So here according to what Jae Lee at the WDT is reporting is what Judge Agresta said last night. Underlining and color emphasis are mine. Mr. Agresta is the presiding examiner for the whole Art. X process between BP and the town.
"Mr. Agresta also said he would be “very interested in parties working out some stipulations on alternatives,” such as alternative sizes for the project, and a case scenario that attempts to comply with the town’s zoning law — not necessarily by 100 percent but to “the degree possible.”
In this case PARTIES would have to be assumed to be BP...AND the Town of Cape Vincent. BP and the Town ARE the two major parties arguing over our zoning law. Apparently Agresta did not say BP alone should come up with alternative! He said the parties should! That is is an important.distinction.
STIPULATIONS in Art. X law are baiscally
negotiations to reach
agreements at this point right now in the stipulation phase of the Art. X process. Once agreed to they can not be argued or objected to later at the Art X siting board hearing by the parties that agreed to these stipulations.
So did Judge Agresta, an important representative with powerful influence in the Art. X process, just politely "suggest" the town and BP should reach an ageement on an alternative project
to a degree possible that isn't 100% compliant with the town zoning...which would also therefore be in direct violation of our comp plan's intent????
This should be real interesting???
Keep in mind that so far the town has been bending over backwards to appear "reasonable" and appease the Art. X process. Wonder now if the Town will just tell Judge Agresta the influential presiding examiner who can even make recommendations to the Art. X siting board...to just go take a hike...there aren't going to be any such stipulation agreements on our law! Keeping in mind of course that our town has repeatedly said they will defend our law and there will be NO negotiations with BP!
Mr. Pundt,
ReplyDeleteSoi you do not appear to be anymore ill informed that you already are.
Article X is an expired law.
Article 10 is the present law adopted under the New York State Power Act.
You're serious right? It looks like the influential presiding Art X examiner may have just told BP and the town to enter into negotiations over our zoning and not apply it 100% , and this nit picking crap is all you can come up with...seriously?
ReplyDeleteTalking about ill informed...I don't give a damn what you call it...Art. X - 10 just took away your rights!!!
Maybe you ought to a grip on THAT!!!
I am in favor of Article 10. But because of A-10 I don't think you will see WECs in Cape Vincent. Why are you so angry. Are things not going your way? And you live in Az. right. What have you contributed to stop the power act? If you are disturbed, get some friends to help.
ReplyDeleteWell # one I am angry because the State simply removed our rights as a community to determine our futures through home rule on what is likely to be the biggest land use issue in the region for decades, maybe a century. Then our govt. and a lot of other people just go along with the sytem that wholesale removed our rights.
ReplyDeleteAnd what did I do about the Power NY legislation? Well like a lot of people in NY there wasn't much we could do since it was rammed down our throats after big corporate lobbyists poured money into Albany.
Yeah I live in AZ. So what is your point? But I have been a seasonal resident in CV for 63 years, and own property and pay taxes and I am registered to vote there just like a lot of people who support this town govt.
And you think Art. 10 will keep WECS out of CV? Well maybe you should read again what Judge Agresta said in the WDT. Sounds to me like he is encouraging BP and the town to reach an agreement on our zoning law and it doesn't have to be one that 100% complies with our zoning. Sounds like he is suggesting a compromise...and if that is the case it looks like Art 10 WILL bring WECS to CV!
Art,your desire to dissect every statement/and or action to determine the underlying intent or meaning is obvious,and commendable. Although your insights are often well grounded, at times you import unfounded significance to what at best can only be supposition.
ReplyDeleteWe could all argue for days about exactly what Judge Agresta "is interested " in regarding stipulations. As you point out he is a mediator, who undoubtedly would like to see an application submitted void of any contested issues. Well, we all have our wishes,don't we?
My opinion is ,his attempts to influence the stipulations should change nothing as regards the Town's resolve to have their Zoning Law and Comprehensive Plan apply to the project.
As the commentor KC from the WDT opined this truly is about the State versus local autonomy.
If the Town has the balls(excuse me Michelle O) to see this through,they will force the hand of the State to either accept the town's ordinance as valid, or expose themselves and the ART 10 process as fascist. The State risks undermining the entire Comprehensive Planning/Zoning program with the imposition of this permitting review process.
It is largely a power game. The town made a decision to play, if they fold halfway through simply because an administrative Judge, who neglected to even learn how to pronounce the names of the involved towns, suggests they negotiate a compromise, then we are lost.
We only have the one card. Like it or not the Town of Cape Vincent decided to be "reasonable" and force the State to recognize our zoning law as such. If their actions are to have any integrity, they must take this Ordinance to the siting review board intact.
I understand Dave that the town at this point has set themselves up for having one card to play and as a result they should play it as you have suggested.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I don't think there is days of debate in Agresta's statement. He was very straight forward by saying he wanted the PARTIES (the town and BP) to work out STIPULATIONS (agreements) on alternatives to the BP project. What he says is important...how do you interpret it?
NOW... if you review all my posts above on this issue I never said the town was going to do as Agresta suggested. But when the presiding Art. 10 examnier says such things I really do think it is worth a careful examination.
Keep in mind this guy and his assitant examiner are really the first warm bodies we have dealt with face to face on the State side of the Art. 10 process. They ARE Art. 10...not some remote letter from the NYPSC. He is the examiner who will basically run and mediate the entire show. If you look at Art 10 laws he has a lot of power. His power to distribute the intervenor funds is a prime example. As a result I think what he says, or implies, or hints at, is pretty important! So when in his first meeting with the community he as the presiding examiner with all this power asks the "parties" to work on agreements on our law that may not be 100% in compliance, then I think we need to be paying real close attention.
And I can tell you this...what Agresta said is a long long way from what Mr. Wiley thought he said on JLL that Agresta told BP they should abide by our laws!!!
I agree it would seem pretty foolish on the town's part if they caved in now.
Agresta in my opinion said something direct and straight forward and I will take it at face value. I mean, the town says they will not negotiate and they will defend our law, and we take that at face value as genuine,so why shouldn't we think what Agresta said is any different and to the point.
And again I DID NOT say the town would negotiate. I just think this has suddenly become very interesting when the presiding examiner makes statements as he said, especially the part about it not neccessarily being 100% in compliance with our laws!
And lastly I agree with you and KC that this is the State vs our autonomy. However, where that breaks down is that you seem to imply that if our law is upheld that is autonomy and home rule. I don't think it is because even a favorable decision will still be made by the STATE not us with home rule!!!
And the State ALREADY undermined home rule comp planning and zoning the day Cuomo passed the Power NY legislation and gave Art. 10 preemption powers. And we didn't develop our law all for us...we developed it in large part in fear of the State...how is that home rule?
And to see that in action just look at what Agresta said. He knows damn well the town has restrictive comp plan and zoning that ...yet he is suggesting the "parties" work out a stipulation that may not be 100% of our law and as a result would 100% violate the intent of our zoning.
So much for home rule!
In the last sentence above I meant to say..."as a result would be in 100% violation of our comp plan."
ReplyDelete