September 14, 2006
Cohocton Town Board
15 South Main Street
Cohocton, NY 14826
Supervisor Zigenfus, Deputy Supervisor Wise, Councilmen Dyckman, LeVesque and Hunt:
Based upon your acknowledgement that the Cohocton Town Board must comply with town statue and that an ethics board be reestablished, it is imperative to appoint the required members as soon as possible. At the next regular Town Board meeting, September 19, 2006, it is urged to place this task on your Town Board agenda.
As indicated in our September 6, 2006 letter, Cohocton Wind Watch recommends the following citizens and property owners to the two non Town of Cohocton employee slots for the Cohocton Ethics Board:
Jeff Goldthwait (585) *82 384-9832
Shannon Levee (585) 384-9893
Jim Lince (607) 566-3930
Dr. Bill Morehouse (585) 235-2250
Amy Wolfe (585) 384-9655
Also, Cohocton Wind Watch puts forth the current Cohocton Planning Board member, Dan McClure for the one town "employee" position on the Cohocton Ethics Board.
Your prompt enactment is necessary to create a mechanism for governmental accountability.
Cordially,
Cohocton Wind Watch
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Monday, September 11, 2006
CWW letter 9/11/06 to the Cohocton Planning Board
September 11, 2006
Cohocton Planning Board
15 South Main Street
Cohocton New York 14826
Dear Mr. Fox and Planning Board Members:
At the Cohocton Planning Board special meeting of September 7, 2006, Town Councilman Wayne Hunt made the announcement that 2.5 MW industrial wind turbines for the UPC project will now be used. This is the second extreme change from the original 1.5 MW proposal, the first being an increase to 2.0 MW and now 2.5 MW. The Cohocton Planning Board must recognize that the current DEIS report prepared and submitted by UPC is based upon 1.5 MW turbines.
Since this fact clearly demonstrates that these increases in size impose a crucial need for greater setbacks, it is imperative that the Cohocton Planning Board rejects the regretful suggestion from the sole Town Councilman, Jeff Wise, to modify the CPB recommendation on the proposed Windmill Local Law #2.
Note that the Cohocton Town Board did not vote on Mr. Wise’s suggestion.
As stated in the Cohocton Wind Watch letter of September 7, 2006, the proposed 500 foot limit for tower height allows for additional increase in turbine size and capacity. Which is an obvious move to accommodate the new UPC plans. It is self evident that reverting to a mere 500 foot setback from public roads offers even less public safety protection, now that it has been disclosed that 2.5 MW units are proposed for installation.
This incident illustrates the inconsistency, dishonesty and deceitful nature of the UPC proposal. The CPB should be an independent board. It is time to act with conviction. If the Cohocton Town Board chooses to disregard your recommendations, force them to vote against them.
Cohocton Wind Watch is most disappointed with the lack of courage coming out of the Cohocton Planning Board. In order to prove that the CPB is not a mere tool of UPC manipulation, in the strongest terms, CWW urges your board to resist the irrational and imprudent pressure from the Town of Cohocton Councilmen. In order to invalidate a recommendation, demonstrated evidence must be supplied for the basis of that reversal. Just what would be such a determining factor?
Supervisor Zigenfus, made known that the 2007 budget will include a bond issuance for $50,000 to finance litigation. Such added legal expenses for the town can certainly be mitigated if not avoided altogether with the passage of coherent and balanced legislation. The record is most clear, without a sincere effort and commitment to resolve the profound harmful effects from the UPC project, the town should be prepared to increase such a bond resolution by several multiples.
As lead agency, the Cohocton Planning Board has the authority to impose a moratorium on the UPC project. Especially since an entirely new DEIS study must be required (or risk additional legal actions) that is based upon 2.5 MW units. Also a competing developer, Empire State Wind Energy has announced intentions for a community-based project for Cohocton. Now is the time to let the marketplace work. Windmill Local Law #2 should be put on hold. The entire Cohocton community deserves to know all the options.
Cordially,
Cohocton Wind Watch
Cohocton Planning Board
15 South Main Street
Cohocton New York 14826
Dear Mr. Fox and Planning Board Members:
At the Cohocton Planning Board special meeting of September 7, 2006, Town Councilman Wayne Hunt made the announcement that 2.5 MW industrial wind turbines for the UPC project will now be used. This is the second extreme change from the original 1.5 MW proposal, the first being an increase to 2.0 MW and now 2.5 MW. The Cohocton Planning Board must recognize that the current DEIS report prepared and submitted by UPC is based upon 1.5 MW turbines.
Since this fact clearly demonstrates that these increases in size impose a crucial need for greater setbacks, it is imperative that the Cohocton Planning Board rejects the regretful suggestion from the sole Town Councilman, Jeff Wise, to modify the CPB recommendation on the proposed Windmill Local Law #2.
Note that the Cohocton Town Board did not vote on Mr. Wise’s suggestion.
As stated in the Cohocton Wind Watch letter of September 7, 2006, the proposed 500 foot limit for tower height allows for additional increase in turbine size and capacity. Which is an obvious move to accommodate the new UPC plans. It is self evident that reverting to a mere 500 foot setback from public roads offers even less public safety protection, now that it has been disclosed that 2.5 MW units are proposed for installation.
This incident illustrates the inconsistency, dishonesty and deceitful nature of the UPC proposal. The CPB should be an independent board. It is time to act with conviction. If the Cohocton Town Board chooses to disregard your recommendations, force them to vote against them.
Cohocton Wind Watch is most disappointed with the lack of courage coming out of the Cohocton Planning Board. In order to prove that the CPB is not a mere tool of UPC manipulation, in the strongest terms, CWW urges your board to resist the irrational and imprudent pressure from the Town of Cohocton Councilmen. In order to invalidate a recommendation, demonstrated evidence must be supplied for the basis of that reversal. Just what would be such a determining factor?
Supervisor Zigenfus, made known that the 2007 budget will include a bond issuance for $50,000 to finance litigation. Such added legal expenses for the town can certainly be mitigated if not avoided altogether with the passage of coherent and balanced legislation. The record is most clear, without a sincere effort and commitment to resolve the profound harmful effects from the UPC project, the town should be prepared to increase such a bond resolution by several multiples.
As lead agency, the Cohocton Planning Board has the authority to impose a moratorium on the UPC project. Especially since an entirely new DEIS study must be required (or risk additional legal actions) that is based upon 2.5 MW units. Also a competing developer, Empire State Wind Energy has announced intentions for a community-based project for Cohocton. Now is the time to let the marketplace work. Windmill Local Law #2 should be put on hold. The entire Cohocton community deserves to know all the options.
Cordially,
Cohocton Wind Watch
Steve Trude letter to the Cohocton Town Board
September 11, 2006
Cohocton Town Board
15 South Main Street
Cohocton New York 14826
Dear Supervisor Zigenfus and Cohocton Town Councilmen:
It is apparent with changing of different size wind turbines, the setback for a 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 and a 3.0 MW units, a different formula and new draft environmental impact statement is needed to determine placement and setbacks. It will be necessary to define a logical setback due to:
1) height, 2) blade size, (windwake) and 3) decibel level.
Adjusting the adequate setbacks will be necessary to give assurance to cover health and safety issues to protect the public and adjacent home and land owners.
With new blade designs, an updated study is in order to determine performance on each different turbine model. This new study should be done by Bagdon Environmental in conjunction with an independent company on the cost benefit analysis for 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0 MW units before the Cohocton Planning Board can make educated recommendations to the Cohocton Town Board for new law.
Both developers, UPC and Empire State Wind Energy should provide the exact specifications for the industrial turbines intended for their projects. Then and only then can the Town of Cohocton draft a meaningful industrial wind turbine law.
Putting adequate setbacks into law will help alleviate future possible litigation for property values, wind rights for adjacent property owners, noise issues and health and safety issues.
Sincerely,
Stephen H. Trude – President CWW
Cohocton Town Board
15 South Main Street
Cohocton New York 14826
Dear Supervisor Zigenfus and Cohocton Town Councilmen:
It is apparent with changing of different size wind turbines, the setback for a 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 and a 3.0 MW units, a different formula and new draft environmental impact statement is needed to determine placement and setbacks. It will be necessary to define a logical setback due to:
1) height, 2) blade size, (windwake) and 3) decibel level.
Adjusting the adequate setbacks will be necessary to give assurance to cover health and safety issues to protect the public and adjacent home and land owners.
With new blade designs, an updated study is in order to determine performance on each different turbine model. This new study should be done by Bagdon Environmental in conjunction with an independent company on the cost benefit analysis for 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0 MW units before the Cohocton Planning Board can make educated recommendations to the Cohocton Town Board for new law.
Both developers, UPC and Empire State Wind Energy should provide the exact specifications for the industrial turbines intended for their projects. Then and only then can the Town of Cohocton draft a meaningful industrial wind turbine law.
Putting adequate setbacks into law will help alleviate future possible litigation for property values, wind rights for adjacent property owners, noise issues and health and safety issues.
Sincerely,
Stephen H. Trude – President CWW
Saturday, September 09, 2006
Advocates for Italy letter August 31, 2006
ADVOCATES for ITALY
Box 221
KEUKA PARK,
NEW YORK
14478
August 31,2006
Dear Town of Italy Land Owner,
Very shortly, your Town Board will vote on the proposed Zoning Law for the Town. A number of concerns have been raised about zoning. As concerned residents we would like to provide you with some additional information that we believe will help you to make a more informed decision on this critical issue for our Town.
Will Zoning Affect Me?
The Zoning Law will regulate individual homeowners very little. Most regulations follow N.Y.S. Building Codes, which are already in place. The Law protects the scenic beauty of the Town by regulating large industrial development such as landfills and wind turbines.
What About the Town's Legal Expense?
Concerns have been raised over the current and potential future legal expense facing the Town. Some folks seem to feel that the zoning is somehow responsible for this situation. It's not the zoning, it's the developers! Recently the Ecogen Wind Energy developer brought a legal complaint against the Town in Federal Court over the Town's legally enacted moratorium on wind energy projects. The Town had the choice of "giving in" to all of the developer demands, or hiring legal counsel to defend itself. They chose the latter and won. The Court ruled in favor of our Town. This resulted in about $79,000 of legal expense (because the developer brought the complaint against our Town). You should know that the Town budgeted $38,500 for legal expense this year and has insurance that will help to pay the remaining balance. So, the legal expenses are "under control". In fact, the Town has always had a legal budget. This isn't "something new". You may have heard about a $500,000 cost estimate for Town legal expenses. For the record, the Town's legal counsel recently recommended a manageable $80,000 budget figure for next year. "Legal expense" is a normal part of any Town Budget in this day and age. It's not new or surprising.
Your Town in the Twenty-first Century...
As Italy enters the twenty-first century... there are and will be many more threats to our lands from commercial and industrial projects. Examples include the industrial wind projects, with their 400-foot high, strobe lit wind turbines, and the potential of 400 plus acre landfills for down-state garbage. The only way to control this development is to enact land use regulations in zoning laws. Without these laws, big developers can - and will - move in and do what ever they want with our Town, wherever they want. Make no mistake, without zoning, our Town will be wide open for this type of development. Clearly, it's time for us to protect our beautiful hills and valley with appropriate land use (zoning) regulations.
The $ 250,000 "Wind-Fall"...
If Ecogen really made a $250,000 "offer" to the Town, you should know that this developer will make $ millions with this project. Their offer is just a tiny fraction of the money they will make. If the developer really wanted to help the Town, this offer would be many times more than what they proposed. We will give up our beautiful hills while they stand to make $ millions. It's not a very good deal (for us). If we don't accept this offer from Ecogen, some might feel it will be "lost tax revenue". However, if the turbines and project result in lower land and property values over time, the entire Town's tax base could be reduced (or, not grow as fast as if the project wasn't here). Over a projected seven year period, this was exactly what a study of this issue in Prattsburgh revealed... In the long run, the Town will lose value in its tax revenue base. In addition, respected local Realtor, Mike Keenan has publicly stated that there will be a substantial reduction in current real estate values anywhere near this project, if property owners in this area can sell their places, at all!
What About Giving Them a Small Zone for Wind Turbines?
The suggestion has been made that the Town include "a small pilot wind zone" in the Zoning Law. The developer has never shown any willingness to compromise on this issue. They want what they want. In this case, 23 industrial wind turbines (to start) covering hundreds of acres, with short setbacks from existing homes, not property lines, that will not protect these residents from the negative factors associated with the 400 foot turbines, (ruined views, noise, shadow flicker, ice throw dangers and reduced property values). Since this project documented a "Phase II" in the original project proposal, do you think they will stop at the southern part of the Town? And, this doesn't even consider the additional giant turbines also planned for Italy in a separate WindFarm Prattsburgh wind energy project or from several other wind energy developers looking at our Town. Eventually, we could see these towers strung out across virtually all the higher ridge lines of the Town (along with the landfills). Is this really what you want for your Town? According to the Town's legal counsel, under New York State Law, the Town has the right to ban the industrial wind turbines here.
Determining the Will of the People...
Some folks believe that the proposed Zoning Law (and industrial wind turbine ban) is being driven by a few vocal opponents at Town Meetings. In our system of government, public hearings are conducted to gauge the will of the people on controversial issues. In hearing after hearing on this subject, the vast majority of those who spoke were against this project in Italy because they didn 't want to see the beautiful hills here desecrated by strobe lit, 400 foot industrial wind turbines. This has been the case in every Public Hearing! The representative sample of public opinion is based upon those who speak up. This is how Town Boards gauge public opinion.
Stand Up and "Speak" For Your Town
Please come to the hearing September 9th, 9 AM @ the Town Barn and speak "for" the proposed zoning plan "As Written". You can be part of keeping our Town the way it is... quiet, rural, scenic and beautiful. "Speak up" for your Town. Every "voice" counts!
Thank you!
The Advocates for Italy
Box 221
KEUKA PARK,
NEW YORK
14478
August 31,2006
Dear Town of Italy Land Owner,
Very shortly, your Town Board will vote on the proposed Zoning Law for the Town. A number of concerns have been raised about zoning. As concerned residents we would like to provide you with some additional information that we believe will help you to make a more informed decision on this critical issue for our Town.
Will Zoning Affect Me?
The Zoning Law will regulate individual homeowners very little. Most regulations follow N.Y.S. Building Codes, which are already in place. The Law protects the scenic beauty of the Town by regulating large industrial development such as landfills and wind turbines.
What About the Town's Legal Expense?
Concerns have been raised over the current and potential future legal expense facing the Town. Some folks seem to feel that the zoning is somehow responsible for this situation. It's not the zoning, it's the developers! Recently the Ecogen Wind Energy developer brought a legal complaint against the Town in Federal Court over the Town's legally enacted moratorium on wind energy projects. The Town had the choice of "giving in" to all of the developer demands, or hiring legal counsel to defend itself. They chose the latter and won. The Court ruled in favor of our Town. This resulted in about $79,000 of legal expense (because the developer brought the complaint against our Town). You should know that the Town budgeted $38,500 for legal expense this year and has insurance that will help to pay the remaining balance. So, the legal expenses are "under control". In fact, the Town has always had a legal budget. This isn't "something new". You may have heard about a $500,000 cost estimate for Town legal expenses. For the record, the Town's legal counsel recently recommended a manageable $80,000 budget figure for next year. "Legal expense" is a normal part of any Town Budget in this day and age. It's not new or surprising.
Your Town in the Twenty-first Century...
As Italy enters the twenty-first century... there are and will be many more threats to our lands from commercial and industrial projects. Examples include the industrial wind projects, with their 400-foot high, strobe lit wind turbines, and the potential of 400 plus acre landfills for down-state garbage. The only way to control this development is to enact land use regulations in zoning laws. Without these laws, big developers can - and will - move in and do what ever they want with our Town, wherever they want. Make no mistake, without zoning, our Town will be wide open for this type of development. Clearly, it's time for us to protect our beautiful hills and valley with appropriate land use (zoning) regulations.
The $ 250,000 "Wind-Fall"...
If Ecogen really made a $250,000 "offer" to the Town, you should know that this developer will make $ millions with this project. Their offer is just a tiny fraction of the money they will make. If the developer really wanted to help the Town, this offer would be many times more than what they proposed. We will give up our beautiful hills while they stand to make $ millions. It's not a very good deal (for us). If we don't accept this offer from Ecogen, some might feel it will be "lost tax revenue". However, if the turbines and project result in lower land and property values over time, the entire Town's tax base could be reduced (or, not grow as fast as if the project wasn't here). Over a projected seven year period, this was exactly what a study of this issue in Prattsburgh revealed... In the long run, the Town will lose value in its tax revenue base. In addition, respected local Realtor, Mike Keenan has publicly stated that there will be a substantial reduction in current real estate values anywhere near this project, if property owners in this area can sell their places, at all!
What About Giving Them a Small Zone for Wind Turbines?
The suggestion has been made that the Town include "a small pilot wind zone" in the Zoning Law. The developer has never shown any willingness to compromise on this issue. They want what they want. In this case, 23 industrial wind turbines (to start) covering hundreds of acres, with short setbacks from existing homes, not property lines, that will not protect these residents from the negative factors associated with the 400 foot turbines, (ruined views, noise, shadow flicker, ice throw dangers and reduced property values). Since this project documented a "Phase II" in the original project proposal, do you think they will stop at the southern part of the Town? And, this doesn't even consider the additional giant turbines also planned for Italy in a separate WindFarm Prattsburgh wind energy project or from several other wind energy developers looking at our Town. Eventually, we could see these towers strung out across virtually all the higher ridge lines of the Town (along with the landfills). Is this really what you want for your Town? According to the Town's legal counsel, under New York State Law, the Town has the right to ban the industrial wind turbines here.
Determining the Will of the People...
Some folks believe that the proposed Zoning Law (and industrial wind turbine ban) is being driven by a few vocal opponents at Town Meetings. In our system of government, public hearings are conducted to gauge the will of the people on controversial issues. In hearing after hearing on this subject, the vast majority of those who spoke were against this project in Italy because they didn 't want to see the beautiful hills here desecrated by strobe lit, 400 foot industrial wind turbines. This has been the case in every Public Hearing! The representative sample of public opinion is based upon those who speak up. This is how Town Boards gauge public opinion.
Stand Up and "Speak" For Your Town
Please come to the hearing September 9th, 9 AM @ the Town Barn and speak "for" the proposed zoning plan "As Written". You can be part of keeping our Town the way it is... quiet, rural, scenic and beautiful. "Speak up" for your Town. Every "voice" counts!
Thank you!
The Advocates for Italy
Neapolitans apparently apathetic about impending wind towers Brian A. Herman, Naples, NY
It seems to be obvious due the the dismal turnout of Neapolitans at the Naples Hotel, August 28th concerning the wind farms, that there is not much interest in the upcoming construction of these turbines.
I had trouble falling asleep after listening to intelligent, educated and thought provoking speakers who presented unbiased facts about the construction, maintenance and eventual removal of hundreds of the megaliths that will sooner or later be coming to dominate our landscape. Of course, since so few villagers or townspeople were in the audience, I hope you all slept soundly.
At a meeting in Springwater, over 200 taxpayers voiced their objections to a mere 14 proposed windmills and the developer dropped the project. If only Naples, Cohocton, Prattsburgh and Italy Valley could be so united. We could definitely develop a renewable energy windfarm, that would be less environmental destructive aesthetically intrusive and actually save us local inhabitants money.
I am not a wind power project whore. I don't have property that would be suitable for the turbines to be erected. Most of us are in the same boat, yet the few naive, ill-informed or just plain greedy landowners who have signed secret lease agreements with several large wind power companies are now selling our quality of life down the river.
There are so many negatives to this project that I won't bore you with my worries. I am saddened by the thought that soon it will be more pleasant to drive north onto the flat lands than to come south to our beautiful valleys.
I had trouble falling asleep after listening to intelligent, educated and thought provoking speakers who presented unbiased facts about the construction, maintenance and eventual removal of hundreds of the megaliths that will sooner or later be coming to dominate our landscape. Of course, since so few villagers or townspeople were in the audience, I hope you all slept soundly.
At a meeting in Springwater, over 200 taxpayers voiced their objections to a mere 14 proposed windmills and the developer dropped the project. If only Naples, Cohocton, Prattsburgh and Italy Valley could be so united. We could definitely develop a renewable energy windfarm, that would be less environmental destructive aesthetically intrusive and actually save us local inhabitants money.
I am not a wind power project whore. I don't have property that would be suitable for the turbines to be erected. Most of us are in the same boat, yet the few naive, ill-informed or just plain greedy landowners who have signed secret lease agreements with several large wind power companies are now selling our quality of life down the river.
There are so many negatives to this project that I won't bore you with my worries. I am saddened by the thought that soon it will be more pleasant to drive north onto the flat lands than to come south to our beautiful valleys.
Friday, September 08, 2006
'Blown away by impact towers will have on Finger Lakes region by Bill Barker, Italy Valley
Twice in the past week, I have been blown away by the looming prospect of what wind farms in our area could mean.
First was a drive through the existing wind farm in the rural hills, of Fenner, a community just east of Syracuse. There they were - some 20 towering white-winged wind turbines set among field and forest, turning on their massive bases. One was squeaking for need of oiling, the others were purring or laying idle. Thinking back to the experience several days later, all I can remember is the beguiling, overwhelming presence of the massive white turbines. The surrounding rural scenery was totally lost to my mind.
Second was attendance at the information meeting convened by Cohocton Wind Watch at the Naples Hotel August 28. Several thoughtful and articulate members of our regional community laid out a tapestry of devious and disturbing facts about the wind farm movement that is quietly preparing to invade the hills all about us.
For me the most riveting fact is the number 519. That is the projected number of 400-foot wind turbine towners that could be in place in a few years time among some 8 to 10 wind farms that industrial developers have in mind for the towns in our immediate region.
This is the stuff nightmares! Now is the time to wake up and stop the wind tower industrialization of this gentle part of the world in which we are all so fortunate to reside.
First was a drive through the existing wind farm in the rural hills, of Fenner, a community just east of Syracuse. There they were - some 20 towering white-winged wind turbines set among field and forest, turning on their massive bases. One was squeaking for need of oiling, the others were purring or laying idle. Thinking back to the experience several days later, all I can remember is the beguiling, overwhelming presence of the massive white turbines. The surrounding rural scenery was totally lost to my mind.
Second was attendance at the information meeting convened by Cohocton Wind Watch at the Naples Hotel August 28. Several thoughtful and articulate members of our regional community laid out a tapestry of devious and disturbing facts about the wind farm movement that is quietly preparing to invade the hills all about us.
For me the most riveting fact is the number 519. That is the projected number of 400-foot wind turbine towners that could be in place in a few years time among some 8 to 10 wind farms that industrial developers have in mind for the towns in our immediate region.
This is the stuff nightmares! Now is the time to wake up and stop the wind tower industrialization of this gentle part of the world in which we are all so fortunate to reside.
Ecogen and Global corporate connection
Ecogen is really Prattsburgh Wind Farm
Global is really Prattsburgh Wind PARK
Anyway isn't the lead agent responsible to check out the NYISO to see projects!!
NYISO_Interconnection_Queue.pdf
Global is really Prattsburgh Wind PARK
Anyway isn't the lead agent responsible to check out the NYISO to see projects!!
NYISO_Interconnection_Queue.pdf
Thursday, September 07, 2006
CWW letter to the Cohocton Planning Board - September 7, 2006
September 7, 2006
Cohocton Planning Board
15 South Main Street
Cohocton New York 14826
Dear Mr. Fox and Planning Board Members:
At another of the special meetings of the Cohocton Town Board a motion was passed to refer back to the Cohocton Planning Board your recommendation on the Cohocton Windmill Local Law #2, specifically regarding the 600 foot setback from roads and the property assurance protection coverage.
It is imperative that public safety needs to be a foremost concern in any new legislation. Adding a mere 100 foot increase to the original setback from public roads provides minimal improvement. Any efforts, from the Town Board Councilmen, Town attorneys or financial development vested interests to pressure the Cohocton Planning to reduce this setback would be a major assault on the necessary and required standard of independence and integrity.
As you are already aware Cohocton Wind Watch views your setback recommendations to be inadequate. Since the Cohocton Planning Board is the lead agency for any industrial windmill projects, CWW urges that your board act with the fortitude to guarantee real protection of the public safety. Mr. Fox’s own recommendation of one and a half times the height of the industrial wind turbines from public roads is especially important wording since your board voted to reverse (Mr. Fox voted to reject his own suggestion) that initial proposal of reducing the height limit of such towers to 400 feet.
With the adoption of a 500 foot tower limit means that the setback from public roads should be 750 feet in order for any future industrial wind turbine to be built to that height perimeter. At the very least, this benchmark needs to be retained in your new review of your own Cohocton Planning Board recommendations.
Keeping the one and a half times the tower height will also mitigate noise issues in the future.
With reference to your property assurance protection requirement, CWW supports the addition of a real estate and fully funded property value escrow indemnity requirement to any new legislation.
The Town Board expressed doubt that such a proposal was vague. Cohocton Wind Watch is ready and able to assist in formulating an active effort to secure a professional real estate insurance consultant that could draft a specific and detailed proposal for inclusion of such a vital protection for all Cohocton property owners. Beverly Cota has direct career expertise in the insurance industry. James Hall has extensive international insurance experience with Lloyds of London. Both are available to coordinate options, in a timely schedule, to present a valid property assurance protection plan for insurance coverage to the Cohocton Planning Board.
Loss of property values from illegitimate spot zoning practices to accommodate industrial wind turbines is an essential grievance that CWW has against the current UPC project.
Last night the Town Supervisor indicated that Cohocton needs to raise $50,000 in the next budget by way of issuing a bond or raise property taxes because of litigation costs. Without a serious inclusion of indemnification for property owners from the negative proximity of industrial wind turbines, further and future legal actions against the Town of Cohocton is inevitable. The prudent and responsible action to safeguard such adverse affects should be a primary concern of the Cohocton Planning Board. Mr. Zigenfus stated that the CPB must take all the needed time necessary to clarify its recommendation.
CWW stands ready to assist either the Cohocton Planning or Town Boards in securing an independent professional consultant who will develop and formulate a true and practical property assurance protection coverage plan. The costs for such an inquiry search can be privately funded with no direct expense to the Town of Cohocton. Therefore, CWW appeals to the Cohocton Planning Board to accept our offer to assist in securing the creation of a substantial real estate property proposal.
All Cohocton residents should work together for the mutual benefit of the entire community. Especially since a second developer, Empire State Wind Energy, has gone public with intentions to make application for their own industrial wind project, now is the time to write a reasonable and protective windmill local law.
The best way to diminish legal exposure for the Town of Cohocton is to enact legislation that has the real support of those most affected in the township. Your written reply to this offer is requested with suggestions how we can contribute to delineate the details of a property assurance protection coverage that is a crucial element in your recommendations to the Town Board.
Cordially,
Steve Trude – President Cohocton Wind Watch
cc: all Cohocton Town Board Councilmen
Cohocton Planning Board
15 South Main Street
Cohocton New York 14826
Dear Mr. Fox and Planning Board Members:
At another of the special meetings of the Cohocton Town Board a motion was passed to refer back to the Cohocton Planning Board your recommendation on the Cohocton Windmill Local Law #2, specifically regarding the 600 foot setback from roads and the property assurance protection coverage.
It is imperative that public safety needs to be a foremost concern in any new legislation. Adding a mere 100 foot increase to the original setback from public roads provides minimal improvement. Any efforts, from the Town Board Councilmen, Town attorneys or financial development vested interests to pressure the Cohocton Planning to reduce this setback would be a major assault on the necessary and required standard of independence and integrity.
As you are already aware Cohocton Wind Watch views your setback recommendations to be inadequate. Since the Cohocton Planning Board is the lead agency for any industrial windmill projects, CWW urges that your board act with the fortitude to guarantee real protection of the public safety. Mr. Fox’s own recommendation of one and a half times the height of the industrial wind turbines from public roads is especially important wording since your board voted to reverse (Mr. Fox voted to reject his own suggestion) that initial proposal of reducing the height limit of such towers to 400 feet.
With the adoption of a 500 foot tower limit means that the setback from public roads should be 750 feet in order for any future industrial wind turbine to be built to that height perimeter. At the very least, this benchmark needs to be retained in your new review of your own Cohocton Planning Board recommendations.
Keeping the one and a half times the tower height will also mitigate noise issues in the future.
With reference to your property assurance protection requirement, CWW supports the addition of a real estate and fully funded property value escrow indemnity requirement to any new legislation.
The Town Board expressed doubt that such a proposal was vague. Cohocton Wind Watch is ready and able to assist in formulating an active effort to secure a professional real estate insurance consultant that could draft a specific and detailed proposal for inclusion of such a vital protection for all Cohocton property owners. Beverly Cota has direct career expertise in the insurance industry. James Hall has extensive international insurance experience with Lloyds of London. Both are available to coordinate options, in a timely schedule, to present a valid property assurance protection plan for insurance coverage to the Cohocton Planning Board.
Loss of property values from illegitimate spot zoning practices to accommodate industrial wind turbines is an essential grievance that CWW has against the current UPC project.
Last night the Town Supervisor indicated that Cohocton needs to raise $50,000 in the next budget by way of issuing a bond or raise property taxes because of litigation costs. Without a serious inclusion of indemnification for property owners from the negative proximity of industrial wind turbines, further and future legal actions against the Town of Cohocton is inevitable. The prudent and responsible action to safeguard such adverse affects should be a primary concern of the Cohocton Planning Board. Mr. Zigenfus stated that the CPB must take all the needed time necessary to clarify its recommendation.
CWW stands ready to assist either the Cohocton Planning or Town Boards in securing an independent professional consultant who will develop and formulate a true and practical property assurance protection coverage plan. The costs for such an inquiry search can be privately funded with no direct expense to the Town of Cohocton. Therefore, CWW appeals to the Cohocton Planning Board to accept our offer to assist in securing the creation of a substantial real estate property proposal.
All Cohocton residents should work together for the mutual benefit of the entire community. Especially since a second developer, Empire State Wind Energy, has gone public with intentions to make application for their own industrial wind project, now is the time to write a reasonable and protective windmill local law.
The best way to diminish legal exposure for the Town of Cohocton is to enact legislation that has the real support of those most affected in the township. Your written reply to this offer is requested with suggestions how we can contribute to delineate the details of a property assurance protection coverage that is a crucial element in your recommendations to the Town Board.
Cordially,
Steve Trude – President Cohocton Wind Watch
cc: all Cohocton Town Board Councilmen
Cohocton Town Board Ethic Committee
This date the Cohocton Town Board went on record that they will reestablishment the ethic committee.
September 6, 2006
Cohocton Town Board
15 South Main Street
Cohocton New York 14826
RE: Ethics Committee Required By Law Appointments
Dear Cohocton Town Councilmen:
Pursuant to local law #1, 1970, article 111, sec.-1, an ethics committee was established but at the present time is non-existent. It is imperative in the interest of good government that the Town Board Of Cohocton must administer the reinstitution of the three (3) persons ethics panel immediately as required by law at the next regular town board meeting. Note that the board has the responsibility to appoint the majority two (2) members who are not employees, office holders or currently serving an appointed post for the Town Of Cohocton. Also it is important that the appointee from current elected or appointed individuals needs to be of independent integrity. It is essential that all three (3) candidates selected have the character, reputation and credibility beyond reproach for this important position.
Recommended resident names for the two non Town of Cohocton employee slots will be submitted in the future.
The prompt reestablishment of a Cohocton Board of Ethics Committee is needed in order to comply with existing Cohocton Town law. Your written reply and acknowledgement of intent to appoint such a commission, at your next regular monthly Town Board meeting is requested.
Cordially,
Cohocton Wind Watch
September 6, 2006
Cohocton Town Board
15 South Main Street
Cohocton New York 14826
RE: Ethics Committee Required By Law Appointments
Dear Cohocton Town Councilmen:
Pursuant to local law #1, 1970, article 111, sec.-1, an ethics committee was established but at the present time is non-existent. It is imperative in the interest of good government that the Town Board Of Cohocton must administer the reinstitution of the three (3) persons ethics panel immediately as required by law at the next regular town board meeting. Note that the board has the responsibility to appoint the majority two (2) members who are not employees, office holders or currently serving an appointed post for the Town Of Cohocton. Also it is important that the appointee from current elected or appointed individuals needs to be of independent integrity. It is essential that all three (3) candidates selected have the character, reputation and credibility beyond reproach for this important position.
Recommended resident names for the two non Town of Cohocton employee slots will be submitted in the future.
The prompt reestablishment of a Cohocton Board of Ethics Committee is needed in order to comply with existing Cohocton Town law. Your written reply and acknowledgement of intent to appoint such a commission, at your next regular monthly Town Board meeting is requested.
Cordially,
Cohocton Wind Watch
UPC Wind misinforms
UPC, the company proposing 26 400-foot-high wind energy machines in Sheffield and Sutton [Vt.], took out a full-page ad in the July 1 Caledonian-Record (page B4). This was in reponse to the 48 people that were not employees of UPC who testified at the June 26 Public Service Board hearing in Sutton -- all of them describing the project's many negative impacts and its lack of significant benefits. UPC's ad quotes Abraham Lincoln that a dog still has four legs even if you call the tail a leg. They then proceed to argue that the tail of their dog is indeed a leg. But, as Bill Clinton used to say, that dog don't hunt.
(click above for full article)
(click above for full article)
Wind farms no economic boon for North, South Dakotans by Glenn Schleede
Global Winds Harvest Inc. and UPC Wind Partners, LLC announced in April a joint effort to install wind turbines with a total capacity of 480 megawatts (MW) in Dickey County, North Dakota and McPherson County, South Dakota. While the partners tout the project as an economic development boon, the economics of the proposal in fact leave much to be desired.
(click above for full article)
(click above for full article)
Monday, September 04, 2006
THIS WIND BLOWS ILL FOR WILDERNESS
A highly controversial proposal for 10 giant wind turbines next to the Gore Mountain ski slopes that would be visible from a number of peaks within the Adirondacks got a surprising nudge forward last week.
The Adirondack Park Agency approved the erection of a second 168-foot meteorological tower on the industrial footprint of the former Barton Mines in North Creek to assess wind speeds and directions. Much data already have been collected. Presumably this all leads to a full-fledged project proposal before the APA. That project by Adirondack Wind Partners will be a doozy if it materializes. Not so much for its size. Ten turbines in a wind farm is a modest proposal. But each would rise 400 feet and together trump the natural world around them, all inside the Adirondack Park.
Which is why this is not only a controversial proposal. It also sets an awful precedent.
The APA has jurisdiction over any tower 40 feet or higher, and the strict guideline the agency has used in the past is "substantial invisibility" when it comes to man-made structures in the park.
That's what drove the cell tower debate in Fort Ann, for example, over the so-called Frankenpine tower. The 104-foot phony pine tree is an attempt at cobbling "substantial invisibility." Frankenpine is being erected right now among the real pines, having won APA approval over the spirited objections of the Adirondack Council.
With Frankenpine, "substantial invisibility" is at least arguable.
No such efforts will be made to hide or mask the giant turbines, yet the APA continues to encourage them before there's a full-fledged proposal from Adirondack Wind Partners that can trigger appropriate debate and response. You can bet there will be plenty of that. This inching along without a complete proposal on the table sends the wrong signal, and can only encourage others to take a long shot at getting wind farms up and spinning on some other Adirondack mountain peaks - before the fundamental argument is settled as to whether they belong there at all.
How many such turbines will it take to compromise the unique natural topography of the Adirondacks?
To my mind, within the Adirondack Park, the answer is one. Because one will inevitably lead to many, and then poof, there goes that delicate illusion of the Adirondack forever wild wilderness. Forever.
"We're not at all happy with this latest approval," says Brian Houseal, executive director fo the Adirondack Council. "This whole project shouldn't get out of the starting gate, yet it seems to be creeping ahead."
Dave Gibson, executive director of the Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks, concurs. "The Barton Mines wind power proposal calls for highly engineered wind towers and turbine blades on a 3,000-foot mountain summit that would reach heights over 400 feet - or the equivalent of a 40-story urban building."
The fly in the soup here is the action of the current Adirondack Park Agency, which is admittedly caught in a bind. Wind power is the darling of the alternative energy crowd, including some elements of the environmental community. Politically, Governor Pataki is pushing both alternative energy for the state and economic development for the Adirondacks, and he's running out of time.
And this is his state agency. At least for the moment.
Fred LeBrun can be reached at 454-5453 or by e-mail at flebrun@timesunion.com.
The Adirondack Park Agency approved the erection of a second 168-foot meteorological tower on the industrial footprint of the former Barton Mines in North Creek to assess wind speeds and directions. Much data already have been collected. Presumably this all leads to a full-fledged project proposal before the APA. That project by Adirondack Wind Partners will be a doozy if it materializes. Not so much for its size. Ten turbines in a wind farm is a modest proposal. But each would rise 400 feet and together trump the natural world around them, all inside the Adirondack Park.
Which is why this is not only a controversial proposal. It also sets an awful precedent.
The APA has jurisdiction over any tower 40 feet or higher, and the strict guideline the agency has used in the past is "substantial invisibility" when it comes to man-made structures in the park.
That's what drove the cell tower debate in Fort Ann, for example, over the so-called Frankenpine tower. The 104-foot phony pine tree is an attempt at cobbling "substantial invisibility." Frankenpine is being erected right now among the real pines, having won APA approval over the spirited objections of the Adirondack Council.
With Frankenpine, "substantial invisibility" is at least arguable.
No such efforts will be made to hide or mask the giant turbines, yet the APA continues to encourage them before there's a full-fledged proposal from Adirondack Wind Partners that can trigger appropriate debate and response. You can bet there will be plenty of that. This inching along without a complete proposal on the table sends the wrong signal, and can only encourage others to take a long shot at getting wind farms up and spinning on some other Adirondack mountain peaks - before the fundamental argument is settled as to whether they belong there at all.
How many such turbines will it take to compromise the unique natural topography of the Adirondacks?
To my mind, within the Adirondack Park, the answer is one. Because one will inevitably lead to many, and then poof, there goes that delicate illusion of the Adirondack forever wild wilderness. Forever.
"We're not at all happy with this latest approval," says Brian Houseal, executive director fo the Adirondack Council. "This whole project shouldn't get out of the starting gate, yet it seems to be creeping ahead."
Dave Gibson, executive director of the Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks, concurs. "The Barton Mines wind power proposal calls for highly engineered wind towers and turbine blades on a 3,000-foot mountain summit that would reach heights over 400 feet - or the equivalent of a 40-story urban building."
The fly in the soup here is the action of the current Adirondack Park Agency, which is admittedly caught in a bind. Wind power is the darling of the alternative energy crowd, including some elements of the environmental community. Politically, Governor Pataki is pushing both alternative energy for the state and economic development for the Adirondacks, and he's running out of time.
And this is his state agency. At least for the moment.
Fred LeBrun can be reached at 454-5453 or by e-mail at flebrun@timesunion.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)