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