Letters from Neighbors
I have included a few of the many letters that neighbors sent to the Town Planning Board. It provides a flavor of people's concerns regarding our wind turbine plans. The only positive letter we received was sent in response to a newspaper article we wrote to defend our position.
Letter
My name is Tom Machell and I live at 1461 Marchner Rd. which is directly
south of lot #1 (1460 Marchner Rd.) and, I am also a part owner in lot 2 which is an
approved 9.0 Acre lot directly east of lot #1. The proposal (#98-10012) in front of the
board to build a windmill on a 100 ft tall tower at 1460 Marchner Rd. has all the
neighborhood appeal of a cellular phone tower with the added disadvantages of its moves
and makes noise 24 hrs/day. On of the reasons I choose to build on Marchner Rd is because
its very quite, there is almost no traffic on the street so the background noise is almost
none-existent, this in combination with the fact that the area is so wide open with no
trees to block noise allows the quietest of noises to travel very far.
My other objection with the windmill is its close proximity to Four mile creek, there is alot of water fowl that inhabit that area ( I have seen flocks of ducks, geese, blue Heron, red tail Hawks fly in and out of that area to feed and nest, swim around.) with a windmill located anywhere within a 1000 feet of that creek its going to be just down right dangerous to birds flying into the area. A windmill located in that area will be nothing more that rotating avian guillotine.
Before you make your decision on this matter you need to look at who will benefit from this and who will be adversely impacted by this windmill proposal. Who will benefit from this..... 1 Home, ....who will be adversely impacted, I count at least 10 homes in Frawley farms, 8 Homes and 3 sold but unbuilt properties on Harris Rd., and 8 homes and 2 properties on Marchner Rd. The total is 1 home will benefit, and 31 will be adversely impacted in terms of noise, visual pollution, and reduced property values, not to mention the impact on the wild fowl that fly into and out of this area.
Sincerely,
Tom Machell
Letter
Mr. And Mrs. Ross were the most vocal opponents of the windmill. Their
residence was at least 3-4 miles away from the proposed windmill. They did own land near
the proposed windmill. If they chose to build on their land, their house would be over
1,000 feet away from the windmill. Two letters are reproduced here.
Letter Number One from the Ross’ after the open Planning Board Meeting
Dear Mr. Peter & Members of the Penfield Planning Board:
This message concerns the public hearing which was held on Thursday, April 8, 199S pertaining to Douglas Stockman and his plans for the property designated as 1460 Marchner Road. As owners of the property which is downwind and directly east of his proposal for house and windmill, we have the following concerns:
1. This eyesore (windmill) will be a minimum of 30 feet higher than all other tree's in the area and hence will dominate the area at all times. Mr. Stockman's mention of planting trees for shutting out this unfortunate view is an empty gesture, since to make the windmill work it must have wind available at all times.
2. The enormous height of this structure alone will cause interference with reception for radio, TV, computers and all other electronic devices. No mention was made of a required light for the top of the structure. Is this a requirement?
3. It is industrial. Its sole purpose is to generate electricity which is what RG&E [Rochester Gas & Electric] does. It already has one customer. It will cause in addition to the visual pollution also noise pollution which at any level of decibels is unacceptable because it is inescapable - it will be able to emit noise 24 hours per day seven days per week, year around, at any and all times.
4. In spite of fencing this towering monstrosity, it will always he an invitation to all children to climb up the tower, no matter how high or complicated the safety fence may be. It is impossible for any household to be 100% available on the premises at all times to afford surveillance. When a child or adult successfully climbs up these 100 feet, and the wind kicks in at the uppermost area of the climb, what should one expect?
5. This is not a necessary piece of equipment in order to live on that property. Adequate electricity is available from RG&E. You heard the prospective owner say that the windmill would not be cost effective for 15-20 years. So what purpose does it serve? This, then, is a richman's toy,
We see no redeeming value for this unnecessary, unsightly, noisy monstrosity, which will dominate and pollute the landscape forever. This. of course, is damaging to the value of all adjoining and nearby properties
We purchased our lot because we believed all buyers of adjoining and nearby properties would have to adhere to the plans on file in the Town Hall (which plans do not show Frawley Drive). We thought the view of the farmlands would be forever since it was designated with "no subdivision." It still remains, that the lot is on Marchner Road and not Frawley Drive. This possible change of designation was never mentioned to buyers at time of sale of the other properties. The Marchner Road frontage has an approved site for construction. By allowing the Frawley Road address, it appears that you have (or will) permitted subdivision of this property, ipso facto.
We sincerely hope you will spare us as well as the community this unnecessary eyesore and noise and airways pollution to this otherwise beautiful farm country. We would appreciate a copy of your decision as soon as it is available.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
William & Marian Ross
Letter Number 2 from the Ross’ in response to an article I wrote for a local newspaper
We are dismayed with the letter of Douglas Stockman addressed To the Editor of the Penfield Post-Republican and published in their paper of June 24, 1998. He states that our residence is a few miles from the proposed windmill site. There are 5280 feet in a mile and our West-side property line is 250 feet from Mr. Stockman's lot, not several miles as he states. Our property at 1195 Harris Road is directly east of the Stockman's' new building plans, as I pointed out in my letter dated April 12, 1998 and we would be forced to view and hear this structure forever.
As for the five-inch diameter pipe painted green - we were told at the April 8 meeting by the person who will be doing the installation that there would be guy wires every twenty feet, adding considerable to the diameter of five inches. The same person also said that the blades need to be thirty feet above tree tops in order to catch the wind. Accordingly it needs to be located at the apex (depending upon prevailing winds) of a hill, thus making it dominant in the landscape of the community. Most nearby houses are built at street level. This mill will be placed upon a hill, probably about 30 feet above street level. The silo of 105 ft. would be taller by the length of the rotors which will be affixed to the very top of the silo. Then the entire fixture would be more like 150 ft. above street level, enabling it to dominate the landscape. We know of no other structure in the area that is as high or higher. We believe this is the highest hill on Marchner Road and Frawley Drive and on the Miller Farm. The top thirty feet must be able to catch every little whiff of breeze in order to work and therefore cannot be hidden from view. Painting it green won't diminish its presence once above tree tops.
In regard to dB, I will state again that any level of decibels is unacceptable because in this case, it is inescapable, emitting its noise at any and all times forever. Our homes are a place to seek solace and peace and we should not be forced to listen to (or view) someone manufacturing electricity. No one has bothered to mention the affect of wind velocity and the resulting dB.
In pursuing environmental conservation, all aspects of such endeavor should be considered and followed, not a few selectively. By eliminating all electrical appliances for household use, considerable electricity would be saved. In another matter, the use of the above ground septic tanks are an effort to curtail pollution of sewage into the Lake from which we also obtain our drinking water. I think these are a more realistic conservation than using a windmill as an unreliable source for power but which also impinges on the community, visually and audibly. With such negative intrusion, I doubt that the project for counterbalance has significant benefits, none specifically have ever been mentioned and certainly not for the community, possibly for the owner. A decision was made long ago by cities, towns, and villages to provide electricity for their citizens via a utility company.
By permitting this dubious manufacturing venture in a residential neighborhood, I believe the cost to the community and especially to the very near neighbors such as us would be a considerable depreciation of our property values. Should this occur, would Mr. Stockman be willing to guarantee restitution to those affected?
We reiterate that our letter of April 12, 1998 is not erroneous as Mr. Stockman claims but rather expresses our concerns and as parties to the outcome of this venture, which we will have to live with, we have every right to express such concerns.
Again, thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
William & Marian Ross
Letter
Letter from the Sippels following the open Planning Board meeting
The Sippels’ home is approximately 1,700 feet from the proposed windmill. They raise a number of concerns which we address here before the letter.
In addition to erecting a windmill, we also petitioned to have the location of the home changed from the original Miller Farms’ site plans. We moved the site of the home from the South end to the North end of the lot (i.e. further from the Sippels).
They commented that the company built only two windmills in 5 years. What they actually are referring to is that the local renewable energy expert who attended the open Planning Board meeting had only erected two windmills in the past five years.
We submitted wind data from a weather station three miles from the windmill site. The wind speed is below the windmill cut in speed of 8 mph 40-50% of the time.
The land Mr. Sippel is referring to was on sale for a number of months before we ever mentioned a windmill. They were trying to sell the land without a realtor. They were asking 15% more for their land than what we purchased our land for. A significant proportion of their land is flood plain land. Our land is dryer, and it has a nice South facing hill. Their land requires a raised bed septic system which may cost close to $20,000 US to install. Our property has Town sewers as well as natural gas lines, which their land does not.
Re: Application for Windmill at 1460 Marchner Rd, Dong Stockman Applicant.
Dear Mr. Peters:
Our major concern is the location of the house, the windmill, the property values of homes in the area, and the noise pollution.
The Miller Farm Subdivision was originally set up for single family homes with no subdividing. The original plans stated no subdividing. The new map states subdividing with board approval. Why was the wording changed? We do not want to see the property subdivided. We do not want to see any kind of business on the Marchner road end of lot 1, or the sewer extended beyond this house on lot 1.
The appearance of a windmill looks like a commercial structure. Breakdown do occur and windmills are expensive to repair. What will happen to the tower then? The company has built 2 windmills in 5 years. This is not a very good track record. If this company goes bankrupt who will repair this windmill in the future?
I think the noise level of a windmill should be thoroughly researched. The wind in this area is constant. Therefore, noise levels from the windmill will be 24 hours a day. The levels should be considered at all property lines including the narrow sidelines. We moved here for the peace and quiet and the wildlife.
Mr. Stockman stated his payback period is 15 to 20 years on the windmill. If this was a business it would not be a very sound business decision. Electricity is available and very reliable in our area. We are not in a rural area where energy sources are not reliable. Why should our neighborhood pay the ultimate price for another persons energy hobbies.
This is a exclusive area of expensive homes on a minimum of 5 acres (200-300 th). The windmill will devalue our properties. There are several homes and vacant land for sale and this proposal will increase the length of time for the owners to sell their properties. The lot I co-own has already been affected by this proposal. The lot is located at 1462 Marchner Road. We have received approximately 10 calls since the proposal became public and all said they would not be interested once we told them about the windmill.
In conclusion: We would like to see no further development of this lot. We feel the town should research the various noise ordinances for surrounding towns since this would be Penfield's first windmill tower. There should be a clause to re-evaluate the windmill yearly for appearance, operation, and noise levels. We feel if the town allows this windmill it will set a precedence for other windmills. There are approximately 30 lots in the immediate area large enough for a windmill! When the Board evaluates this application I hope they review this neighborhood and consider the overall effects of this application. Please ask yourself: If I lived in an area of exclusive homes on a minimum of 5 acres ( approximate value $200 to 300 thousand dollars) such as this would I want a windmill to be constructed?
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Steven M. Sippel Paula M. Sippel
Letter
This is the one positive unsolicited letter we received. We have not met
Mr. Wood, but we appreciate his open-mindedness.
I am writing to you with respect to Douglas Stockman's application to build a windmill. I do not know Mr. Stockman, and I must say up front that I know no more about the particulars of this case then what was reported in the Penfield Post-Republican. However, I was bothered that the board is "looking for the possibility to deny it." I would rather hope instead that the Planning Board would seek to find a way to make this work
I commend Mr. Stockman for his desire to build this environmentally friendly alternative to RG&E. One of the neighbor's comments about the windmill was that it "provided an unnecessary, redundant service already met by RG&E". That logic would also argue against allowing people to dig up their attractive lawns and put in unsightly vegetable gardens, as that duplicates a service provided by Wegmans [grocery store]! Energy conservation is not something that receives a lot of press or attention these days, but the fundamentals that caused the energy crisis in the 70's have not changed substantively. I admire Mr. Stockman for his desire to tap a fully renewable, non-polluting source of energy.
Some would argue that windmills do pollute visually and audibly. I would certainly expect the Planning Board to do their job, and ensure that the impact here is minimized. But according to what Mr. Stockman has said, it sounds like those concerns should not be a significant issue. He claims that it makes no more noise than a wind chime--if that is true, than that really isn't much. I used to live two houses away from a very nice retired couple who had a somewhat obnoxious wind chime, so I know such noises can be irritating. Nevertheless, that's the price we pay for living in communities, and a windmill's noise would probably be much more "white noise" than a wind chime.
As I said, I certainly don't know all the facts in this case, but the cause seems noble. I hope the Planning Board will adopt an attitude of trying to make this work, rather than trying to prevent this. Certainly granting Mr. Stockman a six month permit seems most reasonable.
Sincerely,
Mark D. Wood