Brandon, New York, USA
September 20, 2006
At a regular town board meeting; after the meeting was called to order, the roll call and Pledge of Allegiance, Councilman Jay Ulrich opened the meeting with a statement.
It was very emotional. The crowd of near 100 people listened with intensity. Jay was commended more than once for his courage. Devastating to those of us who realize how invaluable Councilman Ulrich is to the Town of Brandon.
The public statement was an accounting of a conversation between himself and Supervisor, Michael Lawrence which took place on Supervisor Lawrence's front porch on September 6th, 2006.
The statement began by saying that Michael Lawrence had accused Jay of being offered a bribe from Noble Environmental Power and accepting it. Jay asked Michael to call the State Police and report it. Michael declined and went on to say that he too had been offered a bribe from Noble Environmental Power.
Jays concerns included the loss of friendship, devastation to his family, and loss of integrity in the Town of Brandon and an embarrassment to the town and Town Board by Michael. He later expressed that the relationships in the community are "sacred."
Michael responded with an apology to Jay and Noble. Nothing elaborate. Just, " I apologize to you and to Noble."
We all know that these have all diminished at the hands of Noble Environmental Power's invasion of our town which is no longer a community. There was no community Christmas Party last year....an annual tradition as long as I can remember. Their was no community yard sale weekend....there were no community events since this invasion.
At the end of the meeting, I stood up and spoke. I asked how can people say there are no negative impacts of wind farms? One of the most important was just demonstrated in real life, right here at home. Michael and Jay were once very close friends. The things that persons with morals and ethics value more than anything are gone forever in the town of Brandon. A town of 500 people, totally divided.
Anne Britton
Brandon Resident and no longer proud to be.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Partial Proof of Insurance Issue
The Perry Town Board met Wednesday, September 13 to discuss possible changes to a local law regarding wind towers.
Officials voted to move the public hearing concerning wind towers from October 9 to October 16, due to a schedule conflict for the town attorney. When townspeople complained that travelers had already made plans and taken off work for the October 9 meeting Supervisor James Brick retorted "We're meeting for the people in Perry, not for the people away from Perry."
Independent insurance agent Linda Kruszka addressed the board and public concerning liability issues. Liability involves the injury and damage of others on your property, she said. It does not include damages to your own property or person.
"You can't collect on your own personal injury or property damage," she said. So if a turbine were to fall on the landowner's house, the owner would be responsible to pay for damages, not the turbine company or the liability insurance.
In talking to different insurance companies, Linda learned that if turbines were put up, some insurance companies would cancel mid-term and get off the policy immediately. Others would consider the landowner a business because of the presence of wind towers.
"Every company writes on different paper," she warned.
"You're not going to get an across the board answer from every insurance company." She offered a second warning to those wanting to place windmills on their land. "Have an attorney review the contract. Have it work to your advantage." Above all she stressed extreme caution and a close viewing of the fine print before making a decision.
The board opened discussion to the public. Several citizens addressed the board with comments for and against wind energy in Perry.
The planning board had been working on a series of changes to a local law that would increase the distance a tower needs to be from an established residence from 1,500 to 1,750 feet. The town board and planning board were scheduled to go into executive session with the town attorney following the public meeting.
Resident Valary Sahrle addressed the board, saying that an executive session was illegal. Many in the crowd stood to protest the executive session as Sahrle and Attorney Dadd discussed the matter. After much deliberation, Dadd suggested that no executive meeting be held that evening.
"Let's not let this turn into a legal issue about an executive session," he said.
He informed the public and the board that "the existing procedure and process is more than adequate for the Town of Perry to ensure that a project that you don't want to happen will not happen."
He continued that if the town passed a moratorium or tried to change the local law mid-stream, they would open themselves to a lawsuit from Horizon.
Officials voted to move the public hearing concerning wind towers from October 9 to October 16, due to a schedule conflict for the town attorney. When townspeople complained that travelers had already made plans and taken off work for the October 9 meeting Supervisor James Brick retorted "We're meeting for the people in Perry, not for the people away from Perry."
Independent insurance agent Linda Kruszka addressed the board and public concerning liability issues. Liability involves the injury and damage of others on your property, she said. It does not include damages to your own property or person.
"You can't collect on your own personal injury or property damage," she said. So if a turbine were to fall on the landowner's house, the owner would be responsible to pay for damages, not the turbine company or the liability insurance.
In talking to different insurance companies, Linda learned that if turbines were put up, some insurance companies would cancel mid-term and get off the policy immediately. Others would consider the landowner a business because of the presence of wind towers.
"Every company writes on different paper," she warned.
"You're not going to get an across the board answer from every insurance company." She offered a second warning to those wanting to place windmills on their land. "Have an attorney review the contract. Have it work to your advantage." Above all she stressed extreme caution and a close viewing of the fine print before making a decision.
The board opened discussion to the public. Several citizens addressed the board with comments for and against wind energy in Perry.
The planning board had been working on a series of changes to a local law that would increase the distance a tower needs to be from an established residence from 1,500 to 1,750 feet. The town board and planning board were scheduled to go into executive session with the town attorney following the public meeting.
Resident Valary Sahrle addressed the board, saying that an executive session was illegal. Many in the crowd stood to protest the executive session as Sahrle and Attorney Dadd discussed the matter. After much deliberation, Dadd suggested that no executive meeting be held that evening.
"Let's not let this turn into a legal issue about an executive session," he said.
He informed the public and the board that "the existing procedure and process is more than adequate for the Town of Perry to ensure that a project that you don't want to happen will not happen."
He continued that if the town passed a moratorium or tried to change the local law mid-stream, they would open themselves to a lawsuit from Horizon.
Wayne County, Golisano mull wind power by Joseph Spector and Alan Morrell
(September 20, 2006) — LYONS — Wayne County leaders will continue to discuss whether to delve into the wind power business with billionaire Tom Golisano.
Golisano and his newly formed company, Empire State Wind Energy LLC, have been talking with communities across upstate New York in recent months about taking the issue of wind farms into their own hands.
The goal, Golisano said, is to provide financial and technical support to communities so they, rather than outside private companies, would be in control of where wind farms are located — and potentially reap the profits of energy distribution.
About 400 people attended a town meeting Monday to hear from Golisano and company officials about the idea. Specifics have yet to be outlined.
"If a community decides that they are going to have them, they should try to maximize the benefit for their community," Golisano said Tuesday.
Lyons Mayor Corrine Kleisle said no decisions have been made on the idea or where turbines might go.
Wind power could provide vast savings in energy costs, which would be attractive for businesses, Kleisle said.
"I think it's very important to provide alternative energy sources to the state," she said. "We need to be able to project our energy costs. Hopefully, we could have lower costs for years."
The village of Lyons passed zoning ordinances this summer in anticipation of the turbines, and an alternative Energy Task Force was formed this year to study the issue.
Golisano, the founder of Penfield-based Paychex Inc., has been critical of wind farm projects. He has argued that a state-backed plan to add hundreds, possibly thousands, of huge wind turbines would infringe on homeowners and mar the countryside.
Instead Golisano, who has a home on Canandaigua Lake, has developed the idea that communities themselves or his new company would own the wind farms and benefit from the proceeds. The plan is that money would go back to the communities and help offset taxes. Also, towns would have greater control over where wind turbines, as tall as 400 feet, would be located.
Golisano and his newly formed company, Empire State Wind Energy LLC, have been talking with communities across upstate New York in recent months about taking the issue of wind farms into their own hands.
The goal, Golisano said, is to provide financial and technical support to communities so they, rather than outside private companies, would be in control of where wind farms are located — and potentially reap the profits of energy distribution.
About 400 people attended a town meeting Monday to hear from Golisano and company officials about the idea. Specifics have yet to be outlined.
"If a community decides that they are going to have them, they should try to maximize the benefit for their community," Golisano said Tuesday.
Lyons Mayor Corrine Kleisle said no decisions have been made on the idea or where turbines might go.
Wind power could provide vast savings in energy costs, which would be attractive for businesses, Kleisle said.
"I think it's very important to provide alternative energy sources to the state," she said. "We need to be able to project our energy costs. Hopefully, we could have lower costs for years."
The village of Lyons passed zoning ordinances this summer in anticipation of the turbines, and an alternative Energy Task Force was formed this year to study the issue.
Golisano, the founder of Penfield-based Paychex Inc., has been critical of wind farm projects. He has argued that a state-backed plan to add hundreds, possibly thousands, of huge wind turbines would infringe on homeowners and mar the countryside.
Instead Golisano, who has a home on Canandaigua Lake, has developed the idea that communities themselves or his new company would own the wind farms and benefit from the proceeds. The plan is that money would go back to the communities and help offset taxes. Also, towns would have greater control over where wind turbines, as tall as 400 feet, would be located.
FAA Obstruction Study Used Invalid Turbine Height
Industrial Wind Action Group finds Elk River Wind Project turbine heights incorrectly filed with FAA; Concerns raised over politicization of radar studies and effect on aviation safety
NEW HAMPSHIRE (September 19, 2006). Industrial Wind Action (IWA) Group has learned that the owners of the Elk River Wind Project [1], Kansas’ largest, in-service wind facility with 100 turbines, have been asked to resubmit FAA form 7460-1 after it was recently discovered the obstruction evaluation study was conducted based on inaccurate turbine heights. The project’s original developers reported the turbine heights at only 262-feet when the overall height, including the spinning blade assembly, is 389-feet. The FAA requires form 7460-1 [2] be filed for each turbine in a wind facility prior to construction and if any changes in turbine height or location are made following completion of the obstruction study, new forms must be submitted and the effect of the change reevaluated.
"The wind industry understands the purpose of notifying the FAA of plans to construct the giant towers,” said Lisa Linowes, Executive Director of Industrial Wind Action (IWA) Group. “When our air safety is at issue, there is no excuse for inaccurate reporting of information, not on something this serious.” An official with the FAA confirmed last week that it did not have the resources to check on the accuracy of the information reported via 7460 forms, such as comparing a proposed obstacle's final height or the coordinates of the object with its location after construction.
Linowes also made clear that high-profile actions taken by Sierra Club [3 ] this summer to exert political and legal pressure on the Department of Defense to rush its study of wind turbine impacts on military radar could have a dangerous effect on our commercial air safety in addition to our national security. “The politicization of this effort must stop,” she said pointing to the September 12, 2006 letter [4 ] signed by three dozen members of Congress demanding the White House take action to influence the timing and outcome of the Defense Department study. Linowes argued that U.S. defense and FAA experts should be telling Congress what they need in time and resources to do the job right and not the other way around. “When one considers how little wind energy can contribute to our U.S. energy mix and the inability of wind to deliver base load electricity, it’s hard to understand why our political leaders would take this misguided step. I hope we don’t have to have an accident first before people take these studies seriously,” Linowes added.
Industrial Wind Action Group seeks to promote knowledge and raise awareness of the risks and damaging environmental impacts of industrial wind energy development. Information and analysis on the subject is available through its website, www.windaction.org.
NEW HAMPSHIRE (September 19, 2006). Industrial Wind Action (IWA) Group has learned that the owners of the Elk River Wind Project [1], Kansas’ largest, in-service wind facility with 100 turbines, have been asked to resubmit FAA form 7460-1 after it was recently discovered the obstruction evaluation study was conducted based on inaccurate turbine heights. The project’s original developers reported the turbine heights at only 262-feet when the overall height, including the spinning blade assembly, is 389-feet. The FAA requires form 7460-1 [2] be filed for each turbine in a wind facility prior to construction and if any changes in turbine height or location are made following completion of the obstruction study, new forms must be submitted and the effect of the change reevaluated.
"The wind industry understands the purpose of notifying the FAA of plans to construct the giant towers,” said Lisa Linowes, Executive Director of Industrial Wind Action (IWA) Group. “When our air safety is at issue, there is no excuse for inaccurate reporting of information, not on something this serious.” An official with the FAA confirmed last week that it did not have the resources to check on the accuracy of the information reported via 7460 forms, such as comparing a proposed obstacle's final height or the coordinates of the object with its location after construction.
Linowes also made clear that high-profile actions taken by Sierra Club [3 ] this summer to exert political and legal pressure on the Department of Defense to rush its study of wind turbine impacts on military radar could have a dangerous effect on our commercial air safety in addition to our national security. “The politicization of this effort must stop,” she said pointing to the September 12, 2006 letter [4 ] signed by three dozen members of Congress demanding the White House take action to influence the timing and outcome of the Defense Department study. Linowes argued that U.S. defense and FAA experts should be telling Congress what they need in time and resources to do the job right and not the other way around. “When one considers how little wind energy can contribute to our U.S. energy mix and the inability of wind to deliver base load electricity, it’s hard to understand why our political leaders would take this misguided step. I hope we don’t have to have an accident first before people take these studies seriously,” Linowes added.
Industrial Wind Action Group seeks to promote knowledge and raise awareness of the risks and damaging environmental impacts of industrial wind energy development. Information and analysis on the subject is available through its website, www.windaction.org.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
CWW letter to the Cohocton Planning Board, September 18, 2006
September 18, 2006
Cohocton Planning Board
15 South Main Street
Cohocton New York 14826
Dear Mr. Fox and Planning Board Members:
As of this date no written reply has been received regarding the offer made in the CWW letter of September 7, 2006 to assist in the research and development of a property assurance protection plan. Since this recommendation was voted on and approved by the Cohocton Planning Board, it is important that you stand by that vote.
The fact that your board also approved the recommendation to the Cohocton Town Board for a setback of one and half times the height of industrial wind turbines from all public roads is especially important to be maintained. Any effort to reduce even this inadequate setback would demonstrate that the Cohocton Planning Board retains no independence from the dictates of the Cohocton Town Board.
If the Cohocton Town Board chooses to disregard your recommendations, force them to vote against them.
Therefore, Cohocton Wind Watch expressly endorses that the only changes to your previous recommendations be of a greater protective nature and that the Cohocton Planning Board should stand firm on the harmful pressure that is being imposed by the Cohocton Town Board.
Cordially,
Cohocton Wind Watch
Cohocton Planning Board
15 South Main Street
Cohocton New York 14826
Dear Mr. Fox and Planning Board Members:
As of this date no written reply has been received regarding the offer made in the CWW letter of September 7, 2006 to assist in the research and development of a property assurance protection plan. Since this recommendation was voted on and approved by the Cohocton Planning Board, it is important that you stand by that vote.
The fact that your board also approved the recommendation to the Cohocton Town Board for a setback of one and half times the height of industrial wind turbines from all public roads is especially important to be maintained. Any effort to reduce even this inadequate setback would demonstrate that the Cohocton Planning Board retains no independence from the dictates of the Cohocton Town Board.
If the Cohocton Town Board chooses to disregard your recommendations, force them to vote against them.
Therefore, Cohocton Wind Watch expressly endorses that the only changes to your previous recommendations be of a greater protective nature and that the Cohocton Planning Board should stand firm on the harmful pressure that is being imposed by the Cohocton Town Board.
Cordially,
Cohocton Wind Watch
Monroe judge holds key to wind fight: Town of Howard, development opponents waiting on lawsuit judgment by ROB MONTANA
The merits of an Article 78 proceeding filed against the Town of Howard by a group of residents were hashed out in Monroe County Supreme Court last week.
The outcome of that is still likely a couple weeks away, as Judge Joseph Valentino reserved judgment in the case. The attorneys also have another week to get in any final comments in writing for him to use when making a decision.
In addition to the town, the suit also is filed against Howard Wind LLC, EverPower Global Corporation and the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency. Among the additional respondents listed in the suit are councilmen William Hatch and Robert Palmer, who have signed lease agreements with EverPower.
The outcome of that is still likely a couple weeks away, as Judge Joseph Valentino reserved judgment in the case. The attorneys also have another week to get in any final comments in writing for him to use when making a decision.
In addition to the town, the suit also is filed against Howard Wind LLC, EverPower Global Corporation and the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency. Among the additional respondents listed in the suit are councilmen William Hatch and Robert Palmer, who have signed lease agreements with EverPower.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Wind battle prompts resignation: Hartsville's Amy Emerson resigns as supervisor, blames Airtricity controversy as reason
By ROB MONTANA - STAFF WRITER
Published: Thursday, September 14, 2006 12:45 PM CDT
HARTSVILLE - Generally, stress and lack of family time convinced Hartsville Supervisor Amy Emerson it was time to step down from her position. Specifically, it was all about wind.
Deputy Supervisor George Prior opened Wednesday night's town board meeting by announcing Emerson's resignation from the supervisor position, effective Sept. 30. Emerson, 32, who served as town supervisor for five years, was not in attendance.
Prior read an e-mail from Emerson, a letter to the board from her family and Emerson's official letter of resignation, dated Sept. 13. The letter stated she needed to spend more time with her family, and away from the heated wind farm debate.
“The continued controversy and negativity has invaded our daily lives 24 hours/7 days a week,” the letter stated. “I am making the choice to no longer live that way.”
Prior suggested keeping Emerson on as bookkeeper for the time being, a job she served for four years before she became supervisor. Councilman Gene Garrison had no problem with that, but Councilwoman Mattie Parini expressed concern. She asked a full audit be done because she had questions about how the record-keeping was conducted in terms of grant money for the work being done on the new highway department building.
“I'm not saying there's money missing, but there might be money in the wrong spot,” Parini said, abstaining from a vote on keeping Emerson in the bookkeeper role.
Prior stated an audit had not been deemed necessary after a recent inquiry by the board, but Parini wouldn't vote “for her to continue doing the books until I know the books are right.”
As for a replacement, Prior suggested board members come up with some candidates for the next meeting. Then they can discuss a potential appointment and possibly take a vote, he said. Prior and Garrison both stated during the meeting they had no interest in taking over the supervisor position, while Parini and Councilman Jim Perry both said after the meeting they didn't want the job either.
Resident Steve Dombert, who has been a vocal critic of the town's leadership and decision to go forward with an Airtricity-developed wind farm, responded to veiled comments made in the letter from Emerson's family. In the letter Prior read aloud it didn't mention Dombert by name, but there was mention of an individual who had behaved inappropriately and made rude comments. Dombert took the letter's comments as references about him.
“Since the Emersons have decided to put the blame on me, I categorically deny saying anything rude or improper,” he said. “Sean Emerson was full of baloney in April, and he's full of baloney now.
“And, I was subjected to plenty of abuse from you windfarmers,” Dombert added, after which Prior stopped him from continuing.
Though she was not at the meeting, Emerson responded to several e-mail questions about her resignation.
“My family is the most important thing to me, and I can't put them through this any longer,” she said. “You wouldn't believe the smiles and hugs my kids gave me when they found out it was finally over.
“I also have to remember to take time for myself,” Emerson added.
A year of wind farm development controversy really spelled the end of her tenure, she said, adding she had no idea it would become that much of an issue.
“Before October of last year, I couldn't have told you the first thing about wind turbines, let alone what a proposed project would do to this town or the ordeal the town officials would have to endure,” Emerson said. “As time progressed, I really enjoyed learning more and getting a better understanding of things, but then the long hours, never-ending battles back and forth in the paper and on the radio started to wear thin.
“My part-time job became full-time and began to overshadow other things in my life,” she added. “When I ran for this part-time job, I knew it would allow time with my family, and that has drastically changed.”
Emerson contemplated resigning for several months.
“Leaving the job is something I thought about off and on throughout the year, and as you know, it's been a tough year,” she said. “As it turns out, today's the day. Having made that decision, I feel a huge weight has been lifted.”
Published: Thursday, September 14, 2006 12:45 PM CDT
HARTSVILLE - Generally, stress and lack of family time convinced Hartsville Supervisor Amy Emerson it was time to step down from her position. Specifically, it was all about wind.
Deputy Supervisor George Prior opened Wednesday night's town board meeting by announcing Emerson's resignation from the supervisor position, effective Sept. 30. Emerson, 32, who served as town supervisor for five years, was not in attendance.
Prior read an e-mail from Emerson, a letter to the board from her family and Emerson's official letter of resignation, dated Sept. 13. The letter stated she needed to spend more time with her family, and away from the heated wind farm debate.
“The continued controversy and negativity has invaded our daily lives 24 hours/7 days a week,” the letter stated. “I am making the choice to no longer live that way.”
Prior suggested keeping Emerson on as bookkeeper for the time being, a job she served for four years before she became supervisor. Councilman Gene Garrison had no problem with that, but Councilwoman Mattie Parini expressed concern. She asked a full audit be done because she had questions about how the record-keeping was conducted in terms of grant money for the work being done on the new highway department building.
“I'm not saying there's money missing, but there might be money in the wrong spot,” Parini said, abstaining from a vote on keeping Emerson in the bookkeeper role.
Prior stated an audit had not been deemed necessary after a recent inquiry by the board, but Parini wouldn't vote “for her to continue doing the books until I know the books are right.”
As for a replacement, Prior suggested board members come up with some candidates for the next meeting. Then they can discuss a potential appointment and possibly take a vote, he said. Prior and Garrison both stated during the meeting they had no interest in taking over the supervisor position, while Parini and Councilman Jim Perry both said after the meeting they didn't want the job either.
Resident Steve Dombert, who has been a vocal critic of the town's leadership and decision to go forward with an Airtricity-developed wind farm, responded to veiled comments made in the letter from Emerson's family. In the letter Prior read aloud it didn't mention Dombert by name, but there was mention of an individual who had behaved inappropriately and made rude comments. Dombert took the letter's comments as references about him.
“Since the Emersons have decided to put the blame on me, I categorically deny saying anything rude or improper,” he said. “Sean Emerson was full of baloney in April, and he's full of baloney now.
“And, I was subjected to plenty of abuse from you windfarmers,” Dombert added, after which Prior stopped him from continuing.
Though she was not at the meeting, Emerson responded to several e-mail questions about her resignation.
“My family is the most important thing to me, and I can't put them through this any longer,” she said. “You wouldn't believe the smiles and hugs my kids gave me when they found out it was finally over.
“I also have to remember to take time for myself,” Emerson added.
A year of wind farm development controversy really spelled the end of her tenure, she said, adding she had no idea it would become that much of an issue.
“Before October of last year, I couldn't have told you the first thing about wind turbines, let alone what a proposed project would do to this town or the ordeal the town officials would have to endure,” Emerson said. “As time progressed, I really enjoyed learning more and getting a better understanding of things, but then the long hours, never-ending battles back and forth in the paper and on the radio started to wear thin.
“My part-time job became full-time and began to overshadow other things in my life,” she added. “When I ran for this part-time job, I knew it would allow time with my family, and that has drastically changed.”
Emerson contemplated resigning for several months.
“Leaving the job is something I thought about off and on throughout the year, and as you know, it's been a tough year,” she said. “As it turns out, today's the day. Having made that decision, I feel a huge weight has been lifted.”
Letter to Mr Wayne Hunt
Mr. Wayne Hunt
Councilman Town of Cohocton
Cohocton, New York
September 12, 2006
Dear Councilman Hunt,
I am in receipt of your public letter published in the Valley News on June 8th. You write in part "there is very little noise" in regards to wind turbines. I provide the following few of many items regarding wind turbine noise from organizations around the world:
1. "Turbines make noise, planning is key" --- Underwriter Laboratory (UL)
2. “The noise produced by wind turbines is a major factor in Europe, and it’s becoming an increasingly important issue, not only in the U.S., but throughout the world. Much of our investigative work is in this area and it occupies about 50% of my time”. --- Arlinda A. Huskey, Wind Turbine engineer and expert, National Energy Renewable Laboratory (NERL)
3. "105db" --- GE Wind Turbine technical specification
4. "Thanks to the evolution of both computer and electronic science it is now possible (and easy) to use the acoustic imagery technique to investigate the noise behaviour of a wind turbine under operation. This article introduces the beamforming technique used in acoustic imagery for noise problem troubleshooting." --- Press release, new product announcement in Windtech International.
Mr. Hunt, as two people who are not interested in theories; I would appreciate your view as to why these organizations and corporations are devoting resources, personnel, funding and indeed going so far as to develop products to help troubleshoot noise problems with these wind turbines. All this --- for an insignificant ("very little") condition that is as you wrote: "magical", "mythical" and "whimsical" "theories" by anti-wind groups?
James Lince
Cohocton, NY
Councilman Town of Cohocton
Cohocton, New York
September 12, 2006
Dear Councilman Hunt,
I am in receipt of your public letter published in the Valley News on June 8th. You write in part "there is very little noise" in regards to wind turbines. I provide the following few of many items regarding wind turbine noise from organizations around the world:
1. "Turbines make noise, planning is key" --- Underwriter Laboratory (UL)
2. “The noise produced by wind turbines is a major factor in Europe, and it’s becoming an increasingly important issue, not only in the U.S., but throughout the world. Much of our investigative work is in this area and it occupies about 50% of my time”. --- Arlinda A. Huskey, Wind Turbine engineer and expert, National Energy Renewable Laboratory (NERL)
3. "105db" --- GE Wind Turbine technical specification
4. "Thanks to the evolution of both computer and electronic science it is now possible (and easy) to use the acoustic imagery technique to investigate the noise behaviour of a wind turbine under operation. This article introduces the beamforming technique used in acoustic imagery for noise problem troubleshooting." --- Press release, new product announcement in Windtech International.
Mr. Hunt, as two people who are not interested in theories; I would appreciate your view as to why these organizations and corporations are devoting resources, personnel, funding and indeed going so far as to develop products to help troubleshoot noise problems with these wind turbines. All this --- for an insignificant ("very little") condition that is as you wrote: "magical", "mythical" and "whimsical" "theories" by anti-wind groups?
James Lince
Cohocton, NY
CWW letter 9/14/06 to the Cohocton Town Board
September 14, 2006
Cohocton Town Board
15 South Main Street
Cohocton, NY 14826
Supervisor Zigenfus, Deputy Supervisor Wise, Councilmen Dyckman, LeVesque and Hunt:
Based upon your acknowledgement that the Cohocton Town Board must comply with town statue and that an ethics board be reestablished, it is imperative to appoint the required members as soon as possible. At the next regular Town Board meeting, September 19, 2006, it is urged to place this task on your Town Board agenda.
As indicated in our September 6, 2006 letter, Cohocton Wind Watch recommends the following citizens and property owners to the two non Town of Cohocton employee slots for the Cohocton Ethics Board:
Jeff Goldthwait (585) *82 384-9832
Shannon Levee (585) 384-9893
Jim Lince (607) 566-3930
Dr. Bill Morehouse (585) 235-2250
Amy Wolfe (585) 384-9655
Also, Cohocton Wind Watch puts forth the current Cohocton Planning Board member, Dan McClure for the one town "employee" position on the Cohocton Ethics Board.
Your prompt enactment is necessary to create a mechanism for governmental accountability.
Cordially,
Cohocton Wind Watch
Cohocton Town Board
15 South Main Street
Cohocton, NY 14826
Supervisor Zigenfus, Deputy Supervisor Wise, Councilmen Dyckman, LeVesque and Hunt:
Based upon your acknowledgement that the Cohocton Town Board must comply with town statue and that an ethics board be reestablished, it is imperative to appoint the required members as soon as possible. At the next regular Town Board meeting, September 19, 2006, it is urged to place this task on your Town Board agenda.
As indicated in our September 6, 2006 letter, Cohocton Wind Watch recommends the following citizens and property owners to the two non Town of Cohocton employee slots for the Cohocton Ethics Board:
Jeff Goldthwait (585) *82 384-9832
Shannon Levee (585) 384-9893
Jim Lince (607) 566-3930
Dr. Bill Morehouse (585) 235-2250
Amy Wolfe (585) 384-9655
Also, Cohocton Wind Watch puts forth the current Cohocton Planning Board member, Dan McClure for the one town "employee" position on the Cohocton Ethics Board.
Your prompt enactment is necessary to create a mechanism for governmental accountability.
Cordially,
Cohocton Wind Watch
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Monday, September 11, 2006
CWW letter 9/11/06 to the Cohocton Planning Board
September 11, 2006
Cohocton Planning Board
15 South Main Street
Cohocton New York 14826
Dear Mr. Fox and Planning Board Members:
At the Cohocton Planning Board special meeting of September 7, 2006, Town Councilman Wayne Hunt made the announcement that 2.5 MW industrial wind turbines for the UPC project will now be used. This is the second extreme change from the original 1.5 MW proposal, the first being an increase to 2.0 MW and now 2.5 MW. The Cohocton Planning Board must recognize that the current DEIS report prepared and submitted by UPC is based upon 1.5 MW turbines.
Since this fact clearly demonstrates that these increases in size impose a crucial need for greater setbacks, it is imperative that the Cohocton Planning Board rejects the regretful suggestion from the sole Town Councilman, Jeff Wise, to modify the CPB recommendation on the proposed Windmill Local Law #2.
Note that the Cohocton Town Board did not vote on Mr. Wise’s suggestion.
As stated in the Cohocton Wind Watch letter of September 7, 2006, the proposed 500 foot limit for tower height allows for additional increase in turbine size and capacity. Which is an obvious move to accommodate the new UPC plans. It is self evident that reverting to a mere 500 foot setback from public roads offers even less public safety protection, now that it has been disclosed that 2.5 MW units are proposed for installation.
This incident illustrates the inconsistency, dishonesty and deceitful nature of the UPC proposal. The CPB should be an independent board. It is time to act with conviction. If the Cohocton Town Board chooses to disregard your recommendations, force them to vote against them.
Cohocton Wind Watch is most disappointed with the lack of courage coming out of the Cohocton Planning Board. In order to prove that the CPB is not a mere tool of UPC manipulation, in the strongest terms, CWW urges your board to resist the irrational and imprudent pressure from the Town of Cohocton Councilmen. In order to invalidate a recommendation, demonstrated evidence must be supplied for the basis of that reversal. Just what would be such a determining factor?
Supervisor Zigenfus, made known that the 2007 budget will include a bond issuance for $50,000 to finance litigation. Such added legal expenses for the town can certainly be mitigated if not avoided altogether with the passage of coherent and balanced legislation. The record is most clear, without a sincere effort and commitment to resolve the profound harmful effects from the UPC project, the town should be prepared to increase such a bond resolution by several multiples.
As lead agency, the Cohocton Planning Board has the authority to impose a moratorium on the UPC project. Especially since an entirely new DEIS study must be required (or risk additional legal actions) that is based upon 2.5 MW units. Also a competing developer, Empire State Wind Energy has announced intentions for a community-based project for Cohocton. Now is the time to let the marketplace work. Windmill Local Law #2 should be put on hold. The entire Cohocton community deserves to know all the options.
Cordially,
Cohocton Wind Watch
Cohocton Planning Board
15 South Main Street
Cohocton New York 14826
Dear Mr. Fox and Planning Board Members:
At the Cohocton Planning Board special meeting of September 7, 2006, Town Councilman Wayne Hunt made the announcement that 2.5 MW industrial wind turbines for the UPC project will now be used. This is the second extreme change from the original 1.5 MW proposal, the first being an increase to 2.0 MW and now 2.5 MW. The Cohocton Planning Board must recognize that the current DEIS report prepared and submitted by UPC is based upon 1.5 MW turbines.
Since this fact clearly demonstrates that these increases in size impose a crucial need for greater setbacks, it is imperative that the Cohocton Planning Board rejects the regretful suggestion from the sole Town Councilman, Jeff Wise, to modify the CPB recommendation on the proposed Windmill Local Law #2.
Note that the Cohocton Town Board did not vote on Mr. Wise’s suggestion.
As stated in the Cohocton Wind Watch letter of September 7, 2006, the proposed 500 foot limit for tower height allows for additional increase in turbine size and capacity. Which is an obvious move to accommodate the new UPC plans. It is self evident that reverting to a mere 500 foot setback from public roads offers even less public safety protection, now that it has been disclosed that 2.5 MW units are proposed for installation.
This incident illustrates the inconsistency, dishonesty and deceitful nature of the UPC proposal. The CPB should be an independent board. It is time to act with conviction. If the Cohocton Town Board chooses to disregard your recommendations, force them to vote against them.
Cohocton Wind Watch is most disappointed with the lack of courage coming out of the Cohocton Planning Board. In order to prove that the CPB is not a mere tool of UPC manipulation, in the strongest terms, CWW urges your board to resist the irrational and imprudent pressure from the Town of Cohocton Councilmen. In order to invalidate a recommendation, demonstrated evidence must be supplied for the basis of that reversal. Just what would be such a determining factor?
Supervisor Zigenfus, made known that the 2007 budget will include a bond issuance for $50,000 to finance litigation. Such added legal expenses for the town can certainly be mitigated if not avoided altogether with the passage of coherent and balanced legislation. The record is most clear, without a sincere effort and commitment to resolve the profound harmful effects from the UPC project, the town should be prepared to increase such a bond resolution by several multiples.
As lead agency, the Cohocton Planning Board has the authority to impose a moratorium on the UPC project. Especially since an entirely new DEIS study must be required (or risk additional legal actions) that is based upon 2.5 MW units. Also a competing developer, Empire State Wind Energy has announced intentions for a community-based project for Cohocton. Now is the time to let the marketplace work. Windmill Local Law #2 should be put on hold. The entire Cohocton community deserves to know all the options.
Cordially,
Cohocton Wind Watch
Steve Trude letter to the Cohocton Town Board
September 11, 2006
Cohocton Town Board
15 South Main Street
Cohocton New York 14826
Dear Supervisor Zigenfus and Cohocton Town Councilmen:
It is apparent with changing of different size wind turbines, the setback for a 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 and a 3.0 MW units, a different formula and new draft environmental impact statement is needed to determine placement and setbacks. It will be necessary to define a logical setback due to:
1) height, 2) blade size, (windwake) and 3) decibel level.
Adjusting the adequate setbacks will be necessary to give assurance to cover health and safety issues to protect the public and adjacent home and land owners.
With new blade designs, an updated study is in order to determine performance on each different turbine model. This new study should be done by Bagdon Environmental in conjunction with an independent company on the cost benefit analysis for 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0 MW units before the Cohocton Planning Board can make educated recommendations to the Cohocton Town Board for new law.
Both developers, UPC and Empire State Wind Energy should provide the exact specifications for the industrial turbines intended for their projects. Then and only then can the Town of Cohocton draft a meaningful industrial wind turbine law.
Putting adequate setbacks into law will help alleviate future possible litigation for property values, wind rights for adjacent property owners, noise issues and health and safety issues.
Sincerely,
Stephen H. Trude – President CWW
Cohocton Town Board
15 South Main Street
Cohocton New York 14826
Dear Supervisor Zigenfus and Cohocton Town Councilmen:
It is apparent with changing of different size wind turbines, the setback for a 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 and a 3.0 MW units, a different formula and new draft environmental impact statement is needed to determine placement and setbacks. It will be necessary to define a logical setback due to:
1) height, 2) blade size, (windwake) and 3) decibel level.
Adjusting the adequate setbacks will be necessary to give assurance to cover health and safety issues to protect the public and adjacent home and land owners.
With new blade designs, an updated study is in order to determine performance on each different turbine model. This new study should be done by Bagdon Environmental in conjunction with an independent company on the cost benefit analysis for 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0 MW units before the Cohocton Planning Board can make educated recommendations to the Cohocton Town Board for new law.
Both developers, UPC and Empire State Wind Energy should provide the exact specifications for the industrial turbines intended for their projects. Then and only then can the Town of Cohocton draft a meaningful industrial wind turbine law.
Putting adequate setbacks into law will help alleviate future possible litigation for property values, wind rights for adjacent property owners, noise issues and health and safety issues.
Sincerely,
Stephen H. Trude – President CWW
Saturday, September 09, 2006
Advocates for Italy letter August 31, 2006
ADVOCATES for ITALY
Box 221
KEUKA PARK,
NEW YORK
14478
August 31,2006
Dear Town of Italy Land Owner,
Very shortly, your Town Board will vote on the proposed Zoning Law for the Town. A number of concerns have been raised about zoning. As concerned residents we would like to provide you with some additional information that we believe will help you to make a more informed decision on this critical issue for our Town.
Will Zoning Affect Me?
The Zoning Law will regulate individual homeowners very little. Most regulations follow N.Y.S. Building Codes, which are already in place. The Law protects the scenic beauty of the Town by regulating large industrial development such as landfills and wind turbines.
What About the Town's Legal Expense?
Concerns have been raised over the current and potential future legal expense facing the Town. Some folks seem to feel that the zoning is somehow responsible for this situation. It's not the zoning, it's the developers! Recently the Ecogen Wind Energy developer brought a legal complaint against the Town in Federal Court over the Town's legally enacted moratorium on wind energy projects. The Town had the choice of "giving in" to all of the developer demands, or hiring legal counsel to defend itself. They chose the latter and won. The Court ruled in favor of our Town. This resulted in about $79,000 of legal expense (because the developer brought the complaint against our Town). You should know that the Town budgeted $38,500 for legal expense this year and has insurance that will help to pay the remaining balance. So, the legal expenses are "under control". In fact, the Town has always had a legal budget. This isn't "something new". You may have heard about a $500,000 cost estimate for Town legal expenses. For the record, the Town's legal counsel recently recommended a manageable $80,000 budget figure for next year. "Legal expense" is a normal part of any Town Budget in this day and age. It's not new or surprising.
Your Town in the Twenty-first Century...
As Italy enters the twenty-first century... there are and will be many more threats to our lands from commercial and industrial projects. Examples include the industrial wind projects, with their 400-foot high, strobe lit wind turbines, and the potential of 400 plus acre landfills for down-state garbage. The only way to control this development is to enact land use regulations in zoning laws. Without these laws, big developers can - and will - move in and do what ever they want with our Town, wherever they want. Make no mistake, without zoning, our Town will be wide open for this type of development. Clearly, it's time for us to protect our beautiful hills and valley with appropriate land use (zoning) regulations.
The $ 250,000 "Wind-Fall"...
If Ecogen really made a $250,000 "offer" to the Town, you should know that this developer will make $ millions with this project. Their offer is just a tiny fraction of the money they will make. If the developer really wanted to help the Town, this offer would be many times more than what they proposed. We will give up our beautiful hills while they stand to make $ millions. It's not a very good deal (for us). If we don't accept this offer from Ecogen, some might feel it will be "lost tax revenue". However, if the turbines and project result in lower land and property values over time, the entire Town's tax base could be reduced (or, not grow as fast as if the project wasn't here). Over a projected seven year period, this was exactly what a study of this issue in Prattsburgh revealed... In the long run, the Town will lose value in its tax revenue base. In addition, respected local Realtor, Mike Keenan has publicly stated that there will be a substantial reduction in current real estate values anywhere near this project, if property owners in this area can sell their places, at all!
What About Giving Them a Small Zone for Wind Turbines?
The suggestion has been made that the Town include "a small pilot wind zone" in the Zoning Law. The developer has never shown any willingness to compromise on this issue. They want what they want. In this case, 23 industrial wind turbines (to start) covering hundreds of acres, with short setbacks from existing homes, not property lines, that will not protect these residents from the negative factors associated with the 400 foot turbines, (ruined views, noise, shadow flicker, ice throw dangers and reduced property values). Since this project documented a "Phase II" in the original project proposal, do you think they will stop at the southern part of the Town? And, this doesn't even consider the additional giant turbines also planned for Italy in a separate WindFarm Prattsburgh wind energy project or from several other wind energy developers looking at our Town. Eventually, we could see these towers strung out across virtually all the higher ridge lines of the Town (along with the landfills). Is this really what you want for your Town? According to the Town's legal counsel, under New York State Law, the Town has the right to ban the industrial wind turbines here.
Determining the Will of the People...
Some folks believe that the proposed Zoning Law (and industrial wind turbine ban) is being driven by a few vocal opponents at Town Meetings. In our system of government, public hearings are conducted to gauge the will of the people on controversial issues. In hearing after hearing on this subject, the vast majority of those who spoke were against this project in Italy because they didn 't want to see the beautiful hills here desecrated by strobe lit, 400 foot industrial wind turbines. This has been the case in every Public Hearing! The representative sample of public opinion is based upon those who speak up. This is how Town Boards gauge public opinion.
Stand Up and "Speak" For Your Town
Please come to the hearing September 9th, 9 AM @ the Town Barn and speak "for" the proposed zoning plan "As Written". You can be part of keeping our Town the way it is... quiet, rural, scenic and beautiful. "Speak up" for your Town. Every "voice" counts!
Thank you!
The Advocates for Italy
Box 221
KEUKA PARK,
NEW YORK
14478
August 31,2006
Dear Town of Italy Land Owner,
Very shortly, your Town Board will vote on the proposed Zoning Law for the Town. A number of concerns have been raised about zoning. As concerned residents we would like to provide you with some additional information that we believe will help you to make a more informed decision on this critical issue for our Town.
Will Zoning Affect Me?
The Zoning Law will regulate individual homeowners very little. Most regulations follow N.Y.S. Building Codes, which are already in place. The Law protects the scenic beauty of the Town by regulating large industrial development such as landfills and wind turbines.
What About the Town's Legal Expense?
Concerns have been raised over the current and potential future legal expense facing the Town. Some folks seem to feel that the zoning is somehow responsible for this situation. It's not the zoning, it's the developers! Recently the Ecogen Wind Energy developer brought a legal complaint against the Town in Federal Court over the Town's legally enacted moratorium on wind energy projects. The Town had the choice of "giving in" to all of the developer demands, or hiring legal counsel to defend itself. They chose the latter and won. The Court ruled in favor of our Town. This resulted in about $79,000 of legal expense (because the developer brought the complaint against our Town). You should know that the Town budgeted $38,500 for legal expense this year and has insurance that will help to pay the remaining balance. So, the legal expenses are "under control". In fact, the Town has always had a legal budget. This isn't "something new". You may have heard about a $500,000 cost estimate for Town legal expenses. For the record, the Town's legal counsel recently recommended a manageable $80,000 budget figure for next year. "Legal expense" is a normal part of any Town Budget in this day and age. It's not new or surprising.
Your Town in the Twenty-first Century...
As Italy enters the twenty-first century... there are and will be many more threats to our lands from commercial and industrial projects. Examples include the industrial wind projects, with their 400-foot high, strobe lit wind turbines, and the potential of 400 plus acre landfills for down-state garbage. The only way to control this development is to enact land use regulations in zoning laws. Without these laws, big developers can - and will - move in and do what ever they want with our Town, wherever they want. Make no mistake, without zoning, our Town will be wide open for this type of development. Clearly, it's time for us to protect our beautiful hills and valley with appropriate land use (zoning) regulations.
The $ 250,000 "Wind-Fall"...
If Ecogen really made a $250,000 "offer" to the Town, you should know that this developer will make $ millions with this project. Their offer is just a tiny fraction of the money they will make. If the developer really wanted to help the Town, this offer would be many times more than what they proposed. We will give up our beautiful hills while they stand to make $ millions. It's not a very good deal (for us). If we don't accept this offer from Ecogen, some might feel it will be "lost tax revenue". However, if the turbines and project result in lower land and property values over time, the entire Town's tax base could be reduced (or, not grow as fast as if the project wasn't here). Over a projected seven year period, this was exactly what a study of this issue in Prattsburgh revealed... In the long run, the Town will lose value in its tax revenue base. In addition, respected local Realtor, Mike Keenan has publicly stated that there will be a substantial reduction in current real estate values anywhere near this project, if property owners in this area can sell their places, at all!
What About Giving Them a Small Zone for Wind Turbines?
The suggestion has been made that the Town include "a small pilot wind zone" in the Zoning Law. The developer has never shown any willingness to compromise on this issue. They want what they want. In this case, 23 industrial wind turbines (to start) covering hundreds of acres, with short setbacks from existing homes, not property lines, that will not protect these residents from the negative factors associated with the 400 foot turbines, (ruined views, noise, shadow flicker, ice throw dangers and reduced property values). Since this project documented a "Phase II" in the original project proposal, do you think they will stop at the southern part of the Town? And, this doesn't even consider the additional giant turbines also planned for Italy in a separate WindFarm Prattsburgh wind energy project or from several other wind energy developers looking at our Town. Eventually, we could see these towers strung out across virtually all the higher ridge lines of the Town (along with the landfills). Is this really what you want for your Town? According to the Town's legal counsel, under New York State Law, the Town has the right to ban the industrial wind turbines here.
Determining the Will of the People...
Some folks believe that the proposed Zoning Law (and industrial wind turbine ban) is being driven by a few vocal opponents at Town Meetings. In our system of government, public hearings are conducted to gauge the will of the people on controversial issues. In hearing after hearing on this subject, the vast majority of those who spoke were against this project in Italy because they didn 't want to see the beautiful hills here desecrated by strobe lit, 400 foot industrial wind turbines. This has been the case in every Public Hearing! The representative sample of public opinion is based upon those who speak up. This is how Town Boards gauge public opinion.
Stand Up and "Speak" For Your Town
Please come to the hearing September 9th, 9 AM @ the Town Barn and speak "for" the proposed zoning plan "As Written". You can be part of keeping our Town the way it is... quiet, rural, scenic and beautiful. "Speak up" for your Town. Every "voice" counts!
Thank you!
The Advocates for Italy
Neapolitans apparently apathetic about impending wind towers Brian A. Herman, Naples, NY
It seems to be obvious due the the dismal turnout of Neapolitans at the Naples Hotel, August 28th concerning the wind farms, that there is not much interest in the upcoming construction of these turbines.
I had trouble falling asleep after listening to intelligent, educated and thought provoking speakers who presented unbiased facts about the construction, maintenance and eventual removal of hundreds of the megaliths that will sooner or later be coming to dominate our landscape. Of course, since so few villagers or townspeople were in the audience, I hope you all slept soundly.
At a meeting in Springwater, over 200 taxpayers voiced their objections to a mere 14 proposed windmills and the developer dropped the project. If only Naples, Cohocton, Prattsburgh and Italy Valley could be so united. We could definitely develop a renewable energy windfarm, that would be less environmental destructive aesthetically intrusive and actually save us local inhabitants money.
I am not a wind power project whore. I don't have property that would be suitable for the turbines to be erected. Most of us are in the same boat, yet the few naive, ill-informed or just plain greedy landowners who have signed secret lease agreements with several large wind power companies are now selling our quality of life down the river.
There are so many negatives to this project that I won't bore you with my worries. I am saddened by the thought that soon it will be more pleasant to drive north onto the flat lands than to come south to our beautiful valleys.
I had trouble falling asleep after listening to intelligent, educated and thought provoking speakers who presented unbiased facts about the construction, maintenance and eventual removal of hundreds of the megaliths that will sooner or later be coming to dominate our landscape. Of course, since so few villagers or townspeople were in the audience, I hope you all slept soundly.
At a meeting in Springwater, over 200 taxpayers voiced their objections to a mere 14 proposed windmills and the developer dropped the project. If only Naples, Cohocton, Prattsburgh and Italy Valley could be so united. We could definitely develop a renewable energy windfarm, that would be less environmental destructive aesthetically intrusive and actually save us local inhabitants money.
I am not a wind power project whore. I don't have property that would be suitable for the turbines to be erected. Most of us are in the same boat, yet the few naive, ill-informed or just plain greedy landowners who have signed secret lease agreements with several large wind power companies are now selling our quality of life down the river.
There are so many negatives to this project that I won't bore you with my worries. I am saddened by the thought that soon it will be more pleasant to drive north onto the flat lands than to come south to our beautiful valleys.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)