Reply to the Ross' First Letter

20 April 1998
Mr. Walter Peter, Chairman
Town of Penfield Planning Board

re: Proposed site plan 1460 Marchner Road

Dear Mr. Peter:

Thank you for the opportunity to present our proposed site plan at the 09 April Planning Board meeting. I received a copy of the letter from William and Marian Ross dated 12 April 1998 and will respond to their comments. Many of the concerns they raise were either addressed at the meeting or were answered with the written documentation we distributed to the Board. I apologize for the redundancy.

General Comments
The Ross's letter seems to ignore much of the information that we presented at the Planning Board meeting. This suggests they may be unwilling to hear what we or others who live with or near windmills have to say.

More importantly, the Ross's list their address in another zip code and do not live anywhere near the proposed windmill site. If this is true, all their concerns regarding aesthetics, noise, and interference have no validity because they will not be directly affected. If they are part owners of the nine (9) acres adjacent to our lot, then their entire letter may actually be an attempt to protect their investment. I am unaware of any data supporting the presumption that a nearby windmill decreases property values. The contrary may actually be true. Contained in the manila file that was distributed at the meeting is a report that property values actually increased in California after windmills were erected.

Item 1 - Eyesore
Aesthetics are a personal opinion and as such are difficult to measure. I find windmills attractive and desirable. I understand others may not feel the same way I do. This is one reason I chose to use a five (5) inch pipe-tower painted green instead of a freestanding lattice tower. Most passersby will not notice the windmill unless they are looking for it.

Much of what we consider acceptable is what we are used to. For example, Marchner Road has utility poles that are 30-40 feet high with wires strung between them. We are used to them so our brain ignores them. This is the visual equivalent of our brain ignoring background noise. The Village of Webster water towers are huge and clearly visible from Marchner Road, but we are used to their appearance so we accept them as part of the landscape. There are a number of antenna towers in Penfield that set a precedent for similar structures. The proposed windmill will be less obtrusive.

My desire to plant trees on the South end of property is not primarily motivated to hide the windmill, but it will be an added benefit in time. Before the Miller farm was a farm, it was most likely a forest. I want to do my part to return the land to its original state.

Item 2 - Electromagnetic Interference/Tower Height
In the manila folder is information pertaining to windmills and their potential for causing interference to electronic devices. Windmills do not cause interference to electronic devices. Please also locate the letter from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) stating that a tower similar in height to our proposed tower is not a threat to airplanes and does not require a warning light.

Item 3 - Industrial Polluter
The proposed windmill will only supply energy for our private use. Therefore, by definition, it is not industrial. With regard to noise pollution, we have taken every step possible to choose a wind machine that will produce the minimal amount of sound. We will meet the noise requirement as set out by the Town of Penfield.

Item 4 - Safety
I understand the Board's concern for safety. That is why I agreed to erect a fence around the base of the tower. A seven (7) foot tall barb wire fence around the base of the tower should successfully stop anyone attempting to shimmy up the pole. I am also willing to place a "High Voltage" sign on the base of the tower as a further deterrent. There are many easily climbable towers already in Penfield. The proposed tower should be one of the most climb-resistant structures in Penfield.

Item 5 - Rich Man's Toy
The Ross's argument here is mainly a philosophical one and has no correct answer. I stated my philosophical reasons for wanting a windmill in a letter I sent to Mr. Doug Fox that should have been forwarded to you. My conviction for a windmill is even stronger since I talked with an RG&E engineer. Only 5% of RG&E's electricity is produced by hydro. Fifty-three percent comes from nuclear, thirty-six percent from coal, and the rest from fossil fuel.

The windmill is only one part of a desire to decrease our impact on our environment. Through thoughtful home design, conservation, and renewable energy production, we will reduce our dependence on polluting non-renewable energy. This is a life choice my wife and I have made. It makes sense to us and we do not require others to follow our beliefs. This is one reason we are purchasing so much land. We are minimizing our impact on those around us.

In terms of the monetary aspect of a windmill, that is no ones concern but our own. We can spend our money any way we see fit. If we are allowed to build on Marchner, we will make it our home for hopefully the rest of our lives. That means a 15-20 year payback is very acceptable.

My wife felt the "richman's toy" was a derogatory comment. This is because we have worked so hard in the past few years with significant personal and financial sacrifice. We have lived with some of the poorest of the world's poor and choose not to spend money frivolously. I am a physician, but a family physician. Doctors in this specialty, along with pediatrics, are the lowest paid. I make 20-30% less than underpaid family doctors in private practice because I work in an academic setting through the University of Rochester School of Medicine. I completed my residency in 1989. Since that time, I put most of my income into paying off my loans, or into my international health work. I have spent three years living in Liberia and Ghana, West Africa working without pay and living off our life savings to help the less fortunate. Now that we are back in the U.S. and being paid for our skills, we are just beginning to save money. We still donate much of our time to the needy. We are very involved with the Penfield and Webster Church's Habitat for Humanity Project on Cuba Place. By calling the windmill a "richman's toy", the Ross's suggest we only consider our needs and not the needs of others.

Item 6 - Subdivisions
We have no intention of subdividing 1460 Marchner Road. Whether the house is built on the North or South end of the property, the "farmlands" appearance of the property that the Ross's state they want to preserve will be disrupted. By setting the house on the North side, Marchner Road benefits from a more open appearance with less densely packed homes. Our understanding is that some of the homes have already deviated from the site plans Mr. Miller had approved. This would suggest a precedent has been set that other site plans can be modified.

Given that the Miller farm was divided into six or nine acre lots with the intention for private homes, the farmlands appearance had to be altered. That is Mr. Miller's and the Town's right. If the Ross's wanted to preserve the farmland "as is" they should have purchased the Miller farm in total. We hope to build with minimal impact on the land and the environment. Other potential land owners may not be so concerned for the environment.

The Ross's may not understand that windmills have been, until recent years, part of farm life and the farm landscape. Windmills made it possible for farmers to pump water, and at times provide electricity to their homes. Human expansion in America would have been greatly slowed without windmills. There are still a few water pumping windmills on farms in the Penfield/Webster area. The Ross's should realize that by preserving farmland, they are also preserving windmills.

Closing Comments
Thank you for your time. I hope you and the Planning Board can make a determination based on the facts at hand, and not on preconceived fears.

 Sincerely,

Douglas Stockman, MD