For the past 10-plus years, our county and school taxes have gone up year after year. For the past three to four years, there has been an increasing threat of industrial-type wind complexes moving into the town of Lyme and many other towns in Jefferson County.
All over this country, these so-called wind farms are built on farmland, which in many cases receives farm subsidies paid by the taxpayer. Then taxpayer money is used to subsidize wind turbines built on their land. As their land value goes up, the property values around these wind-overlay zones go down. There are many cases where people could not sell their property, and some have had to abandon their homes due to turbine noise and additional health factors. When local groups sue the towns for allowing this to happen, the taxpayer pays for their lawyer and the town's lawyer. The people in this state most know industrial wind farms are a lose-lose situation for the taxpaying public.
It is obvious that many towns in Jefferson County are lining up for wind turbine complexes around the eastern shores of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. The Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency ( JCIDA) is also encouraging these foreign wind companies to move faster and cut off the debate on the concerns for health and property value impacts that these turbines and power lines have on the local population. It is also obvious to me that little care for these concerns exists among many in our town, county and state political leadership.
We should all be asking for a minimum 30 percent reduction in our county and school taxes under the threat of wind turbines coming here. This is in line with other towns here in New York and towns in other parts of the country.
In a recent wind turbine impact study (September 2009) of Dodge and Fon DuLac counties, Wisconsin, property values went down 30 percent to 70 percent. Think about this when you go to the polls Nov. 3 to select people who represent you or some wind company from Spain where wind has proven an economic disaster for that country.
Diane Rutigliano
Three Mile Bay
Monday, October 19, 2009
Foes of Henderson wind project organize
HENDERSON — Not so fast!
Opponents of the proposed industrial wind development in the town have formed a group called Heart of Henderson.
The group, which has more than a dozen members so far, is made up of both seasonal and full-time residents of the town. They have become more vocal as the details of the possible Stony Point Wind Farm become clear. Stony Point Wind Energy LLC is backed by United Wind Energy, Mahwah, N.J.
Deborah L. Fargo started the group a few weeks ago after receiving a letter saying a meteorological test tower would be erected on a neighboring property.
"I started to look into what it would be like to live amongst wind turbines," she said. "Then I started a petition and wrote a letter in to the Jefferson County Journal and people just started coming to me."
The group quickly gained members and divided into committees to research zoning laws, environmental effects, health effects, setbacks and economic effects of wind projects.
"Turbines don't make sound science sense anywhere," Mrs. Fargo said. "They're not profitable without subsidies from the government, they're not efficient and effective, and they come at a high expense to the communities they're in."
Many members argue against wind farms anywhere.
"They're only profitable from the money the government will give them to offset the cost," Mikhail Golovey said.
Mr. Golovey holds a doctorate in physics and his expertise is in optics.
"The lights on top of the turbines don't stop 24-7," he said. "They will be an annoyance."
He and his wife came to Henderson from Florida to enjoy the serenity, pristine environment and low light pollution, he said.
"Turbines take money away from really important projects," such as more efficient transmission lines, he said.
A wind project and the proposed transmission line for Galloo Island Wind Farm will hurt business in Henderson, member Karl R. WIlliams said. He is president of the Henderson Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce and a candidate for town clerk.
"We don't want them here," Mr. Williams said. "We can't bring fishermen up from New Jersey and Hoboken and think they're going to fish in the middle of a wind farm."
"We want the town board to always keep in mind the zoning laws are written to protect citizens," Mrs. Fargo said.
ON THE NET
Heart of Henderson: www.heartofhendersonny.org
Opponents of the proposed industrial wind development in the town have formed a group called Heart of Henderson.
The group, which has more than a dozen members so far, is made up of both seasonal and full-time residents of the town. They have become more vocal as the details of the possible Stony Point Wind Farm become clear. Stony Point Wind Energy LLC is backed by United Wind Energy, Mahwah, N.J.
Deborah L. Fargo started the group a few weeks ago after receiving a letter saying a meteorological test tower would be erected on a neighboring property.
"I started to look into what it would be like to live amongst wind turbines," she said. "Then I started a petition and wrote a letter in to the Jefferson County Journal and people just started coming to me."
The group quickly gained members and divided into committees to research zoning laws, environmental effects, health effects, setbacks and economic effects of wind projects.
"Turbines don't make sound science sense anywhere," Mrs. Fargo said. "They're not profitable without subsidies from the government, they're not efficient and effective, and they come at a high expense to the communities they're in."
Many members argue against wind farms anywhere.
"They're only profitable from the money the government will give them to offset the cost," Mikhail Golovey said.
Mr. Golovey holds a doctorate in physics and his expertise is in optics.
"The lights on top of the turbines don't stop 24-7," he said. "They will be an annoyance."
He and his wife came to Henderson from Florida to enjoy the serenity, pristine environment and low light pollution, he said.
"Turbines take money away from really important projects," such as more efficient transmission lines, he said.
A wind project and the proposed transmission line for Galloo Island Wind Farm will hurt business in Henderson, member Karl R. WIlliams said. He is president of the Henderson Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce and a candidate for town clerk.
"We don't want them here," Mr. Williams said. "We can't bring fishermen up from New Jersey and Hoboken and think they're going to fish in the middle of a wind farm."
"We want the town board to always keep in mind the zoning laws are written to protect citizens," Mrs. Fargo said.
ON THE NET
Heart of Henderson: www.heartofhendersonny.org
Sunday, October 18, 2009
'Not Evil Just Wrong' - What’s Really at Stake with Global Warming by Chuck Colson
Global warming is a fact of life. Not a fact in a scientific sense. Far from it. But a fact in that it is an issue-an issue that will shape public policy, international relations, and the economies of the world for decades to come.
An eye-opening documentary called Not Evil Just Wrong: The True Cost of Global Warming Hysteria is being released this week by the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation-an outfit I endorse.
I dare say the film will be controversial because it tackles head on the sacred cows of the man-made global warming crowd.
The film points out that the British High Court ruled in a lawsuit that Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, “is scientifically flawed and has nine significant exaggerations and factual errors.” Among those exaggerations are the claims that sea levels could rise 20 feet by the end of the century, and that polar bears are disappearing because of global warming (in fact, they are not).
Not Evil Just Wrong also presents a number of scientists and a founding member of the radical environmental organization Greenpeace, who are unafraid to challenge the chief scientific claims behind global warming.
For example, the arctic ice is not disappearing. In fact, in the last two years, it has expanded. (Bet you haven’t heard that in the media.) Another widely publicized claim is that 1998 and 2006 were the warmest years in the history of the U.S. Again, not true. 1934 was. In fact, as Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT says, “warming has not been increasing and has not even been present for 13 years.”
The film also interviews the scientists who have discredited the famous “hockey stick” graph, which has been used by global warming alarmists. The “hockey stick” graph purports to show that for the last thousand years, global temperatures were flat, and then, in the 20th century, they shot up-like the blade of a hockey stick.
That would be interesting and significant if the data had been analyzed and graphed properly. But, as the film shows, that is not the case.
The film drives home the fact that the earth’s climate has always been in flux. That’s why 1,000 years ago, for example, during the medieval warm period, parts of Greenland were literally that-green! Vikings could settle and herd there successfully. Northern England could grow wine grapes. But there’s a reason why today you can’t find a fine Yorkshire wine. Today’s climate is too cold.
So why should we care about all the global warming hubbub? If the so-called “solutions” to global warming being bandied about by the U.N. and Congress are put into effect, they could severely damage the U.S. economy and absolutely devastate the economies of the world’s poorest nations-potentially endangering the lives and livelihoods of millions. All in response to a faulty premise.
Now that is a truly alarming claim. But I believe the film-half of which is devoted to the human and economic consequences of buying into global warming-makes the case persuasively.
Come to BreakPoint.org, and we’ll show you how you can get a copy of this important and sure-to-be controversial film. Share it with friends and neighbors. Because the debate is far from over. And Not Evil Just Wrong shows how much is at stake.
An eye-opening documentary called Not Evil Just Wrong: The True Cost of Global Warming Hysteria is being released this week by the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation-an outfit I endorse.
I dare say the film will be controversial because it tackles head on the sacred cows of the man-made global warming crowd.
The film points out that the British High Court ruled in a lawsuit that Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, “is scientifically flawed and has nine significant exaggerations and factual errors.” Among those exaggerations are the claims that sea levels could rise 20 feet by the end of the century, and that polar bears are disappearing because of global warming (in fact, they are not).
Not Evil Just Wrong also presents a number of scientists and a founding member of the radical environmental organization Greenpeace, who are unafraid to challenge the chief scientific claims behind global warming.
For example, the arctic ice is not disappearing. In fact, in the last two years, it has expanded. (Bet you haven’t heard that in the media.) Another widely publicized claim is that 1998 and 2006 were the warmest years in the history of the U.S. Again, not true. 1934 was. In fact, as Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT says, “warming has not been increasing and has not even been present for 13 years.”
The film also interviews the scientists who have discredited the famous “hockey stick” graph, which has been used by global warming alarmists. The “hockey stick” graph purports to show that for the last thousand years, global temperatures were flat, and then, in the 20th century, they shot up-like the blade of a hockey stick.
That would be interesting and significant if the data had been analyzed and graphed properly. But, as the film shows, that is not the case.
The film drives home the fact that the earth’s climate has always been in flux. That’s why 1,000 years ago, for example, during the medieval warm period, parts of Greenland were literally that-green! Vikings could settle and herd there successfully. Northern England could grow wine grapes. But there’s a reason why today you can’t find a fine Yorkshire wine. Today’s climate is too cold.
So why should we care about all the global warming hubbub? If the so-called “solutions” to global warming being bandied about by the U.N. and Congress are put into effect, they could severely damage the U.S. economy and absolutely devastate the economies of the world’s poorest nations-potentially endangering the lives and livelihoods of millions. All in response to a faulty premise.
Now that is a truly alarming claim. But I believe the film-half of which is devoted to the human and economic consequences of buying into global warming-makes the case persuasively.
Come to BreakPoint.org, and we’ll show you how you can get a copy of this important and sure-to-be controversial film. Share it with friends and neighbors. Because the debate is far from over. And Not Evil Just Wrong shows how much is at stake.
Wind and Snow proposed documentary
A Proposal for a Documentary Film about wind turbine technology and self sustainability.
PROJECT BACKGROUND:
Scott Gilbert a local resident of Northern New York is working in Kyzyl, Tuva on a wind turbine project to help bring self sustainability to the local inhabitants. While at home, in Northern New York and Wolfe Island Ontario, local residents battle the proposed wind farm project that will bring “green energy” to northern New York.
OBJECTIVE: A story about technological change, and how different peoples from different cultures deal with the appearance of wind turbines. This documentary will follow Scott Gilbert and his cross continental journey from Northern New York, to Tuva, Russia to bring electrical wind turbines to the inhabitants of Tuva, while in his home town, the battle against the placement of windmills rages.
PROJECT BACKGROUND:
Scott Gilbert a local resident of Northern New York is working in Kyzyl, Tuva on a wind turbine project to help bring self sustainability to the local inhabitants. While at home, in Northern New York and Wolfe Island Ontario, local residents battle the proposed wind farm project that will bring “green energy” to northern New York.
OBJECTIVE: A story about technological change, and how different peoples from different cultures deal with the appearance of wind turbines. This documentary will follow Scott Gilbert and his cross continental journey from Northern New York, to Tuva, Russia to bring electrical wind turbines to the inhabitants of Tuva, while in his home town, the battle against the placement of windmills rages.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Lawyer fighting wind power
Though Lynne Williams supports alternative energy production and doesn’t oppose the use of windmills to create it, she is fighting wind power in Maine just about every way she can.
A Bar Harbor attorney representing the Friends of Lincoln Lakes, Williams is pursuing two appeals of decisions that, if reaffirmed, would help clear the way for an industrial wind site on Rollins Mountain ridgelines in Burlington, Lee, Lincoln and Winn.
As a Maine Green Independent Party candidate for governor in 2010, Williams called last month for Maine Attorney General Janet Mills to create a code of conduct for wind operators and a governmental committee to monitor compliance. Williams also wanted Mills to investigate whether wind companies in Maine had violated any ethics statutes.
Williams opposes a flawed and hurried process, not the concept of industrial wind power, she said.
“Unlike some attorneys, I never represent someone that has different values from me, so I agree 100 percent with my clients,” Williams said Thursday of Friends of Lincoln Lakes. “This issue is way too important for us to be rushing through it.”
She suggested Mills model Maine’s system on a similar, voluntary code established by New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. Under that code, wind companies are banned from hiring municipal employees or their relatives; refuse confidential information from municipal officers; post on their Web sites the names of all municipal officers who have financial stakes in their companies; and file all wind easements and leases with county clerks.
Williams’ proposal didn’t gain much traction with Mills. Kate Simmons, a spokeswoman with the Attorney General’s Office, says that Mills’ office is “not aware of any allegations of impropriety made against any wind power developers.”
“In order to create any code of ethics, the office would need to be directed by the appropriate regulatory body to do so,” Simmons said. “Maine already has many statutes regarding conflict of interest on the books to protect citizens from improprieties.”
A group of Lincoln-area landowners or leaseholders, the Friends group has appealed in Superior Court a Department of Environmental Protection permit for First Wind of Massachusetts to build 40 11/2-megawatt wind turbines on the ridgelines.
The group’s second court action protests the Lincoln Board of Appeals refusal to hear the group’s appeal of a permit the Lincoln Planning Board issued to the proposed $130 million wind farm. As of Thursday, both appeals were pending, Williams said.
The DEP appeal is the first in Maine of a permit granted for an industrial wind-to-energy site. The project lacks only an approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and financial backing that would pay for its construction, First Wind officials have said.
Proponents have praised First Wind as a conscientious creator of wind power, saying the Lincoln Lakes project would create as much as 60 megawatts of pollution-free electricity in peak winds.
The Friends group contends that the turbines will lower land values and threaten human and animal health with light flicker and low-decibel sound and vibrations, disrupt the pastoral nature of Rollins and generate a fraction of their capacity.
In its first hearing since 2005, the planning appeals board ruled 4-2 on Jan. 8 that the friends group had no right to appeal the planning board’s Dec. 1 decision approving First Wind’s project because the group was legally incorporated Dec. 31 but filed its appeal on Dec. 15. Group members called the town’s review process chaotic and deeply flawed.
Under its regulations, the board “decides whether the applicant has a right to appear before the Board,” the regulation states. With the group’s existence in question — and no group members’ names on the group’s incorporation papers — the board felt it had to reject hearing the group’s complaint, the panel’s chairman has said.
Williams argued that group members defined themselves adequately just by being there. Group members also were recognized at Town Council and planning and appeals board meetings, and in minutes and e-mails the appeals board had, Williams said.
Given that the judge reviewing the appeals board case recently issued a ruling on another Williams case that began when the Friends group first filed its appeal, Williams has hopes that the appeals board case ruling would be issued soon, she said. But that would mean only that the planning board permit appeal would go back to the appeals board or Superior Court, she said.
“It could be the middle of next year before everything is resolved,” Williams said. “Things are not moving quickly in any court. There’s a shortage of personnel and shortage of judges, and they can’t replace them because of the [state] hiring freeze.”
A Bar Harbor attorney representing the Friends of Lincoln Lakes, Williams is pursuing two appeals of decisions that, if reaffirmed, would help clear the way for an industrial wind site on Rollins Mountain ridgelines in Burlington, Lee, Lincoln and Winn.
As a Maine Green Independent Party candidate for governor in 2010, Williams called last month for Maine Attorney General Janet Mills to create a code of conduct for wind operators and a governmental committee to monitor compliance. Williams also wanted Mills to investigate whether wind companies in Maine had violated any ethics statutes.
Williams opposes a flawed and hurried process, not the concept of industrial wind power, she said.
“Unlike some attorneys, I never represent someone that has different values from me, so I agree 100 percent with my clients,” Williams said Thursday of Friends of Lincoln Lakes. “This issue is way too important for us to be rushing through it.”
She suggested Mills model Maine’s system on a similar, voluntary code established by New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. Under that code, wind companies are banned from hiring municipal employees or their relatives; refuse confidential information from municipal officers; post on their Web sites the names of all municipal officers who have financial stakes in their companies; and file all wind easements and leases with county clerks.
Williams’ proposal didn’t gain much traction with Mills. Kate Simmons, a spokeswoman with the Attorney General’s Office, says that Mills’ office is “not aware of any allegations of impropriety made against any wind power developers.”
“In order to create any code of ethics, the office would need to be directed by the appropriate regulatory body to do so,” Simmons said. “Maine already has many statutes regarding conflict of interest on the books to protect citizens from improprieties.”
A group of Lincoln-area landowners or leaseholders, the Friends group has appealed in Superior Court a Department of Environmental Protection permit for First Wind of Massachusetts to build 40 11/2-megawatt wind turbines on the ridgelines.
The group’s second court action protests the Lincoln Board of Appeals refusal to hear the group’s appeal of a permit the Lincoln Planning Board issued to the proposed $130 million wind farm. As of Thursday, both appeals were pending, Williams said.
The DEP appeal is the first in Maine of a permit granted for an industrial wind-to-energy site. The project lacks only an approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and financial backing that would pay for its construction, First Wind officials have said.
Proponents have praised First Wind as a conscientious creator of wind power, saying the Lincoln Lakes project would create as much as 60 megawatts of pollution-free electricity in peak winds.
The Friends group contends that the turbines will lower land values and threaten human and animal health with light flicker and low-decibel sound and vibrations, disrupt the pastoral nature of Rollins and generate a fraction of their capacity.
In its first hearing since 2005, the planning appeals board ruled 4-2 on Jan. 8 that the friends group had no right to appeal the planning board’s Dec. 1 decision approving First Wind’s project because the group was legally incorporated Dec. 31 but filed its appeal on Dec. 15. Group members called the town’s review process chaotic and deeply flawed.
Under its regulations, the board “decides whether the applicant has a right to appear before the Board,” the regulation states. With the group’s existence in question — and no group members’ names on the group’s incorporation papers — the board felt it had to reject hearing the group’s complaint, the panel’s chairman has said.
Williams argued that group members defined themselves adequately just by being there. Group members also were recognized at Town Council and planning and appeals board meetings, and in minutes and e-mails the appeals board had, Williams said.
Given that the judge reviewing the appeals board case recently issued a ruling on another Williams case that began when the Friends group first filed its appeal, Williams has hopes that the appeals board case ruling would be issued soon, she said. But that would mean only that the planning board permit appeal would go back to the appeals board or Superior Court, she said.
“It could be the middle of next year before everything is resolved,” Williams said. “Things are not moving quickly in any court. There’s a shortage of personnel and shortage of judges, and they can’t replace them because of the [state] hiring freeze.”
Albert H. Bowers October 16, 2009 letter to the Lyme Council Town Board
October 16, 2009
Mr. Scott Aubertine, Supervisor
Mr. Mike Countryman, Deputy Supervisor
Mr. Warren A. Johnson
Mr. James Madill
Mr. Norm Schreib
Re: Letters to Town Board
Dear Supervisor Aubertine and Council Members:
I am pleased that the board adopted an extension of one year for the moratorium on wind turbine development at its meeting on Wednesday. During the meeting, I asked that the letter sent by Mr. Charles Sidwa be read as he had requested. I was dismayed that you did not have the text of Mr. Sidwa’s letter available to be read during the meeting. Scott also failed to mention that he had received a letter from Mr. Chris Johnston. These letters are important and must be considered so by our council.
The issue of wind energy is highly complex and it is simply not sufficient for the board to simply tally how many have written letters supporting a moratorium and how many against. It is important that the views of those who cannot be present at the meeting to be made known as it is quite possible that the ideas expressed in their letters may influence the public discussion and the outcome of the board’s deliberations.
I advocate that all such letters be actually read at future board meetings. I attach, for your review, Mr. Sidwa’s letter as it was emailed to you on October 5.
Sincerely,
Albert H. Bowers III
cc: Mr. Charles Sidwa
Mr. Chris Johnston
Kim Wallace, Town Clerk
Watertown Daily Times, Nancy Madsen
Mr. Scott Aubertine, Supervisor
Mr. Mike Countryman, Deputy Supervisor
Mr. Warren A. Johnson
Mr. James Madill
Mr. Norm Schreib
Re: Letters to Town Board
Dear Supervisor Aubertine and Council Members:
I am pleased that the board adopted an extension of one year for the moratorium on wind turbine development at its meeting on Wednesday. During the meeting, I asked that the letter sent by Mr. Charles Sidwa be read as he had requested. I was dismayed that you did not have the text of Mr. Sidwa’s letter available to be read during the meeting. Scott also failed to mention that he had received a letter from Mr. Chris Johnston. These letters are important and must be considered so by our council.
The issue of wind energy is highly complex and it is simply not sufficient for the board to simply tally how many have written letters supporting a moratorium and how many against. It is important that the views of those who cannot be present at the meeting to be made known as it is quite possible that the ideas expressed in their letters may influence the public discussion and the outcome of the board’s deliberations.
I advocate that all such letters be actually read at future board meetings. I attach, for your review, Mr. Sidwa’s letter as it was emailed to you on October 5.
Sincerely,
Albert H. Bowers III
cc: Mr. Charles Sidwa
Mr. Chris Johnston
Kim Wallace, Town Clerk
Watertown Daily Times, Nancy Madsen
Rural areas no place for huge wind projects
I have no basis for questioning Kevin Forkey's intention to donate any lease income he might derive from a wind plant in Clayton, ("Changes irk wind farm backers," Watertown Times, Sept. 21), but his promised generosity is beside the point.
Iberdrola is threatening to pull out because Clayton is considering very reasonable requirements that will preserve the prized qualities of the town. Iberdrola's statement is mind-boggling to me. According to the article, "Iberdrola spokeswoman Jan Johnson said the company will use Maple Ridge as the example of responsible development when asking town officials not to adopt the new, tougher regulations in Clayton. The zoning law currently in place in Clayton would allow development much as it was done in Martinsburg, Lowville and Harrisburg for Maple Ridge."
Maple Ridge is a massive, visually dominating wind project in an area that is much different in character than the St. Lawrence shore towns. How even the most zealous climate-change warrior can think that planting Maple Ridge style/scale wind farm(s) along the shores of the St. Lawrence would be a good environmental decision, I just don't get. Have you seen Maple Ridge?
Another irksome thing keeps popping up in this controversy and again in this article. Mr. Forkey said, "It's better than a coal plant or a nuclear plant." Now there is an example of a classic false dichotomy. This is not a choice between a coal plant or a nuclear plant and a wind plant. Who is proposing to build a coal or nuclear plant in Jefferson County or anywhere in New York?
All over the Eastern U.S. and Canada, there are proposals on the table to build wind power plants of a small enough size to make them something less than visually dominating in all directions. Wind projects calling for turbines of about 15 to 30 in number in rural areas perhaps can be situated so as not to be altogether imposing on the landscape.
But for reasons that can only be attributed to local pressure from large landowners for more lease income, and to wind developers who want to maximize return on investment without regard to anything else, there seems to be an insistence on huge wind projects.
I am truly dismayed at what some people are willing to spoil. But perhaps there is hope. Unlike Cape Vincent, big wind development proponents in Clayton now appear to be on the defensive.
Tom Castrovinci
Vermontville
Iberdrola is threatening to pull out because Clayton is considering very reasonable requirements that will preserve the prized qualities of the town. Iberdrola's statement is mind-boggling to me. According to the article, "Iberdrola spokeswoman Jan Johnson said the company will use Maple Ridge as the example of responsible development when asking town officials not to adopt the new, tougher regulations in Clayton. The zoning law currently in place in Clayton would allow development much as it was done in Martinsburg, Lowville and Harrisburg for Maple Ridge."
Maple Ridge is a massive, visually dominating wind project in an area that is much different in character than the St. Lawrence shore towns. How even the most zealous climate-change warrior can think that planting Maple Ridge style/scale wind farm(s) along the shores of the St. Lawrence would be a good environmental decision, I just don't get. Have you seen Maple Ridge?
Another irksome thing keeps popping up in this controversy and again in this article. Mr. Forkey said, "It's better than a coal plant or a nuclear plant." Now there is an example of a classic false dichotomy. This is not a choice between a coal plant or a nuclear plant and a wind plant. Who is proposing to build a coal or nuclear plant in Jefferson County or anywhere in New York?
All over the Eastern U.S. and Canada, there are proposals on the table to build wind power plants of a small enough size to make them something less than visually dominating in all directions. Wind projects calling for turbines of about 15 to 30 in number in rural areas perhaps can be situated so as not to be altogether imposing on the landscape.
But for reasons that can only be attributed to local pressure from large landowners for more lease income, and to wind developers who want to maximize return on investment without regard to anything else, there seems to be an insistence on huge wind projects.
I am truly dismayed at what some people are willing to spoil. But perhaps there is hope. Unlike Cape Vincent, big wind development proponents in Clayton now appear to be on the defensive.
Tom Castrovinci
Vermontville
Perry wind project suspended
PERRY -- Horizon Wind Energy has suspended its plans for a windmill farm in Perry, Town Clerk Sarah Ballinger said Thursday morning.
"We just made the announcement yesterday," she said, referring to Wednesday night's Town Board meeting.
Ballinger did not have any other details about Horizon's decision, other than Town Supervisor Jim Brick was notified by e-mail this week about the change.
Brick could not be reached to comment Thursday morning.
Anne Humphrey, project manager for Horizon's Dairy Hills Wind Project in the towns of Perry and Covington, also could not be reached to comment. Dairy Hills was first proposed about four years ago.
"We just made the announcement yesterday," she said, referring to Wednesday night's Town Board meeting.
Ballinger did not have any other details about Horizon's decision, other than Town Supervisor Jim Brick was notified by e-mail this week about the change.
Brick could not be reached to comment Thursday morning.
Anne Humphrey, project manager for Horizon's Dairy Hills Wind Project in the towns of Perry and Covington, also could not be reached to comment. Dairy Hills was first proposed about four years ago.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Tighter rules on Hartsville wind farm emerge
Hartsville, N.Y.
The draft revised wind law for Hartsville is out, but those planning to spend millions developing wind power in the town want a line-by-line review before they know if the project can move forward.
Hartsville town Supervisor Steve Dombert said the new law, presented to the public in written form for the first time at Wednesday night’s meeting, is in response to flaws in the old law that was pushed through with little to no outside support.
Not enough copies of the law were made for distribution for all attending the meeting, Dombert said, so copies were only distributed to town board members, E.ON officials and candidates for town offices in November. None were offered in paper form to local media outlets, but Dombert said an emailed copy would be made available shortly.
The two biggest changes, Dombert said, cover setbacks from property lines and the sound level at non-participating landowners’ homes.
The current law states the sound cannot be higher than 50 decibels at the nearest non-participating property line, but Dombert said complaints in Cohocton and other locations made the town look at adopting different standards.
Dombert said new standards from the American National Standards Institute will be used to measure background and ambient noise at the site, in addition to noise from the turbines themselves. The readings also will be taken from the nearest non-participating home, rather than a property line, Dombert said.
The draft law also increases the turbine site setback from 1,200 feet to 2,460 feet — almost half a mile — and measures from the nearest non-participating property line, not the nearest home as the current law reads.
The supervisor said there would be little impact on the project because of the setback rule change, but E.ON officials felt differently.
“If we work really hard, you will have two turbines in Hartsville,” said John Reynolds, a consultant working for E.ON on the project. Reynolds added he would send the new setback information to engineers to get a better idea exactly how many turbines may be affected.
Attorney Jackie Murray, who is representing E.ON during site planning, said she needs time to review the law to see what the impact might be.
“I would like to have a workshop where we go line-by-line through this,” she said.
Several residents echoed Murray’s request for more meetings, including Zena Andrus, an independent candidate for town supervisor in November.
“We should have another meeting,” she said.
Dombert said the town has been working on the legislation for nine months, and only now has E.ON sent an attorney to look at it. Dombert scheduled a meeting for 7 p.m. Oct. 21 at the town hall to discuss the law further.
Some residents were not pleased with the new legislation.
Larry McCormick said he feels the law benefits town board member James Perry personally.
“This has nothing to do with SCIDA,” McCormick said, adding his property is less than 2,460 feet away from Perry’s home. “Does that put me in a position where I need to negotiate with him to put a piece of machinery on my property?
“But if I lose income, I’m coming after you guys,” McCormick continued, adding he would sue the town board if the project failed to go forward for that reason.
Even though funding for the project is not addressed in the draft law, Dombert, Reynolds and others at the meeting brought the topic up several times.
The current project could be between 22 and 34 turbines, Reynolds and other E.ON officials said at the meeting, producing around 51 megawatts of power. The baseline Payment in Lieu of Taxes agreement figures — E.ON’s potential expected contribution so the turbines are not assessed at full market value and cost millions in taxes — call for $8,300 per megawatt, according to Dombert. Of that, about 13 percent will come to the town, Dombert said, because of the average property tax bill, the town taxes only take up 13 percent of the total.
Dombert said the current share of PILOT funds would be unacceptable for the town, but he said the only way to change the share is to ask the Canisteo-Greenwood and Alfred-Almond school boards for a reprieve. Town Attorney David Pullen is trying to jump-start negotiations with Canisteo-Greenwood officials, and a liaison from the Alfred-Almond school board has been named, but little negotiating has taken place.
Several times during the meeting Dombert said blocking wind development “is the one piece of leverage we potentially have” to negotiate with school districts, reasoning if the project does not happen, local schools will not get any financial assistance.
The draft revised wind law for Hartsville is out, but those planning to spend millions developing wind power in the town want a line-by-line review before they know if the project can move forward.
Hartsville town Supervisor Steve Dombert said the new law, presented to the public in written form for the first time at Wednesday night’s meeting, is in response to flaws in the old law that was pushed through with little to no outside support.
Not enough copies of the law were made for distribution for all attending the meeting, Dombert said, so copies were only distributed to town board members, E.ON officials and candidates for town offices in November. None were offered in paper form to local media outlets, but Dombert said an emailed copy would be made available shortly.
The two biggest changes, Dombert said, cover setbacks from property lines and the sound level at non-participating landowners’ homes.
The current law states the sound cannot be higher than 50 decibels at the nearest non-participating property line, but Dombert said complaints in Cohocton and other locations made the town look at adopting different standards.
Dombert said new standards from the American National Standards Institute will be used to measure background and ambient noise at the site, in addition to noise from the turbines themselves. The readings also will be taken from the nearest non-participating home, rather than a property line, Dombert said.
The draft law also increases the turbine site setback from 1,200 feet to 2,460 feet — almost half a mile — and measures from the nearest non-participating property line, not the nearest home as the current law reads.
The supervisor said there would be little impact on the project because of the setback rule change, but E.ON officials felt differently.
“If we work really hard, you will have two turbines in Hartsville,” said John Reynolds, a consultant working for E.ON on the project. Reynolds added he would send the new setback information to engineers to get a better idea exactly how many turbines may be affected.
Attorney Jackie Murray, who is representing E.ON during site planning, said she needs time to review the law to see what the impact might be.
“I would like to have a workshop where we go line-by-line through this,” she said.
Several residents echoed Murray’s request for more meetings, including Zena Andrus, an independent candidate for town supervisor in November.
“We should have another meeting,” she said.
Dombert said the town has been working on the legislation for nine months, and only now has E.ON sent an attorney to look at it. Dombert scheduled a meeting for 7 p.m. Oct. 21 at the town hall to discuss the law further.
Some residents were not pleased with the new legislation.
Larry McCormick said he feels the law benefits town board member James Perry personally.
“This has nothing to do with SCIDA,” McCormick said, adding his property is less than 2,460 feet away from Perry’s home. “Does that put me in a position where I need to negotiate with him to put a piece of machinery on my property?
“But if I lose income, I’m coming after you guys,” McCormick continued, adding he would sue the town board if the project failed to go forward for that reason.
Even though funding for the project is not addressed in the draft law, Dombert, Reynolds and others at the meeting brought the topic up several times.
The current project could be between 22 and 34 turbines, Reynolds and other E.ON officials said at the meeting, producing around 51 megawatts of power. The baseline Payment in Lieu of Taxes agreement figures — E.ON’s potential expected contribution so the turbines are not assessed at full market value and cost millions in taxes — call for $8,300 per megawatt, according to Dombert. Of that, about 13 percent will come to the town, Dombert said, because of the average property tax bill, the town taxes only take up 13 percent of the total.
Dombert said the current share of PILOT funds would be unacceptable for the town, but he said the only way to change the share is to ask the Canisteo-Greenwood and Alfred-Almond school boards for a reprieve. Town Attorney David Pullen is trying to jump-start negotiations with Canisteo-Greenwood officials, and a liaison from the Alfred-Almond school board has been named, but little negotiating has taken place.
Several times during the meeting Dombert said blocking wind development “is the one piece of leverage we potentially have” to negotiate with school districts, reasoning if the project does not happen, local schools will not get any financial assistance.
Wind farms mess with Doppler radar in areas with lake effect snow
BINGHAMTON
Wind turbine blades won’t cloud weather forecasts in our area, says the National Weather Service Binghamton.
While a recent Associated Press article shed light on western New York wind farms causing problems for Doppler radar, Dave Nicosia, a warning coordination meteorologist with the NWS in Binghamton, says there is no reason why that will affect forecasting in Steuben County and neighboring regions.
Areas with numerous wind farms have experienced problems because moving propeller blades can reflect radar signals, which can be falsely interpreted as higher winds, precipitation or emerging storms.
“In the areas covered by the Binghamton National Weather Service, and I can only speak for my territory, the problem is minimal to none. We are not really impacted by this,” said Nicosia, adding, “the Buffalo service area is impacted more than ours.”
While Steuben County has operating wind farms in the towns of Cohocton and Prattsburgh, these locations are far enough away from radar sites that they do not cause interference, according to the NWS.
“The further and further radar beams get the higher they rise and you guys are far enough from our radar that it’s shooting over the top of any turbines that over there,” said Mike Evans, the science operations officer at the Binghamton NWS.
Evans said turbines do not become a problem until they are within 10-20 miles of radar centers.
But that’s not the case for surrounding counties.
The Associated Press article pointed out wind farms in Erie and Wyoming counties that are interfering with radar and causing complications forecasting approaching lake effect snow storms. The 195-turbine Maple Ridge Wind Farm on the Tug Hill Plateau in central New York is less than 10 miles from radar in Town of Montague, Lewis County, and has led to storms coming off Lake Ontario looking stronger than they really are, making it more difficult to detect and assess approaching lake effect snow storms.
“What tends to happen is the radar beams bounce off the turbines and these echoes can create interference and contaminate the data making it look like a storm is approaching or there is a pick up in wind speed,” said Nicosia.
Radar software can easily block structures, geographic obstacles like mountains and ridges, cell phone towers, and other objects that do not move on radar screens, but can not filter out spinning turbine blades.
“At this point any interference we have is minimal, but if we get wind farms popping up on all the hillsides it may change things ... Right now, there is a lot of work being done at the National Weather Service Operations Center and the University of Oklahoma and they are working on software to help meteorologists determine where the wind farms are and how the echoes interfere with the blades,” he said.
Evans said he thinks that in a few years computer algorithms will be developed that will be able to block out turbine interference.
Western states have reported false tornado alerts because of the problem.
The NWS has created a Web site about Doppler radar interference and can be visited online at www.erh.noaa.gov/buf/windfarm.htm.
Wind turbine blades won’t cloud weather forecasts in our area, says the National Weather Service Binghamton.
While a recent Associated Press article shed light on western New York wind farms causing problems for Doppler radar, Dave Nicosia, a warning coordination meteorologist with the NWS in Binghamton, says there is no reason why that will affect forecasting in Steuben County and neighboring regions.
Areas with numerous wind farms have experienced problems because moving propeller blades can reflect radar signals, which can be falsely interpreted as higher winds, precipitation or emerging storms.
“In the areas covered by the Binghamton National Weather Service, and I can only speak for my territory, the problem is minimal to none. We are not really impacted by this,” said Nicosia, adding, “the Buffalo service area is impacted more than ours.”
While Steuben County has operating wind farms in the towns of Cohocton and Prattsburgh, these locations are far enough away from radar sites that they do not cause interference, according to the NWS.
“The further and further radar beams get the higher they rise and you guys are far enough from our radar that it’s shooting over the top of any turbines that over there,” said Mike Evans, the science operations officer at the Binghamton NWS.
Evans said turbines do not become a problem until they are within 10-20 miles of radar centers.
But that’s not the case for surrounding counties.
The Associated Press article pointed out wind farms in Erie and Wyoming counties that are interfering with radar and causing complications forecasting approaching lake effect snow storms. The 195-turbine Maple Ridge Wind Farm on the Tug Hill Plateau in central New York is less than 10 miles from radar in Town of Montague, Lewis County, and has led to storms coming off Lake Ontario looking stronger than they really are, making it more difficult to detect and assess approaching lake effect snow storms.
“What tends to happen is the radar beams bounce off the turbines and these echoes can create interference and contaminate the data making it look like a storm is approaching or there is a pick up in wind speed,” said Nicosia.
Radar software can easily block structures, geographic obstacles like mountains and ridges, cell phone towers, and other objects that do not move on radar screens, but can not filter out spinning turbine blades.
“At this point any interference we have is minimal, but if we get wind farms popping up on all the hillsides it may change things ... Right now, there is a lot of work being done at the National Weather Service Operations Center and the University of Oklahoma and they are working on software to help meteorologists determine where the wind farms are and how the echoes interfere with the blades,” he said.
Evans said he thinks that in a few years computer algorithms will be developed that will be able to block out turbine interference.
Western states have reported false tornado alerts because of the problem.
The NWS has created a Web site about Doppler radar interference and can be visited online at www.erh.noaa.gov/buf/windfarm.htm.
10/14/09 Perry, NY Town Board Meeting
At tonight's Perry Town Board Meeting, Supervisor Jim Brick announced he had received a letter from Horizon's Gary Davidson, requesting that the Town of Perry "suspend" Horizon's application and the SEQR process for the Dairy Hills wind project in Perry, NY.
After four years of totally dividing the community, and most recently, a Public Hearing on Horizon's Supplemental DEIS (at which opponents outnumbered proponents 3 to 1), it seems Horizon now wishes to leave the town on hold.
The Perry Town Board agreed that they would need to set a time limit with their attorney, at which time Horizon's suspended application would then become null & void. Other details than that were not available as of tonight's meeting. No Horizon representatives were present at the meeting.
After four years of totally dividing the community, and most recently, a Public Hearing on Horizon's Supplemental DEIS (at which opponents outnumbered proponents 3 to 1), it seems Horizon now wishes to leave the town on hold.
The Perry Town Board agreed that they would need to set a time limit with their attorney, at which time Horizon's suspended application would then become null & void. Other details than that were not available as of tonight's meeting. No Horizon representatives were present at the meeting.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Albert H. Bowers October 14, 2009 letter on Lyme Wind Moratorium
October 14, 2009
Mr. Scott Aubertine, Supervisor
Mr. Mike Countryman, Deputy Supervisor
Mr. Warren A. Johnson
Mr. James Madill
Mr. Norm Schreib
Re: Extension of Moratorium on Wind Turbine Development
Dear Council Members:
I recommend an extension of at least one year in the moratorium on wind turbine development. An extension is necessary since, as you know, we presently have no regulations in effect to govern the placement or the effects of constructing and operating these large industrial machines. The longer extension is desirable as the wind law that was originally developed by the Planning Board two years ago must be reviewed and updated. Since we first began a citizen’s group to investigate all aspects of wind power in May of 2007, residents of Lyme and similar groups in the surrounding area have learned much about all aspects of wind turbines: the economics of their operation, noise effects, effects on people and wildlife to name a few. Lyme’s wind law should be updated to take into account the most recent information available.
There is no proof that wind turbines, such as those proposed by BP for Lyme and Cape Vincent, actually result in lower usage of fossil fuels or greenhouse gas emissions. Several European countries, notably Denmark and Germany, have built many more wind turbines for their size than the US and their experience shows no improvement in the usage of fossil fuels or reduction of greenhouse gases. The reason for this is the inherently variable nature of wind which means that wind turbines cannot be counted as baseload generating capacity. In fact, the variability of wind is such that other powerplants must be kept spinning in the background to supply the grid whenever the wind speed drops. Once it is found, as is now understood in Europe, that these giant machines do not fulfill their intended purpose, will the machines continue to be supported by taxpayers and electrical ratepayers or will they simply be abandoned?
All electrical generating sources are quite capital intensive. Wind is the most capital intensive and duplicates rather than replaces already existing baseload generators. Wind, therefore, adds substantially to our cost to generate electricity. Since New York presently has one of the highest costs in the nation for its electrical power, the addition of wind power will make us less competitive with other states and reduce our likelihood of attracting real businesses to our locality.
Industrial wind turbines in close proximity to our residential areas will have a devastating effect on our property values and proportionately on the assessments that are the basis for property taxes. We need to make a careful study of the effects on our town. Unlike typical industrial development, that can be located in an area reserved for commercial use, wind turbine projects essentially convert the entire town to a factory. This exposes all residents to noise, view degradation and other deleterious effects.
Wind power would not exist but for the subsidies and tax breaks granted by the federal and state governments and the further kindness towards developers of PILOTs granted at the local level. I believe New York State should enact a statewide moratorium on wind development until the effects of this form of renewable energy can be thoroughly and dispassionately analyzed for its effects on the overall economic health of our community as well as the effects on the physical health of residents and the natural environment. In the meantime, Lyme should extend its own moratorium for at least a year. The wind will always be there, what’s the rush?
Sincerely,
Albert H. Bowers III
cc: Kim Wallace, Town Clerk
Watertown Daily Times, Nancy Madsen
Mr. Scott Aubertine, Supervisor
Mr. Mike Countryman, Deputy Supervisor
Mr. Warren A. Johnson
Mr. James Madill
Mr. Norm Schreib
Re: Extension of Moratorium on Wind Turbine Development
Dear Council Members:
I recommend an extension of at least one year in the moratorium on wind turbine development. An extension is necessary since, as you know, we presently have no regulations in effect to govern the placement or the effects of constructing and operating these large industrial machines. The longer extension is desirable as the wind law that was originally developed by the Planning Board two years ago must be reviewed and updated. Since we first began a citizen’s group to investigate all aspects of wind power in May of 2007, residents of Lyme and similar groups in the surrounding area have learned much about all aspects of wind turbines: the economics of their operation, noise effects, effects on people and wildlife to name a few. Lyme’s wind law should be updated to take into account the most recent information available.
There is no proof that wind turbines, such as those proposed by BP for Lyme and Cape Vincent, actually result in lower usage of fossil fuels or greenhouse gas emissions. Several European countries, notably Denmark and Germany, have built many more wind turbines for their size than the US and their experience shows no improvement in the usage of fossil fuels or reduction of greenhouse gases. The reason for this is the inherently variable nature of wind which means that wind turbines cannot be counted as baseload generating capacity. In fact, the variability of wind is such that other powerplants must be kept spinning in the background to supply the grid whenever the wind speed drops. Once it is found, as is now understood in Europe, that these giant machines do not fulfill their intended purpose, will the machines continue to be supported by taxpayers and electrical ratepayers or will they simply be abandoned?
All electrical generating sources are quite capital intensive. Wind is the most capital intensive and duplicates rather than replaces already existing baseload generators. Wind, therefore, adds substantially to our cost to generate electricity. Since New York presently has one of the highest costs in the nation for its electrical power, the addition of wind power will make us less competitive with other states and reduce our likelihood of attracting real businesses to our locality.
Industrial wind turbines in close proximity to our residential areas will have a devastating effect on our property values and proportionately on the assessments that are the basis for property taxes. We need to make a careful study of the effects on our town. Unlike typical industrial development, that can be located in an area reserved for commercial use, wind turbine projects essentially convert the entire town to a factory. This exposes all residents to noise, view degradation and other deleterious effects.
Wind power would not exist but for the subsidies and tax breaks granted by the federal and state governments and the further kindness towards developers of PILOTs granted at the local level. I believe New York State should enact a statewide moratorium on wind development until the effects of this form of renewable energy can be thoroughly and dispassionately analyzed for its effects on the overall economic health of our community as well as the effects on the physical health of residents and the natural environment. In the meantime, Lyme should extend its own moratorium for at least a year. The wind will always be there, what’s the rush?
Sincerely,
Albert H. Bowers III
cc: Kim Wallace, Town Clerk
Watertown Daily Times, Nancy Madsen
Allegany Town Board wants more power in wind turbine deal
ALLEGANY - Town of Allegany board members were told that they will have to put more zoning laws into effect if they are going to have control over wind-turbine companies that may try to move into the community.
During a special meeting Monday at Allegany Town Hall, board members heard comments from Dan Spitzer, an attorney with Hodgson Russ LLP in Buffalo who is advising the town board on wind-turbine issues.
The small town-hall meeting room was filled with residents who were concerned with the possibility of a wind-turbine farm moving into the Chipmonk area. EverPower Renewables of New York City proposed a wind-turbine farm for the Chipmonk area a couple of years ago. Since that time, residents of that community have organized with Concerned Citizens of Cattaraugus County to keep a farm from moving into the area. The Concerned Citizens group has claimed that the 32 proposed wind turbines for the Chipmonk area would create noise, and aesthetic and environmental issues for the community.
The town board has considered placing a year-long moratorium on the proposed wind farm but was advised at Monday’s meeting by Mr. Spitzer to put more muscle into its governing stance by re-zoning the Chipmonk area into a wind-zoning overlay district. Pat Eaton, town supervisor, said this will likely be done in the near future. Mr. Spitzer said moratoriums, which would stop any action taken on the wind-turbine-farm proposal, are designed for emergencies. He said that as the laws stand now, the Allegany Town Planning Board, not the town board, holds the power in determining whether a wind-turbine farm could move into the community.
“We need to control what’s going on,” Mr. Eaton said after the meeting. “Then they (Everpower) would have to come in and make a zoning (change) request, and we could say yes or no.”
Mr. Eaton said the town board planned to discuss its contracts with the Cattaraugus County Industrial Development Agency (IDA) and any potential contract with EverPower in an executive session following the meeting. He said the board likely will not make further determinations on zoning changes in the Chipmonk area until the Oct. 22 meeting.
Kevin Sheen, senior director of development for EverPower, was at the meeting and said his company has slowed down the process at the proposed site in Chipmonk “so we could do a little more internal field work.”
“We plan on submitting a revised layout to the planning board for their next meeting,” Mr. Sheen said. “We will then continue to update all of the studies surrounding that revised layout.”
Mr. Sheen said the company has moved a couple of wind turbines from their originally planned locations on the Chipmonk ridgetops.
“Since we moved a couple of turbines, we’ll have to redo some of those (sound) studies and then represent those to the town” in the plans.
“There is a fairly significant shift in some of the turbines and we think it will better address some of the sound issues. Overall it’s a more palatable plan for the town. We’ve always made it our goal to develop responsibly and try to have a project that gives the most benefit to the town while having the least impact.”
Gary Abrams, of the Concerned Citizens group, told the board that residents of Chipmonk are uncomfortable with any type of mitigations or changes that may be applied to the proposed project.
“Ridge-line sightings of wind farms in a rural residential area is almost never a good idea,” Mr. Abrams said. “As it stands now, the town’s law does not give any protection against noise increases for people outside of 2,500 feet from the project. About half the people here (at meeting) live on Chipmonk Road just outside of 2,500 feet.
“What you’re conceptionalizing here with mitigation for financial benefits is sacrificing these people’s way of life, and their peace and quiet for money the town would get,” Mr. Abrams said.
The town board had recommended to the town zoning board a 2,500-foot buffer zone between wind turbines and residences. In addition, the town’s portion of the payment in lieu of taxes (P.I.L.O.T.) negotiated by the IDA would be roughly $22,000 a year for the entire wind farm. The school district, county and town would receive a P.I.L.O.T. in the same proportion of the respective taxes in the town, reports have stated. One example shows a school district getting 50 percent of the P.I.L.O.T., the county 40 percent and the town the remaining 10 percent.
Mr. Spitzer said the wind-turbine issue, and its legalities, are complicated at best.
“It’s a very complicated topic and the one thing I say, whether I’m representing the community or representing the developer, is that it will change your community for a generation, at least,” Mr. Spitzer said of a wind-turbine farm.
Mr. Eaton, who was listening in the background, revised Mr. Spitzer’s statement by saying, “It will change it forever.”
(Contact reporter Kate Day Sager at kates_th@yahoo.com)
During a special meeting Monday at Allegany Town Hall, board members heard comments from Dan Spitzer, an attorney with Hodgson Russ LLP in Buffalo who is advising the town board on wind-turbine issues.
The small town-hall meeting room was filled with residents who were concerned with the possibility of a wind-turbine farm moving into the Chipmonk area. EverPower Renewables of New York City proposed a wind-turbine farm for the Chipmonk area a couple of years ago. Since that time, residents of that community have organized with Concerned Citizens of Cattaraugus County to keep a farm from moving into the area. The Concerned Citizens group has claimed that the 32 proposed wind turbines for the Chipmonk area would create noise, and aesthetic and environmental issues for the community.
The town board has considered placing a year-long moratorium on the proposed wind farm but was advised at Monday’s meeting by Mr. Spitzer to put more muscle into its governing stance by re-zoning the Chipmonk area into a wind-zoning overlay district. Pat Eaton, town supervisor, said this will likely be done in the near future. Mr. Spitzer said moratoriums, which would stop any action taken on the wind-turbine-farm proposal, are designed for emergencies. He said that as the laws stand now, the Allegany Town Planning Board, not the town board, holds the power in determining whether a wind-turbine farm could move into the community.
“We need to control what’s going on,” Mr. Eaton said after the meeting. “Then they (Everpower) would have to come in and make a zoning (change) request, and we could say yes or no.”
Mr. Eaton said the town board planned to discuss its contracts with the Cattaraugus County Industrial Development Agency (IDA) and any potential contract with EverPower in an executive session following the meeting. He said the board likely will not make further determinations on zoning changes in the Chipmonk area until the Oct. 22 meeting.
Kevin Sheen, senior director of development for EverPower, was at the meeting and said his company has slowed down the process at the proposed site in Chipmonk “so we could do a little more internal field work.”
“We plan on submitting a revised layout to the planning board for their next meeting,” Mr. Sheen said. “We will then continue to update all of the studies surrounding that revised layout.”
Mr. Sheen said the company has moved a couple of wind turbines from their originally planned locations on the Chipmonk ridgetops.
“Since we moved a couple of turbines, we’ll have to redo some of those (sound) studies and then represent those to the town” in the plans.
“There is a fairly significant shift in some of the turbines and we think it will better address some of the sound issues. Overall it’s a more palatable plan for the town. We’ve always made it our goal to develop responsibly and try to have a project that gives the most benefit to the town while having the least impact.”
Gary Abrams, of the Concerned Citizens group, told the board that residents of Chipmonk are uncomfortable with any type of mitigations or changes that may be applied to the proposed project.
“Ridge-line sightings of wind farms in a rural residential area is almost never a good idea,” Mr. Abrams said. “As it stands now, the town’s law does not give any protection against noise increases for people outside of 2,500 feet from the project. About half the people here (at meeting) live on Chipmonk Road just outside of 2,500 feet.
“What you’re conceptionalizing here with mitigation for financial benefits is sacrificing these people’s way of life, and their peace and quiet for money the town would get,” Mr. Abrams said.
The town board had recommended to the town zoning board a 2,500-foot buffer zone between wind turbines and residences. In addition, the town’s portion of the payment in lieu of taxes (P.I.L.O.T.) negotiated by the IDA would be roughly $22,000 a year for the entire wind farm. The school district, county and town would receive a P.I.L.O.T. in the same proportion of the respective taxes in the town, reports have stated. One example shows a school district getting 50 percent of the P.I.L.O.T., the county 40 percent and the town the remaining 10 percent.
Mr. Spitzer said the wind-turbine issue, and its legalities, are complicated at best.
“It’s a very complicated topic and the one thing I say, whether I’m representing the community or representing the developer, is that it will change your community for a generation, at least,” Mr. Spitzer said of a wind-turbine farm.
Mr. Eaton, who was listening in the background, revised Mr. Spitzer’s statement by saying, “It will change it forever.”
(Contact reporter Kate Day Sager at kates_th@yahoo.com)
Wind farm substation is damaged by blaze
WEST MARTINSBURG — A transformer at the Maple Ridge Wind Farm's substation off Rector Road was destroyed by fire late Monday afternoon.
Martinsburg firefighters were dispatched to the substation about 5 p.m. but had to wait until the facility was shut down before extinguishing the blaze, said Lewis County Fire Coordinator James M. Martin.
The fire was contained to the damaged part, located outside the control building, Mr. Martin said.
"It didn't get inside, and it didn't get into the other transformers," he said.
The Columbus Day fire was the second transformer fire at the site, with a similar incident occurring July 4, 2007. In that case, 491 gallons of mineral oil leaked from the damaged transformer and temporarily contaminated a nearby residential well. About 15 other wells also were tested, but none was affected.
Some oil also leaked into the soil Monday, although the amount hasn't been determined yet, said state Department of Environmental Conservation Region 6 spokesman Stephen W. Litwhiler. The transformer had a capacity of 550 gallons, but some of the oil burned, remained inside the unit or was recovered before it seeped into the soil.
The wind farm retained a firm Monday night to immediately begin excavation of contaminated soil, and DEC will continue to investigate and monitor the situation, Mr. Litwhiler said.
DEC officials on Tuesday were attempting to contact the homeowner whose well had been contaminated in 2007 to notify him of the incident, he said.
Attempts to reach wind farm officials for comment Tuesday afternoon were unsuccessful.
Martinsburg firefighters were dispatched to the substation about 5 p.m. but had to wait until the facility was shut down before extinguishing the blaze, said Lewis County Fire Coordinator James M. Martin.
The fire was contained to the damaged part, located outside the control building, Mr. Martin said.
"It didn't get inside, and it didn't get into the other transformers," he said.
The Columbus Day fire was the second transformer fire at the site, with a similar incident occurring July 4, 2007. In that case, 491 gallons of mineral oil leaked from the damaged transformer and temporarily contaminated a nearby residential well. About 15 other wells also were tested, but none was affected.
Some oil also leaked into the soil Monday, although the amount hasn't been determined yet, said state Department of Environmental Conservation Region 6 spokesman Stephen W. Litwhiler. The transformer had a capacity of 550 gallons, but some of the oil burned, remained inside the unit or was recovered before it seeped into the soil.
The wind farm retained a firm Monday night to immediately begin excavation of contaminated soil, and DEC will continue to investigate and monitor the situation, Mr. Litwhiler said.
DEC officials on Tuesday were attempting to contact the homeowner whose well had been contaminated in 2007 to notify him of the incident, he said.
Attempts to reach wind farm officials for comment Tuesday afternoon were unsuccessful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)