By JIM AUSTIN
Cooperstown Crier
CHERRY VALLEY — Cherry
Valley Supervisor Tom Garretson
met with the town’s Renewable
and Alternative Energy Committee
Tuesday night to continue the
discussion of an East Hill wind
farm.
``I basically gave them some direction,’’
Garretson said. ``Right
now it’s exploratory — a fact-finding
mission.’’
In December Garretson announced
his interest in ``revisiting’’
a wind farm on the windy
hilltop almost exactly two years
after the adoption of a local ordinance
with stringent setback requirements
short circuited Reunion
Power’s plan to site 23
turbines there.
Garretson said Reunion Power
is still interested in working with
the Town of Cherry Valley on a
project. Reunion’s leases with
landowners are still active.
According to Garretson, Reunion
speculated that the number
of turbines for such a project
might be somewhere between 15
and 20.
Another key to a successful
project is the tie-in to get the electricity
generated by the turbines
into the power grid. That tie-in is
still available to handle the power,
Garretson said.
One of the next steps for the
committee will involve talking to
property owners on East Hill
whose land was not targeted for
turbines. Committee members
plan to talk with landowners to
see if it would be possible to negotiate
a solution that would allow
siting the turbines on East Hill.
``This will allow us to see the
actual size of the playing field
available for a project,’’ Garretson
said.
The committee will also be
gathering information from other
towns around the state about
their wind turbine ordinances
and the setbacks from residences,
property lines and roads.
``I just want to see where we
are,’’ Garretson said.
When first adopted, the setbacks
in Cherry Valley’s wind ordinance
were among the longest
of any local law. Since that time
other communities have enacted
regulations calling for
even greater distances
from the turbines which
can be 400 or more feet
tall.
The committee will also
look at the acceptable
decibel levels for noise
contained in other ordinances.
``The pattern of land
settlement prevailing in
our town makes a largescale
wind farm, such as
the one the supervisor is
attempting to resurrect,
incompatible with the
health, safety and longterm
social development
of our community,’’ Andy
Minnig, an East Hill resident
and a founder and
spokesman for the Advocates
of Cherry Valley,
which opposed Reunion’s
wind farm proposal.
``The Advocates for
Cherry Valley are not opposed
to a renewables
configuration in Cherry
Valley that would include
wind turbines, but aácommercial
scale wind farm
was, is, and remains entirely
inappropriate.
áWeáremain resolutely
opposed to any such idea,’’
he said.
Barb and Rodney Perry
are also East Hill residents.
They agreed to
lease land to Reunion
Power and remain committed
to wind turbines.
Barb Perry, is also the cochair
of the Renewable
Energy Advocates Coalition,
an organization that
promotes the use of all alternative
energy.
``Cherry Valley has
some of the best wind in
the state with a 19 m.p.h.
average. It’s like offshore
wind,’’ she said. ``It’s a
huge resource.’’
Reunion’s original plan
would have produced
enough power for all the
residences in Otsego
County in a relatively
small space, Perry said.
``It would have been a
minimal environmental
risk to power the whole
county,’’ she said, adding
that it would help end the
dependence on foreign oil
and coal-fired power
plants that pose a greater
risk.
``I think it [a wind farm]
would be a great idea,’’
she said.
Garretson said he is interested
in hearing questions,
comments or concerns
about an East Hill
wind farm from the public.
He may be contacted
by calling 607-264-9045
or at cvsupervisorgarretso
n@yahoo.com
