If you follow the wind energy controversy in NNY you are probably aware by now that Clayton NY is under threat of wind development once again. Same developer, Iberdrola, same general area of town, but this time with towers that could reach over 600 ft. and have a devastating impact on regional scenic resources near and away from the 1000 Islands.
You may also be aware that Clayton has decided to rescind its wind overlay district in its current zoning law and ban industrial wind turbines altogether. There will be a public hearing to that effect on March 23 at the Clayton Opera House.
There was an editorial by Perry White in the Watertown Daily Times opining that banning turbines is the wrong direction. In another article people and officials from Cape Vincent have suggested, rather arrogantly I might add, that CV somehow has the lock on wind zoning as the way to defeat and protect a community against unwanted wind energy development, and that a ban would be an easy defeat for a wind company in the state's Art 10 siting process. Unfortunately they have no case law to back that assertion.
This has gone to a heated debate, to ban or not to ban on the WDT comment section under that article by Ted Booker. As I said some believing CV has the panacea wind law approach to defeat wind, and Clayton should defer to CV's advice.
But something critically important got overlooked in this debate. Clayton has already expressed their feelings on the CV zoning law, and it was not a particularly favorable one for CV.
On Aug,2, 2013 the Town of Clayton wrote a letter to the NYPSC in regards to the BP Cape Vincent wind farm matter. In the letter they basically call for the PSC to respect CV's right to home rule. However, later in that letter they directly address the CV' wind zoning law itself and say this as follows verbatim from the letter.
“The Town Board of the Town of Clayton is elected to
represent our community and to make decisions that are in the best interests of
the community as a whole. With that
said, we, as a board are concerned about the current Cape Vincent Ordinance as
it would allow a potential negative impact on the scenic vista from the St.
Lawrence River.”
You can see the whole letter at this link below to the NYPSC website.
So even though some officials and people in CV are strutting around declaring themselves the "experts" at wind zoning and the Art 10 process, and suggesting Clayton should not ban, bur defer to CV. And even though the WDT seems to back CV's stance there are other rational thoughts in this debate.
Well apparently Clayton has a different idea and a major concern about the CV law and has for some time now. And one might conclude that since Clayton objects to portions of the law itself about siting wind energy, I think it would be reasonable to conclude they would also question the process that the CV "experts" used that resulted in allowing turbines to negatively impact the scenic vistas of the river. In other words too close to the river.
What is particularly interesting about the Clayton letter statement is that they are not nit picking some obscure part of the CV wind regulations. The are basically addressing (or objecting to) the very critical heart of the debate on wind energy near the 1000 Islands. Where should the turbines be sited in relation to the scenic vistas of the river and region.
Apparently Clayton seems to feel CV and their so called "experts" dropped the ball big time and got it wrong when it came to a major concern if not THE major concern of wind energy in our region.
Now apparently, especially with the new 600 ft. towers, Clayton has determined with their experts that such development can not be mitigated and a ban is the only reasonable and effective solution to protect their town and the 1000 Islands from a host of negative issues industrial wind presents.
I think one might conclude that in the case of the new Clayton ban proposal, that they have apparently decided, basically in effect, that the entire CV law process was neither appropriate or effective.
In addition the 1000 Land Trust, a major environmental organization in the 1000 Islands region, on their Facebook site says this in regards to Clayton's proposal to ban wind development in the town.
" The 1000 Islands Land Trust applauds the Town of Clayton for taking a strong position on the Horse Creek Wind Farm"
Now these don't appear to be the irrational, marginal, lunatic, screaming voices like some in CV would like you to believe, or have called us who support the ban approach. Or have gone so far as to call this approach 'stupid"!
I think it might be time for CV to get off their damn high horse and in fact start taking some advice from Clayton and others who have rationally looked at a ban.
If you don't want wind development to destroy the 1000 Islands why not get unified behind Clayton and TILT and a ban that actually removes the threat, instead of this irrational game of trying to defeat wind energy by actually allowing some so as to appease the state.
No comments:
Post a Comment