What Does It Mean? - Or Do We Just Ignore It?

This last week we finally met the actual faces of Art. 10.  Not a remote letter to or from the NYPSC.  Not a website full of comments and regulations.  We met Judge Agresta as the presiding examiner, and he and his assistant examiner ARE the Art. X process in living breathing flesh and blood. They are bureaucrats from the Albany  right here in our very own community carrying out the process of Art. X between BP and our community. That is the first time that has happened here.

There is a lot riding on this.  Outside of the intervenor fund ditribution...how do you think it went?

So once again let’s look at what Judge Agresta said according to the Watertown Daily Times article.

"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.”

Now I know what I think transpired with this statement. Of course the very fact that I think it means one thing... will bring people out of the wood work saying I am crazy.

. OK so let’s look at Agresta’s comments. What do YOU think this means?

I do think we can rule out that Mr. Agresta was unequivocally saying BP must abide by our zoning laws…would you agree? I just don’t see that in his comment. The JLL blog immediately tried to interpret it that way…but I don’t think that was accurate.

When Mr. Agresta talks about the parties working out stipulations…what does he mean by parties. Does he just mean BP alone should provide an alternative to our laws, or is he talking about BP and the town reaching a stipulation? Are BP and the Town the parties he is referring to?

And when he says to the degree possible, or implies that any alternative or stipulation on the BP project may not necessarily need to be 100% in compliance to our law. What do you think he means? What percent do you think he means? Or doesn’t his comment here mean anything at all and we can just blow it off?

When he says he would be interested in the parties reaching stipulations, what does he mean. Is a stipulation a negotiation reaching an agreement in terms of the Art. X process or is it something else?

Are Judge Agresta’s comments even worth thinking about? Should we just blow them off as isolated ramblings and nothing of any real importance?

Maybe the first face to face meeting with the actual Art. X powers the town is depending on to defend its law and home rule didn’t go quite as some had hoped for…hoping for an absolute statement by the examiner that BP must completely abide by our zoning…end of story!

Maybe that has a disturbing quality to it in that it could be what the Art. X board might be thinking as well…something not really 100% in compliance with our zoning laws. Maybe only to some degree possible!  Do you agree with Agresta on that?
Do you think that is what the Art. X siting board decision might be as well?   Something less than 100% of our zoning law wind regulations? If so is that acceptable?

Do you think this statement by Agresta is a mild suggestion our zoning law might be a bit too burdensome, and let’s have BP and the Town look at some other options they might agree on in a stipulation?

Or like I said should we just blow off the Judge and his comments???