More Cape Vincent Zoning Notes

To this day almost a year after the 2012 Cape Vincent zoning and comp plan were passed something still baffles me.  Let's look at the overall scenic protection intent of our zoning and comp plan.

In the months before passing the law while formulating the zoning, a debate came up.  I believe this was initiated by CV Councilman Schneider, about protecting the scenic views from the CV  islands from huge industrial wind turbines on the CV mainland.  As I remember he wanted a setback that would have preserved the island property viewshed.  The zoning lawyer they hired said you can't do that!

As I remember it, the zoning attorney indicated  he could not defend a law based on that premise, or basically zoning based on not liking something because of the way it looked.  Or I would have to interpret that to mean based on the beauty of the scenic view.

But isn't that a great deal of what CV is all about????  Go figure!!!

What happened instead was a setback from the water of 2 miles for industrial wind turbines, but even that was not based on protecting the scenic view, it was to protect the health safety and welfare and property values of the highly taxed water front properties.  In fact that is what our zoning says.
AND 2 miles from the water is NOT going to protect the island scenic view!  Look across the river!!!

But wait a minute!!!

The scenic view is in large part what makes up the extremely important CV tourism, second home, and even 1st home  economy, AND view is a large part of property values too!  

 Not only that, our comp plan's intent, that our zoning must be in accordance with, is in very large part about protecting the scenic resources of Cape Vincent near the water AND in the CV interior. In fact you could make the case it is all about protecting the scenic resources of the town and village.

Not to mention that the scenic protection idea pops up many times in our zoning.

OK so in this appeasement of Art X., which way is it?  Are we protecting the scenic view or aren't we????

So if this is the case how can the attorney basically claim he can't defend a law that protects how something looks (scenic view) when our law and our comp plan in the end have an awful lot of scenic protection language in them?

Not to mention that in the end the town zoning committee wrote a zoning law that allows industrial wind turbines, and the town board accepted it and passed it.  But any industrial wind turbines in CV will have a dramatic impact on the scenic quality of the town...even a few. Once again...go figure!!!

So once again in our irrational hoopla appeasement of Art. X the town is running around in circles.

Are we protecting the scenic view or aren't we?????

Remember that 800 name petition that wanted a 1 year moratorium on wind development in CV?  Maybe the current town board should have honored that, instead of a rushed 6 months in fear of Art. X so they could figure out some more of the details  and gray areas that appear to have them running around in circles.

And you ain't heard the half of it yet!!!!