Updates

An article in Cooperstown's weekly newspaper, The Freeman's Journal, last week discusses ongoing local opposition to the Community Energy wind project proposed for Jordanville. Note the similarities between the their situation and ours, especially the timing:

As the Holy Trinity monks hold prayer services and mount a letter-writing campaign, Otsego 2000 is seeking out the most appropriate “petitioners” to file an Article 78 complaint against the 68-turbine Jordanville Wind Farm, a preliminary step to going to court to block the 400-foot-tall towers in view of James Fenimore Cooper’s Glimmerglass.

After a year working through the State Environmental Quality Review Act process, the towns of Warren and Stark, on June 20 and 21 respectively, accepted the Final Environmental Impact Statement on the project and approved special-use permits. That step started a 30-day clock running on the Article 78 proceeding.

The next step for Community Energy is to apply for a certificate of necessity from the state Public Service Commission, which would require a further public hearing before action could be taken. The towns must then issue building permits for each turbine and related building in their jurisdictions.

Meanwhile, the monks at Holy Trinity Monastery, the Russian Orthodox Church’s spiritual headquarters overseas, have begun a cycle of “molebin,” prayers of supplication somewhat like the Roman Catholic novena, and as many as a dozen people from the community have been attending. Father Luke Murianka, the deputy abbott, said all are welcome.

“Certainly, we feel that prayer is one of the best methods,” Father Luke said, but influential Russian Orthodox clerics are also weighing in, and their letters will be sent to Gov. Eliot Spitzer and others in state government.

Archbishop Hilarian Kapral of Australia, former abbot at Jordanville and metropolitan in Manhattan, had visited a wind farm in Tasmania and concluded “it would be terrible tragedy to have it here.”

The archbishop in Manhattan, Gabriel Chemodakov, has also written a letter decrying “the desecration of the landscape.”

The Cohocton Planning Board rubberstamped UPC Wind's FEIS last month and is set to review [approve without question?] the developer's application for special use permits at its meeting this coming Wednesday evening, July 11th. If and when this step is passed, assuming the same process applies here, UPC will then have to "apply for a certificate of necessity from the state Public Service Commission, which would require a further public hearing before action could be taken. The towns must then issue building permits for each turbine and related building in their jurisdictions." UPC and its local supporters will also be running a gauntlet of local prayer and, most likely, facing a similar Article 78 legal proceeding.

And remember, this year is an election year. As Yogi Berra once said, "It ain't over 'til it's over!"

Click here to read the entire article.

Labels: Legal, Process, Regional

Last week our Town was called into Supreme Court before Justice Marianne Furfure to give an account of its behavior in passing Local Law #2. Why did our leaders bypass review under the SEQRA, and how did they reconcile legally paving the way for an industrial wind project with Cohocton’s Comprehensive Zoning Plan? What did Judge Furure want to know? According to the Bath Leader, she questioned whether there should be expert proof of potential harm, what standards are reasonable and practical, and whether the town “short-circuited” the process. “It's hard for me to say this isn't any big deal,” she said. “You're setting the protocol, the standards, you're setting the stage.”

The response of our Town attorneys was illustrative:
- Local Law #2 wasn’t passed with the UPC Wind project in mind, they testified with straight faces. It was done to protect the Town.
- They indicated that their Albany attorney, Mr. John Henry, had been chosen to represent the whole town, not UPC’s interests.
- They alleged that Local Law #2 couldn’t have any environmental impact because it didn’t actually set up any turbines by itself.
- They tried to claim that the Cohocton residents who brought the lawsuit really didn’t have any legal “standing” to complain.
- Were they contrite or conciliatory? Not a bit.

The author of the Sermon on the Mount advises us to, “Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.” We’ve heard these words before, and many others like them, and say we believe. But when push comes to shove, how do we behave?

Is this a winner-take-all fight? At Cohocton Free we believe there’s still a path of compromise leaseholders and our Town leaders can pursue that will respect the wishes and preserve not only the rights of both sides but the integrity of our community. Curious? Click here to read our 5/8/07 proposal online or here to download a PDF version.

Labels: Legal, Local Politics, Process

Understanding the size of the transmission lines

UPC says their poles will be 65 feet high in Prattsburgh, with 20 foot arms on either side of the center pole, which means that a 40-foot right of way is required to run overhead lines.

Typically, NYSEG owns a 30-foot right of way along the road in front of people's homes (and sometimes across property). This means that in order to put up the transmission lines, NYSEG and/or UPC will have to get additional easements from property owners. This is a lot of easements, and if people don't sign the papers, then UPC is stuck.

Now here's what people should know: if you sign an easement for a 40-foot right of way, the guy wires may be attached and go on your land outside of the 40-foot right of way. But that is not all.

This next part is hard to explain, but here's a simplified explanation. Look at your abstract and you'll probably find an easement for NYSEG. It says in the easement that NYSEG has the right to get rid of trees that are in the way of their lines. Sure enough, if one looks at the plans for transmission lines in the EIS one sees that NYSEG and/or UPC reserves the right to cut tall trees located within 50 feet of either side of the pole so that tall trees don't interfere with the transmission lines.

This amounts in reality to a 100 foot right of way for NYSEG and UPC.

For example: a landowner has a house set back 60 feet from the road with tall trees on the front of his land providing privacy. UPC puts up poles for transmission. The poles are typically 29 feet from the center of the road, which puts them 10 or 15 feet onto the land. The arms extend another 20 feet onto the land. Then UPC cuts down tall trees that are located 50 feet on either side of the pole. Gone are beautiful trees. Gone is privacy. Gone is life as you know it.

People need to know this. Please let as many as possible know and encourage them NOT to sign additional easements.

Labels: Legal, Process

Judge Marianne Furfure will hear the Cohocton Wind Watch Article 78 against the Town of Cohocton, NY on Windmill Local Law #2 on Tuesday, May 8, 2007 at 10:00 AM in Supreme Court, 3 East Pulteney Square, Bath, New York.

This action contests the compliance with SEQRA on the passage of the second town law that modifies the zoning statute that allows the UPC industrial wind turbine project.

It was stipulated in court that the Town of Cohocton, in the first Article 78 action against Windmill Law Local #1, did not follow SEQRA.

CWW contends that the Town Board has passed a windmill law to specifically accommodate the developer, UPC Wind (aka Canandaigua Power Partners I & II, LLCs), which has proposed two projects when both are contingent and part of one large development. UPC Prattsburgh is also a project of this same two township development.

Counsel for CWW is Richard Lippes and David Miller.

Labels: Legal, Local Politics, Process

Senate Bill S4608

On April 19, 2007, Senator Jim Alesi introduced legislation in the New York Senate, cosponsored by 7 other senators, that "establishes the New York state task force on wind generating facilities siting and permitting policies to study the need to implement a uniform statewide policy regarding the siting and permitting of wind energy production facilities; further establishes an 18-month moratorium upon the siting and permitting of wind energy production facilities; repeals such provisions effective December 31, 2008."

Sponsors' Justification

Recently there has been renewed interest in wind energy development in New York. Although the recent growth of the wind industry is welcomed by many in New York, local authorities and residents in wind-rich counties are concerned about their ability to address existing or anticipated proposals from wind energy developers interested in installing projects within their jurisdiction. With modem wind turbines standing between 200-400 feet tall, wind energy projects can have a major impact on the surrounding area. These wind energy production facilities have the potential of causing a significant negative impact on the scenic and historic character of our highways and byways. Furthermore, wind energy facilities could have a negative impact upon residential areas and adjacent communities.

Wind energy is an important renewable energy source, however, it is very important to have a comprehensive plan for siting these high-tech wind facilities across New York in order to avoid any negative impacts upon the surrounding areas. This legislation seeks to study the need for a statewide comprehensive plan for siting wind facilities and places an 18 month moratorium on any new construction or issuing of new permits for the construction of wind energy facilities so the task force can complete its study and make recommendations.

Labels: Legal, Process, Regional

Coalition of Citizens File Antitrust Complaint with the Department of Justice Against the Wind Energy Industry

Naples NY, April 25, 2007

A grass roots coalition of nearly 100 citizens from New York, Vermont, and other states have filed a federal Antitrust Complaint alleging that an international cartel comprised of foreign and domestic business entities have conspired to eliminate competition in the newly emerging U.S. wind energy sector.

This Complaint, filed today with the Department of Justice Antitrust Division, maintains that windfarm developers, suppliers, consultants, investors, and in some cases public officials have engaged in illegal geographic Market Allocation, Price Fixing and Bid Rigging in direct violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

As a result of this illegal conspiracy thousands of landowners and hundreds of municipalities have been denied substantial monetary gains that otherwise would be available in a free and competitive market.

The 94 citizen Complainants expect that the Department of Justice will act quickly to assign appropriate resources necessary to investigate and prosecute these allegations and to punish any and all criminal wrongdoing to the full extent of the law. The Complainants also expect that the Department will take appropriate measures to ensure that the members of this international cartel are prevented from retaliating against any of the listed Complainants.

According to the Department of Justice, price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocation by individuals or companies are felonies currently punishable by maximum individual fines of $1 million, maximum corporate fines of $100 million, and maximum jail terms of 10 years.

Citizens from the following locales in New York are participating: Naples, Cohocton, Wayland, Cape Vincent, Lowville, Stamford, Malone, Wyoming, Cherry Valley, Addison, Canisteo, Allegany, Rochester, North Bangor, Little Falls, Hornell, Fairport, Webster, and Prattsburgh. Citizens from the following locales in Vermont are participating: Sheffield, East Burke, Sutton, and Peacham.

Questions regarding this Complaint (available in PDF form here) may be directed to:

Bradley E. Jones
3996 Donley Road
Naples NY 14512
585-374-2627 (H), 585-233-8539 (M)
perplus1@aol.com

Labels: Legal, Money, Process, Regional

When the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthian Church millenia ago he compared and contrasted two approaches to life - trying to live according the letter of the law or seeking to follow after its spirit or intent. In Paul's estimation, the first way led to death while the second led to life. Of course he was referring to the Biblical law, which is righteous in both its letter and intent, not to many of our human laws which are corrupt in both.

What law do we say we are following in Cohocton? When it comes to windmills, the law cited is Local Law #2 (LL#2), enacted by our Town Board in late 2006. Serious questions have been raised about its "letter", which UPC Wind and its supporters are using as their guide. But what about the spirit or intent of this Law? According to a recent NY Department of State publication about the functions of a Zoning Board of Appeals,

A zoning law is a community's guide to its future development. That is its purpose. It is not meant to be just another governmental intrusion, another bit of red tape to be untangled before the property owner can go ahead with his plans. The protections afforded residents and property owners within the community from undesirable development come from the restrictiveness of zoning. Traditionally, zoning is characterized by pre-set regulations contained in the ordinance or local law, and applicable uniformly within each district. A landowner can look at the zoning map and regulations and know that if he follows them, he has a right to use his land in a certain way, and that neighboring property is subject to the same restrictions. But, because all land in the district is subject to the same rules, and because no two parcels of land are precisely the same, problems can arise.

Labels: Freedom, Legal, Local Politics, Morality, Process

Wind-farm development put on hold

Meaghan McDermott
Rochester Democrat & Chronicle Staff writer

March 12, 2007 8:13 pm — HAMLIN — By a vote of 3-0, the town board tonight approved a one-year moratorium on wind farm development, giving a nine-member town committee time to research wind farms and make recommendations about what areas of Hamlin, if any, would be appropriate for a wind farm.

“This moratorium will give our committee time to thoroughly discuss the facts without the fear of a developer coming in tomorrow” asking for a project approval, said Town Supervisor Denny Roach.

One board member, Paul Rath, abstained from the vote. He is a landowner in Hamlin and has been approached by a wind power company. Another board member, David Rose, was out of town.

Developers haven’t yet asked the town to approve a wind farm. However, Massachusetts-based Competitive Power Ventures Inc. negotiated some land-lease agreements with property owners and built two 200-foot tall meteorological towers in the town’s northwest quadrant late last year. The towers will collect wind speed and direction information for up to 18 months. That information will tell the company if Hamlin is a good spot for wind power.

Editor's Note: Click here to read a background article by Meaghan McDermott published in the Democrat & Chronicle earlier today.

Labels: Legal, Process, Regional

On December 20, 2006, Cohocton Wind Watch and a number of Cohocton residents filed an Article 78 lawsuit against the Town to annul the passage of Local Law #2 of 2006, which purports to regulate the siting, construction and operation of windmills within the Town. The petitioners claim that the law was passed without required environmental review, and violated various other zoning procedures.

James Hall, a member of Cohocton Wind Watch and a petitioner in the lawsuit stated that "we all live in Cohocton because we love and appreciate the beautiful rural and agricultural nature of our Town. These huge industrial windmills will destroy this quality of life."

The case has been assigned to Judge Mary Anne Furfure, and will be heard at the Steuben County Courthouse in Bath on January 16, 2007 at 10:00 AM. Richard Lippes of Buffalo, NY and David Miller of Naples, NY are the attorneys for the petitioners.

Labels: Legal, Local Politics, Process

The bleachers were filled at the old high school gym and applause erupted when the Cherry Valley town board Thursday, Dec. 14, voted, 2-1, in favor of a "gold standard" wind ordinance that may stop Reunion Power from building 24 turbines on East Hill. Supervisor Tom Garretson and Town Board member Jim Johnson voted in favor of the measure, while retiring board member Fabian Bressett III voted nay. This was also the last meeting for Bressett, who is retiring after 33 years on the town board. The board "selected" Mark Cornwell, who works in the SUNY Cobleskill fisheries and wildlife program. He and his wife, Christine, have opposed the windmill development. Cornwell will be confirmed in the job next month. While Bressett voted against the ordinance, he paved the way for the ordinance's adoption by making the motion to put the question into play.

Labels: Legal, Process, Regional

It appears that our Town Board is poised to pass yet another fatally flawed Law on November 21 in its attempt to satisfy UPC Wind and its leaseholders. This Law is so vulnerable that there will undoubtedly be lawsuits and legal fees, and failure in the courts is so predictable that our elected leaders are trying to get the Town to indemnify them. Who are we kidding? Read our article in this week's Valley News for a discussion of some of the proposed Law's problems.

Labels: Legal, Local Politics, Process

Earlier this week the Cohocton Town Board sponsored a Public Meeting to review the proposed "Windmill Law #2". Many speakers gave well-researched and impassioned presentations to our Board, expressing their serious reservations and asking for time to reconsider before moving forward. Here are a number of links to the reports they submitted that are well worth reading: Cohocton Wind Watch, Richard Bolton, Paul Gettys, James Hall, James and Shannon Lince, David Miller, Don Sandford, and Robert Strasburg. We agree with these and others who are raising their voices in a chorus asking for a moratorium on wind power development in our Town. Please let our local leaders know where you stand.

Labels: Legal, Local Politics, Process

The Cohocton Town Board appears poised to pass "Windmill Law #2" to replace the seriously flawed one it passed in January. Both laws were crafted by UPC Wind, but the developer's hand and paid legal counsel are even more evident in #2 than they were in #1. There are two vital public meetings coming up for community input on Thursday 10/19 and Tuesday 10/24, both being held at the Cohocton Elementary School. Please read the new law, then come out and voice your concerns.

Labels: Legal, Local Politics, Process

In a big win for the Mohawk Valley community who rallied against it, Governor Pataki joined state legislators and local leaders at the SUNY-IT Campus in Marcy to sign legislation that limits the use of eminent domain by electric and gas corporations. The law adds new restrictions for companies looking to take over people's land to use for electric and gas line projects, like the one proposed by New York Regional Interconnect.
The 200-mile long power line project would cut right through the Mohawk Valley. Many say it would have a negative impact on property owners, the environment, and the local economy.
Governor Pataki echoed their arguments against the plan: "We don't need a power line running through this community that's going to split it in half and take people's homes," Pataki said.
If built, the power line would provide electricity to New York City. But many argue it would also raise the rates for other customers in the state.

Labels: Legal, Process

Under New York's State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) segmentation is defined as the division of the environmental review of an action so that various activities or stages are addressed as though they were independent, unrelated activities needing individual determinations of significance. Considering only a part or segment of an overall action is contrary to the intent of SEQR. Is “segmentation” going on in our area? Our article in this week's Valley News addresses this vital question. For further information, visit the "Process" section of our main website and then read Brad Jones' penetrating analysis of the recent Prattsburg DEIS.

Labels: Legal, Process

Public utilities have the power to exercise the legal principle of "eminent domain" when their plans conflict with the interests of private property owners. Could this legal power be exercised in Cohocton? This week's Valley News article opens up the topic. We address other aspects of personal freedom on our main website here.

Labels: Legal, Process