Town Planner Jeffrey Hinderliter reminded those in attendance that the hearing was about the ordinance, not about the gasification plant itself.  “The final approval of the plant,” he said, “will occur through the Planning Board.  All the ordinance amendments do is open the door.”

Hinderliter also stated that he had received an opinion from the town attorney that the gasification plant would not be prevented by anything in the ordinances.  Later, however, he did acknowledge that the two districts affected by the proposed development - Rural District 1 and Rural District 2 - did not, in fact, allow heavy industry in the Comprehensive Plan.  Here are the sections of the Comprehensive Plan that refers to those two rural areas:
 

• Rural 1 (R1) District 
Purpose: The intent of the R1 District allows a variety of residential housing types at varying densities providing neighborhoods compatible with rural uses but limited in scale to maintain residential compatibility.  It will also provide for certain non-residential uses but limited so as to maintain residential compatibility. 

Suggested Uses: Residential (for example: single family, 2-family), home occupations, institutional (for example: churches, schools, public uses), commercial uses appropriate to the rural area (for example: lumberyards, commercial kennels, greenhouses, etc.), agriculture (for example: farms), roadside stands, and open space.  Retail development of a scale and design appropriate to and consistent with the purpose of the district. 

Requirements: Minimum of 1 acre.  Large subdivisions to be in vicinity of Village 2 District; mandatory open space subdivisions with at least 50% land area preserved as open space in subdivisions of 5 or more lots; maintenance of existing visual buffers.

• Rural 2 (R2) District 
Purpose: The intent of the R2 District is to permit the reasonable use of open space land, while at the same time preserving and protecting the open space and natural resource characteristics to ensure its continued availability for the following: agriculture, forestry, scenic views, natural resource conservation while maintaining low-density residential uses; contain sprawl and the retain the land in its natural or near natural state. 

 Suggested Uses: Agriculture (for example: farms), roadside stands, managed forestry, open space, residential (single family), home occupations. 

 Requirements: Minimum of 2-3 acres, smaller lots permitted in open space subdivisions where at least 50% of land area is preserved as open space, with overall density not to exceed 2-3 acres per dwelling unit;
maintenance of existing visual buffers. 

Several speakers pointed out that the current ordinances and the proposed amendments to the ordinances were out of sync with the adopted Comprehensive Plan.  John Reinhardt of Wiscasset pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan’s goal is to provide ‘safe, health living, and prevent the degradation of natural resources.’  The comprehensive plan calls specifically for ‘low impact’ industrial uses in the rural districts, he said.  “It wasn’t the intent of the Plan to allow heavy industry in Wiscasset.”

Susan Blagden said she was dismayed that “once again, we are scrambling to do major ordinance changes, without taking our time to see how other places are dealing with these issues.”

Other local speakers who spoke against the ordinance change were Ann Leslie, who said she would prefer to see the economy grow in a more diversified and deliberate fashion, Larry Lomison, who spent 3 1/2 years working on the comprehensive plan, Prior Morrell, who pointed out that ‘co-generation’ could mean anything in the proposed amendment, including the burning of trash, and George Green, who strongly urged the board to pass odor, noise, and water use ordinances before taking the height variance ordinance to a vote.

Many residents urged slowing down of the process.  “We need to get more educated about this,” said Steven Kniesely, who runs the north end co-op. 

Others wanted to reconcile the existing ordinances with the Comprehensive Plan before the vote was taken.
Even though the meeting was technically on the ordinance itself, the pros and cons of the proposed plant were everywhere in the meeting.  Morrow said that he had spoken to one of the gasification plants in Florida, where he was informed that the toxicity eminating from the plant were far above what citizens had been informed of.  “There will be dilute hydrochloric acid, and sulfuric acid, and with the prevailing winds, those acids will fall right over our town,” he said.

There were few voices in support of the ordinance.  Catherine Martin Savage stood up to speak three times for the ordinance. “If this project is meant to be, it will happen,” she said.  But the only other voice to speak for the ordinance was more measured.  Mark Ramsey said he lived a little more than a mile from the site, and supported the ordinance.  “But let’s make sure they adhere to their promises,” he said.

Karl Tarbox referenced the Westport Island meeting on August 23.  “I know that Conoco-Phillips is looking very closely at this area,” he said.  “Is this what you want? To turn Wiscasset over to an international chemical company?”
He reminded the audience that when he asked Scott Houldin of Point East whether or not he would warrant his promises to the town, Houldin replied in the negative.  “In short,” Tarbox said, “You will have smell, noise, and nothing to protect the town of Wiscasset.”

Before the Tampa Bay plant was allowed to get underway, according to Tarbox, “Tampa Bay had to enact ordinances forcing any company to cover coal piles and protect the 17 chemicals involved.  We should pull this thing [the vote] and authorize Jeffrey Hinderliter to see how the other gasification plants handled the ordinances that would protect water quality, air quality, regulate noise, and protect the shorelands.  We take pride on local control in Maine ... let’s keep it.”

Willy Rich, of the Back River Alliance, entreated Wiscasset residents to “slow down, take this off the ballot, and find the answers you should have before you vote your rights away.”

Steve Hinchman of the Conservation Law Foundation questioned both the finances of the proposed plant and its CO2 output.  “For every pound of coal, you yield three pounds of carbon dioxide,” he said.  “You would have 5 - 5 1/2 million tons of CO2 from this plant alone.  Maine’s current output is less than four million tons.”

The cost of carbon capture raises the cost of electricity to 9 - 11 cents -” a far cry from the 2.1 cents per kW hour the company is suggesting - “And Maine has absolutely no geology that would even potentially allow for sequestration.  The closest place to sequester the carbon, when it becomes possible to do so, would be in the Sable Island oil fields in Canada.”  This would significantly raise the CO2 “lifetime” emissions since the carbon would have to be transported there, most likely by tanker.

Ultimately, the selectmen of Wiscasset will decide whether to move forward with the vote on September 18 during their meeting at the Town Hall.  The meeting will begin an hour earlier than scheduled, at 6 p.m., because one of the members has a conflict.