T
This paper is meant to follow my previous paper on the 2003 Cape Vincent (CV) Joint
Comprehensive Plan (plan), and should be read in that context. A short review shows that
once a Plan as been adopted, NY Town Law states that all subsequent zoning or
amendments to zoning must be in accordance with the land use directions set forth
in the Plan. NY Town Law Article 16, Sec 272a. There is a solid important legal
relationship. Once the plan is adopted this relationship has legal teeth and potential
legal consequences if the municipality strays from it.
Comprehensive Plan (plan), and should be read in that context. A short review shows that
once a Plan as been adopted, NY Town Law states that all subsequent zoning or
amendments to zoning must be in accordance with the land use directions set forth
in the Plan. NY Town Law Article 16, Sec 272a. There is a solid important legal
relationship. Once the plan is adopted this relationship has legal teeth and potential
legal consequences if the municipality strays from it.
In the previous paper on the Comp Plan it was established that our CV Plan was
clearly about the following:
Preserving the quiet charming small town rural atmosphere.
Preservation of the scenic resources for the benefit of stable and responsible residential
and seasonal home development, and protection of tourism and economic assetts.
Preservation of the historical quality of the town, which is highly correlated with scenic preservation.
Preservation of the environmental resources of the town and region.
Preservation of the traditional zoning protections such as health, safety, and welfare of
the community
In this paper we will explore whether the Town of
(Zoning) complies with this NY Town Law mandate, and what are the implications for industrial
wind development in the community. Does the CV Zoning support the Plan as intended by NY Law,
and does our Zoning therefore support wide scale industrial wind development in our community, or
any similar scale and magnitude of development with similar impacts?
After reviewing the bullets points above concerning the intent and vision of the Plan’s long range
goals for the community, let’s consider our Zoning to see how it complies with those goals. The Plan
is the guiding document; Zoning is the tool that carries out the long range vision and goals of the
Plan in an ordinance, and in concrete terms in specific law.
One place to look for evidence of the proper relationship between the Plan and Zoning is to look at
Zonings opening statements on Purpose. In other words, simply put, what is the purpose of our
Zoning? Below is an illustration from page 1 of our current Zoning, and its statement of Purpose
in Section 115. Please excuse my notations. Consider carefully.
The purpose as stated here sets the premise that our Zoning ordinance is clearly a very environmentally sensitive document that complies with the long range intent of our Plan, and follows the mandates set forth in NY Town Law that Zoning must be in accordance with the Plan. The language here is actually stronger than the Plan in support of environmental protections, particularly scenic resource protections, where industrial wind development is in complete visual contradiction due to its size, scale and its dominating area changing impacts. On the scenic theme alone, under Purpose, consider the number of times in the language that theme is reinforced. With this in mind, once again review the statements below from the Acciona and BP SEQR documents of the expected impacts from their industrial wind development proposals.
Acciona Visual Assessment
The introduction of large, clearly man-made structures creates an obvious disruption of
the planar agricultural landscape. The well-defined vertical form of turbines on the
horizon introduces a contrasting and distinct perpendicular element into the landscape.
The proposed turbines would be the tallest visible elements within view and will be
disproportionate to other elements on the regional landscape. The distribution of turbines across an extended area would result in the proposed Project being perceived as a highly dominant visual element. The moderately paced sweeping rotation of the turbine blades would heighten the conspicuity of the turbines; no matter the degree of visibility.
BP Visual Assessment
Measured from the ground to the tip of an extended blade, each wind turbine would be
up to 420 feet high and visible from numerous locations in the surrounding area.
The height and density of the turbines would make them a focal point and would
change the visual character of the town.
BP Cumulative Assessment
The cumulative effect of the adjacent St. Lawrence and Cape Vincent Projects would
be very much the same as if either project were essentially doubled in size. On a
regional level, the effect of the four wind projects will be to create a continuous swath
approximately 25-30 miles east to west ,from Evans Mill all the way onto mainland
The CV Plan, and now our Zoning Purpose, is in direct and significant conflict
with industrial wind development or any other similar scale development.
Typical District Zoning as an Ineffective Land
Use Tool for Industrial Wind Development Mitigation
Explore what is conveyed in our Zoning concerning the Planned Development District.
Note several important quotes from this section:
“The town recognizes that its most important and sensitive resource is its extensive shoreline. Development of, access to, and scenic views of this resource are issues of major importance to the Town.” While the Town wishes to encourage development of this resource it believes such development must be high quality and not in conflict with adjacent land uses. It explains that this district was created to: review and oversee development that might otherwise cause injury to this most valuable resource. Although wind development is currently not proposed directly in this district, using it as an example, the size, scale and obvious invasive visual long distance impacts of industrial wind development, admitted to by the developer’s SEQR statements, would be a significant back drop to this supposed high quality district, especially where angular shoreline views might look inland. A view of the Wolfe Is. Wind Farm from nearly any vantage point in CV, at a minimum of 2 miles and further, clearly demonstrates that the scale of industrial wind turbines defies typical district zoning separation practices. It would therefore be a dramatic adjacent conflicting land use with what is intended in this PDD district, and therefore does not comply with our Zoning. The same is certainly true of the River and Lake Districts adjacent to the Ag. District, where turbines are proposed and would be highly visible from all CV zoning districts, as well as land areas of other communities that unfairly have no control over the impacts and the land use decision in CV. This typical district zoning concept is rendered ineffective by the wide spread visual impacts alone of industrial wind development. As a result, this nearly complete inability to sufficiently mitigate the impacts makes a strong case for a prohibitive wind ordinance as a viable and necessary alternative to normal zoning practices, which are easily dominated, buy industrial wind development.
A view of the 400 ft. Wolfe Is. wind turbines from County Rt. 6, a location in Cape Vincent; the long range impact of industrial wind turbines. The turbines appear to be in CV, yet are many miles away. This is a prime example of the inability of typical zoning districts to have any effect on these impacts. CV had no influence on the siting of these turbines, but suffers the impacts, including the invasive bright red flashing aircraft avoidance lighting at night. If wind development proceeds with approximately 140 such turbines in CV, it will be almost impossible to visually separate the several projects boundaries, and the turbines will appear continuous with the impact of 226 industrial wind turbines. Our Zoning is impotent to mitigate this regional overwhelming impact, and a CV prohibitive ordinance must be considered as an appropriate zoning tool for our community and region to protect its scenic resources. The language of both our Plan, and Zoning endorsing numerous themes of scenic preservation support this premise and require appropriate preservation actions be taken, based in law. The scale of industrial wind development is turning traditional zoning on its head.
Both pictures below from the Acciona SEQR visual simulations show the invasive impact to critical CV scenic vistas. Note the Village, and River Districts in front, and the turbines several miles away in the Ag. District. Our Comp Plan, and the Zoning that supports it are in direct and significant contradiction to both document’s scenic preservation themes. In addition they demonstrate the inability of typical CV district zoning to mitigate these impacts. It becomes increasing clear that a prohibitive ordinance alternative must be seriously considered. Not only for the protection of CV, but to not violate the overall NYS zoning legal relationships. This is a prime example of what visitors entering CV via ferry would encounter as their first visual impression of CV. This is directly in conflict with preserving the scenic tourism related assets of the Village and Town as the Plan and Zoning clearly suggest.
Acciona’s industrial wind turbines from a view many miles away down river past Cedar Pt. State Park, with Linda Is. in the near distance. A view similar to what Wolfe Islanders will see. These turbines, proposed well back in the CV Ag. Dist. dominate the skyline over the River Dist, and Linda Island
A note about the photos. These two developer simulations are not my photos. They are from the Acciona SEQR documents concerning visuals impacts. I have cropped and blown up the photos with Photoshop so the impacts are more realistic to what a visual receptor in the viewshed will actually experience. Developer photos typically grossly understate the impacts with wide angle lenses or incorrect lenses that do not represent the receptors eye view or the resulting impact. The relationship of the landscape to the turbines was determined by Acciona’s consultant, and that relationship has not been changed.
Regulations, and Industrial Wind Development
A Significant and Absurd Contradiction!
The CV Zoning Ordinance Sec. 505 “Signs” on pages 19 -22, outlines numerous detailed regulations related to flags and signs. The obvious intent is to mitigate the impact of these uses and preserve the aesthetic quality of the community, which is directly in line with the Plan and Zoning intent’s. Regulating size also has the effect of restricting the impacts to short distances which certainly would not exceed a district’s boundaries. The most interesting regulation, as you can see below, is the “Prohibited Signs” clause Sec. 505 B-2. It states:
(Prohibited) “Any sign which has flashing lights or moving parts”
Our Zoning law includes 3 detailed pages of regulations on signs and flags, yet there are no regulations for the invasive negative aesthetic impacts of massive rotating wind turbines. And those wind turbines will have…Huge moving parts, and bright flashing lights that can be observed from every district in the community!!! A completely absurd zoning contradiction!
In addition under sign regulations page 21 Sec. 505 –C. It states:
All signs shall be erected and constructed in a fashion so as no to obstruct traffic, cause visual blight (a purely subjective aesthetic judgment) nor detract from the value of the property adjacent to that property upon which said sign is erected.
It defies logic in my opinion to have a Zoning ordinance that clearly understands the aesthetic impacts of the more minor aesthetic issues like signs, and would allow a major disruption to the aesthetic resources of the community, and result in major impacts to property values of adjacent properties, and even properties further beyond. These things can not be reconciled, without major changes to our Comp Plan’s intent and our Zoning purpose, and the relationship of the two documents expected by NYS law. This would be an unwise direction. Once again we must raise the need to recognize the overwhelming impacts of industrial wind development and also seriously consider the alternative of prohibiting it within the community. The choice really comes down to a nearly complete abandonment of traditional land use documents and the values within to accommodate industrial wind development. It is clear that tremendous alterations would be needed to existing land use directions before we could even start to entertain wind development. Since such large alterations would be needed, it calls into question the wisdom of doing it at all.
No Aesthetic Judgment???
I have heard several times from previous town officials that the town does not make aesthetic judgments in their efforts to deflect the obvious aesthetic impacts of industrial wind turbines. However this rational does not hold up, starting right at our Plan and it’s intent, and translating to the Purpose clause and other language of our Zoning.
What would be the point of regulating the size and type of signs, as well as the numerous regulations obviously oriented at aesthetics if an aesthetic decision was not being made? Or why would the Town charge a premium in taxes for property owners with shoreline properties with prime water viewsheds? The Town is making numerous clear aesthetic judgments, yet it defies logic by negating or denying the overwhelming and obvious visual impact of industrial wind development, even as admitted to by the developers, as if it doesn’t even exist and we can then simply circumvent our land use documents so obviously steeped in visual resource protections. This notion is absurd and this subject must now be squarely on the table for open discussion, including a prohibitive ordinance.
Industrial Wind Turbines and Beauty…Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder?
Let’s Face Up To The Argument
A discussion of our land use documents can not avoid the question of aesthetic judgment, and who is right or wrong, or what is the public decision overall. Is it really simply a matter of personal taste involving wind turbines? If so, then first of all, our entire land use documents themes would be pointless since they rely so heavily on scenic preservation, clearly raising need a for aesthetic judgment. As we introduce turbines into the land use equation the question becomes much more important and is magnified.
NYSERDA’s (a very pro wind source) Wind Power Tool Kit defines the visual impact as the most significant issue a community faces. Quote below.
Aesthetics and Viewshed Analysis
For many wind energy projects, visual impact is the most significant issue that local
communities must address. Therefore, it is particularly important that the visual impact
assessment conducted for each project accurately predict impacts. The visual impact of
wind turbines can be significant because of the height of the turbines, the large area
occupied by wind energy projects, their location in exposed (hilltop) areas, and the
movement of the rotor. This impact is subjective, and the degree to which it is an issue is a function of the value placed on the landscape and viewshed by the local community.
It is clear that our community through its land use documents clearly places a very high value on the viewshed of our community via the protections those documents provide.
More From NYSERDA:
Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts
Visual impacts frequently are among the most contentious issues raised about proposed wind farms. Because wind resources in the Northeast tend to be best at high elevations and near large bodies of water, turbines can be visible for long distances and may significantly alter scenic vistas. Although some people enjoy the sight of wind turbines, others consider them unsightly. Unfortunately, it is usually not possible to locate wind turbines where nobody will see them.
Once again, pro wind NYSERDA clearly recognizes what the local wind developers are telling us, that wind development may significantly alter the landscape; another direct collision with our land use document’s and their intent.
The argument however is still whether wind turbines are beautiful and enhance the natural landscape, or are a major disruption to the natural beauty of the landscape. Let’s first look at our region. It is clearly recognized by many people around the world as one of significant natural beauty. That is evident by the choice of people to come here in large numbers to vacation, and enjoy the scenery. We have a number of State Parks in the area, as well as the Canadians have determined some of the 1000 Islands as so significant they designated some islands as a national park. Typically this type of park designation by governments is at least in part recognition of the unique natural beauty of a location. So it is well established that our community and region are host to spectacular natural scenic resources, and governments on both sides of the border have taken steps to provide access to our scenic resources for the public. This is a simple recognition of the importance of the natural scenic wonders of the area.
What evidence do we have, however that wind turbines might not be a beautiful enhancing asset to a community or region. They are as follows:
Most people claiming wind turbines are beautiful are being directly or indirectly compensated in some way or aligned with family or friends that are, and will benefit from the development of wind energy which biases their claim.
Existing evidence of reduction in property values, with the visual impact as main factor.
Then there is the fact that even pro wind sources like NYSERDA, and the NYDEC agree that the visual impact needs to be studied and potentially mitigated. If turbines were universally recognized as beautiful by a majority, why raise this question or concern at all and the need for mitigation? For example, we don’t find a need to mitigate the scenic views in our community or suggest the views of majestic mountains in our national parks need mitigation or study to reduce their impacts. From this a logical conclusion can be reached that wind turbines are more disruptive visually to many people than they are beautiful.
Most scenic areas draw large numbers of people who want to reside, or vacation surrounded by natural beauty, and they value an unchanged landscape. I have seen no evidence that an area dominated by industrial wind turbines creates such a desirable quality that is specifically sought out for peace of mind, or even investment, based on demand. Small numbers of people may come as a curiosity, but no one or group that I know of is flocking to build vacation condos near or under wind turbines, or to specifically vacation in a similar location because wind turbines are beautiful and are sought after for the same qualities as a serene undisturbed aesthetic landscapes. It is their overwhelming dominance of the natural landscape which in the end reduces the natural beauty or scenic vistas of an area. It’s a matter of being so badly out of context to the natural surroundings. Although wind turbines may be interesting for a short term view, as a technological curiosity, or in the short term have an interesting and somewhat graceful sweep to the blade rotation, their long term presence on the landscape is a different matter and does not relate to traditional natural beauty concepts. I might consider the Mona Lisa beautiful, but I still don’t want it dominating a window that has a beautiful scenic view outside, nor would I want 100 Mona Lisas hanging in my house.
The dominance of a large group of these structures with the motion gives no relief for the eye or opportunity for variety. This defies many traditional concepts of beauty.
In addition the argument always comes down to, or is neutralized by opinion. When the wind turbine subjective beauty argument is posed by wind proponents, it’s as if it therefore is automatically 50/50 argument where no majority can be established and thus no one is right, but this illogically leads to a premise that because this 50/50 may be so, it is therefore concluded by proponents that we must automatically accept the significant impacts with no further question and is a rational for action to develop in their favor.
This completely negates 50% of the equal arguments the other way, that turbines are not beautiful. What about the people who don’t find wind turbines beautiful? If it was truly a 50/50 deadlock as might be suggested by wind proponents then in reality the rational thing to do would be basically do or change nothing in an argument that can not be won, one way or the other. Similar to a deadlock in government where no majority can be established so no action is taken. But we tend to defer to the argument that beauty is completely subjective and must therefore defer to wind turbines being erected. We need to stop deferring to this stance. There is after all evidence that a majority of people do not find wind turbines beautiful or appropriate in the landscape, especially in sensitive scenic areas. This evidence comes in the polarization of many many communities over visual impacts where wind turbines are proposed. The evidence comes in the fact that even pro wind sources admit to the objections, and visual impacts and go to long lengths to marginalize or compensate for them, right down to their visual simulations. Initially Acciona in their first DEIS even omitted the largest impact areas from their document, such as views from the River looking over water inward toward their project, for obvious reasons.
In addition, it is not really a beauty, no beauty question. It is one of context and significant character change. Do wind turbines, beautiful as some claim on there own, fit the context of a spectacularly and traditionally accepted beautiful viewscape. The answer is obviously no. If it wasn’t, then why wouldn’t we be accepting wind turbines as a natural and sought after enhancement to our treasured national park vistas, or to our other nationally recognized scenic vistas? In fact the opposite is the case. Efforts are often enacted to keep large winds turbines from visually impacting theses places. It is simple…because a majority of rational citizens understand the negative visual impacts of industrial wind development, and in the end, in essence, and in language, so does our own land use documents. If you have detailed regulations for smaller scale flags and signs, it borders on irrational to not recognize the vast visual impacts of massive industrial machines wide spread through a community as unacceptable for that community. However, the pro wind argument is made that our energy and climate needs are so urgent we must simply ignore the all the impacts of wind turbines for the greater good. This is the final emotional end run around the visual impact question. Is there really a greater good? This argument holds no water. Wind turbines produce such low capacity factors in the range of 20 – 25% even in good wind resources. So the over all environmental question becomes, why would we sacrifice the significant scenic resources and the long range land use documents that protect them; scenic resources that are the economic base for our region, knowing that as a result of that sacrifice the return will be that nearly 80% of the capacity of the wind development will not even be available when averaged annually and we can’t even reasonable predict the availability of the remaining 20%..
That is neither responsible management of our energy and climate problems, or a responsible government reaction to it, and is an insane environmental decision that is not for the greater good with such low return in exchange for such high environmental risks and impacts, especially in our scenic region. . If we sacrifice our long range land use goals, we will have to live with that reckless decision for many decades, and it may be an irreversible decision.
Even GE, a large manufacturer of wind turbines, recognizes that industrial wind turbines are not always an appropriate development from an aesthetic view point. . A quote from the section on aesthetics related to siting wind turbines from the GE paper “A Case for Wind”
“There will always be, and should always be, places where wind turbine development is off-limits when aesthetic and other environmental issues cannot be overcome. However, with the limited choices for cleaner energy sources, these decisions should be made with the public good in mind.”
A few things come to mind here. It is my belief that in such a scenic area as our community, for which we have stewardship, including the large expanses of flat water and resulting wide viewscapes, that the aesthetic impacts can not be over come. The clear evidence of which is right across the River with the visual impacts of the Wolfe Is. Wind Farm. We should be one of those places that are off limits due to our significant scenic resources recognized world wide. And finally, our land use documents are clearly telling us that we should preserve our scenic resources, and those documents have been established with the public good in mind, and they clearly indicate that the preservation of our scenic and other environmental resources is in the public’s best interest in our community and region.
If you carefully read GE's "A Case For Wind", a large manufacture of wind turbines is
telling us Cape Vincent may not be an appropriate place for indsutrial wind develop
after careful consideration of all the factors.
Wind Mill Tours
wind turbine capitals of California
It doesn’t appear that the significant beauty of wind turbines is enticing people to flock to this wind mill tour business!!! You would think that if so many people found wind turbines so captivating and beautiful, this parking lot would be full and the business would be booming. Compare this to the demand for our local boat tour businesses, state parks, marinas, or the Tibbets Pt. Lighthouse etc. There is no comparison, and the “wind turbines are beautiful for the majority myth” is just that…a myth, and this myth propagated by a minority for short term gain should not dictate the long range land use policies in our community and region, which is recognized by a true majority, backed by our land use documents, as beautiful, and this unique regional quality should be protected and remain that way.
Our Zoning and Site Plan Review
The cape Vincent
The provisions in CV Zoning for site plan review start with Article IV Sec. 405 and extend through pages 12 – 18. It should be explained that certain uses in Zoning are “uses of right” or “permitted” uses. In other words these uses need no site review, and as long as you have complied with all the other zoning regulations, and need no variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals, then you would normally be issued a permit by the Zoning Officer and be allowed to proceed without any further administrative issues except inspections as you proceed, or at the end a certificate of occupancy. However, certain uses in all CV zoning districts, although allowed, require site plan review as a check and balance on a use that might have greater impacts than normal, or might not conform to the typical uses allowed by use of right or permit. Site plan review attempts to review the development, and then use reasonable restrictions to try to make the use less invasive or offensive, and blend in. For example, in the River District, which is mainly permanent and seasonal residential uses, a commercial use is allowed. For example a marina, or a gas station convenience store, but these developments must be review by the Planning Board.
Below note the uses in the River Dist,. for example, that are permitted and the uses listed under site plan review. Note also the regulation listed in lot dimensions in the River Dist.
The reader should also realize that our overall zoning law defines many more regulations that guide the Planning Board in their site plan review, for example, the sign clauses. Unless there is some rational reasonable reason to do so, the planning board would have to conform its review to existing sign regulations or other regulations defined in the law, although they do have some discretion to impose additional conditions if they could be considered reasonable. But the overriding point for our discussion is that the Planning Board must comply with our Zoning laws as written and adopted by our legislative Town Board. The Planning Board can not amend or adopt a zoning law; only the Town Board has that power. Nor is interpretation of the Zoning laws in the power of the Planning Board. That power is exclusive to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
In our discussion, the trouble arises when there is no law defining any specific regulations for wind development, especially when it has the potential to bring such wide spread invasive and dramatic changes to the community. With no law for wind development, it would fall under our current zoning law which has no mention of wind development and as a result is completely ill-equipped to deal with it. It is claimed that turbines are utilities, and therefore fall under our currently Zoning. This puts an inordinate and irresponsible amount of power in the hands of the Planning Board with no specific wind amendment to guide it, to use only its discretion and ill-equipped law to site what is likely the biggest land use change in the history of CV, that has significant regional impacts.
It is even more heinous when this Planning Boarded started out its wind responsibilities with 3 members with wind conflicts of interest, and the current board still has some of those conflicts in place. To put it frankly…this is an absolutely absurd process in defiance of the recommendations of County Planners
But even this does not absolve the Planning Board and the Town of its responsibility when referenced back to our Comp Plan and Zoning Laws despite what conflicted or even well intentioned Town officers would imply. Each time we stray from responsible zoning and long range land use practices, we are brought back full circle to our responsible land use documents as checks and balances and protections provided by NY laws against run amuck zoning. To see this balance let’s look right at the beginning clause on site plan review Purpose on page 12.
The very first thing the reader should notice is the site review Purpose dovetails nicely with the overall Zoning Purpose as stated on page 1 of our Zoning, and obviously complies with our Plan. In addition, once again, the entire relationship upholds the NYS laws stating that Zoning ( and therefore its parts) must be in accordance with the intent of a Comp Plan once adopted…which we did in 2003. Neither the Planning Board nor the Town Board can legally side step these relationships and responsibilities no matter what they would like you to believe, and no matter who of our Town officers are endorsing this direction. It would be reckless and could cost the Town tax payer in legal challenges for wandering astray of these principles.
Note that the preservation of the scenic character of the town, and neighborhoods is once again a priority. Note the language about safeguards on the deleterious effects on the environment.
But the real kicker is the last sentence where the Planning Board is given the power to outright disapprove a development that does not fit environmentally with the community.
“Further more it is the purpose of the site plan procedure to authorize the Planning board to disapprove a plan for any use, the deleterious effects of which can not be mitigated on the site it is to occupy”
Now I could make the case that wind development does not comply with the Purpose of site review, or that the wind developments are not compatible with the community, but better yet, let’s let Acciona and BP make that case for us, as we once again review their visual impact statements. Here is the stake through the heart of any Planning Board’s of any attempt to allow or approve wind development in CV when considered against Site Plan Review Purpose, Zoning Purpose, and Plan intent. It is a complete contradiction!
Acciona Visual Assessment
The introduction of large, clearly man-made structures creates an obvious disruption of
the planar agricultural landscape. The well-defined vertical form of turbines on the
horizon introduces a contrasting and distinct perpendicular element into the landscape.
The proposed turbines would be the tallest visible elements within view and will be
disproportionate to other elements on the regional landscape. The distribution of turbines across an extended area would result in the proposed Project being perceived as a highly dominant visual element. The moderately paced sweeping rotation of the turbine blades would heighten the conspicuity of the turbines; no matter the degree of visibility.
BP Visual Assessment
Measured from the ground to the tip of an extended blade, each wind turbine would be
up to 420 feet high and visible from numerous locations in the surrounding area.
The height and density of the turbines would make them a focal point and would
change the visual character of the town.
BP Cumulative Assessment
The cumulative effect of the adjacent St. Lawrence and Cape Vincent Projects would
be very much the same as if either project were essentially doubled in size. On a
regional level, the effect of the four wind projects will be to create a continuous swath
approximately 25-30 miles east to west ,from Evans Mill all the way onto mainland
We have all researched the myriad of negative impacts that wind energy carries, so I won’t go into all that again. However, it stretches credibility beyond its limits to believe after reading the site review Purpose language, contrasted against the wind developer visual assessments, that by the Planning Board’s responsibility alone, that wind development should not be approved in CV. It is simple to see by looking two or more miles across the River at Wolfe Is., that the deleterious effects of industrial scale wind energy can not be mitigated. It is nearly impossible, and this development quite a distance away has already had deleterious effects on property values in CV. Logic would dictate that the only reasonable and responsible course by law for our Planning Board would be denial of the proposed CV wind projects as outlined by their own Zoning language and responsibilities.
But that is not all, and the responsibilities of the Planning Board’s site review are not over. The Planning Board continues to find itself in a box in terms of the scenic preservation of the community.
Consider what our Zoning law outlines as criteria the Planning board must follow, page 14, Sec. 420-C, - Review Criteria.
Line C states that one criteria to be considered is compatibility with the General Plan (Comprehensive Plan) And we now clearly recognize the intent of that Plan, and it is contrary to industrial wind development. Site plan C. criteria alone would preclude industrial wind development in CV.
In addition Criteria M on page 15 states:
M. Conformance with all other provisions of this law.
This could be interpreted to mean conformance with the Zoning Purpose from page one which is clearly about sensitivity to, and protection of our critical environmental and scenic resources.
I appears quite clear by this evidence and true Planning Board responsibility through the site plan review process that developments as invasive and contradictory to our land use plans puts an obligation on the planning board to use it’s given authority in law to deny these or any other such development.
A Word About Property Value Assurance Guarantees as a Zoning Protection
Simply put, if the use you are allowing for in your zoning, like industrial wind, has known impacts so invasive in the first place that you must consider a PVA projecting that people might actually move as a result of the invasive impacts, then you are already significantly in defiance of your Comp Plan and Zoning Purpose. One must be rational and ask the question…”If this use is that invasive that people might move due to its impacts, then why are we allowing it at all? This is accommodation, and compensation, the protections that should be afforded by responsible zoning. The ultimate property protection and guarantee is to not allow the use, instead of trying to accommodate it where it obviously does not belong and would be so far from the intent of our land use documents. In a sense any PVA becomes a permit or excuse for the developer to defy your land use protections. This is a very unwise approach.
Conclusion
We have no specific wind law amendment to guide the Planning Board in its review of wind development. Despite that, the process is still driven by the unethical hands of conflicts of interest and apparently tolerated by others without conflicts, but our Zoning and Comp Plan language persists. These documents if applied responsibly can still protect us, exactly as they were designed to do in the face of heinous and desperate attempts to manipulation and distort our laws to self interest and to appease a minority. We need only put these protections, backed solidly by law, in the hands of a responsible government that understands the implications that these long range land use documents are logically leading us to a prohibitive ban on industrial wind development. The actions of current CV government to tolerate or appease the distorted reckless direction of the past few years at the high cost to our land use and ethical laws is inexcusable and can not be tolerated further. We must therefore change the paradigm that we simply must accept industrial wind development as inevitable, and start openly and seriously discussing other alternatives, such as prohibiting wind development, which is far more in alignment with current long range land use documents, and their protections of our scenic and environmental resources.
No comments:
Post a Comment