To All Concerned Residents of Barre

To All Concerned Residents of Barre:

In response to the application filed by Apex, the Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment sent them a letter identifying seventeen problems they had to fix before the application could move forward to formal consideration.

How can it be the case that a huge company like Apex, who employs many lawyers, submits an application so badly written that the Electric Generation Siting board finds seventeendeficiencies in it that have to be fixed before the application can even be considered? Don’t all these lawyers between them have the competency to fill out an application? The experience Apex boasts of having in this area would suggest they shouldn’t be making these mistakes.

We would like to explain and discuss the many problems with their application here for you to understand.

Problem 1) As part of the application Apex was supposed to submit a map that showed all properties that would contain a major component of electrical generating equipment or related equipment, and any other properties within 2,000 feet of those properties, properly labeled with the tax parcel number and owner of each property. However, the Maple St. and Oak Orchard Road parcel numbers are missing. Either it was left out deliberately, or they did shoddy research.

Problem 2) The application is supposed to include a map of the existing zoning districts and proposed zoning districts within the affected area of the project, including what is and isn’t permitted in each zone. However, the map they submitted completely left out the Town of Barre in spite of the fact that we are the host of these proposed turbines. The application goes on to claim that Wind energy generation is allowed in any of the town’s zoning districts as long as they have the correct permits, but they only identify the requirements for one of the three districts they mention

Problem 3) The application has different widths listed for the access roads in the site plan drawings and the decommissioning plans creating an unresolved inconsistency. This is par for the course with Apex, whose proposals are typically not well defined or easy to understand.

Problem 4) The setbacks for turbines from occupied structures are inconsistent with the height of the turbines. This being one of the primary concerns of the residents of Barre, this should be very well laid out in the plans. Also, the setbacks should be from the property lines, and not from the edge of the occupied structures. The law states that nobody can build anything within the potential fall zone of the turbine which is twice its height or more. If someone else’s turbine is on the edge of their land up against the edge of your land, then you will lose the right to build anything in the area where the windmill may fall. Once Apex has an agreement in place, they will request right of way permits, which will give them the right to use your land even if you do not have a turbine lease on your property.

Problem 5) The drawings in the application do not include the necessary local setbacks related to the proposed collection substation, Point of Interconnection switchyard, and Operations & Maintenance building. Was this omission deliberate to keep the people from realizing how close to their homes the high voltage equipment would be placed?

Problem 6) The citing board states that architectural drawings for the collector substation are missing the necessary elevation views throughout the application. Also, the application doesn’t have architectural drawings for the POI (Point of interconnection) switchyard. Was this another deliberate omission?

Problem 7) The design drawings for underground and overhead power collection circuits contain NONE of the necessary details regarding Right of Way, limits of disturbance, anticipated depth and level of cover, clearing with limits for construction and operation of the facility and elevations for overhead facilities and transmission lines, structure layouts, span lengths and separation requirements. Right of way are usually requested after the signing of the agreement with the host community, therefore the town will grant right of way in order to keep the project going, which will leave residents who do not have a lease with Apex having no say over who can or cannot come on their property for the purposes of the project.

Problem 8) The citing board states that the application requires that the owners of record for all parcels included within the facility site and for all adjacent properties must be provided, but this was not done. Why were the names of the lease holders and the owners of adjacent properties left off? This is quite the omission and the idea that it is an accident is laughable.

Problem 9) The application requires that Apex must include the results of a literature review on any public health and safety concerns associated with potential ‘blade throw’ and tower collapse. The relevant exhibit (#15) in the application does not report on manufacturer recommendations or local requirements for this issue. How could one omit the manufacturer recommendations?

Problem 10) The application requires that Apex must include sound power level information from the manufacturers of the turbines, however this information was not included with the application. One of the primary concerns surrounding wind turbine projects is infra-sound, therefore this is an alarming omission.

Problem 11) The application requires that Apex must include the full Archeological Phase 1B report, which they failed to do. They only included a summary. Was this omitted because of the possibility of Indian grave sites?

Problem 12) The application requires that Apex must identify and evaluate reasonable mitigation measures regarding the impact of blasting and the use of alternative technologies or structures, and a plan for compensating people for damages that may occur from blasting. No alternate technologies were described and no plan for compensating individuals for blasting damage was described. The blasting locations were also not concisely described. A plan for compensating people for damages incurred by blasting is essential before any work can be allowed to begin.

Problem 13) The application requires a map, based on publicly available information, that shows all areas of the study that impact groundwater. However, the map supplied by Apex does not show groundwater flow direction as required. Their map is also required to be parcel-based for the purposes of showing the locations of public and private water supply wells, which it does not do. Without a properly conducted water flow study this could result in wells running dry or crops not getting enough water or the loss of wetlands

Problem 14) The application requires that Apex identify the nearest downstream drinking-water supply intake to the facility site, or specifically state that they take the position that no surface water intakes would be adversely impact, which they did not do. We need a statement from Apex as to where they think the nearest drinking water supply intake is so that we as citizens can verify what they are telling us.

Problem 15) The application requires Apex to propose various ways of reducing the visual impact of construction on the area, including a simulation that illustrates how the mitigation will be prepared for the observation points where it is proposed to go in. Apex proposes to reduce the visual contrast with some form of perimeter plantings, but no simulation was provided for this planting so the board could not be clear on what they are proposing to do. We will need to see how Apex intends to reduce the visual impact of their construction before we can make an informed decision about their project and any potential damage to the native environment.

Problem 16) The application requires Apex to provide a summary of their consultations with relevant emergency service providers (first responders and helicopter rescue etc…), which they did not do. Why was a summary omitted? It is extremely important to establish that Apex is prepared to deal with emergency situations as they may arise. The turbines cannot simply be allowed to burn if a fire takes place because this could easily wipe out an entire field and endanger the surrounding residents.

Problem 17) The application requires Apex to list all of the requests they anticipate making to the Board for the purposes of their project. Apex states that they anticipate requesting the Siting Board to authorize NYSDOT to issue “over-sized vehicle permits, highway work permits, and other ministerial permits associated with road work in State highways or rights-of-ways.” However, this statement in the application does not clearly state what exactly Apex intends to ask for, which it must do. We will need specific details about where, when and what type of vehicles are to be used before this request can be evaluated as to whether or not it is in the interest of the town to grant it. We need to know what hours these oversized vehicles will be operating, how much greenhouse gas we can expect them to dump into our air, and the total number of vehicle miles traveled on our roads. Apex’s failure to disclose this crucial information shows blatant disregard for the host community and their indifference to committing a huge environmental injustice.

            We are extremely concerned that a supposedly expert Wind Turbine firm like Apex could have so many problems and inconsistencies in their Article 10 application. Aren’t they supposed to have done this before? Several of the problems involve a failure to include the owners of land parcels, property setbacks, and even a failure to include our town in their map of affected zoning districts! They didn’t include technical information from the turbine manufacturers about windmill collapse or blade throw and they left out the technical information on sound power levels. They didn’t include a plan to compensate people for damage to their property from blasting and they didn’t bother to specify their Right of Way requirements or conversations with emergency services. Apex is simply not prepared. With all these inconsistencies can the residents of Barre really trust Apex to honor their agreements?

Just for the information of the Residents of the Town of Barre, the town supervisor and town attorney made some changes to the Town of Barre wind laws and took them to the Orleans County legislature board for presentation. However, they were not given permission by the board of the Town of Barre to do this. The information was not even given to the Barre town board members until an hour before the Barre town board meeting on Wednesday, August 12th 2020. They did not have time to read these changes or discuss them but the town supervisor pressured them to pass them anyway. It was refreshing to see that the board rejected this pressure and requested a workshop meeting to discuss the changes before voting on them. It would be good if the town Board of Barre registered an official reaction to two recent independent surveys, one conducted by Mr. McKenna and the other conducted by Citizens for a Better Barre. Both surveys overwhelmingly reported that the residents of the Town of Barre do not want the windmills to be constructed. A petition presented by Ms. Swan showing between 200 and 250 residents supporting the windmills consisted mostly of leaseholders and their family members. We ask the board to represent the majority of residents within the Town of Barre and not just the vested interests of a relative few.


-Alexander Nacca

For any questions contact 585-283-4576

Town Board Meeting: 9/9/20

Town Board Meeting 9-9-20

*Municipal meetings are never edited*- Approve water payment- Bills / Budget Review / covering checks- Water district questions- Minutes / COVID hearing- Water district 9- Hidden resolutions- Wind ordinance- Next board meeting October 14 at 7 PM- September 17 at 7 PM – Elected officials only meeting at Library- Fire company: Re-paving parking lot, 2 proposals- Violation letter of vacant lot- Review of previous workshop- Public hearing September 30, held where many people can attend at 6:30 PM, will check on a call-in option- Columbus day workshop?- Workshop at 5 PM on October 14, before the Town Board meeting- Budgets for Townline and Highway- New signs at park, 3 fences and pavilion, expressing COVID standards- Building permits & dog licensing- Increase in land value- Reading of letter about highway crew: thanks!- Reading of letter about living residence / windmill project- Point of view of townspeople

Gepostet von Know Your Facts USA am Donnerstag, 10. September 2020

*Municipal meetings are never edited*

– Approve water payment

– Bills / Budget Review / covering checks

– Water district questions

– Minutes / COVID hearing

– Water district 9

– Hidden resolutions

– Wind ordinance

– Next board meeting October 14 at 7 PM

– September 17 at 7 PM – Elected officials only meeting at Library

– Fire company: Re-paving parking lot, 2 proposals

– Violation letter of vacant lot

– Review of previous workshop

– Public hearing September 30, held where many people can attend at 6:30 PM, will check on a call-in option

– Columbus day workshop?

– Workshop at 5 PM on October 14, before the Town Board meeting

– Budgets for Townline and Highway

– New signs at park, 3 fences and pavilion, expressing COVID standards

– Building permits & dog licensing

– Increase in land value

– Reading of letter about highway crew: thanks!

– Reading of letter about living residence / windmill project

– Point of view of townspeople

Town of Barre Workshop – 8/19/2020

**Meetings are never edited. 3 hour cut off mark caused a reset in recording, resulting in a small gap in presentation**

Recommendations made & research done considered for town revision of “wind law”

Many factors taken into consideration

87% of what we got back from the town does not want change

63-72% opposed if 100% of Barre responds

No more questions about the surveys

Research done in 2018 about the turbines

Review of the phases

More wind turbine discussions

Shadow flicker hours? Reduction to 25 hours

Construction hours? Monday thru Saturday from 6 AM – 8 PM, with exceptions of cement pouring

Cutting hours takes longer, but plan allows for quiet Sundays

Wavier – Maybe grated? Yes.

Review of the final 5 pages

Recommendations made & research done considered for town revision of “wind law”

Many factors taken into consideration

87% of what we got back from the town does not want change

63-72% opposed if 100% of Barre responds

No more questions about the surveys

Research done in 2018 about the turbines

Review of the phases

More wind turbine discussions

Shadow flicker hours? Reduction to 25 hours

Construction hours? Monday thru Saturday from 6 AM – 8 PM, with exceptions of cement pouring

Cutting hours takes longer, but plan allows for quiet Sundays

Wavier – Maybe grated? Yes.

Review of the final 5 pages

**Meetings are never edited. 3 hour cut off mark caused a reset in recording, resulting in a small gap in…

Gepostet von Know Your Facts USA am Montag, 31. August 2020

Town Board Meeting 7/8/2020

**Municipal meetings are never edited** 1:20 Clarification on intervenor funding and wind ordinance
13:47 Minutes
14:15 Next Board Meeting scheduled for August 12th Will take place in the court room with limited number of people, social distance and facial masks requirements, which may change based on the requirements in that moment
16:30 Wind district 10
16:50 Wind district 9
17:39 Budget transfers for new business
18:20 Public wifi during COVID19
public wifi has been installed in front of the building No password needed, anyone can access from the parking lot- search “Barre Hotspot”
21:15 Harrassment Discrimination training requirement
23:20 New working document on wind law
33:38 Finance
34:30 Park
36:30 Updates
37:53 Planning Board
40:10 Park guidlines and protocols for Little League Practicing and activities Signs to be posted in front of the park- encouraging social distance and wearing facial masks
44:10 Agreement on allocation of funding
56:30 Reopening of court chamber
58:30 Letters

Town of Barre Workshop 6/17/2020

**Municipal meetings are never edited**
*Background noise is possible, due to at-home recordings*
Phone call disconnected at 40 minutes, re-connected shortly afterward

Changes made today / 23 hours ago
Stated a year ago that no changes were to be made
Noise concerns at resident’s homes, analysis of sounds
More sound discussions, keeping decibels above or below a certain point
Proper care of the residents
Planning Board: Next Thursday 6/25/20
July 23: County Planning Board Meeting
Town Board: July 8, phone meeting for everybody
Submit forms before July 1, if possible
Still continuing phone call meetings

Town of Barre Workshop: 5/27/2020

*Municiple Meeeting are never edited*

Topics Discussed:
This Workshop was focused on the topic of the wind energy project.
Details covered within discussion were:
– Possible danger to health of residents of Barre with the addition of the wind towers.
– Town of Barre wants to move forward and encourage wind energy for economic boost to the town. And move forward with certain guidelines and regulations.
– Is the Comprehensive Plan being followed?
– 350:96 Legislative Authority
– Section A – Grammatical errors
– Article 10 vs. Aritcle 23 : when will one go and one be implemented.
– What is a large project and what is a small project under this plan?
– Who will participate and what buildings or residences will qualify?
– 350:99 – Wind Energy Overlay Zone
– 350:100 – Zoning
– Referendum to zoning – should the residents vote?
– 350:101 – Application and waiver
– Change to the setback placement?
– 350:121
– 15A #6 Decommissioning – Removal of Structures and debris
– 16 – Lifespan of the project

Next Workshop is June 17th at 6pm

Letter to Barre Residents

May 10, 2020

Hello Fellow Residents of Barre,

I am getting tired of some board members and another individual at the town meetings saying that the majority of the Barre’s residents support the wind turbine project due to the election results. The election was *not* a referendum on the turbine project. The results of the survey and petitions demonstrate that equating the election with approval of the turbine project would be false. Copies of the survey cards and petition were sent to the NYS Sitting Board to be made part of the official record and they can be viewed online at:

Is it not time that we put a stop to this project due to the health risks it may pose to our residents? Haven’t we as a community already seen enough death and devastation from the coronavirus? We know the turbines will affect the appearance of our serene and tranquil surroundings and have a negative impact on the wildlife. Are your politicians going to gamble with your health for a few dollars? WIND TURBINE SYNDROME is real. Please call or write the Siting Board your senator, and the state legislatures to tell them that you do not want this project. IT IS NOW UP TO EACH RESIDENT IN COMMUNITY TO VOICE HIS AND HER OPION –NOT JUST THE LEASE HOLDERS AND THEIR FAMILIES!!! *note address of where to write or call-Help Your Politicians Make the Right Decision

Please take note of the below facts and figures related to the Industrial Wind Turbine Project:

Town of Barre has about 2000 residents

Election Results: Not just about the Heritage Wind Project


Sean Pogue -377– 56%

Gerald Solazzo- 282– 42%

Total Votes: 675

Town Councilperson

Margaret Swan- 319– 24%

Kerri Richardson- 304– 23%

Cindy Burnside- 279– 21%

LuAnn Tierney- 248– 18%

Brad Driesel-109–8%


1. Town Survey conducted in regards to the Heritage Wind Project

290 surveys Accepted

44% Supportive

39% Opposed

8 % Neutral

7% Need More Information

2. Citizens for a Better Barre- Post Card Canvas Total: 538

Supportive- 25– 5%

Opposed- 425– 79%

Number not sure 14– 3%

Number refusing to commit- 29–5%

Number who moved- 41- 8%

NOTE: Canvas did not include Town Board members or individuals who have leases

3. A petition to stop the turbine project was also circulated in Barre New York with a few people not living in Barre who sign it because they would be affected due to their location. Over 500 signatures were gathered and given to the Orleans Legislature.

4. Individuals have attended Town Board meetings and shared that they chose to move from our community, due to the potential construction of industrial wind turbines.

Mr. Rivers

Please post to letters to the editor in the Hub

Alex Nacca 4285 Oak Orchard Road –Albion- New York 14411

Phone 585-283-4576


Everyone call or write a note and inform your elected officials of your desires!

Secretary Burgess at New York State Board on Electric Generation

Siting and Environment

Three Empire State Plaza

Albany, New York 12223-1350


Barre Town Hall

14317 West Barre Road

Albion New York 14411

Orleans Hub

170 North Main Street

Albion, New York 14411

Att: Mr. Tom Rivers, Editor

Senator Robert G. Ortt

Albany Office

Room 815

Legislative Office Building

Albany, New York 12247

Phone 518-455-2024 Joe contact

Fax 518-426-6987

Robert Welch Bob contact 716-434-0680 for local office

Senator Robert G. Ortt

District Office

175 Walnut Street

Suite 6

Lockport New York 14094

Phone 716-434-0680 Email ORTT@NYSENATE.GOV


Assemblyman Steve Hawley

121 N. Main Street

Suite 100

Albion New York 14411

Phone 585-589-5780

Town Workshop 4-29-2020

*municipal meetings are never edited*

The first 15 minutes were not able to be captured.

Agenda Items discussed:

– Property taxes were discussed, a public hearing will be needed.

– Sound level ordinances discussed

– It will have to be decided who are the participated residents are vs the non-participating regarding the sound ordinance

Town Workshop Meeting 4-22-2020

*municipal meetings are never edited*

Agenda Items discussed:

– An article will be posted in the Batavia Daily News regarding upcoming workshops to discuss revising the local wind ordinances for the town.

– The meetings are planned to be on Wednesday at 6pm on April 29th, May 6th, and May 13th. Look at the article for more information.

– The meeting was based around wind ordinances being updated to reflect the latest recommendations from the wind turbine companies.

– The new ordinances would be put in place to accommodate new technology and data found in modern wind turbines as the old ordinances may be outdated and constructed based on old data and tech from years ago when wind turbine tech was newer.

– The main recommendation is to increase the height of the turbines. This would be to produce more electricity more efficiently based on the wind patterns of the local region.

– 500ft tall may no longer a practical limitation which is the current ordinance. The wind turbine companies recommend higher (700ft +) to catch the wind to produce more electricity and make the windmills worth the cost.

– In addition to this the safety area around each turbine will have to be increased to accommodate the higher height. (1300 ft or more?)