Cape Vincent ~ BP's shoddy public involvement

Over the past several years and two political elections the majority of the Cape Vincent voters
have clearly voiced their opposition to large scale wind development like that proposed by Cape
Vincent Wind Power. As such the Cape Vincent Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Law have been
updated to meet the wishes of the majority.


 November 13, 2012                                                                                   
Honorable Jaclyn A. Brilling,Secretary


NYS Board of Electric Generation Siting and the Environment
3 Empire Plaza
Albany, NY 12223

Re: Case 12-F-0410 Cape Vincent Wind Power
Public Information Plan

Dear Secretary Brilling:

As a member of the Town Of Cape Vincent Planning Board I have been directly involved with
review of the proposed Cape Vincent Wind Power 200-285 MW project and the impact that it
would have on our Town and our neighboring Towns.

In spite of the fact that the applicant applied for Town Of Cape Vincent Site Plan Review in
2006, the applicant has made it virtually impossible for the Town Planning Board to conduct a
proper review. The purpose of this communication is to confirm my primary concerns, to
confirm comments I made during the applicants October 23, 2012 meeting with Cape Vincent
and Lyme Town officials and to provide you and your colleagues with information in hopes that
the applicant will be considerably more forthcoming and cooperative during the Article X
review process.

Over the past several years and two political elections the majority of the Cape Vincent voters
have clearly voiced their opposition to large scale wind development like that proposed by Cape
Vincent Wind Power. As such the Cape Vincent Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Law have been
updated to meet the wishes of the majority.

CONCERNS
1)   The applicant continues to publish outdated and misleading information that is not
applicable to the current proposal. Examples of that are: Public statements that there is
"overwhelming community support" for the project; Publication of charts and graphs
that show tax incomes to taxing authorities based on PILOT agreements that do not (and
probably will not) exist.
2)   Vague or incomplete responses/mitigations to ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. Examples of
environmental concerns are: Migratory birds and bats in a major flyway; Radar and
radio interference; Noise. Safe setbacks: Etc.
3)   Denial by the developer of the overall negative impacts on the Cape Vincent economy in
spite of the fact that the Town of Cape Vincent consulted with reputable experts to
reach the conclusions stated in the WIND TURBINE ECONOMIC IMPACT REPORT. If not
already on file with the PSC, the complete report will be made available to you in the
very near future.

COMMENTS FROM OCTOBER 23. 2012 P.I.P MEETING

As you are aware, on 10/23/12 Cape Vincent Wind Power held their first P.I.P. meeting in Cape
Vincent. 17 members of the Town and Planning Boards of Cape Vincent and Lyme asked
questions and made comments to Richard Chandler, representative for Cape Vincent Wind
Power. A project boundary map was displayed by Mr. Chandler.

1)   The map is the only current site map available for public viewing. It does not provide
adequate detail to enable anyone or any authority to determine specific location of each
wind turbine tower. Thus it is not possible to determine setbacks from property lines,
residences, roads, etc.This is an example of providing vague information and consistent
with the semi-secret methods of communicating with the Town of Cape Vincent
Planning Board and the public.
2)   In spite of numerous changes in the scope of the project, the application has not been
updated since the original 2006 application.
3)   The applicant has made numerous attempts to negotiate with the Jefferson County
Industrial Development Agency to strip the local taxing authorities of their jurisdiction in
hopes that the Towns, School and County would have no say in how the project would
be taxed. In that the applicant continues to publish newspaper ads and charts showing
figures based on a PILOT agreement leads me to believe the applicant is still negotiating
to strip taxing authority from the local jurisdictions.
4)   Many questions asked of Mr. Chandler were not answered in such a way to reach a
conclusion. Examples of this are:
a)   No meaningful response to the question, is it likely that you will develop wind
projects in Towns neighboring Cape Vincent which would result in a much larger
overall footprint than what appears on the map.
b)   No meaningful response to the question, will this project comply with the current
Town of Cape Vincent Zoning Law.
c)   No meaningful response to the question, if you are denied by the Art X process, is it
possible that you will reapply to the Town of Cape Vincent for site plan review.
5)   One question that I asked was "are you (Mr. Chandler) aware of the fact that a Wind
Turbine Economic Impact Study exists. This was clearly and decisively answered "no I am
not".
6)   Following are my closing remarks to Mr. Chandler: BP (Cape Vincent Wind Power) has
subjected this community (Cape Vincent) to enormous pressures on families,
friendships, health, elections, budgets, Town Board, Planning Board, volunteers, local
businesses and local organizations.


The results of this are:

a)   A total lack of trust in BP (Cape Vincent Wind Power)
b)   Removal from office of conflicted and/or unethical Town Board members
c)   A melt-down and rebuild of the Planning Board
d)   An updated Comprehensive Plan
e)   An amended Zoning Law
f)   The use of the Article X siting process option to again disconnect with a community
that knows what it wants and does not want and that has a zoning law that is based
on scientific fact and expert advice

A November 10, 2012 P.I.P. gathering consisted of several display stations. Attendance
primarily consisted of members of an organization created by BP (Cape Vincent Wind Power) to
promote wind development. The gathering was primarily a sales promotion event. We need to
know the details of this project rather than details about other projects.

Needless to say PSC consideration of the above facts would be appreciated and vital to arrive
at a fair and balanced review that preserves the quality of life, health, safety and welfare of the
citizens of Cape Vincent.

Respectfully submitted,

Cyril Cullen