Since I was talking about Mr. MacSherry and the Planning Board (PB), let’s take a closer look at the Planning Board and their site plan review authority in our current zoning law, because it raises some very interesting questions. This would assume the zoning committee doesn’t significantly change those powers.
Unlike Edsall and his PB, if British Petroleum stays with local siting because they are grandfathered under Article X, the planning board would now be constrained to some degree by what the new zoning law regulations are relating to industrial wind energy. But the PB has some discretionary power given to it, essentially by NY Towns Laws.
But interestingly enough if BP stays with local siting, the question of whether an industrial wind project can be denied or prohibited does not evaporate just because we may have tough wind zoning regulations instead of prohibiting them. These projects would still have to undergo site plan review with local siting.
Consider the following language verbatim from our existing zoning laws directing the site plan review procedure by the Cape Vincent Planning Board:
Article IV, Section 405, Purpose, (page 12)
“The purpose of the site plan review procedure is to allow the Planning Board to attach reasonable 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’s resident’s health, safety and welfare.
Furthermore, it is the purpose of the site plan procedure to authorize the Planning Board to disapprove a plan for any use the deleterious effects of which can not be mitigated because of the particular conditions on the site it is to occupy.
( Underlining is mine for emphasis)
Note that word that doesn’t seem to be in the vocabulary of many town officers and zoning committee members, DISAPPROVE!!!! You know…like prohibit!!!
Now here is the extreme irony of this. These town officers and zoning committee people are running around in a tizzy telling you we can’t deny anything in our zoning and Pundt is NUTS…when if fact it actually says we can right in our LAWS….YIKES. Makes ya wonder who the hell is reading the damn laws? And they are the ones making us new laws!!!!
Well they better wake up because there is actually a provision for it right in the our zoning LAW!!!! Gee sorry about that. And Wiley at JLL thinks I am nuts and crazy to prohibit turbines and I have no rational grounds for that approach. Maybe he should pick up our zoning LAWS and read them more carefully! But this doesn’t fit his “agenda”
Now here is a little project for all you readers and the PB members. Print out this language above about the PB powers from our existing zoning laws, and march right on down to the CV ferry landing, or East End Park
1. Do these turbines create any significant deleterious effects?
2. Do they significantly change the rural scenic character of the Town? keeping in mind
they aren’t even in our town!!!
3. Would they significantly change the character of your neighborhood?
4. Could they be a threat to the health safety and welfare of the town residents?
5. Do they have any significant negative effects on the environment, especially visually,
and birds and bats etc?
So what do ya think! I think the PB would have one hell of a time trying to justify any industrial wind project based on the site review language they must abide by…unless they are NUTS like me!!!
Change the rural scenic character of the town?? Oh wait they aren't even in our town!!!!
Change the neighborhood character????
No potential environmental impacts here... eh!!!!
Now that you have done this, ask yourself in addition, would these wind monsters comply with the extensive scenic resource protection language of our existing comp plan? Because on page 14 of our zoning laws it says that one thing the PB must consider as part of its site review criteria is whether any project would be compatible with the “General Plan.” ( Comp Plan)
Any rational PB that has not lost its collective mind like Edsall’s board did would have to say YES to the above review questions therefore meaning they should deny the project, and they would have to answer NO to the Comp Plan question.
So even if we have some type of appeasement industrial wind law for the State, if BP remains with local siting any Planning Board could not allow it anyhow if they were honest to the community, and upheld their obligation through site plan review to protect us. Seems as if the PB’s job on these types of projects would be a rather clear cut no brainer if they actually followed the language of our existing law. You would have to be delirious to suggest an industrial wind project in any form could pass our CV zoning site plan review criteria test.
Now when I explain this to people they are usually amazed that the PB actually has the power to deny. Of course Edsall kept that well hidden and he did it with the turbines are utility scam. The next question is almost always… “Yeah…but turbines have been called utilities by the CV Zoning Board of Appeals and the court upheld that decision, so we can’t deny them anywhere in Town!
WRONG!!!
And this is exactly what Rienbeck and Edsall didn’t want you to figure out, and maybe the Hirschey govt as well since they won’t make any moves to prohibit or deny wind development. !!! If you look at pages 3 - 6 of our zoning you will see what uses in all zoning districts must go through site plan review. You will note that even utilities are listed for all districts as a site review use to be reviewed by the PB. Therefore they would be subject to the same criteria as any other project and could be denied as well. The language doesn’t say these criteria apply to everything EXCEPT utilities. Utilities are right there on the list, and that means they fall under the language that would allow them to be denied by the planning board. However, as I said this all applies only if BP stays with local siting which they have the option to do, and might even prefer if they believe like Addie Russel does that an A-10 board won’t allow turbines in CV or the 1000 Islands area.
Oh what an interesting web this is. Will the zoning committee change that site review language? Will BP stay with local siting? And if they do will the PB under a Hirschey govt carry out their obligation and responsibility to protect the community by denying projects that obviously can not be mitigated for the site they are to occupy?
Keep your eye on this one and stay tuned!!! Because this is something you are not likely to see on JLL or Pandora’s as they skip some critical details and discussions like this in an effort to not rock the Hirschey govt boat! They certainly don’t want you to know that the PB would have an obligation to deny industrial wind projects by our zoning LAW language. This denial, prohibit thing does not fit the “agenda.” Let’s see if truth fits their “agenda” if BP stays with local PB siting. Ask Mr. MacSherry or any planning board member that question. “ If BP stays with local siting will you deny the industrial wind projects based on the clear language of our site plan review purpose and criteria, or are you going to change that language?”
No comments:
Post a Comment