SUPREME COUR T OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF JEFFERSON WIND POWER ETHICS GROUP Petitioner-Plaintiff, - a gai nst- PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF CAPE VINCENT, and RICHARD EDSALL, TOM RIENBECK, GEORGE MINGLE, ANDREW BINSLEY, and KAREN BOURCY, in their capacities as planning board members, AFFIDAVIT OF ALBERT H. BOWERS III Index No. 10-2 882 Resp onden ts-Def enda nts, and ST. LAWRENCE WINDPOWE R, L~C, Respondents-Defendant ALBERT H. BOWERS III being duly sworn, deposes and says: I. I li ve at 11891 Acad emy St, Chau mo nt, NY in the Town of Lyme , and have lived at that address since April 2004. 2. I ha ve be en a me mber of the To wn of Ly me Pl an ni ng Bo ar d si nc e 2 00 7, and prio r to that forme d a citizen's committee to research the economics and the effects of wind generated power projects. 3. I had not had time, prior to about August 15 th , to examine the FEiS that St. La wrenc e Windp ower was to pre sent to the Cape Vincent Pla nnin g Board as lead ag ency on Augus t 18,2010 because the documen t had no t been prov ided to
17
Embed
WPEG article 78 ~ Bowers ~ Affidavit of Albert H. Bowers III
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 ~ Bowers ~ Affidavit of Albert H. Bowers III
The LymePlanning oard s an nvolved gencypart icipat ingn he SEQRAprocessor he abovecaptioned roject. n spiteof ourstanding, ur boardwas notpresented i tha copyof he FEISas an involved gency ndconsequentlye havehadto undertake rushed, eview f the FEIS.We understandhe FEISwil lbe submittedoyouon August18 oryouracceptancen accordance ithyour unction s LeadAgencyfor he SEQRprocess.
In our review f the documentit led FINALENVIRONMENTALMPACTSTATEMENT, ROPOSED T.LAWRENCEWINDPOWER ROJECT, OWNSOFCAPEVINCENT& LYME, EFFERSON OUNTY,NEWYORK,"we f ind hat, n severalimportant espects, t fails o satisfy he requirements f NYS DEC n an adequatemanner ndwe recommendhat t should ot, herefore, e accepted y you n your
funct ion s LeadAgency.
Someof the many ai lureso fol low he DEC equirementsreas ollows:
. There s no description f the need or and benefits rom he proposed
development s is required y NYSDEC. Thiswould equire xtensivediscussion nd analyses emonstrat ingy whatmeans he highly ariable nd
unpredictableowergeneratedrom he proposed ind acil i ty i l lmaterial lyreduce he useof fossi l uelsor he emissions enerated y heoperat ion f theelectr ical r id.
. Further,here s no nvestigat ionr verif icat ionhat he ransmissionf the power
to be generated y thisprojectand he adjacentproposedBP windprojectcanbe effectivelyransmittedo areasof the state equiring uchpower hrough he
Chaumont ub-stat ion.
. Thesoundstudypresenteds clearly n attempt o subverthe ntent f the DEC
recentarticleby NancyMadsen n the WatertownDailyTimesalso revealed hi sshortcomingn hestudy
The ownof cape Vincent 's onsult ing ngineers,ncluding n acoustic xpert,stands irm n their ecommendationhatSLWAcciona's st imate f backgroundnoise s elevated.As a consequence,he proposed etbacks etweenuibinesand non-part icipat ingropert ies
re ar ooclose.Therefore,n thisbasisalone,the Planning oard hould eject hisFEISand require LW o complywith herecommendationsf he own's ngineeringonsultants,.g.,Bernier arrAssociates nd Cavanaugh occiAssociates.
DEC recommendshatnoisebe permittedo increase ot more han6 dBbeyond stablishedackgroundevels. n addit iono inf lat inghe backgroundlevels,Hesslerreats he6 dB, notas an upper imit o sound ncreases, utseems o use t as a target esign alue,whichwil lbe actually xceeded nderanumber f operat ing ondit ions. hispract ice dded o the overstatementf thenightt ime ackgroundoise evelswil l esult n residents eing xposedointrusive nd annoying oise evels.
Hessler's elect ion f 42 dB as an appropriateound everor adjacentresidences il l esult n ntolerableoise evels or many esidences.Measurementsf background oiseperformedocallyndicate ackgroundsound evels f about25 dB at nightwhenpeopleneed o sleep. f the resultantl imitwere6 dB higher t would esult n a maximum ermittedound evelof 31dB. This imit hould e observed t the propertyinesof non-part icipat ingresidents ndproperty wners, ot at the residence s SLWproposes.Thislevel s significantly ore olerablehan the 42 dB proposed y sLW at (most)residences nd herefore i l laffect he number f turbines nd he placement fthose urbines.
I t is apparenthatHessler/sLWookupon he DECguidelines otas a way oprotect esidentsrom ntrusive nd annoying ound evels, utsimplyuse t as a
means o ustify he highest ossible esign ound evelso increasehe numberof turbineso be ocated ithin he project oundaries.
SLW rel ies n the widely iscredited oen eport o supporttscontentionhatpropefty alueswil lnotbe affected, hi le gnoringhe simple act,observed ylocal ea lestatebrokers,ha tvirtually verythingn CapeVincent s currently orsaleandnothing anbe soldbecause f the hreatof winddevelopment.
Theentire ssueof damage o birdsand batsby wind urbines eeds o be re-evaluatedn viewof he disturbingtat ist icshathave ecently merged rommonitoringhedamage oneby he urbines n neighboring olfe lsland.
Lyme'sown windsurvey ndicatedhat 80 % of respondents anted hetransmissionines o be buried.Thispossibi l i tys not mentioned r evaluatedn
the FEISeven hough he bulkof the ransmissioninewil l ie n he TownofLyme.
The mit igat ion easuresrenovationf two community aults nThreeMileBayCemeteryand vegetative creening) roposed o compensatehe Townof Lymefor he ntrusion f he ransmissionineare meaninglessnd rivial.
Last ly,t wouldseem easonablehat f the chief awenforcementff ice n thestate s investigat inginddevelopmentnd municipal f f ic ialsn CapeVincent
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 ~ Bowers ~ Affidavit of Albert H. Bowers III
thatanyprogressn heSEQR rocesshould ehaltedntil ompletionf heAG's nvestigation nd reporting.Theremaywell be findings hat will haveaprofound ffecton the outcomeof Acciona's rojectproposll.
Theseare usta sampling f he nadequaciesf the FEIS,whichshouldberejected n August18, as failing o meet he intentof the DECrequirements.
For he Townof LymePlanning oard,
%*lbertH. Bowersll
cc: LymeTownBoard
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 ~ Bowers ~ Affidavit of Albert H. Bowers III
T Q w lil'Q flt~ if ~ i!:V Il'lt £ e n lf T ! : l W H Boa rd
Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board
PO Box
Cape Vincent, New York
Dear Respective Boards,
I have been directed by the Lyme Town Board to write you in regards to the lettersent to you by the Town of Lyme Planning Board stating its disapproval of the
S.E.Q.R. and F.E.I.S. process which was followed for the St. Lawrence Wind Project.
This letter is in no way a show of support for the Article 78 proceeding against the
Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board, nor is it intended to show support for WPEG.
It is merely correspondence sent in an effort to clear up some confusion and
misunderstanding, and to express our disappointment, and regrets, at the lack ofcommunication between our two towns.
I have been advised by counsel that the Town of Lyme Planning Board should not
have been classified as an involved agency. It is not the duties of our PBto Issuepermits, variances, etc. Those duties are given to the Town of Lyme Zoning Board of
Appeals, who was included as an involved agency, along with other towndepartments.
Per a discussion with Mr. Tim Conboy of Acciona Energy, I was informed that it is atypical procedure to include all town agencies in order to ensure covering all bases.In this case, they were incorrect to include the Town of Lyme Planning Board, whose
role is defined differently from that of most town planning boards. Hence, the
confusion and misunderstandings.
However, the letter written on behalf of the Town of Lyme Planning Board is
accurate in stating that there was little or no communication or correspondence toany of the involved agencies mentioned in the F.E.I.S. (Table 1-1). Section 1.2 "listof Required Permits, Approvals and Recommendations" lists not only the Town of
Lyme Planning Board, but also the Town of Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals and "Town
of Lyme Departments" (obviously another attempt by Acciona Wind to "cover all
bases"). Unfortunately, when each of these boards and other departments were
asked if they received correspondence from any agency at the Town of Cape Vincent,
we were informed they had not. Apparently, the only recent correspondence has
been the receipt of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Because of the lack
of communication, the Lyme town board does not accept the validity of the F.E.I.S.
With the inclusion of the Town of Lyme on the statement header, the mention ofseveral Town of Lyme agencies and the obvious plan to route the transmission lines
through Lyme, it is felt that a more concerted effort to supply us with project
updates and information would have been appropriate, and greatly appreciated.
With that said, the Town of Lyme remains open to receiving any information,
comments, requests and recommendations from any Town of Cape Vincent agency.
The Town of Lyme is sincere in expressing its hopes for a continued relationship of