Grandpa Says - "Don't Tear Down The Outhouse!!!!"

Grandpa used to say " Don't tear down the outhouse until you are sure that new fangled indoor plumbing actually works!!!"  The lesson here is don't be so damn quick to throw out the old Cape Vincent zoning laws and comp plan until you really understand what the hell you are actually doing!!!

I noticed the letter Carol Murphy of the NY Alliance for Clean Energy sent to the NY PSC concerning Article X.  It’s what one would expect from a renewable (read wind) lobby. But I did notice something of particular interest in her letter. I think in a distorted way she is telling us something important for our defense against Article X.  Her quote below.

“Finally, the regulations should ensure that applicants need only consider local laws in existence at the time of application. Local governments should not be allowed to enact or amend laws as obstacles to development after an application is filed.”

(Underlining is mine)

Now this has some real importance for Cape Vincent if the PSC takes Murphy’s advice. 

BP has not applied for Article X siting in CV as far as we know…yet.  However, BP in Cape Vincent has had an application before the CV Planning Board for a wind project, and that application has been in the process for several years. 

I’m sure as far as BP and Article X are concerned, no matter what timing we use to try to fool them, our new zoning regulations for wind  (a defacto ban as Mr. Cullen calls it) are an after the fact attempt to derail their wind project, whether it is through an Article X siting, or through the PB site plan review application process if they decide to stick with that route in CV.

However here is my point, and it is one I tried to make in my zoning papers to the new zoning committee, which they rejected outright.  The point is we have a good well  established comp plan (the County agrees) which is very protective of our scenic resources in particular, and it has been in place for almost a decade.  Our zoning and its language in its last revision has been in place since 1998, and is very protective of our scenic resources as well.  These two existing documents, that did not just fall off the zoning turnip truck yesterday, just because wind development showed up in CV. In no way can they justify industrial wind development.  That was clearly pointed out in both my papers, and that is the very relevant point NOW. In fact it appears by using the setback approach even as restrictive as it may turn out, we are now essentially back handedly justifying wind development

One way or the other we don’t need to get ourselves caught up in this Article X trap that is essentially suggesting that  any new targeted wind zoning that looks to be directed at wind since it arrived in any town should not be allowed.

We have had the proper and effective existing comp plan and zoning which have been on the books for years not targeting any industry or development specifically.  Instead we have adequate laws and land use plans on the books with broad language to protect our community from ANY invasive development, not just wind. However, we need to understand this and have the  will to enforce them.  We even have the full justification to prohibit turbines through the current language of these two long existing documents, including the PB site plan review language that says any unmitigatable project

(industrial wind ) or one that does not comply with our comp plan should be denied. The beauty is there is NO targeted language toward wind development and this language has been on the books long before wind arrived.  It endorses the view that we have had long term goals in our community for environmental protections, particularly preservation of our scenic resources so important to our community.  This establishes the argument that our land use goals have been consistent. and not reactionary or targeted at any development but rather targeted for the long term towards the protection of the community, and it citizens and environment.  It established that we are not being reactive to wind development, that it is the other way around that invasive wind development is in fact intrusive to the community and it’s land use goals and laws.    The protections instead are broad and protective.  Using these pre-existing documents effectively removes Carol Murphy’s arguments on this matter.  Any new setback law whether now or later is going to play right into the argument that essentially wind energy is being singled out and targeted in our zoning. You can bet BP will argue it that way against our new law whether they go A-10 or stay local in siting.

That was one of the major points brought up in the two zoning papers I wrote.  Like a friend of mine says, we don’t necessarily need new laws, just the will to apply them in defense of our community against ANY invasive industrial or other development scheme.

The fact that our existing laws and comp plan say nothing specific about wind may in the end have been a real good thing.  But it appears we are going to change all that, and weaken our arguments and defenses. If you want a new wind law and comp plan be careful what you wish for before you trash the old documents.

My point has been all along that in our panic over Article X we have had tunnel vision to only one approach, and that is a long held mantra that we need a new zoning law and comp plan to deal with wind development.  As a result we are overlooking what might be the best defense and it is right under our noses in our current land use documents.

In a convoluted way Carol Murphy from NY ACE is telling us something important about our own existing zoning laws and comp plan. It is essentially a warning that any new law that even appears to target wind development could be less effective than if we enforced our old and long established land use goals and documents.