BP's Tatics in Cape Vincent Ny

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

BRITISH PETROLEUM and the the hidden truths that led to two world wars

The Red Line agreement






By Marc J. Rauch

Exec. Vice President/Co-Publisher

THE AUTO CHANNEL





BRITISH PETROLEUM and the REDLINE AGREEMENT is the third and latest entry in a series of books written by award-winning investigative journalist Edwin Black that tackles the issues surrounding automobiles, energy, and transportation. The previous two books are INTERNAL COMBUSTION and THE PLAN: HOW TO RESCUE SOCIETY THE DAY THE OIL STOPS. As with all of his other books (10 total), Black relies upon a crack research team to uncover and compile an exhaustive trove of heretofore unknown factual information and data.



To me, as a dedicated free-market capitalist and defender of American ideals, I would like to believe that the story of petroleum oil exploration should be one of entrepreneurial glory. Instead, the more I learn about the corruption and machinations employed by British Petroleum and its industry cohorts and competitors, the more I realize that we have been the victims of oil’s subjugation for well over 100 years.



Link here to The Red Line agreement .com



Read the rest of this review at The Auto channel.com



Tuesday, February 28, 2012

American Bird Conservancy Response to Speaker Gingrich’s Statement on Energy Industry Killing of Migratory Birds

MEDIA RELEASE

Contact: Robert Johns, 202-234-7181 ext.210, bjohns@abcbirds.org

American Bird Conservancy Response to Speaker Gingrich’s Statement on Energy Industry Killing of Migratory Birds

(Washington, D.C., February 23, 2012) On September 11, 2011, American Bird Conservancy (ABC), the leading bird conservation organization in the United States, issued a press release entitled: “Oil Companies Prosecuted for Avian Deaths but Wind Companies Kill Birds With Impunity.” On February 22, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich sent a letter to the Chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary referencing this same issue. ABC has taken numerous press calls on this matter and would like to re-iterate its position on the issue of enforcement of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).

“The Migratory Bird Treaty Act, one of our country’s foremost laws for the protection of wild birds, has been widely enforced for decades in cases generally similar to those involving the North Dakota oil and gas companies referenced in Speaker Gingrich’s February 22 letter. American Bird Conservancy believes that Judge Hovland’s interpretation of the law in this latest case was overly narrow and inconsistent with prior precedents. We feel that prosecution of oil companies for the foreseeable and preventable deaths of birds protected under the MBTA is warranted and appropriate especially since all the companies involved had been cited for similar violations in the past. However, ABC does agree with Speaker Gingrich that prosecutions may be warranted for similar violations of the act by wind power developers, who, in stark contrast to the oil and gas industry,, have been given a virtual pass for the deaths of migratory birds at their facilities for over 30 years.

In 2009, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that about 440,000 birds per year (not the 39,000 referenced in Mr. Gingrich’s letter) are being killed by wind turbines in the United States. For example, since the early 1980s, the wind turbines at Altamont Pass are estimated to have killed 2,000 or more Golden Eagles — one of our most iconic birds. And yet not a single wind company has been prosecuted for MBTA violations.

The MBTA provides much-needed protections for the many species that breed in and migrate through the United States, including the hundreds of species of songbirds welcomed into the backyards of millions of Americans every year. These birds deserve the protection the MBTA provides, not only for their inherent beauty but also for the billions of dollars they generate for the U.S. economy every year – from the sale of bird seed, bird-related tourism, to their service to our nation’s farmers as pollinators and insect control. The MBTA should be enforced and that enforcement should be equitable for all energy producers,” said Darin Schroeder,Vice-President for Conservation Advocacy for ABC.

ABC supports wind energy when it is developed according to bird-smart principles. Bird-smart wind power employs careful siting considerations, operational and construction mitigation, bird monitoring, and compensation to reduce and redress any unavoidable bird mortality and habitat loss. These are basic measures that the federal government should include in mandatory wind standards. To view ABC’s full policy, visit www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/collisions/wind_policy.html.

In response to the issue of migratory bird deaths at wind developments, ABC has advocated for the federal government to implement mandatory standards for the wind industry, and has petitioned the federal government to implement a solution in the form of project permits authorized under the MBTA. A permitting system would make the wind industry compatible with today’s wildlife conservation needs. It would allow some take to continue, but would also impose conditions that would limit bird deaths and habitat loss, and compensate for any unavoidable bird deaths through new funding for conservation efforts. It would also provide the wind industry with the regulatory certainty that it has requested.

Link here to the American Bird Conservancy

Link here to read Speaker Gingrich’s Statement on Energy Industry Killing of Migratory Birds

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Pact sparks power line process

Pact sparks power line process

"Joint proposal" helps pave way for state to approve transmission line project

By Larry Rulison

Friday, February 24, 2012

ALBANY — The developers of a proposed 330-mile underground transmission power line from Quebec to New York City have reached a settlement with about a dozen government and environmental groups that helps pave the way for its approval by state regulators.

On Friday, attorneys for the Champlain Hudson Power Express issued what's called a "joint proposal" to the state Public Service Commission for its consideration.




Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Pact-sparks-power-line-process-3359830.php#ixzz1nPMPMEJ0

Friday, February 24, 2012

BP ~ BAT PULVERIZER

Jefferson County is home to the northernmost colony of Indiana brown bats, a federally listed endangered species that is undergoing a serious population decline caused by White Nose Syndrome
This aliment now believed to be caused by a fungus, has been identified among Indiana bats wintering approximately 20 miles from Cape Vincent in Glen Park, NY
The Indiana brown bat typically moves between 12 and 40 miles to roost locations.
Acciona’s Indiana bat study found that Cape Vincent provides summer colony habitat, roosting and foraging areas for the Indiana Brown bat their report also documented that there is a maternity roost location in this same area. This is significant because Indiana bats have strong fidelity to summer colony areas, roosts and foraging habitat (USFWS1999). Radio telemetry studies in NY have shown this to be true for maternity roost locations as well where the Indiana bat forms maternity colonies of 20 to 100 members.
The issue of white nose syndrome, and the fact that the Indiana bat is already an endangered species requires great caution since this could become a critical issue for the Indiana bat’s survival.

British Petroleum’s wind development proposed for Cape Vincent has the potential to significantly influence the future survival of the Indiana bat and other bat species as well; the fragmentation of habitat will have a negative effect on an already dwindling bat population.

Within 3/4 of a mile from the shores of Cape Vincent, there already is an operational 86-turbine industrial wind complex on Wolfe Island, Canada. The Clayton, NY, Horse Creek wind farm is proposing to erect 50 turbines and another 77 turbine project is planned for Galoo Island, Before British Petroleum merged their project with Acciona's St. Lawrence wind project they were proposing to erect 96 turbines, recently British Petroleum reported that they are planning on installing fewer turbines of varying sizes and their new array plan has not been released ,the numbers are uncertain , however the impact on the bat population is certain British Petroleum's turbines will be killing these important creatures .
The cumulative effect of the multiple projects must be considered, prior to Acciona's buyout the number of turbines slated for a 25-mile radius of the Indiana Bat hibernacula was 360. Even if the numbers are cut by 100 turbines the impact will on the bat population will be deadly.

These Wind complexes will assault these creatures by fragmenting habitat and destroying foraging ground.
The transmission line routes will also cause more destruction of habitat and foraging areas, most likely causing irreversible damage to this federally protected species.

If British Petroleum is granted a requisite kill permit, they will be permitted to annihilate a species.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

BP ~ BEYOND PONZI

British Petroleum uses deceptive means to push their wind agenda. In 2008 British Petroleum hired Marion Trieste to do "outreach work" part of Marion Trieste's work involved helping to launch the "grassroots" organization Voters For Wind (VFW).

Link here to a Watertown Times article supporting this.

Link here to read a testimonial letter from a VFW member thanking Trieste for her work with Voters For Wind.

British Petroleum continues the deception...

Last Fall just a couple of weeks before the Cape Vincent Republican primary a Clean Energy "Educational Forum" was presented at Recreational Park in Cape Vincent . This "Educational Forum" was presented by the New York Wind Education Collaborative a conglomeration of the Alliance for Clean Energy New York, Albany; Citizens Campaign for the Environment, Farmingdale; and Pace Energy and Climate Center at Pace Law School, Westchester.

Carol Murphy ,executive director of the Alliance for Clean Energy New York, Albany had this to say about their "Educational Forum".

“We came to offer the latest scientific information to people — it’s all out there for people to look at,” “But people won’t believe it if they don’t want to believe it.”

The presenters at this forum claimed that the collaborative goal was to increase the public’s understanding of wind power issues, in the belief that a better-informed public can participate more meaningfully in the environmental review process and other public discussions surrounding proposed wind facilities.
An economics professor from San Diego University spoke At this "Educational Forum" , he defended a study that supported the idea that Wind Turbines do not impact property values.
He said that all the studies find the exact same thing declaring, “You cannot say there’s an impact.
Additionally, he said that the results of the McCann Appraisal tailored to the unique characteristics of Cape Vincent were laughable.

What is laughable is that we are supposed to believe that this "Educational Forum" provided us with independent unbiased information,when in fact a secretary working for British Petroleum made the arrangements and paid for the use of the Rec Park facility where their so-called independent "Educational Forum" was given.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
August 26,2011 , I submitted a FOIL request to the Town Clerk of the Town of Cape Vincent for the following. A copy of the correspondence and the contract for the rental of the (Rec.Park) facility, for the "Educational Forum" held by the New York Wind Education Collaborative , August 30,2011.

Below is a transcript of a letter I received concerning the rental of the Recreation Park facility for Carol Murphy's independent educational event letter that I received from the Town of Cape Vincent Town Clerk.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
August 31,2011

Dear Kathryn,

This letter is in response to your FOIL request. The secretary from BP secured the rental of the Recreation Park building for the event you are inquiring. There was not a contract signed, and the fee for the rental is 50.00 I hope this answers your questions.

Sincerely.

Michele Bouchard

Town Clerk

Original letter below


Sunday, February 19, 2012

Nothing Personal But...

At the Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board meeting May 6, 2009, Planning Board Chair Richard Edsall Said ~ if you want a personal wind turbine now is the time to go for it before there is a wind law in Cape Vincent.
By August 13, 2009, At least four people had taken Edsalls advice and were given permits for personal wind turbines.
Not too long ago Edsall took his own advice as well, recently applying for personal wind turbine permits. As did Marty Mason and several other Cape Vincent residents knowing that, a wind development moratorium would be instituted in order to allow time for the development of a wind law.
The personal wind turbine permit holders were notified by letter that their permits had been revoked.
There has been some controversy about this letter; some have said that it was illegal because it was signed by Supervisor Hirschey and not the Zoning Enforcement Officer. However, it is my understanding ,that this letter was crafted by an attorney and as far as it being signed by Supervisor Hirschey, a mere technicality.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

CAPE VINCENT

WIND HISTORY V




Soon after assuming office as Town Supervisor, on January 2010, Urban Hirschey tried to implement a 6-month moratorium on wind development. Fellow Republican Marty Mason votes with Democrats Donnie Mason and Mickey Orvis to kill Hirschey’s moratorium initiative. Council members Mickey W. Orvis, Donald J. Mason and Marty T. Mason also objected to an audit requested by Supervisor Hirschey, but Supervisor Hirschey hired a firm to conduct a surface level audit anyway. [1]

Town Clerk Jeri Ann Mason,sister to TB member Marty Mason, resigned abruptly after the audit report exposed discrepancies in the town's finances and revealed that a substantial amount of money was missing. The audit also revealed that two escrow accounts from British Petroleum Alternative Energy and Acciona Wind Energy totaling $2,211.70 were not included in the town's financial report, nor were they recorded in monthly financial statements.[2],[3]

A video recording of the 2010 wind committee public deliberations Jan.30 2010 shows Dick MacSherry, a member of Hirschey’s wind committee, openly talking about a special meeting. Mr. Reinbeck and I sat down with developers last May, and people don’t know this, we presented a copy of this proposed law to them and they went over everything line by line. At the end of the session, we asked them to give us written comments to go back to the legal firm in Albany, but to my knowledge, they never did. This is the same draft law that citizens had requested access to at a TB meeting and Mickey Orvis said that it was not available for public viewing.

August 13, 2010 the New York State Att. Gen.'s office notified town Attorney Mark Gebo via facsimile that they had received allegations of misconduct by certain officials of the Town of Cape Vincent in connection with the development of wind farm's . [4] ,[5]

Accordingly , the OAG has commenced an investigation. In response to this investigation Supervisor Hirschey called a special Town Board meeting for the purpose of a temporary halt on all discussion and further forward movement on the wind turbine projects. However, Town Council members Mickey Orvis and Marty Mason were absent from the meeting .Supervisor Hirschey and Councilman Brooks Bragdon were in favor of the resolution to halt further wind discussions , Councilman Donald Mason , abstained stating that he wished to consult a lawyer before voting because he holds a wind contract.

Aug.17, 2010, Cape Vincent’s newly formed wind economic committee released their preliminary report as to the economic impact from the proposed wind projects.[6] This report was prepared and mailed to the PB in time to be considered before Acciona’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was accepted, but Edsall refused to read the PB mail prior to the PB meeting Aug 18, 2010. Chairman Edsall and his planning board accepted Acciona’s FEIS, against the recommendations of the Lyme PB and ignored the noise recommendations of their own consultant, Cavanaugh Tocci.[7]

At the TB meeting of Oct. 14, 2010, Supervisor Urban Hirschey proposed that the Town of Cape Vincent commission an independent sound study to protect the citizens of Cape Vincent. Marty T. Mason and Donald J. Mason recused themselves.Orvis voted NAY thereby defeating the resolution even after it was determined that the study would cost the town nothing. Cape Vincent’s current sound study is flawed, a fact that recently came out with the release of FOILED documents pertaining to Cape Vincent’s sound study.[8]

January 13: The Town Board meeting marked the beginning of a tumultuous year for Cape Vincent and wind development. Acciona's wind leaseholders, Voters for Wind and Town Board Members, Marty Mason, Donny Mason & Mickey Orvis formed an alliance, attacking Supervisor Hirschey and tried to bring him down. Marty Mason, leaseholder and co-chair of the Republican Party, led the charge making a motion to have the town's attorney contact Jefferson County and NY Attorney General’s office to pursue an investigation of Supervisor Hirschey,
in retaliation for Hirschey’s release of FOILED documents that exposed Acciona’s sound study as fraudulent. Additionally, EX Supervisor Reinbeck called for Hirschey’s immediate dismissal and Donald Mason stated Hirschey has done a “bad thing.” Their plan backfired, bringing attention to the content of Acciona’s fraudulent sound study. The General notified the town that the charges were baseless and Hirschey will not be investigated.[9]
~~~~

link here to CV HX #I

link here to CV HX # II

link here to CV HX # III

link here to CV HX# IV

Sources:

[1] TI Sun article Re: TB meeting Jan 2010

[2] Escrow account details

[3] Jeri Mason story

[4] Fax from AG announcing investigation into corruption

[5]WDT article 8/14/10State probing officials at Cape

[6] C. V. Wind Turbine Economic impact report

[7] link here to read Acciona's FEIS

[8] WDT article~Proposal for noise study fizzles in Cape

[9] Transcript of letter from Acciona Re: Supervisor Hirschey's conduct for releasing legally FOILED documents

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

CAPE VINCENT

WIND HISTORY IV


On Jan. 10, 2007, Edsall's PB received Acciona’s DEIS but did not allow the public access until Feb 1, 2007 (some question the legality of this delay).
At the same time, to resolve the issue over the decision to call turbines utilities, CV Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) decided that turbines could be designated as utilities under CV current zoning law. [1] This allowed Edsall complete control over wind development by using the site plan review process, avoiding any new zoning regulations that might restrict the wind developments, including noise regulations.
ZBA member John Wiley voted in favor of this measure without disclosing his brother had a wind contract thereby creating a conflict of interest. Wind Power Ethics Group filed suit challenging the ZBA decision to classify turbines as utilities. One unintended consequence of using existing law without a specific amendment for wind was that utilities are permitted not only in the town’s agricultural and residential district, but in the river and lakefront districts as well.

April 7, 2007, the WDT reported that Town Supervisor Thomas K. Reinbeck defended town official’s actions including the members of the ZBA. Mr. Reinbeck said town Attorney Mark G. Gebo advised the ZBA that turbines could be considered utilities. The WDT also reported that Mr. Gebo declined to comment, citing attorney-client privilege. He said he would argue the Zoning Board of Appeals decision is correct unless the town directs him not to. “They made a decision they expect me to support, and I will support it,” Gebo said.[2]

Dec.19, 2007, BP’s DEIS was accepted by the PB. (Chairman Edsall did abstain from voting to accept ). March 13, 2008, at the Town Board meeting, Edsall announced that he has been, “Buying an ounce of protection,” by hiring an Albany law firm, Whiteman Osterman & Hanna, who specialize in litigation especially when you get to the site plan review process and pilot programs. Edsall, on the advice of newly hired legal counsel, finally made it official when he wrote a letter May 15, 2008, and disclosed his contracts with British Petroleum and conflicts of interest.[3]

Aug. 14, 2008, Reinbeck announced that a committee will be formed to revise a draft wind law developed by the Town’s new the wind lawyers.[4] The committee met frequently throughout the fall and winter completing a draft law in January 2008. Reinbeck told the committee he would forward the draft to the Whiteman legal team for their review. During this same period, Reinbeck became irritated by an ad printed in the Watertown Daily Times describing Cape Vincent as an ethical black hole.[5] In March, the finding of the appellate court confirming the lower court decision that the Cape ZBA acted within its jurisdiction to declare wind turbines utilities buoyed him in his actions.[6]

March 25, 2009, the PB accepted Acciona's supplemental environmental impact statement and this marked the first recusal for conflicted board member Karen Bourcy.
[7]
A citizen at the April 2009, TB meeting asked, “Do you see any value in Attorney General Cuomo’s code of Conduct for Wind Development.” The TB agreed that there is no value in the AG’s wind code of conduct. Reinbeck replied that if we haven’t been investigated I guess we are all right. Marty Mason said that the code is a “waste of time” and Donny Mason agreed with the other board members and added it does not apply to small towns. Conflicted Councilman Joe Wood said, “Basically you say we should adopt a wind law, but on the other hand you are saying three of us have conflicts of interest and you are going to call us on it.” “How can I adopt a wind law if in your second breath there is a conflict of interest and you are going to nail us?”[8]

Feb 2, 2008, the Thousand Islands Sun quoted Reinbeck’s response to citizen’s questions about Board members voting with conflicts of interest. Reinbeck stated that while he didn’t have anything legal to back up his assumption, he thought that once someone accused of having a conflict of interest was re-elected to the same position, the conflict of interest was void. “Mind you I’m not one hundred percent about that, but I speak for the board when I say that if we had not folded under the threats of lawsuits, we’d have zoning laws right now.” Their responses suggested that the TB derailed the wind law process in 2006, and passed it on to the PB strictly to avoid voting and avoiding conflicts of interest. Rather than adopting a protective wind law, they opted for more control over the process through the PB, even though it meant exposing riverfront and lakefront zoning districts to wind development.[9]

The board members resented the recording of the TB and PB meetings and at the planning board meeting Aug.12, 2009, Binsley said to the citizen taping the meeting “take your camera and shove it right where it belongs… And you can’t bring that thing to a meeting.”[10] At the TB meeting Aug.13, 2009, Reinbeck called the police to stop the videotaping, which was unsuccessful since it was a legal activity.[11],[12]
At this Aug. 13, 2009, meeting a petition, asking for a wind development moratorium with over 650 signatures on it, was submitted. The TB had decided that they would support a moratorium to protect the River and Lake District, two areas that were never intended for wind power development.

The Jefferson county planning board said that a partial moratorium did not make sense and recommended a full moratorium. [13] Reinbeck and Donny Mason’s position on a town wide moratorium was quoted in the WDT. "Currently we have two projects under review in the Ag district and we're not going to suspend those," Mr. Reinbeck said. "One is almost complete." Councilman Donald J. Mason agreed saying, "Those projects are too far along and it's not fair to the wind companies, to begin with, to suspend them now." [14]

Previously Reinbeck had made other statements to the WDT about his position on turbine setbacks "I think we're over regulating on these setbacks," Mr. Reinbeck said. "I'm always on the lookout for being sued for something, Supervisor Thomas K. Reinbeck said.[15] “I can only see this being a very controversial issue if we eliminate turbines that are planned as part of an ongoing project."

Nov. 12, 2009, the now lame-duck Tom Reinbeck proposed the adoption of a draft wind law prepared by Rienbeck’s wind committee earlier in the year. This version of the law, however, was missing the detailed noise section developed under the guidance of the town’s engineering consultants, Bernier Carr Associates and Cavanaugh Tocci Associates. Reinbeck explained that noise portion was taken out because it was too restrictive and would have prohibited development rather than regulate it the conflicted council voted .
Councilmen Donald Mason, Acciona leaseholder, Marty Mason, Acciona and BP leaseholder, and Joe Wood, Acciona leaseholder all vote AYE for Resolution #17 to enact a wind law . Additionally, resolution #17 was not included in the minutes. However; Resolution #17 is on file in the clerk's office.[16]

link here to CV HX #I

link here to CV HX # II

link here to CV HX # III

Sources:

[1] ZBA Minutes 2/05/2007

[2]WDT article 4/7/2007 Reinbeck quotes

[3] transcript of PB minutes 12/19/2007

[4] WDT article 8/15/2007 ~ wind committee

[5] WPEG WDT ad CV "Ethical Black Hole"

[6] Court Doc. WPEG ~ V ~ CV, ZBA

[7] WDT article 12/19/2007 ~Cape Planning Board Accepts BP's DEIS

[8] Video of TB "Andrew Cuomo, AG Cuomo A Waste of Time"

[9] TI Sun article Dog & Pony Show

[10] PB member Andy Binsley Video Take your camera and shove it

[11] TB meeting~ Reinbeck ~ call the cops part 1

[12] TB meeting Reinbeck ~ call the cops part 2

[13] JCPB recommends full moratorium

[14] WDT article ~ 7/29/2009 Partial moratorium proposed by town

[15] WDT article 12/21/2008 ~ Reinbeck quotes

[16] minutes 11/17/2009 & Resolution # 17 ,Wind law

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

**
CAPE VINCENT

WIND HISTORY III


This is part III of a series of Wind education posts.

British Petroleum's new project manager Peter Gross said that he wanted to educate the community about wind development .
~~~~~~


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 declaring that current zoning is sufficient to regulate wind development in Cape Vincent and that the TB should abandon its efforts to amend current zoning law.[1] However, there is no record of any vote in the Planning Board minutes [2]
Additionally, current law did not include anything to regulate wind projects, other than site plan review process, which gave a great deal of discretionary control to the PB, particularly Chairman Edsall.

The very next day, June 15, 2006, Aubertine also wrote a letter to the TB urging the lease holding conflicted board members to vote on wind issues by telling them that it is their duty to vote even though they are conflicted and he also stated that governing by referendum (popular vote) is unwise.[3]
The same day of the Aubertine letter, at the TB meeting of June 15, 2006,Reinbeck and Orvis changed their minds about the restrictive setbacks, setbacks that would eliminate 12 turbines from Aubertine’s neighborhood. The revised boundary allowed turbines as close as 1,600 feet from the center line of Route 12 E.Reinbeck gave the following quote to the Watertown Daily Times as to his reasoning behind his change of course. “There’s been overwhelming support for total use of the AG district, to begin with,” “And furthermore, I see no reason other than visual impacts for anything other than that.” Orvis followed with “I can’t justify taking another 1,000 feet, whether it’s a farmer or just a regular land owner, of their property.”[4]

Aubertine has been criticized over this controversial letter and in his own defense said that his letter “was in a line with separate council that the Town had at the time.”[sic] In a WDT’s article concerning Aubertine’s letter it was said that Cape Vincent received its own advisory opinion from the Albany law from Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna (WHO) in July. However, the legal opinion that WHO constructed in regard to Cape Vincent’s conflicted officials is dated July8 2008 two years afterAubertine’s letter.[5]

Aug. 10, 2006, the TB moved forward with the adoption of zoning regulations for wind power development and issued a positive declaration that required an environmental impact study to determine the impacts from the new law.[6]
It was discovered that the environmental reviews required would cost $40,000+. This cost became an issue at the TB meeting of Aug.28,2006, where Councilman Orvis told the board that he was not comfortable spending $40,000 + of the taxpayer’s money to have a SEQR done and end up not having turbines.
Supervisor Reinbeck said he felt the same way. Supervisor Reinbeck resolved to, “Discontinue the process of amending the Town of Cape Vincent Zoning Law to regulate wind towers.” This resolution is what Edsall hoped to accomplish with his letter of July 14, 2006. Marty Mason and Joe Wood abstained from this vote and the resolution did not pass.[7], [7a]

Sept. 13, 2006, Chairman Edsall’s Planning Board overstepped their authority by approving a motion to adopt the Town’s guidelines to regulate wind development.
[8]
This quote in the Watertown Times by Reinbeck demonstrates that he was supportive of Edsalls maneuver. "They certainly can't sue us if we don't go through with the zoning amendments," "No one says we have to change our zoning." Mr. Reinbeck said.[9]

This left them with the option of declaring that turbines were utilities under the choice of approved uses in the town’s guidelines. This opened the door for Edsall to have complete control over the process through site plan review. Acciona submitted an application for a wind power project in Cape Vincent at the PB meeting of Nov. 8, 2006. Edsall’s board voted unanimously to be lead agency in the State Environmental Quality Review process.[10],[11]
This gave Chairman Edsall and his PB complete control over the environmental review process.

Nov. 2006 Donny Mason was elected to TB without disclosing that his wind lease with Acciona made him conflicted, which was at odds with the Town of Cape Vincent’s code of ethics.[12] Furthermore, Donny Mason did not petition the Jefferson County board of ethics for an opinion about conflicts, as suggested by the Town’s attorney, in an April of 2006, letter to Supervisor Reinbeck.

On Dec.13, 2006, Reinbeck set up a designated checking account, e.g. escrow account, with Acciona to cover any additional expenses incurred by the T B. All board members voted in favor including conflicted Marty Mason and Joe Wood. Voting on a financial agreement between the town and a corporation, in which both Mason and Wood had financial ties.    [13] ,[14]

Link here to read CVWind HX~ I

Link here to read CV Wind HX ~ II


[1] Edsall letter to TB recommending they abandon efforts to amend current zoning law.

[2] Planning Board minutes 6/14/2006

[3] Darrel Aubertine letter advising the conflicted TB to vote on wind setbacks.

[4] WDT article ~ Wind Tower Setback Nixed.

[5] WDT article ~ Aubertine misrepresents conflict opinion concerning his letter advising the conflicted CVTB to vote on wind setbacks.

[6] WDT article CAPE VINCENT COUNCIL DECIDES ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NEEDED

[7] Town Board minutes 8/28/2006

[7a] Expanded positive declaration story

[8] Town Board minutes 9/13/2006

[9] WDT article ~ WIND POWER FOES REFUSE TO GIVE UP RIGHT TO SUE.

[10] WDT article ~ Acciona submits application

[11] PB votes to be lead agency in SEQR process for Acciona's & Bp's projects

[12]The Cape Vincent Town Board Code of Ethics 1970

[13] WDT article Town, Wind Farm Firm Establish Account.

[14] Escrow account details

Monday, February 13, 2012

**
CAPE VINCENT

WIND HISTORY II


This is part II of a series of Wind education posts.

British Petroleum's new project manager Peter Gross said that he wanted to educate the community about wind development .
~~~~~~


Oct. 12, 2005, a couple of weeks before PB Chairman Edsall signed his wind lease with British Petroleum he wrote a letter to his wife informing her that permission had been granted for a MET tower on her parents’ Burnt Rock Road property and that a permit was not required. This maneuver may have been designed to keep the existence of the MET tower away from the scrutiny of the public.[1]

Planning Board minutes and supporting correspondence indicate that in 2002, Acciona was required to get a permit however, the community was unaware at that time of the planned projects and it was easy to keep the wind test tower permits under the radar.[2]

During the fall of 2005, through March 2006, a series of clandestine meetings took place in the office of the town supervisor to construct a wind law that would best serve the interests of leaseholders and conflicted officials. This effort was orchestrated by PB Chairman Edsall and attended by conflicted TB, and PB members and lease holding citizens as well as a representative from Jefferson County Planning Department, Michael Bourcy. The regulations they designed were tailored exclusively to suit their best interests, and those of the developers. (Oct. 28, 2005, Marty Mason signed his second lease with Acciona.)[3]

In early 2006, the secretive wind campaign began to emerge and it became open to public scrutiny. Initially the big point of contention was the setbacks, the distance between the wind turbines and riverfront properties.
As the setback, issue heated up Edsall began to make statements that reflect his ambitions: "If we don't pass a law one way or another, they're still coming. People have already signed contracts." As the public involvement and discontent grew Edsall attempted to gain control over the turbine setbacks making the statement, “I arbitrarily make a recommendation to go back to the River Front and Lake Front zones as setbacks.” Citizens in the community wanted a protective setback of 2 miles and Edsall openly responded by saying, "Two miles would wipe out both projects.[4],[5]

" In response to Edsalls zoning amendment process, Jefferson County Planner Mike Bourcy expressed his concerns in a fax dated April 7, 2006, writing, “Anytime an amendment to a zoning law is proposed it must be in compliance with a comprehensive plan. Article 2, of the proposed amendment, states that the purpose of the amendment is to mitigate potential negative impacts on the Seaway Trail, St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario."
“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."
“I also wanted to point out that you want to be careful saying that an issue will be taken care of during site plan review. If a requirement is not in the Zoning Law, then the planning Board must have a good basis for requiring it.” “The Town should not depend on Department of Environmental Conservation requiring a setback from the shore in the area of the AR. (Agricultural Residential) district by the lake. Cape Vincent's comprehensive plan , clearly defines its goals of discouraging commercial development i.e. utilities where the impact would have a negative impact on scenic vistas and tourism assets." [6]

Edsall sat on the committee that constructed the comprehensive plan and because he was well aware of the interest in Cape Vincent for wind development, it is doubtful that he ever intended to follow it. As seen by his actions, after signing a wind lease in September2005, he completely ignored the comprehensive plan. [7] , [8]

Edsall also ignored Bourcey’s concerns as he took his agenda to the April 12, 2006, PB meeting where he petitioned to be included on the PB agenda. Edsall actually got up from his chairman’s seat, moved into the audience, and sat down to make the recommendation to permit turbine development in the town's AR. zone, with no setback stipulation, and to ban development in the riverfront and lakefront district . Edsall said that he was not making this recommendation as the PB chairman but as a private citizen and representative of a community group that meets monthly to discuss wind turbine issues. Edsall also said that he saw no conflict of interest in his participation at the monthly stakeholder meetings (i.e., the fall 2005 through spring 2006 clandestine meetings), because the sessions were not planning board meetings. At this same time, there were reports that Edsall had Voters for Wind sign in his yard for over a year. Both the wind developers and Voters for Wind require the signing of a loyalty and assistance clauses for leaseholders.[9],[10]

As community pressure continued to mount over conflicts of interest, town attorney Mark Gebo advised both boards to request an opinion from the Jefferson County ethics board. Marty Mason and Joe Wood were the only officials to petition the county and received notice of that opinion by May 12, 2006. The Jefferson County Board of Ethics advised Marty Mason and Joe Wood to recuse themselves from any votes or discussions of wind development issues. Edsall did not petition for a formal opinion, but at the April 12, 2006, PB meeting he promised to recuse himself from votes that related to his property. However, because of the shared transmission line between Acciona and British Petroleum Edsall is conflicted with both companies.[11]

May 11, 2006, brought a compromise when Joe Wood and Marty Mason recused themselves and the remaining board members Reinbeck, Schneider, and Orvis proposed a boundary that would restrict the first turbine from being any closer than 2,600 feet from 12E. Incidentally, Orvis, Darrel Aubertine’s cousin, was elected to Town Board in 1999, and over the years has consistently sided and voted with other conflicted town council members.[12]


Sources:

[1] Edsall letter to Mrs. Edsall (no permit required)

[2] Correspondence between PBC , Edsall & NYW, Re: met tower permits

[3] Acciona conflict disclosures

[4] WDT article ,Edsall quotes 3/26/2006

[5] WDT article Edsall quotes 4/6/2006

[6] Letter from County Planning / M. Bourcy Re: concerns that wind zoning law must be in accordance with the Town’s Comp Plan.

[7] Cape Vincent's Comp Plan

[8] Bp conflict disclosures

[9] WDT article Edsall quotes 4/13/2006

[10]Acciona & BP ~ Wind lease loyalty clauses.

[11] WDT article Re: conflict opinion 4/14/2006

[12] WDT article Re: setback compromise

Sunday, February 12, 2012

**
CAPE VINCENT

WIND HISTORY I


This is the begining a series of Wind education posts.

British Petroleum's new project manager Peter Gross said that he wanted to educate the community about wind development . Here is something to educate Mr. Gross


June 14, 2002, NY WIND, now Acciona, had sealed a deal with Darrel Aubertine’s neighbor to monitor wind on their property. [1] [2] The Planning Board tentatively decided that a temporary permit could be issued with a guarantee that the apparatus used for this study be completely removed at the end of 18 months.[3],[4],[5]
It was also noted that this was to be a one- time educational project approval. The met tower in question still stands today at this same Constance road location.

June 2003, Aubertine, now a state assemblyman, used his position for potential personal gain by helping to develop and pass a law that eliminated tax penalties for farmers that host wind turbines on their land. Additionally, Darrel Aubertine kept quiet about two lease agreements he signed with Acciona in May of 2004,[6] moreover, he did not make the required financial disclosures. As mentioned previously, Acciona signed Marty Mason to his first lease agreement April 14, 2005, and Donny Mason signed a lease April 15, 2005, as well, for property that he acquired on Favret Road. There were many other landowners in Cape Vincent who signed lease agreements with commercial wind developers in early 2005.[7]

As word about the wind development began to leak, Town officials held a public meeting at Recreation Park on Aug. 5, 2005, [8]to inform the public about the possibility of a commercial wind development in Cape Vincent. In a Watertown Daily Times (WDT) article that immediately preceded the meeting, Supervisor Reinbeck and Jefferson County Planning officials were quoted saying they were formulating an amendment to Cape Vincent’s zoning law to prohibit commercial wind development. Many newly signed leaseholders may havefelt threatened by this meeting and by the statement and position of Supervisor Reinbeck.
Supervisor Reinbeck’s quotes refleced that he was skeptical about wind, "People might stand up and say 'we all want them' or they may say 'no, we don't want them; I don't know, I think there are more downsides than upsides."While Reinbeck was skeptical about commercial wind, other officials who attended the August 5 meeting were praising the idea. Articles from the WDT and TI Sun., clearly demonstrate what our town officials stand on wind development is. Here are just a few of the things that have been said over the years:

Richard Edsall: “It would allow these farmers to stay in business.” “If they get two or three windmills on the land, they can pay the taxes on the land.[8]
Donny Mason: "Those projects are too far along and it's not fair to the wind companies, to begin with, to suspend them now."[9]
Mickey Orvis: “We have to take advantage of the tax relief that’s going to be available to us”.[10]
Marty Mason: "I've been involved in it from day one, and not as a benefit to myself, but as a benefit to the town," he said. "I want to see that every town taxpayer will benefit from it."[11][12],[13]
Andy Binsley: disclosed that six of his relatives had contracts and he gave the following quote to the WDT: "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.[14],[15]

Within days of this meeting, a number of leaseholders “stormed into Reinbeck’s office,” presumably to demand he take a more positive stand on commercial wind. However, it did not end there. Reinbeck’s opinion earned him a very hard lesson in local politics. A few weeks later, at the Republican caucus Aug. 29, 2005,[16] the Republican Party Chairman and wind lease holder Marty Mason blindsided Reinbeck when he brought in supporters for another candidate, ultimately removing Supervisor Reinbeck from the Republican ballot. Reinbeck was shocked, dismayed and began to fight to secure his job as town supervisor. The local Democratic Party then endorsed Reinbeck, who went on to win reelection. Reinbeck learned his lesson and then became a rabid supporter of wind energy. His motivation for supporting wind development was not from any personal gain from wind leases, but rather from his considerable ambition to remain in office.

Sources:

[1] page 1 of a letter from NYW concerning met tower

[2] page 2 of a letter from NYW concerning met tower

[3] TB minutes June 13,2002

[4] TB minutes page 2, June 13,2002

[5] TB minutes July 11,2002

[6] Darrel Aubertine Wind turbine map

[7] Acciona wind lease conflict disclosures

[8] WDT covering first open wind meeting 8/5/2005

[9] WDT article July 10,2009

[10] WDT article June 16,2006

[11] WDT article April 12, 2006

[12] WDT April 12,2006 Page 2

[13] WDT April 12,2006 Page 3

[14] WDT article April 13,2006

[15] WDT article April 13,2006 page 2

[16] WDT article August 29,2005

Saturday, February 11, 2012

BP Buys

Wind Baggage



Bp's Cape Vincent Wind new project manager Peter Gross was introduced to our community at the June 8, 2011 planning board meeting . Additionally, this meeting was Richard Edsalls Swan Song as Planning Board chair.

After introducing Peter Gross ,Mr. MacSherry said that the Town was in possession of a brief letter from Jim Madden BP's Former Project manager RE: BP’s compliance to the Attorney Generals code of conduct, and that he "suspected" that the leaseholders and individuals with good neighbor contracts had received the same letter. Mr. MacSherry then said to Mr. Gross
“At some point, I would like you to discuss, with at least me, the code of conduct agreement that Bp signed with the State of New York and what it says in your lease agreements as far as the conflicts of interest.” “Because, I have yet to really understand what the leases say and what the intent of this code of conduct agreement says. I find it a little disparaging and I don't understand it.”
~~~~
Mr. Gross said Thank you very much for ah, paraphrasing the letter umm, it takes away a few of the things that I was supposed to, or planning on saying.

What Mr. Gross did with this first statement was to deflect the topic of the letter. The wording Gross used was deceptive so that he could avoid talking about the municipal officers with BP wind contracts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The voters of Cape Vincent have since ousted the conflicted
board members, perhaps BP thinks that they can start with a clean ethical
slate....
However, this is not an option. BP signed "certain" municipal officers to wind contracts and they are guilty of willfully compromising our municipal officers. Additionally, they did not comply with the Attorney Generals Wind Development Code of Conduct, in order to subjugate our community and facilitate their greed-based ambition,to turn Cape Vincent into an industrial wind complex. Their actions have left an indelible mark on our community that will not go away until BP goes away as well. The stench of these conflicts of interest will forever taint BP's Cape Vincent wind project. Additionally, when BP bought out Acciona's interest in the St. Lawrence wind project they also purchased all of Acciona's unethical baggage.

Link here to read the letter in question dated July 30,2009

Both BP $ Acciona have two versions of the loyalty clause in each lease

Bp
Requirements of Government agencies Cooperation:
Owner shall assist, cooperate with grantee, at no out of pocket expense to Owner
in complying with or obtaining any land use permits and approvals, tax- incentive or tax -abatement program approvals, building permits, environmental impact reviews, or any other permits or approvals required for the financing , construction, installation, relocation, replacement, maintenance, operation or removal of Wind power Facilities in the project (whether located on the Property, on adjacent property or elsewhere), including execution of applications for such permits or approvals if required . In connection with any applications for such approvals, Owner agrees at Grantee’s request to support such application (at no out- of - pocket expense to Owner) at any administrative, judicial or Legislative level. In the event that any laws, rules, regulations or ordinances of any governmental agency provide for setbacks or otherwise restrict the location of any Wind Power facilities to be installed on the property or adjacent properties, Owner shall cooperate with Grantee to evidence waiver of such setbacks

Wind lease disclosures






Friday, February 10, 2012

POWER TRANSMISSION LINES

One of the most important aspects of any wind development project is the transmission lines. One of Marty Mason's lease agreements with Acciona involved the “old railroad grade,” outlined below in red as parcel 50.07-1-7.

The intended use of Marty Mason's land that is under lease by Acciona is for an overhead transmission line.
Acciona may have held all the cards concerning the transmission lines and consequently if there project did not come to fruition, Bp’s project could have been dead in the water. Unless BP was to buy Acciona out...

When Mason bought the property from Township Telephone Company on January 23, 1998
(link to deed).


There is a restriction in the deed pertaining to an easement granted by Township Telephone to the Development Authority of the North Country (DANC) for the development of the Western Jefferson County Regional Water Line. The notation in Mason's deed granted to DANC states, “Subject to an easement granted by Township Telephone Company, Inc. to the Development Authority of the North Country on September 9, 1996, which easement was recorded on September 23, 1996, in the office of the Jefferson County Clerk at L. 1530 of Deeds, p. 295.” The easement granted to DANC by Township Telephone in 1996
(link to easement) has several important provisions that outline the rights of both the Grantor (Township and Marty Mason) and the Grantee (DANC).

In the section of the DANC easement titled USE OF EASEMENT
PREMISES BY GRANTOR, it states, “The right to use the Permanent Easement for any purpose not interfering or inconsistent, in the opinion of the Grantee (DANC), with this Easement is expressly reserved by the Grantor (Mason), provided, however, that the Grantor (Mason) shall neither build, erect, construct or place upon, over or under the Permanent Easement, anything of a permanent nature or character.”
“It is further understood and agreed that the Facilities shall at all times be and remain the property of Grantee (DANC) and under its unconditional control and supervision” (emphasis added). These provisions state clearly that DANC has control over any infrastructure that would be erected or placed upon Mason's parcel. Furthermore, in the section titled INUREMENT OF BENEFITS AND BURDENS it states, “The Grantee (DANC), its successors and assigns shall have the right to assign to others, in whole or in part, any or all of the Grantee's rights, privileges and interests in this easement.” Through this easement, the control of the use of Marty Mason's “old railroad grade” rests with DANC and not with Mason.
Supporting DANC's control of the old railroad bed is also documented in
the SEQRA reporting by Acciona Energy USA, LLC. In an April 9, 2009 letter submitted by James Wright, Executive Director of DANC, as part of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (link to letter), he writes , “As you know, the Development Authority's Western Jefferson Regional Water Line is installed in the former railroad corridor, and the Authority has easements from all of the affected property owners along that route. The easements: Allow the Authority to build and maintain one or more water lines, no other uses by the Authority are permitted, Allow the grantor of the
easement to use the easement lands, but specifically prohibits them from building any permanent structure on, over, or under the Authority's permanent easement and Do

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Acciona has the right sell the leases to an assignee. Without consent of the landowner.

Reportedly, Bp has bought out Acciona’s interests in the St. Lawrence Wind project. what does this mean for the St. Lawrence wind lease holders?
Below is a clause from an Acciona (New York Wind)(NYW) Lease that explains what it means. Acciona has the right sell the leases to an assignee. Without consent of the landowner. And without additional monetary compensation.

10.1
Assignment; cure.
Assignments and some leases. NYW shall have the right, without obtaining the consent of the owner, to do any of the following, conditionally or unconditionally, with respect to all or any portion of the property: finance wind power facilities; grant co- leases, separate leases, subleases, licenses, or similar rights (however denominated) to one or more persons (an "Assignee"); or sell, convey, lease, assign, mortgage, encumber, or transfer to one or more assignees. The lease, or any or all right of interest in the lease or in this agreement or any or all right or interest of NYW in the property grade any or all of wind power facilities that NYW or any assignee party may now or hereafter install on the property. Within 120 days of completing any of the aforementioned changes, NYW will notify Owner and record the change with the County office where the deed of the property is recorded. For purposes of this lease agreement, a “Sublease"). Yes, any person with whom NYW has entered into a sublease for all or a portion of the property (a “sublease"). To the extent provided for in each conveyance document or sublease, and assignee or a sub lessee shall have all of the rights and benefits of NYW under and pursuant to this lease.
Link here to read a wind lease for Acciona's St. Lawrence wind complex

PILOTs ~ WILL NOT BE FORCED ON TOWN's


Thursday February 9,2012

IDA chief: PILOT's won't be forced on towns

'Not our place:' Municipalities can end unfavorable deals, but development promises rewards, CEO says

By Tiffany Watts.

 Watertown daily Times

Leray – the head of the Jefferson County industrial development agency, told town supervisors Tuesday that his agency won't force payment – in- lieu – of – taxes agreements on any municipality.

Donald C. Alexander emphasized that he hope to "clear up misconceptions “about pilot agreements and the role of the JCIDA in local development efforts.

This comes not long after the JCIDA -based criticism following a proposal to reinstate a policy that would allow the organization to force pilot agreement on municipalities, even if they disagree.

Continue reading via this link

Monday, February 6, 2012

Adiós ~ Whiteman Osterman & Hanna


At the Planning Board meeting of Jan. 11,2012, a resolution was passed to make a reccomendation to the Cape Vincent Town board that the the town of Cape Vincent sever all ties with the law firm Whiteman Osterman and Hanna .
During the discussion, concerning this resolution- Planning Board Chair Richard McSherry mentioned that there was no signature on the contract initiating the relationship between the town of Cape Vincent and Whiteman Osterman and Hanna.

The relationship between Whiteman Osterman, Hanna, and the Town of Cape Vincent officially
began in NOVEMBER of 2006, Cape Vincent planning Board Chair Richard Edsall told the Watertown Times, “we have the right to outside professional expertise, and we intend to use it.”
The Law firm Whiteman Osterman & Hanna (WO&H) has been providing their "professional expertise" to the Town of Cape Vincent ever since that time, assisting with the wind development site plan process.
Payment for the "professional expertise" of Whiteman Osterman & Hanna was arranged through two escrow accounts set up by the Town of Cape Vincent, Acciona and British petroleum. All expenditures from these escrow accounts are dependent upon approval By Acciona $ British Petroleum.

Additionally, July 8, 2008, Whiteman Osterman & Hanna rendered a developer friendly legal opinion about the Cape Vincent board members conflicts of interests.
However, there is no copy of this opinion on file with the Town of Cape Vincent and an invoice for this legal opinion does not exist.

If the Town of Cape Vincent commissioned this legal opinion, there should be a copy on file and an invoice for services rendered, but neither exists. Why isn’t there a copy on file? Did someone other than the Town of Cape Vincent commission this legal opinion? Did the developers commission this legal opinion?

In the legal opinion, Whiteman Osterman and Hanna wrote that for the Town Board, there appears to be no prohibited conflict of interest and the full town board may deliberate and vote concerning a draft law of general applicability to regulate wind projects in the town.

The Whiteman Osterman and Hanna opinion states that the law would affect all proposed and future wind development projects making it a law of general applicability.

Additionally, Michael Sterthous of Whiteman Osterman and Hanna Successfully defended respondents ~ WPEG v. Town of Cape Vincent, 60 A.D. 3d 1282 (4th Dep’t 2009) establishing wind power generating facilities as public utilities for zoning purposes.


This is what Supervisor Hirschey had to say about Whiteman Osterman & Hanna's accounting records.

Very soon after taking office I looked into the Escrow accounts which up to then were not available to the public. Over the course of the next few months, I took steps to make accounts more transparent and to have more than one signature approving the invoices. Nonetheless, the brevity of the documentation astounded me. There was neither a correspondence folder nor one piece of written correspondence pertaining to the expenditure of over 100000. Billed by lawyers and engineering Company on the SEQRA process! Upon making inquiries to Whiteman Osterman and Hanna, I was told that there was not much written communication and that it was mostly just talk. Nonetheless, they would send me what they had. To this date even after several reminders, I have not received any copies of emails or written correspondence.

Urban Hirschey
~~~~~~~
As of January 26, 2012, it became official Supervisor Hirschey wrote a letter informing the law firm Whiteman Osterman and Hanna that the Town of Cape Vincent has ended its contract with the law firm.

Letter that Supervisor Hirschey sent to Whiteman Osterman & Hanna

Friday, February 3, 2012

Decibles Versus Dollars


May 14, 2010 Beth White handed out a wind economic impact report to the committee members.

“I kind of put some figures together as far as the economic impacts of the project. I want to just briefly talk about the BP economic impact is where we really lose sight of that." It's a huge issue for this town, this County and this school system.

The figures Beth White (representative of leaseholders) submitted as her analysis were the exact same figures that Jim Madden, BP project manager, included in a letter to Town and Planning Boards two weeks later (link here).
White referred to the economic analysis as her own. Madden’s letter explained how noise restrictions would negatively influence project size and the economic return to all taxing jurisdictions. He also stated that a noise restriction of 42 dBA would effectively kill their project. Prior to this point, the committee was debating restrictions 32 to 42 dBA. Madden's analysis was obviously given to White, she didn't make the calculations herself and she misrepresented to the committee who prepared figures .
With respect to the noise provision White used Madden's recommendation, 45 and 50 dBA to derail all the previous work of the committee and an earlier presentation by Bill Elliot of Cavanaugh Tocci (The Towns Wind consultant) on the sound issue. White had the support of the conflicted members of the wind committee and two other supporters (D. Mason, M. Mason, M. Orvis and T. Rienbeck)

A DISCUSSION ENSUED ABOUT PILOTS, MONEY, NOISE STANDARDS, HOW TO MEASURE AMBIENT WITHOUT MUCH AGREEMENT.
The debate began over concern for the community versus concern for money Hirschey , Bragdon & Macsherry were concerned with White's proposal in that it disregarded all the previous Work of the committee. In addition, to being based on an industry proposal, negating the long hours of work invested by the committee and was oriented solely toward economic benefit.
Additionally there were concerns over compromising the safety of the community for money
Throwing out the science with the intention of allowing more turbines.

White and conflicted supporters took over the meeting and were pushing to adopt Whites/BP's proposal using the least restrictive noise constraints.

D. Mason - Anxious to push the recommendations of Beth White / BP stated I make motion to get done with it today. We don't need another session.
We were losing from doing it that way there and I was upfront with people from day one that I wasn't for losing a lot of turbines. I'm here to help the town out from the money they will get, the school, county and even the? Once we found out how many were being lost with that, that's why I changed my mind on it I guess and I like what Beth proposes here.

Hirschey - So you're making your recommendation based upon on monetary.
Mason - Yes, however you want to call it, and I've been upfront with you on day one from that.
Hirschey – I hate to think our decisions are based solely on monetary issues.
Mason - What isn't nowadays?
Hirschey - Well there is a quality of life to consider...
D. Mason - And if the taxes go down or stay the same for School County and town my quality of life will be better...because I won't have to pay as much taxes.
MacSherry and Bragdon made comments about sticking with the earlier
Agreement.
Gebo - Don, just as a means of clarification, previously we went through sound analysis and put in things like how you determine ambient, how you collect data, and all the rest of this, are you suggesting that all of that would come out of the proposed law, as well as the section on compliance.
D.Mason - Yeah, it doesn't need to be in there with what I've got proposed there.
Gebo - So you are suggesting we don't need any methodology at all we
Just have the number?
D. Mason – Yup.

Beth Whites proposal eliminated the methodology and science of determining the sound levels. All the previous work with the town's consulting engineers was eliminated. The methodology that was struck by D. Mason was designed to make any future enforcement easier and more effective. The methodology, however, would be considered a hindrance by any wind developer. BP not only knocked out the
noise restrictions but all of the associated science that is needed for proper enforcement.

MacSherry - Let's have a roll call vote.
D. Mason - Well I made my motion for the TB to vote, this is a town meeting right?
Gebo - It's a TB meeting, but it's also a meeting of the wind committee.
D. Mason - Should it be a town board motion?
Gebo - If it's a town board motion then Beth can't second it.
D. Mason - Right, but maybe, Mickey agreed with me, can he speak or
even though he isn't here?
Gebo - Well technically no if it's going to be a TB motion.
D.Mason - That's why we wanted to do it before we went into break.
Gebo - Sorry about that.
Gebo - So, are you making it as a committee motion?
D. Mason - Yes, for the committee.
Gebo - At this point if we are going on, we'll need a break for food. Any reason to go any longer for today? NO. Any reason to meet again?
Binsley - Nothing resolved.
Hirschey - Poor place to leave this.
Gebo - Report back to the TB that issues remain unresolved.
This marked the end of the 2010 wind committee's attempt to provide a draft wind law.
Although, conflicted town board members did not pursue adoption of BP's 50 dBA noise limit,collectively, the conflicted members, the leaseholder representative and wind project supporters killed this attempt at adopting a zoning law designed to protect non-participating landowners. Their actions also demonstrated the futility of including officials with contracts moreover, other officials who have openly supported wind development in a process designed to afford protection to citizens whose property will be in close proximity to wind development. The efforts in this session were to open the door as wide as possible for wind development in Cape Vincent at the expense of protecting many residents.

BP Madden letter ( Turbine economic Report)

page 1.


page 2.

page 3.


page 4.

Thursday, February 2, 2012

And Turbines Became Utilities

In spite of Edsall’s Planning Board declaring the current zoning law was adequate for siting a wind project (June 14, 2006 letter), the law did not spell out the kind of site plan use for a wind project nor did it prohibit wind development in the river and lake front districts. To correct these would require an interpretation from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) and the adoption of the draft wind law by the Planning Board as a set of guidelines (the draft wind law banned commercial wind development along the waterfront).

The ZBA determined in a 3 to 2 decision on February 2007 that a commercial wind project could be considered a utility as defined in the current zoning law. This is the decision that was unsuccessfully challenged by WPEG.



Link here to minutes

Cape Vincent ~ Prior Personal Turbine Turbulence

The Chronicles of Roger Alexander's personal wind turbine.
As reported by the Watertown Daily Times





Woman Protests TurbineSaturday, August 01, 2009
CAPE VINCENT - A town resident is in a dispute with the town's zoning board over her neighbor's wind turbine, which she believes is too close to her property... Read the complete story here

Cape ZBA Declares Wind Turbine IllegalWednesday, August 05, 2009
CAPE VINCENT - Personal wind turbines taller than 35 feet are illegal, the town's Zoning Board of Appeals decided Monday... Read the complete story here

Cape ZBA Stands by Ruling on TurbineTuesday, September 15, 2009
CAPE VINCENT - The town's Zoning Board of Appeals is standing by its decision that Roger D. Alexander's 92-foot-tall personal wind turbine is illegal. At a ZBA meeting Monday, Chairman Edward P. Bender said Mr. Alexander does not have to take his wind turbine down immediately. It's up to the Town Council to make that decision, he said... Read the complete story here

Turbine Owner Given ReprieveFriday, October 09, 2009
CAPE VINCENT - Roger D. Alexander can keep his 92-foot wind turbine, for now. Alan N. Wood, the town's zoning enforcement officer, said Mr. Alexander will be given another chance to appeal his case to the town's Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Wood said that he notified Mr. Alexander of his violation by mail last month and that a written response from Mr. Alexander's attorney, David B. Guertsen, arrived last week... Read the complete story here

Man Asks Judge to Reverse ZBA Ruling
Thursday, October 15, 2009
CAPE VINCENT - A state Supreme Court judge likely will decide whether a town of Cape Vincent man can keep a personal wind turbine on his property. Roger D. Alexander, of 35157 County Route 7, filed an Article 78 action Tuesday at the Jefferson County Clerk's office against the town's Zoning Board of Appeals, asking that a judge reverse and annul a Sept. 14 decision by the board revoking a permit for the construction of a 92-foot turbine... Read the complete story here

Judge Dismisses Turbine ProceedingFriday, December 04, 2009
CAPE VINCENT - A state Supreme Court judge has dismissed a town of Cape Vincent man's Article 78 petition that sought to overturn the town Zoning Board of Appeals' revocation of his permit for the construction of a 92-foot personal wind turbine. Roger D. Alexander, of 35157 County Route 7, filed the action in mid-October after spending $80,000 to construct the turbine using what he believed was a valid permit. ... Read the complete story here

Owner of Wind Turbine Appeals Permit DecisionWednesday, January 06, 2010
CAPE VINCENT - The owner of a personal wind turbine on County Route 7 has appealed a state Supreme Court decision upholding the town Zoning Board of Appeals' revocation of the permit that allowed the turbine to be constructed... Read the complete story here

Wind Turbine in Cape up to Code with Land Purchase
Wednesday, July 01, 2010
CAPE VINCENT - A Cape Vincent man's personal wind turbine will be allowed to stay up after he purchased an adjacent lot, a move which enabled him to bring the structure into compliance with town codes.... Read the complete story here