Response to Local Law 2 by Judith Hall

1. Is the proposed law providing equal protection for all property owners?

You are giving special tax and use consideration to the lease holders as well as UPC or is it Global Wind or Canandaigua Power Partners they use all 3 names interchangeably on documents submitted to the town. Will UPC provide insurance for affected properties, not only adjacent properties are within the wake, ice throw and flicker boundaries, in case someone on our property is hurt by a turbine accident? Will you indemnify us in case our insurance rates increase because we are close to a turbine?

2. Are you protecting our rights and full use of our land with this law?

500 foot setbacks are not sufficient to protect our wind rights or allow us to enjoy the full use of our property.

3. How does this proposed change to the zoning law tie in to the Comprehensive plan for the town of Cohocton?

There is no provision in the comprehensive plan for industry to be out side of the industrial zone. This is not promoting the public health and safety of the citizens. Is this law "promoting the other amenities of rural and suburban living which will best promote and enhance the value of property in the community." Is it "encouraging the retention of large areas of agricultural land in their natural state as a legacy to future generations?" "The proposed zoning ordinance incorporates strict controls to insure that industrial uses will not become detrimental to adjoining property owners." Read from p32 comp plan.

4. What criteria (besides UPC input, a draft copy of the law was faxed to them on __________, 2004 by the town clerk. Mr, McAllister then provided the marked up copy to the board who proceeded to adopt all of their recommendations) did you use to make your decisions, what research did you do to arrive at you conclusions about the setbacks. How have you considered the public health and safety in those recommendations?

UPC establishes a setback of at least 3200 feet in the letter they sent to residents last week to mitigate the effects of shadow flicker. In their own document they state only 1 in 4000 is photosensitive to the phenomenon. Those seem like good odds that at least one autistic child or sensitive person would live within our community, so if reasonable setbacks can mitigate the problem why wouldn't they be adopted. We need a minimum 3500 foot setback from every property and road way in the town.

Law 2 increases an already too high noise threshold coincidentally to accommodate 7 proposed towers, is this protecting the residents?

Please instead of law #2, pass a law for a 6 month moratorium so that you can take a real look at protecting the citizens you took an oath to represent.