Why is our Town Board allowing elevated fire risk to threaten the neighbor’s of Industrial Wind Turbines?

Below is an exert from the site of Allianz Center for Technology:

Fire Engineering
”There's very little firefighters can do in the case of a fire at a height of 60 to 100 meters. If a wind turbine is not equipped with an automatic extinguishing system, a fire inevitably means a total loss. Falling parts or debris also represent a danger to the surrounding vicinity. AZT has been involved in the development of extinguishing systems and technology for decades and can also provide effective support in the area of fire engineering.”

SEE THE SITE

For those that have a serious interest in protecting Cohocton, it does not take long to understand that Windmill Law #2 leaves the entire burden for preventing and fighting fires from a wind turbine failure squarely on the back of our firefighters.

UPC is wishing to industrialize our Town. The burden to have fire sensing and automatic fire suppressant/extinguishing systems in place, including a firebreak band around the turbine site, should be the Burden of the developer.

How do we make this happen? Our Windmill Law #2 should have provisions in it for this requirement. Why should this come out of our pockets? Let it come out of the developer’s pocket!

Can a Negligent Wind Company or Leaseholder be Held Liable for a Forest Fire?

The following is an excerpt from: See the article “Under state and federal law, any person or corporation whose negligence or intentional acts cause a forest fire is liable to the relevant fire fighting agency for the costs and expenses of fighting the fire. Large forest fires burn millions of acres, and often take thousands of people, and millions of dollars, to put out. Perpetrators may also face criminal penalties, such as fines, imprisonment, probation, and a criminal record. In situations where little harm is done, the authorities may only issue a citation or warning.”

Letter to SCIDA's Jim Sherron by Robert C. Strasburg II

Jim,

As you know, I am opposed to the wind turbine industrialization of the Finger Lakes region as currently proposed. I am sure you have heard all the reasons why… that is not the purpose of this email. I told you I would send you some information, but before I do, I would like to review a part of our conversation after the Prattsburg meeting on DEIS. If I understood your correctly, did you say that each wind project is subject to the approval of SCIDA, or were you referring specifically to just the Prattsburg project?

If SCIDA is in position to approve/deny each project, what criteria are you setting for each project to meet? I have not been inclined to be politically involved in the past for reasons I will not take the time to explain right now, but this issue violates my core beliefs concerning what I believe America is all about. Bottom line, this boils down to money being offered to leaseholders and Towns to cooperate with this scam built on the back of a real energy need we have. Towns and leaseholders are violating sacred principles in pursuit of money without considering issues that effect people’s rights and safety and are currently willing to sacrifice long term benefits to our region for short term gain.

Are you aware of any program in the energy industry that fits into the nature of our area and competes in revenue with the wind program, yet yields a more substantial effect on our energy needs? How about the ethanol and/or the biomass programs? Is there anything good about either one of those programs that warrants investigation of them prior to commitment to wind energy? I am in the timber industry as you know and we are desperate for local markets for low grade timber. Our industry has been severely affected by the dramatic reduction in the demand for material used to make paper pulp. As a result of importing pre-processed pulp from South America and elevated trucking costs, our market for what we call “scragg” has all but disappeared.

The direct effect this has on timber management is very measurable. When a woods is marked for harvest, not only should mature good quality timber be considered for removal, but the low grade trees that are of no value to the stand because of injury that has effected their quality and health, or it is an undesirable specie, or it is consuming to much of the sun deterring the growth of other more desirable trees, etc, should be considered for removal for the betterment of the stand at the same time we are selectively harvesting desirable trees. The problem is, we cannot pay good wages and run machinery to cut and haul these low grade trees out of a woods when we have no good market for them, so many times they are just left standing in the woods. Prior to the high cost in fuel, this material could by used for paper pulp, masonite products and low grade uses like making pallets.

The negative result of this practice is that a full improvement to a wood lot is not accomplished. Undesirable trees are left to grow and cast their seed producing more of the same. This results in a harvest that we call in the industry a “high-grade harvest”. Therefore because of lack of markets, this cycle gets repeated over and over at each harvest and rather than improving a woods through good forestry practices, many times the woods is left spiraling down in quality. If a biomass plant was to be considered in our County, it might develop a market that we could probably bring this material to and recoup the harvest cost and maybe even make some money and improve the woodlot we are harvesting. There is an abundant supply of this low grade wood just waiting to be utilized. Utilization of this renewable resource seems to fit our region better than the industrialization though the placement of 400 foot high turbines does.

Can a farmer grow a product to feed this biomass plant? Is ethanol a good way to put unproductive crop land into service and help the farmer? Rather than pay farmers not to plant to try to control supply and demand, can they productively contribute to our energy need and make money to help their farm. How can I help? I will wait for your reply.

Sincerely,

Robert C. Strasburg II

Jasper works on wind law by Michelle King

JASPER — Wind companies be warned: The Town of Jasper is doing its homework before adopting a wind law.

In fact, town Supervisor Lucille Keman attended a seminar on local wind legislation at the State University of New York at Albany.

"There was a good law that Spitzer wrote, but there's some things that need to be included and we're working on it," she said. "It's to protect the town and its residents from being taken advantage of by a wind powered company."

That law — and several others — have been read and will be evaluated during the writing stages of Jasper's prospective law.

"While I was there (at the seminar) I picked up several different laws that have already been enacted by towns that seemed to have been working for them," Keman said. "It gave me a lot of insight into what we needed to do."

Although no wind companies have formerly presented a proposal, the wind energy company has approached the board about opportunities.

Not really, it's just in the very early stages of it," Kernan said when asked if there's any set plans yet. "They've talked to us and people in the area."

The next phase hearings with Invenergy in August, Kernan said, adding the town board is aiming for an informational meeting that will inculde public input.

"I really want people to tell me or the board members how they feel about it," she said. "I want it to be a very open process.

"I think maybe some of the other towns got in trouble when it looked like they tried to make it a secret, and I don't want mat to happen," Kernan added.

Above all, however, protecting me town will be the focus in drafting the wind law.

"It will give them guidance. Where they go they will have to pay for any testing and make sure it's feasible and post a bond, so if they walk away from what they're in with."

Some other things Kernan mentioned specifically are making sure the towers will be far enough from property lines, noise will not be offensive to neighbors and to ensure minimal lighting.

Don Sandford letter to the Cohocton Town & Planning Boards

Last night at the T/Hartsville town board meeting about wind turbine law, it was proposed that a provision be include of a “Diminished Property Value Bond”, which would give monetary relief to any property owner who’s property falls in a designated area of adverse turbine impact which lowered property value. This provision is most interesting and certainly goes a long way to satisfy a persons concern that monetary relief for such a cases has been provided to them by law. The testimony at Hartsville was that property values WILL BE greatly lowered in value as I too also believe. This could be a powerful provision to incorporate in a local law in T/Cohocton and go along way to satisfy valid a concern.

It is my suggestion that somebody of the planning board contact the T/Hartsville and find out more about it, I for one had never heard it discussed before and I certainly hope you are concerned about effected parties as I, and interested enough to find out more about it and make it a priority in future plans.

Respectfully,

Don Sandford

Letter sent to Cohocton Wind Watch from Mark Cudney

I'm a retired illustrator, having spent thirty years as an artist in the Commercial Art field--including fourteen years as a staff illustrator for the Bob Wright Creative Group in Rochester. My wife and I live on Bronson Hill, pay town of South Dansville taxes and Wayland/Cohocton School taxes. We've been here for forty eight years. We became aware of the imminent invasion of our environment by the turbine developers in May of this year. I've been following the debate closely since then and have had, if you will, manic-depressive variances in temperament as a result.

One day my spirits are lifted knowing there is an element of the population such as you who are waging the good fight and standing up against the large conglomerate of developers/
investors/government operatives and all their big money. I'm in awe of the research you've done and the time you've sacrificed to get at and present the facts. On the other hand, I'm saddened by, frustrated and disgusted with town officials, not only in Cohocton, but all across our state, who are salivating at the dangled carrots offered by schemers and money-grabbers to the point of sacrificing the priceless heritage of their own turfs under the guise of pretensions of providence.

I find it difficult to believe that three or four men/women in small towns such as Cohocton have the power to force such an intrusive project down the throats of so many who have so much to lose. I'm worried too, about the scope of this scheme by numerous developers operating under different names selling their wares to all the neighboring towns. They're (the developers) like a bunch of frenzied sharks attacking bloodied bait. If this nightmare becomes reality, there won't be a clear horizon to be seen, there won't be any more "roads less traveled" and the historic ambience of this bejeweled rural area will be lost forever. Welcome to Turbineville. I guess, to their glee, the Wayne Hunts of New York will have lots of "green" spaces in which to stage their "parades" and "neat" towers to picnic under. They'll have no trouble accessing these areas what with the numerous new and widened roadways cutting across what used to be scenic fields. (By the way, who will be responsible for the expense and the manpower to maintain these roads, especially during the winter?)

If only I were a Cohocton resident and had the opportunity to vote there. Since I vote in So. Dansville I'll have to wait and see how the inevitable turbine proposals there play out. I cringe at the thought of even a single behemoth erected on this side of the Schwartzenbach Valley, as my Dad used to call the Route 21 corridor. He called this area "God's Country" and would use a blue choice of words to voice his thankfulness that these "virgin hills" at least, had not been screwed-over by man and industry. It's with an artist's eye, reinforced with the vision of my father, that I view the hills and the horizons. I can't imagine them any other way than the way they now stand. It'll be tragic that my grandkids may not see them in the future the way their great grandfather and grandfather saw them: in their natural state free from industry and its intrusion on our fields of view; free of metal and steel obliterating the horizon; free from the visual litter of obnoxious blinking strobe lights competing with the clarity of the stars in the beautiful night sky. What they'll lose in terms of nature's gifts will far exceed the gains to power a few more electric light bulbs or hot tubs of people far away from here. Those "born-again greeners" so enamored with wind power and the monies from the developers would do more to save energy by taking the second car off the road and driving less and it would have no impact upon their neighbors.

Here on Bronson Hill, we're proud of the work you're doing and we sincerely hope that when the time comes, there will be others like you in Dansville and Wayland and Fremont, et al, who have the courage and the will power and the resourcefulness to stand up for all who are in jeopardy of one day finding themselves living beneath the shadows of giant turbines. As for myself, I've relied on what I do best and have joined the fray in my own small way. I will continue to do so as my limited budget allows.

Thank You,
Mark Cudney

Public hearing attracts crowd: Residents, board members contemplate wind law for three hours Thursday night

HARTSVILLE - While a public hearing in Hartsville was hosted for discussing a proposed wind ordinance, questions for town attorney David Pullen also delved into conflict and lawsuit questions.

Pullen was at the meeting to outline the law he developed based on one recently adopted by the Town of Clinton. He told the crowd he wants to make sure Hartsville protects itself.

“As of right now there is no zoning and no land use law in place,” Pullen said. “That means if someone wants to build windmills you have no way to stop it. I was asked to create one that allows the town board to consider each project.

“As soon as this has been adopted, every potential windmill would be required to submit an application,” he added, saying projects would have to meet a certain set of standards. “Since no one has had any project approved by anyone, this would apply to any project.”

Before the law could be adopted it would have to go through the State Environmental Quality Review process, he said, adding he'd already approved the environmental assessment form. He stressed this SEQR process would only look at the environmental impact of the law, not wind farm projects. It is not expected the law would cause any negative impact, Pullen said, because it is not doing anything to the environment.

If the law is approved, it would require any permits submitted for a wind farm project to be subject to a public hearing.

“Every time there's a permit application there will be a public hearing,” Pullen said. “A notice will be sent to everyone within the site area.”

The standards set in the law include all power lines to be buried underground, a maximum height of 450 feet for turbines, a minimum distance of 20 feet from any blade to the ground, and a 50-decibel sound limitation. An exception with the sound standard would come if the ambient sound level exceeds 50 decibels; then it be the ambient level plus 6 decibels.

Setbacks also are provided for in the law. Turbines would be required to be at least 1,000 feet from off-site residences, 100 feet from state-identified wetlands, and 1.1 times the turbine height from nearest boundary lines, rights-of-way, above-ground utilities and off-site cabins.

Resident Steve Dombert did not feel the setbacks were adequate and called for longer distances.

“I think a setback of 1,000 feet is too permissive; that needs to be beefed up,” he said. “There should be a minimum of 1,200-feet on setbacks.

“I also don't think there should be a different standard for off-site cabins,” Dombert added. 𔄙.1 times the height from property lines isn't enough, it's going to be flying a lot farther than that (if a turbine came down).”

He also said penalties spelled out in the law - $350 per week for violations - needed to be stiffer.

“There should be some mechanism in the event it goes on where the violator be increasingly punished,” Dombert said. “The one listed here seems to be insufficient.”

Pullen noted the law also spells out the fact the town may go to court to get an injunction if the violations continue.

“I think you have to give it more teeth,” Dombert responded. “It's unfair to expect one person with an uphill battle to fight it.”

Pullen said he was open to suggestion on how to do that.

“I don't know how to level the playing field between the people with money and the people without money,” he said.

A question about whether leaseholders would be able to sue the town if they declined to allow the Airtricity project to go forward, elicited an affirmative response from Pullen. He did, however, note that anyone is able to file a lawsuit, but it doesn't mean they'll win.

“Anyone can sue anyone at anytime for anything,” Pullen said. “You may be unhappy about something, but you may not be able to do anything about it.”

As for a perceived conflict of interest for Supervisor Amy Emerson voting on the wind ordinance due to the fact she and her parents all have some sort of agreement with Airtricity, Pullen said there is no conflict.

“If you adopt this law dealing with a matter of general interest - not a specific permit - she gets no special benefit from adopting this law,” he said. “No official will benefit from this law.

“If anything, it would protect all people in the town equally,” Pullen added.

The attorney will meet with the board to discuss the law, and if significant changes are made another public hearing will be scheduled. If only grammatical-type changes are needed, the law will go before the board for consideration.

Letter by Don Sandford

Hello: My name is Don Sandford and I live on Brown Hill. Before this spring and public meetings on wind turbines at the school, I never heard of Mr. Robert Strasburg ll, Mr. James Hall or Mr. Steve Trude. Up to that time what I learned about wind turbines in Cohocton was from reports, radio, TV and friends and there was far more unanswered questions than answers supported by hard facts and the town boards were not proceeding as cautiously and prudently as I would have expected, so I attended board meetings knowing that I could be impacted negatively in the future. Now, after several weeks have gone by and board meetings, I am more convinced than ever Strasburg, Hall and Trude should be listen too and that a MORATORIUM needs to be enacted and seeing it for what it really is, a “Gold-Rush Mentality” money grab, supplied by taxpayers to UPC, and some board members that have a direct or indirect gain from a successful outcome. To proceed further is wrong, shortsighted and not acceptable. If it walks, sounds and looks like a duck, it no doubt is a duck and in this case you do not have to be business genius to recognized this a administrative money grabbing duck. The God given beauty of the hills of our town is well know but would be changed dramatically. The potential for devaluation of proper and homes is certainly very real around and near the proposed tower sites therefore any resale value greatly diminished. Have you heard of any “Diminished Property Value Bond” proposed by the town or UPC to cover this loss? I haven’t. WHY NOT? The silence says it loud and clear.

In particular, it would be hard not to notice that Mr. Strasburg has raised valid concerns about wind turbines and asks questions of our town board without having them answered and be continually ignored, brushed aside or made fun of, to silence him without success. I have witnessed this man’s amazing gift to be calm, confident and spontaneous in debate because of his careful, time consuming and extensive research of the facts to support his positions. He is a proud American, a leader that will not be silenced or put down for what he believes and is truly a special person who is that “candle in the darkness” giving light to much that has been hidden, silenced and the attempted legislative rape by UPC and the complacent town board.The obvious silence in public meetings by our town board members best shows why open and revealing debate isn’t considered. Perhaps they know they can’t defend their positions as opposed to Mr. Strasburg’s based on truth and facts. So much for democracy. Some prefer the Valley News for a good reason.

Retired from law enforcement, served my country in the US Military, I appreciate and recognize a man of honor and integrity. This man has earned my respect and I’m proud to stand with him .

Don Sandford

Just a math mistake? by Robert C. Strasburg II

Wayne Hunt said in the Valley News of July 18, 2006 “I have done a little math using the 1500 feet as a base line. A circle 3000 feet across contains 715.909 square feet. An acre is 43,560 square feet so each tower will stand IN ITS OWN (caps added) “green” island that is 16.4 acres big. There will be 41 towers on Lent Hill that will create 672.4 acres of “green” land that will NOT CONTAIN A HOUSE (caps added)”.

Actually a circle that is 3000 feet across has 7,065,000 feet in it when using “Pi” rounded to 3.14. This means each turbine would control 162.19 acres, not 16.4. This then means that these 41 turbines will control 6,649.79 acres, not 672.4 as you say. Now the purpose of this article is not to point out your mathematical error Wayne, we all make mistakes.

The purpose of this article is to point out two much more very serious problems:

1. The first is an ethical problem. When you say a turbine will stand “in its own” island, you are very wrong. Because you have worked very hard at discounting the importance of the neighbors to these projects, it may be possible that you are beginning to believe your own story and there is left no trace of any consideration of them in your mind. They obviously no longer come to mind to you when you are considering this project. If you allow these turbines to be placed *500 feet from a neighbors property line, the 1500 foot setback you mention in your article extends 1000 feet into the neighbors property. Therefore, your “green” island is sitting partially on the neighbor’s property. So, it is not sitting on “its own” “green island”, it is sitting partially on the land of the neighbor you obviously are not considering anymore. If you look carefully at the deed to the neighbor’s property, it does not name “turbine” as owner.

2. The second is evidence of a conceptual problem. Wayne, when your math revealed only 672 acres, didn’t this trigger anything. If you really have worked hard at understanding all the facets of this program, being four years into the study of this, didn’t 672 sound just a little out of place to you? Is this the first time you are learning that this is controlling over 6,600 acres on Lent Hill and not 672?

Wayne, you have declared yourself the “leader” of this parade. I humbly ask you to consider passing the baton.

Respectfully,
Robert C. Strasburg II

*500 feet – actually since this 500 foot measurement is to the center of the turbine, when you consider the 280 foot diameter of the blades, this means each blade will reach to within 360 feet of the neighbor’s property.

BOARD DENIES VERMONT WIND FARM PERMIT

MONTPELIER, Vt.

A company’s bid to build a wind farm atop a remote Northeast Kingdom mountain was rejected by the Public Service Board on Monday because of concerns about how the turbines would affect birds and bats.

In its decision, the board said that officials of the East Haven Wind farm had not presented sufficient evidence to show that the four 329-foot turbines would not hurt populations of bats and migratory birds in the area.

“We.. know that wind turbine sites located in eastern forested high-elevation sites have experienced elevated bat mortality rates. And we know that there are likely to be resident bat populations on East Mountain.” Said the board’s 108-page decision.”

“The record shows that there is little solid information on the risks of migrating bird collisions with wind turbines for high-elevation sites in the northeaster United States,” the order said. “Without preconstruction radar studies, we are unable to determine whether the project’s design has been optimized to avoid or minimize bird impacts.”

East Haven Wind farm Vice President Dave Rapaport said Monday officials were reading the decision.


FREMONT PLANNING BOARD GATHERING INFO FOR WIND LAW

Town looking to avoid conflicts taking place in other area municipalities
By Rob Montana staff writer

STEPHENS MILLS-No big decisions were made at the Fremont planning bard meeting Tuesday night- except it’s time for the town to get a wind ordinance in place.

While board members had heard rumors people in town had been contacted by wind companies, none knew of any plans for a wind project in Fremont. Nonetheless, Chairman Robert Osborn said it’s time to draft a law to protect the town in case of future development.

The board has copies of the Howard ordinance, as well as Ever Power’s building permit application submitted to Howard officials for construction of towers there. While the plan is to draft its own law, the board wanted something to look at before writing one.

“We need some sort of outline to go through for an ordinance, “Osborn said.
Code Enforcement Officer Dan Hammond also suggested the board keep the town residents informed about the process, and let them know the board is drafting a local wind law.

“If we get it in here before anybody is approached, they can’t complain.” He said.

“They won’t have a leg to stand on if we keep getting it out there that we’re meeting and talking about a law.”

The main thing, said Councilman Larry Hammond, is to eliminate the fighting that has occurred in other towns dealing with potential wind farm projects.
“What we need is to stay away from all that bickering like there is in Howard, Hartsville, and Cohocton,”he said.

The planning board will meet again at 8 p.m. Aug. 15 at the town hall.

Naples may prohibit wind farms

Town officials used South Bristol'slaw as their guide.
By TARYN ELIZABETH DOBBS

Messenger Post Correspondent

The ones we don't
want to see are the
wind farms that are
400 feet high.
Doug Pulver, Naples Planning Board chair

NAPLES — Naples could adopt a wind-farm law that effectively bans industrial wind farms such as those proposed in neighboring Prattsburgh and Cohocton.

Town Planning Board Chairman Doug Pulver said Naples took its cue from South Bristol, which banned wind farms in August 2003.

Wind farms to power a home or a business are fine, Pulver said, adding, "The ones we don't want to see are the wind farms that are 400 feet high."

A turbine as tall as a skyscraper and bearing a flashing light would detract from Naples' scenic vistas, which draw tourists and their dollars.

"We want to have alternatives (to coal- and natural gas-fired power plants), but we want to be careful how we do it," Pulver said.

The Town Board held a hearing on the proposal July 10 and sent the draft to the Ontario County Planning Board for review. The Naples Town Board could vote to adopt the law at next month's meeting, Monday, Aug. 14, at 7 p.m., unless the county board suggests further work.

Height restrictions would be 150 feet for residential towers and 220 feet for towers powering a business. The turbines for the proposed Prattsburgh and Cohocton wind farms would be 400 feet tall to the tip of the rotor.

Additionally, the output for turbines may not exceed 20 kilowatts for residential use, or 50 kilowatts for commercial operations.

Turbines would be limited to one per parcel of land. However, if a business can prove to the Planning Board why a second turbine is necessary, it may be approved.

Two wind-energy companies, Ecogen and Windfarm Prattsburgh, want to put up about 50 turbines each in Prattsburgh while UPC Wind Management LLC has proposed two separate projects with 41, and 17 turbines respectively in Cohocton.

Prattsburgh has no wind-farm law. Cohocton has a law that does not ban industrial wind farms but does put certain limits on them. For example, the law requires that a turbine be at least 1,500 feet from a residence.

At least a few turbines from the Prattsburgh and Cohocton projects would be visible from Naples.

Messenger Post writer Lenore Friend contributed to this report. Contact us at (585) 394-0770, Ext. 256, or at messenger@mpnewspa-pers.com.

CWW and Concerned Residents of Cohocton Consists of Upstanding Citizens of the Town of Cohocton

There are numerous people in the town of Cohocton that have contacted members of CWW and have asked not to have their names spoken for fear of harassment and retaliation from Yes! Oppositon group.

Not a day goes by that one of us, whether in CWW or just a concerned citizen doesn’t receive emails, letters or phone calls supporting our efforts to get the scientific and health and safety information out to them.

As Yes!, many of our group are life-long residents of Cohocton, many are people who have moved into our area and have become community minded members of Cohcoton. We do not feel that the people of Cohocton who occasionally buy gas or groceries from our merchants to be any less valuable to our community. Without them spending money in our town the price of those groceries would be much higher. Some of those residents may not visibly be seen rolling up their sleeves and volunteering their time and efforts to make our community better as what is stated by Yes!, but are behind the scenes being productive citizens of Cohocton. Yes! Wants you to be visible painting and planting flowers to make the community better, they don’t see the importance of all citizens duties to make the communtiy better.Some in our community have life experinece and practical intelligence,they have a stake in where they live and stand in this town.

Yes! And UPC have their hand in one pocket taking our rights to our land and property away from us by stating that the leaseholders have the right to do what they want with their property, yet at the same time taking away from the ajoining property owner. This is unexceptable, our land is our land as much as it is the leaseholders.The other pocket has a hand in by NYSEG who will be taking more to pay the higher price for this so called free wind.
Scenic beauty in down town Cohocton seems to be more important to YES! Than the scenic beauty outside the village,this is very sad, roll up your sleeves or should I say eyes and see that scenic beauty is more than paint and flowers around town.

YES! Has you belive that they would NEVER consider suing their neighbors or not speak to friends over a difference of opinion, nor would they disrespect the elected and appointed officials of their community. Never is a very strong word, if they were honest with themselves they would not have used the word NEVER, the spark for their never just hasn’t come yet, or maybe it has come and gone and they just aren’t being honest with themselves or you.

One last thing, RESPECT, respect is earned, it isn’t given freely. YES! Wants you to respet our public officials for their endless hard work and concern. I would have RESPECT for our public officials if they were to put this wind project up for a moratorium. This way concerned citizens of Cohocton would feel that the officials were looking out for all issues of this project, that the health and safety and all the other concerns put before them have been answered. Respect would be given if I had something in writing stating that my property is off the DEIS and map that UPC put together. For Chris Swartley to verbally tell me is not good enough.

To the Firefighters of Cohocton, Atlanta and surrounding areas

Some of you know me and some do not. The issue that I am hammering on of the fire hazard from these turbines is an important one. I was a professional timber harvester and am very familiar with the need for being properly equipped to do a tough job. This is the point I am hammering on.

I have been accused of disrespect to you, but if you read any of my postings, there is not one derogatory comment on your abilities or you as people. Where is the money going to come from to properly equip you? How are you going to get from downtown Cohocton or Atlanta or neighboring Towns to the tops of these hills to stop these fires before they burn onto the neighbors?

Are there real plans to help equip you? Am I out of line here? I am without a doubt capable of mistakes, but I think I am on point with this issue. Please see my posting below about requiring the wind company to install firebreak roads.

I understand that the political current in our Town offers resistance for you to inquire about this to the Town Board, but all of you have lived on this planet long enough to know that to do what is right; one must sometimes buck the pressure that is trying to silence you. You possess the courage to enter a burning building to do what is right, please use that same courage to stand up for those of us that depend on you. Please make an assessment including the new introduction of these turbines and their effect on your needs to do your work effectively and present it to the Town Board. Time is short.

Thank you,
Robert C. Strasburg II

What Fire?

Do new circumstances relative to increased fire liabilities warrant the need for new tools and strategies?

Below is link to a letter from Vincent Dunn, Deputy Chief FDNY (ret) to then Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge in which Dunn lists and assessment of the needs the FDNY has a result of the changes brought about by the new elevated risk of terrorism.

The reason for this posting is to show what responsible government does to keep abreast of new changes by proper planning and assessing how this new change will effect the governments need to make changes.

Plans are being made to industrialize Cohocton with the new introduction of industrial wind turbines. Cause and effect needs to be measured and properly prepared for. Responsible government recognizes and deals with new issues such as this. I request that at the up and coming YES! meeting on July 26th that a section of the meeting be given to allow the Town Board a few minutes to show us how the elevated exposure to property damage through fires from these new turbines is being addressed.

See the Letter from Deputy Fire Chief