People who say 'You can't tell me what to do with my property' are in actuality signing away the control of their property to wind companies in signing these leases. — Barbara Boone, Md.
What the wind gives, line loss taketh away. — Carol A. Overland, Minn.
Anyone who thinks that wind factories are environmentally friendly should Google 'Cefn Croes Photo Gallery', to see 100 chilling pictures showing how many miles of unspoiled Welsh countryside were disfigured to create the largest industrial site in Britain: all to 'save' annually less than a quarter of the CO2 emissions from a single jumbo jet. — Christopher Booker, Telegraph, U.K.
A wind farm is an industrial installation of vast proportions, and, if erected on the loftiest ridges, its industrial flavor becomes the new focal point for all view-sheds within a 15-mile radius. — Dave Buhrman, W.Va.
Even if wind turbines were built in Hawaii, excess capacity would have to be built to handle peak loads in the event that the winds weren't blowing or the islands would experience brownouts or blackouts. The fact that the periods of highest demands would coincide with a drop-off in wind speed means wind turbines cannot be counted on the meet peak load demands in Hawaii. So electrical generating capacity would have to be built twice, first as wind turbines and second as backup peak capacity protection. — Don Newman, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii
The landscape is being raped [by large wind turbines] with governmental collusion and fraudulent claims. — John Etherington, U.K.
If I were an investor and wanted to keep my green image intact, I would be deeply concerned about building turbines on forested ridgetops. — Merlin Tuttle, Director, Bat Conservation International
The cumulative impacts on bat populations from proposed and/or constructed wind farm developments, especially in the eastern United States, may lead to further population declines, placing multiple bat populations at serious risk of extinction. — Thomas Kunz, Director, Center for Ecology and Conservation Biology, Boston University
In the end, we remain convinced, the entire state [Va.] will see clearly that wind power ... is wrong for our mountains and that those who pursue it are driven not by concern for the environment, but by the opportunity to pocket huge profits offered by huge taxpayer subsidies. When the smoke clears, there can be no other conclusion. Whether reason will triumph over the leverage of powerful special interests remains to be seen. — Editorial Staff, Roanoke Times
It is common sense, not the governor [of Vermont] alone, that is trying to shut the door on such fruitless industrialization of our ridgelines. — Eric Rosenbloom, Vt.
Wind power does not respond to demand. It may or may not be there when needed. ... We will therefore need as much other electricity sources with wind as we would without. ... It is not just unnecessary but offensive to entertain industrial-scale development of the ridgelines, with strobe lights and noise and ecological degradation that far surpasses anything now on the mountains, for such obvious nonsense. — Eric Rosenbloom, Vt
Wind power is an idea that is appealing to the imagination. It sounds like a 'free' source of energy that would be non-polluting and stable in cost. I am an optimist, and I love technology. If I thought for one moment that windmills would be a source of low cost energy, I would be building them. The reality is quite the contrary — wind power is wasteful of human and natural resources. — Fergus Smith, Vt.
Increased development of wind turbines does not reduce Danish carbon dioxide emissions. — Flemming Nissen, Head of Development, Elsam, Denmark
I don't believe it is in the state's interest to industrialize our ridge lines.
— Jim Douglas, Governor, Vt.
I wouldn't be against them [large wind turbines] if they actually worked.
— James Lovelock, U.K.
Comparing 425 ft. tall wind turbines to power line poles demonstrates the utter stupidity and arrogance of the speaker. I have never seen a power pole move. They just stand there. The turbines have blades that look like knives slashing at the sky (and at whatever hapless creature that may be in the air space). A video with several in motion in the same scene gives the impression of violent chaos. They are not like serene, graceful ballerinas. At the very least, your eye is naturally drawn to them by their motion that resembles something waving its arms to get your attention. We don't want to see them. We don't want to look at them; but it is impossible to ignore them. — Joan Kalso, Mich.
Wind turbines don't make good neighbors. — John Zimmerman (Northeast U.S. Representative, Enxco)
Throughout my experience, I could not substantiate a single claim developers made for industrial wind energy, including the one justifying its existence: that massive wind installations would meaningfully reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. — Jon Boone, Md.
One can certainly concur with concerns about how our culture's fossil fuel combustion practices help accelerate the process of global warming without uncritically agreeing that the intrusive nature of windpower technology is even a partial solution to the problem. — Jon Boone, Md.
Federal tax benefits pay as much as 65% of the capital cost of wind power projects in the United States. — Keith Martin, Chadbourne and Parke, LLP, Financing Wind Power conference, Dec. 3-5, 2003, New York, N.Y.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out there are more cons than pros in this debate. — Kristin Calkins Rowe, Burlington (Vt.) Free Press, Nov. 7, 2005
A single 555-megawatt gas-fired power plant in California generates more electricity in a year than do all 13,000 of the state's wind turbines. The gas-fired plant sits atop a mere 15 acres. The 300-foot-tall windmills impact over a hundred thousand acres to provide expensive, intermittent, insufficient energy. — L. M. Schwartz
Consider this: We could be looking at 1,000 or more wind turbines taller than the Statue of Liberty on the high ridges of the Flint Hills, and they would contribute only about one-tenth of one percent of our current electricity use. That simply isn't worth the destruction of our unique Tallgrass Prairie land resource. — Larry Patton, Kan.
The subsidies for wind are a misuse of public money. The 'benefits' from industrial wind are a fantasy and an escape from our energy problems. For me, believing that industrial wind will solve our energy problems is a little like believing the Tooth Fairy will pay my heating bills this winter. — Linda Bly, Vt.
Symbolism aside, Mt. Equinox [Vt.] may not be as impressive as Yosemite's El Capitan or the Grand Tetons, but something very real would be sacrificed on the questionable altar of Renewable Energy For Profit. Mt. Equinox and all of our mountains are not just a 'back yard.' They are a heritage and a legacy. And they are as good a place as any to make a stand. — Mark Walsh, Manchester (Vt.) Journal, Dec. 30, 2005
Promoters of the wind energy craze, absentee landowners, and a few locals hoping for a windfall are about to destroy the soul of the Flint Hills. — Michael Stubbs, Kan.
Wind energy has again been shown up for what it is, an expensive way of saving a derisory amount of CO2. It is, frankly, a disgrace, that the wind turbine farce continues in the name of saving the planet. The [U.K.] government should intervene immediately and stop these projects — they are a waste of our resources. — Nina Thorpe
Wind farms don't live up to the hype that they are an environmental saviour and a serious alternate energy source, and the effects they can have on their neighbours are so serious it means they should not be allowed to get away with the exaggerated claims. Their claims are fraudulent. — Peter McGauran, Aust. Senate
Good winds coincide with neither the heating nor air-conditioning season. Wind is a willy-nilly source of electricity, and as such is not very useful. — Richard C. Hill, Bangor Daily News, Dec. 24, 2005
This industry has always wrapped itself in the mantle of green power and has sought to use the environmental benefits of wind power as an excuse for not doing anything about the environmental harms it causes. — Rick Wiebe, Calif.
If you lease, chances are one or more of your neighbors is going to have to deal with eminent domain. Now these are private, wind development companies; however, once they sell that power to a power purchaser, they can go to the energy commission and as in Butler County (Kan.), in two weeks and a little bit of paperwork ... they had the power of eminent domain to go across adjacent landowners' property with power lines, with trenches, with no public hearing. — Rose Bacon
People thought they'd get their electric bill reduced, but ours went up and we're getting nothing. I can't understand what anybody thought they'd get out of this. This company [FPL] came in, destroyed the top of the mountain, and left us with it. — Rose Marie Derk, Weymart, Pa.
For any energy source to be viable, it must be able to be produced on demand. The storage of electricity as a technology is still in its infancy. One of the major drawbacks to wind is its unpredictability as a power source and that it cannot be stored. — Russell Broadbent, Aust. House of Representatives
... [I]t will be the equivalent of a water company only supplying tap water when it's raining. — Saiful Islam, U.K.
The idea of windmills conjures up pleasant images — of Holland and tulips, of rural America with windmill blades slowly turning, pumping water at the farm well ... But the windmills we are talking about today are not your grandmother's windmills. Each one is typically 100 yards tall, two stories taller than the Stature of Liberty, taller than a football field is long. — Lamar Alexander, U.S. Senate
These people are not as much [wind] developers as they are salesmen. Their product sounds good — and green — in theory, but it is a wolf in sheep's clothing. — Shirley Nelson, Burlington (Vt.) Free Press, Dec. 12, 2005
The [U.K.] government's thesis that the countryside of upland and coastal Britain is 'worth sacrificing to save the planet' is an insult to science, economics and politics. But the greatest insult is to aesthetics. The trouble is that aesthetics has no way of answering back. — Simon Jenkins, London Times, Oct. 24, 2003
These are not farms, one doesn't farm wind any more than one farms water in a hydroelectric dam or farms neutrons in an atomic plant. — Tom Lynch, N.Y.
The first glimpse of the [Weymart, Pa., Wind Farm] turbines from State Route 6 presents a surreal image like something from a Road Warrior movie. — Tom Vanesky
The first question is, how much do giant electricity-generating windmills actually help fight global warming? When real evidence of their benefits in, say, Denmark, can be shown (which they have yet to be), then there will be a basis for weighing the pros and cons. As it is, it appears to be all con. Lots of sacrifice, no benefit. — "Rucio"
There should be a presumption against wind farms in the countryside where their scale, siting or cumulative effect would have a significant adverse impact on landscape quality and recreational enjoyment thereof. — Countryside Commission, U.K.
We finally urge the environmentally-conscious public and especially these who share our concern for the need to produce energy responsibly by non-polluting means, to recognise that wind turbines are industrial machines for which there should be no place in our finest landscapes. — Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales
We refuse to accept that our coasts and uplands should be sacrificed in this way, either as a penance for past failure to safeguard the environment or as a token contribution towards reducing atmospheric pollution or addressing possible shortages of fossil fuels. We believe that the costs of such a policy to a civilised society far exceed the perceived benefits. — Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales
The main success of Danish involvement in wind power would appear to be the foundation of an industry producing wind mills. — Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Association
With the exploitation of wind energy, a technology is being promoted that is completely insignificant for the power supply, the preservation of natural resources, and the protection of the climate. — Lothar Hoischen, Germany
The negative effects of wind energy use are as much underestimated as its contribution to the statistics is overestimated. — Darmstadt (Germany) Manifesto
I don't believe that wind power would have a very big future, because, relative to the energy produced, it is far too cumbersome, on land as on the sea.
— Marcel Boiteux, Presdient Emeritus, Electricité de France
Certainly, wind energy is not green energy if it requires that we negatively impact special natural resources, including rare and endangered species and their habitats. — John Pagels
Soon we "celebrate" the 20,000th wind plant, without replacing even one single small plant of conventional energy.
— Ferdinand Fürst zu Hohenlohe-Bartenstein, Chairman, Bundesverband Landschaftsschutz (Federal Association for Landscape Protection), Germany
The larger the share of wind power in a particular grid, the more standby power will have to be available in that grid.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Read all the Windmill Local Laws by Town
Local Laws include the following towns.
Town of Cohocton Windmill Local Law
Town of Fenner Wind Turbine Provisions in Zoning
Town of Martinsburg Regulation of Wind Power Generating Facilities
Town of Westfield Local Law and Amendments Wind Energy Conversion Systems
Town of Eden Wind Energy Conversion Systems
Town of Henderson Local Law and Amendment - Wind Generation Facilities
Town of Portland Local Law
Town of Ellenburg Wind Energy Facilities Local Law
Town of Springwater Local Law for Wind Energy Conversion Systems
Town of Augusta Zoning Ordinance
Town of Dryden Renewable Energy Conversion Systems Ordinance
Town of Fairfield Wind Energy Facilities Ordinance
Town of Malone Wind Energy Facilities Law
Town of Roxbury Wind Energy-Deriving Towers Law
Town of Sidney Moratorium and Wind Energy Law
Town of South Bristol
Town of Stark Amendment to Land Use Regulations Regarding Wind Energy Facilities
Town of Vernon Wind Power Generating Facilities
Town of Vernon Comprehensive Plan
Town of Warren Wind Energy Facilities Law
Town of Leicester Amended Zoning Ordinance
Town of Sheldon Local Law
Town of Cohocton Windmill Local Law
Town of Fenner Wind Turbine Provisions in Zoning
Town of Martinsburg Regulation of Wind Power Generating Facilities
Town of Westfield Local Law and Amendments Wind Energy Conversion Systems
Town of Eden Wind Energy Conversion Systems
Town of Henderson Local Law and Amendment - Wind Generation Facilities
Town of Portland Local Law
Town of Ellenburg Wind Energy Facilities Local Law
Town of Springwater Local Law for Wind Energy Conversion Systems
Town of Augusta Zoning Ordinance
Town of Dryden Renewable Energy Conversion Systems Ordinance
Town of Fairfield Wind Energy Facilities Ordinance
Town of Malone Wind Energy Facilities Law
Town of Roxbury Wind Energy-Deriving Towers Law
Town of Sidney Moratorium and Wind Energy Law
Town of South Bristol
Town of Stark Amendment to Land Use Regulations Regarding Wind Energy Facilities
Town of Vernon Wind Power Generating Facilities
Town of Vernon Comprehensive Plan
Town of Warren Wind Energy Facilities Law
Town of Leicester Amended Zoning Ordinance
Town of Sheldon Local Law
Thursday, November 02, 2006
James and Shannon Lince letter on the Dyckman Tower - Public Hearing Cohocton Planning Board
James and Shannon Lince
9955 Wagner Gully Road
Cohocton, NY 14826
Town of Cohocton
Town of Cohocton Planning Board
Town of Cohocton Zoning Board
Town of Cohocton Zoning Board of Appeals
November 2, 2006
Dear Cohocton Officials,
Please submit into the record our strong objection to the events that surround Councilman Dyckman's wind test tower permitting process. We object to this tower, and the Joseph Meyers wind test tower as nuisances and not within the nature or character for AG/R zoning. There is no definition of agriculture that includes 160 foot wind test towers.
We have documented two cases where prospective buyers of our Cohocton property noticed the Meyers tower and asked what the tower's purpose was. Our response was to measure wind for industrial wind turbines. In both showings, the prospective buyer had no further questions about the property and did not want to look at the property further.
We are very disappointed that this government has chosen to willfully ignore the law and has essentially stripped zoning protection from all the property owners in Cohocton.
Sincerely,
James and Shannon Lince
Cohocton, NY
9955 Wagner Gully Road
Cohocton, NY 14826
Town of Cohocton
Town of Cohocton Planning Board
Town of Cohocton Zoning Board
Town of Cohocton Zoning Board of Appeals
November 2, 2006
Dear Cohocton Officials,
Please submit into the record our strong objection to the events that surround Councilman Dyckman's wind test tower permitting process. We object to this tower, and the Joseph Meyers wind test tower as nuisances and not within the nature or character for AG/R zoning. There is no definition of agriculture that includes 160 foot wind test towers.
We have documented two cases where prospective buyers of our Cohocton property noticed the Meyers tower and asked what the tower's purpose was. Our response was to measure wind for industrial wind turbines. In both showings, the prospective buyer had no further questions about the property and did not want to look at the property further.
We are very disappointed that this government has chosen to willfully ignore the law and has essentially stripped zoning protection from all the property owners in Cohocton.
Sincerely,
James and Shannon Lince
Cohocton, NY
Cohocton Planning Board Public Hearing on the Dyckman Test Tower TONIGHT
Remember that the Public Hearing starts at 6:30 PM, Thursday, November 2, 2006 at the Atlanta Court Office.
Most important that you turn out are see for yourself the continued violations of NYS law.
The Zoning Board of Appeals has already ruled properly and ordered that the tower be removed.
Now the Albany lawyer, Todd Mathes of Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna, has bullied the Cohocton Planning Board to circumvent the lawful jurisdiction of the ZBA.
Attend and voice your opposition to conduct that breaks local Cohocton and NYS laws.
Most important that you turn out are see for yourself the continued violations of NYS law.
The Zoning Board of Appeals has already ruled properly and ordered that the tower be removed.
Now the Albany lawyer, Todd Mathes of Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna, has bullied the Cohocton Planning Board to circumvent the lawful jurisdiction of the ZBA.
Attend and voice your opposition to conduct that breaks local Cohocton and NYS laws.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
HAS COHOCTON TOWN BOARD COMPLIED WITH DUE PROCESS DURING ZONING LAW CREATION PROCEDURES? by Robert Strasburg
HAS COHOCTON TOWN BOARD COMPLIED WITH DUE PROCESS DURING ZONING LAW CREATION PROCEDURES?
My name is Robert C. Strasburg II, 60 Maple Ave., Cohocton, NY 14826 and my phone number is 585-384-9318. Please feel free to write or call me on the content of this article. I am not opposed to industrial wind turbines. I am opposed to the way they are being proposed in the Town of Cohocton.
I will summarize my points relative to my observations of the proposed zoning change by the Town of Cohocton Town Board relative to Industrial Wind Turbines.
1. In January of 2006 I attended an open meeting sponsored by our Town Board relative to their proposed change in Zoning to allow 500 ft. tall industrial wind turbines.
2. I asked several questions of the Town Board and Planning Board relative to their intensions and quickly found that direct answers were being skirted and replaced with diversionary responses.
3. After becoming alarmed at the lack of transparency of Town Supervisor Jack Zigenfus and the Boards, I set out to educate myself on the legal process of zoning modification.
4. NYS law clearly supports that Town Government is given the authority and responsibility to regulate land use within a Town to protect the interest of all citizens, and it is to be done in accordance with NYS law and “due process” as it has been legislated.
NYS calls for adherence to “Comprehensive Planning” and a “Written Comprehensive Plan” if one has been adopted by a Town “in what ever form it exists” when considering “Land Use Changes”. 1. (below)
According to the NYS publication ZONING AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, on page 9 it says, and I quote: “Once adopted, (referring to the Comprehensive Plan)… all land use regulations must be in accordance with it .” 2. (below)
Cohocton Town has a Comprehensive Plan that has been “adopted”. Changing local land use to accommodate industrial wind turbines is in direct violation of the letter and spirit of Cohocton’s current written Comprehensive Plan. The following quotes are sited from our Plan:
“It is the desired goal of the Plan to maintain the predominant rural character of Cohocton”… note the word “rural”... it does not say industrial.
Quoting again…“The preservation of the overall character of Cohocton with emphasis placed upon the retention of the area’s desirable characteristics, natural beauty, and similar aesthetic qualities …”
Another quote from the Plan is…“Radical or large-scale modifications of the land use patterns of these sections are not likely to be realized nor are they recommended.”
Cohocton Town Board has now effectively left it’s citizens out of this zoning process as they refuse to adhere to or legally modify our current written Comprehensive Plan.
After careful study of the situation, it appears to me that when the idea of fundamentally changing the character of Cohocton with approving the placement of industrial wind turbines came about back in 2002, some members of the Town Board evidently saw it to be of some type of a benefit. What that benefit actually is, I am not sure. It was first announced to me by Councilman Wayne Hunt earlier this year after declaring to me his “commitment to seeing turbines on these hills by the end of 2007” that they were doing it “for the revenue to the Town”. I asked Wayne, “How much revenue”? He could not tell me. This caused great alarm to me. I was thinking… this man has a commitment, but no facts to support it.
Wayne has since changed his story about the revenue to the Town. Apparently, the expected income from these turbines is now much lower than expected. While meeting in public, the Town Board now goes into “executive session” and asks the public to leave when they discuss the potential revenue to the Town from the turbine project. The last public declaration I heard from Councilman Wayne Hunt justifying his current reason for being committed to these turbines is that it is not the revenue, but some pseudo-patriotic declaration that it is the “right thing to do. Why the flip-flop?
Now we all know that time does not stand still and very rarely do things stay the same. NYS recommends revisiting a written Comprehensive Plan from time to time to revise and update the document to insure that it stays in step with the will of the people.
There is “due process”, regulated by NYS that needs to be followed when considering a change in “Land Use” in a Town that has a written Comprehensive Plan. A Town must show “comprehensive planning” if it is considering taking a course different from that which has been written and already adopted.
If industrial wind turbines are a good thing for Cohocton, there is already a defined “due process” to follow to determine if that is the will of the people. NYS law guides local Town Government to take a “hard look”, “research” and “study” an issue, present the public with credible reports prior to holding public meetings, and then ask for comment and input relative to their desires for the direction in which a community is to go. This is all to be done prior to amending a Comprehensive Plan. Once this procedure is done in a credible way, the Town Board can then proceed to enact new zoning law reflecting the “will of the people”. This is what we call democracy in action. This is what our Forefathers, Uncles, Aunts, Brothers and Sisters have bought for us and defended with their blood… the right to participate in our government.
I have not seen this happen in Cohocton. Instead, what has been produced is a report done for us by the very wind developer that wants to put 500 ft. turbines all over our hills with less than adequate safeguards. Their report, although determined to be incomplete by the NYS Department of Public Service in a letter to our Planning Board on June 8th of this year, (I have a copy in my office) is the only “study” offered by our Town Board supporting their action.
We were led to believe by Supervisor Zigenfus that he would put together a public forum in which the Town Board would invite professionals from the wind industry and government official to provide relevant information on what might be expected as an impact by changing Cohocton’s zoning in such a way as to allow unlimited numbers of 500 ft. tall turbines. No such forum ever materialized. Our Town hired an engineering firm (paid for by the wind developer) to do a study of the impact on Cohocton from the placement of these turbines. The unlimited site location of industrial turbines allowed by the currently proposed new zoning law, offers no real protection. Our Town refuses to let us see the results of this report.
Cohocton citizens have presented hundreds of questions to our Town Board in writing after being promised by the Board that if we did that, they would reply with answers back in writing. This way we could be informed of the impact we were facing prior to public hearings. The public hearings have come and gone and not one of my fellow citizens has gotten one answer back. We will not have another opportunity to voice our opinion on this new zoning law prior to the likelihood of our Town Board voting it into law on November 21st.
We have been shut out of the democratic process by dictatorial practices by our Town Board. The only recourse left is to turn to the judicial branch of our government for relief. This deficient sham process is what the Town Board will offer in Court as their defense that they have done honest “comprehensive planning”. Our Town Board has already spent $22,681.00 this year on legal fees for an outside law firm. Under the guise of representing Cohocton, these attorneys, in my opinion, are simply writing a biased law in favor of the developer instead of first going back and revisiting the Comprehensive Plan. The real will of the people of Cohocton has not been properly sought. In addition, the developer has paid $21,523.47 to this same law firm. Why?
We as taxpayers will now be burdened with many more thousands to pay in court costs to defend this action of our Board if they vote this law into effect on November 21st. Supervisor Zigenfus has already declared his intention to borrow $50,000.00 more for legal fees, now we are up over $70,000.00 of Cohocton taxpayer’s money. I will not sue our Town; I live in the Village and will not be right next to these 500 ft. turbines. But, those that will be have been given no other choice to protect what they have worked all their lives to accumulate.
In addition to preparing to borrow money to defend lawsuits, on November 21st at 6:30 PM, the Town Board will hold a public hearing in Atlanta (North Cohocton) in which they want us taxpayers to approve them raising the Towns Indemnification insurance to protect them from being sued personally for the actions they are taking. The income from these turbines is so minimal that they will not release the numbers to us, and they are preparing to pay for attorneys and insurance at our expense as taxpayers to defend them in lawsuits. Does this sound like good planning? What might be the real reason for pushing this law through?
Now, you can be sure that I will be attacked in the next issue of this paper by those that are in line to receive payment for leasing their land to the wind developer. Pay close attention to how they avoid addressing the real issues. They will attack me the messenger, but they will not be able to defend why open democracy was not practiced concerning this issue. Remember… no credible studies… no public forum of professional advisors as promised…no answers to hundreds of questions from my fellow residents…NOT ONE!
I am urging all residents of Cohocton and neighboring communities (this will affect Wayland-Cohocton school taxes) to stand up for democracy! Send a letter and make a phone call immediately to Supervisor Jack Zigenfus of the Town Board of Cohocton at 15 South Main Street, Cohocton, NY 14826 (585-384-5330) expressing your outrage of his leadership on this issue and ask for a Moratorium on this entire process until the Comprehensive Plan is properly revisited for updating. Attend the November 21st Town Board meeting and express your demand for the return of the Town Board to the democratic principles they swore to uphold.
Sincerely,
Cohocton Wind Watch Member
http://cohoctonwindwatch.org/
P.S. We have every Board meeting on DVD for anyone interested in seeing this debacle of honest government
1. http://www.gorr.state.ny.us/zoning.html#authority
2. http://www.dos.state.ny.us/lgss/pdfs/zncompplan.pdf
My name is Robert C. Strasburg II, 60 Maple Ave., Cohocton, NY 14826 and my phone number is 585-384-9318. Please feel free to write or call me on the content of this article. I am not opposed to industrial wind turbines. I am opposed to the way they are being proposed in the Town of Cohocton.
I will summarize my points relative to my observations of the proposed zoning change by the Town of Cohocton Town Board relative to Industrial Wind Turbines.
1. In January of 2006 I attended an open meeting sponsored by our Town Board relative to their proposed change in Zoning to allow 500 ft. tall industrial wind turbines.
2. I asked several questions of the Town Board and Planning Board relative to their intensions and quickly found that direct answers were being skirted and replaced with diversionary responses.
3. After becoming alarmed at the lack of transparency of Town Supervisor Jack Zigenfus and the Boards, I set out to educate myself on the legal process of zoning modification.
4. NYS law clearly supports that Town Government is given the authority and responsibility to regulate land use within a Town to protect the interest of all citizens, and it is to be done in accordance with NYS law and “due process” as it has been legislated.
NYS calls for adherence to “Comprehensive Planning” and a “Written Comprehensive Plan” if one has been adopted by a Town “in what ever form it exists” when considering “Land Use Changes”. 1. (below)
According to the NYS publication ZONING AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, on page 9 it says, and I quote: “Once adopted, (referring to the Comprehensive Plan)… all land use regulations must be in accordance with it .” 2. (below)
Cohocton Town has a Comprehensive Plan that has been “adopted”. Changing local land use to accommodate industrial wind turbines is in direct violation of the letter and spirit of Cohocton’s current written Comprehensive Plan. The following quotes are sited from our Plan:
“It is the desired goal of the Plan to maintain the predominant rural character of Cohocton”… note the word “rural”... it does not say industrial.
Quoting again…“The preservation of the overall character of Cohocton with emphasis placed upon the retention of the area’s desirable characteristics, natural beauty, and similar aesthetic qualities …”
Another quote from the Plan is…“Radical or large-scale modifications of the land use patterns of these sections are not likely to be realized nor are they recommended.”
Cohocton Town Board has now effectively left it’s citizens out of this zoning process as they refuse to adhere to or legally modify our current written Comprehensive Plan.
After careful study of the situation, it appears to me that when the idea of fundamentally changing the character of Cohocton with approving the placement of industrial wind turbines came about back in 2002, some members of the Town Board evidently saw it to be of some type of a benefit. What that benefit actually is, I am not sure. It was first announced to me by Councilman Wayne Hunt earlier this year after declaring to me his “commitment to seeing turbines on these hills by the end of 2007” that they were doing it “for the revenue to the Town”. I asked Wayne, “How much revenue”? He could not tell me. This caused great alarm to me. I was thinking… this man has a commitment, but no facts to support it.
Wayne has since changed his story about the revenue to the Town. Apparently, the expected income from these turbines is now much lower than expected. While meeting in public, the Town Board now goes into “executive session” and asks the public to leave when they discuss the potential revenue to the Town from the turbine project. The last public declaration I heard from Councilman Wayne Hunt justifying his current reason for being committed to these turbines is that it is not the revenue, but some pseudo-patriotic declaration that it is the “right thing to do. Why the flip-flop?
Now we all know that time does not stand still and very rarely do things stay the same. NYS recommends revisiting a written Comprehensive Plan from time to time to revise and update the document to insure that it stays in step with the will of the people.
There is “due process”, regulated by NYS that needs to be followed when considering a change in “Land Use” in a Town that has a written Comprehensive Plan. A Town must show “comprehensive planning” if it is considering taking a course different from that which has been written and already adopted.
If industrial wind turbines are a good thing for Cohocton, there is already a defined “due process” to follow to determine if that is the will of the people. NYS law guides local Town Government to take a “hard look”, “research” and “study” an issue, present the public with credible reports prior to holding public meetings, and then ask for comment and input relative to their desires for the direction in which a community is to go. This is all to be done prior to amending a Comprehensive Plan. Once this procedure is done in a credible way, the Town Board can then proceed to enact new zoning law reflecting the “will of the people”. This is what we call democracy in action. This is what our Forefathers, Uncles, Aunts, Brothers and Sisters have bought for us and defended with their blood… the right to participate in our government.
I have not seen this happen in Cohocton. Instead, what has been produced is a report done for us by the very wind developer that wants to put 500 ft. turbines all over our hills with less than adequate safeguards. Their report, although determined to be incomplete by the NYS Department of Public Service in a letter to our Planning Board on June 8th of this year, (I have a copy in my office) is the only “study” offered by our Town Board supporting their action.
We were led to believe by Supervisor Zigenfus that he would put together a public forum in which the Town Board would invite professionals from the wind industry and government official to provide relevant information on what might be expected as an impact by changing Cohocton’s zoning in such a way as to allow unlimited numbers of 500 ft. tall turbines. No such forum ever materialized. Our Town hired an engineering firm (paid for by the wind developer) to do a study of the impact on Cohocton from the placement of these turbines. The unlimited site location of industrial turbines allowed by the currently proposed new zoning law, offers no real protection. Our Town refuses to let us see the results of this report.
Cohocton citizens have presented hundreds of questions to our Town Board in writing after being promised by the Board that if we did that, they would reply with answers back in writing. This way we could be informed of the impact we were facing prior to public hearings. The public hearings have come and gone and not one of my fellow citizens has gotten one answer back. We will not have another opportunity to voice our opinion on this new zoning law prior to the likelihood of our Town Board voting it into law on November 21st.
We have been shut out of the democratic process by dictatorial practices by our Town Board. The only recourse left is to turn to the judicial branch of our government for relief. This deficient sham process is what the Town Board will offer in Court as their defense that they have done honest “comprehensive planning”. Our Town Board has already spent $22,681.00 this year on legal fees for an outside law firm. Under the guise of representing Cohocton, these attorneys, in my opinion, are simply writing a biased law in favor of the developer instead of first going back and revisiting the Comprehensive Plan. The real will of the people of Cohocton has not been properly sought. In addition, the developer has paid $21,523.47 to this same law firm. Why?
We as taxpayers will now be burdened with many more thousands to pay in court costs to defend this action of our Board if they vote this law into effect on November 21st. Supervisor Zigenfus has already declared his intention to borrow $50,000.00 more for legal fees, now we are up over $70,000.00 of Cohocton taxpayer’s money. I will not sue our Town; I live in the Village and will not be right next to these 500 ft. turbines. But, those that will be have been given no other choice to protect what they have worked all their lives to accumulate.
In addition to preparing to borrow money to defend lawsuits, on November 21st at 6:30 PM, the Town Board will hold a public hearing in Atlanta (North Cohocton) in which they want us taxpayers to approve them raising the Towns Indemnification insurance to protect them from being sued personally for the actions they are taking. The income from these turbines is so minimal that they will not release the numbers to us, and they are preparing to pay for attorneys and insurance at our expense as taxpayers to defend them in lawsuits. Does this sound like good planning? What might be the real reason for pushing this law through?
Now, you can be sure that I will be attacked in the next issue of this paper by those that are in line to receive payment for leasing their land to the wind developer. Pay close attention to how they avoid addressing the real issues. They will attack me the messenger, but they will not be able to defend why open democracy was not practiced concerning this issue. Remember… no credible studies… no public forum of professional advisors as promised…no answers to hundreds of questions from my fellow residents…NOT ONE!
I am urging all residents of Cohocton and neighboring communities (this will affect Wayland-Cohocton school taxes) to stand up for democracy! Send a letter and make a phone call immediately to Supervisor Jack Zigenfus of the Town Board of Cohocton at 15 South Main Street, Cohocton, NY 14826 (585-384-5330) expressing your outrage of his leadership on this issue and ask for a Moratorium on this entire process until the Comprehensive Plan is properly revisited for updating. Attend the November 21st Town Board meeting and express your demand for the return of the Town Board to the democratic principles they swore to uphold.
Sincerely,
Cohocton Wind Watch Member
http://cohoctonwindwatch.org/
P.S. We have every Board meeting on DVD for anyone interested in seeing this debacle of honest government
1. http://www.gorr.state.ny.us/zoning.html#authority
2. http://www.dos.state.ny.us/lgss/pdfs/zncompplan.pdf
Paul Gettys November 1, 2006 letter to Cohocton Supervisor Jack Zigenfus
November 1, 2006
29 Wayland Street
Atlanta, NY 14808
Jack Zigenfus
Town Supervisor
15 South Main Street
Cohocton, NY 14826
RE: Public Hearing on Local Law No. 2
October 24, 2006
Dear Mr. Zigenfus:
This is a follow up to my letter of October 31, 2006. Someone rightly pointed out that noise levels measured on the decibel scale cannot be combined by simple addition. Attached is an article off the internet which explains this in fuller detail.
Therefore my chart entitled Local Law No. 2 Town of Cohocton, New York is flawed and incorrect. I apologize for submitting this erroneous information. Please disregard my initial letter.
Sincerely,
Paul Gettys
NOISE%20LEVEL%20ADDITION%20ARTICLE1.htm
29 Wayland Street
Atlanta, NY 14808
Jack Zigenfus
Town Supervisor
15 South Main Street
Cohocton, NY 14826
RE: Public Hearing on Local Law No. 2
October 24, 2006
Dear Mr. Zigenfus:
This is a follow up to my letter of October 31, 2006. Someone rightly pointed out that noise levels measured on the decibel scale cannot be combined by simple addition. Attached is an article off the internet which explains this in fuller detail.
Therefore my chart entitled Local Law No. 2 Town of Cohocton, New York is flawed and incorrect. I apologize for submitting this erroneous information. Please disregard my initial letter.
Sincerely,
Paul Gettys
NOISE%20LEVEL%20ADDITION%20ARTICLE1.htm
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Paul Gettys October 31, 2006 letter to Cohocton Supervisor Jack Zigenfus
October 31, 2006
29 Wayland Street
Atlanta, NY 14808
Jack Zigenfus
Town Supervisor
15 South Main Street
Cohocton, NY 14826
RE: Public Hearing on Local Law No. 2
October 24, 2006
Dear Mr. Zigenfus:
Local Law No. 1 reads “Individual wind turbine towers shall be located with relation to property lines so that the level of noise produced during wind turbine operation shall not exceed 50 dba, measured at the boundaries of all of the closest parcels that…………….
This would mean that the total noise level, background plus wind turbine would not exceed 50 dba.
Local Law No. 2 reads “Windmill only noise levels at non-project lines shall not exceed 50.0 dB(A), except as set forth herein.” Unfortunately no one picked up this change prior to the hearing. The formula depicted on page 17 gives no relief.
Attached please find a chart depicting the total allowable noise level depending on the background noise and comparable noise levels plus a chart entitled “Typical Noise Levels”.
As can be seen by these two charts this change in the law will have a very drastic affect on those living near the windmills. It is likely that when the wind is blowing people will be forced to stay inside with the windows closed. This hardly seem fair to these landowners.
Please consider changing the law back to where it reads the total noise will not exceed 50dba, not the turbine only noise.
Sincerely,
Paul Gettys
TYPICAL%20NOISE%20LEVELS1.htm
LOCAL%20LAW%20NO.%202%20CHART.xls
29 Wayland Street
Atlanta, NY 14808
Jack Zigenfus
Town Supervisor
15 South Main Street
Cohocton, NY 14826
RE: Public Hearing on Local Law No. 2
October 24, 2006
Dear Mr. Zigenfus:
Local Law No. 1 reads “Individual wind turbine towers shall be located with relation to property lines so that the level of noise produced during wind turbine operation shall not exceed 50 dba, measured at the boundaries of all of the closest parcels that…………….
This would mean that the total noise level, background plus wind turbine would not exceed 50 dba.
Local Law No. 2 reads “Windmill only noise levels at non-project lines shall not exceed 50.0 dB(A), except as set forth herein.” Unfortunately no one picked up this change prior to the hearing. The formula depicted on page 17 gives no relief.
Attached please find a chart depicting the total allowable noise level depending on the background noise and comparable noise levels plus a chart entitled “Typical Noise Levels”.
As can be seen by these two charts this change in the law will have a very drastic affect on those living near the windmills. It is likely that when the wind is blowing people will be forced to stay inside with the windows closed. This hardly seem fair to these landowners.
Please consider changing the law back to where it reads the total noise will not exceed 50dba, not the turbine only noise.
Sincerely,
Paul Gettys
TYPICAL%20NOISE%20LEVELS1.htm
LOCAL%20LAW%20NO.%202%20CHART.xls
Public Hearing on the Dyckman Test Town - Cohocton Planning Board - 6:30 PM, Thursday November 2, 2006
IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE PUBLIC TURNS OUT TO THE COHOCTON PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DYCKMAN TOWER.
The disreputable conduct of attorney Todd M. Mathes of the Albany law firm Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna to pervert NYS law by having the Cohocton Planning Board hold a bogus public hearing on the Dyckman test tower is clear evidence of local government out of control. The proper authority and jurisdiction for this matter is with the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Since the ZBA has already ruled under NYS law, the only recourse for UPC to appeal is to file an Article 78 in NYS Supreme Court.
DEMAND THAT THE COHOCTON PLANNING BOARD OBEY NEW YORK STATE LAW!
This public hearing will start early at 6:30 PM on Thursday, November 2, 2006
The Planning Board should never have accepted the DEIS. Without a proper application in a project NO ACTION should have been taken, by ANY Cohocton Town Board.
IT IS TIME TO DEMONSTRATE YOUR OUTRAGE with the conduct of UPC and the Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna law firm. It has already cost the Town of Cohocton $22,681.00 for legal fees to these attorneys. On top of that UPC has paid an additional $21,523.47 to Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna. These exact amounts were provided to Cohocton Wind Watch, from freedom of information filings by the Town of Cohocton. A total of $44,204.47 in legal costs in addition to that of the annual legal fees of Town Attorney Pat McAllister.
Does this sound like a bargain?
Why won’t the Town of Cohocton just obey the ruling of the Zoning Board of Appeals? The UPC test towers where erected without proper permitting. Attorney Todd M. Mathes would have you believe that these are communication towers. Folks, don’t passively accept such insults. The purpose of these UPC test towers is supposed to measure and record the wind velocity at the sites of their location.
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS has the authority in this area and has already ruled that the Dyckman tower should be taken down.
Cohocton needs operate by the rule of law. Both Cohocton local law and NYS laws are being violated. Show town officials that they must comply with the Zoning Board of Appeals decision.
The disreputable conduct of attorney Todd M. Mathes of the Albany law firm Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna to pervert NYS law by having the Cohocton Planning Board hold a bogus public hearing on the Dyckman test tower is clear evidence of local government out of control. The proper authority and jurisdiction for this matter is with the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Since the ZBA has already ruled under NYS law, the only recourse for UPC to appeal is to file an Article 78 in NYS Supreme Court.
DEMAND THAT THE COHOCTON PLANNING BOARD OBEY NEW YORK STATE LAW!
This public hearing will start early at 6:30 PM on Thursday, November 2, 2006
The Planning Board should never have accepted the DEIS. Without a proper application in a project NO ACTION should have been taken, by ANY Cohocton Town Board.
IT IS TIME TO DEMONSTRATE YOUR OUTRAGE with the conduct of UPC and the Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna law firm. It has already cost the Town of Cohocton $22,681.00 for legal fees to these attorneys. On top of that UPC has paid an additional $21,523.47 to Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna. These exact amounts were provided to Cohocton Wind Watch, from freedom of information filings by the Town of Cohocton. A total of $44,204.47 in legal costs in addition to that of the annual legal fees of Town Attorney Pat McAllister.
Does this sound like a bargain?
Why won’t the Town of Cohocton just obey the ruling of the Zoning Board of Appeals? The UPC test towers where erected without proper permitting. Attorney Todd M. Mathes would have you believe that these are communication towers. Folks, don’t passively accept such insults. The purpose of these UPC test towers is supposed to measure and record the wind velocity at the sites of their location.
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS has the authority in this area and has already ruled that the Dyckman tower should be taken down.
Cohocton needs operate by the rule of law. Both Cohocton local law and NYS laws are being violated. Show town officials that they must comply with the Zoning Board of Appeals decision.
Monday, October 30, 2006
UPC attorney - Nixon Peabody - submission for Public Hearing on Cohocton Windmill Local Law #2
NOTE: Nixon Peabody is the same law firm that represents Ecogen in their suit against the Town of Italy. Just more UPC and Ecogen corporate connections???
NixonPeabody103006.rtf
NixonPeabody103006.rtf
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Town position on Comprehensive Plan compliance concerning all new zoning laws by Robert C. Strasburg II
UPC leaseholders misunderstand Town Zoning Laws as regulated by NYS Law.
It is unfortunate that the pseudo patriotic notion that is being perpetrated on our Town has been allowed to solidify into the current opinion of many UPC leaseholders and landowners in Cohocton.
The idea that "I should be able to do on my land what I want" is not supported by case law. Not only does a Town have the AUTHORITY to restrict private land use, it also has the RESPONSIBILITY to do so to protect all residents in a Town. Please see the hyperlink below that will walk you through to a full understanding of just what Zoning entails.
06-10-25c.doc
It is unfortunate that the pseudo patriotic notion that is being perpetrated on our Town has been allowed to solidify into the current opinion of many UPC leaseholders and landowners in Cohocton.
The idea that "I should be able to do on my land what I want" is not supported by case law. Not only does a Town have the AUTHORITY to restrict private land use, it also has the RESPONSIBILITY to do so to protect all residents in a Town. Please see the hyperlink below that will walk you through to a full understanding of just what Zoning entails.
06-10-25c.doc
Friday, October 27, 2006
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Hillary and Industrial Wind Turbines
Hi,
Last night I saw Hillary Clinton's recent ad campaign and was
horrified to see it features wind factories.
I thought you might like to inform your members in the hope that some
of them will write or email her and express disapproval. She needs to
be aware of how many New Yorkers oppose these.
I heard that as few as 8 letters on a topic to a senator or member of
congress will make them take notice.
Thanks and thanks for your commitment to this issue,
Kari Pagnano
NOTE Read the June 28, 2006 letter to Senator Hillary Clinton by James Hall
Last night I saw Hillary Clinton's recent ad campaign and was
horrified to see it features wind factories.
I thought you might like to inform your members in the hope that some
of them will write or email her and express disapproval. She needs to
be aware of how many New Yorkers oppose these.
I heard that as few as 8 letters on a topic to a senator or member of
congress will make them take notice.
Thanks and thanks for your commitment to this issue,
Kari Pagnano
NOTE Read the June 28, 2006 letter to Senator Hillary Clinton by James Hall
National Wind Watch challenges support of industrial wind power by major non-profit groups
Rowe, Mass., October 26, 2006 -- Many advocacy groups, fighting global warming and the negative environmental and health impacts of fossil fuel or nuclear energy, have embraced large-scale wind power as part of a solution.
Those organizations are misguided in their support of wind energy, says National Wind Watch (NWW), a coalition of grass-root groups defending wild places and rural communities from industrial development.
"Groups like Greenpeace and the state PIRGs have built their reputations by speaking out against rampant development and destruction of the environment," says Eric Rosenbloom, a Vermont science writer and current president of NWW. "In the past, they have reliably taken the side of communities against the greed of heedless corporations or convenient politics. But with industrial wind, they've gone to the other side. They're effectively acting as shills for giant energy companies looking for a fast buck with a trendy but very flawed technology that destroys landscapes, ecosystems, and communities."
According to material on NWW's web site, www.wind-watch.org, wind power on the grid has not been shown to reduce emissions or replace other sources of electricity to any degree that justifies its own negative impacts. Because it responds only to the fluctuating wind and not to actual user demand, it adds instability to the power load, thus further burdening other sources of power to keep the system balanced.
Since the environmental benefits aren't there, NWW questions the support of industrial wind power by so many organizations that are otherwise defenders of the environment.
"The argument that local sacrifices are necessary to save the planet just doesn't hold up," said Lloyd Crawford, NWW treasurer and owner of Stump Sprouts guest lodge and cross-country ski center in West Hawley, Mass. "These giant machines won't make the slightest dent in global warming. Their negative impacts, on the other hand, are substantial."
Those impacts include the disruption and deaths of birds and bats, fragmentation of habitat, damage to watersheds, and visual as well as auditory intrusion day and night. In addition to their immense height, tons of cement and steel in the foundations, and acres of clearance, wind power facilities require strong straight roads and substantial new transmission infrastructure.
National Wind Watch calls on all organizations interested in protecting the environment, wildlife, and our communities to more carefully consider the facts about industrial wind energy. The unavoidable conclusion is that big wind is a threat rather than a savior to those interests.
The statement from National Wind Watch was released to coincide with the 16th annual conference of the Society of Environmental Journalists in Burlington, Vt., Oct. 2529, 2006. NWW will be represented at an exhibit table by its Vermont affiliates led by Sheffield-based Ridge Protectors, along with Kansas affiliate Protect the Flint Hills and Industrial Wind Action of New Hampshire.
This is the second year that NWW has exhibited at the SEJ conference. The ad hoc Coalition for Responsible Wind Power, created by Sierra Club of Maryland Conservation Chair and NWW founding member Dan Boone, has exhibited for the previous two years and last year welcomed the newly formed National Wind Watch to participate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Wind Watch is a nonprofit corporation that promotes knowledge and raises awareness of the negative environmental and social impacts of industrial wind energy development. Information, analysis, and other materials are available on its web site, www.wind-watch.org.
~~~
National Wind Watch, Inc.
http://www.wind-watch.org/
Those organizations are misguided in their support of wind energy, says National Wind Watch (NWW), a coalition of grass-root groups defending wild places and rural communities from industrial development.
"Groups like Greenpeace and the state PIRGs have built their reputations by speaking out against rampant development and destruction of the environment," says Eric Rosenbloom, a Vermont science writer and current president of NWW. "In the past, they have reliably taken the side of communities against the greed of heedless corporations or convenient politics. But with industrial wind, they've gone to the other side. They're effectively acting as shills for giant energy companies looking for a fast buck with a trendy but very flawed technology that destroys landscapes, ecosystems, and communities."
According to material on NWW's web site, www.wind-watch.org, wind power on the grid has not been shown to reduce emissions or replace other sources of electricity to any degree that justifies its own negative impacts. Because it responds only to the fluctuating wind and not to actual user demand, it adds instability to the power load, thus further burdening other sources of power to keep the system balanced.
Since the environmental benefits aren't there, NWW questions the support of industrial wind power by so many organizations that are otherwise defenders of the environment.
"The argument that local sacrifices are necessary to save the planet just doesn't hold up," said Lloyd Crawford, NWW treasurer and owner of Stump Sprouts guest lodge and cross-country ski center in West Hawley, Mass. "These giant machines won't make the slightest dent in global warming. Their negative impacts, on the other hand, are substantial."
Those impacts include the disruption and deaths of birds and bats, fragmentation of habitat, damage to watersheds, and visual as well as auditory intrusion day and night. In addition to their immense height, tons of cement and steel in the foundations, and acres of clearance, wind power facilities require strong straight roads and substantial new transmission infrastructure.
National Wind Watch calls on all organizations interested in protecting the environment, wildlife, and our communities to more carefully consider the facts about industrial wind energy. The unavoidable conclusion is that big wind is a threat rather than a savior to those interests.
The statement from National Wind Watch was released to coincide with the 16th annual conference of the Society of Environmental Journalists in Burlington, Vt., Oct. 2529, 2006. NWW will be represented at an exhibit table by its Vermont affiliates led by Sheffield-based Ridge Protectors, along with Kansas affiliate Protect the Flint Hills and Industrial Wind Action of New Hampshire.
This is the second year that NWW has exhibited at the SEJ conference. The ad hoc Coalition for Responsible Wind Power, created by Sierra Club of Maryland Conservation Chair and NWW founding member Dan Boone, has exhibited for the previous two years and last year welcomed the newly formed National Wind Watch to participate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Wind Watch is a nonprofit corporation that promotes knowledge and raises awareness of the negative environmental and social impacts of industrial wind energy development. Information, analysis, and other materials are available on its web site, www.wind-watch.org.
~~~
National Wind Watch, Inc.
http://www.wind-watch.org/
Sue Sliwinski Editorial
Dear Editor:
Why is it that supporters of commercial wind power routinely ignore the ever-growing mountain of data demonstrating this technology's ineffectiveness? And why do they refuse to acknowledge increasing real-life evidence that this kind of development is off the charts with respect to inappropriateness in our rural communities? I believe anyone who thinks it's okay simply doesn't comprehend the true impacts of what they're supporting. They say they've investigated, gone to see the machines close up, talked to people around them, and still insist that the money they or the town expects to take in makes it all worth while. It's hard to comprehend how anyone can come to this conclusion.
The turbines that Invenergy wants to use are almost as tall as Buffalo's Marine Midland Bank Building. Imagine 86 of these buildings plunked between the homes and properties of Sheldon, all with their own substantial access roads cutting back into woods, open fields, and meadows. 86! But wind turbines don't just sit quietly like buildings do. They whir and blink and moan, pretty much all the time.
This isn't just about how they "look" as supporters often say when trivializing opponents concerns. The setbacks that Invenergy is advocating defies all common sense, yet these distances are echoed by wind developers everywhere in order to more easily achieve their goals within the boundaries of residential areas where industrial development has always been off-limits. Wind developers across NY State are using the inexperience of policy makers and the lack of any guiding precedence to their advantage by telling us they are the experts, and ‘these’ are the numbers to use as our parameters. Ironically, their machines keep growing taller while their ‘recommended’ setbacks continue to shrink.
The only true mitigating factor with regard to proposed commercial scale wind turbines and existing homes is adequate distance. Indeed, wind supporter and acoustic expert Dick Bowdler of 'New Acoustics' states that the idea of putting such massive machines so close to residents is likely to cause serious problems and when consulted, he advocates that commercial turbines never be built closer than a mile and a quarter to any occupied structure. The French Academy of Medicine came out this year with recommendations for 1.5 kilometer setbacks based on rising health concerns in that country, and the only peer-reviewed published paper that exists on wind turbine noise states, “…at a distance of 1500 m. (4900 feet) tall wind turbines may in fact be up to 18 dB noisier than the calculated values suggest. A further increase in annoyance may be expected because of the pulse-like character of the wind turbine noise, especially at high rotational speeds.”
Just this past June, a flicker study was done for Horizon Wind Energy by WIND Engineers, Inc that demonstrates shadow-flicker can still be an issue at a distance of almost 5000 feet, and a nuisance as far away as 3300 feet. Earlier this year in Pubnico Point, Nova Scotia, all eight members of the d’Entremont family had to abandon their home of 23 years because several turbines within a half-mile of their residence were making the children sick and causing their Mom’s migraines to worsen, according to CBC interviews. This is just one example of what is happening more and more often as commercial wind development proliferates without concern for the inhabitants of the local environments that are targeted.
If a wind turbine is so close as to dominate the immediate surroundings, then it’s too close. And if you want to sell and move away, your chance to advertise, “country living at it’s best” is gone. You can no longer refer to your home as quiet, peaceful, serene or as having beautiful views, yet developers tell us our property values will go up, not down, with turbines nearby!
Wind developers make up the rules as they go along. They’ve insisted that their skyscraper sized steel monsters make good neighbors despite mounting data to the contrary, and because few question their ‘expert’ status, and because they WANT to say YES to those pay-outs, the claims are often accepted at face value and without further meaningful research.
The commercial wind industry is making a mockery of all environmental and renewable energy advocates who support them. They’re often ruthless in their local activities, and will no doubt disappear long before we can hold them accountable for their indiscretions against us and against the planet. Where, I wonder will Invenergy and others like them be when society realizes the folly of it all?
Sue Sliwinski
National Wind Watch, Inc.
Sardinia NY
716 592 1403
Why is it that supporters of commercial wind power routinely ignore the ever-growing mountain of data demonstrating this technology's ineffectiveness? And why do they refuse to acknowledge increasing real-life evidence that this kind of development is off the charts with respect to inappropriateness in our rural communities? I believe anyone who thinks it's okay simply doesn't comprehend the true impacts of what they're supporting. They say they've investigated, gone to see the machines close up, talked to people around them, and still insist that the money they or the town expects to take in makes it all worth while. It's hard to comprehend how anyone can come to this conclusion.
The turbines that Invenergy wants to use are almost as tall as Buffalo's Marine Midland Bank Building. Imagine 86 of these buildings plunked between the homes and properties of Sheldon, all with their own substantial access roads cutting back into woods, open fields, and meadows. 86! But wind turbines don't just sit quietly like buildings do. They whir and blink and moan, pretty much all the time.
This isn't just about how they "look" as supporters often say when trivializing opponents concerns. The setbacks that Invenergy is advocating defies all common sense, yet these distances are echoed by wind developers everywhere in order to more easily achieve their goals within the boundaries of residential areas where industrial development has always been off-limits. Wind developers across NY State are using the inexperience of policy makers and the lack of any guiding precedence to their advantage by telling us they are the experts, and ‘these’ are the numbers to use as our parameters. Ironically, their machines keep growing taller while their ‘recommended’ setbacks continue to shrink.
The only true mitigating factor with regard to proposed commercial scale wind turbines and existing homes is adequate distance. Indeed, wind supporter and acoustic expert Dick Bowdler of 'New Acoustics' states that the idea of putting such massive machines so close to residents is likely to cause serious problems and when consulted, he advocates that commercial turbines never be built closer than a mile and a quarter to any occupied structure. The French Academy of Medicine came out this year with recommendations for 1.5 kilometer setbacks based on rising health concerns in that country, and the only peer-reviewed published paper that exists on wind turbine noise states, “…at a distance of 1500 m. (4900 feet) tall wind turbines may in fact be up to 18 dB noisier than the calculated values suggest. A further increase in annoyance may be expected because of the pulse-like character of the wind turbine noise, especially at high rotational speeds.”
Just this past June, a flicker study was done for Horizon Wind Energy by WIND Engineers, Inc that demonstrates shadow-flicker can still be an issue at a distance of almost 5000 feet, and a nuisance as far away as 3300 feet. Earlier this year in Pubnico Point, Nova Scotia, all eight members of the d’Entremont family had to abandon their home of 23 years because several turbines within a half-mile of their residence were making the children sick and causing their Mom’s migraines to worsen, according to CBC interviews. This is just one example of what is happening more and more often as commercial wind development proliferates without concern for the inhabitants of the local environments that are targeted.
If a wind turbine is so close as to dominate the immediate surroundings, then it’s too close. And if you want to sell and move away, your chance to advertise, “country living at it’s best” is gone. You can no longer refer to your home as quiet, peaceful, serene or as having beautiful views, yet developers tell us our property values will go up, not down, with turbines nearby!
Wind developers make up the rules as they go along. They’ve insisted that their skyscraper sized steel monsters make good neighbors despite mounting data to the contrary, and because few question their ‘expert’ status, and because they WANT to say YES to those pay-outs, the claims are often accepted at face value and without further meaningful research.
The commercial wind industry is making a mockery of all environmental and renewable energy advocates who support them. They’re often ruthless in their local activities, and will no doubt disappear long before we can hold them accountable for their indiscretions against us and against the planet. Where, I wonder will Invenergy and others like them be when society realizes the folly of it all?
Sue Sliwinski
National Wind Watch, Inc.
Sardinia NY
716 592 1403
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)