HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 27 2016 minutes WFAC.pdfTown of Enfield Wind Farm Advisory Committee Meeting –
January 27, 2016 - Enfield Community Building
1
PRESENT: Councilperson Michael Miles, Councilperson Mike Carpenter, Marguerite
Wells, Martha Fischer, Marcus Gingrich, Rob Tesori, Mimi Mehaffey
ABSENT: Charles Elrod, Jude Lemke
STAFF: Sue Thompson/Wind Farm Advisory Recording Secretary
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE: Alan Teeter/Code Enforcement, Henry Hansteen, Enfield
Councilperson (Audience)
Michael Miles called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m and lead the assemblage in the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Michael Miles gave a brief introduction to the wind farm in Enfield. He stated there are
two primary goals that the Enfield Town Board introduced in the Resolution 2016-32,
which forms a Enfield Wind Farm Advisory Committee. The first goal is to look into the
science of wind turbines and make advisory recommendations to the Town Board
concerning any potential needed updates to the local wind farm law and other town
processes and procedures. The second goal is to gather more information on the Black
Oak Wind Farm (BOWF) to try to find common ground among residents.
He reminded everyone that the committee is only an advisory committee and has no
power to make actual decisions regarding the law. The role of the concerned public
regarding the wind farm helped create the committee.
Michael Miles stated that a Wind Advisory Committee information page has been placed
on the town web site. It is located under “Departments” on the front page. Agendas,
minutes and other wind farm documents will be placed on this site. He reminded
everyone to sign up on the web page to receive notification of meetings, and other events
in Enfield.
Each member of the committee gave a short introduction of themselves. Michael Miles
stated that Charles Elrod and Jude Lemke, additional members of the committee, were
not in attendance. Mimi Mehaffy, is attending in the capacity of an alternate member.
The Committee discussed “Ground Rules” for their meetings. They all agreed being
respectful and listening should go without saying for both committee members and the
audience. It was decided a formal agenda and what issues to discuss was a good idea.
There was discussion on how the Town Board would receive information from the
Committee. It was decided the Committee would have a formal statement made on any
recommendations regarding the wind farm and the law.
Martha Fischer asked if Michael Miles and Mike Carpenter, as liaisons of the Town
Board, were they official members of the Committee. Mike Carpenter answered yes,
they are both formal members of the Committee. Mike Carpenter stated he had lots of
ideas and information on the wind farm topic such as: science of wind turbines, current
wind law and if there should be an update, BOWF operating under current Town law,
Town of Enfield Wind Farm Advisory Committee Meeting –
January 27, 2016 - Enfield Community Building
2
will updates affect BOWF. He stated that he has been conferring with Guy Krogh,
Enfield Town Attorney, regarding the BOWF and wind law. It was recommended that
the Committee needs to understand the legal aspects of the wind law.
Michael Miles will use “Doodle” to poll dates and times for future meetings. Meeting
dates will be posted on the town website, Ithaca Journal Events and Town Clerks office,
along with sending e-mail to Committee members.
Michael Miles will continue to serve as Chairperson for the Committee. Mimi Mehaffey
accepted the nomination to serve as Vice Chairperson for the Committee.
Committee members stated they do not want their e-mail and phone numbers posted on
the town website. The committee asked Sue Thompson, Enfield webmaster, to create a
Committee e-mail for the public to send comments and messages to.
Goals and Work Items
Have members research wind farm issues?
Goals – how we get to a solution including the needs of both parties (neighbors
and BOWF)
Marguerite Wells, BOWF, will be contact regarding suggested solutions and if
they are possible regarding the BOWF
Mike Carpenter discussed how he and Michael Miles are representatives of the
“whole” Enfield population.
Mimi Mehaffey stated she felt the wind law encompasses not only the BOWF but
the health and safety of the people in the town.
Rob Tesori suggested that the decisions the Town of Enfield make regarding wind
law could be a model to other municipalities. It could be a legal precedent.
There is no wind farm regulatory.
Article 101 of the Power New York Act states that 25 mw and larger electrical
energy sites the state has jurisdiction; below 25 mw Enfield is the lead
jurisdiction. The wind farm is below 25 mw.
1 New York State recently adopted the Power New York Act, which includes Article X, legislation
establishing a state-level process for permitting electrical generation facilities of 25 MW and larger
capacity. Under Article X, utility scale wind farms are now sited and permitted by a state siting
commission, rather than by local municipalities. However, the state siting commission may defer to
local ordinances, or it may overrule local requirements it considers to place an unreasonable
burden on the applicant; so it remains incumbent upon municipalities to establish zoning and/or
planning ordinances that balance wind energy’s clean electricity generation potential with the
public health, safety, welfare concerns that may be involved. Furthermore, residential scale wind
turbines, and wind farms of less than 25 MW, will still fall under local municipal control.
This section is intended to provide local officials with the information and tools needed to create
meaningful and reasonable zoning and planning documents for wind energy facilities.
http://www.law.pace.edu/sites/default/files/PECC/Permitting%20and%20appendix%20B_TOP30AUG11.
pdf
Town of Enfield Wind Farm Advisory Committee Meeting –
January 27, 2016 - Enfield Community Building
3
Set backs – why they are set .
Work Items
Mike Carpenter stated that when he became a board member he voted yes for the final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Finding Statement. He had not done his
research on the whole project. He was not aware of issues with the neighboring
properties of the BOWF. He feels it is important to learn both sides of the wind farm
location. Renewal energy should be kept in mind. Different sides of large wind facilities
should be looked at. Currents projects BOWF. Wind law update or not – property lines
– setbacks. Health and Safety issues – noise. How are the noise levels issued. Can
residents live near the wind farm or sell their property. Do they lose value on their
property.
Martha Fischer stated noise issues where important. The health of residents and low
frequency sounds needs to be researched.
Marcus Gingrich agreed with Mike Carpenter regarding health and safety issues. Where
does the local law stand regarding flickerings. Why and how are distances – setbacks
chosen? How is sound measured? How are setbacks monitored to make sure they are
correctly set in the field?
Rob Tesori agreed both health and safety are important. Land usage for non-
participating members should be addressed. Does the wind farm cause restrictions on
adjoining resident’s property usage?
Marguerite Wells stated she wants to work with the Committee regarding the wind farm.
Mimi Mehaffey questioned what stages the BOWF is at for permits and EIS. Would like
an updated report on the specs of the substation, placement of the windmills, and
setbacks. The Committee needs to look at wind farms in general.
Marguerite Wells reported the BOWF has not submitted any of the updated reports yet.
They are hopeful to submit an update to the Town Board on February 10. The EIS will
be an update not a complete resubmission of the EIS. The town engineers will review
the EIS for completeness. The public comment period is 30 days. There will be a public
hearing where all comments are pulled together and the BOWF and Town Board will
respond. LaBella Associates is the engineering firm retained by the Town of Enfield for
the Black Oak Wind Farm Project.
Mimi Mehaffey feels that height restrictions need to be incorporated in the wind farm
law. She stated maybe the height of the windmills are too big for the size of the town.
What does the town gain, loose, risk regarding the wind farm? What kind of
information – scientific studies, cost benefit analysis are available and who puts these
reports out. Are they done by the manufacturing section regarding windfarms? How
long have the studies been out.
Town of Enfield Wind Farm Advisory Committee Meeting –
January 27, 2016 - Enfield Community Building
4
Mimi Mehaffey stated she feels the reduction of fossil fuel needs to b e addressed in the
town.
Martha Fischer stated her research states that few places in New York State are good
locations for wind farms. Can wind farm be used as a reduction to reducing fossil fuels?
Michael Miles reported the town is now working on a solar law.
Rob Tesori asked Marguerite Wells about fact finding in reference to 4.07 and 4.13 in
the leases of the contract holders where it says you can’t speak out against the BOWF.
Does the 30 day comment period include them also? He would like to hear both the
good and bad. We have to make informed decisions about these setbacks. He asked if
Marguerite would be able to come up with some kind of document where the contract
holders can comment on whatever they feel about. Marguerite stated she will find out
how the participants can participant in any fact finding.
Mike Carpenter asked Marguerite Wells what the difference between participant and
non-participant was. Difference on how the wind farm acts to these people whether
they are participants or not. How the wind farm acts with people who sign the neighbor
agreement and doesn’t sign the neighbor agreement. Why as a town board member he
wouldn’t ignore both the neighbor agreements and the fact if you are a participant of the
wind farm it basically says some of these restrictions don’t apply to you anymore. Why
we allow someone who is involved as a participate to site a wind generator closer to
something than what the wind law would allow to be. It would make significant
difference between participant and non-participant.
Marguerite Wells answered that she was not clear if people who sign the good neighbor
agreement are participants or not. Lease holders are participants. As part of their
leases if can choose to waive the set backs and waive noise restrictions that is what is to
be paid as a participants.
Mike Carpenter stated that Guy Krogh, Enfield Town Attorney, indicated that he felt the
lease holders could not waive any provision of the wind law legally.
The current wind law does have provisions to waive setbacks. None of the participants
have waived anything.
Michael Miles feels that noise is one of the issues to address involving the audible and
technical issues. Martha Fischer asked if LaBella Associates was doing their own sound
analysis. Marguerite Wells answered they have a consultant who does the analysis and
LaBella Associates review it. Michael Miles stated that the Town Board members are
allowed to ask questions on any part of the document.
Mike Carpenter read part of the Wind Farm Agreement #2 Easement. Easement and
Covenants – A. Noises . Owner grants to BOWF a noise easement for the right and
privilege to generate and maintain audible wind turbine noise levels on and above the
property with accordance with the law of the Town of Enfield. What does that mean?
Town of Enfield Wind Farm Advisory Committee Meeting –
January 27, 2016 - Enfield Community Building
5
Marguerite Wells stated the intendent is that they are not asking above the privileges of
what the law allows. They are going to be compliant with the law they are not asking for
waivers of the law.
The Committee decided to put the Wind Farm Agreement on their agenda for another
meeting time.
Mike Carpenter stated that when BOWF submits their report to the Town Board it sets a
time line in place. It gives time for determination and responds for both the public and
Town Board. Marguerite Wells stated that no immediate response is due until March if
report is submitted in February.
Mike Carpenter suggested the committee submit a goals statement to Town Board by
March.
Mike Carpenter suggested the Committee submit suggestions before the EIS report is
given to the Town Board. Marguerite Wells stated that they should be new suggestions
that have not been submitted before.
Mike Carpenter stated he did not see in any of documentation how noise would be
monitored in the future. Who would be responsible for the monitoring. Marguerite
Wells stated she will look into the monitoring.
Mike Carpenter reported he has been talking to residents near the BOWF area. He
asked them what they can’t live with and what they can live with. There is concern of
the value of property. He pointed out that the BOWF has spent a long time and money
in the project. He wondered what the possibilities are for moving the windmills to other
locations.
Michael Miles stated “Bulleted Items” could be:
Noise – wind mills
Noise – substation
Set backs
Set backs and population
Need to find a common ground
Are smaller wind turbine towers possible
Ecological aspects related to set backs
“Home Work”
Bring research info to next meeting
Creditable sources are needed
Send links and documents to Michael Miles
Documents/research info could be put on website for residents
Michael Mile will send out new “Doodle” poll for next meeting. Possibility of
Tuesday at 7 pm.
Town of Enfield Wind Farm Advisory Committee Meeting –
January 27, 2016 - Enfield Community Building
6
Martha Fischer asked if “outside” experts could be invited to the meeting to present
topics such as sound levels. It was suggested the visit should be discussed at the
Committee meeting. Michael Miles reminded the Committee that they could not pay for
presentations that the presenter would have to be on a voluntary basis.
Mike Carpenter informed the Committee that a mediator was available if they thought
one was needed for any of the meetings.
Privilege of the Floor
Michael Miles open the floor for comments.
Becky Sims, Black Oak Road. Stated she was annoyed how the Committee was formed.
A lack of transparency is a problem. Communication needs to be better BOWF and the
Town. Timber management in the area is poorly managed, clear cutting is not good.
Economic injustice/social justice or fairness - people do not have the finances to invest
in the wind farm. She wondered if there was a chance for money or shares in the BOWF
and if that would change residents views. There are no direct personal benefits.
Mike Carpenter asked how they could include Becky in the process. He invited Becky
Sims to continue to attend the meetings, and continue to voice comments and
suggestions. He suggested that residents should attend Town Board meetings to be up-
to-date on events in Enfield.
Additional questions and comments (people did not identify themselves for questions):
Resident asked if John Rancich still owned the BOWF. Marguerite answered
he was an investor in BOWF.
During the comment period regarding the EIS can they ask questions on
how some of the noise testing was done.
Yes can comment during the public session or at the committee
level regarding noise testing.
Can residents have their own environments study done on issues.
Need more sense of community
What do Enfield residents benefit from the wind farm.
BOWF “payment in lieu of taxes” to the town – PILOT system
Enfield will be paid a total of $45,000
Safety issues how is the town protecting is resident?
How do resident ask questions and concerns regarding the EIS? Where can
they access the EIS?
There will be a public hearing allowing for public concerns
Comments and concerns can be sent to Committee or presented to
Committee before each meeting.
A Committee e-mail will be set up for comments and concerns and
placed on the Town web site.
Questions and concerns will be recorded in the Committee minutes.
Town of Enfield Wind Farm Advisory Committee Meeting –
January 27, 2016 - Enfield Community Building
7
EIS can be accessed through Enfield town website, Tompkins
County Community Library, BOWF website, Enfield Town Clerk’s
office.
25 – 30 local regional regulatory organizations will also receive
copies of the EIS for comment. This is because of the permitting
jurisdictions.
It is suggested to read the beginning “draft” EIS then Final EIS and
then the Supplemental EIS. Supplement are only changes to the
EIS.
LaBella wrote the final EIS.
Is a moratorium necessary for the wind farm law? Michael Carpenter
answered we don’t need one right now.
Henry Hansteen, South VanDorn Road, questioned the statement in the Resolution
adopting Local Law #1 of 2009 regarding setbacks –
“The NYSERDA data cited by the Tompkins County Department of Planning in support
of greater setbacks is, at best, equivocal. The Tompkins County Department of Planning
failed to explain its rational for suggesting a different setback, other than general
supposition about needs for greater community support. Further, the setbacks set forth
in the proposed Local Law are within the range suggested by NYSERDA, and the
Tompkins County Department of Planning seems to have ignored those portions and
provisions of the proposed Local Law that signify that the requirements of such Local
Law are minimum requirements such that the setback, among other requirements, may
be increased to mitigate potential adverse impacts during the application, permitting,
and future SEQRA review processes”
Does the wind farm law have a section regarding increased setback increase?
Mike Carpenter responded that during his conversation with Guy Krogh, Town
Attorney, the answer to changes could be found in the Local Law Number 1 of 2009
Wind Energy Facilities Local Law on page 11 section 3. This section gives the town the
right to do something different than what the law says. It gives the town the right to ask
for larger setbacks if the reasons is regarding health and safety.
SECTION 3: ISSUANCE OR DENIAL OF WIND ENERGY PERMITS - Upon
completion of the review process, the Town Board shall, upon consideration of the
standards contained in this Local Law and the record of the SEQRA review, issue a
written decision with the reasons for approval, conditional approval, or denial fully
stated. If approved, the Town Board will direct the Town Clerk to issue a Wind Energy
Permit upon satisfaction of all conditions for said Permit, and will further direct the
building inspector to issue a building permit upon demonstrated compliance with the
Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code, the applicable energy codes, other
applicable codes, and other pre-construction conditions of this Local Law. The decision
of the Town Board shall be promptly filed in the Office of the Town Clerk and a copy
shall be promptly mailed by the Town Clerk to the Applicant by first class mail
Town of Enfield Wind Farm Advisory Committee Meeting –
January 27, 2016 - Enfield Community Building
8
Would changing setbacks result in the town being sued? It is complicated, lots of legal
precedent. The precedent is what the courts will follow. If the Town of Enfield decides a
change is for the public good, health, safety and financial welfare (public wheel) they
have to have all the studies and information to back the change up. Having all the back
up information you are less likely to lose the judgement.
Michael Miles adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, Sue Thompson, Recording Secretary