Town Of Cohocton Planning Board 4/26/07 letter by James Hall

April 26, 2006

Cohocton Planning Board
15 South Main Street
Cohocton New York 14826

RE: Public Hearing Site Plan Review for “special use” permits UPC project

Dear Cohocton Planning Board Members:

THIS PUBLIC HEARING IS PREMATURE AND SHOULD NOT TAKE PLACE

The legal status of this public hearing is challenged on the grounds that the Final EIS has not been released, approved or certified.

Attorney Daniel Ruzow, of Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna stated definitively in May of 2006 that there would be a separate and individual public hearing on EACH site location for every industrial wind turbine. Now Todd Mathes, from the same law firm has directed the Cohocton Planning Board to conduct ONE single public hearing that encompasses ALL industrial wind turbine locations on BOTH the Pine/Lent Hill and Dutch Hill project.

This is a breech of the public trust and demonstrates the extreme lengths that the, UPC paid, Town Attorneys will stoop to deceive and facilitate the interests of the developer over the valid concerns of the residents and property owners of Cohocton.

Your Cohocton Planning Board has the duty to protect the public safety and environmental integrity set forth in the existing Cohocton Comprehensive Plan. By conducting this public hearing, at this time, you are violating your obligation to the people who reside in this community.

AUTHORITY FOR “SPECIAL USE” PERMIT APPLICATION NOT ESTABLISHED

Who has applied for the “special use” permits? The developer aka UPC under any of the LLC’s names has not established that legal authority to make application for each turbine. Since it is an established legal practice that the land owner must make and sign applications for permits, how is it legally valid to review plans that have not confirmed that the landholders are authorizing and executing the same applications?

In order to confirm with the law, any signed leases between landholders and UPC must be filed with the Steuben County Clerk and made public. Since this condition has not been met, the Cohocton Planning Board does not have proof that the developer has the legal authority to make application for “special use” permits.

Also where are the publicly disclosed actual applications from UPC? All attempts to FOIL any documentation that can clear up this matter has been met with none are available.

A legal challenge to the special use permits arises without proof of responsible ownership to any application.

READ ENTIRE DOCUMENT

CPBpublichearing042607.doc