In Response to Cohocton Wind Project SEIS by Bonnie Palmiter

January 19, 2007

TO: Cohocton Planning Board/Cohocton Town Board

-No valid, signed, completed application for this project, by either the developer nor code enforcement officer = Incomplete.

- No cap on # of turbines allowed, is there a Phase III = Incomplete.

-No wind data from UPC/CPPII/CPPI on the meteorological towers as stated in the original DEIS = Incomplete.

-Proposed project in CWP SEIS states that CPP (Canandaigua Power Partners) and a couple times refers to CPPII, then changes to UPC so who is the developer of this project?????

-Cohocton is now infringing on the visual ascetic’s of Naples, Prattsburgh, and from Wallace to Wayland, Howard and Avoca.

SEIS, CWP states while the 2 projects of Dutch Hill Project and CWP are balanced across the 2 ridgelines, there presence changes the character of the rolling agricultural landscape. 1 of the 3 panel members felt the turbines altered the rural character of the view. The organized patterns and spacing helped soften their impact or the landscape, trying to make them fit where they shouldn’t be.

-Several times the SEIS states turbines dominate the view, and # of turbines changes the rural character of the view, and they appear out of context.

-Where is the data from UPC/ CPPI/CPPII on the meteorological towers?

-A ceiling or total # of industrial wind turbines needs to be incorporated within agricultural ordinances and SEIS still doesn’t have this.

SEIS own statements: adverse affect or aesthetic quality of the view.
Substation: strong contrast with land use, land form.

Incomplete SEIS: Specific housing of office and the look of the maintenance building.

In conclusion with all the different names of the developer in these SEIS one would have to assume that we don’t know who the actual developer is. INCOMPLETE/INACCURATE