Robert C. Strasburg II
60 Maple Ave.
Cohocton, New York 14826
June 17, 2006
Honorable Councilman Wayne Hunt
Cohocton Town Board
Cohocton, NY 14826
Re: Response to your letter
Dear Wayne:
Thank you for your letter of response. Wayne, you have chided me for being insincere to you when actually I did mean what I said about my respect for you and still hold to that opinion. Anyway... I am grateful for your response. Since your letter was headed “Open Letter”, I have taken the liberty of copying it below for reference.
Wayne, in my letter to you I did inquire as to your willingness to meet me in open debate on the issues surrounding these wind turbines. I have no interest in personal attacks, because you are right, you do deserve better treatment than that. I am interested in debating the issues with you. Are you interested?
I am sure you remember when I first started asking you about your reason for supporting these wind turbines, you said “because of the revenue”. Well, I wonder … do you still hold to that now that the numbers have been released and the $160,000 that the wind company is possibly going to give our Town is lower than any of us even dreamed it would be? I can show you how this supposed credit into our General Fund will end up being a debit when the Town of Cohocton has to respond to the presence of these turbines. Would you be willing to debate this point on the Cohocton Wind Watch’s web site? If you will email your position on how this will benefit our Town to cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com , it will be posted unaltered and I will respond to your posting on the web site.
I am asking you to debate on two points; “the benefit of the revenue to the Town” and I would also like to debate you on what your position is on “property rights of neighbors to the proposed towers”. As represented by my previous letter Wayne, I am not interested in attacking you personally. This is not personal. This is about differences of opinions and issues.
I understand your reference in the letter below to the parade not stopping … you did not even stop to legally wait for our Town Planning Board to offer their recommendations on this project. In your letter, you declared that you are the leader of this parade, carrying the torch. Was it your decision to cause the Town Board to illegally violate our Town Zoning Law, disrespect the Planning Board Chairman and sidestep the Planning Board? I am not patronizing you when I sincerely ask you to reconsider your position Wayne.
Respectful still,
Robert C. Strasburg II
Sunday, June 18, 2006
OPEN LETTER TO BOB STRASBURG II by Cohocton Councilman Wayne Hunt
Dear Bob;
The parade of progress is marching right down your street, right in front of your house. 1 have taken up a torch, the light of leadership if you will, at the head of this parade. This parade is not to be denied; not to be stopped. It is just not going to go away!
You, for reasons of your own, have taken up a position beside your street and along with a cadre of your friends are trying to stop the parade. Each of you is armed with a bucket of baloney and you're trying to douse the torch by tossing baloney all over it.
Now this baloney tossing does seem to please a certain crowd in Cohocton and some other towns in the area, so maybe you should keep it up. But beware! The baloney is piling up around your feet. Don't trip yourself up in it.
And by the way, don't patronize old Dad any more. As wise and as kind as he is, he deserves better treatment than that. You will make yourself look a lot better and seem a lot more believable in other people's eyes if you treat them with the same respect that 1 have shown you.
Sincerely yours,
Wayne R. Hunt
WH06-18-2006%2010%3B00%3B36AM.rtf
The parade of progress is marching right down your street, right in front of your house. 1 have taken up a torch, the light of leadership if you will, at the head of this parade. This parade is not to be denied; not to be stopped. It is just not going to go away!
You, for reasons of your own, have taken up a position beside your street and along with a cadre of your friends are trying to stop the parade. Each of you is armed with a bucket of baloney and you're trying to douse the torch by tossing baloney all over it.
Now this baloney tossing does seem to please a certain crowd in Cohocton and some other towns in the area, so maybe you should keep it up. But beware! The baloney is piling up around your feet. Don't trip yourself up in it.
And by the way, don't patronize old Dad any more. As wise and as kind as he is, he deserves better treatment than that. You will make yourself look a lot better and seem a lot more believable in other people's eyes if you treat them with the same respect that 1 have shown you.
Sincerely yours,
Wayne R. Hunt
WH06-18-2006%2010%3B00%3B36AM.rtf
Saturday, June 17, 2006
June 17, 2006 Letter to the Editor by Jim Lince
Dear Editor,
"Who’s going to live in the new Cohocton industrial park?"
Just who are the residents of the new Cohocton industrial park, also known as the UPC industrial wind project?
It won’t be the old farmers that have become the new industrial developers. Most live elsewhere or outside the impact zone. Others will be there just long enough to retire to Florida. There are a few green “YES to industrial development” signs up in the hills.
Most won’t, but a few have stood up in front of the town and proceeded to lecture those who are going to live in this mixed industrial park: “There’s no problem. We went to Fenner! We got cookies and milk. There’s no hazards, no noise, no shadow flicker. We stood under one, so it’s okay!” This is their expert judgment from a few hours of a pre-arranged “company tour” by UPC. The entire trip scripted to put the best foot forward.
Let’s not forget this is the industry that quotes a student and his flawed college term paper as the #1 proof that property values won’t go down!
Unfortunately, the quotes from unpaid people that actually do live close to these massive industrial power plants tell a much different story: Tug Hill, Myersdale, Lincoln, even Fenner. Page after page of complaints, forced buyouts, arbitrations and even abandonments.
But not to worry --- our neighbor developers/leaseholders won’t be living with them anyways.
They won’t be seeing, hearing or living with industrial wind turbines day and night over the next thirty years.
They will drive up to the new Cohocton industrial park, intermixed with residences, sit for an hour, and then return to their peaceful homes.
They will freely stroll around their own back yards and the only thing that will have changed is the balance of their bank account.
They will comfortably sit and look at the clear night sky, rather than the red strobe lights of the industrial complex.
They will sleep soundly in their beds, rather than being awakened by dozens of 400 foot industrial mechanical spinning giants as tall as the Xerox tower. The 747 wingspan sized blades slicing through the air --- the tips traveling almost 200 mph.
And the sad note is they are getting paid to perform this experiment on their neighbors.
Jim Lince
Cohocton, NY
"Who’s going to live in the new Cohocton industrial park?"
Just who are the residents of the new Cohocton industrial park, also known as the UPC industrial wind project?
It won’t be the old farmers that have become the new industrial developers. Most live elsewhere or outside the impact zone. Others will be there just long enough to retire to Florida. There are a few green “YES to industrial development” signs up in the hills.
Most won’t, but a few have stood up in front of the town and proceeded to lecture those who are going to live in this mixed industrial park: “There’s no problem. We went to Fenner! We got cookies and milk. There’s no hazards, no noise, no shadow flicker. We stood under one, so it’s okay!” This is their expert judgment from a few hours of a pre-arranged “company tour” by UPC. The entire trip scripted to put the best foot forward.
Let’s not forget this is the industry that quotes a student and his flawed college term paper as the #1 proof that property values won’t go down!
Unfortunately, the quotes from unpaid people that actually do live close to these massive industrial power plants tell a much different story: Tug Hill, Myersdale, Lincoln, even Fenner. Page after page of complaints, forced buyouts, arbitrations and even abandonments.
But not to worry --- our neighbor developers/leaseholders won’t be living with them anyways.
They won’t be seeing, hearing or living with industrial wind turbines day and night over the next thirty years.
They will drive up to the new Cohocton industrial park, intermixed with residences, sit for an hour, and then return to their peaceful homes.
They will freely stroll around their own back yards and the only thing that will have changed is the balance of their bank account.
They will comfortably sit and look at the clear night sky, rather than the red strobe lights of the industrial complex.
They will sleep soundly in their beds, rather than being awakened by dozens of 400 foot industrial mechanical spinning giants as tall as the Xerox tower. The 747 wingspan sized blades slicing through the air --- the tips traveling almost 200 mph.
And the sad note is they are getting paid to perform this experiment on their neighbors.
Jim Lince
Cohocton, NY
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Legal Notice to Cohocton Town Board Public Hearing on June 14, 2006
DAVID P. MILLER. ESQ.
ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW
111 NORTH MAIN STREET. PO. BOX 356
NAPLES. NEW YORK 14512
(585)3742130
June 14, 2006
The Hon. Jack Zigenfus Supervisor,
Town of Cohocton
15S. Main St.
Cohocton, NY 14826
Re: Proposed Local Law No. 2 of the Year 2006 of the Town of Cohocton (Wind Turbine Law)
Dear Supervisor Zigenfus.
As you are aware, I represent James Hall.
Mr Hall and I have been discussing the Town's proposed Local Law No. 2 of the year 2006 and we are concerned about the improper procedure which the Town is following in attempting to enact this local law.
The proposed law was referred to the Town's Planning Board for review and recommendation in mid-May of this year. It is my understanding that the Planning Board is actively engaged in reviewing the proposed law as well as a wind turbine law adopted by the Town of Malone, New York. It is my further understanding that the Planning Board has not yet made any recommendation to the Town Board with respect to the adoption or modification of Local Law No. 2.
In light of the fact that the Planning Board has not yet made any recommendation to the Town Board, the public hearing which the Town Board is holding tonight is unlawful.
I call your attention to Section 810 of the Town's zoning law, last amended in April 2002. That section provides, in part, "Every proposed amendment unless initiated by the Planning Board, shall be referred to the Planning Board. The Planning Board SHALL report its recommendations thereon to the Town Board accompanied by a full statement of the reasons for such recommendation, prior to the public hearing." (Emphasis added). Section 810 then goes on to provide that the Planning Board has 45 days from the date of referral in which to give its recommendation to the Town Board.
The proposed amendment under consideration tonight was initiated by the Town Board, not the Planning Board. The Planning Board has not yet made any recommendations on the law to the Town Board. The Planning Board's 45 day period in which to make such recommendations has not yet expired. Therefore, the hearing which the Town Board is conducting tonight is in violation of the Town's own zoning law. You must have the recommendation from the Planning Board prior to the public hearing.
It would be improper to simply adjourn this hearing, because it was invalid from its very beginning.
Therefore, this hearing should be terminated immediately and a second, lawful hearing should not be scheduled until after the Town Board has received and reviewed the Planning Board's report on this proposal.
The Planning Board has been given the review and recommendation function by New York State law and by your own zoning law. This I am sure was done for a very good reason., namely that Planning Boards frequently serve as a second set of eyes and ears and opinions and often provide valuable insights to the municipal boards which they advise. They can conduct research and acquire information which the Town boards simply do not have the time to do.
As a matter of sound government, you ought not to bypass your Planning Board, but rather you should seek its sound advice concerning this matter which is of such importance to so many in your community.
David P. Miller
ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW
111 NORTH MAIN STREET. PO. BOX 356
NAPLES. NEW YORK 14512
(585)3742130
June 14, 2006
The Hon. Jack Zigenfus Supervisor,
Town of Cohocton
15S. Main St.
Cohocton, NY 14826
Re: Proposed Local Law No. 2 of the Year 2006 of the Town of Cohocton (Wind Turbine Law)
Dear Supervisor Zigenfus.
As you are aware, I represent James Hall.
Mr Hall and I have been discussing the Town's proposed Local Law No. 2 of the year 2006 and we are concerned about the improper procedure which the Town is following in attempting to enact this local law.
The proposed law was referred to the Town's Planning Board for review and recommendation in mid-May of this year. It is my understanding that the Planning Board is actively engaged in reviewing the proposed law as well as a wind turbine law adopted by the Town of Malone, New York. It is my further understanding that the Planning Board has not yet made any recommendation to the Town Board with respect to the adoption or modification of Local Law No. 2.
In light of the fact that the Planning Board has not yet made any recommendation to the Town Board, the public hearing which the Town Board is holding tonight is unlawful.
I call your attention to Section 810 of the Town's zoning law, last amended in April 2002. That section provides, in part, "Every proposed amendment unless initiated by the Planning Board, shall be referred to the Planning Board. The Planning Board SHALL report its recommendations thereon to the Town Board accompanied by a full statement of the reasons for such recommendation, prior to the public hearing." (Emphasis added). Section 810 then goes on to provide that the Planning Board has 45 days from the date of referral in which to give its recommendation to the Town Board.
The proposed amendment under consideration tonight was initiated by the Town Board, not the Planning Board. The Planning Board has not yet made any recommendations on the law to the Town Board. The Planning Board's 45 day period in which to make such recommendations has not yet expired. Therefore, the hearing which the Town Board is conducting tonight is in violation of the Town's own zoning law. You must have the recommendation from the Planning Board prior to the public hearing.
It would be improper to simply adjourn this hearing, because it was invalid from its very beginning.
Therefore, this hearing should be terminated immediately and a second, lawful hearing should not be scheduled until after the Town Board has received and reviewed the Planning Board's report on this proposal.
The Planning Board has been given the review and recommendation function by New York State law and by your own zoning law. This I am sure was done for a very good reason., namely that Planning Boards frequently serve as a second set of eyes and ears and opinions and often provide valuable insights to the municipal boards which they advise. They can conduct research and acquire information which the Town boards simply do not have the time to do.
As a matter of sound government, you ought not to bypass your Planning Board, but rather you should seek its sound advice concerning this matter which is of such importance to so many in your community.
David P. Miller
June 15, 2006 Open Letter to Wayne Hunt by Robert C. Strasburg II
June 15, 2006
Honorable Councilman Wayne Hunt
Cohocton Town Board
Cohocton, NY 14826
Re: Friend to Friend
Dear Wayne:
I have watched, with pain in my heart, as this issue of whether a wind turbine farm is a good idea for the Town of Cohocton has emerged and taken on a life. The pain comes from watching you as a man that I respect; suffer public embarrassment when what you thought to be a good thing is being revealed to you as not what you thought it was.
Wayne, you are a very knowledgeable man in your industry. I have come to the local hardware with my questions of how to fix this or that with my home repair issues and you have in your gentle kind fatherly way, always guided me well with your advice. I have grown to admire you as I have watched you serve your community with exuberance and energetic commitment.
After I was enlightened in January of this year to the fact that the wind turbines might be a reality to Cohocton, I set out to look at what was really the story behind this new industry. Because you publicly had given your support to this, when I started researching, it was with the full knowledge you were behind it and therefore I was comfortable in my spirit that there was probably good reason for your positive stance on the issue. It did not take long for me though to reach a point of conflict in my soul. After looking at the data from both sides, I could not understand why you were so adamant that this was a good thing. Although the data offered to support these turbines in a community setting such as ours, was on the surface somewhat appealing, a more careful look quickly revealed that a deception was well under way to accomplish the enrichment of corporations at the expense of poor communities and basic property rights.
I have revealed this deception in public, hoping that the information would be received by all and that our community would come together in defense of our way of life without the intrusion of these turbines. Many have received this information from me and others and opposition is growing daily to these turbines intruding our way of life. What pains me is to watch men like you who have previously given your support to this project, reject the truth of the unbiased data and continue forward even in light of the fact that a large part of what you previously have hung your hat on has been exposed as not true.
Wayne, this boils down to character. Character shows well in a man when he is faced with the truth that he was wrong and is willing to publicly admit his error, change direction and let go of error.
You seem not to be willing to take this path, but have instead chosen to defend your position with denial. When faced with the facts that these turbines do make too much noise for residential settings, upset the natural rhythm of quietness at night when people need to rest, are scheduled to be too close to neighboring landowners homes, infringe on neighboring landowners rights, do devalue real property that is close to these turbines, the entire plan is a well crafted scam for enriching corporations at the expense of small communities, and the fact that the scope of the entire project does not fit into the declared Comprehensive Plan for our Town, your response is unsupported denial.
Wayne this boils down to ego. I am asking you to be the man I think you are. Admit that you have erred and change course. You will be well received for your courage to admit you were wrong if you do. If you insist on pressing forward with this issue, you will be exposed to humiliation and the community will reject you as a foolish man. I am asking you as a friend to take the higher road.
Should you choose not to, I am challenging you to a public debate on the following points:
1. The economics benefits to our Town from this plan
2. Corporate profit ratios
3. The truth as to whether this is really "green" energy
4. Liability exposure and Cohocton's preparedness
5. Emergency response preparedness
6. Health Effects of Wind Turbines
7. Findings of European Countries that have experienced this industry for over 30 years
8. Appropriate setbacks
9. Better alternative plans
There are three choices before you:
1. Accept my request as a friend of yours to have the courage to change direction
2. Accept my challenge to a public debate
3. Do nothing and continue your path of denial
My number is in the phone book; please call me with your answer.
Respectfully,
Robert C. Strasburg II
Honorable Councilman Wayne Hunt
Cohocton Town Board
Cohocton, NY 14826
Re: Friend to Friend
Dear Wayne:
I have watched, with pain in my heart, as this issue of whether a wind turbine farm is a good idea for the Town of Cohocton has emerged and taken on a life. The pain comes from watching you as a man that I respect; suffer public embarrassment when what you thought to be a good thing is being revealed to you as not what you thought it was.
Wayne, you are a very knowledgeable man in your industry. I have come to the local hardware with my questions of how to fix this or that with my home repair issues and you have in your gentle kind fatherly way, always guided me well with your advice. I have grown to admire you as I have watched you serve your community with exuberance and energetic commitment.
After I was enlightened in January of this year to the fact that the wind turbines might be a reality to Cohocton, I set out to look at what was really the story behind this new industry. Because you publicly had given your support to this, when I started researching, it was with the full knowledge you were behind it and therefore I was comfortable in my spirit that there was probably good reason for your positive stance on the issue. It did not take long for me though to reach a point of conflict in my soul. After looking at the data from both sides, I could not understand why you were so adamant that this was a good thing. Although the data offered to support these turbines in a community setting such as ours, was on the surface somewhat appealing, a more careful look quickly revealed that a deception was well under way to accomplish the enrichment of corporations at the expense of poor communities and basic property rights.
I have revealed this deception in public, hoping that the information would be received by all and that our community would come together in defense of our way of life without the intrusion of these turbines. Many have received this information from me and others and opposition is growing daily to these turbines intruding our way of life. What pains me is to watch men like you who have previously given your support to this project, reject the truth of the unbiased data and continue forward even in light of the fact that a large part of what you previously have hung your hat on has been exposed as not true.
Wayne, this boils down to character. Character shows well in a man when he is faced with the truth that he was wrong and is willing to publicly admit his error, change direction and let go of error.
You seem not to be willing to take this path, but have instead chosen to defend your position with denial. When faced with the facts that these turbines do make too much noise for residential settings, upset the natural rhythm of quietness at night when people need to rest, are scheduled to be too close to neighboring landowners homes, infringe on neighboring landowners rights, do devalue real property that is close to these turbines, the entire plan is a well crafted scam for enriching corporations at the expense of small communities, and the fact that the scope of the entire project does not fit into the declared Comprehensive Plan for our Town, your response is unsupported denial.
Wayne this boils down to ego. I am asking you to be the man I think you are. Admit that you have erred and change course. You will be well received for your courage to admit you were wrong if you do. If you insist on pressing forward with this issue, you will be exposed to humiliation and the community will reject you as a foolish man. I am asking you as a friend to take the higher road.
Should you choose not to, I am challenging you to a public debate on the following points:
1. The economics benefits to our Town from this plan
2. Corporate profit ratios
3. The truth as to whether this is really "green" energy
4. Liability exposure and Cohocton's preparedness
5. Emergency response preparedness
6. Health Effects of Wind Turbines
7. Findings of European Countries that have experienced this industry for over 30 years
8. Appropriate setbacks
9. Better alternative plans
There are three choices before you:
1. Accept my request as a friend of yours to have the courage to change direction
2. Accept my challenge to a public debate
3. Do nothing and continue your path of denial
My number is in the phone book; please call me with your answer.
Respectfully,
Robert C. Strasburg II
This wind power project is only about one thing by Jim Lince
It’s not about farming or agriculture. The American farm is an institution that all of us respect and should work to protect. There’s not a single definition of farming that includes an industrial power plant.
It’s not about the farmer. The American farmer is an unsung hero, a provider of our way of life. Not farmers, but Industrial Developers are the ones who pour thousands of yards of concrete and build 400 foot high mechanical industrial structures as tall as the Xerox tower in Rochester, with strobe lights and danger of death signs --- not farmers.
It’s not about clean green energy. Unlike hydro power, not a single coal, gas or nuclear power plant will be decommissioned by these turbines. For the nation just to get 20% of intermittent power from these giants it will take destroying land the size of the state of Virginia to do so. That’s not an environmentally sound approach for our nation.
A group of industrial developers in Cohocton (UPC/YES) would have you believe this is all about farming, agriculture, farmers, clean safe power, pretty windmills, setbacks, noise, ice throws, birds, property values, making a payment instead of paying any taxes, and putting money into the hands of the leaseholders.
But this is really just one question: Are the farms, residences and hills of Cohocton an industrial park or is it agricultural and residential zoned land?
If it is an industrial park, then it needs to be zoned an industrial park. The houses need to be condemned and bulldozed, the citizens and their children put out on the street with their belongings. The farms replanted with substations, power plants, and factories.
Rather this than subject our residents to a thirty year torture test in an improperly zoned area, some fighting to stay for what they have left and some fighting to leave. Rather this than placing an industrial zone on top of homes and leaving it to the home owner to fight for any peace. Rather this than have a bunch of industrial developers keep us believing that this is just farming by farmers. Saying it doesn’t make it so.
One question. Industrial park or not. Cohocton deserves a straight answer.
Jim Lince
Cohocton, NY
It’s not about the farmer. The American farmer is an unsung hero, a provider of our way of life. Not farmers, but Industrial Developers are the ones who pour thousands of yards of concrete and build 400 foot high mechanical industrial structures as tall as the Xerox tower in Rochester, with strobe lights and danger of death signs --- not farmers.
It’s not about clean green energy. Unlike hydro power, not a single coal, gas or nuclear power plant will be decommissioned by these turbines. For the nation just to get 20% of intermittent power from these giants it will take destroying land the size of the state of Virginia to do so. That’s not an environmentally sound approach for our nation.
A group of industrial developers in Cohocton (UPC/YES) would have you believe this is all about farming, agriculture, farmers, clean safe power, pretty windmills, setbacks, noise, ice throws, birds, property values, making a payment instead of paying any taxes, and putting money into the hands of the leaseholders.
But this is really just one question: Are the farms, residences and hills of Cohocton an industrial park or is it agricultural and residential zoned land?
If it is an industrial park, then it needs to be zoned an industrial park. The houses need to be condemned and bulldozed, the citizens and their children put out on the street with their belongings. The farms replanted with substations, power plants, and factories.
Rather this than subject our residents to a thirty year torture test in an improperly zoned area, some fighting to stay for what they have left and some fighting to leave. Rather this than placing an industrial zone on top of homes and leaving it to the home owner to fight for any peace. Rather this than have a bunch of industrial developers keep us believing that this is just farming by farmers. Saying it doesn’t make it so.
One question. Industrial park or not. Cohocton deserves a straight answer.
Jim Lince
Cohocton, NY
June 12, 2006 Cohocton Town Board Public Hearing Statement by Robert C. Strasburg II
I am opposed to the local law #2 because:
In my judgment, it opens the Town to allow the installation of an Industry and its industrial machines that we as a Town are not ready to receive. The rush to try to seize this “supposed opportunity” is causing our leadership to take risky and unnecessary gambles exposing us to otherwise avoidable loss if the pace was slowed and a more careful approach was taken. The false sense of urgency surrounding this issue is just that … false. There are other wind companies and there will be other government subsidies available to us at a later date after we have prepared properly for this change in Cohocton.
Because our Town is currently not mature in its ability to manage such a large scale program, has an industrial company strategised how to take advantage of our immaturity and exploit that weakness to its gain?
You are all aware of the movie clips where a bank robber comes into a town, robs the bank and comes out to find that he has been spotted by the police and a chase ensues. The crafty robber reaches in his bag of stolen money and throws a few dollars out the window sending the locals into a frenzied money grab and it creates such a confusion that the police are hindered and the robber gets away.
Might that scene be paralleled with our current situation? Has a company come into our Town, robbed our resources and thrown some money around to insure their getaway? Can we be considered as foolish as the residents of the aforementioned town?
If a robber has 25 million dollars in his bag and chooses to throw out $160,000 to insure a clean get-a-way, what would you call that? I call it pretty darn clever on the part of the robber.
Now, if a few locals from this aforementioned town see all this unfolding and run to the judge to get an injunction to stop the locals from making such fools of themselves and contributing to the success of this robbery, what do you call that? I call it smart.
There have been complaints that the big bad Cohocton Wind Watch is going to the judge and is suing to try to stop a local frenzied money grab. What do you call that lawsuit? I call it profoundly wise.
There have been calls for patriotism to support what is perpetrated to be green energy. What do you call that? I respond with the following statement; Ignorance is never as offensive as when it is willful. Do your homework folks, this entire wind industry scam as it is being proposed is just that … a scam. A scam from the top to the bottom. See me after the meeting and I will point you too easy to find unbiased reports that reveal the depth of this corporate fostered high jacking of taxpayer dollars and community resources.
Thank you very much.
Robert C. Strasburg II
In my judgment, it opens the Town to allow the installation of an Industry and its industrial machines that we as a Town are not ready to receive. The rush to try to seize this “supposed opportunity” is causing our leadership to take risky and unnecessary gambles exposing us to otherwise avoidable loss if the pace was slowed and a more careful approach was taken. The false sense of urgency surrounding this issue is just that … false. There are other wind companies and there will be other government subsidies available to us at a later date after we have prepared properly for this change in Cohocton.
Because our Town is currently not mature in its ability to manage such a large scale program, has an industrial company strategised how to take advantage of our immaturity and exploit that weakness to its gain?
You are all aware of the movie clips where a bank robber comes into a town, robs the bank and comes out to find that he has been spotted by the police and a chase ensues. The crafty robber reaches in his bag of stolen money and throws a few dollars out the window sending the locals into a frenzied money grab and it creates such a confusion that the police are hindered and the robber gets away.
Might that scene be paralleled with our current situation? Has a company come into our Town, robbed our resources and thrown some money around to insure their getaway? Can we be considered as foolish as the residents of the aforementioned town?
If a robber has 25 million dollars in his bag and chooses to throw out $160,000 to insure a clean get-a-way, what would you call that? I call it pretty darn clever on the part of the robber.
Now, if a few locals from this aforementioned town see all this unfolding and run to the judge to get an injunction to stop the locals from making such fools of themselves and contributing to the success of this robbery, what do you call that? I call it smart.
There have been complaints that the big bad Cohocton Wind Watch is going to the judge and is suing to try to stop a local frenzied money grab. What do you call that lawsuit? I call it profoundly wise.
There have been calls for patriotism to support what is perpetrated to be green energy. What do you call that? I respond with the following statement; Ignorance is never as offensive as when it is willful. Do your homework folks, this entire wind industry scam as it is being proposed is just that … a scam. A scam from the top to the bottom. See me after the meeting and I will point you too easy to find unbiased reports that reveal the depth of this corporate fostered high jacking of taxpayer dollars and community resources.
Thank you very much.
Robert C. Strasburg II
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Response to Local Law 2 by Judith Hall
1. Is the proposed law providing equal protection for all property owners?
You are giving special tax and use consideration to the lease holders as well as UPC or is it Global Wind or Canandaigua Power Partners they use all 3 names interchangeably on documents submitted to the town. Will UPC provide insurance for affected properties, not only adjacent properties are within the wake, ice throw and flicker boundaries, in case someone on our property is hurt by a turbine accident? Will you indemnify us in case our insurance rates increase because we are close to a turbine?
2. Are you protecting our rights and full use of our land with this law?
500 foot setbacks are not sufficient to protect our wind rights or allow us to enjoy the full use of our property.
3. How does this proposed change to the zoning law tie in to the Comprehensive plan for the town of Cohocton?
There is no provision in the comprehensive plan for industry to be out side of the industrial zone. This is not promoting the public health and safety of the citizens. Is this law "promoting the other amenities of rural and suburban living which will best promote and enhance the value of property in the community." Is it "encouraging the retention of large areas of agricultural land in their natural state as a legacy to future generations?" "The proposed zoning ordinance incorporates strict controls to insure that industrial uses will not become detrimental to adjoining property owners." Read from p32 comp plan.
4. What criteria (besides UPC input, a draft copy of the law was faxed to them on __________, 2004 by the town clerk. Mr, McAllister then provided the marked up copy to the board who proceeded to adopt all of their recommendations) did you use to make your decisions, what research did you do to arrive at you conclusions about the setbacks. How have you considered the public health and safety in those recommendations?
UPC establishes a setback of at least 3200 feet in the letter they sent to residents last week to mitigate the effects of shadow flicker. In their own document they state only 1 in 4000 is photosensitive to the phenomenon. Those seem like good odds that at least one autistic child or sensitive person would live within our community, so if reasonable setbacks can mitigate the problem why wouldn't they be adopted. We need a minimum 3500 foot setback from every property and road way in the town.
Law 2 increases an already too high noise threshold coincidentally to accommodate 7 proposed towers, is this protecting the residents?
Please instead of law #2, pass a law for a 6 month moratorium so that you can take a real look at protecting the citizens you took an oath to represent.
You are giving special tax and use consideration to the lease holders as well as UPC or is it Global Wind or Canandaigua Power Partners they use all 3 names interchangeably on documents submitted to the town. Will UPC provide insurance for affected properties, not only adjacent properties are within the wake, ice throw and flicker boundaries, in case someone on our property is hurt by a turbine accident? Will you indemnify us in case our insurance rates increase because we are close to a turbine?
2. Are you protecting our rights and full use of our land with this law?
500 foot setbacks are not sufficient to protect our wind rights or allow us to enjoy the full use of our property.
3. How does this proposed change to the zoning law tie in to the Comprehensive plan for the town of Cohocton?
There is no provision in the comprehensive plan for industry to be out side of the industrial zone. This is not promoting the public health and safety of the citizens. Is this law "promoting the other amenities of rural and suburban living which will best promote and enhance the value of property in the community." Is it "encouraging the retention of large areas of agricultural land in their natural state as a legacy to future generations?" "The proposed zoning ordinance incorporates strict controls to insure that industrial uses will not become detrimental to adjoining property owners." Read from p32 comp plan.
4. What criteria (besides UPC input, a draft copy of the law was faxed to them on __________, 2004 by the town clerk. Mr, McAllister then provided the marked up copy to the board who proceeded to adopt all of their recommendations) did you use to make your decisions, what research did you do to arrive at you conclusions about the setbacks. How have you considered the public health and safety in those recommendations?
UPC establishes a setback of at least 3200 feet in the letter they sent to residents last week to mitigate the effects of shadow flicker. In their own document they state only 1 in 4000 is photosensitive to the phenomenon. Those seem like good odds that at least one autistic child or sensitive person would live within our community, so if reasonable setbacks can mitigate the problem why wouldn't they be adopted. We need a minimum 3500 foot setback from every property and road way in the town.
Law 2 increases an already too high noise threshold coincidentally to accommodate 7 proposed towers, is this protecting the residents?
Please instead of law #2, pass a law for a 6 month moratorium so that you can take a real look at protecting the citizens you took an oath to represent.
Cohocton Windmill Local Law #2 Opposition Evidence by James Hall
The proposed Cohocton Wind Mill Local Law #2, written to facilitate the corporate interests of UPC fundamentally conflicts with the existing Cohocton Comprehensive Plan and Cohocton zoning regulations. The Town of Cohocton Board is hereby notified that the municipality and all parties involved directly or indirectly in any decision that advances and/or approves the UPC Cohocton Wind Power Plan bears full responsibility and liability for any and all damages that arise from their involvement. All legal recourse is reserved in both State of New York, Federal Court and in any other domestic or foreign jurisdictions to bring any and all civil or petition for criminal actions, against all parties, individually or corporate ownership.
This disclaimer serves as notice that the Town of Cohocton has committed fraud, violated Federal anti-trust and RICO laws and has engaged in a willful and systematic scheme to defraud residents and landholders of their U.S. Constitutional equal protection, civil liberties and property rights. Each Board member is duty bound to protect the public safety by their oath of office. The UPC project endangers residents, property owners and the general public by design, scope and placement. Such concurrent negligence opens the Town of Cohocton, any Lessors that signed contracts with UPC and any and all parties complicit as an accomplice in a plan to deprive citizens of their due process to a class action suit and bears the full damages, individually and collectively that may be awarded from such proceedings.
The willful intention to pass a draconian Windmill Local Law #2, even more repressive than Windmill Local Law #1 which is currently subject to an Article 78 challenge action, clearly demonstrates the true extent and depth of collusion, corruption and pernicious conduct of the Town Board of Cohocton. Conflict of interest violations abound, NYS ethical standards are consistently ignored and malfeasance of office is systemic.
If these charges are false, prove your sincerity and declare a moratorium on any ordinance that allows for industrial wind turbines in the Town of Cohocton. Then take up the task of drafting a rational and protective law for all citizens in the township of Cohocton. By your current behavior, the public constituency has been betrayed, and Windmill Local Law #2 is the latest instrument of that duplicity.
Why is this law up for a vote when the excellent work of a former planning board member Don Cleveland goes unnoticed? With his untimely passing, the path to a corporate take over of public policy was laid open. What next can be expected from the Town Board, a change in name from the Town of Cohocton to the Colony that UPC bought?
Enclosed is the Cleveland draft for a local windmill law, written by a Cohocton resident and an outline and recommendations of the section for industrial wind turbines. The Cohocton Town Board stands accused before our entire community of dereliction of duty. Your oath of office demands that you obey the law. The Cohocton Comprehensive Plan must be followed. Mr. Cleveland’s ordinance sought to ensue that mandate. So should any windmill law, that this, or a future Town Board, would deem protective of our township.
Windmill Local Law #2 seeks to supplant the role of the Cohocton Planning and Zoning Boards with the dictates of despotic commissars. By intentionally raising the noise level to 52dbA in law #2, from the 50dbA level in law #1, to accommodate seven UPC turbines from exclusion from site approval, the Cohocton Town Board proves their willingness to do the bidding of their new found benefactors.
Private property rights are natural rights of individuals. It is a privilege for a corporation to conduct business and the UPC proposal does not constitute an “essential service”. Any windmill stature that the Town of Cohocton passes must protect individual property, community integrity and the natural character of the region.
The Town of Malone Windmill Ordinance, copy enclosed, achieves that objective. A blending of that law with Mr. Cleveland’s regulations would be a good start for undertaking a serious locally originated ordinance of a windmill law for Cohocton.
Size, setbacks, scale and liability indemnification are the four pillars upon which a valid windmill law must rest. Supporting documents submitted address each aspect. All items offer tangible solutions to key defects in the UPC proposal. The only way to induce any developer to design a suitable project is to place protective measures into the operative law and codify penalties of substance into the stature.
The code enforcement officer should have the authority to shut down any turbine that violates noise limits or any aspect of the project that endangers the public safety. A fine of $2,500 per day for each infraction will motivate the developer to observe protective mandates.
The four requirements consist but not limited to the following basic outline:
1) Height limit of 199 feet to the blade tip for any industrial wind turbine machine.
2) All setbacks measured from furthest point of blade diameter to adjacent property line, public roads and township lines. Setback distance of 1.5 – 2.0 miles to ensure the public safety against low frequency noise. European levels of 30dbA per standard used in residential areas.
3) Number of units for any project need to be disclosed and limited to areas that conform to above protective setbacks.
4) Full and total liability insurance, bonding escrow account and hold harmless agreement paid by the developer that capitalizes payment to any landholder and property owner from loss of real estate values due to impact of industrial wind turbines.
Since this public hearing on Windmill Local Law #2 is in violation of Cohocton zoning stature, it behooves the Cohocton Town Board to adjourn this unlawful public hearing or risk the further embarrassment of public ridicule, based upon their collective and demonstrated incompetence. In the event that the Cohocton Town Board deems to vote on and pass Windmill Local Law #2, further litigation will ensue.
Cordially,
James Hall
This disclaimer serves as notice that the Town of Cohocton has committed fraud, violated Federal anti-trust and RICO laws and has engaged in a willful and systematic scheme to defraud residents and landholders of their U.S. Constitutional equal protection, civil liberties and property rights. Each Board member is duty bound to protect the public safety by their oath of office. The UPC project endangers residents, property owners and the general public by design, scope and placement. Such concurrent negligence opens the Town of Cohocton, any Lessors that signed contracts with UPC and any and all parties complicit as an accomplice in a plan to deprive citizens of their due process to a class action suit and bears the full damages, individually and collectively that may be awarded from such proceedings.
The willful intention to pass a draconian Windmill Local Law #2, even more repressive than Windmill Local Law #1 which is currently subject to an Article 78 challenge action, clearly demonstrates the true extent and depth of collusion, corruption and pernicious conduct of the Town Board of Cohocton. Conflict of interest violations abound, NYS ethical standards are consistently ignored and malfeasance of office is systemic.
If these charges are false, prove your sincerity and declare a moratorium on any ordinance that allows for industrial wind turbines in the Town of Cohocton. Then take up the task of drafting a rational and protective law for all citizens in the township of Cohocton. By your current behavior, the public constituency has been betrayed, and Windmill Local Law #2 is the latest instrument of that duplicity.
Why is this law up for a vote when the excellent work of a former planning board member Don Cleveland goes unnoticed? With his untimely passing, the path to a corporate take over of public policy was laid open. What next can be expected from the Town Board, a change in name from the Town of Cohocton to the Colony that UPC bought?
Enclosed is the Cleveland draft for a local windmill law, written by a Cohocton resident and an outline and recommendations of the section for industrial wind turbines. The Cohocton Town Board stands accused before our entire community of dereliction of duty. Your oath of office demands that you obey the law. The Cohocton Comprehensive Plan must be followed. Mr. Cleveland’s ordinance sought to ensue that mandate. So should any windmill law, that this, or a future Town Board, would deem protective of our township.
Windmill Local Law #2 seeks to supplant the role of the Cohocton Planning and Zoning Boards with the dictates of despotic commissars. By intentionally raising the noise level to 52dbA in law #2, from the 50dbA level in law #1, to accommodate seven UPC turbines from exclusion from site approval, the Cohocton Town Board proves their willingness to do the bidding of their new found benefactors.
Private property rights are natural rights of individuals. It is a privilege for a corporation to conduct business and the UPC proposal does not constitute an “essential service”. Any windmill stature that the Town of Cohocton passes must protect individual property, community integrity and the natural character of the region.
The Town of Malone Windmill Ordinance, copy enclosed, achieves that objective. A blending of that law with Mr. Cleveland’s regulations would be a good start for undertaking a serious locally originated ordinance of a windmill law for Cohocton.
Size, setbacks, scale and liability indemnification are the four pillars upon which a valid windmill law must rest. Supporting documents submitted address each aspect. All items offer tangible solutions to key defects in the UPC proposal. The only way to induce any developer to design a suitable project is to place protective measures into the operative law and codify penalties of substance into the stature.
The code enforcement officer should have the authority to shut down any turbine that violates noise limits or any aspect of the project that endangers the public safety. A fine of $2,500 per day for each infraction will motivate the developer to observe protective mandates.
The four requirements consist but not limited to the following basic outline:
1) Height limit of 199 feet to the blade tip for any industrial wind turbine machine.
2) All setbacks measured from furthest point of blade diameter to adjacent property line, public roads and township lines. Setback distance of 1.5 – 2.0 miles to ensure the public safety against low frequency noise. European levels of 30dbA per standard used in residential areas.
3) Number of units for any project need to be disclosed and limited to areas that conform to above protective setbacks.
4) Full and total liability insurance, bonding escrow account and hold harmless agreement paid by the developer that capitalizes payment to any landholder and property owner from loss of real estate values due to impact of industrial wind turbines.
Since this public hearing on Windmill Local Law #2 is in violation of Cohocton zoning stature, it behooves the Cohocton Town Board to adjourn this unlawful public hearing or risk the further embarrassment of public ridicule, based upon their collective and demonstrated incompetence. In the event that the Cohocton Town Board deems to vote on and pass Windmill Local Law #2, further litigation will ensue.
Cordially,
James Hall
Cohocton Town Board Public Hearing Windmill Local Law #2 Tonight at 7:00 PM
The Public Hearing on the Cohocton Windmill Local Law #2 will be held at the Cohocton Elementary School tonight, June 14, 2006 at 7:00 PM.
It is important that you attend and present your written opposition to this law. The rewriting of the windmill law from #1 further favors the UPC project.
It is important that you attend and present your written opposition to this law. The rewriting of the windmill law from #1 further favors the UPC project.
June 9, 2006 letter to the Cohocton Town Board by Robert C. Strasburg II
June 9, 2006
Cohocton Town Board
15 South Main Street
Cohocton, NY 14828
Re: Local Law # 2
Dear Town Board Members:
I am opposed to the above named law for the following reasons:
1. This law allows for the introduction of Industrial grade wind turbines without making sufficient provision for the impact of this introduction.
2. This law as proposed does not include sufficient provisions for a pre-paid non refundable application fee sufficient in amount to cover any and all costs to the Town for necessary studies and reviews measuring all possible impacts to the Town prior to approval of the special use permit.
3. Each one of these turbines is a H.A.Z.M.A.T. event just waiting to happen. We as a Town do not have the necessary emergency response equipment to respond to the liabilities these industrial towers expose us to from fire, contamination from oils, mechanical structural failure, etc. No study has been commissioned or accomplished to see what we as a Town need to do to equip our emergency response teams to handle the increased load of these undeniable exposures.
4. Because these Industrial turbines will be allowed to be so close to residential homes and people, the Town needs to have the ability to defend these homes and people from damage, injury and loss of life from the installation and possible failure of these industrial machines. Because these industrial turbines will be increasing our risk of fire, structural failure and chemical contamination, a sufficient study needs to be accomplished by contractors for the Town with full recommendations included as to what changes needed to be in place to our current emergency response system.
5. Sufficient bonding is not provided for in this proposed law #2. A letter of credit as protection to the Town from liability is inadequate. A letter of credit in a Bankruptcy situation is worthless. A cash Bond to cover any and all liabilities needs to be stipulated in this law.
6. A defend and hold harmless clause must be included in this law holding the Town harmless from all liability for personal injury and property damage from all fines, costs, penalties, liens, attachments, suits, claims, causes of action, expenses and attorney fees caused by the Applicant and its employees, agents, and representatives or those of its subcontractors, that may be incurred as the result of the proposed installation of said wind turbines.
7. This law in its current proposed form allows for the placement of wind turbines 100 ft. plus the maximum structure height from a neighboring property line while also calling out the requirement that these turbines be 1500’ from a dwelling. This results in the scenario that the Town, through this law, and the leaseholder, exercise restrictive control on other people’s property by not allowing the neighbor to build a dwelling on his own property if it will be closer than 1500’ from the wind turbine. Please see the example below.
8. This Town is not prepared to receive the impact of these industrial machines. We as a Town need to declare a moratorium on these turbines, seek proper counsel on rewriting our laws to properly place the financial burden of analyzing an applicant’s special use permit request for these industrial turbines squarely on the applicant, delegate out the necessary research to qualified engineering firms of our choosing and wait for their unbiased reports.
9. Neither our Town Board nor our Planning Board is qualified to measure the impact of this project by themselves. Outside help is needed from unbiased experts of our choosing.
10. Our Town Board and our Planning Board need to get back to work on the Town and Village Business while delegating this high-tech research surrounding these wind turbines out to qualified firms after collecting sufficient funds from the applicant to do so.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Strasburg II
Cohocton Town Board
15 South Main Street
Cohocton, NY 14828
Re: Local Law # 2
Dear Town Board Members:
I am opposed to the above named law for the following reasons:
1. This law allows for the introduction of Industrial grade wind turbines without making sufficient provision for the impact of this introduction.
2. This law as proposed does not include sufficient provisions for a pre-paid non refundable application fee sufficient in amount to cover any and all costs to the Town for necessary studies and reviews measuring all possible impacts to the Town prior to approval of the special use permit.
3. Each one of these turbines is a H.A.Z.M.A.T. event just waiting to happen. We as a Town do not have the necessary emergency response equipment to respond to the liabilities these industrial towers expose us to from fire, contamination from oils, mechanical structural failure, etc. No study has been commissioned or accomplished to see what we as a Town need to do to equip our emergency response teams to handle the increased load of these undeniable exposures.
4. Because these Industrial turbines will be allowed to be so close to residential homes and people, the Town needs to have the ability to defend these homes and people from damage, injury and loss of life from the installation and possible failure of these industrial machines. Because these industrial turbines will be increasing our risk of fire, structural failure and chemical contamination, a sufficient study needs to be accomplished by contractors for the Town with full recommendations included as to what changes needed to be in place to our current emergency response system.
5. Sufficient bonding is not provided for in this proposed law #2. A letter of credit as protection to the Town from liability is inadequate. A letter of credit in a Bankruptcy situation is worthless. A cash Bond to cover any and all liabilities needs to be stipulated in this law.
6. A defend and hold harmless clause must be included in this law holding the Town harmless from all liability for personal injury and property damage from all fines, costs, penalties, liens, attachments, suits, claims, causes of action, expenses and attorney fees caused by the Applicant and its employees, agents, and representatives or those of its subcontractors, that may be incurred as the result of the proposed installation of said wind turbines.
7. This law in its current proposed form allows for the placement of wind turbines 100 ft. plus the maximum structure height from a neighboring property line while also calling out the requirement that these turbines be 1500’ from a dwelling. This results in the scenario that the Town, through this law, and the leaseholder, exercise restrictive control on other people’s property by not allowing the neighbor to build a dwelling on his own property if it will be closer than 1500’ from the wind turbine. Please see the example below.
8. This Town is not prepared to receive the impact of these industrial machines. We as a Town need to declare a moratorium on these turbines, seek proper counsel on rewriting our laws to properly place the financial burden of analyzing an applicant’s special use permit request for these industrial turbines squarely on the applicant, delegate out the necessary research to qualified engineering firms of our choosing and wait for their unbiased reports.
9. Neither our Town Board nor our Planning Board is qualified to measure the impact of this project by themselves. Outside help is needed from unbiased experts of our choosing.
10. Our Town Board and our Planning Board need to get back to work on the Town and Village Business while delegating this high-tech research surrounding these wind turbines out to qualified firms after collecting sufficient funds from the applicant to do so.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Strasburg II
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
WHO IS GOING TO FIGHT THE FIRE?
What fire company are we going to call to fight the hydraulic oil fire that will spew hundreds of gallons of burning oil from the top of these wind turbines? Will we be able to buy the equipment necessary to fight fires with the puny $160,000 we are supposed to get from UPC for payment instead of taxes? Reasonable, level headed citizens have called for a moratorium on this wind turbine program from the Planning Board to take time to address this and other issues. I ask … how are you going to fight a HAZMAT fire at the top of a 400' turbine with the equipment we have in our current fire department? How are you going to train our men to fight these fires? This issue is unaddressed in the plans I have seen coming from our Town Board. Who is going to restore hundreds of acres of lost timber if one of these turbines should fail on a dry summer night and start a fire that spreads? Who is going to pay to clean up all the spewed oil that contaminates the acres of ground surrounding these turbines? Has this been addressed by either our Town Board, Planning Board of Fire Department? How far do you think the $160,000 will go that UPC is generously lavishing on our Town (remember $160,000 is only 0.64% of their yearly income off of just Phase 1 and 2 of this program from what I can find out).
Robert C. Strasburg II
UPC in Vermont - rejected 6 to 1 in Sutton
Sutton voters rejected the proposal in their advisory vote by a ratio of about 6 to 1. Sutton is not interested in negotiating for financial compensation, said Robert Michaud, chairman of the town Planning Commission. He pointed out that the town plan prohibits commercial development on ridgelines.
June 11, 2006 by Tim Johnson in Burlington Free Press
Six months after Sheffield voters favored a controversial wind farm proposal, the town has settled on a price.
It's roughly a half-million dollars a year, to be paid by the wind-farm company if the project is built, and it would drop the town's municipal tax rate by more than half. The company's proposal calls for 20 turbines on ridgelines in Sheffield and six in the neighboring town of Sutton.
Sutton, where voters overwhelmingly nixed the idea on Town Meeting Day, apparently still want no part of it. No financial negotiations are under way with the company, UPC Vermont Wind.
To proceed with the project, the company needs a certificate of public good from the Vermont Public Service Board. The board has received UPC's application and has scheduled a series of public and evidentiary hearings extending into early next year. The first public hearing was in April in Sheffield. The next one is set for June 26 in Sutton. The board also plans to make a site visit June 26.
The agreement between UPC and Sheffield was announced last week. It provides for UPC to pay the town between $400,000 and $550,000 per year in taxes and "mitigation payments" if the project is built as planned. That would drop the municipal tax rate by about 55 percent.
Sheffield's total taxes raised in 2005 amounted to $755,138, according to the town's annual report. The precise amount of the payment will depend on the assessment of the property, but $400,000 is the minimum.
In a nonbinding ballot Dec. 1, Sheffield residents voted in favor of the proposed wind project, 120-93. Max Aldrich, chairman of Sheffield's Selectboard, said Thursday that the project would mean a "substantial change" in the town and that residents and taxpayers deserve adequate compensation.
Aldrich acknowledged that some residents of Sheffield still oppose the plan. Although the proposal has generated lots of emotional rhetoric, he said, "What it boils down to is aesthetics." If you can't stand the sight of the turbines, he said, you're likely to oppose them, but if you can put up with seeing them, and get a tax break in the bargain, you're more likely to favor them.
Sutton voters rejected the proposal in their advisory vote by a ratio of about 6 to 1. Sutton is not interested in negotiating for financial compensation, said Robert Michaud, chairman of the town Planning Commission. He pointed out that the town plan prohibits commercial development on ridgelines.
One reason for the level of opposition in Sutton, Michaud suggested, is the degree of visibility. The turbines would be "right on our border," he said. "There's hardly a place in Sutton where you won't be able to see them."
Aldrich said the turbines would be visible to many residents of Sheffield, too.
According to UPC, 3,000 acres of timberland in both towns are under agreement as part of the project. Of that, 119 acres would be cleared during construction for roads, substation and turbine sites; and 104 acres would be allowed to "re-vegetate," leaving 14 acres permanently cleared. The turbines would be 398 feet tall and would generate 52 megawatts of electricity, with an average annual output "equal to 2-3 percent of Vermont's load, or the energy needs of 15,000-20,000 homes," a company Web site states.
UPC Vermont Wind has an office in St. Johnsbury; it was founded in 2003 by principals of UPC Wind Partners of Newton, Mass.
June 11, 2006 by Tim Johnson in Burlington Free Press
Six months after Sheffield voters favored a controversial wind farm proposal, the town has settled on a price.
It's roughly a half-million dollars a year, to be paid by the wind-farm company if the project is built, and it would drop the town's municipal tax rate by more than half. The company's proposal calls for 20 turbines on ridgelines in Sheffield and six in the neighboring town of Sutton.
Sutton, where voters overwhelmingly nixed the idea on Town Meeting Day, apparently still want no part of it. No financial negotiations are under way with the company, UPC Vermont Wind.
To proceed with the project, the company needs a certificate of public good from the Vermont Public Service Board. The board has received UPC's application and has scheduled a series of public and evidentiary hearings extending into early next year. The first public hearing was in April in Sheffield. The next one is set for June 26 in Sutton. The board also plans to make a site visit June 26.
The agreement between UPC and Sheffield was announced last week. It provides for UPC to pay the town between $400,000 and $550,000 per year in taxes and "mitigation payments" if the project is built as planned. That would drop the municipal tax rate by about 55 percent.
Sheffield's total taxes raised in 2005 amounted to $755,138, according to the town's annual report. The precise amount of the payment will depend on the assessment of the property, but $400,000 is the minimum.
In a nonbinding ballot Dec. 1, Sheffield residents voted in favor of the proposed wind project, 120-93. Max Aldrich, chairman of Sheffield's Selectboard, said Thursday that the project would mean a "substantial change" in the town and that residents and taxpayers deserve adequate compensation.
Aldrich acknowledged that some residents of Sheffield still oppose the plan. Although the proposal has generated lots of emotional rhetoric, he said, "What it boils down to is aesthetics." If you can't stand the sight of the turbines, he said, you're likely to oppose them, but if you can put up with seeing them, and get a tax break in the bargain, you're more likely to favor them.
Sutton voters rejected the proposal in their advisory vote by a ratio of about 6 to 1. Sutton is not interested in negotiating for financial compensation, said Robert Michaud, chairman of the town Planning Commission. He pointed out that the town plan prohibits commercial development on ridgelines.
One reason for the level of opposition in Sutton, Michaud suggested, is the degree of visibility. The turbines would be "right on our border," he said. "There's hardly a place in Sutton where you won't be able to see them."
Aldrich said the turbines would be visible to many residents of Sheffield, too.
According to UPC, 3,000 acres of timberland in both towns are under agreement as part of the project. Of that, 119 acres would be cleared during construction for roads, substation and turbine sites; and 104 acres would be allowed to "re-vegetate," leaving 14 acres permanently cleared. The turbines would be 398 feet tall and would generate 52 megawatts of electricity, with an average annual output "equal to 2-3 percent of Vermont's load, or the energy needs of 15,000-20,000 homes," a company Web site states.
UPC Vermont Wind has an office in St. Johnsbury; it was founded in 2003 by principals of UPC Wind Partners of Newton, Mass.
Monday, June 12, 2006
CWW Workshop June 12, 2006 at Cohocton School
Attend the CWW workshop at 7:00 PM at the Cohocton Elementary School.
Proposed Wind Projects in New York
List of towns in New York being considered for wind development:
Altona
Ashford
Bangor (probably)
Batavia
Beekmantown
Bellmont
Bombay (probably)
Brandon
Bristol
Burke
Canandaigua (not sure of the status)
Cape Vincent
Castile
Centerville
Cherry Valley
Churubusco
Clinton
Cohocton
Covington
Dickinson
Eagle
East Bethany
Ellenburg
Fenner (in service - 20 1.5MW GE)
Hammond
Hartsville
Hilton
Hopkinton
Italy
Lackawanna
Lowville (in service 120+ - 1.85MW Vestas)
Machias
Madison (in service 7 - 1.65MW)
North Collins
Nunda
Orangeville
Ossian
Perry
Prattsburgh
Sardinia
Sheldon
Springwater
Stafford
Stark
Warren
Warsaw
West Sparta
Wethersfield I (in service 10 Vestas V-47)
Wethersfield II (proposed, 86 1.5MW)
Yorkshire
Invenergy is reportedly approaching people in Bennington and Orangeville for easements now and several towns in Cattaraugus County are being approached.
If you know of any towns that have been approached and aren't on the list,
please drop us a line and we'll add them.
Erie County shoreline also being considered for wind development:
from http://www.erie.gov/environment/compliance/energy.asp
Shoreline Wind Energy Study and Development
"Erie County, with the assistance of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and the Department of Energy (DOE), has conducted a yearlong wind characterization study, the first of its kind, along the urban shoreline of Lake Erie. The study quantifies Erie County's wind power regime at 5 shoreline locations from Tonawanda to Blasdell. The collected data, along with relevant environmental and permitting issues specific to the test sites, is now available to wind developers, municipalities, and the public. Click here to download a copy of the "Erie County Shoreline Wind Study Final Report (November 2005)."
Erie County's wind development potential is "very good" to "excellent." Several national/international wind development companies are currently assessing other locations in Erie County and have expressed serious interest in future onshore and offshore wind development. It is expected that one or more wind projects will result from this work in the near future. Erie County and the Buffalo Niagara region may become the first U.S. urban location that utilizes former industrial brownfields for renewable wind farm development.
Erie County is also an active participant in the Wind Action Group coalition efforts to promote an open dialogue on wind development issue in the Buffalo Niagara region."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)