Saturday, January 20, 2007

Cohocton Planning Board - Lead Agency - Part II by James Hall

RE: Public Hearing Dutch Hill DEIS UPC Phase II - January 19, 2007

Dutch Hill UPC Phase II project is an integrated development that relies on the same proposed 25,000 industrial maintenance and office buildings. The facade that it is a separate stand alone and distinct project is not credible. This DEIS report attempts to look at aspects in the Phase I project not from the context of mitigating segmentation but from the admission that both developments share many of the same support facilities. The lumping of public hearings for both projects in the same meeting clearly links the need for approving both Phase I and Phase II so that construction could start at the same time. If these were really two different and distinct developments, why are both being planned for a coordinated construction at the same time?

Since UPC has ordered 52 Clipper 2.5 MW turbines, slated for Cohocton, in the same purchase order contract, it is clear that the intent is to build both Phase I and Phase II simultaneously. This fact violates the purpose of SEQR and perpetuates a fraud that Dutch Hill is a separate project.

The siting for Dutch Hill turbines will grossly impact the motorist traveling on I 390. The hypnotic effect from blade strobing presents a severe public safety hazard. Set backs are totally inadequate from this major trucking route.

The limited one- way access onto Dutch Hill prevents emergency vehicles from acceptable fire protection entry. The visual affront of industrial turbines negatively impacts the Towns of Wayland and Naples that do not allow such projects. The cumulative overkill of Phase I and II taken together alongside the 53 UPC Prattsburgh and the 99 Ecogen Prattsburgh turbines, creates the largest wind industrial complex east of the Mississippi River.

The proposed Clipper 2.5 MW for Dutch Hill will not be constructed until December of 2008 and have never been used and certified for a wind project. This glaring failure of empirical evidence on the actual real world performance of this industrial turbine needs to available BEFORE these units should be approved for the Dutch Hill project.

Manufactures set back standards for much small units are greater than the proposed distances for the Clipper 2.5 MW turbines in the Dutch Hill project. The DEIS set backs from all public roads need to be dramatically increased to provide protection from ice throw danger. The public health and safety is consistently ignored in the Dutch Hill DEIS as in the low frequency noise hazard, which is totally unprotected in the proposal.

Cordially,

James Hall

No comments: