Wind Zoning Nonsense!

Below is a quote from a comment by a Cape Vincent official to the NYPSC in the Art 10 matter concerning the Galloo Island wind project.

"In spite of what developers and their advisers state, wind turbines do create harmful noise. While it is true that noise may not be always present, on many days the disturbance of air as it flows through the blades results in a dull, constant roar. I hear it from Wolfe Island on some days and I live nearly two miles from the nearest turbine."

Now it is important to understand that this CV official was deeply involved in the CV zoning process and I believe they are still part of the CV zoning administration.

As you can see, this person is trying to make a case that wind turbine sound at nearly two miles is detectable and could be disturbing.

OK...so logically I would have to ask..then why does the CV zoning allow wind turbines only 2 miles from the CV shore line?   And that is only from the shore.  What about those people who live inland where turbines are allowed who will be much closer to the potential disturbing noise?????

OR...why would you  restrict turbines to only 1.25 miles from the Seaway Trail which is route 12E along which their is more population density...OR...only 1.25 miles from hamlets, schools, and the  Village of CV boundary...OR...only approximately 3000 ft from other town borders?

And as I noted, this person knowing what they know about the turbine sound issues, was on the CV zoning committee.

The really disturbing part of this zoning law is this quote:

"...the purpose of this Section is to protect citizens from any potential negative impacts associated with WECS and also to protect the Town’s highly valued properties along the Lake and River from property devaluation associated with proximity to WECS"

So what about the health, safety and welfare and property values of the citizens in the CV interior where turbines are allowed?????  Apparently only the "high valued" properties deserve protection???

This zoning is outright discriminatory by favoring shoreline properties, and obviously by writing this zoning in this way they  have essentially endorsed this discrimination.  And they may have set themselves up for a solid legal challenge!

The point to be made here is just how screwy and contradictory you have to get to draft wind zoning regulations on a land use, the impacts of which can not be mitigated in the first place.

Now the other point is this comment went to the NYPSC concerning Galloo Island and the distorted logic used as a defense to oppose the Apex Galloo project (or Horse Creek in Clayton).  I can just see an Apex lawyer saying to this CV official..." why are you writng the PSC and opposing our project, when first, you are a  zoning official and in your town  the zoning YOU WROTE  allows  wind development...AND... the setbacks in your law allow turbines considerably closer to people and shore properties than our project on Galloo Island?

Now some people are going to say that  I am attacking.  Well...guess what...I did not write this contradictory or discriminatory zoning nonsense... the CV officials did in an effort to be supposedly "reasonable" in abject fear of the state Art 10 siting process and in the process sacrificed residents in the CV interior.  Don't have to believe me just look at the CV zoning map and see where turbines ARE allowed!

Here is a link to the CV zoning, see for yourself.

http://townofcapevincent.org/index.php/document-center/miscellaneous/215-cape-vincent-zoning-law-final-9-14/file.html 

The only real way to protect the ENTIRE town is to prohibit industrial wind which CV officials and their supporters refused to do. A ban just as Clayton proposed a few months ago and should  follow through on.

THINK...if you lived in the CV interior and did not want wind turbines near you...would you be happy with this law?  You were SACRIFICED!!!!
.

Atlantic Wind (Iberdrola) vs. The Town of Clayton, NY - Court Decision

The NY Supreme Court in Jefferson County ruled against the Atlantic Wind petition for an injunction against the Clayton moratorium specifically regarding wind study met towers  and on wind relayed development in the town of Clayton, NY.  Apparently this was only in regards to the injunction.  There is yet to be a hearing on the validity of the moratorium law itself.

Here is the related article in the Watertown Daily Times:

http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/news03/judge-claytons-moratorium-on-meteorological-towers-stands-for-now-20160715

In addition here is the Clayton defense response which I find far more enlightening in regards to the Art 10 law issue.  Thanks to John Droz for sending this information from his site.

http://wiseenergy.org/Energy/TI/Clayton_Lawsuit_Response.pdf