HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 9 2016 minutes WFAC.pdfTown of Enfield Wind Farm Advisory Committee Meeting –
August 9, 2016 - Enfield Community Building
1
PRESENT: Martha Fischer, Marcus Gingerich, Mimi Mehaffey, Councilperson
Michael Miles, Julie Schroeder
ABSENT: Councilperson Mike Carpenter, Jude Lemke, Rob Tesori
Michael Miles called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and lead the assemblage in the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Old Business
A Motion was made to approve the July 19 minutes with the following changes:
1st page change “charge” to “chart”; 2nd page change “insurance” to “insured”; 3rd page
change “one” to “once”. Motion passed to approve minutes unanimously.
There was a discussion on what it meant in the minutes regarding operational license –
Enfield uses the term permit. Explanation was that instead of the wording “operational
license” Enfield uses the term “permit”.
Michael Miles reported he had not received any emails through the
windadvisory@townofenfield.org and that there has been no new documents placed at
Trello wind farm advisory site.
New Business
The Committee discussed what they thought should be included in the wind farm
application of the wind energy law. The assignment was to compare the wind laws of
Catlin, Freedom, Somerset, and Columbia to Enfield’s wind law. Columbia is a neutral
model law. It should be disclosed that Columbia is a pro-wind law it was written to
produce wind power in the community.
All good points need to be tailored to the town; couldn’t find anything to
throw out
Columbia Law vs. Enfield Law not a lot of difference.
Columbia Law talks about adjacent property and addresses.
Enfield Law reference: Article III Section 2 F (Page 10)
o Enfield needs radius of notification increased.
o Certified mail for notification of public hearing; needs to clarify who
sends out notification
Columbia Law, Page 9, Studies or Reports on: includes engineer reports
in application regarding ice throw, blade throw, etc. Enfield includes all
the reports in the Environmental Impact Statement. Enfield could include
a request for all these reports in the application but how much needs to be
duplicated? How can a permit be issued without knowing all the impacts
of the wind turbines?
Enfield Law – page 9, C. Environmental Studies – better sound report?
A SEQRA is always required.
Town of Enfield Wind Farm Advisory Committee Meeting –
August 9, 2016 - Enfield Community Building
2
Is Enfield’s Comprehensive Plan written in favor of alternative energy?
Engineer Reports in the EIS only quoted Geoff Leventhall, Wind Energy
Association, that infrasound should not be a problem, no real data was
presented. It was pointed out that the Engineer is not a health expert in
reference to infrasound.
Base-line monitoring of sound should be done by wind farm using A-
weight. It should be done before and after wind turbines are put in. The
base-lines need to be done correctly for day and night monitoring. The
State says A-weight is the standard measurement but not for low
frequency. Low frequency should be C-weight (flat). The Data should be
collected for a certain number of locations not all locations of the wind
turbines.
Low frequency measurements – drawing a health conclusion from the
measurements unless you do a base line test.
Freedom Maine Energy Law, page 35, #2 and #3 “sound level meters and
calibration equipment must comply with the latest version of the American
National Stands Institute” and goes on to state on how the measuring
should be done.
Should specifics be put in the Appendices? Are Appendices easier to
change than the law? Can being more specific go against you? If using
Appendices it can be referred to in different areas of the law to explain
details.
It was suggested that the Developer should show a model of what sound
will be from the wind turbines. Mitigation for sound complaints should be
put in the law. Should the mitigation be - fix or the wind turbine will be shut
down? This is based on the base-line monitoring. In the Catlin law “final
law” page 28-33 – Sound Levels are discussed.
There should be stronger restrictions to protect people.
There was discussion on ways to save energy and the “carbon footprint”
than to build wind turbines and solar panels. A “button -up” house program
is good, turning off lights, saving water conservation.
It should be clearly stated in ”details” what is to be included in wind farm
application.
Enfield Law Article III - #7 – Wind Turbine (page 10) add manufacture
specifications after C and D.
Columbia Law under Applications – #12 Studies or reports lists what is
required on application.
Enfield Law – page 9 “Positive Declaration” who says what the positive
declaration is Town Board? What does this mean? What happens if the
applicate doesn’t agreed on the declaration? Confusing time line for the
positive declaration needs work.
Phases – is there an upgrade phase. Upgrade Permit needed? Wind
turbines are not custom made – how quickly can you get a replacement
part?
Town of Enfield Wind Farm Advisory Committee Meeting –
August 9, 2016 - Enfield Community Building
3
What is the next step – big picture?
Need to give specifics of changes/additions to lawyer to rewrite
Flow chart would be helpful showing what goes on in each section of
law.
What could go in the Appendices?
Conflict of interest – Town Board voting on items, leases?
Municipal Law – vested interest in NYS.
What is disclosure statement?
Accountability – in reference to penalties when law is not complied
with.
What is life cycle of the project?
Does law address all phases?
What are the fees? Do they need to added or changed?
How do the other Wind Energy Town Laws call for regarding
complaints and enforcement mechanisms?
Next Meeting: Tuesday, August 30, 7 pm.
Michael Miles adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, Sue Thompson, Recording Secretary