Section 405 Purpose
“The purpose of the site plan review procedure is to allow the Planning Board to attach safeguards and conditions to those uses which might otherwise produce deleterious effects on the environment, the rural and scenic character of the town, the neighborhood character, or the Town residents’ health, safety and welfare.
Furthermore it is the purpose of site plan procedure to authorize the Planning Board to disapprove a plan for any use, the deleterious effects of which cannot be mitigated because of the particular conditions of the site it is to occupy.”
(Emphasis is mine)
Now for those of you in CV look across the River at Wolfe Island
After reading the purpose clause above now read the visual impact statements from the developers EIS studies. These are words verbatim from them…not me, and ask yourself if wind turbines in our town will change the town or neighborhood character, or have deleterious effects on the scenic character of our town. Let the wind developers tell you themselves below.
BP
Measured from the ground to the tip of an extended blade, each wind turbine would be
up to 420 feet high and visible from numerous locations in the surrounding area.
The height and density of the turbines would make them a focal point and would
change the visual character of the town.
Acciona
The introduction of large, clearly man-made structures creates an obvious disruption of
the planar agricultural landscape. The well-defined vertical form of turbines on the
horizon introduces a contrasting and distinct perpendicular element into the landscape.
The proposed turbines would be the tallest visible elements within view and will be
disproportionate to other elements on the regional landscape. The distribution of turbines across an extended area would result in the proposed Project being perceived as a highly dominant visual element. The moderately paced sweeping rotation of the turbine blades would heighten the conspicuity of the turbines; no matter the degree of visibility.
Wolfe Is. wind turbines from CV Rt 6. Mitigatable?????
By our own zoning laws and the PB site plan review language quoted above, and by a comparison to the wind developers visual assessment could the CV PB actually responsibly approve a project like this for CV?
I would say even the wind developers are telling us their projects are going to dominate the town and are not mitigatable for the site they will occupy. These statements are also in complete contradiction to our comp plan and other zoning language…of course unless this language gets weakened or changed by our current zoning and comp plan committees to accommodate turbines in some manner.
The point being is that the Planning Board actually does have an option to say NO right in the LAW. Now the Edsall planning board did, or would have ignored this. It will be interesting to see what the new planning board and will do with this authority if it remains in our new zoning when in essence the wind developer visual assessments themselves are telling the PB they should deny the projects.
And finally a couple pictures of just water for your enjoyment! Interesting the beauty that is all around us in CV. You just have to look!
Art Pundt
Art, like I have always said, you are a great researcher. And if what you say in this post is true, there is no reason to ban them. The new comprehensive plan and zoning laws will allow our planning board to do the right thing, if it ever gets in front of them again, and that is a big if.
ReplyDeleteThe method I laid out in my previous post is the best way to handle the wind problem. The new board and appointed officials understand this as well and I am sure they realize it would be unwise to institute a ban as our only solution.
It won’t stand up in court; in fact, I am sure BP hopes we ban them because their court case would be stronger.
Hmmm, seems like our state assembly folks understand this as well.
As I said before, you are dead wrong on this issue. Now you can debate it until the cows come home if you like, but facts are facts.
Thanks John...but just the same they are YOUR facts are your facts. We just disagree You can verify what I have said about our zoning. You know I don't BS. It really is what I have been saying for some time that our laws and comp plan AS IS has what we need, and we need to be REAL careful of how we revise them.
ReplyDeleteI encourage you to look it up Page 12 Article IV Site Plan Review
Section 405. And in addition page 14 Section 420 - C says the PB in site review must use compatability with the comp plan as one criteria in its review. And I think it has been clearly established that these projects even in smaller form do NOT have compatability with our Plan...and the developers visual study language even makes that real clear. Even the new bosrd memebers agreed on the compatibility point in their campaign platform. If I wondeer if they realized that they were endorsing the PB in essence though criteria C to deny these projects. Unles the committee changes these laws the PB has all the power we need and always has had. They just didn't want you to know. So our new PB must now deal with this language. Of course as I said unless they change or weaken that power. That is why it is so important to keep track of what they are doing.
In a sence the NO answer is all around us. And that is MY FACT!
I think you missed my point, let me be more clear. I agree with you the current laws allow for this, all I was saying is I am sure the new laws will as well. And since there will not be any wind issues brought before the planning board before the new laws are in place, it doesn't matter what the old laws say as of today.
ReplyDeleteFact of the matter is we don't need to ban them because a non-corrupt planning board will follow the law. And hopefully the new laws will also include things like PVA's.
As to the planning board you have a lot more faith than I do. I think they lean a lot more pro wind or compromise than you will admit, and 2 members still have conflicts. Here is what the chairman Mr. MacSherry said in the WDT paper in 2 separate articles. Maybe he has changed his mind, I don’t know.
ReplyDelete"Mr. Edsall had great abilities and we will miss his expertise, but I think this is going to work out to the benefit for everyone. Perhaps through his actions, Mr. Edsall opened the door to use our time to resolve our issues once and for all," he said. "We should step back for a second and develop a wind zoning law that is prudent but not overly restrictive."
AND
“MacSherry remarked that towns along the river might want different siting from the other towns in New York State, but if they become too restrictive, they might lose out. The more restrictions you have, the more problems they would have with siting.”
This certainly gives me pause. I’m not making it up, I am just reporting it. I guess you would have to ask him for more clarity as to what he means. He is not corrupt but I don't think that automatically equates to no wind siting as you suggest.
As to the PVA, I have heard they may not even be leally enforceable. And you deal with lawyers all the time and know about the legal implications of “deep pockets”, and BP certain has “deep pockets to make a legal point. They could agree to a PVA and then keep some poor guy held up in court and going broke trying to get his compensation from a PVA for years in appeals.
It's a pipe dream!