Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
UPC's continuing misinformation
Your editor contributed to a report on Wednesday by Pat Bradley of New York Public Radio station WAMC. She was covering the third revision of UPC's plan to erect 16 420-ft 2.5-MW wind turbines on mountain ridges overlooking historic and peaceful rural communities in remote northeast Vermont. Their moving of 2 turbines across a town line seemed to have been times to overshadow a more dramatic development in one of those affected communities. The town of Barton voted 120-0 (yes: zero) Tuesday night to oppose the project.
In the demand for sacrifice from these communities, for utterly changing their character for very much the worse, one asks "what are we weighing here? It's very clear that wind energy is just not going to make any significant contribution to replacing fossil fuels or reducing greenhouse gas emissions."
Matt Kearns, hired flack for UPC (backed by private equity firms Madison Dearborn Partners of Chicago and D.E. Shaw of New York), calls that statement "one of disingenuous arguments regarding wind power. One of the issues that we hear is that wind power will not provide an offset to other forms of energy generation or that somehow this won't produce a benefit in terms of the use of some other fuels. Y'know, any green electrons that you add to the grid it means that there's less need to bring on other units that are fossil fuel based."
Then where are the numbers showing a reduction of fossil fuel use due to wind power on the grid? The disingenuous argument is Kearns's, because it claims a result for which it has no data. The evidence (see, e.g., the graph from the International Energy Association of Denmark's fuel use for electricity generation from 1971 to 2003 at National Wind Watch) is clear that large-scale wind has negligible, if any, effect on other sources. This is probably because, although their electricity generation may be displaced, they either must continue burning fuel (less efficiently, i.e., less cleanly) on standby or burn more fuel (again, less efficiently) in more frequent ramping up and down or switching on and off.
Besides, in Vermont almost no electricity comes from fossil fuels.
tags: wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
In the demand for sacrifice from these communities, for utterly changing their character for very much the worse, one asks "what are we weighing here? It's very clear that wind energy is just not going to make any significant contribution to replacing fossil fuels or reducing greenhouse gas emissions."
Matt Kearns, hired flack for UPC (backed by private equity firms Madison Dearborn Partners of Chicago and D.E. Shaw of New York), calls that statement "one of disingenuous arguments regarding wind power. One of the issues that we hear is that wind power will not provide an offset to other forms of energy generation or that somehow this won't produce a benefit in terms of the use of some other fuels. Y'know, any green electrons that you add to the grid it means that there's less need to bring on other units that are fossil fuel based."
Then where are the numbers showing a reduction of fossil fuel use due to wind power on the grid? The disingenuous argument is Kearns's, because it claims a result for which it has no data. The evidence (see, e.g., the graph from the International Energy Association of Denmark's fuel use for electricity generation from 1971 to 2003 at National Wind Watch) is clear that large-scale wind has negligible, if any, effect on other sources. This is probably because, although their electricity generation may be displaced, they either must continue burning fuel (less efficiently, i.e., less cleanly) on standby or burn more fuel (again, less efficiently) in more frequent ramping up and down or switching on and off.
Besides, in Vermont almost no electricity comes from fossil fuels.
tags: wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
Is this the official UPC Leaseholder position towards anyone who opposes their wind project?
Not disclosed at the Cohocton Public Hearing is that this speaker is a family member of a UPC leaseholder who is scheduled to have sited an industrial wind turbine. Judge for yourself if this attitude is beneficial to the best interests of Cohocton?
(click on this link to watch the video)
(click on this link to watch the video)
Sunday, January 21, 2007
In regards to Dutch Hill Wind Project/Cohocton Wind Project by Karl Palmiter
January 19,2007
To: Cohocton Planning Board & Cohocton Town Board
Cohocton Local Law II has focused all attention on satisfying the wishes of developers UPC/Canandaigua Power Partners I/Canandaigua Power Partners II what ever name the same developer is calling itself at this time.
- Setbacks are much less than manufactures recommend.
- No wording in DEIS/SDEIS/Local Law to compensate neighboring property owners for LOSS of:
- Property value
- Damage to water wells
- Or pollution to water wells
- Damage to foundations
You have left that all to the discretion of the developer!
-No notification to neighboring residents to possible intent to blast.
-No Specific provisions or safeguards to the spreading of manure or fertilizer near the turbines.
-No specified amount of power produced by a turbine within a years time or the turbine should be completely removed, concrete and all.
All of this should be covered in the DEIS and SEIS of both Dutch and Cohocton Wind Projects
As elected and appointed people for the town of Cohocton, the Law for wind turbines was written for developers and leaseholders NOT the whole community of Cohocton.
The secrecy of UPC and Elected and Appointed representatives is:
These turbines have an electric motor in them that is used to turn those blades when the wind isn’t blowing and or is light. The developer will tell you that it is only used as inertia to get them started. (Meaning taking power from the grid, not adding to the grid) The fact is they are remote controlled and are used to give the impression that they are producing power, when in fact they are using power from the GRID at no cost to them, the cost is added to your electric bill, you are paying for the illusion that the wind turbines are producing power. According to Dr. Eugene Kalwa, PHD in electrical engineering this is called cooking the books or FRAUD!
To: Cohocton Planning Board & Cohocton Town Board
Cohocton Local Law II has focused all attention on satisfying the wishes of developers UPC/Canandaigua Power Partners I/Canandaigua Power Partners II what ever name the same developer is calling itself at this time.
- Setbacks are much less than manufactures recommend.
- No wording in DEIS/SDEIS/Local Law to compensate neighboring property owners for LOSS of:
- Property value
- Damage to water wells
- Or pollution to water wells
- Damage to foundations
You have left that all to the discretion of the developer!
-No notification to neighboring residents to possible intent to blast.
-No Specific provisions or safeguards to the spreading of manure or fertilizer near the turbines.
-No specified amount of power produced by a turbine within a years time or the turbine should be completely removed, concrete and all.
All of this should be covered in the DEIS and SEIS of both Dutch and Cohocton Wind Projects
As elected and appointed people for the town of Cohocton, the Law for wind turbines was written for developers and leaseholders NOT the whole community of Cohocton.
The secrecy of UPC and Elected and Appointed representatives is:
These turbines have an electric motor in them that is used to turn those blades when the wind isn’t blowing and or is light. The developer will tell you that it is only used as inertia to get them started. (Meaning taking power from the grid, not adding to the grid) The fact is they are remote controlled and are used to give the impression that they are producing power, when in fact they are using power from the GRID at no cost to them, the cost is added to your electric bill, you are paying for the illusion that the wind turbines are producing power. According to Dr. Eugene Kalwa, PHD in electrical engineering this is called cooking the books or FRAUD!
In Response to Cohocton Wind Project SEIS by Bonnie Palmiter
January 19, 2007
TO: Cohocton Planning Board/Cohocton Town Board
-No valid, signed, completed application for this project, by either the developer nor code enforcement officer = Incomplete.
- No cap on # of turbines allowed, is there a Phase III = Incomplete.
-No wind data from UPC/CPPII/CPPI on the meteorological towers as stated in the original DEIS = Incomplete.
-Proposed project in CWP SEIS states that CPP (Canandaigua Power Partners) and a couple times refers to CPPII, then changes to UPC so who is the developer of this project?????
-Cohocton is now infringing on the visual ascetic’s of Naples, Prattsburgh, and from Wallace to Wayland, Howard and Avoca.
SEIS, CWP states while the 2 projects of Dutch Hill Project and CWP are balanced across the 2 ridgelines, there presence changes the character of the rolling agricultural landscape. 1 of the 3 panel members felt the turbines altered the rural character of the view. The organized patterns and spacing helped soften their impact or the landscape, trying to make them fit where they shouldn’t be.
-Several times the SEIS states turbines dominate the view, and # of turbines changes the rural character of the view, and they appear out of context.
-Where is the data from UPC/ CPPI/CPPII on the meteorological towers?
-A ceiling or total # of industrial wind turbines needs to be incorporated within agricultural ordinances and SEIS still doesn’t have this.
SEIS own statements: adverse affect or aesthetic quality of the view.
Substation: strong contrast with land use, land form.
Incomplete SEIS: Specific housing of office and the look of the maintenance building.
In conclusion with all the different names of the developer in these SEIS one would have to assume that we don’t know who the actual developer is. INCOMPLETE/INACCURATE
TO: Cohocton Planning Board/Cohocton Town Board
-No valid, signed, completed application for this project, by either the developer nor code enforcement officer = Incomplete.
- No cap on # of turbines allowed, is there a Phase III = Incomplete.
-No wind data from UPC/CPPII/CPPI on the meteorological towers as stated in the original DEIS = Incomplete.
-Proposed project in CWP SEIS states that CPP (Canandaigua Power Partners) and a couple times refers to CPPII, then changes to UPC so who is the developer of this project?????
-Cohocton is now infringing on the visual ascetic’s of Naples, Prattsburgh, and from Wallace to Wayland, Howard and Avoca.
SEIS, CWP states while the 2 projects of Dutch Hill Project and CWP are balanced across the 2 ridgelines, there presence changes the character of the rolling agricultural landscape. 1 of the 3 panel members felt the turbines altered the rural character of the view. The organized patterns and spacing helped soften their impact or the landscape, trying to make them fit where they shouldn’t be.
-Several times the SEIS states turbines dominate the view, and # of turbines changes the rural character of the view, and they appear out of context.
-Where is the data from UPC/ CPPI/CPPII on the meteorological towers?
-A ceiling or total # of industrial wind turbines needs to be incorporated within agricultural ordinances and SEIS still doesn’t have this.
SEIS own statements: adverse affect or aesthetic quality of the view.
Substation: strong contrast with land use, land form.
Incomplete SEIS: Specific housing of office and the look of the maintenance building.
In conclusion with all the different names of the developer in these SEIS one would have to assume that we don’t know who the actual developer is. INCOMPLETE/INACCURATE
In Response to Dutch Hill Wind Project DEIS by Bonnie Palmiter
January 19, 2007
TO: Cohocton Planning Board/Cohocton Town Board
Why are we having one meeting tonight on two different projects when the data is incomplete?
-Incomplete application for this project, no signatures from either the developer or code enforcement officer.
-Canandaigua Power Partners II subsidiary of UPC/CPP, where are their NY State licenses to do business in our community?
-Traffic 144 trucks needed for Dutch hill total of 468 trips and 648 trips for Cohocton Project totaling 1116 trips for both projects, this will be a lot of traffic on our roads and yet there is no specific written language that the road repairs won’t be done at the tax payers’ expense. -There are no regulations put forward on the CPPII/UPC/CPP. Again with all these developers in the DEIS/SDEIS.
- No written language to either the Dutch Hill project or Cohocton Wind Project stating the number of workers that will hired within our town, one has to assume that the 29 jobs they state will come with these projects will be from out of State with there qualifications on wind turbines.
-With the DEIS stating approximately 5 full time employees are expected to reside locally and could translate into a few houses being owned, one has to again assume they will not be people from our community.
-Work on these two projects states 7.5 months and in another section 9 months, with no workers expected to relocate, so how will this help our community putting their own people to work as they have stated to the public all along.
-DEIS Dutch hill Project states 22 jobs will come from after project is completed, maintenance on these turbines will keep 22 people busy, again not stating locals, with 36 turbines this would pretty much mean 1.5 people working on turbines, does this add up?
No where in the DEIS for Dutch Hill Project or SDEIS for Cohocton Wind Project have I seen where the developer has been honest with this community about Generators being used as motors mainly for boosting the visual productivity ( time of rotations) of these turbines. Let me ask you with all these turbines through out the States why are we still with an Energy shortage, well it deepens because the windmills consume electricity instead of producing it.
Every citizen is being bilked of a few dollars a month in the form of a huge tax break and heavy subsidies to these developers. The wind turbine mafia is keeping our community from being sovereign and our own elected officials from protecting us, instead they have allowed a powerful international mafia with its own hidden agenda to come in and rape our town.
TO: Cohocton Planning Board/Cohocton Town Board
Why are we having one meeting tonight on two different projects when the data is incomplete?
-Incomplete application for this project, no signatures from either the developer or code enforcement officer.
-Canandaigua Power Partners II subsidiary of UPC/CPP, where are their NY State licenses to do business in our community?
-Traffic 144 trucks needed for Dutch hill total of 468 trips and 648 trips for Cohocton Project totaling 1116 trips for both projects, this will be a lot of traffic on our roads and yet there is no specific written language that the road repairs won’t be done at the tax payers’ expense. -There are no regulations put forward on the CPPII/UPC/CPP. Again with all these developers in the DEIS/SDEIS.
- No written language to either the Dutch Hill project or Cohocton Wind Project stating the number of workers that will hired within our town, one has to assume that the 29 jobs they state will come with these projects will be from out of State with there qualifications on wind turbines.
-With the DEIS stating approximately 5 full time employees are expected to reside locally and could translate into a few houses being owned, one has to again assume they will not be people from our community.
-Work on these two projects states 7.5 months and in another section 9 months, with no workers expected to relocate, so how will this help our community putting their own people to work as they have stated to the public all along.
-DEIS Dutch hill Project states 22 jobs will come from after project is completed, maintenance on these turbines will keep 22 people busy, again not stating locals, with 36 turbines this would pretty much mean 1.5 people working on turbines, does this add up?
No where in the DEIS for Dutch Hill Project or SDEIS for Cohocton Wind Project have I seen where the developer has been honest with this community about Generators being used as motors mainly for boosting the visual productivity ( time of rotations) of these turbines. Let me ask you with all these turbines through out the States why are we still with an Energy shortage, well it deepens because the windmills consume electricity instead of producing it.
Every citizen is being bilked of a few dollars a month in the form of a huge tax break and heavy subsidies to these developers. The wind turbine mafia is keeping our community from being sovereign and our own elected officials from protecting us, instead they have allowed a powerful international mafia with its own hidden agenda to come in and rape our town.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Response to SDEIS for Phase One and DEIS for Phase II by Robert C. Strasburg II January 19, 2007
Supplemental DEIS for Phase I
Environmental:
My response to the environmental impact relative to Phase I is one of utter protest. Because we have tried to attain copies of the Bagdon Environmental Impact Report done for the Town and have been illegally denied access to this report, I am left without the data to make an accurate analysis of this projects environmental impact and you will be held responsible for such illegal activity in the courts.
Economic:
My response to the SDEIS is again protest. The developer has not provided your constituents with credible information relative to even a proposed estimate of income potential from tax revenue in any fashion; therefore to comment with anything other than protest would be ignorant on my part.
Property Value:
The developer has not provided any unbiased credible studies on this subject and the only comment I have is again, protest due to lack of information.
Regulation:
In my opinion, the Town Board is currently demonstrating malfeasance for failing to oversee the enforcement of our current zoning laws. Given that fines are long since due from UPC for illegal activity relative to the installation of their test tower on Pine Hill, and an obvious unwillingness on your [part to discipline the developer by pursuing these fines for wrong behavior, you the Town Board are demonstrating that you are not at a mature governmental level worthy to be entrusted with the responsibility of such a project in our Town. If you are unwilling to enforce our current laws, what would make us think you will have any interest in controlling this developer and deterring any other illegal activity they intend?
You as a Town Board have lied to us from the start of this project. I have recorded on DVD at various Town meetings where you repeatedly have promised answers to written question and in fact stated that we would probably have them by December of 2006. When do you think it would be appropriate to provide these answers? After these towers are up? We should have had these answers before the last public hearing.
My commitment to each of you tonight is to do all I can to defeat your upcoming election this November. Your government related behavior is not worthy of your office.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Strasburg II
Environmental:
My response to the environmental impact relative to Phase I is one of utter protest. Because we have tried to attain copies of the Bagdon Environmental Impact Report done for the Town and have been illegally denied access to this report, I am left without the data to make an accurate analysis of this projects environmental impact and you will be held responsible for such illegal activity in the courts.
Economic:
My response to the SDEIS is again protest. The developer has not provided your constituents with credible information relative to even a proposed estimate of income potential from tax revenue in any fashion; therefore to comment with anything other than protest would be ignorant on my part.
Property Value:
The developer has not provided any unbiased credible studies on this subject and the only comment I have is again, protest due to lack of information.
Regulation:
In my opinion, the Town Board is currently demonstrating malfeasance for failing to oversee the enforcement of our current zoning laws. Given that fines are long since due from UPC for illegal activity relative to the installation of their test tower on Pine Hill, and an obvious unwillingness on your [part to discipline the developer by pursuing these fines for wrong behavior, you the Town Board are demonstrating that you are not at a mature governmental level worthy to be entrusted with the responsibility of such a project in our Town. If you are unwilling to enforce our current laws, what would make us think you will have any interest in controlling this developer and deterring any other illegal activity they intend?
You as a Town Board have lied to us from the start of this project. I have recorded on DVD at various Town meetings where you repeatedly have promised answers to written question and in fact stated that we would probably have them by December of 2006. When do you think it would be appropriate to provide these answers? After these towers are up? We should have had these answers before the last public hearing.
My commitment to each of you tonight is to do all I can to defeat your upcoming election this November. Your government related behavior is not worthy of your office.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Strasburg II
Public Hearing remarks on SDEIS UPC Phase I and DEIS UPC Phase II by Judith Hall
The first comment I would like to make is to refer to the NYS dept of State entity information I just gave you. Please note that CPP 2 came into being DECEMBER 22, 2006. You received the DEIS and accepted it in November of 2006. Once again the law s of NY State are ignored by UPC, with the blessing of Cohocton.
Number two. Local Law # 2 of 2006, was voted on and filed with the State of NY on November 30, 2006. Yet the supplemental to the DEIS and phase 2 Dutch Hill DEIS were already completed by this date. I guess they already knew the outcome of the law that YOU the planning board were still looking at. Oh that’s right you actually made some good recommendations to the Town Board, but they were sent back to you and you backed down on protecting the citizens of Cohocton and changed them. They didn’t work with the already newly proposed projects for UPC. I keep using that name UPC!! I guess I should say CPP. Which begs me to ask, besides not really existing until 12/22/06, why is Cohocton not mentioned on the UPC website? Prattsburgh is there, Sheffield is there, Mars Hill is there, why not Cohocton? Why is there not a CPP website?
Are there any employees from CPP in the room? Where are the certificates of workmen’s comp insurance required with the building applications in the name of CPP one or two? Where are the signatures on the applications?
The supplemental DEIS is rampant with incomplete and currently proposed, still aren’t sures, not yet determined, CPP will decide, anticipated, tentative plan is, the current planned configuration. They are still working on the transportation plan, there is no decision yet on the staging area. All reports from consultants state they will need to be updated once the plan is finalized. The wetland and archaeology are impacted by all of these areas. How can you as the LEAD AGENCY take the required SEQR hard look, when you have NO idea what the final project really looks like? Everything is not decided at the site plan stage, it is looked at by the SEQR process.
The SDEIS states construction will begin April of 2007, and end Dec of 2007. Yet Clipper, manufacturer of the turbines has published reports the turbines will not even be manufactured until 2008. The UPC Steel Wind project in Lackawana, near Buffalo has suffered a delay because, are you ready for this TOO MUCH WIND!!! They couldn’t complete construction because of too much wind. Good wind company. Their project in Mars Hill Maine has also suffered a few snafus. It should have been completed some time ago. Today as per the Town Clerk in Mars Hill, 4 turbines are up, they sometimes run, a few more are under construction. There is however a noise problem, HUGE, the government agencies are involved with UPC trying to find the cause of the problem. These are 1.5 MW. 28 were supposed to be going last year. Gee, we sure do get conflicting stories from the Towners and leaseholders about the great track record of UPC.
Some of my favorite quotes from the SDEIS are:
The red flashing lights on the tops of the turbines will be mitigated by distance from the turbines. That work well for me, my bedroom window is 1500 feet from one of those flashing red lights.
Also on page 16 it states that 88 per cent of the visual impact will be screened by vegetation. I guess that is those 500 feet Christmas trees on our property that so disturbs Gerald Moore.
Continued on page 16, my favorite page, because the farmers will be receiving the extra income it will help maintain the community character, you decide what that means for yourself. I have heard several of the farmers can’t help but brag, they will never plant again once they get their money rolling in.
So far this project has not complied with local, county or state regulations. The document we are commenting on tonight is totally INCOMPLETE and INADEQUATE to address the environmental issues this project creates.
Number two. Local Law # 2 of 2006, was voted on and filed with the State of NY on November 30, 2006. Yet the supplemental to the DEIS and phase 2 Dutch Hill DEIS were already completed by this date. I guess they already knew the outcome of the law that YOU the planning board were still looking at. Oh that’s right you actually made some good recommendations to the Town Board, but they were sent back to you and you backed down on protecting the citizens of Cohocton and changed them. They didn’t work with the already newly proposed projects for UPC. I keep using that name UPC!! I guess I should say CPP. Which begs me to ask, besides not really existing until 12/22/06, why is Cohocton not mentioned on the UPC website? Prattsburgh is there, Sheffield is there, Mars Hill is there, why not Cohocton? Why is there not a CPP website?
Are there any employees from CPP in the room? Where are the certificates of workmen’s comp insurance required with the building applications in the name of CPP one or two? Where are the signatures on the applications?
The supplemental DEIS is rampant with incomplete and currently proposed, still aren’t sures, not yet determined, CPP will decide, anticipated, tentative plan is, the current planned configuration. They are still working on the transportation plan, there is no decision yet on the staging area. All reports from consultants state they will need to be updated once the plan is finalized. The wetland and archaeology are impacted by all of these areas. How can you as the LEAD AGENCY take the required SEQR hard look, when you have NO idea what the final project really looks like? Everything is not decided at the site plan stage, it is looked at by the SEQR process.
The SDEIS states construction will begin April of 2007, and end Dec of 2007. Yet Clipper, manufacturer of the turbines has published reports the turbines will not even be manufactured until 2008. The UPC Steel Wind project in Lackawana, near Buffalo has suffered a delay because, are you ready for this TOO MUCH WIND!!! They couldn’t complete construction because of too much wind. Good wind company. Their project in Mars Hill Maine has also suffered a few snafus. It should have been completed some time ago. Today as per the Town Clerk in Mars Hill, 4 turbines are up, they sometimes run, a few more are under construction. There is however a noise problem, HUGE, the government agencies are involved with UPC trying to find the cause of the problem. These are 1.5 MW. 28 were supposed to be going last year. Gee, we sure do get conflicting stories from the Towners and leaseholders about the great track record of UPC.
Some of my favorite quotes from the SDEIS are:
The red flashing lights on the tops of the turbines will be mitigated by distance from the turbines. That work well for me, my bedroom window is 1500 feet from one of those flashing red lights.
Also on page 16 it states that 88 per cent of the visual impact will be screened by vegetation. I guess that is those 500 feet Christmas trees on our property that so disturbs Gerald Moore.
Continued on page 16, my favorite page, because the farmers will be receiving the extra income it will help maintain the community character, you decide what that means for yourself. I have heard several of the farmers can’t help but brag, they will never plant again once they get their money rolling in.
So far this project has not complied with local, county or state regulations. The document we are commenting on tonight is totally INCOMPLETE and INADEQUATE to address the environmental issues this project creates.
Cohocton Planning Board - Lead Agency - Part I by James Hall
RE: Public Hearing SDEIS UPC Phase I – January 19, 2007
No response was provided by the Cohocton Planning Board to the DEIS opposition documents for UPC Phase I. This project has been fundamentally changed from 82 MW and increased to 90 MW with the switch to 2.5 MW Clipper turbines from the 2.0 MW units. With different site locations from that in the DEIS it is evident that Phase I has become a different project. The data and studies in the SDEIS are incomplete and its conclusions are specious. Since the Clipper units are only in a testing stage, no reliable data regarding the noise, ice throw, shadow flicker are available. It would be malfeasance to approve a project the size of this UPC project using never before installed experimental industrial turbines.
The acknowledgement in the SDEIS Appendage G page i that a potential of 61 turbine sites and two substations locations were evaluated, proves that Phase I is a moving target and that it has become a totally different development. Manufacturers safety specifications for adequate protective setbacks from public roads are being disregarded. The liability insurance implication from willfully ignoring these setbacks will endanger the financial integrity of the Town of Cohocton.
The SDEIS does not address or mitigate these basic threats that come directly from an ill-conceived industrial project. UPC has a service contract with the manufacturer for servicing these units, so the promise of local employment is nothing but a hoax. UPC’s refusal to provide wind data that proves that Cohocton has sufficient wind to make their project economically sound is the most telling evidence that this development is a fraud.
The visual impact map in the SDEIS has been increased to 10 miles, but no mentioned that the 420’ towers will be seen from distances as far as forty miles away. Add the Dutch Hill Phase II along with the Prattsburgh UPC and Ecogen projects, and you will have as many as 229 turbines. Tug Hill has 160 1.5 MW units. So what you have in Cohocton/Prattsburgh regional development a single massive and coordinated project much larger than Tug Hill. Maple Ridge is rated for 240 MW, but the wind farm produced a paltry 0-30 MW, or 0-12.5% of capacity.
Since that development is already up for sale, only a fool would believe that UPC is here for the long haul. Without a cash escrow decommission fund, the leaseholders and the Town of Cohocton will bear the brunt of the costs when reality sinks in that the wind project is a failure.
The SDEIS is still relying on generic studies and seldom is site specific. How can conclusions of no harm be accepted when the turbines for this UPC project are untested and the results are unknown? Is this the kind of unstable future you want for this town? Reject the entire UPC industrialization of Cohocton.
Cordially,
James Hall
No response was provided by the Cohocton Planning Board to the DEIS opposition documents for UPC Phase I. This project has been fundamentally changed from 82 MW and increased to 90 MW with the switch to 2.5 MW Clipper turbines from the 2.0 MW units. With different site locations from that in the DEIS it is evident that Phase I has become a different project. The data and studies in the SDEIS are incomplete and its conclusions are specious. Since the Clipper units are only in a testing stage, no reliable data regarding the noise, ice throw, shadow flicker are available. It would be malfeasance to approve a project the size of this UPC project using never before installed experimental industrial turbines.
The acknowledgement in the SDEIS Appendage G page i that a potential of 61 turbine sites and two substations locations were evaluated, proves that Phase I is a moving target and that it has become a totally different development. Manufacturers safety specifications for adequate protective setbacks from public roads are being disregarded. The liability insurance implication from willfully ignoring these setbacks will endanger the financial integrity of the Town of Cohocton.
The SDEIS does not address or mitigate these basic threats that come directly from an ill-conceived industrial project. UPC has a service contract with the manufacturer for servicing these units, so the promise of local employment is nothing but a hoax. UPC’s refusal to provide wind data that proves that Cohocton has sufficient wind to make their project economically sound is the most telling evidence that this development is a fraud.
The visual impact map in the SDEIS has been increased to 10 miles, but no mentioned that the 420’ towers will be seen from distances as far as forty miles away. Add the Dutch Hill Phase II along with the Prattsburgh UPC and Ecogen projects, and you will have as many as 229 turbines. Tug Hill has 160 1.5 MW units. So what you have in Cohocton/Prattsburgh regional development a single massive and coordinated project much larger than Tug Hill. Maple Ridge is rated for 240 MW, but the wind farm produced a paltry 0-30 MW, or 0-12.5% of capacity.
Since that development is already up for sale, only a fool would believe that UPC is here for the long haul. Without a cash escrow decommission fund, the leaseholders and the Town of Cohocton will bear the brunt of the costs when reality sinks in that the wind project is a failure.
The SDEIS is still relying on generic studies and seldom is site specific. How can conclusions of no harm be accepted when the turbines for this UPC project are untested and the results are unknown? Is this the kind of unstable future you want for this town? Reject the entire UPC industrialization of Cohocton.
Cordially,
James Hall
Cohocton Planning Board - Lead Agency - Part II by James Hall
RE: Public Hearing Dutch Hill DEIS UPC Phase II - January 19, 2007
Dutch Hill UPC Phase II project is an integrated development that relies on the same proposed 25,000 industrial maintenance and office buildings. The facade that it is a separate stand alone and distinct project is not credible. This DEIS report attempts to look at aspects in the Phase I project not from the context of mitigating segmentation but from the admission that both developments share many of the same support facilities. The lumping of public hearings for both projects in the same meeting clearly links the need for approving both Phase I and Phase II so that construction could start at the same time. If these were really two different and distinct developments, why are both being planned for a coordinated construction at the same time?
Since UPC has ordered 52 Clipper 2.5 MW turbines, slated for Cohocton, in the same purchase order contract, it is clear that the intent is to build both Phase I and Phase II simultaneously. This fact violates the purpose of SEQR and perpetuates a fraud that Dutch Hill is a separate project.
The siting for Dutch Hill turbines will grossly impact the motorist traveling on I 390. The hypnotic effect from blade strobing presents a severe public safety hazard. Set backs are totally inadequate from this major trucking route.
The limited one- way access onto Dutch Hill prevents emergency vehicles from acceptable fire protection entry. The visual affront of industrial turbines negatively impacts the Towns of Wayland and Naples that do not allow such projects. The cumulative overkill of Phase I and II taken together alongside the 53 UPC Prattsburgh and the 99 Ecogen Prattsburgh turbines, creates the largest wind industrial complex east of the Mississippi River.
The proposed Clipper 2.5 MW for Dutch Hill will not be constructed until December of 2008 and have never been used and certified for a wind project. This glaring failure of empirical evidence on the actual real world performance of this industrial turbine needs to available BEFORE these units should be approved for the Dutch Hill project.
Manufactures set back standards for much small units are greater than the proposed distances for the Clipper 2.5 MW turbines in the Dutch Hill project. The DEIS set backs from all public roads need to be dramatically increased to provide protection from ice throw danger. The public health and safety is consistently ignored in the Dutch Hill DEIS as in the low frequency noise hazard, which is totally unprotected in the proposal.
Cordially,
James Hall
Dutch Hill UPC Phase II project is an integrated development that relies on the same proposed 25,000 industrial maintenance and office buildings. The facade that it is a separate stand alone and distinct project is not credible. This DEIS report attempts to look at aspects in the Phase I project not from the context of mitigating segmentation but from the admission that both developments share many of the same support facilities. The lumping of public hearings for both projects in the same meeting clearly links the need for approving both Phase I and Phase II so that construction could start at the same time. If these were really two different and distinct developments, why are both being planned for a coordinated construction at the same time?
Since UPC has ordered 52 Clipper 2.5 MW turbines, slated for Cohocton, in the same purchase order contract, it is clear that the intent is to build both Phase I and Phase II simultaneously. This fact violates the purpose of SEQR and perpetuates a fraud that Dutch Hill is a separate project.
The siting for Dutch Hill turbines will grossly impact the motorist traveling on I 390. The hypnotic effect from blade strobing presents a severe public safety hazard. Set backs are totally inadequate from this major trucking route.
The limited one- way access onto Dutch Hill prevents emergency vehicles from acceptable fire protection entry. The visual affront of industrial turbines negatively impacts the Towns of Wayland and Naples that do not allow such projects. The cumulative overkill of Phase I and II taken together alongside the 53 UPC Prattsburgh and the 99 Ecogen Prattsburgh turbines, creates the largest wind industrial complex east of the Mississippi River.
The proposed Clipper 2.5 MW for Dutch Hill will not be constructed until December of 2008 and have never been used and certified for a wind project. This glaring failure of empirical evidence on the actual real world performance of this industrial turbine needs to available BEFORE these units should be approved for the Dutch Hill project.
Manufactures set back standards for much small units are greater than the proposed distances for the Clipper 2.5 MW turbines in the Dutch Hill project. The DEIS set backs from all public roads need to be dramatically increased to provide protection from ice throw danger. The public health and safety is consistently ignored in the Dutch Hill DEIS as in the low frequency noise hazard, which is totally unprotected in the proposal.
Cordially,
James Hall
SDEIS, Directory L, Property Value by Don E Sandford
Evaluating Impacts of Wind Power Projects On Local Property Value
by Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., November 15, 2006
After reading this report prepared for UPC Wind Management,LLC, consisting of twenty-seven pages, which consisted of approximately eight pages of highlighting their professional qualifications, known project maps or their reference material cited, nothing factual was said in the remaining pages to change my opinion that residential property directly impacted by wind turbine placement will lower property values substantially, inversely to the quality of life issues effected. In fact the very first sentence of this report was really all that had to be said, for it was an obvious disclaimer, which read: “This analysis addresses the POTENTIAL(In other words we could be wrong) property value impact the proposed Cohocton Wind Power Project may have on a rural residential area encompassing approximately seven thousand acres in the vicinity of the Town of Cohocton at the northwest corner of Steuben County, New York”.Also the report states that”analysis of changes in local real estate values, attributable to the proposed project, is more limited because of the relatively recent date of the Cohocton Wind Power Project announcement.
Therefore we have relied, by; analogy, on the observed real estate experience at the more mature wind farms in New York State.” It is also obvious from their statement on page 20 that particular homeowners, “The handful of premium-priced executive or second homes located in the project area or view shed, which would derive such a premium,in part, for their views may be impacted. However such impact will not necessarily diminish property values; the local economy and national housing market will have a superseding influence, ”I’m sure your reckless at best, conclusion must be very reassuring to these home owners. A great deal of emphasis was given to a report by a college student Ben Hoen. P.Barton DeLacy, who signed this report for Cushman & Wakefield, states “The most significant new information since my last visit to southwest New York, is the publication of a Bard College Masters Candidate thesis , studying the impacts of wind turbines on property values in Madison County, New York at Fenner.” This report has as its premise, property sales & no declining value near turbine sites. However, George Sterzinger ,a prominent energy authority does not agree for he writes in Industrial Wind Action Group/Impacts of Windmill Visibility report, page 6, omissions render the results of the report extremely weak, if not entirely misleading. Sterzinger stated “66% of the homes sampled in the 5 mile radius could not see the windfarm at all.In effect, the study makes the erroneous assumption that all properties in the 5-mile radii can see the windfarm, when many houses views in fact are obstructed by geological features, trees, and other houses. ”Sales that are not arms-length(divorce, sales between family , estate sales”) are included.
By doing so, the report includes transactions that do not represent the agreement between a willing buyer and a willing seller, a requirement for accurate analysis.” Contrast this to page 8 of the P. Barton DeLacy report where he states that “It should be noted that NONE of Hoen’s sales were closer than ¾ of a mile, but his emphasis on actual sales rather than mere preferences is powerful”. The editor of “Industrial Wind Action Group” states:”There are two recurring themes in this study 1.) the results are applicable only to Fenner and (2) much more research is needed.” Most importantly it seems to me was to know sales inside of 4000 ft or ¾ of a mile, for this would be very relevant for Cohocton. Those are the ones that would presumably be the most impacted by noise, strobe lights and shadow flicker.
What would the reason be for leaving this crucial information out? The Hoen report once again has error. I for one refuse to accept this college student’s thesis and conclusions as valid and was misleading by Cushman & Wakefield to do so. Remember, our town board and UPC would have us believe 1500 ft. from a residence to a turbine is good enough and our quality of life or property value would not be adversely effected. This report does not consider at all the additional real estate sale values existing in the 2500 ft. which would be inhabited and owned by The Town of Cohocton taxpayers up to 1500 ft. by law to turbine sites. That Hoen study goes no closer than 4000 ft is dramatic and makes this report useless in its relationship to Cohocton land values and local law #2 comparisons. Please recall that the property devaluation bond proposal was dismissed by The Cohocton Town Board to be part of local law #2 as being too vague. I continue to believe it is the missing necessary amendment that was needed for the confidence and assurance of people and needs to be in place for the financial protection of residences and property, impacted by improper turbine placement and believe it was knowingly and intentionally ignored by our town board because known looming monetary repercussions were likely exist in the future against UPC and the town. I found it very shortsighted and certainly obvious by Cushman & Wakefield that no direct quotes or interviews were part of their report which should have include but not limited to, bankers, real estate agents and appraisors, thereby establishing a baseline and better understanding from their input and concerns from these professional people who know first hand local real estate issues as they presently, realistically, exist being impacted by the known introduction of wind turbines in our area. Mr. David Domm, Cohocton Town Assessor was interviewed however. But I was glad to learn from the report they were familiar with the general area, that the Cohocton Village has expanded its ball field and I can now go to the nearest Walmart located 12 miles west in Dansville. The point being, saying it in a report doesn’t necessarily make it so.
Was the agency of Cushman & Wakefield, Portland Oregon, by the writing of this report independently selected and/or paid for by The Town of Cohocton or UPC? Since official reports often reveal months or years later, important information not included in a report but if know at the time would have changed a decision or made a difference is a fact that should not be overlooked. Ladies & gentlemen, with a substantial investment in my home and property hanging in the balance, and quality of life change immenient, this is not a game we are playing involving a college kid’s thesis. The Cohocton Town Board by its actions/inactions and secrecy and stonewalling over the past months do not have my confidence or trust to be fair and impartial in their decision making to protect my interest at all. It’s my opinion they consider us in the impacted turbine areas expendable for their success with its preconceived plan with UPC and so to goes my respect. The entire truth someday will be known to all. This property value report is merely a necessary, self serving tool for The Cohocton Town Board and UPC to promote their agenda.
by Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., November 15, 2006
After reading this report prepared for UPC Wind Management,LLC, consisting of twenty-seven pages, which consisted of approximately eight pages of highlighting their professional qualifications, known project maps or their reference material cited, nothing factual was said in the remaining pages to change my opinion that residential property directly impacted by wind turbine placement will lower property values substantially, inversely to the quality of life issues effected. In fact the very first sentence of this report was really all that had to be said, for it was an obvious disclaimer, which read: “This analysis addresses the POTENTIAL(In other words we could be wrong) property value impact the proposed Cohocton Wind Power Project may have on a rural residential area encompassing approximately seven thousand acres in the vicinity of the Town of Cohocton at the northwest corner of Steuben County, New York”.Also the report states that”analysis of changes in local real estate values, attributable to the proposed project, is more limited because of the relatively recent date of the Cohocton Wind Power Project announcement.
Therefore we have relied, by; analogy, on the observed real estate experience at the more mature wind farms in New York State.” It is also obvious from their statement on page 20 that particular homeowners, “The handful of premium-priced executive or second homes located in the project area or view shed, which would derive such a premium,in part, for their views may be impacted. However such impact will not necessarily diminish property values; the local economy and national housing market will have a superseding influence, ”I’m sure your reckless at best, conclusion must be very reassuring to these home owners. A great deal of emphasis was given to a report by a college student Ben Hoen. P.Barton DeLacy, who signed this report for Cushman & Wakefield, states “The most significant new information since my last visit to southwest New York, is the publication of a Bard College Masters Candidate thesis , studying the impacts of wind turbines on property values in Madison County, New York at Fenner.” This report has as its premise, property sales & no declining value near turbine sites. However, George Sterzinger ,a prominent energy authority does not agree for he writes in Industrial Wind Action Group/Impacts of Windmill Visibility report, page 6, omissions render the results of the report extremely weak, if not entirely misleading. Sterzinger stated “66% of the homes sampled in the 5 mile radius could not see the windfarm at all.In effect, the study makes the erroneous assumption that all properties in the 5-mile radii can see the windfarm, when many houses views in fact are obstructed by geological features, trees, and other houses. ”Sales that are not arms-length(divorce, sales between family , estate sales”) are included.
By doing so, the report includes transactions that do not represent the agreement between a willing buyer and a willing seller, a requirement for accurate analysis.” Contrast this to page 8 of the P. Barton DeLacy report where he states that “It should be noted that NONE of Hoen’s sales were closer than ¾ of a mile, but his emphasis on actual sales rather than mere preferences is powerful”. The editor of “Industrial Wind Action Group” states:”There are two recurring themes in this study 1.) the results are applicable only to Fenner and (2) much more research is needed.” Most importantly it seems to me was to know sales inside of 4000 ft or ¾ of a mile, for this would be very relevant for Cohocton. Those are the ones that would presumably be the most impacted by noise, strobe lights and shadow flicker.
What would the reason be for leaving this crucial information out? The Hoen report once again has error. I for one refuse to accept this college student’s thesis and conclusions as valid and was misleading by Cushman & Wakefield to do so. Remember, our town board and UPC would have us believe 1500 ft. from a residence to a turbine is good enough and our quality of life or property value would not be adversely effected. This report does not consider at all the additional real estate sale values existing in the 2500 ft. which would be inhabited and owned by The Town of Cohocton taxpayers up to 1500 ft. by law to turbine sites. That Hoen study goes no closer than 4000 ft is dramatic and makes this report useless in its relationship to Cohocton land values and local law #2 comparisons. Please recall that the property devaluation bond proposal was dismissed by The Cohocton Town Board to be part of local law #2 as being too vague. I continue to believe it is the missing necessary amendment that was needed for the confidence and assurance of people and needs to be in place for the financial protection of residences and property, impacted by improper turbine placement and believe it was knowingly and intentionally ignored by our town board because known looming monetary repercussions were likely exist in the future against UPC and the town. I found it very shortsighted and certainly obvious by Cushman & Wakefield that no direct quotes or interviews were part of their report which should have include but not limited to, bankers, real estate agents and appraisors, thereby establishing a baseline and better understanding from their input and concerns from these professional people who know first hand local real estate issues as they presently, realistically, exist being impacted by the known introduction of wind turbines in our area. Mr. David Domm, Cohocton Town Assessor was interviewed however. But I was glad to learn from the report they were familiar with the general area, that the Cohocton Village has expanded its ball field and I can now go to the nearest Walmart located 12 miles west in Dansville. The point being, saying it in a report doesn’t necessarily make it so.
Was the agency of Cushman & Wakefield, Portland Oregon, by the writing of this report independently selected and/or paid for by The Town of Cohocton or UPC? Since official reports often reveal months or years later, important information not included in a report but if know at the time would have changed a decision or made a difference is a fact that should not be overlooked. Ladies & gentlemen, with a substantial investment in my home and property hanging in the balance, and quality of life change immenient, this is not a game we are playing involving a college kid’s thesis. The Cohocton Town Board by its actions/inactions and secrecy and stonewalling over the past months do not have my confidence or trust to be fair and impartial in their decision making to protect my interest at all. It’s my opinion they consider us in the impacted turbine areas expendable for their success with its preconceived plan with UPC and so to goes my respect. The entire truth someday will be known to all. This property value report is merely a necessary, self serving tool for The Cohocton Town Board and UPC to promote their agenda.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Steuben Greens lead charge against local wind farms: Host session in Hornell for critics of proposed area projects by JEN CARPENTER
HORNELL - The idea of wind farm development locally isn't a popular one. At least at the corner of Main and Hakes.
Steuben Greens hosted a panel discussion on wind issues Thursday night, with a number of the speakers saying wind power wasn't worth it.
Brad Jones, a lifelong environmentalist who lives on a conservation project, spoke of the promises of wind energy. He explained that a typical wind farm has 50 wind turbines, each spread out over 4-6 acres of land, and each turbine approximately 400-feet tall.
Jones said UPC Wind, a company that develops wind farms, promises the institution of wind farms will mean a reduction of energy costs, no dependence on foreign oil, reduction of carbon monoxide gas and global warming and production of clean, abundant and renewable energy.
He noted, however, only 3 percent of electricity comes from oil, and only some of that from foreign oil. He also said wind energy is not reliable, as a wind turbine requires steady 27 mph winds.
Jones also is concerned with storage capacity, because there is no place to store the power not used right away. He also said wind turbines are not always safe, because you have to take into account poor weather conditions and noise.
“Wind turbines are not good neighbors,” Jones said.
Barry Mille of Hinsdale worked on a wind farm in California for nearly 30 years. He said it is easy for a wind turbine to malfunction, and blades to fly off or gear boxes to malfunction. This could pose a serious safety risk.
Jones said also it is estimated a wind farm has the capability to kill between 50,000 and 250,000 birds, bats and raptors in one year. He added there have been reports of 22 new bald eagles in the area this year.
Jones estimates the 20-year economic impact of a wind farm to cost a loss of $141 million. He said more energy isn't needed upstate, but rather downstate, if at all. He also said that Europeans are getting rid of their wind farms.
“We're too stupid, we're too ignorant,” he said. “That's why they (UPC Wind) are here.”
Steve Trude, Cohocton Wind Watch president, spoke about the financial effects of wind developments. He said in our electric bills, we already pay for wind developments through an RPS, or renewables, charge.
Trude said one of the main reasons for building wind farms is to combat global warming, but he also said the polar ice caps are not just melting on Earth, but on Mars as well.
“This is a human issue, it's a moral issue,” said James Hall, of Cohocton Wind Watch, who gave an update of lawsuits.
He said the decision makers must be held responsible, and the rational approach is to use the courts. He is calling for a statewide investigation of wind farm companies.
“What in the world are we doing destroying our natural resources to produce electricity that will never be used?” he said.
Hall said this is all a political pay-off, and if wind turbines were such a benefit, they would be taxed at full value. He said where wind farms are placed could prevent property owners from being able to build on their own land.
“It's our lives, it's our future, it's our children's legacy,” he said.
Valerie Gardner and Jack Ossont, from Democracy NY, a not-for-profit corporation to encourage community education, talked about how a community can assert itself. They said wind farms are an issue of who gets to decide what happens in their community, and they noted corporations are trying to use the 14th Amendment, meant to protect minorities, to protect themselves.
Ossont and Gardner urged everyone to make a difference at the local level. Ossont said a town acting out forces a corporation to respond.
“The only place we have any power left is at the local level,” Ossont said.
There will be a public hearing regarding wind farms held from 7-9 p.m. tonight at the Cohocton Elementary School, 30 Maples Ave. in Cohocton.
Steuben Greens hosted a panel discussion on wind issues Thursday night, with a number of the speakers saying wind power wasn't worth it.
Brad Jones, a lifelong environmentalist who lives on a conservation project, spoke of the promises of wind energy. He explained that a typical wind farm has 50 wind turbines, each spread out over 4-6 acres of land, and each turbine approximately 400-feet tall.
Jones said UPC Wind, a company that develops wind farms, promises the institution of wind farms will mean a reduction of energy costs, no dependence on foreign oil, reduction of carbon monoxide gas and global warming and production of clean, abundant and renewable energy.
He noted, however, only 3 percent of electricity comes from oil, and only some of that from foreign oil. He also said wind energy is not reliable, as a wind turbine requires steady 27 mph winds.
Jones also is concerned with storage capacity, because there is no place to store the power not used right away. He also said wind turbines are not always safe, because you have to take into account poor weather conditions and noise.
“Wind turbines are not good neighbors,” Jones said.
Barry Mille of Hinsdale worked on a wind farm in California for nearly 30 years. He said it is easy for a wind turbine to malfunction, and blades to fly off or gear boxes to malfunction. This could pose a serious safety risk.
Jones said also it is estimated a wind farm has the capability to kill between 50,000 and 250,000 birds, bats and raptors in one year. He added there have been reports of 22 new bald eagles in the area this year.
Jones estimates the 20-year economic impact of a wind farm to cost a loss of $141 million. He said more energy isn't needed upstate, but rather downstate, if at all. He also said that Europeans are getting rid of their wind farms.
“We're too stupid, we're too ignorant,” he said. “That's why they (UPC Wind) are here.”
Steve Trude, Cohocton Wind Watch president, spoke about the financial effects of wind developments. He said in our electric bills, we already pay for wind developments through an RPS, or renewables, charge.
Trude said one of the main reasons for building wind farms is to combat global warming, but he also said the polar ice caps are not just melting on Earth, but on Mars as well.
“This is a human issue, it's a moral issue,” said James Hall, of Cohocton Wind Watch, who gave an update of lawsuits.
He said the decision makers must be held responsible, and the rational approach is to use the courts. He is calling for a statewide investigation of wind farm companies.
“What in the world are we doing destroying our natural resources to produce electricity that will never be used?” he said.
Hall said this is all a political pay-off, and if wind turbines were such a benefit, they would be taxed at full value. He said where wind farms are placed could prevent property owners from being able to build on their own land.
“It's our lives, it's our future, it's our children's legacy,” he said.
Valerie Gardner and Jack Ossont, from Democracy NY, a not-for-profit corporation to encourage community education, talked about how a community can assert itself. They said wind farms are an issue of who gets to decide what happens in their community, and they noted corporations are trying to use the 14th Amendment, meant to protect minorities, to protect themselves.
Ossont and Gardner urged everyone to make a difference at the local level. Ossont said a town acting out forces a corporation to respond.
“The only place we have any power left is at the local level,” Ossont said.
There will be a public hearing regarding wind farms held from 7-9 p.m. tonight at the Cohocton Elementary School, 30 Maples Ave. in Cohocton.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Important reminder to attend the Public Hearings on the UPC Phase I Pine Hill/Lent Hill SDEIS and the UPC Phase II Dutch Hill DEIS
Sign up at the door to speak for both Public Hearings and submit your written remarks and request a receipt.
Important reminder to attend the Public Hearings on the UPC Phase I Pine Hill/Lent Hill SDEIS and the UPC Phase II Dutch Hill DEIS.
Friday, January 19, 2007 starting 7:00 PM until 9:00 PM at the Cohocton Elementary School 30 Maples Avenue, Cohocton, NY.
Important reminder to attend the Public Hearings on the UPC Phase I Pine Hill/Lent Hill SDEIS and the UPC Phase II Dutch Hill DEIS.
Friday, January 19, 2007 starting 7:00 PM until 9:00 PM at the Cohocton Elementary School 30 Maples Avenue, Cohocton, NY.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
UPC Phase III Cohocton Project - To Be Or Not To Be ???
Twenty five (25 additional 2.5 MW turbines = 62.5 MW) using letters a through y added to the 36 MW turbines = 90 MW for Phase I.
Click on above link and view page 5 of the Archaeology Report. Do you really believe these turbines are cancelled? Ask the landowners for these sites if they are being told they will be getting their industrial turbines!
Michael Lessar and Marcia Sammons letter
January 15, 2007
Planning Board
c/o Sandra Riley
Town of Cohocton
15 South Main St.
Cohocton, NY 14826
Dear Planning Board:
This is to advise you of our unhappiness to hear you are pushing two public meetings together to support the two planned projects of the wind turbines. Why is it that the public is treated this way? From the get-go, this entire "project" has been kept under wraps which has drawn nothing by suspicion by many. In case you are questioning why people living outside North Cohocton would even care, it is because we live in the area. We did own a cabin on Pine Hill in North Cohocton which was ultimately sold over the summer of 2006. When we had put it up for sale, we had no idea that the wind turbines were a reality in that area; it was after things were well in motion with our accepting an offer that UPC sent a letter to us. We never read anything in the local papers, only to find out later the only information that was initially available was in a Hornell paper. Why a Hornell paper? Ultimately, we lost the sale, with the closing date set, and the potential buyers getting "cold feet" about the talk of the wind turbines, and pulling out two days before the closing. We ended up selling it about four months later, sustaining a loss of $25,000.
It seems like this entire "project" has been determined to be the best thing for the community by UPC as well as you, the Planning Board, and some of the residents of Cohocton. Never mind that many people are asking very thoughtful and intelligent questions regarding the environmental repercussions, concerns of what will happen to the landscape, how this will affect the future of real estate, tourism, and health issues. Why is it that communities such as Phelps and Perry have granted their residents moratoriums so that the projects can be investigated in an thorough and intelligent way? Why is that Cohocton refuses to offer a moratorium to its residents? I am sure you have heard of the saying, "something stinks in Denmark" - we think that quote could also be, "something stinks in Cohocton." We ask that you as the Planning Board of Cohocton wake up and do the right thing. Why are you people in such a hurry to push this forward?
Sincerely yours,
Michael G. Lessar
Marcia M. Sammons
cc: David Miller, Esq. - 11 North Main St., Naples, NY 14512
Richard Lippes, Esq. - 1260 Delaware Ave., Buffalo, NY 14209
Eliot Spitzer, Governor - State Capitol, Albany, NY 12224
Planning Board
c/o Sandra Riley
Town of Cohocton
15 South Main St.
Cohocton, NY 14826
Dear Planning Board:
This is to advise you of our unhappiness to hear you are pushing two public meetings together to support the two planned projects of the wind turbines. Why is it that the public is treated this way? From the get-go, this entire "project" has been kept under wraps which has drawn nothing by suspicion by many. In case you are questioning why people living outside North Cohocton would even care, it is because we live in the area. We did own a cabin on Pine Hill in North Cohocton which was ultimately sold over the summer of 2006. When we had put it up for sale, we had no idea that the wind turbines were a reality in that area; it was after things were well in motion with our accepting an offer that UPC sent a letter to us. We never read anything in the local papers, only to find out later the only information that was initially available was in a Hornell paper. Why a Hornell paper? Ultimately, we lost the sale, with the closing date set, and the potential buyers getting "cold feet" about the talk of the wind turbines, and pulling out two days before the closing. We ended up selling it about four months later, sustaining a loss of $25,000.
It seems like this entire "project" has been determined to be the best thing for the community by UPC as well as you, the Planning Board, and some of the residents of Cohocton. Never mind that many people are asking very thoughtful and intelligent questions regarding the environmental repercussions, concerns of what will happen to the landscape, how this will affect the future of real estate, tourism, and health issues. Why is it that communities such as Phelps and Perry have granted their residents moratoriums so that the projects can be investigated in an thorough and intelligent way? Why is that Cohocton refuses to offer a moratorium to its residents? I am sure you have heard of the saying, "something stinks in Denmark" - we think that quote could also be, "something stinks in Cohocton." We ask that you as the Planning Board of Cohocton wake up and do the right thing. Why are you people in such a hurry to push this forward?
Sincerely yours,
Michael G. Lessar
Marcia M. Sammons
cc: David Miller, Esq. - 11 North Main St., Naples, NY 14512
Richard Lippes, Esq. - 1260 Delaware Ave., Buffalo, NY 14209
Eliot Spitzer, Governor - State Capitol, Albany, NY 12224
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)