Wind turbine syndrome by Rick Bolton

There is some information from the UK and WHO that does show for conventional noise pollution (freeways and airports) that:

(1) chronic loss of sleep will seriously affect health and over long exposure is known to cause myocardial infarction.
(2) In combination with other effects, like annoying flicker or perhaps low-frequency sounds (which are very strong over a mile from the turbine) the health effects are more severe.

The US EPA has a nice and comprehensive study completed in 1971 that discusses modern noise pollution, not exhibited really strong till the advent of extensive freeways and jet airports after WW II. They point out that there is a vast difference between urban noise and rural noise, with all urban noise "man made", and highly irritating if not managed. So far every wind farm is trying to, or has sited their turbines with noise levels approaching urban areas with airports in the vicinithy, 50 dBA. This is completely absurd and brings tremendous noise pollution to the rural settings where these farms are placed.

So the story of Mr. Marshall in Ontario, with 5 large turbines within 1/4 mile, is not to be considered unusual and will be frequently repeated as windfams proliferate. At the Fenner farm I noticed all the turbines were synchronous - ie the blades pointed at the same angle and rotated at the same rate. The sounds therefore will add harmoniously and become stronger at "nearby" residences. "Nearby" does not mean close to the wind turbines since sounds refract, it means residences 1/4 mile away or so where the refraction and additive effects are worse. All this should have been accounted for in the wind farm noise analysis. If it was not, which it most likely wasn't, then I would think Mr. Marshall should have good cause to sue.

Wind Farms: Benefit or Burden? by Kathy Kriz (Cohocton, N.Y./Perry, N.Y.)

Watch the Video

Wind farm developers are offering major cash to Western New York towns willing to deal. However, even with financial incentives, there are tradeoffs which raise the question whether wind turbines benefit or burden a community.

Right now, traffic jams aren't a problem in Cohocton, Steuben County. Jobs at the Polly-O dairy plant and the old buckwheat flour mill are long gone.

However, now that a wind developer wants to move in, there are rumblings. Some neighbors view the wind farm proposal as an economic remedy.

Landowner Ron Moody said, ”What kind of income are you going to get for your school, your town, and your county if you don't put something in here?”

Others want to protect the serenity that drew them here.

Property Owner Dr. William Morehouse said, “I'm going to have three of these, if this goes through, within 1,500 feet of my cabin, my Shangri-la.”

In an example mailed out to Cohocton property owners, the wind developer says it could potentially invest more than $600,000 a year in the community. Plus, they would pay people who allow the wind turbines on their land.

A study www.savewesternny.org states that wind farm developers see a 26-percent return on their investments the first year, while a wind industry spokeswoman said it's more like 7.5 to 10 percent.

Perry Town Supervisor Jim Brick, said, “It would look like pretty near half a million for the town, per year. Is that enough? We don't know yet for sure.”

Some homeowners are worried their property values will plummet if wind turbines are built near their homes.

Cherry Valley Wind Energy Facilities Local Law

CV_wind_ordinance0021.pdf

Advocates for Prattsburgh update on their Article 78 against SCIDA

Yesterday our lawyer, Glen Pezzulo, made the oral arguments for the Article 78 in court. There will be a decision in about one month.

From the feedback I have received it sounds as though our lawyer was able to make a pretty good showing. It sounds like their lawyers were not nearly as prepared. However, anything can happen.

We should win for the following reasons:

1. We worked tirelessly to present the information initially and then we nearly killed ourselves to help the lawyer make a written rebuttal to their rebuttal.

2. We are right and we have piles of documents to prove it.

So now all we can do is wait. I have a file folder marked "New" in which I am filing all new information so that when Global comes out with their Final EIS, I will be able to respond with new information. Every other day I get new information about accidents, health and safety and wildlife.

Every day I get new information about another town that is fighting back -- another area of the world that is saying that the turbines aren't working.

So those of you who believe in the power of positive thinking, please focus hard in this next month.

I hope to find other things to do with my time while I am waiting.

Regards,

Ruth Matilsky

Cohocton Wind Watch Informational Meeting

Update of developments over the summer, the factual record of events and the actions that will take place in the near future.

Oct 19, 2006 7:00 PM to 8:30 PM

Cohocton Elementary School
Park Ave.
Cohocton, NY

Pataki to sign bill stripping NYRI of eminent domain

RECORDONLINE/TIMES HERALD RECORD Oct 2:

Gov. George Pataki is expected tomorrow to sign legislation that would throw up a major obstacle to a huge power transmission line proposed from central New York to Orange County, according to sources.

The bill, authored by Sen. John Bonacic and passed by both houses of the Legislature, blocks New York Regional Interconnect from using state laws to take land by eminent domain to build its 190-mile line.

Pataki is expected to sign the bill at a Utica-area ceremony tomorrow.

Although thousands of people along the proposed route are against the project and support the bill, it was opposed by power industry-groups and key lawmakers who said it would discourage future energy projects.

Even with the legislation, NYRI could try to bypass the state and win new federal powers to allow it to take private land for the project. The company has also indicated it may challenge Bonacic's legislation in court.

Empire State Wind Energy public information meeting

Date: Oct 11, 2006 (Wed)
Location: Cohocton Elementary School
Address: 30 Park Ave.
City/State: Cohocton, NY
Postal Code: 14826 Start: 7:00 PM
End: 9:30 PM

Wind developer Empire State Wind Energy public and community information meeting on alternative Cohocton wind project. Tom Golisano and Keith Pitman presentation to Cohocton.

Supreme Court Oral Arguments Prattsburgh Article 78 against SCIDA

Date: Oct 5, 2006 (Thu)
Location: Hall of Justice
Address: Public Safety Building
City/State: Rochester, NY
Start: 2:00 PM
End: 5:00 PM

Hall of Justice Court House - Judge Galloway Supreme Court

Shadow-Flicker Modeling Dairy Hills Wind Farm, NY.

CITIZENS' GROUP BRINGS LEGAL CHALLENGE TO ACTIONS OF TOWNS OF ALTONA, CLINTON, AND ELLENBURG, CLINTON INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AND NOBLE ENVIRON

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neighbors for the Preservation of the North Country, Inc.
P.O. Box 415
Ellenburg Depot, New York 12935
Contact: Holly Garceau
518 594-7140
neighborspnc@yahoo.com

PRESS RELEASE

CITIZENS' GROUP BRINGS LEGAL CHALLENGE TO ACTIONS OF TOWNS OF ALTONA, CLINTON, AND ELLENBURG, CLINTON INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AND NOBLE ENVIRONMENTAL POWER

Ellenburg Center, NY September 25, 2006 - Neighbors for the Preservation of the North Country, Inc., a citizens' environmental advocacy group, made up of community residents from the towns of Clinton, Altona, and Ellenburg in Clinton County, New York, has commenced a legal proceeding against the towns of Altona, Clinton, Ellenburg, the Clinton County Industrial Development Agency, and Noble Environmental Power, challenging the failure of the towns, the IDA, and Noble to follow the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act.

Noble plans to build 179 40-story-tall wind turbines in the three predominantly rural and wooded towns of Altona, Clinton and Ellenburg, in northern New York. The three towns and the IDA failed to give the "hard look" required by state law to the application by Noble Environmental Power, failed to consider alternatives, and failed to consider citizen comments made during the mandatory public comment period. The towns and the IDA failed to give an independent review to the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements and failed to identify the many errors and omissions in those Environmental Impact Statements. The approvals of the towns and IDA rubber-stamped Noble's unsupported assertions and failed to protect the health and welfare of the towns' citizens, the natural resources and landscape, the wildlife, and the rural quality of life presently enjoyed by the residents of these towns.

The legal proceeding asks the State Supreme Court to review and vacate the approvals granted by the three towns and the Clinton County Industrial Development Agency. It is presently scheduled to be before the court on October 6th.
--more--

Documents submitted in support of the litigation show that Noble's Environmental Impact Statements and the towns' findings did not satisfy the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act:

The legal proceeding seeks to have the court annul the approvals given by the three town boards and the county IDA.

Holly Garceau, President of Neighbors for the Preservation of the North Country, Inc., says that her personal experience refutes the claims by the wind power company that industrial-sized wind turbines are innocuous. Earlier this year she visited the wind farm at Tug Hill, in Lewis County, New York. Within a short time of her arrival she felt pressure to her ears and soon had a migraine headache. Physician and ecologist Dr. Nina Pierpont, a resident of nearby Franklin County, has documented the phenomenon of Vibroacoustic Disease, caused by industrial wind turbines, and ignored by Noble, the three towns and the IDA.

If the towns of Altona, Clinton and Ellenburg, and the Clinton County Industrial Development Agency, had followed their mandates under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, this litigation would not be needed.

For further information, contact Holly Garceau, 518 594-7140.

DID THE TOWN OF COHOCTON, LET ALONE ANY OTHER TOWN THINK THAT THERE WOULD BE NO PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH WIND TURBINES? by Bonnie Palmiter

With town secrecy going on between Wind Developers, Town Boards and Lease owners, why should any Town Board Member assume that there wouldn’t be some problems among town taxpayers!

Town Supervisors seem to be blaming their stress on Concerned Citizen Groups and Taxpayers of that particular town. Jack Zigenfus feels his personal health comes long before these windmills. Maybe he should have thought about all of that before he got into the situation of allowing developers to come in and tear the town apart by padding a few pockets and taking away from others. Jack Zigenfus feels his compensation of $10,000 a year isn’t nearly enough to compensate him for being accountable to ALL residents of the town. Jack, maybe your stress actually is your conscience telling you that what you have done to the town of Cohocton and adjoining property owners of these huge wind turbines is just erroneous. Jack it will be over for you next November, my husband, children and I will have to live with your decisions for wind turbines for the rest of our lives. I will not sit back and tolerate my life being destroyed because you feel the need to look out for leaseholders versus adjoining property owners who have so much to lose financially and health wise.

Why is it that Board Members feel their personal health comes before the citizens of their town when data and scientific research has proven time and time again that wind energy isn’t as green as wind developers claim, yet wind developers seem to be the ones writing the Laws regulating wind industry in the towns. Perhaps what is weighing on the personal health of Town Board members are the moral and ethical proceedings of writing a Law, which is for the town. Possibly their own sense of right and wrong is ultimately getting to them that what they are doing is just morally wrong.

Back door politics ladies and gentlemen has a way of coming out and hitting hard, Presidents, elected officials, along with CEO’s of companies have felt it before and now some Board Members of Towns are too. How did local town officials think they could get away with doing wrong when higher Government officials couldn’t? The stress some Town Board members are feeling could have been alleviated back a few years ago when all this wind industry was coming to towns on the QT. Board members should have been forthright and brought it all out to the public when it was first happening and maybe all this stress they are feeling now could have been alleviated.

When Town Board members feel that their personal health is being jeopardized don’t you think that they should know in their hearts that the personal health and safety is one of the major reasons groups such as Cohocton Wind Watch came about. Residents that have their property rights being encroached on by the tip of a blade-420 feet plus another 100 feet and Town Board members and a few Planning Board members feeling that this is an appropriate setback distance when there really shouldn’t be a question that if they were looking out for adjoining property owners they would want the greatest set back that was proposed by Town Planning Board members. Even GE, one maker of turbines recommends they be sited no closer than a mile to the nearest dwelling. There seems to be a problem when Town Boards can’t give a greater distance, the problem being that if they gave a greater distance to adjoining property owners it would mean less turbines coming into that particular area, they seem to be listening only to the smooth talking salesmen, the developer. Remember the salesmen of turbines are the ones that started this fight between town and groups; they are the ones who walked in and started destroying and taking our way of life from us. Greed by some, no respect to others yet at all times wanting respect because they are town officials. Yet they can see no respect to property owners that will have there lives changed forever because these turbines will be 500 feet from their property line.

Readers, my name is Bonnie Palmiter, I live in Cohocton, have for 25 years, married my husband Karl whom has been a resident of Cohocton for 33 years. We have three children born and raised in Cohocton, and when I state born I mean I gave birth to my last daughter two months early at our home in Cohocton. She has many medical problems, which as Wayne Hunt would like to have, written verification from her medical doctors, which he will never get, due to patient confidentiality. I will not submit medical information to any Board Member proving that she has medical problems, and it is very disheartening and demeaning for any one person to have to substantiate to some Local Board Member that they are unfortunate enough to have such circumstances.

I am a member of one of these concerned citizens groups such as Cohocton Wind Watch, but also as an independent due to not only my daughter, but also many other people out there with medical conditions that will be affected by wind turbines so close to them. I am an educator of eighteen years, whom has seen many health conditions and disabilities which the misplacement of wind turbines can and will jeopardize their health even more. Apparently Board Members around this area are very fortunate that they do not have children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, grandparents and the like have any such medical problems.

In closing, Board Members stating what is in the best interest of the community should take a real hard look at themselves in a mirror. Remember, government has a checks and balance system, We the People, not THOSE People, are the checks and balance system, which you are hell bent on avoiding. There are more than what you want to open your eyes to that will in fact be affected and put through real stress and health issues of living near these wind turbines. Make the laws where by if it means having a set back a little further away, or saving a land owner their full market value of their property seem like the Board Members are looking out for all residents of that community instead of a wind developers, then possibly you yourself wouldn’t feel disrespected and personally stressed from Concerned Citizens Groups.

Cohocton Wind Watch Industrial Wind Turbine Survey

Cohocton Wind Watch Industrial Wind Turbine Survey
Community input on the impact from proposed wind projects (circle your answers)

Attitudes on Industrial Wind Projects

1) Should farmland remain primarily agricultural and low residential? Yes No

2) Should industrial uses be located SAFELY away from residences? Yes No

3) Should industrial uses be zoned and taxed industrial? Yes No

4) Should industrial wind turbines be considered for Cohocton? Yes No

5) Do you support industrial wind turbines for Cohocton? Yes No

6) If there is not enough wind, do you still favor industrial wind turbines? Yes No

7) Should all taxpayers decide by vote if industrial wind turbines are permitted? Yes No

8) Should all property owners share in the income from industrial turbines? Yes No

9) Should there be a restriction on industrial wind turbine height?
100 feet 199 feet 300 feet 400 feet 500 feet unlimited (circle only one)

10) Should there be a limit on the number of industrial turbines in the town of Cohocton?
0 5 10 25 35 50 75 100 unlimited (circle only one)

Property Issues and Taxes

11) Should all property owners have the same property and wind rights? Yes No

12) Should a developer be responsible for any negative property values? Yes No

13) Should leaseholders be responsible for any negative value impact? Yes No

14) Should Town of Cohocton be liable for any negative value impact? Yes No

15) Should industrial wind turbines developer pay full property tax rates? Yes No

16) Should industrial wind turbines pay only a small PILOT fee? Yes No
(payment in lieu of taxes)

17) Should town and school taxes be reduced from income from turbines? Yes No

18) Should the town have a law that protects property owners from loss of Yes No
property values?

19) Should tower placement be measured from property lines and public roads? Yes No

20) How close to adjacent properties should industrial wind turbines be located? (circle only one)
500” from property line 1,500” from property line 3,000” from property line 1.5 mile 2.5 mile

UPC and Empire Wind Projects

21) Should the UPC project financially benefit only leaseholders? Yes No

22) Should the UPC proposal provide sufficient community protections? Yes No

23) Is the industrial zoned siting of the Empire project preferable? Yes No

24) Do you favor Empire’s full property tax payment vs. PILOT? Yes No

25) Do you favor the 5% payout of UPC or up to 50% of Empire? Empire UPC

26) Do you favor property tax rate reduction from revenue share? Yes No

27) Should UPC match the Empire community payout payments? Yes No

28) Should leaseholders or the entire community select the best deal? Yes No

29) Would you want Cohocton to have both UPC and Empire projects? Yes No

30) Which sole project would you want developed for Cohocton? Neither Empire UPC

Cohocton Town and Planning Board Performance

31) Approve a six- month moratorium on all industrial wind mill projects? Yes No

32) Update the comprehensive plan before approving any projects? Yes No

33) Require cash escrow account for decommission of industrial turbines? Yes No

34) Should the Cohocton Town Board encourage industrial wind projects? Yes No

35) Do you feel that the Town and Planning Board members fully understand the impact of the complex issues pertaining to the legal concerns, construction, operation, and protection of every taxpayer and the town from future
litigation from adverse consequences of the UPC project? Yes No

36) Do you feel that at Cohocton Town and Planning Board meetings legitimate debate was stifled because of an agreement with UPC? Yes No

Residential Background

37) Do you own property in the town or village of Cohocton? Yes No

38) Do you reside in the town or village of Cohocton? Town Village

39) Are you registered to vote in the town of Cohocton? Yes No

40) Do you own land suitable for an industrial wind turbine? Yes No

41) Do you have a lease agreement for an industrial wind turbine? Yes No

42) Does any family member have such a lease agreement? Yes No

43) Do you feel you have been properly informed about wind turbines? Yes No

Cohocton lawmakers OK planning board recommendations: Local law could be adopted next month; Zigenfus contemplates stepping aside by MICHELLE KING

MICHELLE KING - THE SPECTATOR

COHOCTON - With clarity in mind, the town board agreed planning board recommendations regarding wind farm development were up to par at its Tuesday night meeting.

The recommendations, which were reviewed several times this year, specifically addressed the property insurance value and setback distance sections. The town board voted the height of the tallest tip of a blade - 420 feet - plus another 100 feet was an appropriate setback distance instead of the previous recommendation of one-and-a half times the tallest height of a turbine.

The setback distance ensures if a turbine falls there is enough distance allotted for safety. In addition, the property value assurance plan was eliminated because it was deemed ambiguous. The recommendations will be part of Local Law No. 2, which
will be adopted pending a public hearing sometime next month. The law, Supervisor Jack Zigenfus said, will be implemented to protect the town while regulating commercial development.

Zigenfus said the process has been physically draining. "It really just turned into a nightmare," he said. "There's no self advantage to being a supervisor, but I do it for the good of the town."

Zigenfus said addressing frequent criticisms from Cohocton Wind Watch, a group concerned about wind farm development, has taken a toll on his everyday life.

"My family and personal health comes long before these wind mills," he said. "I only get paid $10,000 a year. I don't have time to run other things. I'm in the middle of a budget process, and I can't spend all my time trying to appease these anti-wind people."

On top of that, Zigenfus said he may take hard measures. "If it's not a better situation, I might step aside myself," he said. "There's only so many hours in a day."

Zigenfus would not be the first to succumb the mountain pressures of the wind farm debate.

Hartsville Supervisor Amy Emerson will resign her position effective Sept. 30, citing the wind farm debate in her community as contributing to her decision.

Wetlands Digital Data

Build, search, query, and download custom digital maps and data in the area.

Brandon adopts a 6-month moratorium on wind energy facilities

Brandon adopted a 6-month moratorium on wind energy facilities last night.

The meeting was so emotional and devastating, I forgot to pass that on...