James Hall letter to the Cohocton Planning Board - 6/1/06

June 1, 2006

Cohocton Planning Board
15 South Main Street
Cohocton New York 14826

Dear Board Members:

Your board has been charged to review the new proposed Cohocton Windmill Local Law #2. The draft for this new law provided by recently hired attorney Daniel Ruzow to the Cohocton Town Board requires a sober review. It has been stated that Mr. Ruzow was hired by the Town of Cohocton to represent the citizens of the township. He therefore has an obligation to act in the best interest of the entire town and all its residents. This new proposed law has several provisions specifically designed that favor the current UPC Cohocton Wind Power Project. Since the Cohocton Planning Board also has the same obligation, responsibility and has taken an oath to conduct their duties in the best interests of all taxpayers and residents, the following windmill law is being presented to the Planning Board for review and serious consideration.

The enclosed windplant ten page ordinance was recently passed by the Town of Malone, NY and can be found on the url:
http://batr.net/cohoctonwindwatch/Malone%20windplant%20ordinance%205-24-06.pdf

This model may well have certain provisions that are beneficial and deserves inclusion in any new Cohocton Windmill Law that the planning and town boards may consider for adoption.

The urgency for this kind of review is especially timely. Especially in light of the upcoming Supreme Court date of July 14, 2006 regarding the Article 78 challenge to the Cohocton Windmill Local Law, the planning board should act responsibility to minimize future legal actions.

Therefore, the reasonable charge to the Cohocton Planning Board is to call for a response in writing to the specific and detailed aspects within the Malone law model and construct a detailed comparison to the new Windmill Local Law #2 that is up for consideration.

The Cohocton Wind Watch is ready to assist and work in earnest with the Cohocton Planning Board to develop a responsible windmill law that protects the entire community.

Cordially,

James Hall
Cohocton Wind Watch

cc: David Miller - ESQ
Glenn Pezzulo - ESQ

John Bose's letter to Cohocton Supervisor

TO: Jack Zigenfus
From : John Bose
Subject: Wind Mills

This is my second letter to you (no answer from the first as yet) I have a few more questions. I'm inclosing a copy of the first letter.

1)1 notice in your "NEW" wind mill law #2 you changed the allowable noise level from 50dbA to 52 dbA... Seems like you went the wrong way didn't you? I'm enclosing a copy of some information from Lincoln Township Wis.in reference to noise, please look at the underlined info.
Is it that you and your board just don't believe any of this data, do you think all this talk about noise is just made up by people who just don't like wind mills??? Have you checked any of this out or do you just reject it as a myth??? The spokesperson from NYSEG said, "We were told these things are all myths".

2)1 received the attached in the mail with my NYSEG bill today.. Does it look like "Easy and affordable" when they are charging $5.00 more per month? Seems like all the power companies will be asking the public service commission for a increase soon because they are being mandated to pay for power they can't use. You can't use power you can't count on. Power companies buy there power in advance so it has to be there when you want it.

3) I went to the planning board hearing last week and for the life of me I don't understand why no one on the board would answer any questions put to them?? What's that all about???

4) Is it true that there were planning board members that have not read the DEIS?? What's that all about?

John Bose
5048 Deusenbery Rd.
Cohocton NY 14826

Cohocton Windmill Local Law #2

Cohocton Windmill Local Law #2, all pages in a pdf format

http://www.nadegave.com/free/UPC/WindmillLaw5-8-06.pdf

WindmillLaw5-8-06.pdf

June 14, 2006 - Public Hearing will be conducted on June 14, 2006 at 7:00 PM at the Wayland Cohocton Elementary school in the Village of Cohocton. This is in regard to Local Law # 2, 2006 amending the Town of Cohocton Zoning Law for the regulation of Windmills and Windmill Facilities. Local Law # 3, 2006 amending the Town of Cohocton Zoning Law to Relating to Professional Fees. These local laws are on file in the Town Clerk's office for inspection.

Remember the two domain names for Cohocton Wind Watch

You can use the following domain name url addresses to reach the Cohocton Wind Watch.

http://cohoctonwindwatch.org/

OR

http://cohoctonwatch.org/

Add both to your favorites. You can also bookmark any page from the archives by going to the hosting addresses using:

http://batr.net/cohoctonwindwatch/

Wind Energy's Huge Profits at the Taxpayer's Huge Expense

Total Profit: Assuming 30% turbine efficiency, the first year profit for a 100 megawatt (67 turbine, 1.5 MW) project comes to, at a minimum, 18.7 million (from electricity sales + Federal Production Tax Credit + NYSERDA credit) + $8.7 million in tax savings = 27.4 million in year 1, the net cash flow goes up substantially in year 2, goes back to approx. 26.4 million in year 3, and drops down about half in years 4 and 5. The depreciation schedule is one of the incentives granted by .the federal and state governments. (Note-each company which takes over an existing windplant gets to take advantage of the same depreciation schedule as the original company. There is an obvious incentive to sell the wind project after 3 years of operation.)

A 747 in your backyard!

Points to remember:

Wind Energy companies should pay the regular tax rate, not Payment In Lieu Of Taxes.

Commercial wind power facilities will NOT reduce our need for oil.

Site location of large turbines should be 3 miles or more from any residence.

Property values drop when the property is surrounded by these giant structures.

Wind turbines should not be located closer than 1 mile to any gas well or pipe line due to the possibility of fires or explosions caused by turbines being struck by lightening, or mechanical failure, or the vibrations causing pipelines and wells to leak gas.

Due to the fact that these huge turbines are just now beginning to show up in populated areas, we are now just beginning to determine the health affects these structures will have on our health. More time is needed to determine the risks before building more turbines in populated areas.

Instead of giving the tax subsidies to these large corporations, you could have your own small wind generator and collect the subsidy yourself.

Insurance rates will have to rise to cover the additional liabilities of these huge turbines, if you are able to get insurance at all.

Assessment needs to be done of the potential impact of Wind Turbine Generators on adjoining smaller landowners, with emphasis on viewshed, noise, health and safety, and flexibility for the future use of the properties.

Setbacks are a form of zoning in reverse.

On properties smaller than 10 acres, the placement of a WTG nearby functionally confiscates a large percentage of the usefulness and value of the property without compensation to the landowner.

Did you know?

* Communication interruption... television and cell phone signals reflect off rotating turbine blades causing interference

*Risk to quantity and quality of well water... construction of huge foundations and construction run-off can affect area water wells

* Safety issues including: Deteriorating road conditions, minimum to zero security, stray voltage, fire hazards, constant maintenance requiring unknown service reps to be routinely in neighborhood, increased lightning strikes in vicinity

"Loss of wildlife habitat due to service roads and mechanical structures in otherwise natural areas - Industry commissioned studies often flawed and inadequate
increased traffic, increased chance of auto and pedestrian accidents

* Noise- low frequency and other noise caused most often by the aerodynamic slicing of the atmosphere - the #1 complaint of nearby residents

* Strobe effects- which flood onto properties and into homes when the blades eclipse the rising or setting sun - varies with season and location of towers

* Visual dominance- dose proximity to residences causes huge machines to be the most dominant element in the local experienced living environment and often cast large rotating shadows

* Blade tip speeds average between 200 and 300 mph when hub speeds are approx. 20-35 rpm's- creating the common danger of ice and blade fragment throw

"Loss of natural amenities and visual, quiet enjoyment - the outdoors no longer offers respite, loss of recreation

*Property devaluation -homes within one to two miles of commercial wind development have suffered significant losses documented to 30% and also fail to appreciate as they normally would without such development

Support Cohocton Wind Watch

Keep Cohocton Turbine-Free http://www.cohoctonfree.com

Get your Turbine-Free bumper sticker at the June 8, 2006 question and answer Cohocton Wind Watch meeting. Donations accepted as well as contributions to the CWW legal fund.

Cohocton Windmill Local Law 2 - WORD doc

LL2105-29-2006%2002%3B23%3B34PM.rtf
LL2205-29-2006%2002%3B25%3B36PM.rtf
LL2305-29-2006%2002%3B26%3B50PM.rtf
LL2405-29-2006%2002%3B28%3B05PM.rtf
LL2505-29-2006%2002%3B29%3B24PM.rtf
LL2605-29-2006%2002%3B30%3B29PM.rtf
LL2705-29-2006%2002%3B31%3B40PM.rtf
LL2805-29-2006%2002.rtf%3B31.rtf%3B40PM.rtf
LL2905-29-2006%2002%3B36%3B20PM.rtf
LL21005-29-2006%2002%3B37%3B41PM.rtf
LL21105-29-2006%2002%3B39%3B42PM.rtf
LL21205-29-2006%2002%3B41%3B22PM.rtf
LL21305-29-2006%2002%3B42%3B47PM.rtf
LL21405-29-2006%2002%3B43%3B53PM.rtf
LL21505-29-2006%2002%3B44%3B59PM.rtf
LL21605-29-2006%2002%3B46%3B13PM.rtf
LL21705-29-2006%2002%3B47%3B18PM.rtf
LL21805-29-2006%2002%3B48%3B27PM.rtf

Cohocton Windmill Local Law 2

LL2105-29-2006%2001%3B16%3B34PM.pdf

Why is Cohocton using an attorney paid by UPC to draft a new law when an Article 78 against the original law is awaiting a court hearing? Anyone believe the Cohocton Town Board will adopt any modifications presented by the public or will the corporate law just be passed as is?

Windmill Ordiance adopted by Malone NY - 5/24/06

Malone%20windplant%20ordinance%205-24-06.pdf

Shannon and Jill Levee questions to the Cohocton Planning Board

Levee
5164 Lent Hill Road
Cohocton, New York 14826

Town of Cohocton
Planning Board
Cohocton, New York 14826

To Whom It May Concern:

Residing at 5164 Lent Hill Road in Cohocton, we have great interest in the Cohocton Wind Project. As residents researching the windmill information available to the public by ardent supporters such as the Town of Cohocton and UPC and concerned citizens such as Cohocton Wind Watch, we cannot help but recognize the conflicting facts presented. We cannot help but be confused. As requested at the Joint Planning Board Meeting of May 4th by Board Chairman Fox, we are submitting our questions and concerns in writing.

1. Supporters claim that windmills are not “that loud,” equivalent to a refrigerator, and cite Fenner towers as the example. Since Cohocton towers will be both larger and greater in number than those in Fenner, what specific noise dbs increase will be known? Since UPC information disagrees with some outside sources, such as Fenner residents themselves, what guarantees will be made in writing to the residents of Cohocton hills?

2. Concerning the property values of Cohocton taxpayers residing on the affected hills, what guarantees will the Town of Cohocton or UPC offer to homeowners whose views will now be only wind towers from the home’s windows, including front, back and side views? How can the Town of Cohocton and UPC claim this will not affect our particular home’s value as we will be virtually surrounded by the sight and noise of the towers? What evidence is available to support this claim?

3. We understand that the Town of Cohocton Board passed laws they believed to be in the best interest of Cohocton residents in regard to property lines, dwellings, roads and noise. However, we have already been contacted by UPC to sign-off on the 500 feet limit from our property line. First, was the Board aware of this? Secondly, what is the Town’s position; do they support this? Lastly, will the Town claim “Hardship” and simply work around us by moving the windmill closer to the road?

4. One stressed value of the wind towers is the revenue generated for the Wayland Cohocton School District. Will these be additional monies to the district? Or will this money simply impact the state formula for aid and make us less eligible for state monies, thus cluttering our hills and moving state funds elsewhere?

5. As with some other environmental projects, heavy fines and penalties are established to deter the large, outside corporations from violating laws that are in place. Who specifically will oversee this project to ensure that all present laws are adhered to? Has the Town of Cohocton taken precautions to ensure its laws, any violations, and stiff fines are established?

6. Most importantly to us, on a personal note, we have a two-year-old child and a five and a half year old child. The five and a half year old has a medical history, which includes cardiac and neurological problems, including seizures. Critics claim that wind towers may cause neurological problems or aggravate seizures. What are the specific medical risks for our children from the wind towers? What case studies can our child’s specialists, both cardiac and neurological, reference to be certain that our son is not at any greater risk, living in such close proximity to the wind towers? What would the Town of Cohocton do in such a special case as this to ensure their safety? What guarantees will the Town of Cohocton and UPC put into writing concerning our children, particularly our son with his medical history?

We appreciate the Board of the Town of Cohocton reviewing our concerns and questions. We hope you recognize the serious implications for our family as our home stands to be virtually surrounded by windmills. This was not the case when we built our home just over 3 years ago. When building our home, the surrounding farmers never presented this topic to us, though they presented their other concerns to us. When submitting building permits and tax information, The Town of Cohocton also never presented this topic to us.

Again, we thank you in advance for responding to our questions and concerns. We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Shannon and Jill Levee

Town of Cohocton Planning Board - DEIS Public Hearing

Re: Property Valuations
Cohocton Windmill Power Project

Dear Board Members:

The purpose of my comments tonight is to request that you consider the consequences of your actions with regards to the reduction of property values for those properties that are directly impacted by the construction of 400' windmills.

My name is Allen Fitzpatrick and I am a NYS Certified General Appraiser at Metro Appraisal Associates in Rochester. I have had experience in cases where nearby external influences have created locational obsolescence that reduced the value of surrounding properties. Our clients are primarily residential property owners who have had assessment reductions due to outside influences. We have had extensive experience with Cel Towers, power lines etc. - where the company provides revenue to the community and the assessments and lawsuits take it away.

When companies come to communities, they typically demonstrate that there is no loss in assessed value by preparing studies that either:

1. Compare total assessment from one period of time (before the announcement or construction of the non residential tower) to after the announcement or construction of the non-residential use. By blending the good with the bad, the company typically demonstrates no loss to the community.

2. Another tactic used by companies is to show that the appreciation rate for the properties near the towers (windmills) is the same as the appreciation rate elsewhere where there is not an influence from such a non-residential use.

Both of these studies are flawed. They do not demonstrate the loss in property values using a Paired Sales Analysis. This analysis incorporates sales of properties that have the influence of a windmill farm and compares them to sales of similar properties that do not have the influence. All items are adjusted for differences with the exception of location. That analysis produces a percentage loss calculation that is then used for court cases for assessment reduction or inverse condemnation cases.

To protect the interests of your community, please obtain a more detailed study from a qualified consultant that will demonstrate the loss in value based on the distance from the windmill influence. The greater distance from the windmill farm, the less decline in value. This analysis then assists the municipality with the decision of what is the correct set back requirement from residential dwellings in order to eliminate future assessment reductions and litigation.

The reason why buyers purchase in Cohocton is not because they like the $3.00 per gallon gas expense - it is the tranquility of living in a rural community. Every one on the board and citizens in the audience tonight is aware of the noise, flickering light, visual problems, etc. Please understand what the impact will be to your community if the location of these wind farms is not located correctly in relation to residential uses.

There is case law that demonstrates that the perception of a problem is enough for a court to decide in favor of a homeowner. Anything that provides reluctance among buyers to purchase and thus reduce the competitive nature of the real estate market will result in a loss of value. At Metro, we have been retained by various property owners in Cohocton and have had several law firms in Rochester contact us with regards to potential loss. The discussions revolve around two issues:

1 Property Assessment Reductions
2 Inverse Condemnation and the requirement for the Municipality to purchase or pay for a private residence when it reduces its value substantially based on a non-compatible use. For unique structures, replacement cost is considered to be an appropriate method of valuation, since purchasing a similar property may be impossible due to the unique features of the one that was damaged.

The majority of the residents in a community have real estate as their largest asset and investment. When you have reduced their wealth, you will be in court for many years. The windmill company will have constructed the windmills and be long gone - you will still be in court.

Summary:

1. Have a qualified consultant prepare the paired sales analysis described above to determine the impact of distance from the windmills on property values. This will aid you in determining the property set back. Metro Appraisal Associates cannot assist with this study, since we have been retained by others to review this loss of value study for future court cases.

2. Consider the total income that will be provided to the Town of Cohocton in relation to reduced assessments and court costs.

3. Make sure that your agreement with the Windmill Company is one that provides the town with a base fee plus a percentage increase as rates in the future rise and the company makes more money.

4. In the site plan process for each windmill - have the company complete a study that demonstrates the visual impact from surrounding homes.

5. Understand that the subdivision of land and the potential of new residential development or growth of additional assessment within the town will be put on hold while the windmill farms are located in the town. We have two staff members at Metro devoted to gathering data regarding sales and talking to Realtors. The local Realtors all indicate a reduction in sales and a reduction in interest to purchase in Cohocton. This should not change once the windmills are constructed.

6. Make sure that there is a requirement in your zoning code or permit for construction that has a time limit for the dismantling of the windmills at the end of the contract period. A reserve fund or some other guarantee should be made with the understanding that the company you are doing business with today will have had numerous mergers and not be the company in possession of the towers at the end of the contract period.

The purpose of this meeting is to provide the town with citizen involvement with regards to issues that they should consider when preparing the Final EIS. I am providing your board with a copy of my comments and the citizens of your community expect that you protect their interests.

Respectfully Submitted,

Allen Fitzpatrick
NYS Certified General Real Estate Appraiser

DEIS Response by Robert Strasburg II

CLOSING STATEMENT

· UPC has presented one sided conclusions by people and agencies in line to benefit from the installation of wind turbines

· Only 5% of the revenue that UPC receives from the sale of the electricity generated from these turbines is divided amongst the Town, School and County in the form of P.I.L.O.T. funds

· 95% of revenue remains in the direct control of a foreign fostered corporation (UPC is trying to conceal source of their funding). UPC is a privately held corporation that appears to me to only want to exploit our resources for their one sided gain.

· History proves that once these turbines are up and the deceptive seduction by a wind company is over, the friendly wind company can quickly turn into an opponent of both the Town and the residents.

There are three ways to slow this rapid progression to possible regret:

1. The Town Planning Board should declare a short 12 month moratorium on the introduction of wind turbines into our Town giving time enough to assemble a balanced panel of qualified community residents to fairly research all the conflicting data and report back to the Planning Board with its findings.

2. Leaseholder should seek immediate legal council. Agreements may be invalid and not binding. A community legal fund could assist leaseholders, who want out, with any future actions.

3. Litigation

Option 1 and 2 soon will not be an option if the Town Planning Board and or the leaseholders do not act immediately. This will leave only option 3 … Litigation. What a sad story it will be if Cohocton government continues to resist its residents and will not come together in such a way as to sit down and work this issue through to its best conclusion for all concerned.

If you don’t have time to make the right decisions now, you will have plenty of time later to wish you did. Wisdom in this situation screams for a moratorium.