On a sunny spring morning, Deeping St Nicholas provides a perfect snapshot of English country life. The only buildings that break the flat horizon of the Lincolnshire fens are silver-grey church spires and neat red-brick farmhouses, around which are clustered barns and silos. A covey of wood pigeons clap their wings as they take off from the black, loamy, fertile soil striped with green lines of oilseed rape. And then you hear it. "Whoompf ... whoompf ... whoompf ..."
Like the sound of an approaching train that never comes, the thumps that break the still air are not overpoweringly loud - at about 65 decibels, they're the level of a lorry going by at 30 miles an hour 100 yards away.
But what is so menacing is the regularity and the scope of the noise, which feels like a giant heartbeat shaking the earth.
(click to read entire article)
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Support the CWW Legal Fund
Cohocton Wind Watch is at the forefront of confronting the corruption between the industrial wind industry and their government patrons. The collusion that facilitates this massive fraud on the public is a national tragedy.If you want to know about current legal efforts in the courts and proposed actions that will be file in the future, send your inquiries to:
cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com
Send contributions made out to Cohocton Wind Watch
PO Box 638, Naples, NY 14512
Call (585) 534-5581 if you have any questions.
Want to contribute with a credit card use the CLICK & PLEDGE link
use this page is for online credit card donations.
All other donations can be make by mailing check or money orders to.....
Support the Cohocton Wind Watch legal fund. Take a stand against the next "Enron" scandal.
Your past and continued contributions are greatly appreciated.
CWW TERMS of Service Disclaimer
Restrictions on Use This site, CWW (the "Site") is owned and operated by Cohocton Wind Watch, and is protected by national and international copyright and trademark laws. You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit or distribute in any way any material from this Site including text, graphics, code and/or software. You may link to this Site, but you may not download any material from this Site without advance written permission.
Disclaimer where CWW has provided links to other Internet sites maintained by third parties, unless expressly stated otherwise no inference or assumption should be made and no representation may be implied that CWW and/or its owner or owners, editor or editors operate or control in any respect any information, products or services on these third-party sites. The material in this Site and the third party sites are provided 'as is' and without any warranties of any kind either expressed or implied. CWW does not warrant or make any representations regarding the use or the results of the use of the materials in this site or in third party sites or your reliance thereupon in the terms of their correctness, accuracy, reliability or otherwise. You assume, and not CWW, the entire cost of all necessary risks.
This disclaimer of liability applies to any damages or injury caused by any failure of performance, omission, errors, interruption, deletion, defect or delays in operation and transmission. Computer virus, line failure, theft or destruction or unauthorized access to, alteration of, or use of record, whether from breach of contract, tortuous behavior, negligence, or infer any other cause of action. You specifically acknowledge that CWW is not liable for the defamatory, offensive or illegal conduct of third party sites, forum posters, or other materials you might see, or otherwise experience from the links on this Site, and that the risk of injury from the foregoing rests entirely with you.
In no event shall CWW, or any person or entity in creating, producing or distributing CWW material, be liable for damages, including without limitation, direct, indirect, special, incidental, consequential or punitive damages arising out of the use of or the inability to use of the CWW site. You hereby acknowledge that the provisions of this section shall apply to all content on this Site.
Limitation of Liability under no circumstances, including, but not limited to, negligence, shall CWW and/or its owner or owners, editor or editors be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special or consequential damages that result from the use of, or the inability to use CWW materials. You specifically acknowledge and agree that CWW is not liable for any defamatory, offensive or illegal conduct of any columnist or other person in any way associated with the Site. If you are dissatisfied with any CWW material, or with any of CWW 's terms and conditions, your sole and exclusive remedy is to discontinue using the Site.
Termination of this agreement is effective until terminated by CWW, at any time and without notice. In the event of termination, you are no longer authorized to access the Site, but the restrictions imposed on you with respect to material downloaded from the Site, the disclaimers, and limitations of liabilities set forth in this agreement, shall survive.
Indemnification acknowledges that you agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless CWW and/or its owner or owners, editor or forum posting members from and against all liabilities, claims, damages, and expenses, including attorneys' fees, arising out of your use of the site, or your violation or alleged violation of the terms of this Agreement.
This agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York and the United States of America without giving effect to any principles or conflicts of law. If any provision of this agreement shall be unlawful, void or for any reason unenforceable, then that provision shall be deemed severable from this agreement and shall not affect the validity and enforceability of any remaining provisions.
Disclaimer where CWW has provided links to other Internet sites maintained by third parties, unless expressly stated otherwise no inference or assumption should be made and no representation may be implied that CWW and/or its owner or owners, editor or editors operate or control in any respect any information, products or services on these third-party sites. The material in this Site and the third party sites are provided 'as is' and without any warranties of any kind either expressed or implied. CWW does not warrant or make any representations regarding the use or the results of the use of the materials in this site or in third party sites or your reliance thereupon in the terms of their correctness, accuracy, reliability or otherwise. You assume, and not CWW, the entire cost of all necessary risks.
This disclaimer of liability applies to any damages or injury caused by any failure of performance, omission, errors, interruption, deletion, defect or delays in operation and transmission. Computer virus, line failure, theft or destruction or unauthorized access to, alteration of, or use of record, whether from breach of contract, tortuous behavior, negligence, or infer any other cause of action. You specifically acknowledge that CWW is not liable for the defamatory, offensive or illegal conduct of third party sites, forum posters, or other materials you might see, or otherwise experience from the links on this Site, and that the risk of injury from the foregoing rests entirely with you.
In no event shall CWW, or any person or entity in creating, producing or distributing CWW material, be liable for damages, including without limitation, direct, indirect, special, incidental, consequential or punitive damages arising out of the use of or the inability to use of the CWW site. You hereby acknowledge that the provisions of this section shall apply to all content on this Site.
Limitation of Liability under no circumstances, including, but not limited to, negligence, shall CWW and/or its owner or owners, editor or editors be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special or consequential damages that result from the use of, or the inability to use CWW materials. You specifically acknowledge and agree that CWW is not liable for any defamatory, offensive or illegal conduct of any columnist or other person in any way associated with the Site. If you are dissatisfied with any CWW material, or with any of CWW 's terms and conditions, your sole and exclusive remedy is to discontinue using the Site.
Termination of this agreement is effective until terminated by CWW, at any time and without notice. In the event of termination, you are no longer authorized to access the Site, but the restrictions imposed on you with respect to material downloaded from the Site, the disclaimers, and limitations of liabilities set forth in this agreement, shall survive.
Indemnification acknowledges that you agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless CWW and/or its owner or owners, editor or forum posting members from and against all liabilities, claims, damages, and expenses, including attorneys' fees, arising out of your use of the site, or your violation or alleged violation of the terms of this Agreement.
This agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York and the United States of America without giving effect to any principles or conflicts of law. If any provision of this agreement shall be unlawful, void or for any reason unenforceable, then that provision shall be deemed severable from this agreement and shall not affect the validity and enforceability of any remaining provisions.
CWW Fair Use Notice
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to civil rights, economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science & technology, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information please visit: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission directly from the copyright owner.
For more information please visit: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission directly from the copyright owner.
Former New York Governor Pataki Joins Law Firm
George E. Pataki, the former governor of New York, and his chief of staff, John P. Cahill, have joined the New York law firm of Chadbourne & Parke LLP as counsel. According to Chadbourne & Parke, both Pataki and Cahill will concentrate on energy, environmental and corporate matters.
Pataki served three terms as the 53rd governor of New York, from 1995 through 2006. He was elected mayor of Peekskill, N.Y., in 1981, and served in the New York state legislature as an assemblyman and then a senator from 1985 to 1994 before becoming governor. In addition, Pataki was a partner in the New York law firm of Plunkett & Jaffe until 1987.
Cahill served as Pataki's secretary and chief of staff from 2002 to 2006. In May 2005, he took on the additional role of leading and coordinating the rebuilding of the World Trade Center site and the recovery of Lower Manhattan. From 1995 to 2001, he was the general counsel and then commissioner of the state's Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). Prior to joining DEC, Cahill was a partner at Plunkett & Jaffe, where he focused on environmental and municipal issues.
Pataki served three terms as the 53rd governor of New York, from 1995 through 2006. He was elected mayor of Peekskill, N.Y., in 1981, and served in the New York state legislature as an assemblyman and then a senator from 1985 to 1994 before becoming governor. In addition, Pataki was a partner in the New York law firm of Plunkett & Jaffe until 1987.
Cahill served as Pataki's secretary and chief of staff from 2002 to 2006. In May 2005, he took on the additional role of leading and coordinating the rebuilding of the World Trade Center site and the recovery of Lower Manhattan. From 1995 to 2001, he was the general counsel and then commissioner of the state's Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). Prior to joining DEC, Cahill was a partner at Plunkett & Jaffe, where he focused on environmental and municipal issues.
Friday, March 09, 2007
Freedom board rejects wind turbines
FREEDOM — The town’s Board of Appeals has rejected plans to erect three electricity generating wind turbines on Beaver Ridge.
After four weeks of hearings, the board late Thursday found Portland-based Competitive Energy Service’s turbines would not meet town standards for noise, said Addison Chase, chairman of the appeals board. The board also ruled that CES must post bonding for future demolition of the turbines.
The planning Board approved CES’s application in December. Planning board members agreed with a study that determined the turbines would not exceed the 45 decibel limit set in the ordinance.
The vote was 3 to 0. Francis Walker abstained from the vote. Appeals board members determined that the study had been based on faulty ambient, or background, noise levels, Chase said.
The planning board had required CES to post a bond for the construction phase, but Chase said the ordinance clearly requires the company to bond for future demolition as well.
CES can appeal Thursday’s decision to Waldo County Superior Court or start the process over again with the Planning Board.
After four weeks of hearings, the board late Thursday found Portland-based Competitive Energy Service’s turbines would not meet town standards for noise, said Addison Chase, chairman of the appeals board. The board also ruled that CES must post bonding for future demolition of the turbines.
The planning Board approved CES’s application in December. Planning board members agreed with a study that determined the turbines would not exceed the 45 decibel limit set in the ordinance.
The vote was 3 to 0. Francis Walker abstained from the vote. Appeals board members determined that the study had been based on faulty ambient, or background, noise levels, Chase said.
The planning board had required CES to post a bond for the construction phase, but Chase said the ordinance clearly requires the company to bond for future demolition as well.
CES can appeal Thursday’s decision to Waldo County Superior Court or start the process over again with the Planning Board.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Was he fired illegally? by Jack Jones - The Naples Record
The following article was published in the Naples Record on March 7, 2007. Used with permission.
The Cohocton front in the raging regional windmill war has apparently claimed its first victim. Former Cohocton Code Enforcement Officer Curt Helf said during an interview last week that he was fired for refusing to obey an allegedly illegal directive issued by Cohocton Supervisor Jack Zigenfus. Helf and others said the directive will help pave the way for a controversial wind farm project that Zigenfus and other members of the Cohocton Town Board are backing.
If projects now on the drawing boards survive in Cohocton and other towns surrounding Naples, critics charge that the erection of dozens of industrial towers, each standing over 400 feet tall, would be placed on scenic hilltops throughout the area, wreaking havoc with the region's booming tourism industry and creating health and safety hazards for area residents.
In the most recent Cohocton skirmish, Helf said he was fired because he refused an order by the Cohocton supervisor to revoke building permits he had issued to property owners who want to build small cabins and cottages on properties that might interfere with the siting of massive wind towers. The towers are being proposed for the town by the Newton, Ma.-based UPC Corp., a privately-owned company that stands to reap millions of taxpayer dollars for putting up the controversial towers that critics around the world have charged are based on ineffective and unreliable technology. The projects around the country are being supported by politicians, including presidential candidate and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, and funded by federal and state legislatures under pressure to cut pollution and reduce the nation's dependence on fossil fuels.
(click to read the entire article)
The Cohocton front in the raging regional windmill war has apparently claimed its first victim. Former Cohocton Code Enforcement Officer Curt Helf said during an interview last week that he was fired for refusing to obey an allegedly illegal directive issued by Cohocton Supervisor Jack Zigenfus. Helf and others said the directive will help pave the way for a controversial wind farm project that Zigenfus and other members of the Cohocton Town Board are backing.
If projects now on the drawing boards survive in Cohocton and other towns surrounding Naples, critics charge that the erection of dozens of industrial towers, each standing over 400 feet tall, would be placed on scenic hilltops throughout the area, wreaking havoc with the region's booming tourism industry and creating health and safety hazards for area residents.
In the most recent Cohocton skirmish, Helf said he was fired because he refused an order by the Cohocton supervisor to revoke building permits he had issued to property owners who want to build small cabins and cottages on properties that might interfere with the siting of massive wind towers. The towers are being proposed for the town by the Newton, Ma.-based UPC Corp., a privately-owned company that stands to reap millions of taxpayer dollars for putting up the controversial towers that critics around the world have charged are based on ineffective and unreliable technology. The projects around the country are being supported by politicians, including presidential candidate and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, and funded by federal and state legislatures under pressure to cut pollution and reduce the nation's dependence on fossil fuels.
(click to read the entire article)
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
SCIDA Minutes - Proves Illegal Actions
C%3A%5CDocuments%20and%20Settings%5Csartre%5CMy%20Documents%5CWindFarm%5CAlice%5C2007aipminutes.pdf
SCIDA minutes url: http://www.steubencony.org/aipminutes.pdf
(NOTE save into a differnt folder or previous minutes will be overwritten)
James Hall
STEUBEN COUNTY AGRICULTURE, INDUSTRY & PLANNING COMMITTEE
Monday, February 5, 2007 11:00 a.m. Legislative Committee Conference Room Steuben County Office Building
Bath, New York **MINUTES** COMMITTEE: Donald B. Creath, Chair Kenneth E. Isaman DeWitt T. Baker, D.V.M., Vice Chair Thomas J. Ryan Dan C. Farrand STAFF: Mark R. Alger William J. Partridge Frederick H. Ahrens, Jr. Amy Dlugos Chris Kane Twila O’Dell David English LEGISLATORS: Philip J. Roche
OTHER: James P. Sherron, Executive Director, Steuben County Industrial Development Agency
Mary Perham, The Leader
Dave Shoen, WENY
I. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Creath called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Creath opened the floor for comments by members of the public. There being none, he declared the opportunity for public comment closed.
III. CORRESPONDENCE Mr. Creath distributed a copy of a letter written by Graham and Dee Wightman to both Assemblyman Bacalles and Senator Winner voicing their opposition to the legalization of rifles for big game hunting in Steuben County. He also distributed a copy of a letter written by Kenneth L. Baer to the Editor who also was voicing his concerns regarding the legalization of rifles for big game hunting.
IV. OUTSIDE AGENCY REPORTS A. Steuben County Industrial Development Agency 1. Windmills – Mr. Sherron distributed a handout depicting the status of various windmill projects throughout Steuben County. Ecogen is looking at placing a wind farm in both Prattsburgh and Italy. The Town of Italy has as this point not written a letter of support. The Ecogen project in Prattsburgh is moving right along and they anticipate breaking ground in 2007. Clipper Winds is looking at projects in both the Town of Hornby in Steuben County and the Town of Orange in Schuyler County. Clipper Winds has a number of projects going throughout the country, which has slowed down their progress in Hornby, but they are ready to start up again and will be proceeding at a much more rapid pace. Airtricity has proposed doing projects in both the town of Hartsville and Hornellsville, however, they have only received a letter of approval from the Town of Hartsville.
Mr. Isaman commented the Town of Hornellsville has sent out a survey/study to their residents, which they will review at their Board meeting on February 13, 2007. They are also looking at the laws and have hired a legal firm from Albany to help them develop laws for windmills and to tweak their zoning laws. Mr. Sherron commented we will not go forward with the Town of Hornellsville until we receive a letter of support.
Monday, February 5, 2007
1
Mr. Sherron stated Global/UPC have a partnership for two projects in the towns of Prattsburgh and Italy. The project for Prattsburgh is a go and we expect to have the final EIS within two weeks. They will break ground during 2007. The Town of Cohocton is acting as lead agency for the Canandaigua Power Partners project in the Town of Cohocton.
Everpower is looking to do a project in the Town of Howard and we are expecting to receive the draft EIS this month. We are insisting that we receive it before our Board meeting so that the board members and our consultants can review it. Mr. Sherron commented that it is very difficult to give an estimate on the total number of towers and wattage as those numbers are constantly changing. We are working under the premise that they will enjoy the same benefits as if they were in the Empire Zone. They will be assessed full value and pay taxes according to that.
Mr. Isaman asked has the Town of Italy not been challenged? Mr. Sherron replied they have been. They are saying at this point that they are not putting a project there. They may change their mind. Mr. Isaman asked is an Empire Development Zone a possibility for these projects? Mr. Sherron replied yes. They are not taking our acreage, but they will be targeted as if they were. The applications won’t go to the local Empire Zone, but instead will go to Empire State Development.
2. Industrial Park – Mr. Sherron informed the committee that ten years ago when he became Director, we had talked about the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency taking ownership of the park and having something to offer to potential businesses coming to the area. We put together a shovel ready program and contributed $50,000 and the Empire State Development contributed $50,000 and we cleaned it up. We have been keeping up the rail to that point at least in operational condition as was utilized when they brought in the components for the Jail Expansion Project. That area is so important because of the rail services. Businesses are looking for access to the interstate and it’s still a good site. Mr. Sherron commented we had Industrial Gasket that were going to build a plant and decided to move their operations out-of-state. Then Bath National Bank was going to build a data processing center. The plans for that project were completed, but then they were sold. We had a diesel manufacturing facility that did plans and they needed rail services. They found that on the Addison Road. As they were going to have a lot of truck traffic, they didn’t want to have it go through the Village of Bath. Then we had the Pastof Facility that was interested in our park over a year ago. They had a 24-hour operation that was going to employ 120 people. The principals came twice and looked at our property and we were looking at how to accommodate them. However, they were very sensitive to electric rates and it didn’t make sense for them to come to this area.
Mr. Sherron stated then we focused on looking for someone what wasn’t as sensitive to the electric rates and we came up with Smart Systems. They have since decided to stay in the building where they are currently located. We are hopeful they will still go forward. We are not doing anything different than we have in the past. We still have something that we can throw out there. We have other small projects located in the county.
Dr. Baker asked are the electric rates a big factor? Mr. Sherron replied they were for the industry that was thinking of coming here and needed multiple ovens, etc. When that industry ran the numbers, they determined it would cost them $20 million more to operate here, then to go somewhere else. With other companies, such as Smart Systems, it’s not such a factor, but if the business requires a lot of electricity, then it is tough.
Dr. Baker asked is there anything that can be done? Mr. Sherron replied we did set up a meeting with NYSEG and municipal electric. We did have an agreement years ago with NYSEG that they would allow the municipal electric to bid against it. However, he has had a problem resurrecting that agreement.
Mr. Creath asked what about alternative fuels? Mr. Sherron replied there is Bell Independent Power that is interested in having an ethanol operation, however, that is difficult as you have the question of how to get the product up the hill. We have the railroad and perhaps someone could build a conveyor system. There is also the question of how much acreage is required to support the plant. These types of plants require a lot of acres. That is the issue we have.
Monday, February 5, 2007
2
Mr. Farrand passed around articles he found regarding ethanol and bio diesel plants. He stated that Ithaca has a $10 million grant to set up a lab to look into further plant development.
Mr. Sherron stated there has been talk of creating ethanol through cellulose, which makes more sense. To bring one million acres of corn into production is tough. We want to support whatever might be out there. With the Avoca Gas Project, we have 1,000 acres. We have allotted 40 of those acres to Bell Independent Power.
Mr. Farand complimented Mr. Sherron on the work he has done in bringing various factories and companies to our area to consider our industrial park.
V. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS/REQUESTS A. Planning 1. Agricultural Districts – Ms. Dlugos reported that they are doing their annual 303B adoption of amendments to Agricultural Districts, which ends February 15, 2007. They have received two applications. She requested the adoption of a resolution authorizing a public hearing on land submitted for inclusion in certified agricultural districts. MOTION: AUTHORIZING A PUBLIC HEARING ON LAND SUBMITTED FOR INCLUSION IN CERTIFIED AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS DURING THE 2007 ANNUAL THIRTY-DAY PERIOD MADE BY DR. BAKER. SECONDED BY MR. FARRAND. ALL BEING IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIES 5-0. Resolution Required.
B. Administrator 1. Health Care Facility – Mr. Alger stated last month the Legislature passed a resolution regarding the Health Care Facility. We are in pursuit of the replacement of the roof at the Health Care Facility and he has had a discussion with the Public Safety & Corrections Committee about combining the two roof replacements. We are proceeding in that fashion and continuing that project. He expects that they will see a resolution this month or next month. Mr. Alger requested that this committee allow the Public Safety & Corrections Committee to assume the responsibility of the replacement of the Health Care Facility roof as they will be overseeing the replacement of the Jail roof. MOTION: ALLOWING THE PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONS COMMITTEE TO ASSUME
OVERSIGHT OF THE ROOF REPLACEMENT AT THE HEALTH CARE FACILITY IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ROOF REPLACEMENT AT THE JAIL MADE BY MR. FARRAND. SECONDED BY DR. BAKER. ALL BEING IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIES 5-0.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS A. Rifle Hunting – Mr. Creath commented the State law that is being proposed is for Yates, Steuben and Schuyler counties. The old rule is slug shot rifles for deer hunting. Every other county is allowing rifles and semiautomatics. Bills are currently being prepared to upgrade the laws for Yates, Steuben and Schuyler counties. Mr. Creath stated that he has talked with Assemblyman Bacalles and these bills are at the point of being presented to the Legislature. Do we want to consider this question and made any statement of position? Mr. Farrand commented prior to these individuals writing to Senator Winner, his office had contacted several sportsmen’s federations the first time that these bills had been offered up about four years ago. All of the sportsman’s federations came back and said they didn’t have an opinion. At that time, the Senator did not introduce those bills for our area. After it was passed, it came about that several of the federations in the County were upset that we were not included. We reminded them at the time we contacted them they didn’t have any opinions either way. They felt we needed to have equal footing and a resolution was sent to the Senator and Assemblyman and that’s how the second bill came about.
Mr. Ryan commented the federations are unanimous in their support of this legislation. Mr. Farrand stated he can understand those individuals writing and being against this, but the majority of the sportsmen are for it and he doesn’t want to turn his back on them. We could put feelers out to the federations ourselves. He commented that Mr. Creath, as Chairman of the committee could send out a letter to the sportsman federations asking for their input.
Mr. Ryan stated he is the secretary for the Sportsman’s Federation, so Mr. Creath could send the letter directly to him. We could have members of the federation come in next month.
Monday, February 5, 2007
3
Mr. Farrand stated last year, Allegany County did not have one incident happen as a result of the new law. With the shortage of hunters today, you will have experienced hunters who will be using the rifles.
Mr. Ryan commented the safe hunter education programs are very well done. It is a two-day course and all participants must pass a written test. Statistics show that hunting accidents have gone down since we have had the hunter education course.
Mr. Creath commented there is a separate legislative initiative to lower the hunting age to 12. Dr. Baker commented 12 is too low. Mr. Ryan stated a lot of it is a cultural thing. Rural folks have hunting traditions that go back years. Mr. Creath stated the age legislation carries a requirement of parental permission and that they have to hunt in the company of an individual 18 years or older. Mr. Farrand stated that is for big game hunting. They have to have the hunter safety course and be accompanied by a parent or guardian.
The consensus of the committee was to have Mr. Creath, in his capacity as Chairman of the AIP Committee, write a letter to all of the sportsman federations in the County asking for their opinion about these legislative initiatives and to invite anyone interested to speak, to the March meeting. The committee determined that a letter should also be sent to the Steuben County Farm Bureau.
Mr. Alger commented it is important to note that with the use of handguns for sporting now, some inline handguns are essentially a rifle. It’s a mix right now. Opening it up to general rifle is not much different.
MOTION: TO ADJOURN REGULAR SESSION AND RECONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO PUBLIC OFFICER’S LAW, ARTICLE 7§ 105.1.F. THE MEDICAL, FINANCIAL, CREDIT OR EMPLOYMENT HISTORY OF A PARTICULAR PERSON OR CORPORATION, OR MATTERS LEADING TO THE APPOINTMENT, EMPLOYMENT, PROMOTION, DEMOTION, DISCIPLINE, SUSPENSION, DISMISSAL OR REMOVAL OF A PARTICULAR PERSON OR CORPORATION MADE BY MR. ISAMAN. SECONDED BY MR. FARRAND. ALL BEING IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIES 5-0.
MOTION: APPROVING THE HALL OF FAME NOMINATIONS AS SUBMITTED BY THE HALL OF FAME COMMITTEE AND FORWARDING TO THE FULL LEGISLATURE FOR THEIR REVIEW AND APPROVAL MADE BY DR. BAKER. SECONDED BY MR. ISAMAN. ALL BEING IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIES 5-0.
MOTION: TO ADJOURN EXECUTIVE SESSION AND RECONVENE IN REGULAR SESSION MADE BY MR. FARRAND. SECONDED BY DR. BAKER. ALL BEING IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIES 5-0.
MOTION: TO ADJOURN MADE BY MR. ISAMAN. SECONDED BY MR. FARRAND. ALL BEING IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIES 5-0.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Amanda L. Chapman Senior Stenographer Steuben County Legislature
NEXT MEETING SCHEDULED FOR **PLEASE NOTE CHANGE** ****PPLLEEAASSEENNOOTTEECCHHAANNGGEE****Tuesday, March 6, 2007**PLEASE NOTE CHANGE** ****PPLLEEAASSEENNOOTTEECCHHAANNGGEE**** @ 11:00 a.m.
Please send agenda items to the Clerk of the Legislature's Office
NO LATER THAN NOON
Monday, January 29, 2007.
Monday, February 5, 2007
SCIDA minutes url: http://www.steubencony.org/aipminutes.pdf
(NOTE save into a differnt folder or previous minutes will be overwritten)
James Hall
STEUBEN COUNTY AGRICULTURE, INDUSTRY & PLANNING COMMITTEE
Monday, February 5, 2007 11:00 a.m. Legislative Committee Conference Room Steuben County Office Building
Bath, New York **MINUTES** COMMITTEE: Donald B. Creath, Chair Kenneth E. Isaman DeWitt T. Baker, D.V.M., Vice Chair Thomas J. Ryan Dan C. Farrand STAFF: Mark R. Alger William J. Partridge Frederick H. Ahrens, Jr. Amy Dlugos Chris Kane Twila O’Dell David English LEGISLATORS: Philip J. Roche
OTHER: James P. Sherron, Executive Director, Steuben County Industrial Development Agency
Mary Perham, The Leader
Dave Shoen, WENY
I. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Creath called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Creath opened the floor for comments by members of the public. There being none, he declared the opportunity for public comment closed.
III. CORRESPONDENCE Mr. Creath distributed a copy of a letter written by Graham and Dee Wightman to both Assemblyman Bacalles and Senator Winner voicing their opposition to the legalization of rifles for big game hunting in Steuben County. He also distributed a copy of a letter written by Kenneth L. Baer to the Editor who also was voicing his concerns regarding the legalization of rifles for big game hunting.
IV. OUTSIDE AGENCY REPORTS A. Steuben County Industrial Development Agency 1. Windmills – Mr. Sherron distributed a handout depicting the status of various windmill projects throughout Steuben County. Ecogen is looking at placing a wind farm in both Prattsburgh and Italy. The Town of Italy has as this point not written a letter of support. The Ecogen project in Prattsburgh is moving right along and they anticipate breaking ground in 2007. Clipper Winds is looking at projects in both the Town of Hornby in Steuben County and the Town of Orange in Schuyler County. Clipper Winds has a number of projects going throughout the country, which has slowed down their progress in Hornby, but they are ready to start up again and will be proceeding at a much more rapid pace. Airtricity has proposed doing projects in both the town of Hartsville and Hornellsville, however, they have only received a letter of approval from the Town of Hartsville.
Mr. Isaman commented the Town of Hornellsville has sent out a survey/study to their residents, which they will review at their Board meeting on February 13, 2007. They are also looking at the laws and have hired a legal firm from Albany to help them develop laws for windmills and to tweak their zoning laws. Mr. Sherron commented we will not go forward with the Town of Hornellsville until we receive a letter of support.
Monday, February 5, 2007
1
Mr. Sherron stated Global/UPC have a partnership for two projects in the towns of Prattsburgh and Italy. The project for Prattsburgh is a go and we expect to have the final EIS within two weeks. They will break ground during 2007. The Town of Cohocton is acting as lead agency for the Canandaigua Power Partners project in the Town of Cohocton.
Everpower is looking to do a project in the Town of Howard and we are expecting to receive the draft EIS this month. We are insisting that we receive it before our Board meeting so that the board members and our consultants can review it. Mr. Sherron commented that it is very difficult to give an estimate on the total number of towers and wattage as those numbers are constantly changing. We are working under the premise that they will enjoy the same benefits as if they were in the Empire Zone. They will be assessed full value and pay taxes according to that.
Mr. Isaman asked has the Town of Italy not been challenged? Mr. Sherron replied they have been. They are saying at this point that they are not putting a project there. They may change their mind. Mr. Isaman asked is an Empire Development Zone a possibility for these projects? Mr. Sherron replied yes. They are not taking our acreage, but they will be targeted as if they were. The applications won’t go to the local Empire Zone, but instead will go to Empire State Development.
2. Industrial Park – Mr. Sherron informed the committee that ten years ago when he became Director, we had talked about the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency taking ownership of the park and having something to offer to potential businesses coming to the area. We put together a shovel ready program and contributed $50,000 and the Empire State Development contributed $50,000 and we cleaned it up. We have been keeping up the rail to that point at least in operational condition as was utilized when they brought in the components for the Jail Expansion Project. That area is so important because of the rail services. Businesses are looking for access to the interstate and it’s still a good site. Mr. Sherron commented we had Industrial Gasket that were going to build a plant and decided to move their operations out-of-state. Then Bath National Bank was going to build a data processing center. The plans for that project were completed, but then they were sold. We had a diesel manufacturing facility that did plans and they needed rail services. They found that on the Addison Road. As they were going to have a lot of truck traffic, they didn’t want to have it go through the Village of Bath. Then we had the Pastof Facility that was interested in our park over a year ago. They had a 24-hour operation that was going to employ 120 people. The principals came twice and looked at our property and we were looking at how to accommodate them. However, they were very sensitive to electric rates and it didn’t make sense for them to come to this area.
Mr. Sherron stated then we focused on looking for someone what wasn’t as sensitive to the electric rates and we came up with Smart Systems. They have since decided to stay in the building where they are currently located. We are hopeful they will still go forward. We are not doing anything different than we have in the past. We still have something that we can throw out there. We have other small projects located in the county.
Dr. Baker asked are the electric rates a big factor? Mr. Sherron replied they were for the industry that was thinking of coming here and needed multiple ovens, etc. When that industry ran the numbers, they determined it would cost them $20 million more to operate here, then to go somewhere else. With other companies, such as Smart Systems, it’s not such a factor, but if the business requires a lot of electricity, then it is tough.
Dr. Baker asked is there anything that can be done? Mr. Sherron replied we did set up a meeting with NYSEG and municipal electric. We did have an agreement years ago with NYSEG that they would allow the municipal electric to bid against it. However, he has had a problem resurrecting that agreement.
Mr. Creath asked what about alternative fuels? Mr. Sherron replied there is Bell Independent Power that is interested in having an ethanol operation, however, that is difficult as you have the question of how to get the product up the hill. We have the railroad and perhaps someone could build a conveyor system. There is also the question of how much acreage is required to support the plant. These types of plants require a lot of acres. That is the issue we have.
Monday, February 5, 2007
2
Mr. Farrand passed around articles he found regarding ethanol and bio diesel plants. He stated that Ithaca has a $10 million grant to set up a lab to look into further plant development.
Mr. Sherron stated there has been talk of creating ethanol through cellulose, which makes more sense. To bring one million acres of corn into production is tough. We want to support whatever might be out there. With the Avoca Gas Project, we have 1,000 acres. We have allotted 40 of those acres to Bell Independent Power.
Mr. Farand complimented Mr. Sherron on the work he has done in bringing various factories and companies to our area to consider our industrial park.
V. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS/REQUESTS A. Planning 1. Agricultural Districts – Ms. Dlugos reported that they are doing their annual 303B adoption of amendments to Agricultural Districts, which ends February 15, 2007. They have received two applications. She requested the adoption of a resolution authorizing a public hearing on land submitted for inclusion in certified agricultural districts. MOTION: AUTHORIZING A PUBLIC HEARING ON LAND SUBMITTED FOR INCLUSION IN CERTIFIED AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS DURING THE 2007 ANNUAL THIRTY-DAY PERIOD MADE BY DR. BAKER. SECONDED BY MR. FARRAND. ALL BEING IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIES 5-0. Resolution Required.
B. Administrator 1. Health Care Facility – Mr. Alger stated last month the Legislature passed a resolution regarding the Health Care Facility. We are in pursuit of the replacement of the roof at the Health Care Facility and he has had a discussion with the Public Safety & Corrections Committee about combining the two roof replacements. We are proceeding in that fashion and continuing that project. He expects that they will see a resolution this month or next month. Mr. Alger requested that this committee allow the Public Safety & Corrections Committee to assume the responsibility of the replacement of the Health Care Facility roof as they will be overseeing the replacement of the Jail roof. MOTION: ALLOWING THE PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONS COMMITTEE TO ASSUME
OVERSIGHT OF THE ROOF REPLACEMENT AT THE HEALTH CARE FACILITY IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ROOF REPLACEMENT AT THE JAIL MADE BY MR. FARRAND. SECONDED BY DR. BAKER. ALL BEING IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIES 5-0.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS A. Rifle Hunting – Mr. Creath commented the State law that is being proposed is for Yates, Steuben and Schuyler counties. The old rule is slug shot rifles for deer hunting. Every other county is allowing rifles and semiautomatics. Bills are currently being prepared to upgrade the laws for Yates, Steuben and Schuyler counties. Mr. Creath stated that he has talked with Assemblyman Bacalles and these bills are at the point of being presented to the Legislature. Do we want to consider this question and made any statement of position? Mr. Farrand commented prior to these individuals writing to Senator Winner, his office had contacted several sportsmen’s federations the first time that these bills had been offered up about four years ago. All of the sportsman’s federations came back and said they didn’t have an opinion. At that time, the Senator did not introduce those bills for our area. After it was passed, it came about that several of the federations in the County were upset that we were not included. We reminded them at the time we contacted them they didn’t have any opinions either way. They felt we needed to have equal footing and a resolution was sent to the Senator and Assemblyman and that’s how the second bill came about.
Mr. Ryan commented the federations are unanimous in their support of this legislation. Mr. Farrand stated he can understand those individuals writing and being against this, but the majority of the sportsmen are for it and he doesn’t want to turn his back on them. We could put feelers out to the federations ourselves. He commented that Mr. Creath, as Chairman of the committee could send out a letter to the sportsman federations asking for their input.
Mr. Ryan stated he is the secretary for the Sportsman’s Federation, so Mr. Creath could send the letter directly to him. We could have members of the federation come in next month.
Monday, February 5, 2007
3
Mr. Farrand stated last year, Allegany County did not have one incident happen as a result of the new law. With the shortage of hunters today, you will have experienced hunters who will be using the rifles.
Mr. Ryan commented the safe hunter education programs are very well done. It is a two-day course and all participants must pass a written test. Statistics show that hunting accidents have gone down since we have had the hunter education course.
Mr. Creath commented there is a separate legislative initiative to lower the hunting age to 12. Dr. Baker commented 12 is too low. Mr. Ryan stated a lot of it is a cultural thing. Rural folks have hunting traditions that go back years. Mr. Creath stated the age legislation carries a requirement of parental permission and that they have to hunt in the company of an individual 18 years or older. Mr. Farrand stated that is for big game hunting. They have to have the hunter safety course and be accompanied by a parent or guardian.
The consensus of the committee was to have Mr. Creath, in his capacity as Chairman of the AIP Committee, write a letter to all of the sportsman federations in the County asking for their opinion about these legislative initiatives and to invite anyone interested to speak, to the March meeting. The committee determined that a letter should also be sent to the Steuben County Farm Bureau.
Mr. Alger commented it is important to note that with the use of handguns for sporting now, some inline handguns are essentially a rifle. It’s a mix right now. Opening it up to general rifle is not much different.
MOTION: TO ADJOURN REGULAR SESSION AND RECONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO PUBLIC OFFICER’S LAW, ARTICLE 7§ 105.1.F. THE MEDICAL, FINANCIAL, CREDIT OR EMPLOYMENT HISTORY OF A PARTICULAR PERSON OR CORPORATION, OR MATTERS LEADING TO THE APPOINTMENT, EMPLOYMENT, PROMOTION, DEMOTION, DISCIPLINE, SUSPENSION, DISMISSAL OR REMOVAL OF A PARTICULAR PERSON OR CORPORATION MADE BY MR. ISAMAN. SECONDED BY MR. FARRAND. ALL BEING IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIES 5-0.
MOTION: APPROVING THE HALL OF FAME NOMINATIONS AS SUBMITTED BY THE HALL OF FAME COMMITTEE AND FORWARDING TO THE FULL LEGISLATURE FOR THEIR REVIEW AND APPROVAL MADE BY DR. BAKER. SECONDED BY MR. ISAMAN. ALL BEING IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIES 5-0.
MOTION: TO ADJOURN EXECUTIVE SESSION AND RECONVENE IN REGULAR SESSION MADE BY MR. FARRAND. SECONDED BY DR. BAKER. ALL BEING IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIES 5-0.
MOTION: TO ADJOURN MADE BY MR. ISAMAN. SECONDED BY MR. FARRAND. ALL BEING IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIES 5-0.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Amanda L. Chapman Senior Stenographer Steuben County Legislature
NEXT MEETING SCHEDULED FOR **PLEASE NOTE CHANGE** ****PPLLEEAASSEENNOOTTEECCHHAANNGGEE****Tuesday, March 6, 2007**PLEASE NOTE CHANGE** ****PPLLEEAASSEENNOOTTEECCHHAANNGGEE**** @ 11:00 a.m.
Please send agenda items to the Clerk of the Legislature's Office
NO LATER THAN NOON
Monday, January 29, 2007.
Monday, February 5, 2007
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Reform Cohocton Forum is online
All:
Just active online Reform Cohocton Forum url is: http://reformcohoctonforum.org
This is a re-direct to url:
http://www.aimoo.com/forum/freeboard.cfm?id=720494&NoCaches=Yes
Register with AIMOO.COM and upon approval post on this new community forum.
Just active online Reform Cohocton Forum url is: http://reformcohoctonforum.org
This is a re-direct to url:
http://www.aimoo.com/forum/freeboard.cfm?id=720494&NoCaches=Yes
Register with AIMOO.COM and upon approval post on this new community forum.
New England’s largest wind farm is whipping up dissent
MARS HILL, Maine — Something has turned terribly sour for about 18 homeowners who live along the mountain roads where the state’s first and only wind farm has recently gone on line. To a man and to a woman, they feel betrayed, cheated, used, ignored, and dismissed. Put them in a room and they are spitting mad. Collectively, as they gather on a Saturday morning inside a home that sits in the shadow of the turbines, their anger is barely palatable. Since the turbines started up, they say, silence has become a luxury.
Wendy Todd talks of how she grew up in Mars Hill on a potato farm, went away to college where she met her husband, Perrin, and wound up living in the greater Portland area near a major highway. Finally, pooling their resources, they bought a piece of the family farm, came back to the country and built a new home. No stranger to noise, she said they got used to highway traffic while living in a metropolitan area. But that’s not what’s happening now, living about 2,000 feet from a wind farm.
“We’re not getting used to this; we’re not getting used to this,” she says. “Whose job was it to notify residents that there could be a noise problem?”
Further north and crowding the New Brunswick border, Merle Cowperthwaite and his wife, Carol, were building their new home at about the same time the turbines came to town. They bought 70 acres on the back side of Mars Hill Mountain and built a new log home, worth roughly $200,000.
“It’s exactly what we wanted,” says Mr. Cowperthwaite, who describes himself as a fourth generation resident of Aroostook County, one of the state’s largest potato growing regions.
The retired couple has been living in their new home nearly 18 months. They have no plans to move — “One thing about this place, you move in, you stay,” say Mr. Cowperthwaite. But their quality of life with a wind farm next door is not what they expected.
“If it wasn’t for the noise, I think we’d all get used to it,” says Mrs. Cowperthwaite. “I hate everything about it, but my biggest concern is that our property we worked so hard for isn’t going to be worth anything anymore.”
UPC’s Mars Hill Windfarm is being touted as the largest wind plant to come on line in New England. The $85 million project consists of 28 turbines that stand roughly 360 feet from the base to the tip of the blade. The farm is rated with the potential of producing 42 megawatts of power.
By comparison, the 16 tower wind farm proposed by UPC for Sheffield, Vermont, would have the capacity to produce 40 megawatts of power. Turbines at the Sheffield site would be taller, 420 feet, and larger, with a rating of 2.5 megawatts per turbine, as compared to 1.5 megawatts at the Maine site.
According to company estimates, the Mars Hill project, which operates under the name of Evergreen Wind Power Company out of Bangor, Maine, is expected to be fully operational by mid-March. Presently, the project is still in its commissioning phase and operating at 75 percent, according to UPC operations manager Ryan Fonbuena, who spoke in an interview Tuesday from his Maine office.
Mr. Fonbuena referred questions about noise complaints to his boss, Michael Alvarez, who is UPC’s chief operational manager. In an interview Tuesday, Mr. Alvarez said the company is addressing the noise complaints by conducting a second round of tests.
Unlike the first round, which were based on computer simulations, these tests will measure the actual noise coming from individual, turbines.
“We want to address the neighbors’ concerns, but we need the test results,” Mr. Alvarez said.
Test results are expected to be available in eight to nine weeks. According to Mr. Alvarez, the tests, whose protocol has been approved by Maine’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), will determine if the turbines are operating within the permit’s noise limits.
Complaints about turbine noise continue to be filed with the state’s Department of Environmental Protection — up from four to ten in roughly the last 30 days.
Complaints are generally coming from residents who live on the north, or what locals call the back side of the mountain. The neighbors live on East Ridge Road or the Mountain Road, and generally fall into two groups: young with children or retired. Among the 12 residents who gathered at the Cowperthwaite residence on February 17 to talk to the Chronicle were a state trooper and his wife, who works with autistic children at their home; a production supervisor at a potato processing plant; two or three teachers; a town selectman; a retired deputy sheriff; and a businessman.
Complaints over turbine noise may have brought the group together, yet their concerns reflect issues that go to the heart of what makes a town government work.
The town, Mars Hill, was a co-applicant with UPC in getting the project permitted. But in the eyes of this group, in doing so the town compromised itself and left its citizens in the dark. By the time public meetings were held, they charge, the wind farm was already a reality.
An abutting landowner to the project, Ted Hawksley, says he first learned about a wind farm coming to his neighborhood on the evening news. A public meeting was held at the regional high school, but members of the group say it — was only “window dressing.”
Mr. Hawksley says he raised concerns at that meeting, but was told “it was a done deal” and a private transaction between the company and owners of the property where the towers were to be sited.
Members of the group suspect that the meeting was only held to comply with state regulations.
“They held it so they could say they had it,” says Kevin Jackins.
Whatever the intent, the public meeting did not satisfy the group’s expectations that town officials would look out for their concerns.
“It’s unfair that residents have to take legal counsel to a town meeting to make sure our rights aren’t being squashed,” says Mrs. Todd. Overall, she adds, the developers and the town left them feeling that when it comes to wind turbines, “you wouldn’t be a good American citizen if you didn’t agree they were a good thing to bring into your community.”
Complaints about noise have not brought the group an outpouring of support.
“We are portrayed as whiners, complainers, troublemakers,” says Mr. Hawksley, whose mobile home sits on the back side of the mountain. As a homestead, it could be a scene straight out of a 1970s back to the land movie, right down to the horses idyllically grazing inside the fence. But it’s a scene that could change dramatically.
Ever since he was a kid, Mr. Hawksley dreamed of the day he could live in his own place in the country. Now living in a mobile home, he is thinking of what he would leave behind if time should ever come to pull up stakes. He would post a sign saying:
“This empty lot brought to you courtesy of Evergreen Wind and the Mars Hill Town Council.”
As far as the possibility of turbine noise becoming an issue, he adds, “No one had any idea.”
As one of the selectman who voted against the project, Sam Mahan says he had a change of heart. At first he supported putting a wind farm on Mars Hill, and then he turned against it as his own concerns went unanswered. The town will receive an initial payment of $500,000 from the company, which will drop to $250,000 for the years to come. But money or added compensation is not the issue that is driving the protest.
These homeowners would rather “pay their full taxes and get their lives back,” says Mr. Mahan, who will run in March for another term on the Mars Hill Town Council. “It’s time people take their town back.”
Mars Hill has a ridge line that extends about four miles. The turbines are spaced 140 meters apart, or about 460 feet. According to Mr. Fonbuena, the distance is the standard recommended by General Electric, the turbine’s manufacturer. The mountain rises to an elevation of 1,700 feet, and the turbines run from along the mountain’s top and down the eastern slope to about shouting distance from the East Ridge Road.
Kevin Jackins and his wife, Wanda, both teachers, live with their two boys about 2,400 feet from one of the wind farm’s turbines. They built a house in 1990 on land they bought from Mrs. Jackins’ family, and over the years built an addition and added a cabin next to a stream.
The noise they hear from the turbine varies with weather conditions. At its worst, according to Mr. Jackins, it’s a pulsating noise that can be as loud as a freight train. He says it penetrates the house to the point where he can no longer sit in his recliner and watch television.
Equally frustrating, says Mrs. Jackins, the family never knows when the noise is going to start up again. It’s irregular and unpredictable.
“They come and go,” she says of the turbine noises. “But you never know when — that’s the trouble.”
“I think the wind direction has a lot to do with it,” says Mr. Jackins. “When the blades face us, the sound is much more profound.”
Like others in the group, Mr. Jackins is upset that both the town and the company downplayed the possibility that turbine noise may have an adverse impact on the wind farm’s neighbors.
“It was clear from the very beginning that noise wasn’t going to be an issue,” recalls Wanda’s sister, Wendy Todd.
But Mr, Jackins says a sound analysis performed for UPC in 2003 by a Brunswick, Maine, engineering firm should have raised a red flag. He has highlighted the study’s cautionary passage with a yellow marker.
“The results of this preliminary analysis indicate potential exists for the wind farm to generate sound levels at or above Maine DEP residential quiet area limits at several nearby parcels.”
A longtime subscriber to the magazine Mother Earth, Mr. Jackins says he believes in renewable energy and the need to replace fossil fuels. But in a letter this month to the magazine, he sounds a dire warning. Since the turbines started up, he says, he must live with noise that can be heard inside his house with all the windows closed. “These massive turbines do not belong near people’s homes,” he writes. “Eighteen families around the mountain have had their property values greatly diminished as well as their quality of life. My children are the fourth generation of our family to live on this land and most likely will be the last.”
by Paul Lefebvre
The Barton (Vt.) Chronicle
Feb. 21, 2007
Wendy Todd talks of how she grew up in Mars Hill on a potato farm, went away to college where she met her husband, Perrin, and wound up living in the greater Portland area near a major highway. Finally, pooling their resources, they bought a piece of the family farm, came back to the country and built a new home. No stranger to noise, she said they got used to highway traffic while living in a metropolitan area. But that’s not what’s happening now, living about 2,000 feet from a wind farm.
“We’re not getting used to this; we’re not getting used to this,” she says. “Whose job was it to notify residents that there could be a noise problem?”
Further north and crowding the New Brunswick border, Merle Cowperthwaite and his wife, Carol, were building their new home at about the same time the turbines came to town. They bought 70 acres on the back side of Mars Hill Mountain and built a new log home, worth roughly $200,000.
“It’s exactly what we wanted,” says Mr. Cowperthwaite, who describes himself as a fourth generation resident of Aroostook County, one of the state’s largest potato growing regions.
The retired couple has been living in their new home nearly 18 months. They have no plans to move — “One thing about this place, you move in, you stay,” say Mr. Cowperthwaite. But their quality of life with a wind farm next door is not what they expected.
“If it wasn’t for the noise, I think we’d all get used to it,” says Mrs. Cowperthwaite. “I hate everything about it, but my biggest concern is that our property we worked so hard for isn’t going to be worth anything anymore.”
UPC’s Mars Hill Windfarm is being touted as the largest wind plant to come on line in New England. The $85 million project consists of 28 turbines that stand roughly 360 feet from the base to the tip of the blade. The farm is rated with the potential of producing 42 megawatts of power.
By comparison, the 16 tower wind farm proposed by UPC for Sheffield, Vermont, would have the capacity to produce 40 megawatts of power. Turbines at the Sheffield site would be taller, 420 feet, and larger, with a rating of 2.5 megawatts per turbine, as compared to 1.5 megawatts at the Maine site.
According to company estimates, the Mars Hill project, which operates under the name of Evergreen Wind Power Company out of Bangor, Maine, is expected to be fully operational by mid-March. Presently, the project is still in its commissioning phase and operating at 75 percent, according to UPC operations manager Ryan Fonbuena, who spoke in an interview Tuesday from his Maine office.
Mr. Fonbuena referred questions about noise complaints to his boss, Michael Alvarez, who is UPC’s chief operational manager. In an interview Tuesday, Mr. Alvarez said the company is addressing the noise complaints by conducting a second round of tests.
Unlike the first round, which were based on computer simulations, these tests will measure the actual noise coming from individual, turbines.
“We want to address the neighbors’ concerns, but we need the test results,” Mr. Alvarez said.
Test results are expected to be available in eight to nine weeks. According to Mr. Alvarez, the tests, whose protocol has been approved by Maine’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), will determine if the turbines are operating within the permit’s noise limits.
Complaints about turbine noise continue to be filed with the state’s Department of Environmental Protection — up from four to ten in roughly the last 30 days.
Complaints are generally coming from residents who live on the north, or what locals call the back side of the mountain. The neighbors live on East Ridge Road or the Mountain Road, and generally fall into two groups: young with children or retired. Among the 12 residents who gathered at the Cowperthwaite residence on February 17 to talk to the Chronicle were a state trooper and his wife, who works with autistic children at their home; a production supervisor at a potato processing plant; two or three teachers; a town selectman; a retired deputy sheriff; and a businessman.
Complaints over turbine noise may have brought the group together, yet their concerns reflect issues that go to the heart of what makes a town government work.
The town, Mars Hill, was a co-applicant with UPC in getting the project permitted. But in the eyes of this group, in doing so the town compromised itself and left its citizens in the dark. By the time public meetings were held, they charge, the wind farm was already a reality.
An abutting landowner to the project, Ted Hawksley, says he first learned about a wind farm coming to his neighborhood on the evening news. A public meeting was held at the regional high school, but members of the group say it — was only “window dressing.”
Mr. Hawksley says he raised concerns at that meeting, but was told “it was a done deal” and a private transaction between the company and owners of the property where the towers were to be sited.
Members of the group suspect that the meeting was only held to comply with state regulations.
“They held it so they could say they had it,” says Kevin Jackins.
Whatever the intent, the public meeting did not satisfy the group’s expectations that town officials would look out for their concerns.
“It’s unfair that residents have to take legal counsel to a town meeting to make sure our rights aren’t being squashed,” says Mrs. Todd. Overall, she adds, the developers and the town left them feeling that when it comes to wind turbines, “you wouldn’t be a good American citizen if you didn’t agree they were a good thing to bring into your community.”
Complaints about noise have not brought the group an outpouring of support.
“We are portrayed as whiners, complainers, troublemakers,” says Mr. Hawksley, whose mobile home sits on the back side of the mountain. As a homestead, it could be a scene straight out of a 1970s back to the land movie, right down to the horses idyllically grazing inside the fence. But it’s a scene that could change dramatically.
Ever since he was a kid, Mr. Hawksley dreamed of the day he could live in his own place in the country. Now living in a mobile home, he is thinking of what he would leave behind if time should ever come to pull up stakes. He would post a sign saying:
“This empty lot brought to you courtesy of Evergreen Wind and the Mars Hill Town Council.”
As far as the possibility of turbine noise becoming an issue, he adds, “No one had any idea.”
As one of the selectman who voted against the project, Sam Mahan says he had a change of heart. At first he supported putting a wind farm on Mars Hill, and then he turned against it as his own concerns went unanswered. The town will receive an initial payment of $500,000 from the company, which will drop to $250,000 for the years to come. But money or added compensation is not the issue that is driving the protest.
These homeowners would rather “pay their full taxes and get their lives back,” says Mr. Mahan, who will run in March for another term on the Mars Hill Town Council. “It’s time people take their town back.”
Mars Hill has a ridge line that extends about four miles. The turbines are spaced 140 meters apart, or about 460 feet. According to Mr. Fonbuena, the distance is the standard recommended by General Electric, the turbine’s manufacturer. The mountain rises to an elevation of 1,700 feet, and the turbines run from along the mountain’s top and down the eastern slope to about shouting distance from the East Ridge Road.
Kevin Jackins and his wife, Wanda, both teachers, live with their two boys about 2,400 feet from one of the wind farm’s turbines. They built a house in 1990 on land they bought from Mrs. Jackins’ family, and over the years built an addition and added a cabin next to a stream.
The noise they hear from the turbine varies with weather conditions. At its worst, according to Mr. Jackins, it’s a pulsating noise that can be as loud as a freight train. He says it penetrates the house to the point where he can no longer sit in his recliner and watch television.
Equally frustrating, says Mrs. Jackins, the family never knows when the noise is going to start up again. It’s irregular and unpredictable.
“They come and go,” she says of the turbine noises. “But you never know when — that’s the trouble.”
“I think the wind direction has a lot to do with it,” says Mr. Jackins. “When the blades face us, the sound is much more profound.”
Like others in the group, Mr. Jackins is upset that both the town and the company downplayed the possibility that turbine noise may have an adverse impact on the wind farm’s neighbors.
“It was clear from the very beginning that noise wasn’t going to be an issue,” recalls Wanda’s sister, Wendy Todd.
But Mr, Jackins says a sound analysis performed for UPC in 2003 by a Brunswick, Maine, engineering firm should have raised a red flag. He has highlighted the study’s cautionary passage with a yellow marker.
“The results of this preliminary analysis indicate potential exists for the wind farm to generate sound levels at or above Maine DEP residential quiet area limits at several nearby parcels.”
A longtime subscriber to the magazine Mother Earth, Mr. Jackins says he believes in renewable energy and the need to replace fossil fuels. But in a letter this month to the magazine, he sounds a dire warning. Since the turbines started up, he says, he must live with noise that can be heard inside his house with all the windows closed. “These massive turbines do not belong near people’s homes,” he writes. “Eighteen families around the mountain have had their property values greatly diminished as well as their quality of life. My children are the fourth generation of our family to live on this land and most likely will be the last.”
by Paul Lefebvre
The Barton (Vt.) Chronicle
Feb. 21, 2007
Monday, March 05, 2007
Reform Cohocton, NY Community FORUM is online
Notice Announcement for a new community resource. Visit the FORUM and register to post.
Reform Cohocton, NY Forum welcomes you to a civil discussion and informative debate on local town issues. Act responsibly and communicate intelligently.
Bookmark this link:
http://www.aimoo.com/forum/freeboard.cfm?id=720494&NoCaches=Yes
Reform Cohocton, NY Forum welcomes you to a civil discussion and informative debate on local town issues. Act responsibly and communicate intelligently.
Bookmark this link:
http://www.aimoo.com/forum/freeboard.cfm?id=720494&NoCaches=Yes
Frey & Hadden, Wind turbines and health
It appears from all the research that has been done on wind turbines and wind farms that not only is the wind industry not telling you the truth, neither is your govt. When I say your govt., I am talking about all govt. bodies that are involved in the promotion and licensing of wind farms. The evidence is in. The question at this point in time is really very simple. Are you going to stand up and be counted or are you going to do nothing?
Thousands of lives have already been ruined by poorly sited wind farms, you may be next. Both the wind industry and your government knew and continue to know that these wind farms are sited too close to people. It is about economy of scale. Never forget “By the people for the people”
I don’t remember it being changed to“By the government for the corporations.”
The wind companies are in the process of sucking billions of dollars from taxpayers pockets and your govt. is helping them.
(click to read entire article)
Thousands of lives have already been ruined by poorly sited wind farms, you may be next. Both the wind industry and your government knew and continue to know that these wind farms are sited too close to people. It is about economy of scale. Never forget “By the people for the people”
I don’t remember it being changed to“By the government for the corporations.”
The wind companies are in the process of sucking billions of dollars from taxpayers pockets and your govt. is helping them.
(click to read entire article)
Submission to the Stern Review on the Economic of Climate Change
http://www.nkpw.nl/images/stories/REF%20Submission%20on%20Stern%20review.pdf
Mandatory reading for every legislator who is advocating for wind in the renewable portfolios being adopted by US states and Canadian Provinces. One wonders how the international chapters of the Wind Energy Association will respond. Will this pretty well side-line them? Other renewable sectors aren't happy with wind sucking all the $ out and not delivering on the promise of endless free energy.
Mandatory reading for every legislator who is advocating for wind in the renewable portfolios being adopted by US states and Canadian Provinces. One wonders how the international chapters of the Wind Energy Association will respond. Will this pretty well side-line them? Other renewable sectors aren't happy with wind sucking all the $ out and not delivering on the promise of endless free energy.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Farmers and scientists see risks in wind energy
The Mexican government is preparing a big wind energy project, but peasant farmers and bird experts aren’t too happy about it.
The government’s aim is for wind-generated electricity — which now accounts for just 0.005 percent of the energy generated in Mexico — to reach six percent by 2030. The project has the blessing of some big corporations and environmentalists.
Achieving that goal involves setting up more than 3,000 turbines in Mexico’s windiest zone, the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, in the southern state of Oaxaca, as well as several other wind farms around the country with dozens of turbines each.
But erecting the windmills, tall towers with a 27-metre blade span, requires negotiating with landowners, most of whom are farmers. Some have complained that they were taken advantage of when the first wind farm was created in 1994.
(click to read entire article)
The government’s aim is for wind-generated electricity — which now accounts for just 0.005 percent of the energy generated in Mexico — to reach six percent by 2030. The project has the blessing of some big corporations and environmentalists.
Achieving that goal involves setting up more than 3,000 turbines in Mexico’s windiest zone, the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, in the southern state of Oaxaca, as well as several other wind farms around the country with dozens of turbines each.
But erecting the windmills, tall towers with a 27-metre blade span, requires negotiating with landowners, most of whom are farmers. Some have complained that they were taken advantage of when the first wind farm was created in 1994.
(click to read entire article)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)