SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF JEFFERSON

WIND POWER ETHICS GROUP,

Petitioner-Plaintiff, AFFIDAVIT OF
THOMAS K. RIENBECK
- against -

PLANNING BOARD OF THE Index No. 10-2882

TOWN OF CAPE VINCENT, and RJI No. 22-10-0990
RICHARD EDSALL, TOM RIENBECK,
GEORGE MINGLE, ANDREW BINSLEY, and
KAREN BOURCY, in their capacities as
planning board members,

Respondents-Defendants, and

ST. LAWRENCE WINPOWER, LLC,

Respondent-Defendant.

THOMAS K. RIENBECK being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. Between January 2000 and December 2009, I was the Supervisor of the Town of

Cape Vincent. Presently, I am a member of the Cape Vincent Planning Board.

2. In these roles, I actively participated in the review of the St. Lawrence wind farm

project (the "Project") pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"). As

such, I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances surrounding the above captioned

proceeding.

3. This affidavit is submitted in support of the Cape Vincent Planning Board's

Verified Answer. More specifically, this affidavit is submitted in response to Petitioner's claim

that the Planning Board's September 15, 2010 vote to accept a statement of SEQRA findings
regarding the Project should be set aside due to the existence or appearance of a conflict of

interest amongst one or more of the Planning Board members.

Background

4. The Project will occupy a significant portion of the Town (approximately 7,900

acres).

5. As a result, the Project has been the subject of intense scrutiny by Town residents,

neighboring and seasonal residents, governmental agencies, citizen groups and the like over the

past four years. Likewise, the Project has also been the subject of extensive formal review and

consideration by the Cape Vincent Town Board, Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals

during this time.

6. Throughout the Town's review, Petitioner has been a vocal critic of the Project

alleging, among other things, that the review process employed by the Tovvn was tainted because

various Town officers and employees had prohibited conflicts of interest regarding the Project.

7. In fact, during my tenure as Town Supervisor, Petitioner engaged in a series of

challenges against a determination of the Town pursuant to which the Project was classified as a

"utility" under the Town's Zoning Law.

8. As part of its challenge, Petitioner specifically alleged that the classification of the

Project as a "utility" should have been set aside because various Planning Board members and

the Town Code Enforcement Officer had prohibited conflicts of interest in the Project. (See

Exhibit "A," December 6, 2006 Letter from Petitioner to the Town Zoning Board of Appeals).
 9. The Town's Zoning Board of Appeals, Jefferson County Supreme Court and the

Appellate Division, Fourth Department each affirmed the Town's classification of the Project as

a "utility," and none of these entities found fault with the conduct of the Town's officers or

employees. (See Exhibits "B," "C" and "D," copies, respectively, of the Cape Vincent Zoning

Board of Appeals, Supreme Court and Appellate Division decisions).

10. As Supervisor, I was similarly of the opinion that all of the Town's officers and

employees were acting appropriately. In fact, so as to comply with the mandate of Article 18 of

the General Municipal Law as well as the Town's Ethics Code (see Exhibit "E"), the Tovvn's

officers and employees, including members of the Planning Board, disclosed at the outset of St.

Lawrence's application for site plan approval whatever direct or indirect connection they might

have had with the wind companies that were obtaining leases in the Town.

11. The intent was to ensure compliance with the law, rendering our Town's

government open and ensuring that the affiliations, if any, of our officers and employees with

wind companies were known not only by other officers and employees of the Town, but by the

general public.

12. Nevertheless, facing continued criticism and the possibility of further litigation by

Petitioner, in 2008, the Town's special counsel provided additional assistance regarding the

disclosure and recusal requirements set forth at Article 18 of the General Municipal Law.

13. Following receipt of counsel's advice, the Town's officers and employees again

formally disclosed any direct or indirect relationship they had with the wind and land companies

that were obtaining leases within and outside the Town.

14. The disclosures were presented in writing at a publicly noticed Town Board

meeting. (See Exhibit "F," Conflict Disclosures).

 15. Planning Board members Edsall, Mingle, Binsley and Ingersoll (formerly a

Planning Board member) identified no interest prohibited under either the General Municipal

Law or the Town's Ethics Code relating to the St. Lawrence Project and, therefore, they were not

prohibited from continuing their review of the Project.

16. Planning Board member Bourcy disclosed that her adult son had a lease with St.

Lawrence. While I am advised that this would not create an impermissible conflict of interest,

Ms. Bourcy nevertheless determined it best to recuse herself from participating in the review of

the Project.

Response to the Verified Petition

17. The Verified Petition merely states that because of an appearance of conflict, the

September 15, 2010 vote of the Planning Board accepting a statement of SEQRA findings for the

Project should be set aside.

18. Petitioner has totally failed, however, to explain why there is an appearance of a

conflict, or even if there were such an appearance, why either the General Municipal Law or

Town's Ethics Code would require that the work product of years of open, thoughtful and

deliberate review by the Planning Board should be overturned.

19. The vote to accept the September 15, 2010 statement of SEQRA findings was

moved by me, seconded by George Mingle and received a third aye from Chairman Edsall.

20. George Mingle and I have no interest with any wind company whatsoever, and

Chairman Edsall has previously disclosed his lease interest with BP Wind Energy. BP Wind

Energy is, however, in no way affiliated with St. Lawrence. Accordingly, there was no
 ••••■ oaa,

prohibited conflict of interest amongst the members of the Planning Board that voted to accept

the September 15, 2010 statement of SEQRA findings.

21. Indeed, Petitioner's suggestion that because there is a possibility that St.

Lawrence and BP Wind Energy may share a transmission line at some future point, Chairman

Edsall has a conflict of interest regarding the St. Lawrence Project, is totally misplaced.

22. The Planning Board did not require that St. Lawrence make its proposed

transmission line available to BP Wind Energy. Rather, St. Lawrence and BP Wind Energy have

coordinated their efforts to ensure that the infrastructure constructed along a primary

transmission route within Cape Vincent and the Tovvn of Lyme is capable of supporting multiple

electrical transmission lines, including BP Wind Energy's if that project ever progresses.

23. St. Lawrence committed to this proposal itself, as indicated in the Final

Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS") for the Project, as a means of mitigating cumulative

visual impacts of this and any future projects in the vicinity. Indeed, since the transmission line

cannot be masked or camouflaged in any way, St. Lawrence was constrained to propose "offset"

mitigation, including the possible future co-location of transmission lines along its transmission

infrastructure, in order to meet SEQRA's mandate — that impacts be mitigated to the maximum

extent practicable.

24. It is an extraordinary suggestion that St. Lawrence's co-location proposal will

entitle BP Wind Energy and, by implication, Chairman Edsall, to some form of economic benefit

or entitlement, given the fact that St. Lawrence's mitigation proposal certainly does not equate to

any form of contractual obligation to allow BP Wind Energy to co-locate along its transmission

infrastructure or to any assurance of future approval by the Planning Board. Rather, as the

Planning Board has not and does not intend to play any role in the private negotiations which
may occur between two utilities regarding the potential future sharing of a transmission line, it

will presumably be incumbent upon St. Lawrence and BP Wind Energy to work out the details of

whether and under what circumstances they are willing and able to share the infrastructure.

25. In sum, the Town's officers and employees, including all of the past and present

Planning Board members, have fully disclosed whatever direct or indirect interests they might

have with wind companies that have obtained leases in the Town, including St. Lawrence.

26. None of the Planning Board members have a prohibited interest in the Project.

Only out of an abundance of caution did Karen Bourcy recuse herself from deliberating and

voting on the Project. That was her choice to make.

Conclusion

27. Petitioner argued "conflicts of interest" unsuccessfully in 2006 and is now

seeking to take a second bite of the apple.

28. Such a misplaced and belated attempt to attack a substantive, open and deliberate

decision of the Planning Board should be roundly dismissed by the Court. Otherwise, years of

effort by dedicated, competent and ethical public servants will be overshadowed by Petitioner's

tactical delay.
 For the reasons set forth above, the Verified Petition should be dismissed and the

Planning Board's September 15, 2010 acceptance of a statement of SEQFtA findings for the St.
Lawrence Project should be affirmed,

Swo to on this THOMAS K. RIENBECK

day ok pecember

OT • PUBLIC

. L TiTUS
Notory $,:! of New 'York
/75
0—.:r ..; • - • ctunty
71, 20

TO 39Vd IN3ONIA 3cIVO JO NMOl 99EEPS9STE p6Tzi
 judy Drabicki, Esq.
25723 NYS Route 180
/COPY
Dexter, New York 13634
phone: 315-639-4949
fax: 315-639-5073
e-mail: drabicki@gisco.net

December 8, 2006

Edward Bender, ZBA Chair

Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Cape Vincent
Cape Vmcent, NY 13618 CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Re: Appeal of Planning Board Determination and HAND DELIVERED

Dear Chairman Bender:

Pursuant to Section 267-a of New YorIc State TOWII Law, this letter and encloshres
constitute an appeal to the Cape Vincent Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA") of the apparent
determination by the Town of Cape Vincent Pluming Board ("Planning Board") that a large scale
wind power project (97 425' tall wind turbines covering a developed and undeveloped area of
more than 600 acres, extended over thirty five miles) is allowed as a "site plan use" under the
Town of Cape Vincent Zoning Law. This appeal is made by the Wind Power Ethics Group
("WPEG"), Sarah Boss, Rollin Hanson, and Charleg Harwood, from the determination by the
Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board at its November 8, 2006 meeting regarding the eligibility
for site plan review of a large scale commercial wind power project in the Town (St. Lawrence
Windpower, LLC).

SpeciBcally, the Planning Board's unapproved minutes filed on November 22, 2006
(attached) indicate that "[tjhe Chairman asked for a motion to determine if a wind
turbine farm is an acceptable site plan use in. the agricultural, residential district. T.
Ingersoll made a motion to the above site plan use and was seconded by A_ Binsley.
All in fa.vor. Vote:. 5 in favor, 0 opposed, 0 absent. Therefore the motion was
carried." The remainder of the "New Business" section of the 'fleeting was devoted
to discussion of the St. Lawrence Wmdpower, LLC wind project application
process.

L lilt NAMED PARTIES ARE AGGRIEVED BY TELE PLANNING

BOARD'S DECISION

The individuals named herein and the members of WPEG live within the
zone of interest surrounding the proposed wind power project. Unfortunately,
an environmental law practice

I ,Cll
 fra•

Cape Vincent Zoning Board of Appeals - page 2

December 8, 2006

neither the Planning Board nor the applicant has thus far provided the actual map indicating where
the towers are proposed. However, the named parties all live within visual distance of area shown
on the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by the applicant which is depicted as the project
area.

These residents will be affected by this project, and as such by the determination made by
the Pluming Board to allow this application to proceed under site plan review. They therefore
have standing to file this appeal.

H. THE ENTIRE PROCESS WAS FLAWED

A. The Planning Board failed to identify the authorized site plan use applicable here

Section 315 of Cape Vincent's Zoning Law provides for allowable uses in the Agricultural
Residential District, to which the Platming Board's challenged action relates. This section of the
law provides eight (8) specific permitted uses in this district, and twelve (12) specific uses which
are permitted by site plan review. While the Plarming Board determined that the project was
subject to site plan review, it did not identify which of the 12 authorized site plan uses a large,
commercial wind power project fits into, nor did it provide the basis for that determination.

In some cases, this would be a mere administrative error. For example, if the proposal
were for a mobile home park, which is clearly identified as a site plan use in the zoning law, and
the Planning Board failed to indicate that the mobile home park was a permitted use under site
plan review, it would still be clear from looking at the law that site plan review was applicable. In
this case, though, the project being proposed is not identifiable as any of the 12 authorized uses_
The Planning Board's failure to properly identify which use it believes authorizes a large
commercial wind project and its failure to explain that decision make it impossible to assess the
legality of its actions.

B. A Large-Scale Commercial Wind Project is not eligible for site plan review under
Cape Vincent's Zoning Law

The fact that the Planning Board made no determination as to which of thel2 site plan
review uses were applicable is understandable, since none are.

1. 772e Proposed Use is Not Pennitted

Assertions by Town of Cape Vincent officials have been made in various settings as to
which site plan use would be applicable to a conunercial wind project. Additional assertions have
been made that even without a change to the law, an application for site plan review would "have
to be granted." However, a careful review of every one of the Zoning Law's 12 authorized site
plan uses, and their related definitions in the law, reveals that a c,orrunercial wind power project
like the one proposed fits none of the permitted site plan uses, and is therefore a prohibited use in
Cape Vincent Zoning Board of Appeals - page 3
December 8, 2006
the Town of Cape Vincent. New York Law requires that the specific mention of one or more
things in a law creates an irrefutable inference that other things not included were intended to be
omitted (See McKinney's Statutes §240). Such an interpretation is applicable to a local law as
well.
This would appear to be the very reAson the Town began efforts to amend its zoning law
to authorize wind power projects in the first instance.

The determination that wind power projects are prohibited by Cape Vincent's Zoning Law
is also clear from the plain reading of the entire zoning law, which New York Statutes §92
mandates - "The primary consideration of the courts (here, the ZBA acts as a quasi-judicial body)
in the construction of statutes is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature."
Here, that intention is made dear by the Town's Comprehensive Plan, as well as by the
Zoning Law itself.
The Comprehensive Plan provides that for the area of the Town where the project is
proposed, the uses to be discouraged are "location of towers, prisons or utility facilities where
there [sic] impact would have a negative impact on scenic vistas and -tourism assets" while at the
same time, the uses to be encouraged are "Agriculture. Development that has minimum impact on
important resources such as scenic natural vistas, working landscapes and tourism assets."
This dovetaiLs with the law itselt whose stated purpose is, among other things, to
"encourage the development of land for fts most appropriate use within the town, and to conserve
and protect the niral, agricultural, and scenic resources of the Town; ..." a.nd, specifically the
intent of the Agricultural Residential District is to "promote all types of development in the
interior portions of the Town in a mcrnner that preseives the rural character and promotes active
farming operations." (Emphasis added) Cominercial wind tower operations do neither and .
therefore the interpretation that they are prohibited is the only legally defensible position.
2. Even if the proposed use -was eligible for site plan review, it is not permittable without
an area variance.

All permittable uses in the Town have a height restriction according to the Zoning Law.
Even if the project were an approved site plan use, the height restriction of 35 feet would apply.
Since the height restriction is consistently applied across all districts and all uses, whether
permitted or by site plan use, it is without question that the Town Board intended that no
Wucturesi of any lind should be more than thirty-five fmt high in Cape Vurcent.

Unfortunately, the residents of the Town of Cape Vmcent have been denied the right to
even see the application submitted by Saint Lawrence Wmdpower, LLC, despite repeated

other than non-agricultural "buildings", a term defmed in the law as a shelter with a roof supported by
columns or walls. "Buildings" can be taller with setbarks. Wind towers are not buildings in Cape Vmcent's law.
Cape Vincent Zoning Board of Appeals - page 4
December 8, 2006
requests. It is therefore unknown whether a request for a variance has been submitted to allow
dozens of structures of more than thirty-flve feet. Such a variance would be subject to close
scrutiny, since the proposed structures would be More than ten times the authorized height of
thirty-five feet.

C. The Planning Board acted beyond its jurisdiction when it made a determination
concerning project eligibility for site plan review

As indicated above, the Planning Board of Cape Vincent unanimously decided that this
project was eligible to proceed under site plan review. HoweVer, as stated by the Court in Jamil
et al v Village of Scarsdale Planning Board, 24 AD3d 552 (2' Dept 2005), "[Ole Planning
Board is without power to interpret the provisions of the local zoning law, a power which is
vested exclusively in the building inspector and the Zoning Board of Appeals (see Village Law
§§7-12-a(4), 7-712-b(1))" The language of 'Village Law mirrors exactly the relevant language of
Town Law in this area, making this case directly applicable.
The Planning Board, several of whose members reportedly have direct familial
relationships with those with contracts with one of the developers proposing a wind power
project in the Town, appear to be arDdous to accelerate the permitting process. Instead, their role
should have been to wait and see if the zoning enforcement officer made a determination that the
project was eligible for site plan review. By failing to do so, they usurped the enforcement
officer's authority, and caused the necessity for an appeal and associated delay that will have to be
resolved by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Unfortunately, upon information and belief, the Cape Vmcent zoning enforcement officer,
Mr. Alan Wood, apparently also has a contract with the developer. As such, he is precluded from
making any kind of determination as to the applicability of the Zoning Law to this project. -
However, there is no indication in the minutes, nor would it be appropriate, for the Planning
Board to make this determination due to Mr. Wood's conflict. -

III. ANY FUR' HEX ACTIONS BY THE PLANNING BOARD ARE STAYED

Pursuant to NYS Town Law Section 267-a(6) all proceedings on this matter.must now be
stayed nntil this appeal is resolved, and therefore the Planning Board is barred from acting on this
application.

Thus, despite the Planning Board's scheduling of meetings every other week until this
application is finally ruled on, by copy of this letter, the Plarming Board is on notice that all
activities, including those undertaken outside public view, must be suspended for the duration of
this proceeding, including any necessary judicial review of this proceeding. Any further actions by
the Planning Board may result in litigation caused by the Town, and possibly liability pursuant to
General Municipal Law Section 51 for individual members for wasting the Town's money by
causing it to unnecessarily incur legal fees for failing to stay this proceeding,
Cape Vincent Zoning Board of Appeals - page 5
December 8, 2006
IV. NUMEROUS ACTIONS OF THE PLANNING BO ARD HAVE BEEN
QUESTIONABLE

1. The Planning Board attempted, after rec,ornmendation by the Town Board, to adopt
"guidelines" for proceeding with a review of proposed wind power projects. (See
attached minutes of Planning Board meeting of September 13, 2006) Specifically, it
attempted to adopt amendments to the Zoning Law which the Town apparently
abandoned. This was an illegal act, as explained in :the letter from this office to Mark
Gebo, dated November 1, 2006, (attached) and unfortunately provides further evidence of
the Planning Board's eagerness to move this application along too quickly.
2. The Planning Board has failed to make available to the public the application submitted by
St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC in this matter. This is not only illegal, since the minutes
from the meeting are by law required to be available within ten days of the me,eting, it is
also an act of bad faith and appears to represent an attempt to hide the Board's actions
from the Town's residents. This serves no purpose other than to further delay the public
invOlvement and is unfortunate. It is my understanding recently that the Planning Board
intends to make the application available December 18 meeting,, more than a month after it
received the application at its November 8 meeting.
3. Upon information and belief, the Chair of the Planning Board had recused himself from
participating in earlier discussions about windpower because he had a contract with one of
the companies interested in siting a facility here. (see enclosed article) Unless the
contract has been terminated, he should not be participating in this proc,ess. It is my
understanding that three of the five Planning Board members are also closely tied by
family to others with contracts with one of the proposed companies. This combined with
the secrecy and non-jurisdictional actions by this Board should make the ZBA and all •
residents of the town concerned about whether this Board is acting on behalf of all of the
Town's residents.
WPEG and the named parties ask that this Zoning Board of Appeals provide a hearing as
required by law so that the decision of the Planning Board may be properly assessed, and that this
application be properly handled in the open by public officials who do not have private interests at
heart, but the best interests of the entire community.

I will await your scheduling of a hearing and thank you for your attention to this important
matter that will affect the future of Cape Vincent for years to come.

Sincerely,

Judy Drabicki, Esq.

Cape Vmcent Zoning Board of Appeals - page 6
December 8, 2006

Enc. November 8, 2006 Unapproved Planning Board Meeting Minutes

September 13, 2006 Planning Board Meeting lVfmutes
April 13, 2006 Watertown Daily Times Article
November 1, 2006 letter from J. Drabicki to M. Gebo

cc: Planning Board Chair Richard Edsall

Z.c)Wng Enforcement Officer Alan Wood
Gebo, Town Attorney
 Wtopp-m-t PlCra 14)
TOW,N OF CAPE VINCENT PIANN/NG BOARD
MEETING MINUTE
NOVEMBER 08, 2006

Present Richard Edson

Tom Ingersoll
Karen Bourcy
Andy Binsley
George Mingle

Also Present David Shod:sleeve, Donnie Mason, Bob Gauthier, Margaret Pond, Roger
Toombs, Jean Toombs, Lawrence Hickey, Celine Nebbia, Marty Mason- COB,
Schnieder-MB, Franlc Giaquinto, Nell Mason, Mickey Orvis-CVTI3, Brooks Bragdon,
Jarvis RadJey, Cindy Edon, Charlie Moehs, Tom Reinbeck-Town Supervisor, Alan Wood-
ZEO, Harvey VVhite.

The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

The minutes from the October- 10, 2006 meeting were accepted by a motion
from A. Binsley and seconded by K. Bourcy.

OLD BUSINESS: A public hearing in the matter of Mrs. Celine Nebbia was opened at
7:05 p.m. She is requesting a Major Subdivision of land located on Llsa Drive, Cape
Vincent. The total acreage is 4.63 (+/-) acres and will be subdivided into lots being 1.6
(44-) acres, L2 (+/-) acres and 1.8 (+/-) acres. The Board completed the SEQR
Prooass and dedared a Negative Declaration to the environment; T. Ingersoll made
the motion and was seconded by G. Mingle, all in favor. There were no public
comments. Thus, the hearin ' g was dosed. A motion was made by T. Ingersoll to
approve the subdivision and was seconded by A. Binsley. All in favor. Vote: 5-in favor,
0- .opposed, 0-absent Therefore the subdivision was approved

NEW BUSINESS: Mr. David Shortsleeve is requesting a 3-lot major subdivision for
property located 011 Huff Road, Cape Vincent All lots will be over one 6cre. The Board
will not accept his subdivision, pending the approval of Town of Cape Vincent
Highway Superintendent .
The Board received a $45.00 fee for this subdivision application. A public hearing in
this matter will be scheduled for December L3, 2006 at 7:05 p.m.

The Chairman asked for a motion to deterrnine if a wind turbine farm is an acceptable
site plan use In the agricultural, residential district. TAngersoll made a motion to the
above site plan use and was seconded by A. Binsley. All in favor. Vote: 5 in favor, 0
opposed, 0 absent. Therefore the motion was carried.

Effective January 1, 2007, the Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board will meet the
second and forth Wednesday of each month.
Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board
page 2

Per Tod , the wind turbine project will comprise of 197 suitable vvind turbine
locations with an approximate capacity of 1_30 megawatts. In addition to wind turbines,
the project will require the installation of supporting infrastructure including an
underground electrical collection system, substation, access roads, meteorologil
bowers, and an operations and maintenance building. The project will interconnect to
the bulk transmission grid by way of an apprcocimate 9 mile long transmission line
having a capadty Of up b3 115 kilovolts. This transmission line will extend from the
project substation to the Lyme substation, located in the town of Lyme, where it will
connect to an editing 115 kilovolt electric transnission line.
Construction is expected to begin in May 2008 and be cornpleted in December 2008,
During construction, SLW will create temporary woric areas throughout the project site
for storage and staging of consb-udion equipment and materials.

Chairman responded that should the Planning Board proceed with this, SLVV will be
responsible to establish an esaow account with the Town Supervisor. These funds will
be used to professional servk:es for the Planning Board, such as secretarial expenses,
legal and engineering cosis. The chainnans asked St. Lawrence Wind Power (SLW) if
they were in agreement with this arid the response was, "yes."

The Chainnan advised SLW that we will be following the existing Zoning Laws, which
requires a $150.00 fee, plus they will pay all expenses. They will submit an application
and it will be deemed incomplete. This is because you will need to go through several
environmental issues to get to the other end of the process. In addition you will be
required to submit a list of articles that you will need to supply to the Board before we
get to the process of voting on this matter. Going through this process, our dock will
not begin until the Planning Board accepts the application as complete. We have a
limitation of 62 days to act. This being said, are you in agreenent that the process
will not begin until we accept the application as complete. SLW agreed to this
statement. Obviously, the Planning Board will need to review this and determine what
other liens we will require from you. At this point we will require a map of the entire
town with an overlay district of the wind turbine area. Right now you have told us a
general area of plans. SLW stated that a map is included in the documentation
provided to the Planning Board. The Chaim:tan has asked the Planning Board to deem
the application as Incomplete to begin the process. A. Binsley made the motion, K.
Bourcy seconded the motion. All in favor. Vote: 0 opposed, 0 absent Therefore the
motion was carried.

'The next item is If the Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board will be the lead agency.
T. Ingersoll made tie motion and G, Mingle seconded the motion. All in favOr. Vote: 5
in favor , 0 opposed, 0 absent Therefore the motion was carried. The Chairman
directed his comments to SLW instructing them that they are responsible for providing
letters and documents to send out to the necessary agencies. The Chairman will sign
Por

Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board

page 3

them and SLW will provide copies they need to be sent certified, return receipt We
will require 7 moles of everything that comes through. Two copies will be maintained.
Tracy will retain a file as well as the Town Clerk. Our minutes are not approved until
the following meeting. Tracy will need to have copies of the receipts and letiLors.
Please provide us a copy of all of the letters being issued. SLW responded with the .
notifications thus far: Town of Cape Vincent, Town Board of Cape Vincent, Town of
Cape Vincent Highway Department, Village of Cape Vincent, Town of Lyme, Village of
Chaumont, Town of Lyme Highway Departrient, Jefferson County Planning Board,
Jefferson County Higinvay Department, Jefferson County Industrial Agency, WS
Department of Environmental C.onservation, Jefferson County Industrial Agency, NYS
Department of Agricultural Markets, NYS Historic Preservation Office, US Army Corps of
Engineers, NYS Public Service Commission, NYS Statz Energy Research and Energy
Authority, US Ash and Wildlife, Federal Aviation Administration. The Chairrnan has also
requested that letters be generated and sent to the following areas: The Commander of
Fort Drum, NYS Department of Health, Coast Guard, NYS Department of
Transportation, The Chairman has requested that all correspondence be sent to him as
soon as possible, as he would like to have it go out in Saturday's mail.

The Chairman stated that the process going forward will be either we will hear from the
agendes by the 2^1 Wednesday of December, or we will not It is the Planning Board 's
disaetion to make a determination after reading the responses if we still want to
remain the lead agency in this project. If we do, we will recertify. then. The next step
' e or positive declaration on the SEQR Process. Mbar we make
will be to make a negativ
that statement, you will be given until the next meeting to submit the scoping
document and then we have to respond on the scoping document wthin 30 days. This
will now be sent out for a professional review. We are currently utilizing Mark Gebo
and Bernier and Carr as our professional review sources. As a reminder, on the 2nd
Wednesday, you will need to provide 3 packets for the Board.

CORRESPONDENCE: Mr. Patrick Wilder is requesting notification for any permits for
improvement Because of the lad( of darity for this request, the Board will send out a
le'tter asking Mr. Wilder to be more specific regarding this request.

A. Blnsley made a motion to adjourn the meeting and was seconded by G. Mingle.

The next scheduled meeting will be held on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 at 7:00
P-m.

cc: Ed Bender Arlene Ingerson

Torn Reinbeck Alan Wood
Mickey Onris
 TOWN OF CAPE VINCENT PLANNING BOARD
SEPTEMBER 13, 200G

Present: Richard Edsall

Tom Ingersoll
George Mingle
Karen Bourcy

Absent: A. Binsley

Also Presert: Frank Giaquinto, Tom )oliff, Brooks Bragdon, Cindy Eds.;II, Ms.
Pond, Matt Morgla, Harvey White, Mr. & Mrs. Roger Toombs, off Schneider-
CVTB.

'The Chairman established a quorum.

The minutes from the August 09, 2006 meeting were acrepted by a motion from
T. Ingersoll and seconded by G. Mingle. Ail in favor.

OLD BUSINESS: The public hearing in the matter of Tom Adams was opened at
7:05 p.m. lbere were no public comments. Thus, the hearing was closed. T.
Ingersoll made a motion to approve the subdivision and was seconded by G.
Mingle. All In favor. Vote: 4 - in favor, 0 - opposed, I - absent Therefore the
sulxlivision was approved.

Matt Margie was present to add additional comments on the proposed 26-lot
subdhesion. The Chairman reported that the NYS DEC did not respond to our
correspondence asking them to act as lead agency for this project, so the
Planning Board will be acting as mich.
Mr. Morgia said that the owner wants the road to remain private arid not become
public. There Is currently a SO' ROW, the Board is asidng for a 751 eminent.
The owner will not provide an easement It was suggesbed that there be a 50'
ROW with restricted easement in deed. AKA- a public good,. that would be an
allowable condition.
The Chairman was concerned about &Charge from 26 lots. How will it be
handled? The Board said that there must be acceptable sewage and drainage if
the Board is to agree to pre-approve this pmject He also reiterated that the
Highway Supervisor and /or Jefferson County mu-4 appnwe the toway.
R. Toombs aslced M. Morgia, "where will the sewage go, exactly'?" M. Morgia
told him that it would follow the prevailing winds. Both men disagreed which
direction the prevailing winds came from. Mr. Toombs also wanted to know how
the neighboring homes will be affected by when It comes to taxation. M. Margie
suggested that he check with the Town Asse.ssor, as he would have no way of
knowing.
There were no additional comments from the attendees.
The Board agreed thafthe road for WS project must meet Town specifications
and final approval will be directly linked to the DOT andior DEC, arid SEQR
approval. In addition they require that all buiklings rust meet current Zoning
Laws.
The ChaInnan asked for a motiOn a grant preliminarjr approval for this
subdivision. T. Ingersoll made the motion and G. Wangle seconded the motion.
Alf in favor. Vote: 4 in favor, 0 - oPP09Bd , 1 absent lhereftre the preliminary
approval was granted.
piny BUSINESS: The Board agreed to a lot-line shift Oft the property locabed on
Rte. 12E, .99 acres and vvIll be purchasing 1.53 acres from Roberty Wiley.

The Planning Board will adopt the Town guidelines for wind turbim;. Town Levi
prohibits wind turbines in the River or Lake Districts. A developer will have to set
up an escrow amount. The guidelines wM apply to both private and-commercial
towers. Private towers are meant tor personal use and the resulting power can't
be soki to neighbors or other individuals.
The Chairman asked for a molion to accept these guidehnes. T. Ingersoll made
the motion and was seconded by G. Mingle. All In favor. Vote: 4 In favor, 0 —

opposed, 1 absent. Therefore the motion was approved.

—

The Board will be utilizing Town of Cape Vincent Local Law to amend the Town
of Cape Vincent Zoning Law.

CORESMILIErgi The Chairman has been auresponding with Mr. Donald

Ale.xander.

IC Bourcy made a motion. to adjourn the meeting and was seconded by R. Edsall.
The next scheduled meeting will be held on Wednesday, October 11, 2006.

Tracy Wood
Secretary

Cc: Tom Reinbeck

Arlene Ingerson
Cliff Schneider
Ed Bender
Alan Wood

FEB-2.8-2007 01:06 PM HAT -V■K` GEBOPLLRHGONE 31518860'- P, 01/01

TOWN OF CAPE VINCENT

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECISION
The Town V Cape Vincent Zoning Board of Appeals hereby issues a decision on the
Appeal of the Wind Power Ethics Group as follows:

APPLICATION - Appeal of Determination of

Name of App/Icant: Wind Power Ethics Group, Sarah and Mark Boss,
Rollin Hanson and Charles Harwood.

Address: cio Judy DrabickLEsq., 25723 NYS Route 180, De>cter, New York 13634

Location: Throughout AR District

Tax Map No.: Various

Issues:

1. Does applicant have standing to challenge the .

determination of the Planning Board of the Town of Cape •
Vincent dated November 8, 2006, that the application of
the St Lawrence Windpower, LLC for a large scale
commercial wind power project in the AR District is
reversible under site plan criteria for thls District?
2. Is the application of St. Lawrence VVindpower, LLC, a
permitted Site plan use In the AR District?

Decision –

1. Applicant has standing to appeal for an interpretation

of the Planning Board. Decision of November 8, 2006
for reasons redted in the minutes as attached.
2. The application of St. Lawrence Windpower, Ll.C, is a
permitted site plan- use in the AR District. as a "public
utility" for the reasons recited in the minutes attached.

Edward Bender, Zoning Board of Appeals —Tiling Date

-7-72-Fb
12- F -70 7
 At a Term of Supreme Court held in
and for the County of Jefferson,
in the City of Watertown, New York
on the I 6th day of August, 2007.

PRESENT: HONORABLE HUGH A. GILBERT

Supreme Court Justice

STATE OF NEW YORK

SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF JEFFERSON

In the Matter of WIND POWER ETHICS

GROUP (WPEG) and SARAH BOSS,

Petitioners, MEMORANDUM DECISION

. AND ORDER

Index No. 07-0789

- VS .
RJI No. 22-07-0250 .

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN

OF CAPE VINCENT, ST. LAWRENCE
WINDPOWER, LLC, and JOHN DOE, and
MARY P.OE, BEING FICTITIOUS NAMES TO
REPRESENT UNKNOWN LANDOWNERS WHO
HAVE CONTRACTED WITH ST. LAWRENCE
WINDPOWER, LLC FOR INSTALLATION OF
COMMERCIAL WIND GENERATION FACILITIES,

Respondents.

We-agree With St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC ("SLW") that General

Municipal Law §239-m is not applicable where a Zoning Board of Appeals is asked to

interpret its ordinance. The only proposed actions which are expressly subject to the referral
 requirements are those outlined in Subdivision 3 of §239-m. We respectfully refer the

Petitioners to these specific instances set forth in the statute. More particularly if the process

continues, the request for approval of SLW's site plan is subject to the referral requirement of

the statute.

With regard to the formal reporting concerning arguments made before the

Board, we do find it significant that the vote was 3 to 2 that the proposed wind farm is a utility

under the ordinance. In other words, we must give deference to the two members who were in

the minority that their vote was based upon sound reasoning and their analysis of the issues.

This Court is further persuaded by counsel for the Town that the Board followed the proper

procedures, had significant information and arguments before it and it is not the role of this

Court to decipher whether the majority vote was a correct one. Further, as noted by counsel

for SLW, the Appellate Division decision in Matter of Ohrenstein v. ZBA of the Town of

Canaan, 39 A D 3d 1041 (2007) contains strong language relating to the procedural issues

raised by Petitioners. More specifically, the Court held that a determination need not be set

aside even if it lacks specific findings, where, as here, a review of the record as a whole

supports the determination.

We concur with counsel for the ZBA that the issue before this Court is very

narrow and our judicial review is thereby limited.

• The Court compliments all three attorneys on their inciteful presentations but

must find that the ZBA's determination was both rational and supported by substantial

evidence. Therefore, it is

2
 ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the petition is respectfiffly

denied and dismissed. •

Dated: August 12007

at Watert , New York

HUGH A. GILBERT
Supreme Court Justice

3
Westlaw
60 A.D.3d 1282, 875 N.Y.S.2d 359, 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 02016
(Cite as: 60 A.D.3d 1282,875 N.Y.S.2d 359)
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Depart-
ment, New York.
In the Matter of WIND POWER ETHICS
GROUP (WPEG) and Sarah Boss, Petitioners-Ap-
pellants,
v.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF TOWN OF
CAPE VINCENT, St. Lawrence Windpower. LLC,
Respondents-Respondents, et al., Respondents.
(Appeal No. 1.)
March 20, 2009.
Background: Organization of property owners in
town initiated Article 78 proceeding, seeking to an-
nul determination of town zoning board of appeals
that series of wind-powered generators qualified as
utility and that project was permitted site plan use
in agricultural residential district. The Supreme
Court, Jefferson County, Hugh A. Gilbert, J., dis-
missed petition. Organization appealed.
Holding: The Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
held that determination was not arbitrary, capri-
cious, illegal, ultra vires or void.
Affirmed.
West Headnotes
ilj Zoning and Planning 414 €=:>1742
414 Zoning and Planning
414X Judicial Review or Relief
414X(E) Further Review
414k1742 k. Record, assignment of errors
and briefs. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 414k744)
Contention that town zoning board of appeals failed
to refer application for wind-powered generators
project to appropriate county planning agency was
raised for first time in organization's reply papers
and thus was court would not consider issue on ap-
peal. McKinney's General Municipal Law 239-m.
0 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page I
12f Zoning and Planning 414 ce=z71383(4)
414 Zoning and Planning
414VlIl Permits, Certificates, and Approvals
414V111(A) In General
414kI379 Maps, Plats, and Plans; Subdi-
visions
414k1383 Grounds for Grant or Deni-
al; Conformity to Regulations
414k1383(4) k. Public utilities; wa-
ter and sewage considerations. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 414k381.5)
Determination of town zoning board of appeals that
series of wind-powered generators qualified as util-
ity and that project was permitted site plan use in
agricultural residential district was not arbitrary, ca-
pricious, illegal, ultra vires or void; classification
by board of series of wind-powered generators as
utility within meaning of zoning law was neither ir-
rational nor unreasonable, and determination was
supported by substantial evidence.
131 Statutes 361 (C=.219(1)
361 Statutes
36IVI Construction and Operation
361V1(A) General Rules of Construction
361k213 Extrinsic Aids to Construction
361k219 Executive Construction
361k219(1) k. In general. Most
Cited Cases
When applying its special expertise in a particular
field to interpret statutory language, an agency's ra-
tional construction is entitled to deference.
141 Zoning and Planning 414 €=)1745
414 Zoning and Planning
414X Judicial Review or Relief
414X(E) Further Review
414k1744 Scope and Extent of Review
414k1745 k. In general. Most Cited
Cases
(Formerly 414k745.I )

60 A.D.3d 1282, 875 N.Y.S.2d 359, 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 02016
(Cite as: 60 A.D.3d 1282, 875 N.Y.S.2d 359)
Documents concerning comprehensive plan for
town were not before court when it dismissed peti-
tion for review of determination of town zoning
board of appeals that series of wind-powered gener-
ators qualified as utility and that project was per-
mitted site plan use in agricultural residential dis-
trict, and thus documents were properly excluded
on appeal.
15i Zoning and Planning 414 C=.1745
414 Zoning and Planning
414X Judicial Review or Relief
414X(E) Further Review
414k1744 Scope and Extent of Review
414k1745 k. In general. Most Cited
Cases
(Formerly 414k745.1)
Comprehensive plan for town was not relevant to
issues raised on appeal of dismissal of Article 78
proceeding seeking to annul determination of town
zoning board of appeals that series of wind-
powered generators qualified as utility and that
project was permitted site plan use in agricultural
residential district, and thus court would not take
judicial notice of plan. McKinney's CPLR 7801 et
seq.
**360 Menter, Rudin & Trivelpiece, P.C., Syracuse
(Julian B. Modesti of Counsel), for Petitioners-Ap-
pellants.
Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP, Albany (Mi-
chael G. Sterthous of Counsel), for Respondent-Re-
spondent Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of
Cape Vincent.
Nixon Peabody LLP, Albany (Jena R. Rotheim of
Counsel), for Respondent-Respondent St. Lawrence
Windpower, LLC.
PRESENT: HURLBUTT, .1.P., SMITH, FAHEY,
PERADOTTO, AND PINE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 2
[1] *1282 Respondent St. Lawrence Windpower,
LLC (St. Lawrence) applied to the Town of Cape
Vincent Planning Board for, inter alia, site plan ap-
proval for its proposed construction of a series of
wind-powered generators (project) on property des-
ignated as an "Agricultural Residential District."
Petitioners commenced this CPLR article 78 pro-
ceeding seeking to annul the determination of re-
spondent Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of
Cape Vincent (ZBA) that the series of wind-
powered generators qualified as a utility and that
the project therefore was a permitted**361 site plan
use in that district. With respect to the judgment in
appeal No. 1, we conclude that Supreme Court
properly dismissed the petition. Petitioners' conten-
tion that the ZBA failed to refer St. Lawrence's ap-
plication to the *1283 appropriate county planning
agency pursuant to General Municipal La‘v §
239-m is raised for the first time in petitioners'
reply papers and thus is not properly before us (see
Matter of Ball v. New York Slate Dept. of Envtl.
Conservation, 35 A.D.3d 732, 733-734, 826
N.Y.S.2d 698; Matter of Falk v. Village of
Scarsdale Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 254 A.D.2d 358,
678 N.Y.S.2d 299; Alcatel. of Hill v. New York City
Tr. Audi., 222 A.D.2d 506, 635 N.Y.S.2d 540, Iv.
denied 88 N.Y.2d 815, 651 N.Y.S.2d 17, 673
N.E.2d 1244).
[21[3] We reject petitioners' further contention that
the ZBA's determination was "arbitrary, capricious,
illegal, ultra vires and void." Pursuant to section
315 of the Town of Cape Vincent Zoning Law, util-
ities are defined as "telephone dial equipment cen-
ters, electrical or gas substations, water treatment or
storage facilities, pumping stations and similar fa-
cilities" that have been, inter alia, constructed or
maintained by municipal agencies or public utilit-
ies. It is well settled that, "when applying its special
expertise in a particular field to interpret statutory
language, an agency's rational construction is en-
titled to deference" ( Matter of Raritan Dev. Coip.
v. Silva, 91 N.Y.2d 98, 102, 667 N.Y.S.2d 327, 689
N.E.2d 1373), and we conclude that the classifica-
tion by the ZBA of the series of wind-powered gen-
 Page 3
60 A.D.3d 1282, 875 N.Y.S.2d 359, 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 02016
(Cite as: 60 A.D.3d 1282, 875 N.Y.S.2d 359)

erators as a utility within the meaning of section

315 of its Zoning Law is neither irrational nor un-
reasonable, and that the determination is supported
by substantial evidence (see A/fatter of West Beek-
mantown Neighborhood Assn., Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of
Appeals of Town of Beekmanlown, 53 A.D.3d 954,
956, 861 N.Y.S.2d 864: Matter of May v. Town of
Lafayette Zoning Rd of Appeals., 43 A.D.3d 1427,
1428, 843 N.Y.S.2d 747; see generally Matter of
Cellular Tel. Co. v. Rosenberg, 82 N.Y.2d 364.
371, 604 N.Y.S.2d 895, 624 N.E.2d 990).

[4115] With respect to the order in appeal No. 2, we

reject the contention of petitioners that the court
erred in excluding three documents in settling the
record in appeal No. 1. Petitioners do not contend
that the documents were before the court when it
dismissed the petition, and thus they were properly
excluded from the record on appeal (see Matter of
Gullo v. Semon, 265 A.D.2d 656. 696 N.Y.S.2d
554, lv. denied 94 N.Y.2d 757, 704 N.Y.S.2d 532.
725 N.E.2d 1094; Matter of Dyno v rillage of
Johnson City, 255 A.D.2d 737, 680 N.Y.S.2d 709).
Alternatively, petitioners contend that we should
take judicial notice of the three documents. We re-
ject that contention. One of the documents, "A Joint
Comprehensive Plan for the Village & Town of
Cape Vincent," is not relevant to the issues raised
in appeal No. 1, and judicial notice is not available
with respect to the remaining two documents.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so ap-

pealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept.,2009.
Wind Power Ethics Group (WPEG) v. Zoning Bd.
of Appeals of Town of Cape Vincent
60 A.D.3d 1282, 875 N.Y.S.2d 359, 2009 N.Y. Slip
Op. 02016

END OF DOCUMENT

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


12/07/2010 12:25 3156543366 TOWN OF CAPE VINCENT PAGE 02

Code of Ethics

Be it enacted by the Town Board of the Town of 0900 /14104t14

as follows:

Section 1. Pursuant to the provisions of section eight hundred six of the

General Municipal Law, the Town Board of the Town of Qom Viapant
recognizes that there are rules of ethical conduct for public officers and
employees which must be observed if a high degree of moral conduct is to be
obtained and if public confidence is to be maintained in our unit of local
government. It is the purpose of this ResolUtion to promulgate these rules
of ethical conduct for the officers and employees of the Town of aspo
Vinosnt . These rules shall serve as a guide for official
conduct of the officers and employees of the Town of 0111130 1,11411Mat .

The rules of ethical conduct of this Resolution as adopted, shall not con-
flict with, but shall be in addition to any prohibition of article eighteen
of the general municipal law or any other general or special law relating
to ethical conduct and interest in contracts of municipal officers and em-
ployees.

Section 2. Definition. (a) "Municipal Officer or Employee" means an

officer or employee of the Town of Gt_951 Vinookt , whether paid
or unpaid, including members of any administrative board, commission or
other agency thereof. No person shall be deemed to be a municipal officer
or employee solely by reason of being a volunteer fireman or civil defense
volunteer, except a chief engineer or assistant chief engineer.

(b) "Interest" means a pecuniary or material benefit accruing to a municipal

officer or employee unless the context otherwise requires.

Section 3. Standards of Conduct. Every officer or employee of the Town of

Cap. Vim:tont shall be subject to and abide by the following
standards of conduct:

(a) Gifts. He shall not directly or indirectly, solicit any gift; or accept
or receive any gift having a value of twenty-five dollars or more, whether in
the form of money, services, loan, travel, entertainment, hospitality, thing
or promise, or any other form under circumstances in which it could reasonably
be inferred that the gift was intended to influence him, or could reasonably be
expected to influence him, in the performance of his official duties or was
intended as a reward for any official action on his part.
(b) Confidential information. He shall not disclose confidential informa-
tion acquired by him in the course of his official duties or use such
information to further his personal interest.

(c) Representation before one's own agency. He shall not receive, or enter
into any agreement, express or implied, for compensation for services to be
rendered in relation to any matter before any municipal agency of which he is
an officer, member or employee or of any municipal agency over which he has
jurisdiction or to which he has the power to appoint any member, officer or
employee.
12/07/2010 12:25 3156543366 TOWN OF CAPE VINCENT PAGE 03

(d) Representation before any agency for a contingent fee. He shall not
receive, or enter into any agreement, express or implied for compensation
for services to be rendered in relation to any matter before any agency of
his municipality, whereby his compensation is to be dependent or contingent
upon any action by such agency with respect to such matter, provided that
this paragraph shall not prohibit the fixing at any time of fees based upon
the reasonable value of the services rendered.

(e) Disclosure of interest in legislation. To the extent that he knowa

thereof, a member of the Town Board and any officer or employee of the
Town of CAI* V1416010k , whether paid or unpaid, who participates
in the discussion or gives official opinion to the Town Board on any legisla-
tion before the Town Board shall publicly disclose on the official record the
nature and extent of any direct or indirect financial or other private in-
terest he has in such legislation.

(f) Investments in conflict with official duties. He shall not invest or

hold any investment directly or indirectly in any financial, business, com-
mercial or other private transaction, which creates a conflict with his
official duties.

(g) Private employment. He shall not engage in, solicit, negotiate for or
promise to accept private employment or render services for private interests
when such employment or service creates a conflict with or impairs the proper
discharge of his official duties.

(h) Future employment. He shall not, after the termination of service or

employment with such municipality, appear before any board or agency of the
Town °fast" yjneont in relation to any case, proceeding or applica-
tion in which he personally participated during the period of his service or
employment or which was under his active consideration.

Section 4. Nothing herein shall be deemed to bar or prevent the timely filing
by a present or former municipal officer or employee of any claim, account,
demand or suit against the Town of daps , or any agency
thereof on behalf of himself or any member o ls family arising out of any
personal injury or property damage or for any lawful benefit authOrized or
permitted by law.

Section 5, Distribution of Code of Ethics. The Clerk of the Town Board of

the Town of griv_lingulati_shall cause a copy of this code of ethics to
be distributed to every officer and employee of the Town of jukpo_usia
within thirty days after the effective date of this Resolution.

Each officer and employee elected or appointed thereafter shall be furnished

a copy before entering upon the duties of his office or employment.

Section 6. Penalties. In addition to any penalty contained in any other pro-

vision of law, any person who shall knowingly and intentionally violate any
of the provisions of this code may be fined, suspended or removed from office
or employment, as the case may be, in the manner provided by law.
12/07/2010 12:25 3156543366 TOWN OF CAPE VINCENT PAGE 04

Section 7. Effective date. This Resolution shall take effect thirty days
after it is filed as provided in section twenty-seven of the Municipal Home
Rules Law.

At e Regular meeting of the Town Boerd of the TOwa of

Cope Vinoent, held on the 18 del of November, 1970, et 8pm
et the town building this resolution wee moved by Alton
Meson seooned by Henry Beekey end passed with sill members
of the Town Homrd voting AYH.
Town of Cope Vinoent

BY: ;%/
ATTEST*
Town or the Town
of Cope VinGent, N.Y.
 Andrew Binsley
Planning Board Member
27698 Fox Creek Rd.
Cape Vincent, NY, 13618

Mr. Thomas Rienbeck

Town Supervisor and Town Board.

Per conversation with Mr. Rienbeck concerning issues of

relationships that may come up as a conflict of interest concerning Planning
Board decisions. I have several in-laws that own large acres of land in the
Township
My brother in law, Robert White, is part owner of White Farms that I
know have a contract with at least one of the wind farm projects.
My brother in law, Charles Bourquin and my nephew Jason Bourquin,
who are also my neighbors have contracts with a wind farm project.
I also have two brother in laws, Donald Docteur and Terrance
Aubertine that have large tracts of land in the project's area, but do not
know if they have any contracts or not.
I also have 5 or 6 nieces and nephews that may own large enough
properties in the community that may be in the projects, but I have no
knowledge of their involvement.
If any more information is required I am willing to supply you with
anything that will assist you.

Respectfully,
To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing this letter to state that the only issue that might
come up as a conflict with my being a Planning Board
member regarding windmills is the following: I am related to
the five owners of Wood Farm LLC who have been
approached for windmills by St Lawrence Windfarms. They
are my son, two brothers, and a nephew.

Karen Bourcy
fX11LeksLA,-..„

Planning Board Mem er

To Whom It May Concern:

My wife, Virginia Worner Edsall, and I, Richard James Edsall, my wife's parents,
Frank A. Womer, Jr. and Virginia Forquer Womer, and my wife's brother, Frank
A. Womer,111, all own property which lies within the boundaries of the BP wind
project in Cape Vincent. We ail have contracts to lease our wind rights to BP.

To my knowledge we have no other potential wind conflicts in the town of Cape

Vincent.

My wife and additionally own property in the village of Cape Vincent at 119
South Real Street, on the Valley Road near the village limits, and on the Stoney
Point Road. None of the additional property is under contract to anyone.

We have no ties to St. Lawrence Wind.

May 15,2008
 /•■■

, D
: '
_0:-.A.,...T.z.e.g......... !'....c-77-
'i'''.4'-i'eet,•..4Z;1.‘.'..! . '4 A./tr. C.
- - 1, .6"---"
-

- ----44
,, , -1 ) ..*,''' ."..7 /.;
...„64,-(..c.,-z-e.4...,L _An-,...1, _ ir _(?.. ,::-.. ._
d71,-.:::‘,41,--- ''''..--P-i: , fil;..4...c1 . L.."...
i ,e
June 9, 2008

Cape Vincent Town Board

As a member of the Cape Vincent Town Planning Board I

have no financial interest or gains from the Wind Mill Company's.
I have no relatives that have land invested in the Wind Mill
district. I'm not even a resident of this area because I was born in
Buffalo, New York. I have no financial claim to any gains. Thank
you.

George Mingle
 Supervisor Assessor
THOMAS K. RIENBECK TOWN OF CAPE VINCENT
JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK 13618
ROBERT V.R. BARNARD

Town Cled..frax Colkctor Historian

ARLENE V. INGERSON PETER J. MARGREY

Councilmen Planning Board Chairman

MARTY T MASON RICHARD J. EDSALL
IOSEPH H. WOOD
DONALD J. MASON Board of Appeals Chairman
MICKEY W. ORVIS EDWARD P. BENDER

Superintendent of Highways Zoning Enforcement Officer

DANNY R HUBBARD ALAN N. WOOD

FAX (315) 654-3366

May 19, 2008

To whom it may concern,

I, Thomas K Rienbeck have no family members associated with wind
farm development in Cape Vincent, nor do I stand to benefit from said
development financially or otherwise.

Sincerely,
1.4
Thomas K Rienbeck