 2011

Back in the mists of time,  DCP Midstream filed its first application with MDEP, following the Searport height elevation change.   Below, a copy of  Astrig Tanguay's September 9, 2011 letter to the Maine DEP, one of a number sent by local citizenry who, shortly after, coalesced into Thanks But No Tank!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Astrig Tanguay

Searsport Shores Campground

216 West Main Street

Searsport, ME 04974

Sept 9, 2011

Ms. Robin Clukey Project Manager

Maine Department of Environmental Protection

106 Hogan Road

Bangor, Maine 04401

Re DCP Midstream Applications L-025359-TG-B-N and L-025359--A-N.

Dear Ms Clukey

 here are our comments on the DCP midstream LPG tank proposal. 

Please contact me if you have any questions. My tel# is 548-6059

-----------------------------------------

Ms. Robin Clukey Project Manager

Maine Department of Environmental Protection

106 Hogan Road

Bangor, Maine 04401.

Re DCP Midstream Applications L-025359-TG-B-N and L-025359--A-N.

Dear Ms Clukey

We are writing concerning the applications by DCP Midstream Partners LP to build and

operate an LPG terminal at Mack Point in Searsport, Maine. DCP proposes a 137-foot

high storage tank, 202 feet in diameter. 

We are owners of Searsport shores campground and the DCP tank as proposed would 

intrude into our scenic areas. This is not good for our business which brings many 1,000s of 

guests. And we believe that Maine DEP should consider the wellbeing of existing businesses 

before permitting a new one that could harm them including us.

The proposed tank farm would be visible from most of the part of Sears Island including the part under

conservation easement. The other third of the island faces directly on Mack Point and is

also heavily used by pedestrians for scenic appreciation and other recreational

purposes. Because the existing tank farms are lower than the horizon from the island,

they fit harmoniously into the environment’s viewshed and do not intrude into ours

DCP-Midstream’s proposed facility, by contrast, would be tall enough to emerge into

numerous protected scenic viewsheds of the bay region, including our campground.

It would violate the Natural Resources Act’s and Site Location of Development Act’s

requirements that a developer fit its development “harmoniously into the existing natural

environment”.

As detailed below, we urge the department to require the applicant to design its

proposal facility to fit as harmoniously as possible into the existing environment, by

limiting the elevation of the proposal LPG tank to a height similar to existing tank farms

of Mack Point, even if it requires two tanks instead of one. If the applicant declines to

amend its plan to be consistent with site law and the NRPA then the Department needs

to reject the application to protect irreplaceable resources that are presently generating

substantial economic activity in the area, including our business which also supports many

other businesses

Our campground like many other sectors of Penobscot Bay area economies are closely tied to the 

natural character of the bay region. Quality of life, particularly scenic quality, are major

selling points for hundreds of area businesses from bed & breakfasts to cruise ships,

that employ and support thousands of area citizens and bring many more thousands to

enjoy Penobscot Bay

DCP Midstream and the Department have not as far as we can tell, given

sufficient consideration to the potential that the project, as proposed , will cause

permanent degradation of protected scenic vistas both near and distant from the

proposed project.

In the application before you, the developer proposes to exploit a recent Searsport

ordinance raising height limitation in that town. However, state laws, including the

Natural Resources Protection Act and the Site Location of Development Act, will trump

municipal ordinance when a dispute arises over protecting significant scenic resources

of local state or national significance , including those outside of the town of Searsport.

The proposed configuration would irretrievably degrade the unbroken natural skylines

that exist within most of the recreational and tourism areas of Searsport, Stockton

Springs, Islesboro, Deer Isle and other locations at greater distance . These are not

replaceable scenic assets.Many are very well known and reachable only by footpaths.

The existing tank farms are not visible from most scenic views including ours. In those area

views where they are visible, the existing tank farms are nestled below a hill and do not rise above the horizon, as DCP’s proposed facility would.

Because the applicant’s reasons for preferring a facility that does violate scenic

protection rules and statutes appear to be simply higher profits and not geographic

limitations or other necessity, the Department needs to require alternatives of either a

single smaller tank or two smaller tanks to meet its plans

The Site Location of Development Act 38 §481 et seq. (Site Law) applies to the DCP

Midstream oil tank proposal. The discretion of the Department must prevail over municipal

ordinance when it comes to determining whether a development project will cause irreparable

unnecessary impact to irreplaceable scenic aesthetic, recreational or navigational uses to be

unreasonable.

We strongly believe that in this case, the Department must find that the applicant has a

practicable alternative that would meet the project purpose and not result in adverse

impacts to existing scenic, aesthetic, recreational uses. Therefore, if the applicant fails

to adopt such an alternative , the Department must find that the impacts of this project

on scenic, aesthetic, recreational and navigational uses are unreasonable.

Sincerely

Astrig

Astrig and Steve Tanguay

Searsport Shores Campground

Searsport ME

DCP Midstream drops plan for Searsport supertank!

DCP is so....yesterday!
Determined Mainers have prevailed against this well-heeled energy giant, convincing the town of Searsport's planning board that  DCP midstream's proposed supertank would be unsafe for the people and  bad for Penobscot Bay.

READ ALL ABOUT IT

Pen Bay Pilot

Portland Press Herald

Bangor Daily News (archived)

More info  tbnt.org and PBW coverage

DCP Midstream drops plan for Searsport supertank!

DCP is so....yesterday!
Determined Mainers have prevailed against this well-heeled energy giant, convincingt the town of Searsport's planning board that  DCP midstream's proposed supertank would be unsafe for the people and  bad for Penobscot Bay.

READ ALL ABOUT IT

Pen Bay Pilot

Portland Press Herald

Bangor Daily News

More info go to tbnt.org  and penbay.org

Searsport: DCP tank proposal unsafe, too noisy.

From: Waldo Village Soup, Belfast, Maine

Searsport tank deliberations of March 27 - 28  (More delibs  April 3rd and 4th)

Board finds tank proposal unsafe, too noisy

By Tanya Mitchell and Ben Holbrook | Mar 29, 2013ervices

Share

SEARSPORT — In the first night of Planning Board deliberations aimed at deciding whether to deny or approve an application for a 22.7 million gallon liquefied petroleum gas storage tank at Mack Point, the proposed project hit a snag.

Just before the Searsport Planning Board wrapped up its deliberations Wednesday night, March 27, the board took two votes in relation to how the proposal from Colorado-based DCP Midstream fits the town Land Use Ordinance, the board made two unanimous decisions — one stating the buildings and structures proposed for the industrial zone were permitted uses under the ordinance, but that portions of the project proposed for the neighboring commercial district were not.

Thanks But No Tank attorney Steve Hinchman addresses the Searsport Planning Board Wednesday night, March 27. At right is Anglers Restaurant attorney Ed Bearor.

Members of the audience appeared stunned by the finding — Searsport resident David Italiaander was one of them.

"They just voted this down," he said.

But earlier in the deliberations, Searsport Planning Board attorney Kristin Collins said even if the board finds reason to deny the application at any point in the process, the board must still complete the entire deliberation process.

"It could be overturned," said Collins.

Planning Board Member Lee Ann Horowitz expressed concern that the board may not be qualified to make a decision on such an involved proposal that has included briefs and testimony from attorneys for the applicant and project opponents, all of which offer the board very different interpretations of the project as it relates to town ordinances.

"I think this is way out of our league," Horowitz said. Horowitz went on to be the one vote against the motion stating the board has jurisdiction to consider the project.

"This is going to get challenged further," said Planning Board Chairman Bruce Probert.

"You've got to take a stab at it so someone else can tell us we're wrong," said Collins.

After the board votes on the rest of the standards set forth in the town’s land use ordinance, the board will move on to consider the merits of the project based on specifications in the site planning and shoreland zoning ordinances, Probert said. The final decision to either approve or deny the application will be made based on the consideration of those ordinances as well as the 18 performance standards the board must consider as they relate to the proposal, which address every aspect of the project from its impacts on air quality, and preserving and enhancing the landscape to lighting and visual buffering.

The first 90 minutes of the deliberations included oral arguments from interested parties, including James Kilbreth, attorney for DCP Midstream, Steve Hinchman, attorney for the opposition group Thanks But No Tank, Italiaander, who spoke about the market conditions for propane and suggested the project would likely be used as an export facility, and Ed Bearor, attorney for Anglers Restaurant.

March 28 deliberations

The meeting resumed Thursday, March 28, as planning board members resumed assessing whether the proposed LPG tank application meets the standards for the town’s land use ordinance.

Deliberations began with board members assessing whether DCP’s tank application met the standards for minimum lot size for commercial and industrial zones, property set back lines and road frontage. Board members voted 5-0 that those standards were met.

However, board members raised concerns with a number of the other standards including whether the project is in conformity with the town’s comprehensive plan.

Board member Mark Bradstreet questioned whether two votes could be taken on the issue: one vote for whether the project meets the standard for complying with the comprehensive plan in the commercial zone and a separate vote for whether it meets the standard in the industrial zone.

The motion to vote on each zone separately was approved before a motion was made that the application does not meet the standard for the commercial zone. Board members noted the fact that there are industrial uses — administrative office building, access road, fire water tank and pump— sited within the commercial zone.

A motion stating the application did not comply with the town’s comprehensive plan for the commercial zone was approved by a vote of 5-0.

The motion that the project does comply with the town’s comprehensive plan within the industrial zone was approved by a vote of 5-0.

Two issues were raised under performance standards regarding vibration and noise.

Under the land use ordinance, with the exception of vibration occurring during the construction or demolition of a building, the vibration will not be transmitted outside the lot where it originates.

As discussion began regarding whether there would be an issue of vibration being transmitted off of the property, board members questioned how to assess any potential impact. Without a study from the town, board members said they would have to rely on DCP’s application, which states there will be no vibration transmitted outside the lot, in order to rule on whether the application meets the standard.

The board eventually voted 5-0 that the standard was met before tackling the issue of “offensive noise.”

The land use ordinance states that no offensive noise will be transmitted beyond lot lines that would cause an unreasonable disturbance to neighboring residential properties.

That issue of “unreasonable” noise was questioned by board members who asked how to define what “unreasonable” would mean.

Collins explained that unreasonable noise could be considered noise that would result in complaints from neighbors; at which point Bradstreet pointed out that trucks waiting in the queue line at the facility could disturb neighbors.

Board member Brian Callahan made a motion that the application did not meet the noise standard, citing the fact he did not feel there was adequate buffering, especially where trucks would queue up, to mitigate noise.

He suggested the most effective barrier to mitigate noise would be to build a fence similar to the ones used on highways to reduce vehicle noise to nearby neighborhoods. However, Callahan was not in favor of such a fence saying they “look like hell.”

Board member George Kerper and Probert added that there were other noise issues to consider with the project in regards to use of the flare and whether the facility doors would be open in the summer, which could generate additional noise. It was also noted that weather conditions, like wind, could carry noise to nearby residences.

The board eventually passed a motion that the noise standard was not met based on concerns regarding truck noise, the flare, noise from the facility, weather conditions and the fact that a buffer cannot be put across the facility access road to mitigate any noise.

That motion passed by a vote of 5-0.

The final portion of the application the Board found objectionable Thursday was whether the project would result in unsafe or unhealthful conditions. Safety has consistently been an issue raised by board members and the general public throughout the course of the public hearings held in regards to the project.

While Bradstreet acknowledged the application meets the technical standards of the land use ordinance, he said the project is unsafe because it is too close to residences.

Probert agreed and said he was concerned with the blast zone radius if the tank were to ignite and that while the risk was low of a catastrophic event occurring the “consequence is tremendously high.”

Board members approved a motion that the application does not meet the standard for not creating unsafe and unhealthful conditions by a vote of 5-0.

Following the meeting, DCP spokeswoman Roz Elliott said in an email to The Republican Journal said that the company is “disappointed” by the board’s initial rulings, but will wait for the deliberations to conclude.

“We will await the remainder of the deliberations and then evaluate our options,” Elliott said in the email.

Members of the opposition group “Thanks, But No Tank,” were pleased with the outcome of Thursday night’s deliberations stating in a press release “unlike questions of zoning, nothing can be done at any town meeting (or anywhere else) that can change these findings on noise and safe and unhealthful standards. This is all good news, in fact virtually unthinkable at the beginning of the week.”

The planning board deliberations will continue Wednesday, April 3, at 6:30 p.m. at Union Hall in Searsport.

FIrst Night of megatank public hearings; Searsport Planning Board picks parties

November 26, 2011. Night # 1 of  5 Searport planning board public hearings on DCP

Listen below to organizations and citizens requesting Interested Party status to take part in the hearing, and to the planning board, in most cases granting party status, in others, no.

 

Introduction by Bruce Probert, Board chair  1min 44sec

Bruce Probert's 'one warning' rule for ejecting people from hearing

Steve Hinchman (TBNT) 4min 53sec

Steve Miller IIT 5min 40sec

Ed Bearor 1min 38sec

Marietta Ramsdell (FOSI) 3min 13 sec

Davis Gelinas 2min 10sec

Lincolnville No Show 36sec

Belfast No Show 20 sec
Chris Hyke 1min 47 sec (consolidated)
Phyllis Sommer 5min 5sec
James & McCormack Economy 5min 48sec
David Italiaander 4min 54sec
Arlene Leighton denied 9min 42sec

Public requests for IP status

Bruce Probert: intro  24 sec
Charlene Knox Burris 4min 43sec
Diane Messer 6min 21sec
Nancy Galland (denied) 5min 20sec
Joel Madiec  3min (denied)
Martha Murphy 5min 49 sec
Rebecca Freeman 2min 40 sec


MORE TO COME! (Refresh your browser)