In an appeal to the Public Service Commission BP expresses concern about local zoning laws.

In a comment letter to the Public Service Commission, Richard F. Chandler Director of Development for BP’s Cape Vincent Wind Project wrote the following concerning Local laws ~any override of local laws should be provided by the Siting Board early in the process. Also, once a project has met the standards for project approval, the local community should bear the burden of proof to demonstrate why the more restrictive requirements are appropriate rather than the applicant demonstrating why they are not appropriate. Finally, to the extent that a recently commissioned wind project in New York meets community standards, such projects should be used as a guide by the Siting Board rather than having the Siting Board assume that any local law is reasonable unless refuted by an applicant.
~~~
BP realizes that Zoning laws are a stumbling block for their project development consequently; BP wind energy had wind lease holders sign what they call Good Neighbor Agreements.
 BP crafted these agreements in order to subvert our communities zoning law. These agreements are nothing more than land use variances; BP has no authority to write land use variances.
Additionally, Chandler wrote: BP Wind Energy has already been engaged with the local community for years on the Cape Vincent Wind Farm project and such work should not be ignored.

Cape Vincent is in the process of developing an updated zoning law Past efforts to update our zoning laws have been thwarted by BP.

BP came to Cape Vincent, like a thief in the night;
their plan was to steal Cape Vincent’s future by secretly signing, land owners & Board members to wind contracts with loyalty clauses. One of BP's first moves was to sign Planning Board Chair Richard Edsall to wind contracts thereafter using him as a tool to do their bidding.

As land owners signed away their wind rights they were signing away Cape Vincent’s hope for a prosperous future. These contracts would seal Cape Vincent’s fate by turning our tiny community into an industrial wasteland and destroying any hope for economic prosperity.
There would be great economic gain but, ultimately only for BP.

Yes, Mr. Chandler BP Wind energy has been engaged with the local community for years and such work should not be ignored…

 UPDATE~ Additional info~
By now we all know about the insidious cooperation clause that has
been exposed in wind lease agreements, here are links to both
Acciona and BP lease agreements which show nearly identical language.
The agreements require lease holders to assist and fully cooperate with the wind companies getting their projects approved. This isn't a big deal for a regular green-shirted lease holder, but it is a
VERY BIG DEAL if the lease holder happens to also be a town official.

Link here to read entire BP Good Neighbor agreement

**  link here to BP Comments to Public Service Commission Re: Article 10

Senator Patricia Ritchie ~ Comments to the Public Service Commission, Re: A 10 law

May 29,2012

Honorable Jaclyn A. Brilling, Secretary
NYS Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment
Three Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 122 12 – 1350

Dear Secretary Brilling:
I am pleased to offer the following comments for filing to be included in the record as part of the public comment period on the proposed regulations regarding the siding of electric generating plants in New York State. While the proposed implementing regulations issued by the Department of Public Service (DPS) under the new Article 10 law allow for more input by the affected localities, I want to express my strong belief that regulations, once finalized, do more than just consider the implementation of local laws.

I voted against the reinstatement of article acts as drafted last year because I felt local government should be able to have a significant say in the siding of power generation plants in their communities. While developers have the ability under the new law to request the Siting Board rule that a local law is unduly burdensome, I would hope that the board take into consideration all comments provided by the host community.

The issue is critically important in relation to the siting of wind turbines. Localities must be able to be a key participant in the siting process and allowed to take into consideration the myriad of issues that wind turbines can present such as aesthetics, tourism, military deployments/maneuvers, and the negative impact on the local economy.

Specifically, it is important that the statute which provides a standard for “overriding” local laws, and the proposed regulations which narrowly interpret that standard, provide local governments with greater standing during the approval process. The fact that the proposed regulations contain three different tests in order to qualify for a local law override, and the siting law does not, is a step in the right direction. However, it is critical that the needs and desires of the local communities play an integral role in the approval process.

With respect to the proposed regulations which allow wind turbines to be moved within 500 feet of their originally identified location, I believe this distance threshold should be drastically reduced. The public needs assurance that if a project is approved, it will be located close to where it is proposed to be.

Finally, I support provisions in the proposed regulations which provide for quasi-judicial review whereby a party can force a hearing by showing that issue is “material and relevant.” It is paramount that these provisions are not deluded or eliminated so that all issues may be addressed prior to the siding and construction of electric generation facilities.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,



Patricia A. Ritchie
State Senator

---

President of Ebbing Acoustics~Comment Letter to NYS Public Service Commission Re: Article 10

Dear Secretary Brilling,
I am Charles Ebbing, President of Ebbing Acoustics, and am actively involved as an Acoustical Consultant on Noise and Vibration Issues associated with Industrial Wind Turbines and from the HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning) Industry.
I worked from 1967 to 1999 for Carrier Corp, in the Research Division as Technical Leader in Acoustics, as Product Manager, and as the Carrier Corporate Noise Control Consultant.
After retiring from Carrier, as an Adjunct Professor, I taught Graduate Noise Control Courses at RPI and at Syracuse University associated with Building Mechanical Noise, Noise Control in Buildings, and the Use of Noise Criteria in the design of occupied spaces.

Overview
The Industrial Wind Industry continues to assert that Low Frequency Noise need not be evaluated for Industrial Wind Turbines and that dBA provides the information needed to access the noise impact on the adjacent community.
They also contend that Low Frequency Noise from Industrial Turbines is not a major problem, and thus dBC noise measurements it should not be required in the final Article X Guidelines.
They also assert that collecting dBC Noise data imposes an unrealistic burden on the Industrial Wind Industry.
I challenge the technical basis for these positions based on my personal Research and Experience as Acoustical Engineer specializing in these areas.
should not be required in the final Article X the technical basis for these positions based on my personal Research and as Acoustical Engineer specializing in these areas.

I am the lead author of the Book, “Application of Manufacturers’ Sound Data” that resulted from ASHRAE Research Project RP-786, Oct 1, 1998 (WWW.ASHRAE.ORG). The book has an extensive discussion of the use of RC Criterion to evaluate the expected low frequency noise level in occupied spaces and determine the required noise reductions to meet the Noise Goals established for Occupied Spaces in Buildings.
It is important to realize that industrial wind turbines are basically electrical generators turned by very, very large turbine blades. Noise is produced by the air flow and air turbulence over the turbine blade.
The noise producing mechanisms for HVAC fans are quite similar except that the fans are much smaller in Building Air Conditioning Systems and are driven by electrical motors and produce much less Low Frequency Noise.
Fan Noise is produced by the air flow and air turbulence over the fan blade that is induced by the fan blade rotation.
The Spectrum of the noise produced by Turbines and that produced by HVAC Fans both produce more Low Frequency Noise than Mid or High Frequency Noise.
In operation, the fan blades and the turbine blades both generate broad band and tonal noise which increases at low frequencies and decreases at the higher frequencies.
Wind Turbines produce increased Low Frequency Noise when the air flow entering the Turbine Blades deviates from Laminar Flow. The Wind Industry rates the noise from their units striving for the most laminar flow entering the turbine blades.
Similarly fans produce increased noise with highly turbulent inlet conditions or poorly designed ductwork in the fans discharge.
My field experience with HVAC Units that produced unacceptable time varying low frequency Rumble was because of the excessive time modulation of the noise in the 63, 31.5, and 16 Hz bands.
The characteristics of the wind turbine sound emissions are similar to those of problematic HVAC systems

My field experience is that tenants of new office buildings with Rumble from HVAC systems were unable to “tune out” the amplitude modulated low frequencies and wanted to return to their old offices to get away from the noise.
It was only when we able to reduce the Low Frequency Noise Radiation in the first three Octave Bands, to that indicated by the ASHRAE RC curves, that the occupants were satisfied.

The Low Frequency noise source ratings of the Turbines are needed to estimate the low frequency impact in the Homes of Occupants of interest. This impact cannot be determined from just considering the dBA noise levels of the Turbines. The literature shows that the dBA high frequency noise reduction of homes is significant, whereas low frequency noise reduction coupled with amplification from resonance of homes vary but on average the expected dBC reduction is close to zero.
Based on my experience the is no way to evaluate or anticipate Low Frequency Noise LFN Problems from Wind Turbines unless a proper study is conducted and that cannot be done if the focus is only on dBA.

Further, the types of symptoms that are being reported from people with long term exposure to Low Frequency Noise in their homes from Industrial Wind Turbines are similar to the reactions, I witnessed from many LFN exposed knowledge workers inside of occupied spaces which were generated by Buildings HVAC fans.

The Wind Turbine Applicants should provide the information needed to evaluate the noise impact on the adjacent community. The largest impact, in my opinion is inside the Occupants Homes. They cannot estimate this without knowing a rational estimate of the expected dBC outside their homes.
The Industrial Wind Industry should disclose both source dBA and dBC Sound Power Ratings of their turbines and document estimates of the expected noise levels at the Property Lines of the Residents both in dBA and dBC so that it is possible to evaluate both the expected dBA and dBC inside the residences’ home. Low frequency noise problems cannot be anticipated or prevented from dBA data.
Data collection of both dBC and dBA as well as octave or 1/3 Octave band is not considered difficult and burdensome by the HVAC industry. Why should the Wind Industry claim that that it is too difficult and burdensome for them, when they use the same high quality acoustical instrumentation that the HVAC Industry uses to collect the noise rating of their machinery?
The HVAC Industry has acknowledged that Low Frequency Noise Rating data from Rooftop Units and Central Station Fan Units are important to achieve acceptable Room Noise Levels. To do this the HVAC Industry looked to its Technical Society ASHRAE to set these recommendations.
It is apparent that the Wind Industry has not chosen to recognize that the HVAC Industry has effectively dealt with the low frequency noise problems of its industry since the mid 80’s.
Below is an ASHRAE listing of the research projects


The Wind Turbine Applicants should provide the information needed to evaluate the noise impact on the adjacent community.The largest impact, in my opinion is inside the Occupants Homes. This cannot be estimated without knowing a rational estimate of the expected dBC outside their homes.
The Industrial Wind Industry should disclose as a minimum , both source dBA and dBC Sound Power Ratings of their turbines and document estimates of the expected noise levels at the Property Lines of the Residents both in dBA and dBC so that it is possible to evaluate both the expected dBA and dBC inside the residences’ home.
Low frequency noise problems cannot be evaluated or anticipated from dBA data.
The HVAC Industry has acknowledged that Low Frequency Noise Rating data from Rooftop Units and Central Station Fan Units are important to achieve acceptable Room Noise Levels. To do this the HVAC Industry looked to its Technical Society ASHRAE to set these recommendations.
The ASHRAE Research that follows should not be ignored in setting Article X noise standards for evaluation of the expected noise from Wind Farms.

[Note: I am having difficulty with the way these charts display on my blog~ I am working on it!]
k


SHRAE Research

Charles Ebbing
President Ebbing Acoustics
LaFargeville, NY

Bp ~ Comments to Public Service Commission Re: Article 10

Excerpt~
In New York, Cape Vincent Wind Power, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of BP Wind Energy, is developing the Cape Vincent Wind Farm project in Jefferson County. With the acquisition of the neighboring St. Lawrence Wind Farm project in February 2012, theCape Vincent Wind Farm now can reach upwards of approximately 285 MW in size.Given its long-standing and substantial investment in this project, BP Wind Energy is seeking an Article 10 process that will facilitate its development and construction.Toward this end, below we offer comments that we hope the Siting Board will considerin finalizing the implementing regulations for Article 10.
~~~
B. Local laws
Any override of local laws should be provided by the Siting Board early in the process.Also, once a project has met the standards for project approval, the local community should bear the burden of proof to demonstrate why the more restrictive requirements areappropriate rather than the applicant demonstrating why they are not appropriate. Finally,to the extent that a recently commissioned wind project in New York meets communitystandards, such projects should be used as a guide by the Siting Board rather than havingthe Siting Board assume that any local law is reasonable unless refuted by an applicant

BP Comments Re: Article 10

Wind Power Ethics Group comments to the Public Service Commission ~ Re: A 10 Law

 May 24, 2012

Honorable Jaclyn A. Brilling, Secretary

New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment

Empire State Plaza

Albany, NY 12212-1350

Dear Secretary Brilling,

RE: In the Matter of the Rules and Regulations of the Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment

HISTORY:

WIND POWER ETHICS GROUP LLC was formed in 2006 due to the fact that two industrial wind turbine developers proposed over 250 wind turbines in our small town of Cape Vincent which is five miles along Lake Ontario and fifteen miles along the St Lawrence River. At the time our Town and Planning Boards consisted of officials with wind turbine leases. They appeared to make decisions based on their self interest, rather than what might be best for the entire community. Our organization financially invested in studies, educational presentations and awareness for the concerned public regarding all aspects of wind turbine development. To do this we investigated and researched the information that was provided by the wind turbine companies. As a result of these efforts an increased number of citizens have voted into office non-conflicted board members who are making decisions for the best interest of the whole community. We believe in home rule and feel that our town and planning boards should not be left out of the future planning for any energy development in Cape Vincent.

COMMENTS REGARDING THE DRAFT REGULATIONS:

Local laws:

First, we ask that the applying local substantial laws continue to be the default position. The wind developers are asking that locally laws be preempted entirely. We remind you that the actual language passed by the legislature and governor was clear that the local laws would be applied unless "unduly burdensome". The applicants should bear the burden of proving local laws are burdensome. New York State is historically a home rule state and each municipality has carefully developed its own laws for its unique area.

1000.15 Acceptance of a Certificate

(a) Upon issuance of a final decision by a Board granting a Certificate, an applicant shall, within 30 days after the issuance of such decision, file either a written unqualified acceptance of the Certificate or a petition for rehearing, but not both. We ask that this paragraph be amended to include the municipality has the right to ask for a rehearing also. We find it an unfair advantage that an applicant has more rights than the local municipality.

 Public Involvement:

The NY Power Act clearly states the Chair shall make decisions in consultation with the Board exclusive of the ad hoc members. Considering all the rhetoric about public involvement it seems important that the decisions be made by a vote including the ad hoc members. The fact that the ad hoc members are not required for a quorum is additional injury to real public involvement and should be necessary for a quorum. Siting Board meetings should take place within the municipality where a project is proposed.

This comment period has only been 60 days and some of the time the PSC web page carrying the draft regulations has been offline. Town Boards meet only once a month and this time period is inadequate to carefully consider issues that will have a lasting impact on their communities. A 30 day extension to this comment period is requested.

Socioeconomic Effects:

One issue we experienced firsthand was weighing the possible benefits of a development against the losses. Currently the draft regulations only consider the benefits such as jobs, PILOTS, secondary industries, and so forth. It is obvious that virtually every development has some negative impact on the involved local community. We ask that an economic analysis include the entire effects; not just the benefits.

Noise Issues:

Sound studies have been a huge issue in our community. The developers sound studies have shown a large discrepancy with two independent sound studies. Developer studies have completely ignored the issue of low level sound vibration and it is clear communities need to be protected from damaging sounds and vibrations. We would like a cap on sound: 5 dba above ambient as recommended by the DEC or not more than 35dba at non participating property lines. Measuring low level vibration should also be a requirement especially as more and more data is available demonstrating harmful effects of low level vibration(C weighting) and sound in general.

Wildlife Protection:

Ornithologists take the position that bird and bat studies should continue for three years to account for seasonal variation. Applicants should be expected to present verifiable wildlife studies to protect the local wildlife. The 86 wind turbine complex on Wolfe Island, Canada, just two miles away from Cape Vincent in the St. Lawrence River has some of the recorded highest bird kills in the world. Documented reports show the short eared owls moved away from the turbines, the osprey immigrated into Cape Vincent and 15 red tailed hawks were killed within the wind turbine development area. Valid studies take time, the regulations should make sure studies are at least a year in length at the very minimum.

 Naiveté:

As a community that has seen the most well publicized and unscrupulous behavior from wind developers we must point out the naiveté of this point made in the regulations: "Opponents of noise and proponents of new facilities should be able to agree that they share an interest in a robust review of noise issues to ensure adequate protection against and mitigation of adverse impacts and to maintain the viability of future projects." The wind developers in this community presented fraudulent sound studies which are flawed in methodology and conclusions.

Our organization has invested many hours of research concerning wind turbine development issues and hope our experience will be of benefit to the final regulations of Article X.

Respectfully submitted,

Sarah F. Boss, Chairman

Wind Power Ethics Group, LLC

To read original link to Public Service Commission  

Town of Cape Vincent Comment Letter to NYS Public Service Commission Re: Article 10

BP withdraws SLW ~ DEC permit applications

The letter below is from BP to the Department of Conservation, informing them of the purchase of the St. Lawrence Wind project and the notification of  a formal withdrawal from consideration  permit applications previously submitted by Acciona

The letter below is a notification letter from Acciona Project Developer Tim Conboy Re: BP's purchase of Acciona's St. Lawrence Wind farm.

BP's Cape Vincent Wind development & Community ~ Outreach ~ A brief History

Monday, BP submitted a Public Involvement Plan (PIP) to the Public Service Commission (PSC).  This preliminary document contained information concerning  public involvement with their proposed Industrial Wind Development. I have put together a little history concerning BP’s project that you will not find amongst the documents submitted to the PSC by BP.   

By the time the first public informational meeting concerning wind development in Cape Vincent was held, wind developers had already encumbered a significant portion of the land in our community by signing landowners to wind leases with loyalty clauses.  Among those signed up to wind leases were a large portion of land owners that held positions our local government.  Over the years these municipal officers have been involved in the approval process of both Acciona’s and BP’s wind projects.  Planning Board Chair and wind lease holder, Richard Edsall held a prominent role in the approval process of both projects.

During the fall of 2005, continuing through March 2006, a series of non - publicized, special meetings took place in the office of the town supervisor.  The purpose of those meetings was to craft a wind law. Among those in attendance were Planning Board Chair Edsall, conflicted Town Board (TB), and Planning Board (PB) members, lease holding citizens and a representative from Jefferson County Planning Department, Michael Bourcy.

Mr. Bourcy sent a letter via fax to Supervisor Reinbeck that characterizes the direction these meetings were taking, “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.” Bourcy made recommendations to Edsall that there be a minimum setback in the law, pointing out that if a requirement is not stated in the Zoning Law, the Planning Board must have a good basis for requiring it.

As public knowledge of the Wind developments increased, setbacks became a sticking point.  Citizens in the community wanted a protective setback of 2 miles.  Planning Board Chair Edsall responded to the community’s concerns by openly stating, "Two miles would wipe out both projects."

 At the April 12, 2006, PB meeting Edsall petitioned to be included on the PB agenda.  Edsall got up from his chairman’s seat and moved into the audience in order 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 met 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 of 2005 through spring 2006),  because the sessions were not planning board meetings. Community pressure continued to mount over conflicts of interest and 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.

May 11, 2006, brought a compromise when Joe Wood and Marty Mason recused themselves while 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 Rte 12E.

 On June 14, 2006, PB Chairman Edsall wrote a letter to the Town Board informing them that the PB had 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. This action is not within the scope of the PB’s authority.  The very next day, June 15, 2006, Darrel 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.

The same day of the Aubertine letter, the TB was scheduled to vote on a proposed zoning law that would eliminate 12 turbines from Darrel Aubertine’s neighborhood.  Supervisor Reinbeck and TB member Orvis reversed their positions on setback

requirements of the commercial wind towers causing a deadlock that was resolved by stripping any such regulations from the proposed zoning law amendment.

Aug. 10, 2006, the TB moved forward with the adoption of zoning regulations for wind power development and issued a positive declaration which requires  an environmental impact study (EIS) to determine the impacts from the new law.  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.  Subsequently, the Board passed a resolution to “Discontinue the process of amending the Town of Cape Vincent Zoning Law to regulate wind towers.” 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 the Planning Board 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.  According to a story in the Watertown Daily Times (WDT), despite protests from some residents, the Planning Board voted unanimously to be the lead agency in the State Environmental Quality Review process.  This action gave The PB complete control over the environmental review process for both of the projects in the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme.

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. 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.

 In 2007 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),designed to quell community opposition to their project. Marion Trieste community organizer and wind facilitator continues to market her strategy to
developers.

On Jan. 10, 2007, the PB received Acciona’s DEIS but did not allow the public access to the document until Feb 1, 2007.  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. 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.

Dec.19, 2007, BP’s DEIS was accepted by the PB (Chairman Edsall did abstain from voting to accept).

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.” 

 March 13, 2008, at the Town Board meeting, Edsall announced that he hired an Albany law firm, Whiteman , Osterman & Hanna, who specialize in litigation especially when you get to the site plan review process and pilot programs.  May 15, 2008, on the advice of the newly hired legal counsel, Edsall wrote a letter disclosing his contracts with British Petroleum and conflicts of interest.

Aug. 14, 2008, Reinbeck announced that a committee would be formed to revise a draft wind law developed by the Town’s new the wind lawyers. The committee met frequently throughout the fall and winter completing a draft law in January 2009.

March 25, 2009, the PB accepted Acciona's supplemental environmental impact statement and this marked the first recusal for conflicted board member Karen Bourcy.

 At the April 2009, TB a citizen 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?”

In 2008, a citizen began videotaping the Town meetings on a regular basis
documenting for the public the events of these meetings. At the Aug.12, 2009, planning Board meeting board member Andy Binsley told the videographer “take your camera and shove it right where it belongs… And you can’t bring that thing to a meeting.” The next day at the TB meeting of Aug.13, 2009, Supervisor Reinbeck had

the police called to stop the videotaping, which was unsuccessful since it was a legal activity.  Additionally at this same meeting a petition, asking for a wind development moratorium with over 650 signatures on it, was submitted. 

The TB was in support of a partial moratorium protecting the River and Lake District, two areas 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.  Supervisor Reinbeck and TB member 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."

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. “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 Reinbeck’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 the noise portion was taken out because it was too

restrictive and would have prohibited development rather than regulate it.  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.

It is our firm belief that unethical if not illegal voting methods were implemented

August 11, 2011,  A petition was submitted to the Cape Vincent Town Board stating ~

It is our firm belief that unethical if not illegal voting methods were implemented which pre- determined the outcome of the local elections held in Cape Vincent, New York in 2009 and that those same methods are being utilized once again in order to manipulate the outcome of the upcoming November elections.
Therefore, we the undersigned concerned residents of Cape Vincent, New York respectfully request that the Town Board of the Town of Cape Vincent, New York takes action to resolve this issue.

This petition was cited by Town Councilman Donny Mason as the basis for the voter fraud resolution he proposed. This resolution was passed by Donny Mason, Marty Mason & Mickey Orvis.

August 15, 2011 Town Attorney Mark Gebo sent a letter to Supervisor Hirschey concerning the validity of the Resolution passed by Marty Mason, Donny Mason & Mickey Orvis.

Mr. Gebo ended the letter with, Based upon the forgoing; I believe the resolution passed on August 11, 2011 is ineffective.

Additionally
TUESDAY, AUGUST 16, 2011

At an editorial board meeting with the Watertown Daily Times, the state's lawyer said that he's glad he hasn't had to deal with Cape Vincent's law requiring that voters have driver's licenses with CV addresses.

"Because it's unconstitutional," Mr. Schneiderman said.

Link here to the Watertown Times story covering Attorney General Schneiderman’s remarks.

 August 25, 2011 Supervisor Hirschey introduced Resolution # 36
 to rescind  the Voter fraud law
~
All members voted on resolution # 36
Supervisor Urban Hirschey ~ AYE
Councilman Marty Mason ~ NO
Councilman Mickey Orvis ~ AYE
Councilman Brooks Bragdon~ AYE
Councilman Donny Mason ~ NO

The resolution to rescind the voter fraud law passed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Letter From Town Attorney ~ Mark Gebo
 Re: Voter Fraud Law


Resolution to Rescind Unconstitutional Voter Fraud Law

Resolution # 35  Unconstitutional Voter Fraud Law





 click mouse here to read the petition that was circulated

CAPE VINCENT 2011 A Windy Year in Review

January 13, 2011 : The Town Board meeting marked the beginning of a tumultuous year for Cape Vincent and wind development. Acciona, Voters for Wind and Town Board Members, Marty Mason, Donny Mason & Mickey Orvis formed an alliance , calling for an investigation in retaliation for Urban Hirschey’s release of FOILED documents that exposed Acciona’s sound study as fraudulent. Additionally, EX Supervisor Reinbeck called for Hirschey’s immediate dismissal. Their plan backfired, bringing attention to the content of Acciona’s fraudulent sound study. The Attorney General dismissed their request to investigate.

February 9: Even though the Planning Board meeting was canceled, BP’s SDEIS was submitted to the planning board behind closed doors somewhere around Feb. 10, 2011. By chance, a citizen discovered the existence of the documents in the Lyme Library, however the board had not formally accepted it. BP’s former senior project manager, Jim Madden, said in a newspaper interview that he expected the SDEIS to be accepted by the end of March.

February 10: At the Town Board meeting Supervisor Hirschey proposed that a community wide Zogby survey be conducted to gain a better understanding of what direction to lead the community. Additionally, Supervisor Hirschey Called for a resolution for a property Valuation Assurance Policy as a condition for the Town Planning Board's approval of Cape Vincent’s wind turbine site plan applications. Marty Mason said, "I'd like to table it for a moment.” In addition, Donny Mason said, "I agree with Marty." In anticipation of the ZOGBY poll’s results Voters for wind conducted their own scientific telephone poll, the results of which were never made public.

March 16: Michael G. Sterthous, from Whiteman Osterman and Hanna,(WOH) sent a letter to BP advising them that the Cape Vincent’s Planning Board review of their project is “ongoing” and that comments on the status of the completeness of the SDEIS will be delivered to BP Wind Energy‘s technical consultants over the coming months and ultimately lead to iteration of the document.

March 22: Jim Madden, BP’s project developer, left Bp for an opportunity with a smaller company . Madden had been with the Cape Vincent wind project from its inception under Greenlight Energy. At the same time, Todd Mathis departed from Whiteman Osterman & Hanna this left questions concerning the nonexistent documentation regarding expenditures from the Developers escrow accounts (Over 100,000 was billed by the lawyers and engineering company on the SEQRA process.) Supervisor Hirschey is still waiting for WOH to fulfill their promise of sending the accounting records or the minutes that Todd Mathis kept.

March 23: The PB meeting was cancelled. Planning Board members were to consider the supplemental draft environmental impact statement for British Petroleum's Cape Vincent industrial wind complex at this meeting.

May 30: The results of the Zogby poll were published. The poll revealed that Sixty three percent of those surveyed were seasonal, the feelings of those who opposed wind development were becoming stronger and dissatisfaction with the board’s actions concerning wind development was high. Additionally, fifty-nine percent of those surveyed wanted a moratorium on wind development.

June 3: Urban Hirschey, John Byrne and Clif Schneider committed to run as Republicans for positions as Supervisor and Councilmen on Cape Vincent's Town Board. The three candidates released a final unified position statement outlining issues and actions they collectively would undertake if they were successful in the upcoming election one of which was a moratorium on wind development.

June 8: At the Planning Board meeting BP’s new project manager, Peter Gross, was introduced to the community. This was the first meeting that Voters for Wind (VFW) attended without wearing their green shirts. It was at this meeting that Mr. Gross mentioned that BP might be using larger 3-megawatt turbines, thus requiring a smaller number of turbines in the array plan.

June 11: Marked the beginning of the voter registration drive.

June 27: The results of the McCann Appraisal were in and it indicated those homes within 2miles of wind turbines would suffer a 40 % decrease in value.

June 29: Voter for Wind and leaseholder Harvey White announced that he would be challenging Supervisor Hirschey in the republican primary.

June 30: Planning Board Chairman Richard Edsall abruptly resigned without explanation. Additionally, he did not leave behind any records of the planning boards activities.

July:5 McCarthy resigned as well without explanation.

July 6: Reinbeck followed suit telling the media he was leaving due to harassment and threats over the wind power controversy. These resignations left the planning board without a quorum.

July 6: In light of all the negativity, surrounding their project Acciona issued a press release which was a public relations move to introduce a newly prepared brochure extolling the virtues of their proposed wind development, Additionally,
the Watertown Times did a story giving Acciona’s Wind project a positive spin.

August 2: British Petroleum’s project manager Peter Gross sent a letter to planning Board member Richard MacSherry explaining that they were anxiously awaiting the anticipated comments from the Planning Board on their Cape Wind SDEIS. Additionally, Gross stated that BP would like to advance their project in a timely, efficient manner. Mr. Gross also requested that the Planning Board schedule a review of the SDEIS by the Planning Board and asked for a schedule.

August 4: Article X is signed into law making siting of large power plants a state-run process.

August 8: Planning Board member Richard MacSherry sent a letter to Mr. Peter Gross, Project manager Bp Wind Energy, telling Mr. Gross “I have no knowledge of any dialogue that Mr. Edsall could have possibly had with Whiteman Osterman and Hanna, which would have led
them to indicate that any review was active and that comments regarding the SDEIS would be forthcoming under any period.” Additionally, Mr. MacSherry stated that, “The primary obstacles which I (as the board's acting chair ) face are: 1.) the time it will take for the Town Board to fill Planning Board vacancies, 2.) a reasonable period for all members to become familiar with BP draft and supplemental EIS documents
and 3.) an opportunity for the Planning Board to meet with our consultants to share and compare our findings. I have spoken with the Town Supervisor, Mr. Hirschey, and he is aware of the situation. At this juncture, I cannot speculate as to when all of the above-mentioned matters will be concluded: I will commit only to keeping you informed as to our progress.”

August 5:Voters for Wind devised a plan to prevent the seasonal population from voting. They would become champions against Voter Fraud. Their scheme began with a petition asking the Town Board to take action to stop the illegal, unethical and immoral voting methods that
were being used to manipulate the outcome of the election.

August 12: Harold Wiley presented a 200-signature petition to the Board Donny Mason who was prepared in advance with a resolution to stop voter fraud by requiring voters to show a current New York state driver's license with a Cape Vincent address to prove residency. Donny Mason, Marty Mason and Mickey Orvis all voted in favor and the resolution carried.

August 16: at a press conference in Watertown, the Attorney General dismissed the Mason law as unconstitutional.

August 18: Supervisor Hirschey took action to repeal the Mason’s illegal law. Donny and Marty Mason voted against rescinding their unconstitutional law while Mickey Orvis voted in favor of repealing the voter fraud law citing concern for the community. The resolution to rescind passed. Additionally, Orvis had prepared his own resolution proposing that the Town Board actively solicit the State to take over the development process under the statutes of Article 10. Orvis discovered prior to the board meeting that this was something that is not within the scope of the Town Board’s authority, however he read his resolution any way. Moreover, he said it would resolve the conflicts before the election.

AUGUST 25: Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman announced the indictment and arrest of Jeri Mason, the former Town Clerk, who was charged with stealing up to $50,000 from the Town of Cape Vincent.

Sept 1: As the Republican primary drew near ,BP arranged to have a group of pseudo scientists, (New York Wind Education Collaborative, a conglomeration of the Alliance for Clean Energy New York, Albany; Citizens Campaign for the Environment and Climate Center at Pace Law School,
Westchester.) Carol Murphy & Marion Trieste were center stage touting the virtues of wind development for our community.

Sept 13: MetalCraft Marine announced that they were opening a new design and manufacturing facility in Cape Vincent.

Sept 13: Supervisor Hirschey won the republican primary, 277 votes to 99 for challenger, wind leaseholder Harvey White.

Sept 19: Harold Wiley chair of the Cape Vincent Democrat party in Cape Vincent
was too preoccupied circulating petitions and assisting the Mason’s with their illegal Jim Crow resolution that he dropped the ball and failed to meet the filing date requirements for the Democrat Caucus. Consequently, there was no Democrat line on the Ballot.

October 13: Harold C. Wiley, Chairman Cape Vincent Democratic Party, teamed up with Gary King ,Chairman of a new group (Citizens for Fair Government). Their next tactic appeared to be intimidation or exacting retribution against those people that had either registered to vote in Cape Vincent or changed their primary residence in order to vote in Cape Vincent. Harold Wiley and Gary King collected a hit list of names of each new voter in Cape Vincent and sent letters to the assessors of those communities where these residents own another home. Alerting the
assessor that these people have registered to vote, the letter stated, “We provide you with this information in the event that there are implications for your community's implementation of the STAR program.”

October 17: The Citizens for Fair Government conducted another letter, writing campaign. They wrote letters to all the newly registered, unethical and immoral, voters in Cape Vincent asking them to consider voting for the very men that wanted to take their voting rights away.

October 19: Gusty winds prevailed and suddenly the safety of personal wind turbines became an issue when Rodger Alexander’s personal turbine was visibly broken and was spinning wildly out of control. Eventually it ceased spinning and it was reported that it was
a test.
November 8: The elections arrive and Hirschey, Byrne, Schneider & Knuth win their respective positions.

November 29: Former Cape Vincent Town Clerk, Jerry Mason, admitted in court that she took nearly $15,000 from the town while working there. Sentencing was scheduled for January 20, where she is expected to pay full restitution and will be sentenced to five years’ probation. If she fails to pay restitution, she will be ordered to serve six months in jail in addition to the five-year probation.

December 8: Marked the last Town Board meeting for Town Board members Donny and Marty Mason.

December 21: Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman requested that the state’s 932 towns send his office their codes of ethics, a major point of contention in towns including Cape Vincent.

December 24: The Watertown Times began a series of stories devoid of in-depth reporting and factual content, fanning the flames of controversy over Cape Vincent’s election process and ethics problems.