HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch-15-2016-minutes-WFAC-final.pdf
1
PRESENT: Peter Bardaglio, Councilperson Mike Carpenter, Martha Fischer, Marcus
Gingerich, Jude Lemke, Councilperson Michael Miles, Rob Tesori
ABSENT: Mimi Mehaffey Alternate Wind Farm Advisory Committee
OTHER IN ATTENDANCE (Audience): Julie Schroeder, Alternate Wind Farm Advisory
Committee
Michael Miles called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and lead the assemblage in the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Approval of Minutes (3-08-16)
Corrections to March 8, Wind Advisory Committee Minutes
Page 10 Change Cliff Newhart address to 753 Black Oak Road
Page 3 2nd paragraph change legal founding to legal finding.
Page 3 4th paragraph change to:
Peter Bardaglio pointed out that the Committee agreed to only invite non-biased
scientists Mr James has testified in case after case on the issue of wind power in the
negative he is not even a registered professional engineer in any jurisdiction. Rick
James is one of the guys in the anti wind forces funded by the Koch brothers in the
Heartland Institute dragged out for every one of these cases he is not a non-biased
scientist. Peter Bardaglio asked for a resolution to make it clear what his status on this
point was.
Page 3 paragraph 10 [list of questions?] change to list of questions sent to Rick James by
Jude Lemke.
Page 8 paragraph 8 change resonant to resonate.
Page 7 –paragraph 4 change to:
Do you ever see the actual measured sound levels exceeding the simulated sound levels
at receptors? If so how much and how often?
Models are not designed for wind turbines the standards that define the formulas
in the models they do not apply to sources 30 meters above the ground wind turbines
are a lot better than 30 meters above the ground. They also have other restrictions.
David Hessler of Hessler Associates and Ontario research documents report
sound 5 db above the models levels are frequently observed. When they go out to
measure for complaints they find the sound levels are 5 db or more of what the model
prediction said. At night when it is particularly calm at the ground and windy above at
the blade level the sound level are 5 db higher than what the model predicts. It has been
suggested that 5 db offset to be the minimum.
How reliable are the background noise level measurements when they are only
measured at certain points?
2
Defined by American Nationals Standards part 12.9 #3 tells how to give a
standard background noise measurement in the backyard, this is where people expect it
to be quiet. That is the difference is where the reading is done. The Standards required
a certain standard on how to filter out insects and certain background noise levels.
Where and how readings are taken is very critical.
If you take measurement on the west side of hill where the wind is, there will be
more measurement of the sound due to the winds moving thru leaves and moving
around trees. It is appropriate to take measurements on the opposite side where people
live.
Page 7 paragraph 6 change to:
Do you see the outside versus inside home noise levels as actually being higher for
infrasound or vice versa?
Inside the house we block out most of the higher frequency sound from outside
as where the lower or infrasound passes right through on a beta especially if there is an
open window. Wind turbine sound wave length moves through the roof of the house as
it is the weakness acoustical part of the home. Homes are not designed to protect from
noise sources above your head. Inside is the typical worst case for infrasound inside the
home than outside.
Motion was made by Michael Miles to approve the March 8 minutes as corrected.
Motion passed to approve minutes unanimously.
Old Business
Michael Miles reminded everyone of the windadvisory@townofenfield.org e-mail to
send articles/research/comments/suggestions to and the
https://trello.com/enfieldwindfarmadvisorycommittee site for research articles, laws,
and minutes of the Committee.
Michael Miles reminded the audience to keep all comments until the end of the meeting
during the Privilege of the Floor.
Update on Technical Experts
The Committee decided to provide a set of questions regarding wind turbines, to
Bob Frick, GE, to give to the acoustic engineer to respond to. Michael Miles will compile
a set of questions using some that were submitted to Rick James. Other questions can
be submitted to Michael Miles by Friday. He will send the compiled questions back to
the Committee for approval before sending to Bob Frick.
Peter Bardaglio will arrange for a trip on April 2 to Marsh Hill Wind Farm,
Steuben County. He will contact Cooperative Extension for possible use of vans.
Update on Proposal for Town of Enfield Wind Farm Advisory Committee
Peter Bardaglio will ask BOWF for clarification regarding “setbacks need to be
1500 ft. from property line doesn’t state participating or non-participating.” He will
report back at the next meeting.
Update on Supplemental Draft EIS
3
The Town Board officially accepted as a document the Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) BOWF. The Board will hold a special
working meeting on March 16 at 7 pm for the DSEIS. There is an electronic pdf version
of the DSEIS on the BOWF web site.
There was discussion on the DSEIS and it was felt everyone should review the
document as a resident of Enfield. Public comment has to focus on the components of
the new DSEIS submitted. There were changes to the project involving the substation,
new wind turbines and placement of wind turbines. The height change in wind turbines
was first accepted by the Town as a minor change, but when sites where changed BOWF
had to submit a new DSEIS.
It was noted that on the FFA web site the turbines were listed as 494 ft in height.
The turbines are 484 ft. in height, it was stated this was a “typo”.
The Committee wanted to know if they commented on the DSEIS would that be
helpful to the Michael Miles and Mike Carpenter as Town Board members?
Jude Lemke asked about how and if the ground rules for the public hearing,
March 28, had been set up. It was answered that the Supervisor decides what the
ground rules and agenda are for the public hearing. Michael Miles will ask at the next
Board meeting how the Supervisor will handle the public hearing. It was suggested that
submitting a longer comment in writing before the public hearing is good. Comments
should be addressed and sent to the Enfield Town Clerk.
Discussion on changes/additions/comments for DSEIS:
Would like to see more details in the DSEIS on setbacks for individual houses in
BOWF area. Can this suggestion be taken to LaBella?
Map on the BOWF web site showing project you can “zoom” on to see tax map
numbers.
Martha Fischer read the #3 Whereas in the Resolution #2016-32 forming the
Wind Advisory Committee regarding the Committee to “look into the science of
wind towers”; she felt the Committee should compile a list of the research that
has already been gathered at the Trello site.
Does the Committee comment as a “Committee” during the public comment time
for the DEIS?
Noise Study and substation monitoring do a flat decibel reading does it take into
account low frequency? Are acoustics C or A as good or should it be accepted as
dBa measurement. Needs to go into more detail.
The SEQRA process is a state process that the Town follows.
Town of Enfield does the final environmental impact statement
It would be helpful to have feedback to take to the rest of the Board
showing/stating what the Committee has found regarding wind turbines.
The information should be of value and pertinent to the Town Board.
Changing the Town Wind Energy Law is a longer process.
Advise on the state of the science and provide context on wind turbines.
Mike Carpenter read #2 Whereas in the Resolution #2016-32 forming the Wind
Advisory Committee regarding the science and technology of wind farming. This
is an emphasis on what the Committee needs to report back to the Board with.
Information needs to be compiled in a digestible from using references of the best
data the Committee has.
4
Comment that there was no way to quantify health issues.
It was decided to designate working groups on the critical areas regarding the
wind turbines/wind farm topics. A member from “each side” will be in a group.
These groups will put together the data the Committee has collected.
There will be no consensus with the issues just point out key issues of each side of
the designated areas.
The groups will create a navigation guide to get thru the DEIS.
Setbacks are the mitigation of other project problems.
Peter Bardaglio stated he would step back from the group process because of
legal aspects.
Each group can communicate with each other and write a report in a single voice.
Does the Committee want additional help with other sections?
Traffic and Transportation section is all ready being handled in regard to the road
use agreement.
Growth and Community Character there is nothing to change and does not need
to be addressed now.
Discussion on “Peer Review” articles. Use the best “quality” report/research
Committee has found. Technical documents GER’s - GE Power has
recommendation on wind turbine topics.
Working Groups:
Martha Fischer, Marcus Gingerich, Charles Elrod: sound, noise,
Rob Tseori, Jude Lemke, Michael Miles: technical aspects - ice throws, blades,
tower collapses, fire
Mike Carpenter: Resolution dispute to mitigation the process now and future
Julie Schroeder, Mimi Mehaffey, Dawn Drake: water, soils, geology, biological
There are 17 topics listed in the DEIS the Committee should address all the topics.
2.1 Geology, Soils, And Topography
2.2 Water Resources
2.3 Climate And Air Quality
2.4 Biological Resources
2.5 Traffic And Transportation
2.6 Land Use And Zoning
2.7 Energy
2.8 Community Facilities And Services
2.9 Growth And Community Character
2.10 Historic, Cultural And Archeological Resources
2.11 Agricultural Resources
2.12 Aesthetic And Visual Resources
2.13 Open Space And Recreation
2.14 Socioeconomics
2.15 Public Safety
2.16 Noise
2.17 Communication Facilities
April 13th is the end of the DEIS Comment period.
5
Public Hearing March 28
It was decided to leave the Wind Law Review off the Agenda for now.
Mike Carpenter read #6 of the Resolution #2016-32 forming the Wind Advisory
Committee in regard to the purpose of the Committee and what their direction is for the
wind farm. He noted he felt that the Committee is doing and will be going in the right
direction with the newly formed research groups. The groups should not have to come
to a single conclusion. They should just compile and summarize and let the Town Board
draw their own conclusions.
Privilege of the Floor
Dawn Drake, 105 Griffin Road - Thanked the Committee for their concern of the health
and safety of the residents and the wind farm issues.
Bev Gingerich – 101 Rumsey Hill Road Asked how and when residents are notified for
public hearings in the town? She offered to address envelopes to mail notification to
residents.
In regard to the BOWF public hearings only residents 500 ft. from the wind
turbines are to be notified legally. There was discussion on how the Town should go
above and beyond the legal aspects of notifying residents for a public hearing.
All public hearings are advertised in the Ithaca Journal, placed on the Town web site
and posted in the Town Clerk’s office. There was a suggestion of using a “bill board”
along the highway to advertise the public hearing. Dawn Drake offered to put up a sign
on Mecklenburg Road and Enfield Main Roads.
Art Godwin, 96 Woodard Road – He thought it was a good idea to combine the different
views of the Committee and appreciated the work that will be done on the reports.
Cliff Newhart, 753 Black Oak Road – Wondered why there were roads being clear cut on
property on the hill. He asked Peter Bardaglio why the trees were being cut. Peter
Bardaglio answered he did not know, that it is was a question to ask the property owner.
Donny Gunning, no address stated, stated he wanted the “double talk” to stop. Accused
BOWF for already proceeding with the project.
At this point in the meeting there was lots of “loud” out-of-control shouting and
“conversation” from the audience. Michael Miles stated he thought the conversation
was going in the wrong direction and the meeting was adjourned as of 9:20 pm.
Respectfully submitted, Sue Thompson, Recording Secretary