More Zoning Notes - Prohibited Uses

 Prohibited uses introduction language in the new Cape Vincent zoning.  Emphasis is mine.


4.3 Prohibited Uses:
In order to protect the scenic beauty of the Town and the safety, health, and welfare of its residents, the following uses are prohibited:

Then there is a list of prohibited uses,

Note that statements says these uses are prohibited in part to protect the scenic beauty of the town.

But nowhere in this section will you find huge  500 ft. visually invasive wind turbines with spinning blades that sweep an area bigger than a football field and  bright red flashing lights that will be seen all over the town and region.  Apparently the zoning committee felt this just wasn't a use you needed to prohibit  to protect the scenic beauty of the town...wait...really????? They can just spread a few of them around...nobody will notice!!!   No...let me read that again.  Nope, no invasive 500 ft. wind turbines that might be seen for 25 or 30 miles or more are listed!

Note to town board.  Look across the river!!!!

Let's see. One of the criteria listed above to prohibit things in our zoning is for the scenic protection of the town.  Yet as I pointed out in another zoning post, the town's zoning lawyer says you can't prohibit things because you don't like the way they look.  You know... to protect the scenic quality of the town!!! 

According to the zoning committee and the town, because in part they are trying to protect the scenic beauty of the town they ban, hydro fracking, floating homes and casinos, certain explosives and chemicals and junkyards...but not 500 ft. noisy wind turbines which will  be seen all over the town and 1000 Islands and come with many negative invasive impacts that can not be effectively mitigated like the other uses, AND could make you sick and destroy much of the town's property values!!!

Seriously?

So did the town just decide to ignore the lawyer on this one, or are they  just really confused and inconsistent?

Zoning note to town board:  Is this the same logic you will use to protect us against Art. 10???