[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

when your community is targeted

Get weekly updates

RSS feeds and more

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate via Stripe

Donate via Paypal

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Campaign Material

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005.

News Watch Home

Enfielders object to wind farm setbacks 

Credit:  By Laura Komor | Ithaca Times | December 25, 2015 | www.ithaca.com ~~

On Thursday, December 17, the Town Board of Enfield held a notably well-attended meeting regarding Black Oak Wind Farm LLC’s plans to construct seven energy-producing wind turbines on Black Oak Road in Enfield. The community discussion was open to the public, overseen by the Town Board, and mediated by Jeff Shepardson from the Community Dispute Resolution Center. The founder and sole employee of Black Oak Wind Farm, Marguerite Wells, was in attendance to represent the company. A number of consultants hired by the town and BOWF were present; including an attorney specializing in wind issues, a General Electric representative who answered questions pertaining to the specific model of turbine the project would be using, and a specialist on sound level research.

Wells bought out the project in January 2012 from developer John Rancich who initiated it under the name Enfield Energy in 2006. BOWF is a publicly shared company advised by a volunteer board of directors and owned by 125 local investors, 100 of which are from Tompkins County.

Proponents of the wind farm, including professors, County residents, BOWF investors, and green energy supporters, argued for its renewable energy benefits during a time when sustainable energy is a pressing global issue. They touted the community benefits of a locally owned wind farm in which residents could share the profits. Wells mentioned that Cornell University would be footing the bill for the additional energy, which would be available to the entire community that our energy grid (from Montour Falls to Ithaca) serves.

Opponents to the wind farm cited safety risks as a main concern. They said setbacks – the distance from a wind turbine to both property boundaries and residences – “are necessary to protect citizens from many dangers, including collapsing towers, flying debris from blade failures that present a potential hazard to the public a significant distance away from each turbine, and potential fires due to sparks from towers that catch on fire.”

Many spoke of the Town’s lower setback requirements compared to the Tompkins County Planning Department’s recommendations from November 2008, the turbine’s manufacturer (General Electric) recommendations, and those of New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA). Jude Lemke, an attorney and resident on Connecticut Hill road, said that “most recommendations for setbacks are 1500 feet and up from residences. The Town Board originally adopted setbacks in accordance with County recommendations, but then a change in the town board occurred, and this whole new Town Board repealed the old law and put in a new one with lower standards for setbacks.”

Wells said that properties in Enfield are vast and expansive, and most of the property is “totally uninhabited area.” She went on to say, “If you were trying to put a wind turbine anywhere in Upstate New York, there’s no place that’s 1500 feet from property lines. In Europe there aren’t setbacks that far, a lot of places in the United States. It’s just not that dangerous. People are just not dying everyday from these things.”

Challengers also introduced sound level concerns, again naming the county’s recommendations of a maximum of 50-55 dB(A), whereas the Local Wind Law requires a maximum of 60 unweighted decibels.

Jim Dennis, Tompkins County Legislature representative for Enfield, said in an interview that the County’s 2008 recommendations were “simply suggestions, and since the project passed a thorough State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) process exactly the way they were supposed to,” the wind farm does not present any safety or health hazards. He said that a town is not obligated to pass a development project exactly as the County Planning Department recommends it.

BOWF has been contacting Enfield residents who live in the area surrounding the proposed turbine construction sites through a “Good Neighbor Agreement,” (GNA) another hot point at the meeting. Wells explained the GNA was a courteous effort by BOWF to reach out to the Enfield community, and stated that residents misconstrued its purpose. Some residents complained it was a “binding contract,” and believed it imposed a “gag order,” (Wells said no such gag order was part of the GNA). The GNA offers $500 per year to each of these households that BOWF has offered the agreement to, and the BOWF website says it is “is totally voluntary on our part and on yours.”

Another issue of contention was real estate value and tax revenue. Those to whose properties the turbines would be close said that their property value would decrease significantly, and they would not be able to sell their property for the amount they bought it for. Others said that since the property taxes from those areas in Enfield with turbines would go down, other areas in the Town would go up. Wells said that Black Oak Wind Farm is in a PILOT payment program whereby, in lieu of taxes, they are paying $133,000 per year, to be shared amongst the Town, the school district, and the county.

Melynda and Rob Tesori Jr., who live at 570 Black Oak road, spoke a number of times at the meeting, expressing concerns that the distance that one proposed turbine would be from their property line is under the Town’s legal minimum setback. The Tesoris are apprehensive about the potential construction in part because they have plans to give their current house to their children and build another house on their property, where they hope to retire. With a wind turbine close to their property line, building an additional house would pose problems because they won’t be able to find a safe distance from the turbine to build within the property they own. The Tesoris appreciated the meeting for the questions that were brought up, especially for those in the community who weren’t aware of these issues they consider very important to their community.

Many concerns centered on proposed changes to the project. Residents said since the Final Environmental Impact Statement, approved in November 2014, was pertaining to a project that proposed seven 1.7 megawatt wind turbines each at a height of 475 feet from the ground to the tip of the blade, another impact study is required now that the turbines have increased both in height (now 483 feet tall) and power (2.3 MW each), and the substation has also changed location. Wells said that changes were required because of two mains reasons; one: new models of turbines became available by the manufacturer; and two: a day before the company’s final financial statements were due to close, the landowner on whose land the substation was to be placed decided he wanted neither the planned substation (which would serve all seven turbines) nor the planned turbine, on his property.

The Town of Enfield Board plans to have at least one more community meeting to discuss the construction of Black Oak Wind Farm. Wells stated construction would likely start in late 2016, after the new substation location was determined and the final proposal passes the Town Board.

Source:  By Laura Komor | Ithaca Times | December 25, 2015 | www.ithaca.com

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial educational effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Contributions
   Donate via Stripe
(via Stripe)
Donate via Paypal
(via Paypal)


e-mail X FB LI M TG TS G Share

News Watch Home

Get the Facts
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.


Wind Watch on X Wind Watch on Facebook Wind Watch on Linked In

Wind Watch on Mastodon Wind Watch on Truth Social

Wind Watch on Gab Wind Watch on Bluesky