5/28/2012 One Turbine = So Much Misery


by Jon Chesto | blogs.wickedlocal.com 26 May 2012 ~~

The white windmill stands silent over Route 28, a nearly 400-foot tall sentry looming over the main drag into town. The turbine, along with its newer partner, will be seen by thousands of people this summer as they trek to Falmouth and Martha’s Vineyard. And few, if any, will know that this windmill is cursed.

Maybe there isn’t a supernatural reason. But how else can you explain all of the windmill’s misadventures?

It’s safe to say Falmouth officials didn’t factor on any curse before deciding to buy the turbine in 2009. And it’s also safe to say that they didn’t predict that Wind 1, as it’s known now, would put their town in the center of a statewide debate over where these kinds of windmills should be located. The problems that have ensued since Wind 1 started spinning in 2010 will certainly weigh on state environmental regulators as they consider whether to adopt new turbine rules.

Wind 1’s cursed history dates all the way back to December 2005, when the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative ordered the Vestas-manufactured turbine and one other for $5.2 million. The purpose was to expedite a municipal wind project in Orleans, with the help of funds collected from Massachusetts ratepayers. The Orleans project eventually fell through in 2007, and the turbines were then slotted for delivery to Fairhaven. But that Fairhaven project didn’t come to fruition, either – at least not with those two Vestas turbines.

And so MTC, whose renewable energy responsibilities are currently handled by the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, faced a dilemma. The agency was blowing through thousands of dollars a month in storage fees for the windmill parts, stored separately in Texas and Canada.

MTC was having problems finding a buyer – or at least a buyer with a location that could be endorsed by the turbines’ manufacturer. Vestas ruled out possible sites in Princeton and Gloucester. The agency considered looking for out-of-state buyers in 2009, even though Massachusetts ratepayers were paying the bills.

MTC didn’t need to take that extreme step. Falmouth acquired Wind 1, installing it next to the town’s wastewater treatment plant. The other Vestas turbine ended up in a nearby industrial park, to be run by Notus Clean Energy LLC. A MassCEC spokeswoman says about $146,000 was spent to warehouse the Wind 1 components for three years.

The bad news should have ended there. But that’s not the way curses work. Almost immediately, neighbors of Wind 1 started reporting symptoms such as tinnitus and sleeplessness. They said they expected a much smaller, less powerful turbine than the 1.65-megawatt beast erected by the town. And they began complaining – loudly.

At first, their complaints were primarily limited to Falmouth’s borders. At one point last spring, in an effort to broker a peace, Falmouth officials agreed to turn Wind 1 off during days with high winds. This was a nice gesture, but it almost defeated the purpose of owning one of these windmills. It would be like agreeing to unplug solar panels on sunny days.

The complaints attracted more attention after a state-appointed task force assembled to study wind turbines’ health impacts released its report in January. The report largely exonerated wind turbines of their sins, but there was an admission that noise from these turbines could cause sleep disruption. The Department of Environmental Protection received hundreds of comments from the public about the report. Of those, DEP spokesman Ed Coletta says, Falmouth was the only significant source of local complaints.

While all this was going on, Falmouth finally got Wind 2, a newer turbine at the wastewater plant, plugged in and spinning. That unsurprisingly rankled Wind 1’s opponents, and prompted even more complaints.

The DEP conducted some nighttime sound tests in March on neighboring properties, and found that the sound from Wind 1 surpassed state limits. Town officials agreed to turn off Wind 1 at night, but then this month decided to take it offline completely until mid-June for more sound tests.

The controversy hasn’t shown any sign of dying. Dozens of residents packed a town meeting room in Falmouth on Thursday night, many of them airing their complaints about the turbines for yet another time.

Coletta says the DEP hasn’t finalized what to do with the task force report. The agency is deciding whether to put new regulations in place, he says, and the numerous concerns raised about Wind 1 in Falmouth will certainly play a role in the outcome.

The public comment period for the report ended before turbines in Kingston and Fairhaven went online this spring, turbines that have also caused concerns among neighbors, Coletta says.

Sue Reid, the Conservation Law Foundation’s Massachusetts director, likes to point to the success stories. Nearly all of the 50-plus utility-grade turbines that have gone up in recent years don’t generate many complaints, she says. And she says supporters outnumbered critics 2-1 in a hearing in Hyannis the other night on the controversial offshore Cape Wind project, which seeks state approval to buy power from NStar. Reid says the backlash from Wind 1 and a few others could put the fate of future turbine projects at risk, projects that would help reduce our need for fossil fuels to keep the lights on.

Wind 1 might seem like it’s just a curse that Falmouth has to bear alone. In reality, though, the fate of that tall, white windmill underscores a broader problem that needs to be addressed – a problem that affects all of us.

5/28/2012 Getting it RIGHT down under: longer setbacks recommended by government health agency

From Australia


By Graham Lloyd, Environment editor,

SOURCE: The Australian | www.theaustralian.com.au

May 28, 2012 

A “growing body of evidence” that wind farm noise could have health effects has prompted Queensland Health to call for caution when approving wind farm developments.

Queensland Health has in effect become the first government health agency to recommend that wind turbines not be built within 2km of homes. In a letter to Tablelands Regional Council, Queensland Health’s director of environmental health, David Sellars, recommended a “precautionary approach” be taken to approval of the proposed $500 million Mount Emerald wind farm near Walkamin on the Atherton Tablelands.

The Mount Emerald application is for up to 80 wind turbine towers, nine of which are within 2km of houses.

Tablelands horticulturalist Steve Lavis said he would like a moratorium on wind farm projects until all noise and health issues had been worked out. Reported symptoms of so-called “wind turbine syndrome” include sleep disturbance, high blood pressure, headaches, tinnitus, dizziness, nausea, a rapid heart rate and panic attacks.

The Queensland Health letter was in response to a request for information from then Tablelands Regional Council deputy mayor Chris Adams.

Mr Sellers said the council had been advised that the Mount Emerald wind farm would meet all noise-level goals.

“Despite the aforementioned findings,” he said, “Queensland Health recommended wind-farm planning applications be carefully considered, given there is a growing body of evidence to suggest there may be adverse health effects associated with the noise generated by wind farms.

“Research into the potential health effects of wind turbines is ongoing and is being undertaken on an international scale.”

Mr Sellars said the National Health and Medical Research Council was reviewing its position on the possible health effects of wind turbines and was aiming to release a public statement by the end of the year.

“Queensland Health would be likely to be guided by the NHMRC statement, resulting from this research,” he said.

“Until such time, Tablelands Regional Council is encouraged to take a precautionary approach to development applications of this type.”

Mr Sellars said the Victorian government’s new planning guidelines, which ban wind turbines within 2km of an existing home, might be considered to be current best practice.

A spokeswoman for the Tablelands council said the Queensland Health advice in wind farms would be considered by planning officers but the council would make no comment.

Mr Adams, who did not stand for re-election at the recent local government elections, said he was grateful for the advice from Queensland Health and would expect council to take note.

“I am not opposed to wind farms but I think there are a number of concerns,” he said.

The advice from Queensland Health reflected health concerns that were being expressed around the world.

Wind farm opponent and Waubra Foundation spokeswoman Sarah Laurie said Queensland Health was “the first health department in Australia to have acknowledged the obvious problems which currently exist”.

“We again call for governments to ensure that infra-sound and low-frequency acoustic pollution is measured – independently of the wind industry – both inside and outside homes and workplaces at existing wind developments, where people are sick,” Ms Laurie said.

The Mount Emerald wind farm is being proposed by RATCH-Australia Corporation, a Ratchaburi Holdings and Transfield Services company. The company said current estimates suggested the wind farm would produce enough clean energy to provide the annual power needs of more than 75,000 North Queensland homes.

A RATCH-Australia spokesman was not available to comment on the Queensland Health letter yesterday.

Mr Lavis said human health issues were not his only concern with the wind farm proposal.

He was also worried about the impact on the region’s banana industry, which relied on aerial spraying that would not be possible within 5km of wind turbine towers.

“All of Australia’s bananas are grown within 200km of here,” he said. “There is no way you can control the diseases without aerial spraying because of the wet season and the inability to get to the crop with a tractor,” he said.

5/26/12 Big trouble in little Falmouth: First hand accounts of living with wind turbines

Edward Hobart of Blacksmith Shop Road described his wife’s chronic migraines and sleep disturbance that resulted in her sleeping in the basement. “We cannot sleep in the house because it’s agony,” he said. The couple now plans to move from their home, he said.

Paul B. Tarr of Ambleside Drive described headaches, severe nausea, similar to seasickness, and an inability to stay focused as a result of living near the wind turbines.


SOURCE: The Enterprise | www.capenews.net

By Brent Runyon,

May 25 2012

An overflow crowd of more than 80 people packed the selectmen’s meeting room at Falmouth Town Hall last night to give and hear testimony about the impact to the health of residents who live near the largest wind turbines in Falmouth.

A total of 30 residents gave testimony about a range of problems, including sleep disturbance, depression, abnormal heart rhythms, ringing in the ears, weight gain, and the increased stress, anxiety, irritability and anger they attribute to their proximity to the town-owned Wind 1 and Wind 2 turbines, the privately owned Notus Clean Energy turbine and the Woods Hole Research Center turbine.

The board of health did not make any decisions last night and will continue to accept written testimony until May 31. All of the testimony will be sent to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, “both with a sense of urgency, and with the provision for department personnel to further investigate this issue,” said chairman of the Falmouth Board of Health Gail A. Harkness.

While the testimony given at the Falmouth hearing is public, Ms. Harkness said the Department of Public Health can keep health information confidential. Nearly all of the residents who testified said they would give more detailed descriptions of their health problems, but felt they could not because of the public forum.

The tone of the evening was subdued as residents spoke quietly into the microphone at the lectern to the board of health, as other residents, State Representative Timothy Madden (D-Nantucket), Falmouth Town Manager Julian M. Suso, Selectman David Braga, a news crew from WBZ-TV, the CBS affiliate in Boston and other people from as far away as Saugus and Kingston, Rhode Island, listened. The testimony was so quiet at times that about half of the speakers were told to speak directly into the microphone so the audience could hear them.

Dr. Harkness opened the hearing by showing off a gavel that she said, “in its previous life had been a meat tenderizer,” but she never used it to quiet the crowd. The only unruly moment of the night was when Joanne M. Vannah from the Saugus Alternative Energy Committee repeatedly attempted to make a statement about wind turbines in her community. Dr. Harkness ruled her out of order, and the other members of the board and the audience shouted at Ms. Vannah until she sat down.

Residents described a range of health problems they attributed to living near the wind turbines.

“There is no getting accustomed to the noise from these machines,” said Diane C. Funfar of Ridgeview Drive who lives 1,662 feet from Wind 1 and 1,558 feet from Wind 2, which are sited at the town wastewater treatment plant on Blacksmith Shop Road. Both turbines are Vestas 1.65-megawatt models that stand 262 feet at the hub. Ms. Funfar described eye problems she believed are caused by the turbines. She has worn contact lenses for 42 years, she said.

When Wind 1 started two years ago, she said, “I began having eye discharge, eye irritability and headaches, which have worsened with time.” When she has traveled, she said her eye problems cleared up.

Ms. Funfar also described the effects on her husband, Barry A. Funfar, a Vietnam veteran who has post traumatic stress disorder and whose symptoms had been getting better. After the wind turbine started, she said, “I witnessed his decline, with his worsening irritability, anger, drinking, and severe depression, and he again became difficult to live with.”

“We are suffering and need relief,” she said. “Please help us return to and enjoy the peace and tranquility we once had in our home. Please turn these tortuous machines off.”

John J. Ford of Blacksmith Shop Road also described a high level of stress and disturbance. “My life has not been the same since the three 1.65-megawatt industrial wind turbines have been operating,” he said. “I felt tortured.”

“While prior to the wind turbine installations I had the luxury of excellent health, I am currently depressed as well as fatigued and now deal with high blood pressure and an elevated level of triglycerides,” he said.

“Headaches, earaches, anxiety, stress and anger are just some of the physical and mental maladies of this human being that stands before you,” Mr. Ford said. “Waking at night with labored breathing and a pounding chest are common occurrences. Getting back to sleep is very difficult. Adding acoustical windows to my bedroom to eliminate the noise has not worked. Bouts of unannounced vertigo are experienced while at home. Interestingly, I do not experience these symptoms when I am away from the turbines.”

Neil P. Andersen of Blacksmith Shop Road, who also spoke for his wife and daughter, described a constant and monotonous ringing in the ears that is exacerbated by other sounds. “Something as simple as the microwave buzzing has us blocking our ears,” he said.

“My wife and I have aged over five years in the past two years,” he said. “Our lives are in your hands.” He said he knows of at least six Town of Falmouth employees and board members who are experiencing negative health effects from the wind turbines, but who will not come forward unless their testimony is kept confidential.

Mary Zawoysky of Ransom Road, the only resident who spoke about the turbine at the Woods Hole Research Center on Woods Hole Road, described an unusual phenomenon, in which she felt her heart beat at irregular rhythms. She attributed the cause to the low frequency waves from the wind turbine. She said she also has chronic sleep disturbances related to the turbine.

Edward Hobart of Blacksmith Shop Road described his wife’s chronic migraines and sleep disturbance that resulted in her sleeping in the basement. “We cannot sleep in the house because it’s agony,” he said. The couple now plans to move from their home, he said.

Paul B. Tarr of Ambleside Drive described headaches, severe nausea, similar to seasickness, and an inability to stay focused as a result of living near the wind turbines.

Other residents identified sleep disturbance as the primary problem with the turbines. Madeline Tundidor of Brush Hill Circle lives near the Notus Clean Energy turbine in Falmouth Technology Park, owned by Daniel H. Webb. “It’s like a fleet of planes continually over my house,” she said. “It’s not easy to go to sleep,” Ms. Tundidor said.

Robert J. Sagerman of Deer Pond Road said he lives about a mile from the Notus Clean Energy and is awoken by the “whoosh whoosh” sound when the wind blows from the north or northwest. “It is a distinct sound that is annoying and makes it difficult to go back to sleep.”

Sharon P. Eddy of Blacksmith Shop Road who lives near Wind 1 also described sleep disturbances, along with ringing in her ears and a pressure in her head. She said she has left her house four times to recover from the feelings.

Mark J. Cool of Fire Tower Road, an air traffic controller for 32 years, described the sleep disturbances he experienced over the past two years. Recently, he said, two planes he was controlling nearly collided. His lack of concentration from the sleep disturbances may have affected his decision-making, he said.

Loretta O’Brien of Blacksmith Shop Road, who lives near the Notus turbine, said the turbine has affected her mental, emotional and physical health. Most of her problems stem from being awoken by the turbine; that has disrupted her work and decreased her ability to concentrate.

Todd A. Drummey of Blacksmith Shop Road also described sleep disturbances, headaches, stress and anger related to the turbines. He said other residents would not come forward because they feared being harassed by other members of the community.

Other residents described various ways the turbines had disturbed their daily routines and schedules. Jill V. Worthington of Blacksmith Shop Road, who lives near the Notus turbine and Wind 1, said she has had trouble concentrating and forced herself to play Sudoku to focus. As a result, she said she plays Sudoku more often and feels she cannot take time to relax her mind.

Charles E. Eastman Jr. of Ambleside Drive said Wind 2 “looms over the neighborhood and is very ‘dissettling.’ ”

Paul Koh from Blacksmith Shop Road lives near the Notus turbine and described a video he has of the turbine creating interference on his television set. Mr. Koh is a 19-year-old Upper Cape Cod Regional Technical School graduate, who attends the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. He said his father, who sleeps on the side of the house closer to the turbine, is bothered by sleep disturbances.

Kelley T. Souza of Blacksmith Shop Road said she initially said the proximity of the wind turbines did not bother her, but now said she feels that the turbines are affecting her entire family.

Linda H. Ohkagawa of West Falmouth Highway lives near Wind 2 and described changes to her mood. “I have reportedly become irritable,” she said.

One resident gave testimony that the turbines does not bother him. Paul C. Lorusso of Blacksmith Shop Road, who lives about 2,000 feet from the Notus turbine, said the wind turbines do not affect him or his family. “I can honestly say I have had no sleep issues,” he said. “It’s not problematic and it’s really not an issue.” Initially, when the turbines went up, he marveled at how tall they were, but he said, “they just became part of the landscape.” There is some flicker effect on his home, he said, but he added some shades, which alleviated the problem.

Terri L. Pentifallo-Drummey of Blacksmith Shop Road said she is a neighbor of Mr. Lorusso, and said the topography of the land around their houses plays a role in how they experience the turbines. Because her home is on top of the hill, and his is below the tree line, their experiences vary greatly, she said.

After the testimony, Rep. Madden said he will help the town in any way he can. “My goal is to help the town. If there’s anything I can do,” he said. “We’re here to help.”

4/31/12 Fiddling with wind power while the earth burns


By Eric Niiler,

SOURCE Discovery News, news.discovery.com

April 29, 2012

New research finds that wind farms actually warm up the surface of the land underneath them during the night, a phenomena that could put a damper on efforts to expand wind energy as a green energy solution.

Researchers used satellite data from 2003 to 2011 to examine surface temperatures across as wide swath of west Texas, which has built four of the world’s largest wind farms. The data showed a direct correlation between night-time temperatures increases of 0.72 degrees C (1.3 degrees F) and the placement of the farms.

“Given the present installed capacity and the projected growth in installation of wind farms across the world, I feel that wind farms, if spatially large enough, might have noticeable impacts on local to regional meteorology,” Liming Zhou, associate professor at the State University of New York, Albany and author of the paper published April 29 in Nature Climate Change said in an e-mail to Discovery News.

Analysts say wind power is a good complement to solar power, because winds often blow more strongly at night while solar power is only available during daytime hours. But Zhou and his colleagues found that turbulence behind the wind turbine blades stirs up a layer of cooler air that usually settles on the ground at night, and mixes in warm air that is on top.

That layering effect is usually reversed during the daytime, with warm air on the surface and cooler air higher up.”The year-to-year land surface temperature over wind farms shows a persistent upward trend from 2003 to 2011, consistent with the increasing number of operational wind turbines with time,” Zhou said.

FAA data shows that the number of wind turbines over the study region has risen from 111 in 2003 to 2358 in 2011, according to the study.The warming could hurt local farmers, who have already suffered through a killer drought over the past few years. Texas agriculture contributes $80 billion to the state’s economy, second only to petrochemicals, according to the Texas Department of Agriculture.

West Texas is a dry area that uses irrigation to grow wheat, cotton and other crops, as well as raise cattle. But increased warming can play havoc with plant growth, as well as change local rainfall patterns.

Texas wind farms produce more than 10,000 megawatts of electricity, more than double the capacity of the nearest state, Iowa, and enough to power three million average American homes, according to the American Wine Energy Association.

One solution could be to change the shape of the turbine blades, according to John Dabiri, director of the Center for Bioinspired Wind Energy at the California Institute of Technology who is an expert on wind power design.

“Smaller turbines can avoid this problem,” Dabiri said. “However, this presents a tradeoff, because wind speed decreases as you move closer to the ground; so the smaller turbines would experience lower incoming wind speeds on average.”

That means a smaller turbine makes less power.

Dabiri said Zhou’s findings may mean taking a second look at the trade-offs with renewable energy. “It shows that we need to think carefully about the unintended environmental consequences of any large-scale energy development,” Dabiri said, “including green technologies.”

Zhou cautioned that his study used satellite data, which can have errors from clouds, for example, rather than temperature readings taken at the surface. He said he hopes to improve his dataset, and look at wind farms in other parts of the world.

Posted on Monday, April 30, 2012 at 12:11PM by Registered CommenterThe BPRC Research Nerd | Comments Off

4/25/12 Another one bites the dust AND Different state, same nightmare: wind developers pushing for 1000 foot setbacks from 500 foot turbines


Source WANE, www.wane.com

April 24 2012 

A wind turbine in Paulding County, Ohio has been badly damaged.

According to a spokesman with EDP Renewables, the turbine, which is located near Payne, had two of its blades sheared early Tuesday afternoon.

Representatives from EDP Renewables have closed the site, which is known as Timber Road II and said no one was injured by the falling debris.

That particular turbine was completed in 2010 and is still under warranty by its manufacturer Vestas which is conducting their own investigation.

EDP is monitoring other turbines in the area for any signs of fatigue or damage.

NewsChannel 15 received several pictures a damaged turbine in Paulding County. We’ve added them to this story.

Kimberly Troth sent  pictures using NewsChannel 15 Report!t tool.

Kimberly Troth sent pictures using NewsChannel 15 Report!t tool.

Polly Scott sent this photo of damaged blades on a windmill using Report!t

Polly Scott sent this photo of damaged windmill blades using Report!t

An anonymous viewer sent in this picture of a damaged windmill using Report!t


New York State


By Chris Hoffman,

Source: Madison County Courier, www.madisoncountycourier.com

April 25, 2012 

The crowd at the Public Hearing before the Town of Madison Planning Board nearly filled the 350-seat auditorium at Madison Central School on April 18. The hearing opened at 7 p.m. and more than 40 local residents read comments until almost 10:30 p.m.

Comments were overwhelmingly opposed to the project, with only 7 in favor, most of whom were members of the Stone Family who live near the existing windmills on Stone Road and who stated they have experienced no adverse affects. Several speakers subsequently pointed out, however, that comparing the two projects is meaningless because of the difference in size, scope, and siting.

The proposed wind farm would site 36 turbines within and around a residential area that contains over 150 homes, with each turbine nearly 500 feet tall and within setbacks of 1,000 feet from existing homes. Additionally, the proposed turbines are a new model with no track record, as they have never been used anywhere in the country.

Speakers represented a broad demographic spectrum – people who have lived here since they were young children; people who relocated here to get away from industrialization and overcrowding; fourth generation farmers and new farmers; business owners with past experience in the energy and construction industries; homeowners who have lived here for decades and built or bought their homes because of the proximity to a serene natural environment.

Many speakers addressed specific sections of the draft Generic Environmental Statement (dGEIS) submitted to the Planning Board for review, pointing out numerous flaws and inadequacies. Jane Welsh stated that the Planning Board should never have accepted the dGEIS for review because it is incomplete as it stands, and should have been returned to the developer for corrections.

Laura Wilson of Hamilton Village Real Estate and Sue Martin of Martin Realty both spoke to the “blatant inadequacy” of the section in the dGEIS concerning real property values, which sites a 2009 report that states, “neither the view of the wind facilities nor the distance of the home to those facilities is found to have any consistent, measurable, and statistically significant effect on home sales prices.” Both Wilson and Martin, who have more than 50 years of combined experience in the local real estate market, cited studies and data that refuted this conclusion, and termed the report relied on by the dGEIS as fatally flawed and outdated.

Bob Albrecht spoke of childhood memories of growing up on Thayer Road, where he and his brother Carl used to play in the woods among the trees, trees that he has always referred to as the “Witness Trees,” because they have been there so long that they bear witness to the generations of families who live in this area, noting that “individuals have a reasonable expectation to the quiet enjoyment of their homes.”

Eve Ann Shwartz spoke on behalf of the Hamilton Town Council.

“The Hamilton Town Council believes that the proposed project would violate Town of Hamilton laws adopted to protect our citizens from the negative impact of improperly planned windpower projects,” Shwartz said. “With the currently proposed siting, Hamilton properties bordering on the Madison town line may be subject to quality of life impingements and health concerns such as flicker effect and noise pollution. The Town of Madison’s current regulations and buffers are not as protective as those provided under the Town of Hamilton’s zoning.”

“While we understand that the Town of Madison’s laws control the development of land in Madison, we believe that the siting of wind farms is a unique type of land use,” she added. “Because wind turbines can be seen for many miles and the noise they generate and the shadows they create can extend for thousands of feet, their impacts can extend beyond town boundaries. We respectfully request that you honor the intent of our laws and modify the siting of the proposed project.”

Shwartz also addressed the potential impact on property values.

“The proposed project is sited within one mile of 92 properties in the Town of Hamilton, covering 1,807 acres with an assessed value of $8,716,400,” Shwartz said. “According to numerous studies, wind turbine projects have a negative impact on nearby property values. A recent study of more than 11,000 property transactions in Franklin, Clinton, and Lewis Counties found an average reduction in value of 7-15 percent for properties located within one mile of wind turbine projects. Owners of these 92 properties will experience a collective loss of value ranging from $610,148 to $1,307,460. The Town of Hamilton will likewise see its tax base eroded by the same amounts, resulting in lower property tax and sales tax revenues.”

Shwartz requested that the Town of Madison demand larger setbacks from properties located within the Town of Hamilton.

Additionally, Shwartz requested that any PILOT payments going to the Town of Madison be shared proportionally with the Town of Hamilton, “to reflect that portion of our town residents with impacted viewscapes, and that the PILOTS be increased to $7,500/MW in order to compensate Town of Hamilton taxpayers for the loss of property values.”

Town of Madison Supervisor Ron Bono stepped up to the microphone about midway through the evening. The room went silent, waiting to hear what Bono would say. He said, “After taking the trip to Hardscrabble Wind Farm in Fairfield last Sunday, and seeing windmills in every direction, I now want to see the size and number of these proposed windmills reduced, as I do not want to change the landscape of Madison.” The crowd erupted in applause.

The Town of Madison Planning Board will continue to accept written comments on the dGEIS until 5 pm on Friday, May 18. Written comments will be given the same consideration as oral comments made at the public hearing, and may be submitted by mail (certified mail is recommended) to the Town of Madison Planning Board, P. O. Box 66, Madison, NY 13402. After the comment period ends on May 18, the Planning Board has 30 days to review all comments.

The dGEIS is available online at http://madisonmatters.org/dgeis/, where it has been divided into individual chapters and appendices for easier viewing.

Chris Hoffman is a freelance reporter for the Madison County Courier.