Further investigation of wind issues needed

I would like to share the following comments I made to the Hammond Town Board at the public hearing on the revised wind law on July 27.

I am a north country native and have lived on the riverside of Route 12 in Hammond for 18 years. I am opposed to this Wind Energy Facilities Law in its present form.

My involvement in this process started last August when I attended the first public hearing on the wind law. Since that time, the learning process related to the industrial wind turbine issue has not stopped. The information available on this complex subject is astounding, whether you agree or disagree with the concept.

For the record, I am in favor of people being able to gain monetarily from the use of their land, but not at the expense of their neighbor's health and welfare. I am in favor of wind development that is responsible, but not when 500-foot turbines are placed 500 feet from a highway that is frequently traveled by the public, including children riding school buses. I am in favor of wind development that is reasonable, but not when turbines are placed 500 feet from a property line rendering a nonparticipant's land unusable. I am in favor of wind development that is regulated, but not when turbines are placed 1,500 feet from a school building filled with innocent children whose learning capabilities and general health could be impacted.

The proposed revision maintains a 45dBA noise level which the DEC considers objectionable. As a school psychologist, I know a large number of students with learning disabilities have auditory and/or vestibular challenges. In addition, many residents have vertigo issues and stand to be impacted by the rotating turbine blades and shadow flicker.

The revisions in this law were made by the attorney and are basically cosmetic. There have been no significant changes to any area, particularly the important health and safety issues like setbacks and noise levels. In addition, when you read the law, the town planning board has the authority to make any modification to any part of the law that doesn't fit the wind developer's wishes.

The importance of this document cannot be overstated. The ramifications will live on into the next generations and yet it is being revised by three board members, barely a majority. The appropriate way to proceed would have been to reinstate the moratorium, reappoint a new, impartial wind committee and charge them with the task of issuing a report after reinvestigating all of the wind issues. You still have time to do that, and I urge you to take that course of action.

Mary Hamilton

Hammond