HOW TURBINES BECAME UTILITIES IN CAPE VINCENT

Preface

A reader sent me this; it is a good chronological progression of the events that unfolded in Cape Vincent.
These events ultimately led to the wind turbines being designated as utilities. This is the Truth and there is documentation to support it. Additionally the planning board and Town board in Cape Vincent are self serving liars, the planning board of Cape Vincent isn’t even following its own comprehensive plan. A comprehensive plan is a means to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the people in the community and give due consideration to the needs of the people in the region of which the community is a part.
K.M.

THE STORY OF HOW WIND TURBINES BECAME UTILITIES


THE BEGINNING
Nov. 8, 2006 Planning Board meeting:

Planning Board Chairman, Mr.Edsall and the planning board (PB) are asked the critical question that sparks the controversy.

“Is a wind farm an acceptable site plan review use in the agricultural district?”

Is this question asked by Acciona? The minutes aren’t clear.
The Planning board chairman, Mr. Edsall asks his board for a vote on the question. They vote 5-0 yes. (With 3 conflicted votes) Note that the question is NOT are wind turbines a utility.
That is where the confusion starts. The question is about a wind farm being a proper site plan review use. This is a very important point.

The Problem:

There is no discussion on why a wind farm is acceptable as a site plan use in the AG district by the PB. They give NO rational as to why it is allowed or under what category it might fall. There are 12 site plan review uses allowed in the AG district. A wind farm is not listed as a use. Utilities, light industrial, and commercial ARE listed uses, but the planning board never says which use a wind farm is. They just say it is acceptable and move on.

So they must have had some reason in their heads. They never clearly define why wind turbines are allowed and why.
Did they think that they are a utility because that is what the wind company told them? And that was what SLW listed on their permit application?

There is also the problem that it is out of the jurisdiction of the PB to make this determination or answer this question.
NY Town Law does not give the PB the power to interpret zoning law.
That is for the Zoning Enforcement Officer Alan Wood, and if there is a question it goes to the Zoning Board of Appeals. So even though everyone blames WPEG, it is the planning board that screwed up 1st.


Dec 2006: VERY IMPORTANT

WPEG challenges the planning board’s decision before the CV Zoning Board of Appeal.

It is critical to understand that… WPEG did not challenge whether turbines are utilities. They only asked for a determination, that if a wind farm is an acceptable site plan review use, which use is it, because wind farms are not listed?

The problem starts here because

SLW AND THEIR LAWYERS SWEEP IN AND SAY…”OH OUR PROJECT IS OK IN THE AG DISTRICT BECAUSE IT IS A UTILITY UNDER YOUR CURRENT ZONING AND UTILITIES DEFINITION”.

WPEG never said a word about utilities…it was SLW who defined turbines as utilities. Then WPEG challenged that as well, saying a wind farm is not a utility as defined by Cape Vincent’s zoning law. This is important…how did WPEG get blamed for turbines being utilities if they were fighting that turbines are not utilities…this makes no sense at all.

It is also very important to note that SLW’s application for a permit, and site plan review that was turned in to the town, also says their wind farm should be considered a utility.

WPEG didn’t write that on their application for them. The important thing is that even if WPEG didn’t challenge the PB decision these projects would have moved forward as utilities ANYHOW because that is what SLW put on their application. If nobody challenged it, it would have moved forward as a utility anyhow.

Now the other thing that is being lied about is they are saying WPEG is at fault for killing the 2006 wind law.

At the end of this post, I have included the minutes of an Aug 2006 meeting where [ Supervisor Reinbeck stated that on behalf of the board, he will request the planning board to adopt our proposed wind tower regulations as a guideline during their site plan review process]. So that is a lie too.
Also at the bottom of this post, is a letter from Richard Edsall: June 14, 2006. We propose that the town board abandon its efforts to amend the current zoning law.

Why does Reinbeck start a wind law committee, spend $20,000 on the law, and spend 5 months on it, when he knows he can’t pass it anyhow because of the conflicts of interest on his board? The answer is because he never wanted a wind law to begin with unless it was very weak and favored the wind company.

The wind law was finished in Jan…it is now almost May.
He is not going to pass a wind law because he and Edsall and the board and the lease holders do not want one.

No matter what they say, they want turbines as utilities so they can put as many of them in as possible and as close to the river and lake as possible!!!! THEY ARE LIARS!!!!
But to do this and create a public diversion they will blame WPEG for all the points above.

You have to have something for cover when you recklessly waste $20,000 of tax payer money.
Unsigned

NYDEC submits a letter to the PB and Edsall concerning the pending DEIS

Dec. 20,2006:

The NYDEC submits a letter to the PB and Edsall concerning the pending DEIS and the town as lead agency. They do not object to the town PB as lead agency. However, they are not aware of the conflicts of interest since there is no mention of it in their letter, and more importantly, no conflicted town officers at this point had made any official disclosures as required by the town’s ethics code. So the DEC and public could not be aware of the conflicts. They recommend that a public scoping be done so important studies get included, and the public and other involved agencies have input. As you will see later the scoping was skipped over despite the request of experts at the DEC who express concerns over wind farm impacts particularly in this area. In addition the letter outlines numerous areas of study the DEC thinks are important.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cape Vincents PB adopts un- adopted draft wind law as guideline for turbine siting

September 13, 2006:

The Planning Board approves a motion (4-0, Binsley absent) to adopt the Town’s previous un-adopted draft wind law as guidelines for wind turbines siting in the projects site plan review process. This was an illegal action on the part of Edsall and the planning board which has no authority to adopt anything. They are an advisory board with no legislative power. We believe this was a backdoor attempt to avoid specific wind zoning, and the Comp Plan issues. We believe it was another in a trend of actions by conflicted town officials to expedite the wind developer’s projects.

Cape Vincent~ Wind HX~ Wpeg ~ Lawyer Judy Drabicki telling Mark Gebo that Edsall can't adopt the guidelines, it's illegal.

16) September 13, 2006:

The Planning Board approves a motion (4-0, Binsley absent) to adopt the Town’s previous un-adopted draft wind law as guidelines for wind turbines siting in the projects site plan review process. This was an illegal action on the part of Edsall and the planning board which has no authority to adopt anything. They are an advisory board with no legislative power. We believe this was a backdoor attempt to avoid specific wind zoning, and the Comp Plan issues. We believe it was another in a trend of actions by conflicted town officials to expedite the wind developer’s projects.

September 13, 2006:

Some of this is from the wind history that I have published before with added information.

The Planning Board approves a motion (4-0, Binsley absent) to adopt the Town’s previous un-adopted draft wind law as guidelines for wind turbines siting in the projects site plan review process. This was an illegal action on the part of Edsall and the planning board which has no authority to adopt anything. They are an advisory board with no legislative power. We believe this was a backdoor attempt to avoid specific wind zoning, and the Comp Plan issues. We believe it was another in a trend of actions by conflicted town officials to expedite the wind developer’s projects.
~~~~
Here is a quote from WPEG attorney back then Judy Drabicki telling Mark Gebo that Edsall can't adopt the guidelines, it's illegal.




Notice too in the copy of the minutes above , the mention of an escrow account~
Town law prohibits turbines in the River or Lake Districts. A developer will have to set up an escrow account. For what purpose ,no explanation given.
~~~
Later in a Watertown Times article it states that an escrow account is established by Acciona for all costs incurred during the environmental review process.
~~~

Jefferson County Ethics Opinion #2 ~ RE: Conflicted Cape Vincent Officials

Cape Vincent ~ Jefferson County Board of Ethics Opinion-Conflicted Public Official 2-1

Reinbeck resolves to end amending of Town of CV Wind zoning Law

August 28, 2006:

Because the cost of environmental studies exceeded expectations, Supervisor Rienbeck resolves (#33) to “discontinue the process of amending the Town of Cape Vincent Zoning Law to regulate wind towers.” The motion does not carry, but the zoning process is essentially dead. Rienbeck further states, “I will request the Planning Board adopt our proposed wind tower regulations as a guideline during their site plan review process.” This conforms to PBC Edsall’s June 14, 2006 request, but is at odds with recommendations by others, including the Town’s attorney, to adopt a wind law. At or about this time Supervisor Rienbeck stops soliciting advice from the Town’s attorney (Mark Gebo) and begins following the advice of an Albany attorney in the office of the New York Association of Towns. Rienbeck, when asked in the media
what happens if a wind law is not passed, comments that the town will call turbines
utilities under the current zoning, and they can be placed anywhere in town as a result. It should also be noted that the town had sufficient money to do the studies, and could have even charged the developers for the studies.

Special town baord meeting ~ resolved to discontinue process of amending town of Cape vincent zoning law to regulate wind turbines

Edsall ~Turbines can be designated as utilities ~

Early August 2006

Edsall begins expressing public opinions that a wind law may not be necessary because turbines can be designated utilities under the current zoning law. The current zoning law has no provisions or codes for wind energy development and is completely inadequate to address this type of industrial development. The actions of Cape Vincent municipal officials are contrary to normal accepted practice at the time, since other towns around CV and New York facing wind development declared wind moratoriums and developed specific wind zoning amendments. We believe that Cape Vincent’s position to avoid a wind law is due the numerous officers’ conflicts of interest, and to expedite the process in favor of the wind developers.[Note: At the April 2009 meeting of the Cape Vincent Town Board, Councilman Joe Wood indicates that the TB cannot adopt a law fearing this action will initiate a lawsuit by WPEG. This admission in 2009 suggests the issue of their conflicts may have played a role in the decision to kill amending the zoning law in 2006. We could conclude that the CV TB shirked its legislative responsibility to adopt a zoning amendment for the biggest commercial development project in the Town’s history in order to avoid lawsuits.]

EDSALL ~ HE HAW WIND LAW ~ ADOPTED ~ LAW ~ THEY TRIED TO KILL !!!

Early August 2006

Edsall begins expressing public opinions that a wind law may not be necessary because turbines can be designated utilities under the current zoning law. The current zoning law has no provisions or codes for wind energy development and is completely inadequate to address this type of industrial development. The actions of Cape Vincent municipal officials are contrary to normal accepted practice at the time, since other towns around CV and New York facing wind development declared wind moratoriums and developed specific wind zoning amendments
August 28, 2006:

Because the cost of environmental studies exceeded expectations, Supervisor Rienbeck resolves to “discontinue the process of amending the Town of Cape Vincent Zoning Law to regulate wind towers.” The motion does not carry, but the zoning process is essentially dead.(Link here)
Rienbeck further states, “I will request the Planning Board adopt our proposed wind tower regulations as a guideline during their site plan review process.” This conforms to PBC Edsall’s June 14,2006 request(link here) but is at odds with recommendations by others, including the Town’s attorney, to adopt a wind law. At or about this time Supervisor Rienbeck stops soliciting advice from the Town’s attorney (Mark Gebo) and begins following the advice of an Albany attorney in the office of the New York Association of Towns. Rienbeck, when asked in the media
what happens if a wind law is not passed, comments that the town will call turbines
utilities under the current zoning, and they can be placed anywhere in town as a result. It should also be noted that the town had sufficient money to do the studies, and could have even charged the developers for the studies. (The developer refuses pay for the studies)


In the minutes Edsall request the planning board adopt the old 2006 law as guidelines. And Edsall adopts them....
With all the bungling and the “HE HAW Politics” that are going on in Cape Vincent could it get any more ridiculous?
What does the old law/guideline say?
Turbines are not utilities, and 5dba at the property line!
These moronic idiots just adopted what they tried to kill!
Read the law here page one clearly states that wind power facilities shall not be considered utilities.

Jefferson County Ethics Opinion #1 ~ RE: Conflicted Cape Vincent Officials

Cape Vincent ~ Jefferson County Board of Ethics Opinion-Conflicted Public Official 1-1

FOES WIN A ROUND IN WIND FARM TILT

July 14, 2006
FOES WIN A ROUND IN WIND FARM TILT
HEARING AT CAPE: COUNCIL TO ISSUE IMPACT DECLARATION BEFORE ZONING VOTE
Author: KELLY VADNEY
TIMES STAFF WRITER
Edition: Both
Section: Jefferson
Page: A1
Dateline: CAPE VINCENT

Article Text:
After listening to over two hours of public comment, the Town Council agreed to issue a positive declaration of impact under the state Environmental Quality Review Act before voting on a new zoning law for wind power facilities.
The decision was a victory for residents and advocacy groups that have been seeking a moratorium on wind-farm development.
"We can't go through with this thing without knowing the answer to these questions," said Arthur D. Pundt, a seasonal resident who is a member of Wind Power Ethics Group, a citizen's organization that has been researching turbine development on its own.
The hearing brought 100 people to the Recreation Center on James street. Residents spoke both in favor of and in opposition to the law. Many expressed frustration in a lack of information and knowledge concerning wind power issues. It was the third public hearing the town has held concerning zoning for wind turbines.
The proposed zoning law prohibits commercial wind turbine development in the river front and lake front districts. It requires commercial wind power facilities to be set back 1,000 feet plus 1.5 times the tower height from the high water mark on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River.
If the distance of a setback requirement were to fall within the river front or lake front district, turbines would not be permitted.
Ethics group member Sarah F. Boss presented the Council with a petition from 140 members of the community and two 4-inch ring binders of scientific research for review.
Not all were opposed to the terms of the law. Many landowners who attended the meeting not only supported short setbacks from the river, but lashed out at WPEGs research strategies.
Pictures of Paul C. Mason's farm with turbines digitally imposed were used in an informational packet put together by the group.
"This is of personal offense to me," Mr. Mason said. "This is not a true picture." He said he contacted a lawyer, who advised him the use of the pictures was illegal.
Mr. Pundt, who composed the packet, acknowledged in a phone interview prior to the meeting that the pictures were not professionally produced.
Wind-farm opponents questioned everything from possible impacts on the environment, to the degree of tax breaks, to the impact on views along the river. Many continued to encourage a moratorium while more information is gathered.
"This is a big decision, a huge decision. This isn't like picking out curtains. Once you put these things up, they're going to be there," said Andrew J. Norris, a year-round resident who lives on Route 12E across from County Route 7. "I'm not opposed to wind towers, just give us a bigger setback."
Seasonal residents expressed feelings of frustration regarding not only a lack of information, but representation in their government. Many stated they pay taxes on their property all year long, and deserve to have their interests protected.
Farmer Jarvis H. Radley said the town should protect the interests of year-round residents.
"Most of these people here, money doesn't really matter," he said. "This affects my income, this affects my future."
Town Attorney Mark G. Gebo said he will begin drafting the positive declaration to proceed under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. After the public hearing, the board completed a SEQR worksheet in which they determined there may be significant environmental, health and safety risks involved with possible turbine development under the proposed law.
The next step will be to find a consultant to study the possible impacts of enacting the zoning law.
"There is a process to this. It isn't going to be quick. It's going to take some time," Mr. Gebo said. He may have the declaration complete by the council's August meeting.
Town Supervisor Thomas K Rienbeck said he thought it was the best decision for the town to make at the time.
Copyright, 2006, Johnson Newspaper Corporation
Record Number: 0607140135

TOWN OF CAPE VINCENT LOCAL LAW of 2006

A LOCAL LAW to AMMEND CAPE VINCENTS ZONING LAW

WDT / ILL Wind Blowing/ Potential Wind Developments In CV

A new citizens organization, Wind Power Ethics Group

Byline: Kelly Vadney

Jun. 24--CAPE VINCENT -- A new citizens organization, Wind Power Ethics Group, is investigating possible effects of proposed wind turbines in the town.

"There's been a lot of indecision on the board," said Dr. Charles J. Moehs, vice president and spokesman for the group. "I don't think they've covered all of the issues."

WPEG sent a letter to the town board urging it to consider a moratorium on turbines through Dexter attorney Judy Drabicki last week.

Dr. Moehs said 50 to 60 people are members of WPEG, both seasonal and year-round residents. He said the group has met two or three times in the past month to two

WIND TOWER SETBACK NIXED

Wind power setback nixed
Cape zoning plan: amendment changed to resolve deadlock
By Jude Seymour
Times staff writer
June 16,2006

Cape Vincent – two members of the town Council have reversed their positions on setback requirements of commercial wind towers, causing a deadlock that was resolved Thursday only by stripping any such regulations from up close zoning law amendment.
Two Councilman recusing themselves over apparent conflicts of interest, the three members remaining agreed May 11 two set a project boundary that would begin 1000 feet from the already established River district boundary. Proposed law therefore, restricted the first turbine from being placed any closer than 2600 feet from the center line over 12 the.
But supervisor Thomas K Rhinebeck and Councilman Mickey W Orvis offered a revised boundary Thursday that showed turbines as close as 1600 feet from the center line over 12 E. Councilman Clifford P. Schneider who had already compromised for the May 11 proposition did not alter his proposal.
“There’s been overwhelming support for total use of the Ag district, to begin with." Mr. Rhinebeck in explaining his change of course" and furthermore, I see no reason other than visual impacts for anything other than that"
Mr. Orvis added," I can't justify taking another thousand feet, whether it's a farmer or just a regular landowner of their property."
But Mr. Schneider said town residents have been misled by statements made at the June 3 public hearing, where many town farmers claimed they would have problems with the proposed setbacks.
“I found out these were basically three farmers affected by what the town was proposing," the councilman said." And two of these farmers still had 100 acres that could be developed. One farmer is seriously affected, but he still going to have 40 acres left to have a tower on."
The three Councilmen could agree to address setbacks only through forbidding wind power development in the lake and river districts. Their proposal also allows tower construction starting at 1600 feet from the high water mark of both Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River leaving the town planning board responsible for actual siting during each procedural review.
This revised zoning law amendment will be subject to a public hearing which has not been scheduled all three Councilman agreed not to pursue a six-month moratorium on wind power development.
“We have to take advantage of the tax relief that's going to be available to us." Said Mr. Orvis." We could wait and the wind company, the developer, could go to another spot and come back to us, but supply and demand.
We’re not the only ones in the country that are going to have wind towers built. The longer we wait the longer were going to wait for a supply of wind towers. And that's longer we have to wait for any tax relief."

Assemblyman Aubertine’s letter to Cape Vincent’s Town Board written in June of 2006:

Assemblyman Aubertine’s letter to Cape Vincent’s Town Board written in June of 2006:
Re: Abstaining from Voting on the location of Wind Turbines in Cape Vincent
Ladies and gentlemen:
I regret that I was unable to attend the public hearing held on June 3rd at which time the above referenced subject was discussed and I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts with you now.
Specifically, I would like to comment about the issue of whether a board member should abstain from voting on an issue. As elected representatives, we are responsible to make decisions for the benefit of our constituents and community. This project, which affects thousands of acres and dozens of property owners, has the potential to positively affect every resident. Whether through a reduced property tax rate or new economic opportunities, Messrs.’ Wood and Mason will certainly not be the sole beneficiaries should this project move forward.
While some may feel that these elected officials should abstain from voting on this matter – my belief is that they should not. If they are restrained from voting in this instance, then shouldn’t the community decide now what the guiding principals will be for future abstention in different matters and with what representative? I.e. voting on a tax rate that affects their personal property.
Healthy and positive discourse is mandatory in a democracy; however, governing by referendum is unwise. After careful reflection, I feel it is ethically proper that in this case all board members should vote on the issue at hand. In fact, I believe it is their responsibility to do so.

Sincerely,

Darrel J. Aubertine

Edsall Letter 6/14/2006 & Minutes

.

June 14, 2006:

Desperate to cut the public out of the zoning process, PB Chairman Edsall wrote a letter June 14, 2006, to the town board informing them that the PB passed a resolution by a 5-0 favor vote, that the current zoning law is sufficient to properly site any private or commercial wind turbines in the Town of Cape Vincent. No change to the current zoning laws are necessary at this time. We propose that the Town Board abandon its efforts to amend the current zoning law.” [This resolution effectively allowed developer’s unrestricted rights for development and give the planning board as much or as little control as they deem appropriate.
Edsall wrote that the resolution passed by a 5 to 0 vote indicating that neither PBC Edsall or two other members of the PB with ties to wind developers recused themselves from this vote.]
Was there even a vote? In the minutes from the Planning Board meeting of June 14, 2006, there is no record of any such vote.

Edsall Letter

Planning Board Minutes June 14, 2006 (1)

Planning Board Minutes June 14, 2006 (2)

Cape Vincent Group Seeks Moratorium On Wind Farms

Cape Vincent Group Seeks Moratorium On Wind Farms

June 14, 2006 in WWNY-TV Watertown

A group of residents has hired an attorney in connection with proposals to build a wind farm in the town of Cape Vincent. Wind Power Ethics Group, made up of approximately 30 people, wants a moratorium on development of commercial wind power facilities.

The group hired Dexter attorney Judy Drabicki, who drafted a letter asking the town board to make no decisions on wind farm projects for six months.

Drabicki said the town needs to carefully examine the potential harm posed by wind facilities.

"You need to look at the view shed. You need to create computer generated images. You need to study the birds, study the traffic, not just click off boxes on a form," said Drabicki.

The attorney said a State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) is necessary before the town allows wind farm development.

Meanwhile, the town council is working on drafting zoning ordinances. It has been accepting letters from residents about the proposed wind farm projects.

The council will meet Thursday to discuss the issue.

"The SEQR is part of our process of changing any zoning law, which the town board will address all those issues. Link unavailable

Edsall Letter ~ proposing efforts to abandon efforts to amend current zoning

Planning Board Chairman Richard Edsall Proposes Town Board abandons efforts to amend current zoning

Cape Vincent ~ Wind History ~ WPEG’s attorney suggests moratorium on wind development

June 13, 2006:

In a letter to Town Supervisor Rienbeck and the TB, WPEG’s attorney suggests that any wind zoning law should be preceded by a moratorium on wind development to give all parties time to research the issue of industrial wind development. The town adopts no such moratorium as other surrounding towns do. This has the appearance that the town with 6 conflicts of interest is in a rush to expedite the wind development process.
All other towns around Cape Vincent have done moratoriums on this issue to develop a wind law.

J. Drabicki ~ Letter to Supervisor Reinbeck Re: Comments on Proposed Local law to Amend CVZoning Law

Wind farm topic causes turmoil

Wind farm topic causes turmoil
When a town board schedules a meeting on a Saturday and so many people show up, you know it's a big issue: wind farms.
June 4, 2006 by Brian Dwyer in News10now
Link not available

They have them in Lowville, and they'll soon be in Cape Vincent.

Depending on who you ask, you'll get a different answer as to where they should go.


The town board is considering a law requiring them to be 1,600 feet away from the riverfront district.


Those living on the water don't like it, and they say it's way too close and would ruin their property.


"What are you creating? Not a few isolated windmills, towers, or turbines, but 150 of them. It'll desecrate the landscape for generations to come. I don't want to look at them," one discouraged community member said.


But for some, they see what is happening in Lowville.


The alternative energy, combined with the tax money coming in, sounds like a good way to keep their taxes down.


Farmers are even asking that the towers be built closer than 1,600 feet away

CAPE VINCENT WIND PROJECT QUESTIONED

This Watertown times article
mentions a public hearing for the proposed local law, which would amend the town's zoning laws to include provisions about wind power, for 10 a.m. June 3, 2003 at the fire hall.

 |  BACK TO ARCHIVE SEARCH

Published: May 14, 2006

Page: A1

Edition: Both

Section: Jefferson

Copyright, 2006, Johnson Newspaper Corporation

CAPE VINCENT WIND PROJECT QUESTIONED

CAPE VINCENT WIND PROJECT QUESTIONED
By JUDE SEYMOUR
TIMES STAFF WRITER
CAPE VINCENT -- A wind power developer established temporary lodgings at the fire hall here Saturday to assuage concerns about its proposed 65-turbine project. But AES/Acciona Wind Power NY Project Manager Todd R. Hopper said residents' most consistent query was about potential setbacks, an aspect not controlled by developers.



On Thursday, the Town Council proposed a project boundary that would begin 1,000 feet from the established river district boundary. If approved, the first wind turbine would be no closer than 2,600 feet from the river side of Route 12E. They set a public hearing for the proposed local law, which would amend the town's zoning laws to include provisions about wind power, for 10 a.m. June 3 at the fire hall.


The Rochester-based developers have looked to secure lease agreements from property owners in their intended project area, generally defined as Route 12E on the north, Route 9 on the east, Constance Road on the west and Favret, Mason and McKeever roads on the south.


While the wind velocities in that area - which top out at about 6.96 meters per second - are not optimum, Mr. Hopper said speeds are aggressive enough to have a viable project. The company is hampered more by the transmission line's 130 megawatt capacity. Mr. Hopper said upgrading the power lines would be cost-prohibitive, so AES/Acciona will be content with maximizing the output.


The project manager stressed that the company is still more than two years away from siting its first turbine. The company needs eight to 36 months to prepare a draft environmental impact statement, a voluminous document that will include studies on visual and sound impacts; shadow flicker; effects on bird, bat and other wildlife population, and the effect on the Federal Aviation Administration.


This process, which will be subject to public review and comment, also will include a transportation study, which will assess the feasibility of upgrading existing infrastructure to transport each $1 million turbine.


Assemblyman Darrel J. Aubertine, D-Cape Vincent, said in a mid-April interview that he'd like to see the companies use the existing coal docks, which are adjacent to Broadway Street.


"What we have the opportunity to do is use the port of Cape Vincent rather than the port of Oswego," Mr. Aubertine said, referencing the starting point for turbines involved in the Maple Ridge Wind Farm project. "Certainly enhancements would need to be made to the existing coal dock area to offload ships at the breakwall. But those improvements that will be made are improvements that will be there long after the ships have offloaded the windmills."


Mr. Hopper said using local dockage is possible, but only if it's economically sound. He said AES/Acciona will create a plan for repair and restoring any infrastructure affected by turbine traffic. It may include upgrades before turbines hit the roads.


The project manager said the company plans more public information sessions. For now, Mr. Hopper encouraged residents to attend the upcoming hearing.


"They need to show up at the public hearing and give their opinion so the town can make a decision that makes the majority happy," he said.

Additionally~
This is the letter from Darrel Aubertine to the Cape Vincent Town Board instructing them to vote on wind issues, even though they have conflicts of interests . In this letter Darrel Aubertine mentions a that he regrets that he was unable to attend the public hearing of June 3rd 2006 the Watertown Times article in this post, addresses this public hearing as well as other issues.

Cape vincent Wind Project Questioned

Cape Vincent Wind Hist May 2006 Mason &Wood will recuse themselves

May 12, 2006:

At the town board meeting Councilmen Mason and Wood state they have received notification from the Jefferson County Board of Ethics and that they will recuse themselves from any votes or discussion of wind development issues. At the same meeting PBC Edsall was present and provided “input to the Board regarding this decision (wind law).” [Edsall never mentioned requesting an advisory opinion from the Jefferson County Board of Ethics, nor did he recuse himself to the extent of Mason and Wood.]

CAPE COUNCIL COMPROMISES ON WIND FARM

Published: May 12,2006
CAPE COUNCIL COMPROMISES ON WIND FARM
By JUDE SEYMOUR
TIMES STAFF WRITER
CAPE VINCENT -- The Town Council agreed Thursday to compromise on a wind development project line that would begin 1,000 feet from the town's river district boundary, meaning the first wind turbine could be no closer than 2,600 feet to Route 12E.
The council set a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the zoning regulations for 10 a.m. June 3 at the Cape Vincent Fire Hall.

The agreement was reached after Supervisor Thomas K. Rienbeck advocated a 500-foot boundary from the river district, which would allow the first tower at 2,100 feet, while Councilman Clifford P. Schneider backed a 2,500-foot setback from the river district, which would allow the first tower at 4,100 feet from Route 12E.

"What is so special about that additional piece of land, going from, say, what you're proposing out to about 4,300 feet?" Mr. Schneider said. "I looked at the wind maps, and it certainly isn't the wind."

Councilman Mickey Orvis's offer was just 100 feet more than Mr. Rienbeck's proposal, but the council needed a unanimous vote because Councilmen Marty T. Mason and Joseph H. Wood were notified orally Thursday by the county Board of Ethics that they should abstain from any vote regarding wind turbines, owing to conflicts of interests.

Mr. Mason has given AES/Acciona Wind Energy New York, Rochester, right-of-way access on his land along the regional water line. He said in April that he is still in negotiations with that company for developing other property he owns.

Mr. Wood said he was told he did not have to disclose the Board of Ethics ruling and declined to explain what the board considered to be his precise conflict. He sold his 20 percent interest in the Wood farm, which has a contract for wind rights, in January 2005. But the councilman has immediate and extended relations who benefit financially from the wind power companies.

Mr. Schneider said the community is so polarized and divided about setbacks that any compromise is one "which everyone leaves here with a frown." He added, "If we end up with a hearing in June where some side gets up when we're done and is clapping and cheering, I think we will have failed."

The board also agreed to add two more stipulations to the proposed zoning amendments, as recommended Wednesday by the town Planning Board.

"We want in the law a separate thing that says there will be a fee per tower," Planning Board Chairman Richard J. Edsall said. "You're not specifying the fee. We'll come up with that later. And the second one is that we say that it is 1,000 feet from a property line that's not participating."

Property owners who allow the erection of a tower on their property must ensure it is at least 1,000 feet from any neighbor who is not participating in the development.

"I want that 1,000 feet on the property line, because that keeps good neighbors," Mr. Edsall said.

Todd R. Hopper, the AES/Acciona project manager, supported the additional two stipulations. He also told councilmen, "We're not going to start construction until we have permission to connect." The project manager predicted the first turbine would not be constructed and operational in Cape Vincent until the fall of 2008.

The council also received a petition from Frank J. Giaquinto; the Route 12E resident claimed 322 residents signed the document, which advocated a setback of 1,600 feet from Route 12E.

"I think the town is overwhelmingly in favor of having them and having a reasonable setback," he said.

Cape Vincent Wind History ~PB & TB advised by attorney to seek advisory opinion from county Ethics Board

April 17, 2006:

In a letter to Supervisor Rienbeck town’s attorney Mark Gebo advises Planning Board and Town Board members to request an advisory opinion from the Jefferson County Board of Ethics regarding their ties to wind developers and their official duties with the town. Gebo concludes, “I would certainly highly encourage you and your board members to participate in this process to remove any potential claim that the process has somehow been biased or unfair, and further to take away any ethical argument challenging any approvals or regulations that may be adopted.”

Residents Are Airing Concerns

RESIDENTS ARE AIRING CONCERNS
WIND FARM: SOLUTION TO LOCATING PROJECTS NOT MADE AT MEETING
By JUDE SEYMOUR
TIMES STAFF WRITER
CAPE VINCENT -- After almost two hours of discussion, Planning Board Vice-chairman Thomas D. Ingersoll reported that his board had no recommendation about the siting of wind farm projects.
Mr. Ingersoll advocated a setback of 2,500 feet from the riverfront district boundary line. Since the district is defined as ending 1,000 feet past the center line of Route 12E, his recommendation was to prohibit any turbine closer than 3,500 feet from the centerline of the road.

His suggestion was supported by fellow planner George A. Mingle, who said the wind energy farms would provide an economic benefit to the town taxpayers and reduce the state's dependence on fossil fuels.

But member Karen Bourcy supported a recommendation previously offered by Chairman Richard J. Edsall, who recused himself from the vote because he has signed a contract with one of the developers.

Mr. Edsall wants to permit turbine development in the town's agricultural/residential zone, with no setback stipulation, and to ban development in the riverfront and lakefront district. The lakefront district uses County Route 6 as its eastern boundary.

Mr. Edsall made his suggestion again Wednesday, but not, he said, as the planning board chairman. He petitioned to be included on the board's agenda as a private citizen and representative of a community group that has met monthly to discuss wind turbine issues.

Mrs. Bourcy would have found support for her vote from her colleague, Andrew R. Binsley, if the planning board member hadn't left the meeting before a vote was attempted.

Mr. Binsley said he wanted to follow Mr. Edsall's and Mrs. Bourcy's recommendation. After disclosing that six of his relatives have signed contracts with the company, he added, "If some people here would like to say I have no right to speak on this, I will say, 'Thank you. This is America. I will speak.'"

But as Mr. Binsley left, he had a different opinion.

"I believe as many relatives as I have and as many family and friends in this community, I no longer have a say in this," he said. "Have a nice day."

Susan Johnson, the wife of Watertown Daily Times editor and co-publisher John B. Johnson Jr., encouraged town planners to protect their lakefront and riverfront districts.

"Since you have a very valuable investment in riverfront properties and lakefront properties, and those properties pay a lot of taxes in the town of Cape Vincent, I would think you would want to do everything that you could to protect that investment for the town," she said. "Do you feel that property owners in that lakefront district will enjoy looking over their shoulders at rolling windmills?"

But planners stressed that sites couldn't be blocked just to protect aesthetics.

And Mr. Binsley said the wind projects could reduce the potential for residents defaulting on their taxes, which would negatively impact all taxpayers, by providing a financial boost to farmers in transition.

"I have one brother-in-law that walks with a limp," he said. "He can't afford health insurance, but if he can put one windmill on his property maybe he can. Maybe he can stay here. Maybe he can live here."

The more stringent setback of 3,500 feet was seen as a compromise offered to members of the Concerned Riverview Citizens committee, some of whom countered Wednesday by saying they would reduce a setback suggestion from two miles to one.

But since the 1-mile setback would eliminate a significant portion of one of the two proposals to develop wind farms in the town, Mr. Edsall said the compromise wouldn't appease land owners.

The discussion will continue at 6 p.m. today during the regular town board meeting.

County Planner Bourcy expresses concerns wind zoning law must be in accordance with the Town’s Comp Plan as per NY Town Law./2007

April 7, 2006:
In a FAX to Supervisor Reinbeck and PBC Edsall, County Planner Bourcy provides a number of comments and recommendations regarding the zoning amendment process. Regarding the type of discussions within the zoning committee he notes, “I have not heard anyone on the Committee talk specifically that these impacts are mitigated by the proposed setbacks. The discussion has always been who will or will not benefit depending on which setback is used.” He further advises to be careful using site plan review to guide wind development instead of adopting a zoning law. He states, “An example is Rich’s (Edsall) statement that during site plan review the planning board would not allow towers close to the road. If that is true, then there should be a minimum setback in the law.” Bourcy is concerned about Edsall’s interest in circumventing the process of adopting a wind law. [Bourcy may be a source of notes regarding attendance and comments in these “secret” meetings of the the PB’s wind committee. Bourcy also expresses his concerns that any wind zoning law must be in accordance with the Town’s Comp Plan as per NY Town Law.]

Cape Residents Back Proposed Wind Projects

Published: March 26, 2006

CAPE VINCENT RESIDENTS BACK PROPOSED WIND PROJECTS

By Kate DeForest Times Staff Writer

CAPE VINCENT -- Cape Vincent residents overwhelmingly supported the development of wind power facilities in the area at a town meeting Saturday that drew about 250 people to the fire hall.

About 80 percent of the people at the meeting indicated they support the development of wind farms in the area, with a handful opposing the projects.

However, most remained divided over how to regulate the facilities.

The town has been wrestling with developing new zoning regulations in response to 400-foot turbines expected to be installed by two companies - Wind Power New York, Rochester, and Greenlight Energy Inc., Charlottesville, Va. - in two separate developments, one inland and one near the St. Lawrence River.

The companies already have been approaching area landowners with developmental lease agreements in anticipation of constructing 110 to 135 two-megawatt turbines: Wind Power New York is seeking to install 60 turbines between the shoreline and Route 4, and Greenlight Energy proposes to build 50 to 75 turbines south of Route 4, from Route 12E to Route 9.

Saturday's meeting, moderated by Richard L. Halpin, executive director of Cornell Cooperative Extension of Jefferson County, was held primarily to provide residents with more information on the projects and solicit feedback on various zoning proposals, including the contentious issue of setback distances.

Residents were divided over how far the power-generating turbines should be set back from the shoreline, citing multiple concerns from the aesthetic effect of the turbines on the landscape to the disruption of local wildlife and migratory birds.

The most recent draft of the proposed wind farm zoning law includes setback regulations of:

* One and a half times the height of the tower, including the radius of the blade, from the exterior property lines, or a minimum of 500 feet.

* A minimum of 10 feet from an interior property line when the wind farm consists of multiple parcels, 1,000 feet from existing homes not on a parcel that is part of the wind farm and 750 feet from existing homes that are part of the wind farm.

It does not include setback regulations from the shoreline, which town officials have held off on determining until they could better gauge residents' responses to the turbines' placement.

There seemed to be no consensus reached on an ideal shoreline setback among those attending Saturday's meeting. Town officials stressed that they have to have something in place before the wind power companies advance the projects much further.

"We need some real help with this law," town Planning Board Chairman Richard J. Edsall said. "If we don't pass a law one way or another, they're still coming. People have already signed contracts."

"If we don't have our laws in place, if there's no zoning against them, they can put them anywhere they want," town Deputy Supervisor Joseph H. Wood said.

While some favored setbacks of more than a mile from the shoreline, which would likely nullify the Wind Power New York project, putting it out of range of the most propitious wind patterns, others said setbacks of 1,500 to 1,900 feet from the shoreline would be adequate.

"My only concern is that if they have setbacks of more than 1,500 feet, it'll defeat the purpose of the project," said Paul C. Mason, a Cape Vincent landowner and dairy farmer.

Mr. Mason, whose property on Route 12E abuts the waterfront, said he has been approached by one of the wind farm companies and intends to sign with it.

Another property owner, Hester M. Chase, who lives in the area proposed for inland wind farm development, said zoning is a minor issue compared with handing control of the area's potential wind power development over to corporations instead of keeping it under the auspices of the municipality.

"If we were doing this as a municipality, we would have more control, and then we could take care of the zoning," Ms. Chase said. "Should we be talking about zoning? Should we be fighting it out? Yeah, we should, but I feel we could make everyone happy if we were doing it ourselves."

Town officials hope to hold a public hearing on the proposed zoning laws May 4, bringing them to a vote at the Town Council meeting June 8. Town officials do not plan to bring the laws to a public referendum.

"It's a Planning Board and Town Council decision," Mr. Wood said.

Meanwhile, town officials said they'll continue to solicit feedback from town residents, in person and in writing.

CAPE VINCENT TURBINE PLAN STIRS WORRIES

The results of the Cape Vincent Wind turbine survey of 2005 are at the end of this Watertown Times article.March 24, 2006 CAPE VINCENT TURBINE PLAN STIRS WORRIES
Author: Jude Seymour
Times Staff Writer
Edition: Both Section:
Jefferson Page: D8 Dateline:

Estimated printed pages: 3 Article Text: Although not one wind turbine has started spinning, energy is already being generated and expended by the town's concerned citizens, who say proposed setbacks for towers aren't stringent enough.

Between 25 and 50 Cape Vincent residents have been approached by two competing green energy companies - Wind Power New York of Rochester and Greenlight Energy Inc. of Charlottesville, Va. - about buying rights to develop land for 2-megawatt turbines both inland and near the riverfront.

In response to these solicitations, the town began drafting zoning regulations, including setback requirements, that would control where the 400-foot towers could be built.

"Right now, the way we had it up is 1,500 feet from the center line of Route 12E, plus one and a half times the tower height, which is going to put a little over 600 feet on top of that," said Town Council member Marty T. Mason. Joseph H. Wood, the town's deputy supervisor, said the town will also consider a setback of 2,500 feet from the Route 12E centerline, which was favored by the majority of respondents to a survey issued by the town last fall.

But even this proposal isn't restrictive enough for the Concerned Riverview Citizens, co-chairman David Docteur said.

In a letter issued by the group, organizers wrote that "a minimum of two miles from New York State Route 12E is our suggested setback for any wind turbine towers." If enacted, that would limit construction to areas south of Favret Road.

In a prepared statement, Mr. Docteur also asked the town to provide a "full disclosure on the wind farm plan to the community at large."
The composition of the Concerned Riverview Citizens, including the size of their membership, is unknown because Mr. Docteur refused further comment.

Town officials will solicit input on the regulations from their constituency during an information session at noon Saturday at the Cape Vincent fire hall, 241 E. Broadway St.

Despite the newly formed group's recent prominence, Town Council members still believe residents overwhelmingly support wind turbine development in Cape Vincent.
"I think they're in favor of them," Mr. Mason said. "I think what they want is a proper setback from the water."

Michael J. Docteur, now a county legislator whose district includes Cape Vincent, was a town councilman when the issue was first addressed publicly last August.

At that time, there was a large portion that showed up that were in favor of wind farms," said Mr. Docteur, nephew of David Docteur.

The county legislator said he won't try to influence zoning regulations now that he's left the Town Council. But he plans to work with the town to secure payments from the energy companies in lieu of property taxes.

"We want to make sure the constituents of Cape Vincent, both the school district and town, receive as much of the needed revenue as possible," Mr. Docteur said.

Assemblyman Darrel J. Aubertine, D-Cape Vincent, said real opportunities exist in his hometown for all types of alternative energy production.

In a time when smaller farms are phasing out dairy production and moving toward mulch hay and other types of livestock, producing alternative energy sources - like soy, corn and biomass - could keep local agriculture vibrant, he said.

"I understand there's concerns. And the concerns need to be recognized as well. But we need to take a look at the opportunity," Mr. Aubertine said.

Memo: Wind turbine survey Last fall, the town of Cape Vincent sent out 1,900 surveys asking residents for input on wind turbine developments; 612 were returned.
Wind Turbine Survey results
Responses are as follows:

Are you in favor of wind turbines in the town of Cape Vincent?

Yes: 80.2 percent

No: 19.7 percent

If in favor, in what districts should they be allowed?

Agricultural/residential: 92.2 percent

Lakefront:40.3 percent

Riverfront: 30.3 percent

What setbacks would you recommend from the shore of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River?
Less than 1,500 feet: 5.1 percent

1,500 feet: 23.8 percent

2,000 feet: 13.7 percent

2,500 feet: 36.4 percent


More than 2,500 feet: 20.8 percent

Cape Vincent History ~ "Secret Meeting"

Art Pundt sent me this detailed time line of events, thanks Art!

March 1, 2006:

Meeting of Planning and Town Board officials to discuss amending the zoning law in order to guide wind power development. The meeting was lead by PBC Edsall in the Town Supervisor’s office. There was a quorum of Town Board members (e.g., Rienbeck, Mason, and Schneider [perhaps Orvis, too). Also, Michael Bourcy, Jefferson County Planning Department, attended providing maps and advice on the review of setback options. Others in attendance included landowners with lease agreements. Since the meeting was never publicized, there was no general public attendance. Also, there was no public notice, the meetings where held in Town offices, no minutes where taken. Edsall has been heard by several witnesses in a TB meeting as even calling these “secret” meetings. One invited attendee from the community became uncomfortable with this process and wrote an official letter submitted to the Town Board of his concerns. We have other witnesses who inadvertently walked in on these meetings. One individual gave a deposition to a previous WPEG attorney about observations at these meetings.