Editor:

I’m writing this response to Cathi Orr’s letter to the Orleans Hub and the Union Sun in regard to my comments during the public hearing on Jan. 29 at the Town of Somerset.

First of all, I realize how much it cost to remodel an old farm house, we did the same to our house when we moved to Somerset. We also built a 54’x56′ barn. That being said, even with the capital improvements, Ms. Orr did not lose money on the sale of their property in Orangeville.

My second point in question, farmland in 2012 was at an all-time high. Farmland was selling between $5,000-$6,000 per acre. As a result of Ms. Orr actively opposing windmills in the towns of Orangeville and Sheldon, farmers were not willing to buy their property at market value. Ms. Orr’s 100-acre farm was undersold, when the asking price was lowered to an extremely low price, due to her activism and emotions.

Yes, I am a signed leaseholder with Lighthouse Wind (Apex Energy). With a property tax increase of over 300 percent since we moved to Somerset, including a 11.85 percent increase alone in town and county taxes. I fear that we will see a substantial increase in school taxes due to declining revenue from the power plant.

Where will the money come from? Lighthouse Wind will bolster our community, help with tax relief and offer landowners individual payments. It would offer needed revenue for our town and school system.

Somerset has had multiple opportunities to bring business to our town to generate a tax base and revenue to our community. That’s a subject for future discussion!

Floyd Koerner

Somerset

Editor:

The residents of the Towns of Somerset and Yates at a Public Hearing on January 29 have again resoundingly spoken out against Industrial Wind Turbines. In a packed room of over 60 individuals, 40 spoke out. By a factor of 3:1, supporters of the proposed tightening of the existing Industrial Wind Turbine Laws outnumbered those opposed.

Opposition arguments again fell flat as the same rhetoric Apex has been peddling for the last four years fell on deaf ears. The Somerset Town Board unanimously passed the revisions exercising our right to home rule. They are to be congratulated.  Article 10 siting board take note.

Mr. Taylor Quarles, Apex spokesman, is quoted as saying in part, “The laws … carry a very clear intent to wholly restrict any wind project from ever being built in the Town of Somerset.” Mr. Quarles is absolutely correct. The residents of our quiet, rural community do not want to be invaded by Industrial Wind Turbines. Numerous surveys, public hearings and countless meetings have shown this through the last four years. Project Lighthouse Wind and the like are not necessary, nor welcome, in our community. The physical and environmental damage will be far too great.

The Public Service Commission is requested to terminate all activity related to Lighthouse Wind. Our lake shore community is not the place for them. Our local laws reflect this and must be recognized.

James C. Hoffman

Somerset

Editor:

There was a recent a letter that claimed the Gaines Town Clerk got an “effective” hourly wage hike. The letter said there some sort of Town Resolution that governed her hours. It also inferred that last December something underhanded went. It claimed tax bills under the last administration were changed in December. My response is “wow” – how could someone come up with that. Balderdash.

In fact, New York State Law provides the clerk is salaried a‎nd the law details the clerk’s duties. Neither a town resolution nor local law can set the clerk’s hours or convert the position to hourly. (All elected officials have legal responsibilities to discharge 24-7. If that were the case every supervisor, mayor, and legislator should be in the office when it’s open.) Gaines tried and failed to use a resolution to trump state law with its old planning board. It seems pretty cavalier to do it again and I wonder if all its resolutions need to be “vetted” to see if there are others that are illegal.

As for tax bills, I hear someone neither could not read revenue receipts or add. Either way that is bad stuff. Whoever caught it should be congratulated as otherwise the Town would have had to borrow to cover the shortfall created to pay for approved budgeted expenditures.

Now MY question comes up because Judge Schmidt’s web page makes a point that most Towns have two judges. He is the only one there and has no back up. Was there a private bill in the Legislature to undo the two judge requirement or did someone simply fail to certify the position vacant? Gaines needs two judges in my view. The issue needs to be publically aired and if Gaines is not in compliance it should be.

The issue is getting the job done right and in compliance with state law and regulation. That’s what got voted on last November. This stuff now is very sour grapes.

Conrad F. Cropsey

Albion

Editor:

At a January 29, 2018 Somerset public hearing to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Somerset residents, the town voted unanimously to pass local law revisions to limit noise and height of tall structures.

This, in keeping with the World Health Organization’s guidelines for daytime and nighttime noise, within the one and a quarter mile siting from residents’ homes, and to preserve the rural character of the town of Somerset. The Town Board also chose to follow guidelines of US Fish and Wildlife Service regarding safety of migratory species which frequent the Lake Ontario corridor.

Thank you to the Town of Somerset!

Unfortunately, at this same public hearing one speaker chose to attack me by citing personal financial information, public record about a farm I had owned and sold in Orangeville, NY, in an (albeit unsuccessful) attempt to make his point that property values do not suffer from industrial wind turbines.

I choose here to address Mr. Floyd Koerner’s lack of complete and accurate information regarding the sale of my Wyoming County farm after a wind project there had been erected. He claims I made a substantial profit. He conveniently omitted some salient facts from what I will now supply as the real story.

Coincidentally, in the interests of full disclosure, Mr. Koerner has a signed contract with Apex. Signers with wind developers are aware that the contracts stipulate that leasees will support and promote the industrial wind project even in court, which explains his cheerleading the Apex cause at Somerset’s public hearing. Since 2014, I have been very vocal in my new home of Somerset in relating my experiences with industrial wind and its effects on my Orangeville neighbors, I make a convenient target for Mr. Koerner and for Apex.

I now, once and for all, would like to set the record straight!

Deciding in 1991 to restore a house built in 1863 despite the cost, my husband and I gutted the Orangeville house to the timbers, built an addition, stripped the roof and replaced it with new plywood and shingles. We also added new plumbing, furnace, electrical, and septic. We built a new 30’ by 50’ barn, restored an old barn, and painted others.  We hired someone to rework 30 acres of land, as my horses would have been severely injured on the rough fields.

Mr. Koerner attempted to make the case that in purchasing the property for $55,000 and selling it for $245,000 that I had made a substantial profit. Without the details, it would certainly appear that way, but since he omits mention of those costly improvements, it is meant to mislead.

Well, which is it, Mr. Koerner? You allege that wind farms boost property values. That means my 100-acre farm which brought only $245,000, should have brought $500,000 to $600,000. You proved my point, also illustrated by Michael McCann, a certified 30-year real estate appraiser who has conducted oft-cited studies of plunging real estate values in proximity to industrial wind projects all over the US. Evidently, Mr. Koerner’s figures were the equivalent of shooting himself in the foot.

Mr. Koerner evidently enjoys referencing my farm at public events.  He has brought it up at a Yates Town Board meeting as well. What’s more, my farm was also featured in a color brochure (again, without details) sent out a few years ago by none other than Apex. Maybe it’s time for Mr. Koerner to beat a different drum when he speaks in public forums.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it! Pictures of renovation upon request!

Cathi Orr

Somerset

Editor:

When Letters to the Editor are signed as Supervisor or Councilman/Councilwoman for the Towns of Yates & Somerset, it is an unfair representation.

I certainly do not agree with your way of thinking in Yates and I am sure there are some residents in Somerset who would also agree with me. I think you have a right to your personal opinion, however, as board members you do not speak for all residents of both townships.

Therefore, your letters should be signed as a resident only.

Rebecca Winters

Town of Yates

(Editor’s note: Orleans Hub will often note the titles of writers if they are elected officials.)

Editor:

The fact that Orleans County Legislator Ken DeRoller considered the interests of Orleans County residents and recently weighed in on the future of the Lake Ontario State Parkway was a breath of fresh air whether one agrees with his view or not. (I heard today from a charter boat owner first hand that the condition of the Parkway is affecting tourism adjacent to the Lake.) DeRoller’s statement represented a much-needed dose of leadership.

It would be/have been refreshing and appropriate in my opinion to have County Legislators reveal similar leadership instincts where disgraceful Canal tree cutting is/was concerned. Perhaps I missed them, but where were our Legislators on that disgrace? It didn’t take a degree in rocket science to anticipate what would very likely happen once the cutting progressed in Monroe County. Looks like those who stand up really do get counted on occasion.

Where have our overpaid Legislators (Ken Longer’s comments on the Gaines Town Board may apply elsewhere as well) been on turning Yates and Barre into industrial wind farms (Sorry, but wind ‘farms’ are for abandoned oil fields and barren areas good for little else)  to the detriment of the County’s environmental and wildlife habitat assets? Oh well, giving away County assets hasn’t cost them yet.

When have we heard any of our Legislators—and I may have missed them—indicate where they stand on the somewhat controversial proposed stone quarry in proximity to The Iroquois National Wildlife Refuge in Shelby? What if it actually does “drain the swamp”? Of course, it would be impacted negatively regardless.

The selection of an “old guard” Legislator to chair the group (in place of one who had nothing to do with past errors in judgment) suggests that, rather than look forward, the majority has decided there are no regrets about the many errors in judgment made by the three who are way past needing replacement.

When you’re good at shifting the blame, it just keeps working.

Sincerely yours,

Gary Kent

Albion

Editor:

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own science or facts. In spite of this axiom, there is a chorus in Orleans County that continually spew their own misinformation, or in this political climate, alternative facts. I am specifically talking about the “abnormally high” water levels recorded on Lake Ontario during 2017.

The misinformed chorus, which includes the newly-minted chairwoman of the Orleans County Legislature, would have us all believe that the reason for the rise in the lake level is former President Barack H. Obama’s Plan 2014, which was created by the International Joint Commission.

Make no mistake, the IJC’s Plan 2014 will allow for lower lake levels in the long term than the previous water level management plan, which came into effect in 1958. Don’t take my word for it, take the words of two SUNY College at Brockport Science Professors – James M. Haynes, PhD, and Douglas Wilcox, PhD – who together have over a century of research and study of the Great Lakes under their belts.

The St. Lawrence River Board, Dr. Haynes, and Dr. Wilcox categorically reject and refute the ignorant nonsense that YouTube scientists and conspiracy-theory peddlers proclaim. The informed conclusion? The high lake levels observed on Lake Ontario during 2017 are a direct result of global warming and climate change, not the IJC/Plan 2014.

In August 2017, Dr. Wilcox explained to a small group of south shore residents that the previous lake level management plan kept water levels artificially high, while Plan 2014 allows for more variation in water levels. You heard that right, Plan 2014 actually allows for a more reactive posture in the face of dangerously high lake levels, than the previous plan did.

Furthermore, Dr. Wilcox and Dr. Haynes explained, Lake Ontario is a drain lake, and as such, it bears the brunt of increased water inflows. The science is quite simple – imagine five beakers partially filled with water suspended at different elevations. Lake Ontario is the “bottom,” or lowest elevation, beaker, which means that as the other four beakers fill with water and eventually overflow, they naturally flow into the fifth beaker. What makes matters worse is that there is little-to-no control over the inflows from the other four beakers thanks to Niagara Falls. Accordingly, Lake Ontario receives all of the runoff and inflow from rivers and tributaries flowing directly into it (think the Genesee River), plus all of the inflow from Lake Michigan, Lake Superior, Lake Huron, and Lake Erie, and their respective rivers and tributaries. Due to gravity, water will always travel to the lowest natural point.

Last year was an unusually wet winter and spring across the regions, whose runoff feeds into the Great Lakes waterway system. Therefore, as late snows melted (remember the mid-March snow storm?) combined with unrelenting rainfall, the water levels on Lake Ontario rose. Last year did break the record for highest lake levels in recorded history, but this is not because of the IJC/Plan 2014; rather, the high lake levels are a direct result of climate change and global warming.

Does the chairwoman and her cadre not understand that the reason why more water cannot just be let out of the Moses-Saunders Dam is because that would present a serious flooding hazard for the City of Montreal and its over 4 million residents?

From a humanitarian standpoint, your front yard is not as important as 4 million Canadians. Perhaps the reason why this “blame Obama” mantra has predominated the discussion is because people are averse to science? Or maybe it is a lack of empathy for foreign nationals, or a general aversion to former President Obama, personally?

Andrew Remley

Albion

Editor:

I’d like to take a few moments to respond to Assemblyman Steve Hawley’s reply to your editorial, “GOP State Senate blueprint for NY should include equitable AIM funding for villages.”

Currently, village residents are terribly overtaxed compared to our non-village neighbors. This is directly a result of how localities can tax, how services are provided, and how the state distributes aid to correct for any inequities.

The county taxes all county residents. The towns for the most part tax all town residents (except for paving town roads). The villages can only tax village residents. When villages provide services themselves that means that the county and towns need to provide fewer services. Comparable services of the county and towns get redirected outside of the villages.

The unfairly high village taxes are a prime reason why the tax base has continued every year to gradually shift away from the villages. Every time a person decides to buy a home or property the market corrects for this unfairness by depressing sale prices in the villages.

Mr. Hawley’s response mentioned Medicaid, but the local share is a county expense and hits all county residents equally in the county tax rate. It doesn’t adversely impact village residents.

Mr. Hawley mentions a few bills that he has sponsored. I read each bill and it looks like the first two address any future state programs and doesn’t help correct the existing overtaxing of village residents. His response claimed that the third bill would redirect extra AIM funding to villages, but when I read the text it seems to redirect extra AIM funding to towns as well – so, again, no correction to help overtaxed villages.

I expect that if we fail to address the existing unfairness of our local government structure then you will see further decline in the villages going forward. Our state representatives need to start work cooperatively with the state to fix this situation – and lay off unproductive insults of the governor and “downstate politicians.”

Our local leaders need to be willing to go outside their comfort zone and consider reorganizing how local governments provides services. A county where all localities thrive is going to be more attractive to outside investment that one with struggling villages.

Jason Dragon

Village of Albion

Editor:

After reading the letter entitled “Gaines town hall office hours reduced, amounting to a raise for town clerk,” I felt I had to comment.

I am a member of the Conservative Party Committee of Orleans County and as such, have an interest in the finances across the county. This is an example of why we did not, and will not, endorse individuals who we feel do not represent the best interests of the taxpayer.

I ask the residents of Gaines and those across the county to attend your town and county meetings. Get involved! Hold your representatives accountable because it’s your money!

Ken Longer

Holley

Member of the Conservative Party Committee

Editor:

As the new interim CEO/President of Orleans Community Health, I would like to introduce myself and share some of the upcoming plans for our health system.

I have over 20 years of healthcare experience in various financial roles and I worked as the controller for Orleans Community Health from 2006 – 2008. After that, I was the controller for BryLin Hospital for 7 years and have been back at OCH working as the Chief Financial Officer for the past 3 years. I live and grew up in Lockport and look forward to the opportunity to serve as CEO.

As a 25-bed critical access rural hospital we provide services to Orleans, northern Genesee, and eastern Niagara counties. We strive for the best possible outcomes and our goal is to treat every patient as an individual with compassion and high-quality health service every time they come through our doors.

Medina Hospital has been a proud part of the community since 1908. While we have evolved over the years to meet the changing environment in health care, our commitment to ensuring our patients receive personalized, high quality care will be ongoing.

We continue to make strategic and necessary investments in technology, improve our physical space (lobby renovations and the ER), add new services, recruit new providers, as well as focusing on staff education and development in order to provide the best possible care for our community members.

Orleans Community Health remains an active participant in community endeavors and we strive to contribute to the health and wellness of our community.

Our current services include: 24/7 Emergency Services, NYS Designated Stroke Center, Residential Care Unit (North Wing), Lake Plains Dialysis Centers in Batavia and Medina, Physical, Occupational and Speech Therapy, Nutritional Counseling, Diabetes and Pre-Diabetes Education, Cardiac Services, Cancer Services Program, Community Partners Wellness Programs, Surgical Services, Transitional Care Unit, Imaging Services/X-Ray (MRI, CT scan, Digital Mammography, Nuclear Medicine, Ultrasonography, Echocardiography), Albion Walk-In Medical Center (Primary Care, Occupational Health, Lab, X-Ray, Physical Therapy), Lab services (Albion, Medina and Middleport), Respiratory Services and Health Insurance Assistance through the NYS of Health.

It is my sincere honor to serve as the CEO at Orleans Community Health. We thank you for your past support and look forward to continuing to serve the community with the best possible health care close to home…So Much. So Near.

Sincerely,

Mark Cye

CEO/President  (interim)

Orleans Community Health

Editor:

When the ribbons are cut in a couple of years for the Lighthouse Wind and the Barre Wind Projects, S.O.S. and its hand-picked boards will look back at last week’s Article 10 Siting Board Cassadaga decision as the high-water mark in the locals’ quest to turn back the 21st century.

Anti-groups read the decision as a victory for town boards scrambling to push through restrictive zoning laws aimed at appeasing dirty energy forces and the legions of garden variety NIMBY’s. Yates and Somerset Town Board members envision hundreds of New York towns and villages emulating their hostile laws.

But, not so fast. Seasoned observers of the State scene understand that each case brought before a State tribunal such as the Siting Board, brings its own unique set of facts, context and precedents. What was applauded by the anti-forces reflecting on the Cassadaga decision, may receive not even a mention in the upcoming Siting Board proceedings relating to Lighthouse Wind. As but one example, the Town Boards’ overt hostility toward agricultural interests in Yates and Somerset will likely be a key factor in the Board’s decision-making process. The now laughable Niagara Air Base threat should receive no play.

Clean energy supporters need to hang in there; the inevitable is the inevitable. (Have an off-record chat with state and federal pols’ senior staff sometime. Bring up Lighthouse Wind).

That doesn’t mean the town fathers should keep their ceremonial ribbon-cutting scissors at the ready. You won’t likely be invited to the ceremony.

Ralph Smith

Lyndonville

Editor:

I had the opportunity to read your recent editorial titled “GOP State Senate blueprint for NY should include equitable AIM funding for villages,” which criticized the Senate Majority’s plan for failing to address the disparity in Aid and Incentives to Municipalities (AIM) funding awarded throughout the state. (Click here to see the editorial.)

While I agree that AIM funding should be more fairly distributed to towns and villages in relation to cities, I vehemently dispute the fact, as the editorial claims that, “These villages can’t even get on the radar of state politicians.”

As a state lawmaker, I have always been an outspoken proponent of reducing mandated spending on towns and villages, something that is routinely pushed by downstate lawmakers who are in full force in Albany.

New York’s Medicaid budget is nearly $70 billion, and those costs are handed down to local governments, which in turn, hand them down to local residents. New York is unique in the large burden of Medicaid costs it asks its counties to cover. In many other states, state government pays the bill – rightly so.

I sponsor multiple pieces of legislation (A.5628 & A.5186) to make Albany pay for what Albany legislates, instead of passing the buck to homeowners and local taxpayers. Despite our advocacy, these bills have either been blocked or left without action by New York City politicians.

Furthermore, I introduced legislation last year, supported by members on both sides of the aisle as well as in the Senate (A.8040), which would direct the bulk of any AIM awards over the $715 million currently awarded to villages.

Unfortunately, this legislation has sat idly in the Ways and Means Committee since it was introduced, a committee controlled by New York City politicians.

The biggest hurdle is that for several years, including this year, Gov. Cuomo has failed to include an increase in Village AIM funding in his Executive Budget proposal despite repeated pressure from the legislature and neither the Assembly nor the Senate has yet to release its “One House” budget proposal this year.

So I believe the criticism of “state politicians” being ineffective is an unfair assessment – perhaps the reality of “downstate politicians” stonewalling our efforts to fully fund our towns and villages should be exposed.

Sincerely,

Steve Hawley

Assemblyman for 139^th District

Editor:

The Town of Gaines Clerk has decreased her hours at the Town Hall from 31 hours a week to 24.  Total pay based on a 31-hour week in the budget is $31,773.  This amounts to  $19.71 per hour.   The pay per hour for the new 24 hours per week is $25.46. That is a 29% pay raise.

The original 31-hour a week schedule was set by a Town Board resolution in December 2016.   The Town Clerk by law has a responsibility to ensure that her office hour’s match with the Town Hall office hours set by the Town Board.  The previous Town Board and the current Town Board have not altered that resolution according to the minutes posted on line.

Your tax bills however, were mysteriously altered in December 2017 to match the recently changed hours.  This was without Board knowledge or approval.

As a taxpayer and resident we all have a responsibility to watch and pay close attention to how our public officials conduct business while in office.   Please attend your local board meetings, ask questions, and read their minutes on line.

Sincerely,

Susan M. Smith

Gaines

Editor:

Now in our 4th year of the Lighthouse Wind industrial wind turbine Article 10 proposal, I took great interest in the Cassadaga Wind decision just issued by the NYS Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment (Siting Board).

In the final public hearing of EverPower Wind’s Chautauqua County project, the Chairman of the Siting Board, John Rhodes, said that Cassadaga Wind was deemed, “appropriately sited,” and that it will, “protect and accommodate the concerns of local communities and of the New Yorkers who live in them.” Chairman Rhodes added that it is, “…noteworthy and positive that the project is consistent with all local laws and ordinances.”

In my opinion, the Lighthouse Wind proposal for the Town of Yates is not, “appropriately sited,” does not, “protect and accommodate the concerns,” of the town, and is most definitely not, “consistent with all local laws and ordinances.”

From when Apex Clean Energy filed its Public Involvement Plan (PIP) for Lighthouse Wind on October 31, 2014, to when they submitted their Preliminary Scoping Statement (PSS) in November 2015, and through to the present, it has been very clear that Apex has little regard for our community’s concerns and intends to get NY State to override our local ordinances.

In its PSS, to cite but one glaring example among dozens, Apex stated that they plan to ask the Siting Board to rule that the Town of Yates’ law requiring turbines not to exceed 420 feet is unduly burdensome. Their PSS calls for 71 turbines ranging from 480 to 620 feet. So much for accommodating our concerns and working with our town to ensure their proposal is consistent with our local law.

Since the inception of the Apex Lighthouse Wind Project, the Yates Town Board has endeavored to expand its knowledge of these types of industrial-scale projects. As such, we amended our Wind Energy law in 2016, and we are proposing further amendments to our law as our understanding deepens. This is our obligation. We are called to protect the health, safety and welfare of our citizens for current and future generations and to preserve the rural, agricultural and leisure-based character of our community.

I am heartened to know that the Siting Board has set a legal precedent in Cassadaga Wind to honor local New Yorkers’ concerns and to uphold our local ordinances.

I am hopeful to learn that Governor Cuomo will preserve and protect all New Yorkers’ constitutional right to home rule by allowing each town – in the spirit of environmental justice – to determine how they will contribute to a more sustainable future.

Finally, I am eager to hear Apex Clean Energy publicly acknowledge the right of the Town of Yates to enact reasoned, scientifically-based ordinances concerning the use of our land.

Jim Simon

Supervisor

Town of Yates

Return to top

Editor:

In October 2014 Apex Clean Energy filed a public document on the NYS Department of Public Service. Called the Public Involvement Plan, it is required by Article 10. In it the wind developer outlined [pp. 6-7] its required community outreach to the host communities of Somerset and Yates in the Lighthouse Wind project area.

• “A phone poll to understand community sentiment” [and their list of]  “Additional Public Events:

• Office open house: A kick-off event to invite people to the Apex office space in town and introduce local contact.

• Local workshops offering an introduction to the lighthousewind.com website and instructions on how to give online feedback.

• Information booths at local farmer’s market (monthly in season) and participation in a few additional events.

• Public information sessions to educate the community on wind energy and the Project.

Topics may include:

• Turbine Technology: This session would include the basics of how a wind turbine works, a synopsis of changes over the last 15 years, a list of some projects and turbine types, and then a review of the specifications of selected current models.

• The Grid: How the grid works and how power is purchased.

• Wind/meteorology: How we measure the wind, why some locations are better than others, and how this information contributes to siting

• Studies, Impacts, and Mitigation: This session would explain the studies that we will be performing, what they will show us and how we will make modifications to accommodate the results.

• Siting: An interactive session that informs the public on what considerations go into siting wind turbines.

• Construction and Operations: A presentation about what the community will see during construction and after construction is complete. This session will feature pictures and visual aids to help the public understand what to expect from construction and operations.”

I have read the contents of 18 event logs filed by Apex on the DPS website from January 2015 to November 2017. There have been no events remotely resembling the above descriptions. There was no telephone poll to gauge residents’ sentiments, and there were no “information sessions.”

What I see in Apex event logs consists of assertions that their Barker office was staffed by at least one person during regular hours, and that there was some presence at town board and other official meetings. Any attempt at community outreach was limited to reciting office hours.  There is mention that during the July 4th holidays of 2015 and 2016 Apex had a presence in Lyndonville and added Hartland (not a host community) town park in 2017.

If Apex has desired to conduct outreach to these affected communities, it was never done. (Paying for hot dogs and fireworks is not “informational”.) An individual walking into an Apex office to ask a question is not the same as an event, such as the educational and informative “local workshops” Apex elaborately describes in their PIP.

A year after the PIP we have seen that their Preliminary Scoping Statement was found deficient by the DPS, and yet there was no effort made by Apex to answer specific questions except in the most general and vague terms, and allowed to stand as such.

In the last several weeks now Apex has been found out-of-compliance with its met tower in Somerset. Originally, to obtain the permit to erect it (after successfully suing Somerset) Apex had agreed to conditions set by the town’s planning board. But the requisite reports were never made to the planning board’s stipulations, nor was adequate fencing for the tower constructed.

So, what are residents supposed to take from this? It seems that all of this begs the question: if Apex has problems with follow-through, what can we expect when this company begins construction and operation of Lighthouse Wind? Are they rewarded for just “saying anything”?

Where is the accountability here? Who is the watchdog that oversees that Apex will carry out what it promises? People’s health, the environment, quality of life, their greatest financial assets, are all at risk here to a developer that obviously cares not. It’s another reason, going on Year Four, that the overwhelming majority of residents in my town of Somerset, and those in Yates, have continued to oppose Apex.

Christine Bronson

Councilwoman, Town of Somerset

Return to top