This will drive the anti SASS, anti government people crazy. Just one more document to stop development, especially wind development! Why don't these anti wind, pro SASS people just leave us alone - right?
Well it is always instructive to look at a little history and the record.
Look at the paragraphs below that are quotes from an important scenic protection document.
Is it from the TIRAP study?
Is it from SASS?
Is it from some environmental organization like TILT or Save the River?
Or was it written by the anti wind officials in one of the local towns trying to curb development, like wind development?
Here are the quotes.
"encourage the development of land for its most appropriate use, and to conserve and protect the rural, agricultural, and scenic resources;"
"minimize negative environmental impacts of development, especially in visually or environmentally sensitive areas, such as viewsheds, along the Lake and River, wetlands, and floodplains;"
"protect existing wooded areas, scenic views, agricultural lands, waterways, ground and surface water supplies, ecological systems, wildlife habitat, and natural vegetation;"
"Preserve and protect historically significant lands and buildings, regulate commerce and other non-residential uses in a manner that is sensitive to the natural scenic resources and provides freedom for land owners to make beneficial economic use of their land, provided that such uses are not harmful to neighboring properties."
Wow...that is pretty protective language to preserve sensitive scenic and environmental resources!
Here is some more of that environmentally protective language.
"...to attach safeguards and conditions to those
uses which might otherwise produce deleterious effects on the unique features,
environment, rural and scenic character ..."
"Furthermore, it is the purpose to disapprove a plan for any use, the deleterious effects of which cannot be mitigated because of the particular conditions on the site it is to occupy."
So who wrote this obviously govt. intrusive stuff???
Now sit down because the irony is ... these paragraphs are from the OLD Cape Vincent zoning law, written by some CV individuals who would now be considered very pro wind, against restrictive zoning, anti govt., and against the scenic designation that SASS would bring to the 1000 Islands area!!!
Go Figure!!!
The language was not written by the CV town board of the last few years, put in power in part by seasonal voters!! This was written going way back to 1998 long before there was a political ush to register seasonal people to vote in CV. This language in CV zoning was also in place during most of the CV wind battle.
The only words I redacted were references to the town or planning board so you could focus on the stand alone protective language.
The current CV zoning law was revised in 2012 with other revisions in 2014. Similar language still exists in the current zoning. And the further irony is that the CV town board of 2012
actually wrote a zoning law to allow some wind development which the old town board refused to pass. It actually puts us closer to wind development than the old law, if the old law was applied correctly.
So a lot of these people bitching about the potential SASS scenic preservation and so called regulations are apparently not bright enough to figure out they have been living with scenic protections for a long long time.
And the kicker is, this was written mostly by the pro wind, anti govt., leave us alone, you can't tell me what to do on my land types!
These people are so confused they can't figure out where they stand or even what they have supported in the past, yet they think we should take their advice!!!
When they wrote these restrictive scenic zoning regulations, apparently it was perfectly OK, but when others are asking for scenic protections, suddenly that is off limits.
Can you say hypocrisy????
STOP, The regional wind energy industrialization of one of New York State's most beautiful and environmentally sensitive areas, the 1000 Islands of the St. Lawrence River and the Golden Crescent of Eastern Lake Ontario. If you don't think you are seeing the most recent posts click on the current month in the archives to the right.
Art, you have to remember the old law you are referring to was never meant to be followed. Even the Comprehensive plan, which was supposed to be the basis for the zoning law ,was never intended to be followed. Several of the authors of the law you refer to have said publicly that it was way too restrictive and was only adopted because of insistence and guidance from the county. As far as Edsall and his crew of miscreants were concerned , the Comp. Plan was only adopted as a means to an end, which was to enforce the zoning law however they saw fit. Remember Edsall's motto-" if you don't like the way we have applied the law, file an Article 78"
ReplyDeleteThe irony you describe is well put, but don't give these yahoos any undeserved credit . Any good intentions they may have had quickly vanished the day two shifty wind developers blew into town and offered them some quick cash.
The new law was developed with convoluted logic and misplaced sense of "reasonableness".
I understand what you are saying and you are probably right on some of those points.
ReplyDeleteHowever, no matter what the old law was or how the county was involved they still had the option to pass it or not.
As for the old 2003 comp plan... they would have had the opportunity again to pass something less restrictive and change the law at the same time. Over time I have come to believe that in the early days before they figured out the $$$$ wind could bring them they were trying to actually zone it out, and the comp plan was part of that effort. Why would they put specific language in it to restrict towers in the very place they later wanted to allow them? And that would be AFTER the 1st wind study towers arrived in 2002.
Then you have that sticky little WDT article from Aug 2005 where Rienbeck who was the CV supervisor says he thought turbines would upset the beauty of the town, and the article goes on to say that the county was working with the town to actually zone out wind turbines.
Of course like I said once the wind money showed up, then they wanted to manipulate and distort the zoning to pave a clear path for industrial wind.
The real bottom line is that SASS is OK, and I have no problem with it, but the real power is in the zoning of these communities, and even if the communities refuse to hold up their zoning or comp plan you still have legal recourse.
SASS on the other hand has good points for tourism and recognition, but I'm not sure it has any real teeth in terms of restricting invasive industrial developments, and the anti SASS are pole vaulting over mouse terms on that account as to how it will restrict business and development.
We already have the state SEQR environmental protection which we saw with wind development in CV was pretty much a joke, and that opinion was backed by someone in the know about SEQR at the DEC.