Watertown Daily Times | Edsall out of order with conflicts of interest
TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 2009
A recent Cape Vincent Planning Board meeting on wind issues became a bit heated. A Cape resident spoke up at the meeting. Chairman Richard Edsall in a very aggressive manner completely out of proportion to the incident, told the citizen to sit down and that he was out of order and he was calling the cops. It almost appeared Edsall was lying in ambush for someone.
Edsall was within his rights under Open Meetings Law to deny the citizen to speak. That's not the issue. The overly aggressive and irrational manner in which Edsall often reacts is the concern. You rarely get a controlled response if you challenge wind energy issues.
Continue reading via title link
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
CAPE BOARD OKS REVISIONS TO WIND FARM IMPACT REPORT
March 26, 2009
CAPE BOARD OKS REVISIONS TO WIND FARM IMPACT REPORT
Author: NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
Edition: Both
Section: Jefferson
Page: B1
Dateline: CAPE VINCENT
The town's Planning Board accepted the additions and revisions to the draft environmental impact statement for St. Lawrence Wind Farm.
Its action at a special meeting Wednesday night begins a second round of public review and comment on the potential environmental effects of the wind project. The board voted 4-0; member Karen Bourcy recused herself because she has relatives who signed leases with Acciona, developer of St. Lawrence Wind Farm.
Attorney Todd M. Mathes, of Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna, Albany, said the Planning Board required the developer to elaborate on 11 areas. Acciona has been working on fleshing out the draft environmental impact statement since June 28, 2007, when the Planning Board asked for more information.
In recent weeks, town consultants Bernier, Carr & Associates, Watertown, and Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, Sudbury, Mass., sent comments on the presentation of the noise analysis that were addressed.
The public comment period will last about two months and is the next step in the environmental review process.
"It works in these cases when we have a large, controversial project," Mr. Mathes said. "It's aimed at an appropriate and reasonable discussion of the environmental impacts of the project."
He said it's just the beginning of understanding what's necessary for site plan and design review.
Mr. Mathes said the town's engineers have a better understanding of the project and will be able to address technical issues as the process progresses.
The Planning Board is considering the wind farm a utility under town law. On Friday, a state appellate court sided with a lower court ruling that the classification was correct.
"We have very little freedom of movement on one side or the other," Planning Board Chairman Richard J. Edsall said. "We don't have a town zoning law specifically for turbines and now they're allowed under utilities."
The board agreed to hold a public hearing on the supplemental draft environmental impact statement from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. May 16, with the location to be determined. Acciona staff will be at the site by 8:30 a.m. to answer questions.
The board laid out the ground rules for the hearing. Members of the public will be allowed four minutes, but cannot yield time to other members of the public. If time allows, a person may make additional comments.
The board will accept mailed comments only through Supervisor Thomas K. Rienbeck until May 30.
The supplemental draft environmental impact statement will be available Monday at several locations: the Town Clerk's office, Village Clerk's office, Lyme Town Clerk's office, Cape Vincent Library and Lyme Library. It also will be available Monday on the developer's Web site.
Memo:
ON THE NET
St. Lawrence Wind Farm Supplemental DEIS: www.stlawrencewind.com
CAPE BOARD OKS REVISIONS TO WIND FARM IMPACT REPORT
Author: NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
Edition: Both
Section: Jefferson
Page: B1
Dateline: CAPE VINCENT
The town's Planning Board accepted the additions and revisions to the draft environmental impact statement for St. Lawrence Wind Farm.
Its action at a special meeting Wednesday night begins a second round of public review and comment on the potential environmental effects of the wind project. The board voted 4-0; member Karen Bourcy recused herself because she has relatives who signed leases with Acciona, developer of St. Lawrence Wind Farm.
Attorney Todd M. Mathes, of Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna, Albany, said the Planning Board required the developer to elaborate on 11 areas. Acciona has been working on fleshing out the draft environmental impact statement since June 28, 2007, when the Planning Board asked for more information.
In recent weeks, town consultants Bernier, Carr & Associates, Watertown, and Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, Sudbury, Mass., sent comments on the presentation of the noise analysis that were addressed.
The public comment period will last about two months and is the next step in the environmental review process.
"It works in these cases when we have a large, controversial project," Mr. Mathes said. "It's aimed at an appropriate and reasonable discussion of the environmental impacts of the project."
He said it's just the beginning of understanding what's necessary for site plan and design review.
Mr. Mathes said the town's engineers have a better understanding of the project and will be able to address technical issues as the process progresses.
The Planning Board is considering the wind farm a utility under town law. On Friday, a state appellate court sided with a lower court ruling that the classification was correct.
"We have very little freedom of movement on one side or the other," Planning Board Chairman Richard J. Edsall said. "We don't have a town zoning law specifically for turbines and now they're allowed under utilities."
The board agreed to hold a public hearing on the supplemental draft environmental impact statement from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. May 16, with the location to be determined. Acciona staff will be at the site by 8:30 a.m. to answer questions.
The board laid out the ground rules for the hearing. Members of the public will be allowed four minutes, but cannot yield time to other members of the public. If time allows, a person may make additional comments.
The board will accept mailed comments only through Supervisor Thomas K. Rienbeck until May 30.
The supplemental draft environmental impact statement will be available Monday at several locations: the Town Clerk's office, Village Clerk's office, Lyme Town Clerk's office, Cape Vincent Library and Lyme Library. It also will be available Monday on the developer's Web site.
Memo:
ON THE NET
St. Lawrence Wind Farm Supplemental DEIS: www.stlawrencewind.com
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Cape Vincent ~ Appeals court upholds turbine ruling
Watertown Daily Times | Appeals court upholds turbine ruling
CAPE VINCENT SUIT: Judge says town Zoning Board of Appeals was correct in classifying units as utilities
By BRIAN KELLY
TIMES STAFF WRITER
SUNDAY, MARCH 22, 2009
CAPE VINCENT — A state appellate court has unanimously upheld a lower court's ruling that the town of Cape Vincent can classify industrial wind turbines as utilities.
The Wind Power Ethics Group, a citizens organization that opposes large-scale wind power development, brought an Article 78 suit in state Supreme Court in March 2007 against the town's Zoning Board of Appeals, claiming it incorrectly classified the turbines as utilities.
Judge Hugh A. Gilbert dismissed the petition in August 2007, ruling the classification was correct under existing zoning law. The group appealed the decision in September 2007 to the state Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
The group also asked Judge Gilbert to allow three documents that were not part of the lower court's administrative record to be included in the record of appeal, but the judge denied the request in June 2008. The group appealed that decision about a week later.
In decisions released Friday, the appellate court affirmed both of Judge Gilbert's decisions. The court rejected the group's contention that the ZBA's determination that turbines could be classified as utilities was, among other things, arbitrary and illegal.
The court ruled that the ZBA was entitled to define what it considers utilities under its zoning laws, that its classification of turbines as utilities was "neither irrational nor unreasonable, and that the determination is supported by substantial evidence."
The court did not consider the group's contention that the ZBA should have referred an application for a proposed turbine project by St. Lawrence Windpower LLC to the Jefferson County Planning Board, stating the issued was raised for the first time in the group's reply papers "and thus is not properly before us."
The court also rejected the group's contention that the lower court erred by not allowing the three documents the group wanted included in the appeal. The disputed documents were a draft of local town law dated June 28, 2006, a 2003 joint comprehensive plan and the Aug. 28, 2006, meeting minutes of the town board.
The appellate court ruled that because the documents were not included in the lower court's record "they were properly excluded from the record on appeal."
CAPE VINCENT SUIT: Judge says town Zoning Board of Appeals was correct in classifying units as utilities
By BRIAN KELLY
TIMES STAFF WRITER
SUNDAY, MARCH 22, 2009
CAPE VINCENT — A state appellate court has unanimously upheld a lower court's ruling that the town of Cape Vincent can classify industrial wind turbines as utilities.
The Wind Power Ethics Group, a citizens organization that opposes large-scale wind power development, brought an Article 78 suit in state Supreme Court in March 2007 against the town's Zoning Board of Appeals, claiming it incorrectly classified the turbines as utilities.
Judge Hugh A. Gilbert dismissed the petition in August 2007, ruling the classification was correct under existing zoning law. The group appealed the decision in September 2007 to the state Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
The group also asked Judge Gilbert to allow three documents that were not part of the lower court's administrative record to be included in the record of appeal, but the judge denied the request in June 2008. The group appealed that decision about a week later.
In decisions released Friday, the appellate court affirmed both of Judge Gilbert's decisions. The court rejected the group's contention that the ZBA's determination that turbines could be classified as utilities was, among other things, arbitrary and illegal.
The court ruled that the ZBA was entitled to define what it considers utilities under its zoning laws, that its classification of turbines as utilities was "neither irrational nor unreasonable, and that the determination is supported by substantial evidence."
The court did not consider the group's contention that the ZBA should have referred an application for a proposed turbine project by St. Lawrence Windpower LLC to the Jefferson County Planning Board, stating the issued was raised for the first time in the group's reply papers "and thus is not properly before us."
The court also rejected the group's contention that the lower court erred by not allowing the three documents the group wanted included in the appeal. The disputed documents were a draft of local town law dated June 28, 2006, a 2003 joint comprehensive plan and the Aug. 28, 2006, meeting minutes of the town board.
The appellate court ruled that because the documents were not included in the lower court's record "they were properly excluded from the record on appeal."
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
MATTER OF WIND POWER ETHICS GROUP (WPEG) V
Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Cape Vincent, NY
60 A.D.3d 1282 (2009)
875 N.Y.S.2d 359
In the Matter of WIND POWER ETHICS GROUP (WPEG) et al., Appellants,
v.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF TOWN OF CAPE VINCENT et al., Respondents, et al., Respondents. (Appeal No. 1.)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Fourth Department.
Decided March 20, 2009.
Present—HURLBUTT, J.P., SMITH, FAHEY, PERADOTTO and PINE, JJ.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC (St. Lawrence) applied to the Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board for, inter alia, site plan approval for its proposed construction of a series of wind-powered generators (project) on property designated as an "Agricultural Residential District." Petitioners commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination of respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Cape Vincent (ZBA) that the series of wind-powered generators qualified as a utility and that the project therefore was a permitted site plan use in that district. With respect to the judgment in appeal No. 1, we conclude that Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition. Petitioners' contention that the ZBA failed to refer St. Lawrence's application to the 1283*1283 appropriate county planning agency pursuant to General Municipal Law § 239-m is raised for the first time in petitioners' reply papers and thus is not properly before us (see Matter of Ball v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 35 AD3d 732, 733-734 [2006]; Matter of Falk v Village of Scarsdale Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 254 AD2d 358 [1998]; Matter of Hill v New York City Tr. Auth., 222 AD2d 506 [1995], lv denied 88 NY2d 815 [1996]).
We reject petitioners' further contention that the ZBA's determination was "arbitrary, capricious, illegal, ultra vires and void." Pursuant to section 315 of the Town of Cape Vincent Zoning Law, utilities are defined as "telephone dial equipment centers, electrical or gas substations, water treatment or storage facilities, pumping stations and similar facilities" that have been, inter alia, constructed or maintained by municipal agencies or public utilities. It is well settled that, "when applying its special expertise in a particular field to interpret statutory language, an agency's rational construction is entitled to deference" (Matter of Raritan Dev. Corp. v Silva, 91 NY2d 98, 102 [1997]), and we conclude that the classification by the ZBA of the series of wind-powered generators as a utility within the meaning of section 315 of its Zoning Law is neither irrational nor unreasonable, and that the determination is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of West Beekmantown Neighborhood Assn., Inc. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Beekmantown, 53 AD3d 954, 956 [2008]; Matter of May v Town of Lafayette Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 43 AD3d 1427, 1428 [2007]; see generally Matter of Cellular Tel. Co. v Rosenberg, 82 NY2d 364, 371 [1993]).
With respect to the order in appeal No. 2, we reject the contention of petitioners that the court erred in excluding three documents in settling the record in appeal No. 1. Petitioners do not contend that the documents were before the court when it dismissed the petition, and thus they were properly excluded from the record on appeal (see Matter of Gullo v Semon, 265 AD2d 656 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 757 [1999]; Matter of Dyno v Village of Johnson City, 255 AD2d 737 [1998]). Alternatively, petitioners contend that we should take judicial notice of the three documents. We reject that contention. One of the documents, "A Joint Comprehensive Plan for the Village & Town of Cape Vincent," is not relevant to the issues raised in appeal No. 1, and judicial notice is not available with respect to the remaining two documents.
Original~
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Ensuring ethical standards in turbine siting ~Letter
Ensuring ethical standards in turbine siting
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 2009
I would like to thank Supervisor Tom Rienbeck who at the monthly Cape Vincent town board meeting acknowledged me and three other members of the Wind Power Ethics fundraising committee as the authors of a letter soliciting contributions for the important work we do in protecting the safety and rights of the citizens of Cape Vincent as well as the environment and beautiful area where we live, work and relax.
More importantly we appreciate the many hundreds of people who have donated so generously of their talents, time and money to ensure that the process and the placement of wind turbines along the coastal areas of the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario be done ethically and in a transparent manner.
As we look out across the river towards our Canadian friends on Wolfe Island, we see gigantic wind towers multiplying every day. These goliaths are over 40 stories high and have blades which swing over an area larger than a football field every three to four seconds.
These towers take up vast amounts of real estate, and they cannot be concealed. Moreover they are noisy, create television interference, cast shadows and cause flicker as well as possible medical disorders. However, their impact upon the people, land and the environment can and must be mitigated though thoughtful planning and placement.
The name Wind Power Ethics Group implies that we are focused on the ethical and transparent manner in which the introduction and siting of industrial wind turbine projects occur. We were appalled by the unethical way in which from the beginning wind developers and town officials have mishandled the process. It even included a clandestine meeting of a developer representative with the majority of the town board in a public office to discuss strategy in the siting process.
Members of the community may hold different views as to whether wind turbines are appropriate for this area or where they should be sited, but surely they agree on high ethical standards being applied on all of the issues by all town officials. Why then doesn't our town supervisor hold his board to these high standards rather than objecting to the dissemination of facts to the public on a matter of such great public importance?
Urban Hirschey
Cape Vincent
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 2009
I would like to thank Supervisor Tom Rienbeck who at the monthly Cape Vincent town board meeting acknowledged me and three other members of the Wind Power Ethics fundraising committee as the authors of a letter soliciting contributions for the important work we do in protecting the safety and rights of the citizens of Cape Vincent as well as the environment and beautiful area where we live, work and relax.
More importantly we appreciate the many hundreds of people who have donated so generously of their talents, time and money to ensure that the process and the placement of wind turbines along the coastal areas of the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario be done ethically and in a transparent manner.
As we look out across the river towards our Canadian friends on Wolfe Island, we see gigantic wind towers multiplying every day. These goliaths are over 40 stories high and have blades which swing over an area larger than a football field every three to four seconds.
These towers take up vast amounts of real estate, and they cannot be concealed. Moreover they are noisy, create television interference, cast shadows and cause flicker as well as possible medical disorders. However, their impact upon the people, land and the environment can and must be mitigated though thoughtful planning and placement.
The name Wind Power Ethics Group implies that we are focused on the ethical and transparent manner in which the introduction and siting of industrial wind turbine projects occur. We were appalled by the unethical way in which from the beginning wind developers and town officials have mishandled the process. It even included a clandestine meeting of a developer representative with the majority of the town board in a public office to discuss strategy in the siting process.
Members of the community may hold different views as to whether wind turbines are appropriate for this area or where they should be sited, but surely they agree on high ethical standards being applied on all of the issues by all town officials. Why then doesn't our town supervisor hold his board to these high standards rather than objecting to the dissemination of facts to the public on a matter of such great public importance?
Urban Hirschey
Cape Vincent
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Group agrees to wind rules ~ Clayton
Group agrees to wind rules
By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
SUNDAY, MARCH 15, 2009
CLAYTON — The town's wind committee spent about eight hours over Thursday and Friday bartering and hashing out recommendations for wind turbine setbacks and noise requirements.
By late Friday night, the group reached consensus and agreed to present its findings to the Town Council.
continue
[Watertown times]
By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
SUNDAY, MARCH 15, 2009
CLAYTON — The town's wind committee spent about eight hours over Thursday and Friday bartering and hashing out recommendations for wind turbine setbacks and noise requirements.
By late Friday night, the group reached consensus and agreed to present its findings to the Town Council.
continue
[Watertown times]
Friday, March 13, 2009
'Soapbox orators' pose as wind power experts Letter
'Soapbox orators' pose as wind power experts
FRIDAY, MARCH 13, 2009
All across Northern New York, communities are wrestling with the complicated task of putting together responsible zoning regulations for wind energy. Because of this complex and newsworthy situation, a whole new breed of soapbox orators have arrived in town offering their help. Numerous "experts" in wind energy and the "gloom and doom" it will bring are offering their assistance. They flaunt their engineering degrees or their affiliations with prestigious universities or companies, insisting that these make them all-knowing experts in the wind energy field.
The planning committees and town boards do not have an easy task. I urge them to carefully weed out the would-be experts and contact an agency such as the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority for guidance in locating true experts. NYSERDA is a government agency designed to promote all kinds of energy efficiency and to educate the public about clean energy.
Guy Gosier
Three Mile Bay
FRIDAY, MARCH 13, 2009
All across Northern New York, communities are wrestling with the complicated task of putting together responsible zoning regulations for wind energy. Because of this complex and newsworthy situation, a whole new breed of soapbox orators have arrived in town offering their help. Numerous "experts" in wind energy and the "gloom and doom" it will bring are offering their assistance. They flaunt their engineering degrees or their affiliations with prestigious universities or companies, insisting that these make them all-knowing experts in the wind energy field.
The planning committees and town boards do not have an easy task. I urge them to carefully weed out the would-be experts and contact an agency such as the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority for guidance in locating true experts. NYSERDA is a government agency designed to promote all kinds of energy efficiency and to educate the public about clean energy.
Guy Gosier
Three Mile Bay
Lyme to vote on extending moratorium
Lyme to vote on extending moratorium
By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
FRIDAY, MARCH 13, 2009
CHAUMONT — The Lyme Town Council will vote on extending the town's moratorium on wind power turbines at its April meeting.
At the council meeting Wednesday night, members said the moratorium should be extended while the legal battle over the town's wind development zoning law continues. A public hearing on the moratorium will begin at 6:15 p.m. April 8 at the town office.
The council passed a strict wind development zoning law May 6 despite a petition from 10 landowners representing more than 20 percent of affected land protesting the decision. Supreme Court Judge Hugh A. Gilbert agreed with the landowners Aug. 21, saying the council acted "arbitrarily and capriciously" when it rejected the petition.
Continue
[Lyme to vote on extending moratorium]
By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
FRIDAY, MARCH 13, 2009
CHAUMONT — The Lyme Town Council will vote on extending the town's moratorium on wind power turbines at its April meeting.
At the council meeting Wednesday night, members said the moratorium should be extended while the legal battle over the town's wind development zoning law continues. A public hearing on the moratorium will begin at 6:15 p.m. April 8 at the town office.
The council passed a strict wind development zoning law May 6 despite a petition from 10 landowners representing more than 20 percent of affected land protesting the decision. Supreme Court Judge Hugh A. Gilbert agreed with the landowners Aug. 21, saying the council acted "arbitrarily and capriciously" when it rejected the petition.
Continue
[Lyme to vote on extending moratorium]
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Developer: hype can color projec
TIMES STAFF WRITER
THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 2009
LAFARGEVILLE — One wind power developer defended appropriate wind power projects to the Orleans Wind Committee at its meeting Tuesday night.
Keith D. Pitman, who co-founded Empire State Wind Energy LLC with billionaire B. Thomas Golisano, said visual and noise issues can be overstated.[Watertown Times]
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Many in Cape Vincent support wind turbines~ Letter
Watertown Daily Times Many in Cape Vincent support wind turbines
SUNDAY, MARCH 8, 2009
In a recent advertisement in the Watertown Daily Times, the Wind Power Ethics Group tried to make people believe there is something unethical for some citizens of Cape Vincent who happen to be related, to be serving as town officials. They insulted the whole town by insinuating that Cape Vincent was a "black hole." The ad was disgraceful and shameful.
Cape Vincent is an old and proud community, settled by some brave and adventurous families. They stayed here, worked the land and raised their families through extreme hardship many years ago. It is difficult to find someone in Cape Vincent who is not connected in some way to someone having a wind contract. They are proud of their heritage, their family connections and are happy to share it.
Of course there are many who are related. Many of our officials were elected after their involvement in the projects was made public. Are they to be denied access to modern energy technology because some are related to others? Of course you are to see familiar family names gracing the list of local officials. Who else would be better suited to make decisions that may affect the well-being of our community than the folks whose ancestors came here decades before us? These same families take pride in our community and will do what is in the best interest of Cape Vincent. They have a vested interest to do so.
We retired 10 years ago after having owned and operated a dairy farm in Sullivan County for 48 years. We live in the village of Cape Vincent and expect to benefit from lowered taxes and improved public services. There is a clear benefit to the entire town. Landowners have every right to expect compensation for allowing wind turbine placements on their land through wind contracts. Farmers can certainly use any income that may be forthcoming from the projects.
There are a great many people in this town who support our hardworking town officials and the construction of the wind farms.
Marion & Charles Welton
Cape Vincent
Link Here to view WPEG Conflict add
SUNDAY, MARCH 8, 2009
In a recent advertisement in the Watertown Daily Times, the Wind Power Ethics Group tried to make people believe there is something unethical for some citizens of Cape Vincent who happen to be related, to be serving as town officials. They insulted the whole town by insinuating that Cape Vincent was a "black hole." The ad was disgraceful and shameful.
Cape Vincent is an old and proud community, settled by some brave and adventurous families. They stayed here, worked the land and raised their families through extreme hardship many years ago. It is difficult to find someone in Cape Vincent who is not connected in some way to someone having a wind contract. They are proud of their heritage, their family connections and are happy to share it.
Of course there are many who are related. Many of our officials were elected after their involvement in the projects was made public. Are they to be denied access to modern energy technology because some are related to others? Of course you are to see familiar family names gracing the list of local officials. Who else would be better suited to make decisions that may affect the well-being of our community than the folks whose ancestors came here decades before us? These same families take pride in our community and will do what is in the best interest of Cape Vincent. They have a vested interest to do so.
We retired 10 years ago after having owned and operated a dairy farm in Sullivan County for 48 years. We live in the village of Cape Vincent and expect to benefit from lowered taxes and improved public services. There is a clear benefit to the entire town. Landowners have every right to expect compensation for allowing wind turbine placements on their land through wind contracts. Farmers can certainly use any income that may be forthcoming from the projects.
There are a great many people in this town who support our hardworking town officials and the construction of the wind farms.
Marion & Charles Welton
Cape Vincent
Link Here to view WPEG Conflict add
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Thank wind law panel for its diligent efforts ~ Letter
Thank wind law panel for its diligent efforts
SATURDAY, MARCH 7, 2009
A group of people who oppose wind power projects have sadly turned to personal attacks in an attempt to keep wind turbines out of the town of Cape Vincent. They will go so far as to claim that members of the town board can't possibly be acting in the town's interest in creating a good wind ordinance because of their personal stake in wind projects. As I understand it, the town board was re-elected after their involvement in the project was public knowledge and were voted in at least in part because of their pro-wind power position.
As this paper outlined, the 10-member wind ordinance committee is considering measures that are more stringent than wind ordinances being used in the rest of the state. If there was so much underhanded activity going on, why bother to enact extra protective requirements in a wind ordinance if the sole objective is to push through a wind farm "under the radar" as the opponents suggest?
It is important to create a wind ordinance that will protect the community while allowing the benefits of a wind farm to happen. It might be a good idea to thank the wind ordinance committee and the town board members for their hard work on this instead of berating them.
If you voted in the local election, you may have voted to put these elected officials in office to allow wind power in Cape Vincent. Wind energy is in line with the state and national goal to use as much homegrown, renewable energy as possible. The towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme have an opportunity to use wind power that will create clean energy, green jobs and help sustain our local economies during these difficult times.
Suzann Cornell
Chaumont
SATURDAY, MARCH 7, 2009
A group of people who oppose wind power projects have sadly turned to personal attacks in an attempt to keep wind turbines out of the town of Cape Vincent. They will go so far as to claim that members of the town board can't possibly be acting in the town's interest in creating a good wind ordinance because of their personal stake in wind projects. As I understand it, the town board was re-elected after their involvement in the project was public knowledge and were voted in at least in part because of their pro-wind power position.
As this paper outlined, the 10-member wind ordinance committee is considering measures that are more stringent than wind ordinances being used in the rest of the state. If there was so much underhanded activity going on, why bother to enact extra protective requirements in a wind ordinance if the sole objective is to push through a wind farm "under the radar" as the opponents suggest?
It is important to create a wind ordinance that will protect the community while allowing the benefits of a wind farm to happen. It might be a good idea to thank the wind ordinance committee and the town board members for their hard work on this instead of berating them.
If you voted in the local election, you may have voted to put these elected officials in office to allow wind power in Cape Vincent. Wind energy is in line with the state and national goal to use as much homegrown, renewable energy as possible. The towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme have an opportunity to use wind power that will create clean energy, green jobs and help sustain our local economies during these difficult times.
Suzann Cornell
Chaumont
Friday, March 6, 2009
Scrap wind leases and start over in Cape ~ Letter
FRIDAY, MARCH 6, 2009
Opinion Piece Watertown Daily Times
link here
The recent outpouring of support for the local officials of Cape Vincent following the publication of names considered in conflict of interest in the wind-farm debate is very heartwarming but unfortunately not very productive. In fact, by casting the WPEG as villains and invoking the emotions of the recent tragedy in the Cape, these supporters are guilty of the same mudslinging they accuse WPEG of.
The intensity of their reactions brings to mind a quote from Shakespeare that my most revered English teacher Edna Edsall often would turn on her students, "The lady doth protest too much, me thinks." I have great respect for all of our local officials and everyone who volunteers for public service.
This does not in any way imply they could never be faced with a conflict of interest, nor does it imply they are unethical because of it. If anybody truly thinks there is not a conflict of interest at issue in Cape Vincent, they don't understand the meaning of the word. I imagine what is closer to the truth is they don't want to deal with it so they lash out at those who expose it.
This crisis involves far more than just our officials (though they have not handled it very well). It includes every landowner who signed a land lease and was promised wind turbines on their property before there were regulations in place to govern them. It includes every brother, sister, parent, cousin or friend of them, who refuses to consider the negative impact of these turbines on their friends, neighbors and community as a whole simply because they don't want to deny these landowners this revenue windfall. Initially, the only unethical parties were the two developers who came here knowing full well what they were about to create.
Our officials have allowed this crisis to continue to the point we're at now with opposing sides trying to polarize the community. If they don't persist at trying to develop a fair and legitimate zoning law, then they too will be guilty of unethical behavior.
Perhaps the only way to accomplish this will be to nullify all the present leases, throw the two proposals away and start over once we have hammered out a wind ordinance. At least then we could proceed honestly and neighborly and hopefully stop the malice growing in this community.
David L aMora
Cape Vincent
Opinion Piece Watertown Daily Times
link here
The recent outpouring of support for the local officials of Cape Vincent following the publication of names considered in conflict of interest in the wind-farm debate is very heartwarming but unfortunately not very productive. In fact, by casting the WPEG as villains and invoking the emotions of the recent tragedy in the Cape, these supporters are guilty of the same mudslinging they accuse WPEG of.
The intensity of their reactions brings to mind a quote from Shakespeare that my most revered English teacher Edna Edsall often would turn on her students, "The lady doth protest too much, me thinks." I have great respect for all of our local officials and everyone who volunteers for public service.
This does not in any way imply they could never be faced with a conflict of interest, nor does it imply they are unethical because of it. If anybody truly thinks there is not a conflict of interest at issue in Cape Vincent, they don't understand the meaning of the word. I imagine what is closer to the truth is they don't want to deal with it so they lash out at those who expose it.
This crisis involves far more than just our officials (though they have not handled it very well). It includes every landowner who signed a land lease and was promised wind turbines on their property before there were regulations in place to govern them. It includes every brother, sister, parent, cousin or friend of them, who refuses to consider the negative impact of these turbines on their friends, neighbors and community as a whole simply because they don't want to deny these landowners this revenue windfall. Initially, the only unethical parties were the two developers who came here knowing full well what they were about to create.
Our officials have allowed this crisis to continue to the point we're at now with opposing sides trying to polarize the community. If they don't persist at trying to develop a fair and legitimate zoning law, then they too will be guilty of unethical behavior.
Perhaps the only way to accomplish this will be to nullify all the present leases, throw the two proposals away and start over once we have hammered out a wind ordinance. At least then we could proceed honestly and neighborly and hopefully stop the malice growing in this community.
David L aMora
Cape Vincent
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Lyme wind law petition wasn't deceptive ~ Letter
Lyme wind law petition wasn't deceptive
THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 2009
In a Feb. 25 letter, Julia Gosier of Three Mile Bay, expresses concern that residents may have been deceived. She states her belief that the wind law developed by the Lyme Planning Board is "very restrictive."
While Lyme's wind law may appear "restrictive" compared to those in other nearby towns, I prefer to think it is more protective of Lyme's residents. Lyme's Planning Board chose not to simply accept, as many towns have, the wind developer's suggestions as to what a wind zoning law should be.
Instead, we developed a comprehensive questionnaire, which was answered by more than 900 residents of the town. The principal components of the law developed by the Planning Board, such as the setbacks and noise criteria for the location of wind turbines, were supported by a clear majority of those answering the wind survey and speaking or submitting written comments at the public hearings.
It is the job of the Planning Board to guide future development within the town in accordance with the wishes of its residents and not to simply accommodate the wishes of developers.
The petition we passed around in September of 2008 contained the signatures of more than 400 residents who favored reinstatement of Lyme's wind law. There was no attempt to deceive anyone. The purpose of the petition was clearly stated on the top of the document people signed. It is hardly "shocking and unacceptable" that some of us on the Planning Board continue to advocate the implementation of a law that represents the will of our residents.
The "controversy" Mrs. Gosier alludes to is that a small group of residents, most of whom expect to profit from wind turbine development, have refused to accept that the majority of the people in Lyme are pleased with the law developed by the joint efforts of the Planning Board, members of the town board and a number of interested citizens.
This small, but vocal, group of potential wind turbine hosts continues to try to assist the wind developer by setting aside Lyme's wind zoning law. The law in question does not prohibit the location of wind turbines in the town of Lyme. It simply requires those turbines to be far enough from nonparticipating landowners, population centers and the lakeshore to limit their effect on our property values and on the peace and quiet many of us associate with life in small communities in Northern New York.
Albert H. Bowers III
Chaumont
THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 2009
In a Feb. 25 letter, Julia Gosier of Three Mile Bay, expresses concern that residents may have been deceived. She states her belief that the wind law developed by the Lyme Planning Board is "very restrictive."
While Lyme's wind law may appear "restrictive" compared to those in other nearby towns, I prefer to think it is more protective of Lyme's residents. Lyme's Planning Board chose not to simply accept, as many towns have, the wind developer's suggestions as to what a wind zoning law should be.
Instead, we developed a comprehensive questionnaire, which was answered by more than 900 residents of the town. The principal components of the law developed by the Planning Board, such as the setbacks and noise criteria for the location of wind turbines, were supported by a clear majority of those answering the wind survey and speaking or submitting written comments at the public hearings.
It is the job of the Planning Board to guide future development within the town in accordance with the wishes of its residents and not to simply accommodate the wishes of developers.
The petition we passed around in September of 2008 contained the signatures of more than 400 residents who favored reinstatement of Lyme's wind law. There was no attempt to deceive anyone. The purpose of the petition was clearly stated on the top of the document people signed. It is hardly "shocking and unacceptable" that some of us on the Planning Board continue to advocate the implementation of a law that represents the will of our residents.
The "controversy" Mrs. Gosier alludes to is that a small group of residents, most of whom expect to profit from wind turbine development, have refused to accept that the majority of the people in Lyme are pleased with the law developed by the joint efforts of the Planning Board, members of the town board and a number of interested citizens.
This small, but vocal, group of potential wind turbine hosts continues to try to assist the wind developer by setting aside Lyme's wind zoning law. The law in question does not prohibit the location of wind turbines in the town of Lyme. It simply requires those turbines to be far enough from nonparticipating landowners, population centers and the lakeshore to limit their effect on our property values and on the peace and quiet many of us associate with life in small communities in Northern New York.
Albert H. Bowers III
Chaumont
Undeserved criticism ~ Letter
Undeserved criticism
THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 2009
After reading the lengthy paid ad from the Wind Power Ethics Group in the Watertown Times, it seems to me much time and money was spent researching who was benefiting from the wind power contracts. If these civic-minded people spend their time contributing their talents to making Cape Vincent the special town it is, then why should they be criticized for owning land that has been the backbone for our society?
We should all use our time researching how wind power will bring cleaner, healthier air, possible tax breaks, school improvement and the ability of our farmers to carry on their lifelong dreams to succeed in our everyday economy.
Anyone going into business does so by expecting to make a profit. Why else? Wind companies are no different. If we combine our efforts to compromise with the wind companies, we could see a win-win situation, where the future of Cape Vincent and our offspring will benefit.
Marlene Burton
Cape Vincent
THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 2009
After reading the lengthy paid ad from the Wind Power Ethics Group in the Watertown Times, it seems to me much time and money was spent researching who was benefiting from the wind power contracts. If these civic-minded people spend their time contributing their talents to making Cape Vincent the special town it is, then why should they be criticized for owning land that has been the backbone for our society?
We should all use our time researching how wind power will bring cleaner, healthier air, possible tax breaks, school improvement and the ability of our farmers to carry on their lifelong dreams to succeed in our everyday economy.
Anyone going into business does so by expecting to make a profit. Why else? Wind companies are no different. If we combine our efforts to compromise with the wind companies, we could see a win-win situation, where the future of Cape Vincent and our offspring will benefit.
Marlene Burton
Cape Vincent
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)