Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Cohocton Planning Board delays recommendation on Windmill Local Law #2
Based upon the vast informational materials presented to the Cohocton Planning Board regarding the Cohocton Windmill Local Law #2, the decision was made to postpone any recommendations to the Cohocton Town Board until the month of August, 2006.
A Wind Energy Conference - Sponsored by Advocates for Stark
Thursday, June 15, 7-9:30 P.M.
Route 80 Bowl
Van Hornesville, New York
7:00 – 7:15 Opening Remarks.
Speaker To Be Announced.
7:15 – 7:30 Living in a Wind Plant.
Gordon Yancey, owner of The Flat Rock Inn, Tug Hill Plateau, Lowville, NY.
7:30 – 7:45 The Draft Environmental Impact Statement - What’s it mean? Who me?
Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Environmental Permits.
7:45 – 8:00 Health Effects of Exposure to Excessive Noise.
Dr. Nina Pierpont, M.D., Ph.D., Malone, NY. Speaker Phone presentation.
8:00 – 8:15 Break/ Questions & Answers
8:15 – 8:30 How the Money Works.
Jim LiBritz, Accountant, Ilion, NY.
8:30 – 8:45 Pitfalls in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. What makes a legitimate study?
Nick Pressley, Environmental Engineer, Cherry Valley, NY.
8:45 – 9:00 Real Estate Values Today and Tomorrow.
Todd Schroeter, Real Estate Developer, & Nancy Schroeter, Owner of Springfield Realty, Springfield, NY.
9:00 – 9:15 Questions & Answers
The Route 80 Bowl will be open at 5:00 for the convenience of those who may wish to have dinner there before the conference begins.
Route 80 Bowl
Van Hornesville, New York
7:00 – 7:15 Opening Remarks.
Speaker To Be Announced.
7:15 – 7:30 Living in a Wind Plant.
Gordon Yancey, owner of The Flat Rock Inn, Tug Hill Plateau, Lowville, NY.
7:30 – 7:45 The Draft Environmental Impact Statement - What’s it mean? Who me?
Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Environmental Permits.
7:45 – 8:00 Health Effects of Exposure to Excessive Noise.
Dr. Nina Pierpont, M.D., Ph.D., Malone, NY. Speaker Phone presentation.
8:00 – 8:15 Break/ Questions & Answers
8:15 – 8:30 How the Money Works.
Jim LiBritz, Accountant, Ilion, NY.
8:30 – 8:45 Pitfalls in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. What makes a legitimate study?
Nick Pressley, Environmental Engineer, Cherry Valley, NY.
8:45 – 9:00 Real Estate Values Today and Tomorrow.
Todd Schroeter, Real Estate Developer, & Nancy Schroeter, Owner of Springfield Realty, Springfield, NY.
9:00 – 9:15 Questions & Answers
The Route 80 Bowl will be open at 5:00 for the convenience of those who may wish to have dinner there before the conference begins.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Review of the Noble Environmental DEIS for Ellenburg, NY by Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD
1. Benefits claimed for wind power are inflated by failure to use realistic, published efficiency figures. No evidence is presented to support industry claims that production of wind-generated electricity lessens fossil fuel consumption.
2. The quality of the DEIS is superficial and presentation is deceptive. The avowed goal of the company which prepared the DEIS is fast permitting, not protection of environment or community.
3. Safety with regard to turbine fires, lightning strikes, and ice or blade throw is not adequately addressed.
4. Data on turbine stability in the presence of earthquakes is not presented. The DEIS preparers failed to note an earthquake of magnitude 5.1 which occurred 25 miles from the proposed project area in 2002 and caused $4 million worth of damage. Setback of 500 ft. from roads and 587 ft. from on-site buildings, as specified in the Ellenburg, Clinton, and Altona Wind Energy Facilities Ordinances, is not adequate to protect the public should one of these slender 400 ft. structures with 100 tons of equipment near the top fall over.
5. Noise standards adopted in the Ellenburg, Clinton, and Altona Wind Energy Facilities Ordinances do not comply with community noise standards promulgated by non-industry agencies such as the NYS DEC or the World Health Organization, and as such will not protect the public from the health impacts of excessive community noise. Noise modeling did not use up-to-date models of the known distant propagation of annoying noise from wind turbines under conditions of nighttime atmospheric stability. Noble Environmental’s acoustics consultant is well aware of these models and was negligent in not requiring their use. While recognizing that wind turbines produce low-frequency noise, the acoustics consultant appears to be ignorant of the medical research literature on the brain, lung, and heart pathology caused by long-term exposure to noise at frequencies too low to be heard.
6. Shadow flicker produces symptoms of motion sickness in susceptible people and has the potential to trigger seizures in individuals with epilepsy.
7. Bird and bat studies are inadequate with regard to standards communicated by USFWS to Noble with regard to migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and eagles. No population figures can be derived from the data obtained and presented in the DEIS. Multi-year studies were not performed. There is no adequate baseline created here by which to use this wind turbine installation to study the effects of wind turbines on bird and bat populations.
8. The non-avian wildlife section shows incompetence. As in (7), no population data is presented on which to base studies of the effects of wind power development on game species such as deer and bear.
9. It is not clear in the DEIS that appropriate state and federal (Army Corps of Engineers) oversight and permitting has taken place with regard to wetlands within the project areas. In fact it has not, according to the responsible Army Corps of Engineers official I spoke to on May 31, 2006, at which point review of the Clinton Project application was in the early stages and review of the Ellenburg and Altona Project applications not yet under way. Permits are required for all activities impinging on any wetland or stream connected ultimately to a navigable waterway. Federal review under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the National Historic Preservation Act are also required, triggered by projects falling under Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction.
2. The quality of the DEIS is superficial and presentation is deceptive. The avowed goal of the company which prepared the DEIS is fast permitting, not protection of environment or community.
3. Safety with regard to turbine fires, lightning strikes, and ice or blade throw is not adequately addressed.
4. Data on turbine stability in the presence of earthquakes is not presented. The DEIS preparers failed to note an earthquake of magnitude 5.1 which occurred 25 miles from the proposed project area in 2002 and caused $4 million worth of damage. Setback of 500 ft. from roads and 587 ft. from on-site buildings, as specified in the Ellenburg, Clinton, and Altona Wind Energy Facilities Ordinances, is not adequate to protect the public should one of these slender 400 ft. structures with 100 tons of equipment near the top fall over.
5. Noise standards adopted in the Ellenburg, Clinton, and Altona Wind Energy Facilities Ordinances do not comply with community noise standards promulgated by non-industry agencies such as the NYS DEC or the World Health Organization, and as such will not protect the public from the health impacts of excessive community noise. Noise modeling did not use up-to-date models of the known distant propagation of annoying noise from wind turbines under conditions of nighttime atmospheric stability. Noble Environmental’s acoustics consultant is well aware of these models and was negligent in not requiring their use. While recognizing that wind turbines produce low-frequency noise, the acoustics consultant appears to be ignorant of the medical research literature on the brain, lung, and heart pathology caused by long-term exposure to noise at frequencies too low to be heard.
6. Shadow flicker produces symptoms of motion sickness in susceptible people and has the potential to trigger seizures in individuals with epilepsy.
7. Bird and bat studies are inadequate with regard to standards communicated by USFWS to Noble with regard to migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and eagles. No population figures can be derived from the data obtained and presented in the DEIS. Multi-year studies were not performed. There is no adequate baseline created here by which to use this wind turbine installation to study the effects of wind turbines on bird and bat populations.
8. The non-avian wildlife section shows incompetence. As in (7), no population data is presented on which to base studies of the effects of wind power development on game species such as deer and bear.
9. It is not clear in the DEIS that appropriate state and federal (Army Corps of Engineers) oversight and permitting has taken place with regard to wetlands within the project areas. In fact it has not, according to the responsible Army Corps of Engineers official I spoke to on May 31, 2006, at which point review of the Clinton Project application was in the early stages and review of the Ellenburg and Altona Project applications not yet under way. Permits are required for all activities impinging on any wetland or stream connected ultimately to a navigable waterway. Federal review under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the National Historic Preservation Act are also required, triggered by projects falling under Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction.
Notice of Cohocton Wind Watch workshop - June 12, 2006
Cohocton Wind Watch
Would like to invite the general public to Cohocton
Elementary School Gymnasium
On
Monday June 12 from 7:00-9:00
For a community workshop on Wind Turbine power
And it’s affects on your community.
Workshop topics will cover legal matters, zoning
laws, health concerns and environmental issues.
Questions are strongly encouraged
Please visit our website at http://cohoctonwindwatch.org
(585) 534-5581
Would like to invite the general public to Cohocton
Elementary School Gymnasium
On
Monday June 12 from 7:00-9:00
For a community workshop on Wind Turbine power
And it’s affects on your community.
Workshop topics will cover legal matters, zoning
laws, health concerns and environmental issues.
Questions are strongly encouraged
Please visit our website at http://cohoctonwindwatch.org
(585) 534-5581
June 6, 2006 letter to the Cohocton Planning Board by James Hall
June 6, 2006
Cohocton Planning Board
15 South Main Street
Cohocton New York 14826
Dear Board Members:
It has come to our attention that the Town of Cohocton Clerk is NOT forwarding correspondence that is addressed to the Cohocton Planning Board. During this period of intense review, this conduct is inexcusable. If this is the policy of the Town of Cohocton, it violates the mandate you have to receive full, complete and timely information and input from the citizens.
It has been represented by Sandra Riley, that all documents and correspondence are being sent directly to attorney Daniel Ruzow. And why is Dawn Dana from Bagdon also being sent such information? Why is the flow of information being kept from the intended agency - the Cohocton Planning Board?
It is in our mutual interest and serves the direct benefit of the entire community to ensure that the Cohocton Planning Board is not deprived of access to all documents as you conduct your solemn responsibility as lead agency for the UPC Wind Turbine Project.
This is just another example of the administration for the Town of Cohocton to circumvent the review process. The Town of Cohocton Planning Board is being deprived of needed information. It behooves our communal interests that an immediate inquiry and investigation be conducted into the decision and parties involved who are responsible for this unprofessional conduct.
Because of this serious breach of questionable behavior, I call for an extension of the Planning Boards review process of the proposed Cohocton Windmill Local Law #2, in order to guarantee your due diligence responsibility.
When the integrity of the process is intentionally undermined the basis for additional legal actions increase. The Cohocton Planning Board deserves the respect, independence and authority of the lead agency. That means that any interference from the Supervisor, Town Councilmen or legal representatives will be challenged in court.
Respectfully,
James Hall
David Miller - ESQ
Cohocton Planning Board
15 South Main Street
Cohocton New York 14826
Dear Board Members:
It has come to our attention that the Town of Cohocton Clerk is NOT forwarding correspondence that is addressed to the Cohocton Planning Board. During this period of intense review, this conduct is inexcusable. If this is the policy of the Town of Cohocton, it violates the mandate you have to receive full, complete and timely information and input from the citizens.
It has been represented by Sandra Riley, that all documents and correspondence are being sent directly to attorney Daniel Ruzow. And why is Dawn Dana from Bagdon also being sent such information? Why is the flow of information being kept from the intended agency - the Cohocton Planning Board?
It is in our mutual interest and serves the direct benefit of the entire community to ensure that the Cohocton Planning Board is not deprived of access to all documents as you conduct your solemn responsibility as lead agency for the UPC Wind Turbine Project.
This is just another example of the administration for the Town of Cohocton to circumvent the review process. The Town of Cohocton Planning Board is being deprived of needed information. It behooves our communal interests that an immediate inquiry and investigation be conducted into the decision and parties involved who are responsible for this unprofessional conduct.
Because of this serious breach of questionable behavior, I call for an extension of the Planning Boards review process of the proposed Cohocton Windmill Local Law #2, in order to guarantee your due diligence responsibility.
When the integrity of the process is intentionally undermined the basis for additional legal actions increase. The Cohocton Planning Board deserves the respect, independence and authority of the lead agency. That means that any interference from the Supervisor, Town Councilmen or legal representatives will be challenged in court.
Respectfully,
James Hall
David Miller - ESQ
Loss of YOUR Property Rights
Is it fair that the proposed setbacks in the Cohocton Wind Turbine Local Law # 2 should prevent your building any new structure on your own property adjacent to the site of a wind tower?
How can that be, you ask? The setbacks in this new version of the law are 500’ from a public road or your property line and 1,500’ from a residence. In effect this means you would not be able to build a structure, your own windmill or solar panels between your house and the industrial wind turbine machine. Obviously this is a violation of your own property and wind rights and in effect is a loss of the use of your own land.
If this new law is approved, the Cohocton Town Board is telling you that your property has been restricted because of the site location of the industrial wind project. Is that fair to every property owner that is within the 1,500’ setback?
Also why is that setback measured from the centerline of the tower, and not from the furthest distance of the ice throw and wind wash?
Just another reality that the proponents of the UPC project don’t want you to know or realize.
DEMAND greater setbacks in order to protect your property rights.
James Hall
How can that be, you ask? The setbacks in this new version of the law are 500’ from a public road or your property line and 1,500’ from a residence. In effect this means you would not be able to build a structure, your own windmill or solar panels between your house and the industrial wind turbine machine. Obviously this is a violation of your own property and wind rights and in effect is a loss of the use of your own land.
If this new law is approved, the Cohocton Town Board is telling you that your property has been restricted because of the site location of the industrial wind project. Is that fair to every property owner that is within the 1,500’ setback?
Also why is that setback measured from the centerline of the tower, and not from the furthest distance of the ice throw and wind wash?
Just another reality that the proponents of the UPC project don’t want you to know or realize.
DEMAND greater setbacks in order to protect your property rights.
James Hall
Debate Over Wind Power Creates Environmental Rift by FELICITY BARRINGER
OAKLAND, Md. — Dan Boone has no doubt that his crusade against wind energy is the right way to protect the Allegheny highlands he loves. Let other environmentalists call him deluded at best, traitorous at worst. He remains undeterred.
For four years or more, Mr. Boone has traveled across the mid-Atlantic to make every argument he can muster against local wind-power projects: they kill birds and bats; they are too noisy; they are inefficient, making no more than a symbolic contribution to energy needs.
Wind farms on the empty prairies of North Dakota? Fine. But not, Mr. Boone insists, in the mountainous terrain of southwestern Pennsylvania, western Maryland or West Virginia, areas where 15 new projects have been proposed.
(read more)
For four years or more, Mr. Boone has traveled across the mid-Atlantic to make every argument he can muster against local wind-power projects: they kill birds and bats; they are too noisy; they are inefficient, making no more than a symbolic contribution to energy needs.
Wind farms on the empty prairies of North Dakota? Fine. But not, Mr. Boone insists, in the mountainous terrain of southwestern Pennsylvania, western Maryland or West Virginia, areas where 15 new projects have been proposed.
(read more)
June 5, 2006 letter to the Cohocton Planning Board by Judith Hall
June 5,2006
Cohocton Planning Board
15 South Main Street
Cohocton New York 14826
Dear Board Members:
In doing research at the town hall about the wind project the original windmill law drafts done by Donald Cleveland came to my attention. It seems Mr. Cleveland was preparing a much more resident friendly law then the one finally adopted in 2006. Mr. Cleveland's draft was given to UPC who made several changes, all to their economic benefit, which were then adopted by the Board. It seems a little strange that the Corporation who is financially gaining from the project had more input then residents of the community, in a law being prepared to protect residents not to reward faceless corporations. May I please ask that you go back and take a second look at the draft prepared by the Board Members and not UPC before making your final recommendations to the Town Board. Setbacks that protect all residents are the key issue.
Included is a scientific article about ice throw you may find helpful. As an impacted resident I only ask that you take the time you need and not feel rushed in your decision to make the appropriate recommendations on the new law.
Sincerely,
Judith Hall
Cohocton Planning Board
15 South Main Street
Cohocton New York 14826
Dear Board Members:
In doing research at the town hall about the wind project the original windmill law drafts done by Donald Cleveland came to my attention. It seems Mr. Cleveland was preparing a much more resident friendly law then the one finally adopted in 2006. Mr. Cleveland's draft was given to UPC who made several changes, all to their economic benefit, which were then adopted by the Board. It seems a little strange that the Corporation who is financially gaining from the project had more input then residents of the community, in a law being prepared to protect residents not to reward faceless corporations. May I please ask that you go back and take a second look at the draft prepared by the Board Members and not UPC before making your final recommendations to the Town Board. Setbacks that protect all residents are the key issue.
Included is a scientific article about ice throw you may find helpful. As an impacted resident I only ask that you take the time you need and not feel rushed in your decision to make the appropriate recommendations on the new law.
Sincerely,
Judith Hall
Monday, June 05, 2006
June 5, 2006 letter to the Cohocton Planning Board by James Hall
June 5, 2006
Cohocton Planning Board
15 South Main Street
Cohocton, NY 14826
Planning Board Members:
The Cohocton Town Board is in a position to achieve a moratorium on litigation by placing a moratorium on approving a flawed and destructive Windmill Local Law. This statement is a simple statement of fact. The reason why our township is at risk rests solely upon the UPC proposal that will turn the agricultural character of our community into an industrial landscape. The solution that is within our grasp is also simple. Reject the proposed Windmill Local Law as it has been written and hammer out a sound and sane law that will protect our town, our residents, our landholders and all taxpayers.
The Cohocton Planning Board has the ability to recommend modifications or completely rewrite the windmill local law. The first step in this process of rational cooperation is to admit that no corporation has a right to our wind resources and that the self-determination of our home rule is a natural right of our citizens. Developers must be granted the privilege to enter a community. Therefore, you have the power to end this controversy now.
Since you have demonstrated the common sense to accept for review other windmill laws, modifications to the current proposal and specific recommendation to resolve fundamental issues, the Cohocton Planning Board is ready to forge a compromise that will protect the future for all of our families.
UPC does not live in Cohocton. We do. You and I should be able to agree that our prime responsibility is to the future of our community.
Rejecting the UPC proposal does not mean that all attempts to abandon a responsible alternative energy project would be the result. There are other developers, other concepts and better financial remuneration for Town government, landholders, residents and taxpayers.
The basic problem with the UPC project is its scope, scale and intrusion upon the property rights of our neighbors. Consider the following flaws as the central issues that need to be addressed and resolved in order to draft and pass a beneficial windmill law.
1) The height of any tower must be limited to the character of the region. A 500 foot code is meant to build a 500 foot tower. Why is that necessary? And more important why would these sized machines be desirable? Submitting a maximum 200 foot limit would mandate the use of smaller turbines which would automatically solve many of the adverse affects of monster wind turbines used only in ocean locations for obvious reasons. Size matters and in this case, larger = bigger problems.
2) The ultimate intentions of the developer are not publicly disclosed. UPC is segmenting numerous projects in the area to avoid the larger regional environmental impact. 41 and 17 turbine projects are currently proposed. However, 120 turbines have been revealed by a source intimate with the full range of the UPC project. Also what is to prevent further additions especially when eminent domain and condemnation could be used by the utilities industries under PSC authority? Submit that a specific restriction on the number of special use permits could be authorized. A low figure would allow for placement in locations removed from residential properties. By scaling down the number of turbines, the agricultural, residential and recreational character of our community can be preserved.
3) Setbacks from residential property that protect the health and safety of every citizen are the foremost duty requirement in drafting a windmill local law. Peer reviewed medical evidence supports a setback of 1.5 - 2.0 miles in order to minimize the serious impact of low frequency noise that posses the most grave health hazard to any person who lives too close to a wind turbine. With smaller sized turbines, fewer turbines used in a project and greater distant setbacks, the major factors that present the basis for future legal actions can be diminished.
In the strongest terms, if Cohocton really wants a windmill project, why not conceive, develop and organize a project that will pay a far greater financial return to the Cohocton community. While I personally oppose the erection of any industrial sized project, I would support a commercial venture based upon the C-BED model that would be managed, financed and owned by regional investors that have ties and commitment to the Finger Lakes and Western New York. As previously stated, my services would be available, at no charge, to write a business plan and put together an organization that would be able to develop an alternative energy project.
A window of opportunity now exists for serious dialogue, give and take and mutual cooperation. I implore that the Cohocton Planning Board has the wisdom to use this occasion to open up this review process and let in the fresh air of new thinking to transform an ugly controversy into a constructive community effort.
UPC refuses to downsize their project based upon the three crucial elements that are the main causes of our objection. Is their rush to break ground motivated solely by the lust for government subsidies? The fast tract for approving the current Windmill Local Law #2 will not heal the divisions in Cohocton. Only an open process with full community input and participation will produce the best law for OUR township. Forgo the pressures of special interests and perform your solemn duty to protect and serve all of Cohocton. We all can be good neighbors, but it takes a two way street to meet each other in friendship and mutual interests.
The future is now and you hold the keys to the kingdom. Will we walk together in a paradise of our own making or will we be condemned to a living hell designed for us by outside political scoundrels and international financiers? Do the right thing! Make the moral decision. Reject the UPC endorsed windmill law and write your own. If you do the Cohocton Planning Board will have our backing and support.
James Hall - June 5, 2006
Cohocton Planning Board
15 South Main Street
Cohocton, NY 14826
Planning Board Members:
The Cohocton Town Board is in a position to achieve a moratorium on litigation by placing a moratorium on approving a flawed and destructive Windmill Local Law. This statement is a simple statement of fact. The reason why our township is at risk rests solely upon the UPC proposal that will turn the agricultural character of our community into an industrial landscape. The solution that is within our grasp is also simple. Reject the proposed Windmill Local Law as it has been written and hammer out a sound and sane law that will protect our town, our residents, our landholders and all taxpayers.
The Cohocton Planning Board has the ability to recommend modifications or completely rewrite the windmill local law. The first step in this process of rational cooperation is to admit that no corporation has a right to our wind resources and that the self-determination of our home rule is a natural right of our citizens. Developers must be granted the privilege to enter a community. Therefore, you have the power to end this controversy now.
Since you have demonstrated the common sense to accept for review other windmill laws, modifications to the current proposal and specific recommendation to resolve fundamental issues, the Cohocton Planning Board is ready to forge a compromise that will protect the future for all of our families.
UPC does not live in Cohocton. We do. You and I should be able to agree that our prime responsibility is to the future of our community.
Rejecting the UPC proposal does not mean that all attempts to abandon a responsible alternative energy project would be the result. There are other developers, other concepts and better financial remuneration for Town government, landholders, residents and taxpayers.
The basic problem with the UPC project is its scope, scale and intrusion upon the property rights of our neighbors. Consider the following flaws as the central issues that need to be addressed and resolved in order to draft and pass a beneficial windmill law.
1) The height of any tower must be limited to the character of the region. A 500 foot code is meant to build a 500 foot tower. Why is that necessary? And more important why would these sized machines be desirable? Submitting a maximum 200 foot limit would mandate the use of smaller turbines which would automatically solve many of the adverse affects of monster wind turbines used only in ocean locations for obvious reasons. Size matters and in this case, larger = bigger problems.
2) The ultimate intentions of the developer are not publicly disclosed. UPC is segmenting numerous projects in the area to avoid the larger regional environmental impact. 41 and 17 turbine projects are currently proposed. However, 120 turbines have been revealed by a source intimate with the full range of the UPC project. Also what is to prevent further additions especially when eminent domain and condemnation could be used by the utilities industries under PSC authority? Submit that a specific restriction on the number of special use permits could be authorized. A low figure would allow for placement in locations removed from residential properties. By scaling down the number of turbines, the agricultural, residential and recreational character of our community can be preserved.
3) Setbacks from residential property that protect the health and safety of every citizen are the foremost duty requirement in drafting a windmill local law. Peer reviewed medical evidence supports a setback of 1.5 - 2.0 miles in order to minimize the serious impact of low frequency noise that posses the most grave health hazard to any person who lives too close to a wind turbine. With smaller sized turbines, fewer turbines used in a project and greater distant setbacks, the major factors that present the basis for future legal actions can be diminished.
In the strongest terms, if Cohocton really wants a windmill project, why not conceive, develop and organize a project that will pay a far greater financial return to the Cohocton community. While I personally oppose the erection of any industrial sized project, I would support a commercial venture based upon the C-BED model that would be managed, financed and owned by regional investors that have ties and commitment to the Finger Lakes and Western New York. As previously stated, my services would be available, at no charge, to write a business plan and put together an organization that would be able to develop an alternative energy project.
A window of opportunity now exists for serious dialogue, give and take and mutual cooperation. I implore that the Cohocton Planning Board has the wisdom to use this occasion to open up this review process and let in the fresh air of new thinking to transform an ugly controversy into a constructive community effort.
UPC refuses to downsize their project based upon the three crucial elements that are the main causes of our objection. Is their rush to break ground motivated solely by the lust for government subsidies? The fast tract for approving the current Windmill Local Law #2 will not heal the divisions in Cohocton. Only an open process with full community input and participation will produce the best law for OUR township. Forgo the pressures of special interests and perform your solemn duty to protect and serve all of Cohocton. We all can be good neighbors, but it takes a two way street to meet each other in friendship and mutual interests.
The future is now and you hold the keys to the kingdom. Will we walk together in a paradise of our own making or will we be condemned to a living hell designed for us by outside political scoundrels and international financiers? Do the right thing! Make the moral decision. Reject the UPC endorsed windmill law and write your own. If you do the Cohocton Planning Board will have our backing and support.
James Hall - June 5, 2006
The Safety Issues - bullet points OEIS/safety - Steve Trude
The wake affect and setbacks need to be of a sufficient distance so not to encroach upon neighboring townships. Wayland, Naples and Prattsburgh town lines deserve greater setbacks. Recommend same setback as from any residential structure.
Minimum setbacks need to be placed at maximum ice throw and wake affect from any public road in order to protect the safety of motorists and tourists. Set backs from roads should be at least 2000 feet to protect the public.
Minimum setbacks along neighboring property lines need to great enough to allow the full use of future building on the adjacent land.
Fencing has to be sufficient to protect the public/ hunters/ snowmobilers/ 4 wheelers/ children with fences 360 degrees, this has not been addressed. Fencing protection from ice throw and stray voltage should be 300 feet minimum.
Setbacks need to address the health risks to residents from low frequency noise. Without sufficient setbacks to avert the adverse affects of low frequency noise, residents would be subject to chronic and unbearable living conditions.
3.10.2.2.4 (fire) "Generally any emergency/ fire situation at a wind turbine site or substation that are beyond the capabilities of the local service providers will be the responsibility of the project owner/ operator..........VERY vague.
3.10.1.4 Fire and safety emergency response needs a specific route plan and method for first responders. 45 minutes response time does not provide adequate protection.
Pilot Program is optional for the Town. The state is also watching to see how the towns are splitting up revenue so they can adjust the programs that go to the towns.
Minimum setbacks need to be placed at maximum ice throw and wake affect from any public road in order to protect the safety of motorists and tourists. Set backs from roads should be at least 2000 feet to protect the public.
Minimum setbacks along neighboring property lines need to great enough to allow the full use of future building on the adjacent land.
Fencing has to be sufficient to protect the public/ hunters/ snowmobilers/ 4 wheelers/ children with fences 360 degrees, this has not been addressed. Fencing protection from ice throw and stray voltage should be 300 feet minimum.
Setbacks need to address the health risks to residents from low frequency noise. Without sufficient setbacks to avert the adverse affects of low frequency noise, residents would be subject to chronic and unbearable living conditions.
3.10.2.2.4 (fire) "Generally any emergency/ fire situation at a wind turbine site or substation that are beyond the capabilities of the local service providers will be the responsibility of the project owner/ operator..........VERY vague.
3.10.1.4 Fire and safety emergency response needs a specific route plan and method for first responders. 45 minutes response time does not provide adequate protection.
Pilot Program is optional for the Town. The state is also watching to see how the towns are splitting up revenue so they can adjust the programs that go to the towns.
June 4, 2006 letter to the Cohocton Planning Board by Robert C. Strasburg II
June 4, 2006
Cohocton Planning Board
Attn: Chairman Sandor Fox
15 South Main Street
Cohocton, NY 14828
Re: Proposed Wind Turbine Zoning Law
Dear Planning Board Members:
I was at your June 1st regular meeting and am very pleased that you have considered the seriousness of the impact of approving the proposed wind turbine zoning law in its present form. I commend your recognition of the fact that the proposed new wind turbine zoning law is incomplete due to the fact that it does not address some very important issues. It was interesting to watch as you worked your way through some of the issues and reached the logical conclusion that you could not conscientiously return the proposed law to the Town Board with your approval or recommendations without seeking answers to the questions that arose during your discussions.
I am in hopes that now that you acknowledge the complexity of the issues facing you that you will give sufficient time to finding your answers and not allow yourselves to be rushed by the pressures from the wind company and/or the Town Board. You are the Lead Agency in this program and all responsibility lies with you to perform at the level your oath of office demands. I am hoping you will consider that the entire Town is depending on you to protect us. I am in hopes that the same logic you used in deciding not to return this proposed zoning law to the Town Board with your approval will also lead you to fully understand the need for a moratorium.
I hope you have all read the account of the same type of situation that the Town of Lincoln, Wisconsin faced after they allowed a wind company to intrude into their Town without sufficient regulation in place. You can find this report at http://www.aweo.org/windlincoln.html if you have not seen it.
The following points are of great concern to me and I am giving you notice of them:
Liability:
1. Without question, it has been proven that at the installation of wind farms, surrounding residents have suffered loss in property value. The current proposed law makes no provision to protect residents from this undeniable event. This is a liability to the Town.
2. The proposed zoning law makes no provision to measure current replacement and market value of homes surrounding these turbines prior to their installation and provides no program to measure any loss of value after installation, nor does it provide any provisions to hold the wind company liable for any loss. Who will pay for these measurements of pre and post values? This is a liability to the Town.
3. The proposed Zoning law makes no provision for residents that will be damaged from the installation of these turbines to seek restitution. This issue is unaddressed and therefore leaves the burden on the resident to pursue recovery through expensive lawsuits in the Court system. It is the burden of you, the Lead Agency in this program to make responsible provision for easy and quick recovery of loss for your residents that depend on your leadership. This is a liability to the Town.
4. Let it be noted that if the wind company goes into bankruptcy, any premiums on liability insurance may not be paid leaving residents unprotected. In a bankruptcy situation, previous letters of credit are worthless. This is a liability to the Town. The only logical and acceptable solution to this issue is for the zoning law to require sufficient prepaid escrow funds to protect the Town and its residents. You cannot have sufficient protection until you have sufficiently researched the impact. How much protection or escrow funds are needed?
5. Other installations of wind farms have forced the evacuation of resident’s homes. Who pays for all this? Are you going to allow this wind company to come into our Town and profit millions of dollars per year by leveraging our wind resource and leave your residents exposed to this type of loss? Are you aware of the income that UPC is able to make from this project when you consider the sale of the electricity, the government subsidies, and the tax shelter savings from accelerated depreciation? Please see the report noted below [1] on income potential. UPC must be held responsible for the potential damage we may suffer and you must get the protection up front in cash to protect us. The report below of potential income clearly shows that they can afford to be responsible.
6. The proposed zoning law does not address any measurement of low frequency noise which is measured on a different scale than audible noise. Low frequency noise is a proven undeniable liability. The proposed zoning law does not specify who is to do this measurement nor who is to pay for it. This is a liability to the Town.
7. The proposed zoning law does not address when and for how long monitoring tests should be done to measure audible and low frequency noise.
8. The proposed zoning law does not address who will pay for the alterations, improvements and repair of Town roads prior to, during and after the installation of these turbines. Will the Town have to borrow money to accomplish these changes while you wait for reimbursement from the wind company? Will you have to raise our taxes for this? Are you allowing the Town to be put in a position of financing the wind company’s ability to leverage our wind resource? What cash flow impact (has a study been done?) will the cost of these road alterations have on the Town if we have to pay for them up front? This is a liability to the Town.
9. What is the measured impact of all these road expansions? Will the affected property owners that lose usable property from the expansion of these roads suffer loss? This is a liability to the Town.
10. What is the process for recovery when a resident has been damaged? Will residents have direct and immediate access to an escrow fund for such losses or will they be forced to wait and finance any needed responses out of their own pocket? What if a neighboring farmer cannot plant a damaged field from runoffs and erosion resulting from the installation of these turbines? Who will pay his loss? How long will he have to wait for reimbursement?
11. What if people are forced out of their home which is always the case when a wind farm is implemented in a populated area such as ours? How will struggling young families handle the financial burden of moving their families when they cannot get full market value from their current home because you allowed a 400’ wind turbine to be stuck right behind it? Shouldn’t there be an escrow fund set up to cover replacement costs of homes and all moving and relocation expenses? How can these financially struggling families afford to fight a wind company that turns a deaf ear to their cry?
12. What on earth are you thinking when you are allowing a 500’ foot height restriction? How long do you think it will be before the wind company utilizes that option?
The following [1] is an extract from the work of Glen Schleede in which he examines the income streams for these wind companies. The analysis is based on 67 of the old style, less productive 1.5 MW turbines which are smaller and less in number than what UPC wants to put into out Town. One could logically conclude that UPC will be in line to receive much more financial benefit than proposed in the analysis below.
[1] 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. See reference [2] below.
You are the Lead Agency in this program and directly accountable for all the answers to these questions and the successful management of this program. I completely understand the position you are in. I understand the pressure on you from above to rubber stamp this zoning law as it is, but please, for the sake of the residents who trust you to protect them, for the sake of your honor, for the sake of your conscience, do not cave into the pressure from above. You are the Lead Agent, tell those above you that are pressuring you to be puppets and disregard the oath of your office to back away, they have to obey you, you have the authority. You are the Lead Agency, use your authority to do what your oath of office demands … protect us residents.
I urge you to declare a moratorium for yourselves giving time to research and make responsible decisions. Irresponsible decisions will only expose the Town to future liability from lawsuits for negligence. You will have to face us residents after these turbines are up. What will you tell us when we see you in the store? Will you have to hang your head in shame because you crumbled under the pressure of the Town Board? Please lead properly.
I have only scratched the surface of the questions that lie before you with my points above.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Strasburg II
[2] The author of the above analysis, GLENN R. SCHLEEDE is semi-retired after working on energy and related matters in government and the private sector for over 30 years. He now devotes a large share of his time to self-financed analysis and writing about (a) government policies and programs that are detrimental to consumers and taxpayers, and (b) government or private sector activities that are presented to the media, public and government officials in a false or misleading way. From 1992 until September 2003, Schleede maintained a consulting practice, Energy Market and Policy Analysis, Inc. (EMPA), providing analysis of energy markets and policies. During that time he worked primarily on natural gas and electricity issues. Prior to forming EMPA, Schleede was Vice President of New England Electric System (NEES), Westborough, MA, and President of its fuels subsidiary, New England Energy Incorporated. His time with NEES included responsibilities for procurement and transportation of coal, natural gas and oil for NEES facilities, NEEI’s oil and gas exploration and coal shipping ventures, and NEES economic planning and budgeting functions. Previously, Schleede was Executive Associate Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (1981), Senior VP of the National Coal Association in Washington (where he was employed from 1977-1981) and Associate Director (Energy and Science) of the White House Domestic Council (where he served from 1973-1977). He also held career service positions in the U.S. OMB and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. He has a BA degree from Gustavus Adolphus College and an MA from the University of Minnesota. He is also a graduate of Harvard Business School’s Advanced Management Program. Schleede is the author of many papers and reports on energy matters. His articles appear in various journals and/or are covered in the energy trade press. Some appear in full text on various public policy group web sites. Since 2001, Schleede has analyzed and written a lot about wind energy. The facts (a) convinced him that wind turbines are a niche technology that would never make a significant contribution toward meeting US energy requirements, and (b) demonstrated that the US DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (DOE-EERE); the National Renewable Energy “Laboratory” (NREL) and other DOE contractors, using tax dollars, distribute false and misleading information on wind energy.
Cohocton Planning Board
Attn: Chairman Sandor Fox
15 South Main Street
Cohocton, NY 14828
Re: Proposed Wind Turbine Zoning Law
Dear Planning Board Members:
I was at your June 1st regular meeting and am very pleased that you have considered the seriousness of the impact of approving the proposed wind turbine zoning law in its present form. I commend your recognition of the fact that the proposed new wind turbine zoning law is incomplete due to the fact that it does not address some very important issues. It was interesting to watch as you worked your way through some of the issues and reached the logical conclusion that you could not conscientiously return the proposed law to the Town Board with your approval or recommendations without seeking answers to the questions that arose during your discussions.
I am in hopes that now that you acknowledge the complexity of the issues facing you that you will give sufficient time to finding your answers and not allow yourselves to be rushed by the pressures from the wind company and/or the Town Board. You are the Lead Agency in this program and all responsibility lies with you to perform at the level your oath of office demands. I am hoping you will consider that the entire Town is depending on you to protect us. I am in hopes that the same logic you used in deciding not to return this proposed zoning law to the Town Board with your approval will also lead you to fully understand the need for a moratorium.
I hope you have all read the account of the same type of situation that the Town of Lincoln, Wisconsin faced after they allowed a wind company to intrude into their Town without sufficient regulation in place. You can find this report at http://www.aweo.org/windlincoln.html if you have not seen it.
The following points are of great concern to me and I am giving you notice of them:
Liability:
1. Without question, it has been proven that at the installation of wind farms, surrounding residents have suffered loss in property value. The current proposed law makes no provision to protect residents from this undeniable event. This is a liability to the Town.
2. The proposed zoning law makes no provision to measure current replacement and market value of homes surrounding these turbines prior to their installation and provides no program to measure any loss of value after installation, nor does it provide any provisions to hold the wind company liable for any loss. Who will pay for these measurements of pre and post values? This is a liability to the Town.
3. The proposed Zoning law makes no provision for residents that will be damaged from the installation of these turbines to seek restitution. This issue is unaddressed and therefore leaves the burden on the resident to pursue recovery through expensive lawsuits in the Court system. It is the burden of you, the Lead Agency in this program to make responsible provision for easy and quick recovery of loss for your residents that depend on your leadership. This is a liability to the Town.
4. Let it be noted that if the wind company goes into bankruptcy, any premiums on liability insurance may not be paid leaving residents unprotected. In a bankruptcy situation, previous letters of credit are worthless. This is a liability to the Town. The only logical and acceptable solution to this issue is for the zoning law to require sufficient prepaid escrow funds to protect the Town and its residents. You cannot have sufficient protection until you have sufficiently researched the impact. How much protection or escrow funds are needed?
5. Other installations of wind farms have forced the evacuation of resident’s homes. Who pays for all this? Are you going to allow this wind company to come into our Town and profit millions of dollars per year by leveraging our wind resource and leave your residents exposed to this type of loss? Are you aware of the income that UPC is able to make from this project when you consider the sale of the electricity, the government subsidies, and the tax shelter savings from accelerated depreciation? Please see the report noted below [1] on income potential. UPC must be held responsible for the potential damage we may suffer and you must get the protection up front in cash to protect us. The report below of potential income clearly shows that they can afford to be responsible.
6. The proposed zoning law does not address any measurement of low frequency noise which is measured on a different scale than audible noise. Low frequency noise is a proven undeniable liability. The proposed zoning law does not specify who is to do this measurement nor who is to pay for it. This is a liability to the Town.
7. The proposed zoning law does not address when and for how long monitoring tests should be done to measure audible and low frequency noise.
8. The proposed zoning law does not address who will pay for the alterations, improvements and repair of Town roads prior to, during and after the installation of these turbines. Will the Town have to borrow money to accomplish these changes while you wait for reimbursement from the wind company? Will you have to raise our taxes for this? Are you allowing the Town to be put in a position of financing the wind company’s ability to leverage our wind resource? What cash flow impact (has a study been done?) will the cost of these road alterations have on the Town if we have to pay for them up front? This is a liability to the Town.
9. What is the measured impact of all these road expansions? Will the affected property owners that lose usable property from the expansion of these roads suffer loss? This is a liability to the Town.
10. What is the process for recovery when a resident has been damaged? Will residents have direct and immediate access to an escrow fund for such losses or will they be forced to wait and finance any needed responses out of their own pocket? What if a neighboring farmer cannot plant a damaged field from runoffs and erosion resulting from the installation of these turbines? Who will pay his loss? How long will he have to wait for reimbursement?
11. What if people are forced out of their home which is always the case when a wind farm is implemented in a populated area such as ours? How will struggling young families handle the financial burden of moving their families when they cannot get full market value from their current home because you allowed a 400’ wind turbine to be stuck right behind it? Shouldn’t there be an escrow fund set up to cover replacement costs of homes and all moving and relocation expenses? How can these financially struggling families afford to fight a wind company that turns a deaf ear to their cry?
12. What on earth are you thinking when you are allowing a 500’ foot height restriction? How long do you think it will be before the wind company utilizes that option?
The following [1] is an extract from the work of Glen Schleede in which he examines the income streams for these wind companies. The analysis is based on 67 of the old style, less productive 1.5 MW turbines which are smaller and less in number than what UPC wants to put into out Town. One could logically conclude that UPC will be in line to receive much more financial benefit than proposed in the analysis below.
[1] 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. See reference [2] below.
You are the Lead Agency in this program and directly accountable for all the answers to these questions and the successful management of this program. I completely understand the position you are in. I understand the pressure on you from above to rubber stamp this zoning law as it is, but please, for the sake of the residents who trust you to protect them, for the sake of your honor, for the sake of your conscience, do not cave into the pressure from above. You are the Lead Agent, tell those above you that are pressuring you to be puppets and disregard the oath of your office to back away, they have to obey you, you have the authority. You are the Lead Agency, use your authority to do what your oath of office demands … protect us residents.
I urge you to declare a moratorium for yourselves giving time to research and make responsible decisions. Irresponsible decisions will only expose the Town to future liability from lawsuits for negligence. You will have to face us residents after these turbines are up. What will you tell us when we see you in the store? Will you have to hang your head in shame because you crumbled under the pressure of the Town Board? Please lead properly.
I have only scratched the surface of the questions that lie before you with my points above.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Strasburg II
[2] The author of the above analysis, GLENN R. SCHLEEDE is semi-retired after working on energy and related matters in government and the private sector for over 30 years. He now devotes a large share of his time to self-financed analysis and writing about (a) government policies and programs that are detrimental to consumers and taxpayers, and (b) government or private sector activities that are presented to the media, public and government officials in a false or misleading way. From 1992 until September 2003, Schleede maintained a consulting practice, Energy Market and Policy Analysis, Inc. (EMPA), providing analysis of energy markets and policies. During that time he worked primarily on natural gas and electricity issues. Prior to forming EMPA, Schleede was Vice President of New England Electric System (NEES), Westborough, MA, and President of its fuels subsidiary, New England Energy Incorporated. His time with NEES included responsibilities for procurement and transportation of coal, natural gas and oil for NEES facilities, NEEI’s oil and gas exploration and coal shipping ventures, and NEES economic planning and budgeting functions. Previously, Schleede was Executive Associate Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (1981), Senior VP of the National Coal Association in Washington (where he was employed from 1977-1981) and Associate Director (Energy and Science) of the White House Domestic Council (where he served from 1973-1977). He also held career service positions in the U.S. OMB and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. He has a BA degree from Gustavus Adolphus College and an MA from the University of Minnesota. He is also a graduate of Harvard Business School’s Advanced Management Program. Schleede is the author of many papers and reports on energy matters. His articles appear in various journals and/or are covered in the energy trade press. Some appear in full text on various public policy group web sites. Since 2001, Schleede has analyzed and written a lot about wind energy. The facts (a) convinced him that wind turbines are a niche technology that would never make a significant contribution toward meeting US energy requirements, and (b) demonstrated that the US DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (DOE-EERE); the National Renewable Energy “Laboratory” (NREL) and other DOE contractors, using tax dollars, distribute false and misleading information on wind energy.
Sunday, June 04, 2006
Tale of Two Townships by James Hall
What separates the local government of the Town of Malone, NY from that of Cohocton, NY is not a distance of geography, but mindset. The protracted battle over industrial wind turbines can be easily understood when you examine the vast difference between two laws. Malone has passed their wind ordinance of 5/24/06. Read the provisions and appreciate the protections for their community built into the law. Now inspect the second attempt by the Town of Cohocton to draft their Local Law regulation that virtually turns the township into an industrial landscape. The obvious question is which town has fulfilled their duty and responsibility to protect their citizens as stated in their respective comprehensive plan?
NYS law is clear and precise. Each township is bound by their comprehensive plan as the fundamental and key authority to regulate land use. In the case of Cohocton, the Town Board is willfully and intentionally working towards circumventing their own comprehensive plan in their outrageous campaign of sanctioning the Cohocton Windmill Power Project. This project requires that the developer, UPC must compel the town to repudiate the existing comprehensive plan and remove the zoning board and appeal process, in order to build their field of industrial turbine generators.
Let’s be perfectly clear. Without the passage of a “the sky is the limit” windmill law, the project as it is proposed could not be erected. Who among the proponents of their destructive scheme to deface and extract the last measure of cash from our community natural wind resource has the guts to defend the 500 foot height standard for wind turbines. Where is the honesty, when the 2.0 MW stand just over 400 feet high? The current version of the UPC lease agreement indicates that overhead power lines would be built to carry 3.0 MW capacity. Who among us are so naïve to think that undisclosed plans are designed to erect even larger 3.0 MW turbines.
Malone has it right, Cohocton is acting like a tool of the old mercantile robber barons with an acute conflict of interest affliction. Surely UPC understands the lessons of anti-trust! In this day and age responsible developers must balance the public interest, community safeguards with their profit motivations. Likewise, local municipalities must resist the seduction of unrealistic promises and false assumptions when a corporate sales pitch promises the moon but the sad facts predict a barren and distressed agriculture use.
Industrial use requires industrial taxation. Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) as a substitute to honest tax responsibility is a political scam of the highest magnitude. The Cohocton case illustrates a profound disconnect from prudent policy. Accepting a Pilot scheme is optional. The Cohocton School District demonstrated sound judgment by declining the UPC Pilot proposal. But the Town of Cohocton is adamant about allowing UPC the keys to the kingdom for the price of a song. If the argument was credible that accepting the UPC project is about bringing in needed income for the town, why not levee a fair and appropriate industrial tax assessment on each turbine? Why is Supervisor Zigenfus willing to settle for so little money when any other industrial enterprise would be charged a rate equal to its use and value?
Also by what stretch of sensible logic can a landholder with a UPC lease deem their land to remain agriculture when the use is being changed to industrial? What about all those government subsidies not to plant crops! If the land is being rezoned industrial, farming landholders need to face the reality that their special agricultural status may be challenged. Undoubtedly UPC would have you believe the footprint for each turbine site location is minimal. But the truth is that the effective distance around each industrial machine extends some 3,000 feet from the center point. That is the true minimum industrial land area for each turbine, which demands taxation at industrial rates.
With the long ten year NYS mandate to go to 100% reassessment for the entire town just being completed (must be a coincidence in timing), why should a corporate for profit business be given such favor while homeowners are expected to pay on values that will drop like a stone with the coming of wind turbines? Landholders with UPC leases are left with the worse of both worlds. They bear the liability and insurance costs of an industrial zone, the court challenges of reassessing their agriculture property once rezoned for industrial use and the loss of use of their land within the boundary areas affected by the turbine wind wash. Having their cake and eating it too will not be in the cards. A taxpayer revolt is in the making, the solution is to tax UPC at industrial rates, not at the Pilot scam devise.
Why not follow the Malone model and pass a protective windmill local ordinance? With the Article 78 challenge to the original Cohocton Windmill Local Law slated to be heard in Supreme Court on July 14, 2006, why has Cohocton hired an $290 an hour lawyer to pass a second law that continues to ignore the real public safety issues in the first law?
The Cohocton Planning Board is the lead agency for the UPC project. To their credit they are reviewing the Malone ordinance and have announced a June 7, 2006 meeting to discuss their findings. All area residents and taxpayers are urged to attend this meeting. Now is the time for the public to present sane and rational alternatives to the harmful windmill law #2. Demand that the process be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The best way to write a valid local law that the public can and will support is to address and resolve all the defects and flaws within the first two windmill laws.
Therefore the Cohocton Wind Watch organization calls upon the Planning Board to recommend to the Town Board a moratorium on the UPC project while a full complete and all-inclusive drafting of a windmill local law can be achieved. The tale of both townships does not have to end with one maintaining their regional quality of life while the other sinks into a pit of perpetual litigation. CWW stands ready to work with the entire community and with both appointed and elected officials.
The public is invited to the second public meeting sponsored by CWW on June 8, 2006 7:00 PM at the Cohocton Elementary School, 30 Park Ave., Cohocton, NY. This question and answer format will present an opportunity to communicate and brainstorm together. Community solutions are attainable when the scale and scope of a wind turbine project has rational height restrictions, sensible safeguard setback requirements and appropriate site location. Malone did it, what prevents Cohocton from doing the same?
James Hall – June 4, 2006
NYS law is clear and precise. Each township is bound by their comprehensive plan as the fundamental and key authority to regulate land use. In the case of Cohocton, the Town Board is willfully and intentionally working towards circumventing their own comprehensive plan in their outrageous campaign of sanctioning the Cohocton Windmill Power Project. This project requires that the developer, UPC must compel the town to repudiate the existing comprehensive plan and remove the zoning board and appeal process, in order to build their field of industrial turbine generators.
Let’s be perfectly clear. Without the passage of a “the sky is the limit” windmill law, the project as it is proposed could not be erected. Who among the proponents of their destructive scheme to deface and extract the last measure of cash from our community natural wind resource has the guts to defend the 500 foot height standard for wind turbines. Where is the honesty, when the 2.0 MW stand just over 400 feet high? The current version of the UPC lease agreement indicates that overhead power lines would be built to carry 3.0 MW capacity. Who among us are so naïve to think that undisclosed plans are designed to erect even larger 3.0 MW turbines.
Malone has it right, Cohocton is acting like a tool of the old mercantile robber barons with an acute conflict of interest affliction. Surely UPC understands the lessons of anti-trust! In this day and age responsible developers must balance the public interest, community safeguards with their profit motivations. Likewise, local municipalities must resist the seduction of unrealistic promises and false assumptions when a corporate sales pitch promises the moon but the sad facts predict a barren and distressed agriculture use.
Industrial use requires industrial taxation. Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) as a substitute to honest tax responsibility is a political scam of the highest magnitude. The Cohocton case illustrates a profound disconnect from prudent policy. Accepting a Pilot scheme is optional. The Cohocton School District demonstrated sound judgment by declining the UPC Pilot proposal. But the Town of Cohocton is adamant about allowing UPC the keys to the kingdom for the price of a song. If the argument was credible that accepting the UPC project is about bringing in needed income for the town, why not levee a fair and appropriate industrial tax assessment on each turbine? Why is Supervisor Zigenfus willing to settle for so little money when any other industrial enterprise would be charged a rate equal to its use and value?
Also by what stretch of sensible logic can a landholder with a UPC lease deem their land to remain agriculture when the use is being changed to industrial? What about all those government subsidies not to plant crops! If the land is being rezoned industrial, farming landholders need to face the reality that their special agricultural status may be challenged. Undoubtedly UPC would have you believe the footprint for each turbine site location is minimal. But the truth is that the effective distance around each industrial machine extends some 3,000 feet from the center point. That is the true minimum industrial land area for each turbine, which demands taxation at industrial rates.
With the long ten year NYS mandate to go to 100% reassessment for the entire town just being completed (must be a coincidence in timing), why should a corporate for profit business be given such favor while homeowners are expected to pay on values that will drop like a stone with the coming of wind turbines? Landholders with UPC leases are left with the worse of both worlds. They bear the liability and insurance costs of an industrial zone, the court challenges of reassessing their agriculture property once rezoned for industrial use and the loss of use of their land within the boundary areas affected by the turbine wind wash. Having their cake and eating it too will not be in the cards. A taxpayer revolt is in the making, the solution is to tax UPC at industrial rates, not at the Pilot scam devise.
Why not follow the Malone model and pass a protective windmill local ordinance? With the Article 78 challenge to the original Cohocton Windmill Local Law slated to be heard in Supreme Court on July 14, 2006, why has Cohocton hired an $290 an hour lawyer to pass a second law that continues to ignore the real public safety issues in the first law?
The Cohocton Planning Board is the lead agency for the UPC project. To their credit they are reviewing the Malone ordinance and have announced a June 7, 2006 meeting to discuss their findings. All area residents and taxpayers are urged to attend this meeting. Now is the time for the public to present sane and rational alternatives to the harmful windmill law #2. Demand that the process be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The best way to write a valid local law that the public can and will support is to address and resolve all the defects and flaws within the first two windmill laws.
Therefore the Cohocton Wind Watch organization calls upon the Planning Board to recommend to the Town Board a moratorium on the UPC project while a full complete and all-inclusive drafting of a windmill local law can be achieved. The tale of both townships does not have to end with one maintaining their regional quality of life while the other sinks into a pit of perpetual litigation. CWW stands ready to work with the entire community and with both appointed and elected officials.
The public is invited to the second public meeting sponsored by CWW on June 8, 2006 7:00 PM at the Cohocton Elementary School, 30 Park Ave., Cohocton, NY. This question and answer format will present an opportunity to communicate and brainstorm together. Community solutions are attainable when the scale and scope of a wind turbine project has rational height restrictions, sensible safeguard setback requirements and appropriate site location. Malone did it, what prevents Cohocton from doing the same?
James Hall – June 4, 2006
Saturday, June 03, 2006
Steve Trude letter to the Cohocton Planning Board – June 1, 2006
Dear Board Members:
The meeting on June 1 was the first time I felt the planning board was willing to examine alternatives of other wind laws. The board used good judgment to review the recent passed Malone Windmill Law.
Knowing that Cohocton Wind Watch will challenge any aspect of the law that will be in conflict with the existing comprehensive plan or would contradict the zoning law, the planning board made the correct decision. These regulations are our protection from giant corporations raping our peace and tranquility.
We have invested out lives and money to build a way of life in Cohocton and the Finger Lakes region. We would like to spend the rest of our days with our children and grandchildren peacefully enjoying the sights and sounds of this great area.
We are privileged to live and play where so many visitors take a drive to enjoy where we already live. Many people wish that they would be able to buy camps and cottages in the Finger Lakes. We all share the same dream. I came here for the same reason. I pray that we don’t have to leave here because of an unwise misuse of our most valuable resource.
All of us need more money. The residents the farmers the town! But we need a responsible way to earn more income. The future of our town and the preservation of our environment depend on the choices we make today.
Cohocton Wind Watch needs your input and support to carry on mutual task of building a better community.
Steve Trude
President - CWW
The meeting on June 1 was the first time I felt the planning board was willing to examine alternatives of other wind laws. The board used good judgment to review the recent passed Malone Windmill Law.
Knowing that Cohocton Wind Watch will challenge any aspect of the law that will be in conflict with the existing comprehensive plan or would contradict the zoning law, the planning board made the correct decision. These regulations are our protection from giant corporations raping our peace and tranquility.
We have invested out lives and money to build a way of life in Cohocton and the Finger Lakes region. We would like to spend the rest of our days with our children and grandchildren peacefully enjoying the sights and sounds of this great area.
We are privileged to live and play where so many visitors take a drive to enjoy where we already live. Many people wish that they would be able to buy camps and cottages in the Finger Lakes. We all share the same dream. I came here for the same reason. I pray that we don’t have to leave here because of an unwise misuse of our most valuable resource.
All of us need more money. The residents the farmers the town! But we need a responsible way to earn more income. The future of our town and the preservation of our environment depend on the choices we make today.
Cohocton Wind Watch needs your input and support to carry on mutual task of building a better community.
Steve Trude
President - CWW
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)