BP's Tatics in Cape Vincent Ny

Friday, May 21, 2010

Supervisors ~ REINBECK & AUBERTINE wanted host agreements for wind farms

Watertown Daily Times Supervisors want host agreements for wind farms

By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2008
Supervisors from towns with wind projects want to see host community agreements in their towns as a part of any tax breaks for wind power developers.
Lyme Supervisor Scott G. Aubertine, who was not able to attend Tuesday night's session, said he wants to do more research into the differences between the two approaches.

But, he said, "It seems that the towns are doing the majority of the work and taking the majority of the grief, so they should be getting the majority of the money."

 

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Clayton industrial wind project ~ HORSE ~ CREEK~


Clayton industrial wind project

Someone sent me this information about the Clayton industrial wind project.

This is a digital enhancement of the industrial wind farm proposed in Clayton NY showing the towers and residents homes.

The red triangles are homes and they are NOT all on this map.
The outer circles of the turbines are the just 1250 ft setbacks (local wind law rule).
The setbacks are NOT from adjacent resident’s property lines but from their homes. The Clayton project impacts not only Clayton residents it also impacts residents in Brownville, Lyme and Orleans along with two State wildlife preserves.
The wind district butts all of these townships.

There are only 26 residents in this wind district who will lease turbines just 26!!!

It is estimated that this project will impact over 2500 plus lives.

It has been PROVEN by acoustic engineers and Iberdola's (the developer) own noise analysis that all these residents will face excessive noise impacts during hours of sleep.
Many residents have 15 plus turbines surrounding their homes within a mile.
This is wrong.
World Health Organization says this is wrong.
The recommendations by our own NYS DEC on noise levels are ignored.
A wind committee consisting of both leasers and non leasers proves the setbacks are wrong. Clayton hired non biased acoustic engineers who proved these setbacks will harm all these residents. Health is a major concern but so is a property value.
Would you buy one of these homes?
To have or have NOT a wind farm is left in the hands of the Town councils.

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

IS FENNER AN EXPERIMENT ~ IN MOTION?



FENNER TURBINE DOWN:

The largest Wind project east of the Mississippi .
Is Fenner just nothing more than experiment in motion?
Is Fenner nothing more than a test of wind pressure and wind torque?
A pressure too great for the concrete base to sustain for a ten year period.

Did the developers of Fenner's wind turbine system, actually pre - determined the wind turbine reaction forces in conjunction with the wind pressure forces on the towers, and the turbine blades themselves to withstand the overturning moments developed, that are being resisted by the soil or rock material that is, part of the anchorage resisting system, as required by New York’s Construction codes? One issue with wind turbines is that they actually try to unscrew them selves from the ground, due to wind pressure forces. The anchorage systems and subsurfaces are critical factors in wind turbine design.

Design of Wind Turbine Foundation Slabs .pdf file
~~~~~
Madison County Courier
By Martha E. Conway

Last December, a GE 1.5 megawatt turbine at the Fenner wind facility in Fenner, New York collapsed. An official report explaining the root cause of the collapse is still pending but news this week shed light on the situation. According to the article, "concrete core samples from the foundations preliminarily showed inconsistent aging and degradation".

Hank Sennott, director of corporate affairs and communications for Enel North America told the Madison County Courier "I don't know of any turbine foundation failures, but we were the first, so there is nothing to go back and research. This project was the largest built east of the Mississippi when we constructed it 10 years ago. There's no history for us to look at."
  More...
Safety Measures Implemented to Keep Public out of ‘Collapse Zone’


News Video ~
Findings in turbine collapse due next week - YNN, Your News Now

Sunday, May 2, 2010

HOW *TURBINES BECAME UTILITIES IN CAPE VINCENT

April, 2009

Preface

A friend 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