Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Cohocton Windmill Local Law #2 Opposition Evidence by James Hall

The proposed Cohocton Wind Mill Local Law #2, written to facilitate the corporate interests of UPC fundamentally conflicts with the existing Cohocton Comprehensive Plan and Cohocton zoning regulations. The Town of Cohocton Board is hereby notified that the municipality and all parties involved directly or indirectly in any decision that advances and/or approves the UPC Cohocton Wind Power Plan bears full responsibility and liability for any and all damages that arise from their involvement. All legal recourse is reserved in both State of New York, Federal Court and in any other domestic or foreign jurisdictions to bring any and all civil or petition for criminal actions, against all parties, individually or corporate ownership.

This disclaimer serves as notice that the Town of Cohocton has committed fraud, violated Federal anti-trust and RICO laws and has engaged in a willful and systematic scheme to defraud residents and landholders of their U.S. Constitutional equal protection, civil liberties and property rights. Each Board member is duty bound to protect the public safety by their oath of office. The UPC project endangers residents, property owners and the general public by design, scope and placement. Such concurrent negligence opens the Town of Cohocton, any Lessors that signed contracts with UPC and any and all parties complicit as an accomplice in a plan to deprive citizens of their due process to a class action suit and bears the full damages, individually and collectively that may be awarded from such proceedings.

The willful intention to pass a draconian Windmill Local Law #2, even more repressive than Windmill Local Law #1 which is currently subject to an Article 78 challenge action, clearly demonstrates the true extent and depth of collusion, corruption and pernicious conduct of the Town Board of Cohocton. Conflict of interest violations abound, NYS ethical standards are consistently ignored and malfeasance of office is systemic.

If these charges are false, prove your sincerity and declare a moratorium on any ordinance that allows for industrial wind turbines in the Town of Cohocton. Then take up the task of drafting a rational and protective law for all citizens in the township of Cohocton. By your current behavior, the public constituency has been betrayed, and Windmill Local Law #2 is the latest instrument of that duplicity.

Why is this law up for a vote when the excellent work of a former planning board member Don Cleveland goes unnoticed? With his untimely passing, the path to a corporate take over of public policy was laid open. What next can be expected from the Town Board, a change in name from the Town of Cohocton to the Colony that UPC bought?

Enclosed is the Cleveland draft for a local windmill law, written by a Cohocton resident and an outline and recommendations of the section for industrial wind turbines. The Cohocton Town Board stands accused before our entire community of dereliction of duty. Your oath of office demands that you obey the law. The Cohocton Comprehensive Plan must be followed. Mr. Cleveland’s ordinance sought to ensue that mandate. So should any windmill law, that this, or a future Town Board, would deem protective of our township.

Windmill Local Law #2 seeks to supplant the role of the Cohocton Planning and Zoning Boards with the dictates of despotic commissars. By intentionally raising the noise level to 52dbA in law #2, from the 50dbA level in law #1, to accommodate seven UPC turbines from exclusion from site approval, the Cohocton Town Board proves their willingness to do the bidding of their new found benefactors.

Private property rights are natural rights of individuals. It is a privilege for a corporation to conduct business and the UPC proposal does not constitute an “essential service”. Any windmill stature that the Town of Cohocton passes must protect individual property, community integrity and the natural character of the region.

The Town of Malone Windmill Ordinance, copy enclosed, achieves that objective. A blending of that law with Mr. Cleveland’s regulations would be a good start for undertaking a serious locally originated ordinance of a windmill law for Cohocton.

Size, setbacks, scale and liability indemnification are the four pillars upon which a valid windmill law must rest. Supporting documents submitted address each aspect. All items offer tangible solutions to key defects in the UPC proposal. The only way to induce any developer to design a suitable project is to place protective measures into the operative law and codify penalties of substance into the stature.

The code enforcement officer should have the authority to shut down any turbine that violates noise limits or any aspect of the project that endangers the public safety. A fine of $2,500 per day for each infraction will motivate the developer to observe protective mandates.

The four requirements consist but not limited to the following basic outline:

1) Height limit of 199 feet to the blade tip for any industrial wind turbine machine.
2) All setbacks measured from furthest point of blade diameter to adjacent property line, public roads and township lines. Setback distance of 1.5 – 2.0 miles to ensure the public safety against low frequency noise. European levels of 30dbA per standard used in residential areas.
3) Number of units for any project need to be disclosed and limited to areas that conform to above protective setbacks.
4) Full and total liability insurance, bonding escrow account and hold harmless agreement paid by the developer that capitalizes payment to any landholder and property owner from loss of real estate values due to impact of industrial wind turbines.

Since this public hearing on Windmill Local Law #2 is in violation of Cohocton zoning stature, it behooves the Cohocton Town Board to adjourn this unlawful public hearing or risk the further embarrassment of public ridicule, based upon their collective and demonstrated incompetence. In the event that the Cohocton Town Board deems to vote on and pass Windmill Local Law #2, further litigation will ensue.

Cordially,


James Hall

No comments: