"With respect to determining the radius of the impact area to be analyzed, there has been a general
guideline for large actions that it is usually “safe” to use 5 miles. The 5 mile distance probably owes its origins to the U.S. Forest Service “distance zones” set forth in their landscape management journal. However, for very large activities, such as power plants (particularly those that generate wet cooling tower plumes), and large landscape alterations, greater distances have been shown to be important in some landscape settings, and must be considered. In those instances, applicants must document to the satisfaction of staff that impacts beyond five miles to listed resources have been considered."
So did our Cape Vincent zoning experts not look at this policy? Or did they just blow it off and decide the best setback they could come up with was 2 miles????
Apparently the USFS and the NY DEC regard five miles as a distance where structures begin to blend into the background. Although I would certainly argue that point with massive industrial wind turbines, and the policy above does address larger objects indicating studies should include a larger radius in those cases.
Now you have to understand who the NYDEC is in relationship to the Art. X siting process the Town of Cape Vincent is involved in with BP. The DEC is a BIG player in the process...a BIG player!!
So if the town is so all fired intent on showing the State and the Art. X siting board it is "reasonable" then you would think they might want to follow the policies already set by the NYDEC since the DEC is such a big influence in the process...right?
Well OK let's look at some of the "scenic setbacks" for huge industrial wind turbines in our CV zoning. And please don't give me this nonsense that you can mitigate the view of a 500 ft. wind turbine with a spinning rotor disk bigger than a football field and bright flashing red lights, especially many of the same structures scattered across the flat CV waterscape and landscape!
CV zoning says:
From historic resources and the scenic Seaway Trail along NYS Rt. 12E = 1.25 miles
From the water front of the lake and river = 2 miles.
From adjacent town borders approximately 3000 ft. for a 500 ft. wind turbine.
The most generous setback in our law is a full three miles short of what the USFS and DEC policy indicates is an area of visual concern. And the policy says large structures, which one would have to assume a 500 ft. wind turbine would be, the radius of concern for visual impact should be increased.
Not to mention the views in CV are over flat water, and over generally flat terrain with many open sweeping views across flat fields. And it is painfully obvious that 5 miles is not a sufficient visual protection, especially in such a critical scenic area, just by looking across the river at the Wolfe Is. wind plant. It can be seen from Clayton, the TI Bridge, Watertown, and Henderson and more.
To me this is just one more example how the CV town board's zeal to appease the Art. X process has turned any coherent zoning logic on its head in this terribly misguided idea you can effectively zone for hundreds 500 ft. monster structures sprawling across your region's scenic landscape.
Apparently they aren't even willing to come close to the USFS and NYDEC policies on concerns over visual impacts. The 1.25 setback from the Seaway Trail all by itself is just a comedy act!!!
Hey...but we shouldn't question the CV zoning "experts"...we have our zoning law and we are going to defend it! Even though it falls dramatically short of what the USFS and DEC policy indicates!
I guess they felt that you can actually take 500 ft wind monsters, sprawl a few of them ( and even they don't know how many their law will allow...ask them ) across the town landscape and they can effectively mitigate the resulting scenic destruction!
And THIS is the "home rule" we are trying to defend?????
So did our Cape Vincent zoning experts not look at this policy? Or did they just blow it off and decide the best setback they could come up with was 2 miles????
Apparently the USFS and the NY DEC regard five miles as a distance where structures begin to blend into the background. Although I would certainly argue that point with massive industrial wind turbines, and the policy above does address larger objects indicating studies should include a larger radius in those cases.
Now you have to understand who the NYDEC is in relationship to the Art. X siting process the Town of Cape Vincent is involved in with BP. The DEC is a BIG player in the process...a BIG player!!
So if the town is so all fired intent on showing the State and the Art. X siting board it is "reasonable" then you would think they might want to follow the policies already set by the NYDEC since the DEC is such a big influence in the process...right?
Well OK let's look at some of the "scenic setbacks" for huge industrial wind turbines in our CV zoning. And please don't give me this nonsense that you can mitigate the view of a 500 ft. wind turbine with a spinning rotor disk bigger than a football field and bright flashing red lights, especially many of the same structures scattered across the flat CV waterscape and landscape!
CV zoning says:
From historic resources and the scenic Seaway Trail along NYS Rt. 12E = 1.25 miles
From the water front of the lake and river = 2 miles.
From adjacent town borders approximately 3000 ft. for a 500 ft. wind turbine.
The most generous setback in our law is a full three miles short of what the USFS and DEC policy indicates is an area of visual concern. And the policy says large structures, which one would have to assume a 500 ft. wind turbine would be, the radius of concern for visual impact should be increased.
Not to mention the views in CV are over flat water, and over generally flat terrain with many open sweeping views across flat fields. And it is painfully obvious that 5 miles is not a sufficient visual protection, especially in such a critical scenic area, just by looking across the river at the Wolfe Is. wind plant. It can be seen from Clayton, the TI Bridge, Watertown, and Henderson and more.
To me this is just one more example how the CV town board's zeal to appease the Art. X process has turned any coherent zoning logic on its head in this terribly misguided idea you can effectively zone for hundreds 500 ft. monster structures sprawling across your region's scenic landscape.
Apparently they aren't even willing to come close to the USFS and NYDEC policies on concerns over visual impacts. The 1.25 setback from the Seaway Trail all by itself is just a comedy act!!!
Hey...but we shouldn't question the CV zoning "experts"...we have our zoning law and we are going to defend it! Even though it falls dramatically short of what the USFS and DEC policy indicates!
I guess they felt that you can actually take 500 ft wind monsters, sprawl a few of them ( and even they don't know how many their law will allow...ask them ) across the town landscape and they can effectively mitigate the resulting scenic destruction!
And THIS is the "home rule" we are trying to defend?????
Since you are dissecting the zoning law ,at least be accurate. The two mile setback from the waterfront is not to mitigate the visual impact from turbines. It is a protection for property value loss, for the high end properties near the waterfront. There is no setback designed specifically to protect the viewshed from or of the river or lake.
ReplyDeleteI get your point, however, at the head of the tall structure section where wind turbine regulations are it says this:
ReplyDelete"Current industrial Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS) are now more than 400 feet in height with some exceeding 500 feet. These structures will have far greater impact on rural, scenic vistas, and view sheds than existing telecommunication towers, not only because of their greater height and numbers, but also because of their movement, which attracts viewer attention....
Besides we can argue this point all day long but if you are going to protect high value properties then VIEW is one of the primary concerns.
Now as you point out, and your comments does point up the main thing I am trying to say, there is no specific scenic setback for view from the water, because their lawyer said he could not defend it.
This just points up how damn goofy parts of this law are in their tizzy to appease Art. X and think you can actually zone for industrial wind turbines.
Basically in CV I don't think it is rocket science to figure out that VIEW and beauty is essential to the local economy...but in the end everyone is scared to death to do what it takes to really defend those scenic resources and look overly burdensome and not reasonable. Just one more example of great zoning logic.
So the town should only follow their lawyers advice when it suits you? ie.-when Gego advised the town board that the voter ID law was likely unconstitutional?, or he advised former board members to recuse themselves?
ReplyDeleteAnd what planet are you living on? You think lawyers are infallible.
ReplyDeleteGood luck with that notion!
And BTW the town lawyers name is Gebo.
Not too long ago WPEG and Clif Schneider and John Byrne were going to sue the planning board over accepting the Acciona FEIS environmental study. I had a number of conversations with them. I thought their lawyer was the wrong one with the wrong approach and they should at least have another good lawyer about the conflcits of interest.
Oh no there was no way I could be right, they would defer to their expert lawyer. Problem was their case was dismissed and they never got a chance to argue it.
Why...because their lawyer screwed up on a basic thing on the court petition that the judge said was a fatal flaw in the case.
So much for some lawyers.
As for currently I have serious doubts about any lawyer that thinks you can zone effectively for huge industrial wind turbines, and he says he can't defend a law that has scenic setbacks from the water as a criteria to protect our community. Look across the river for God's sake! I question any lawyer that endorses a clause in the law that allows some massive visually invasive wind turbines and then thinks not allowing a logo on the turbine is going to make some kind of a visual difference.
Or a lawyer that advises having strict sign codes that prohibit signs with flashing lights and moving parts and being to high, but then allows huge wind turbines with bright red flashing lights and huge moving parts.
Want to explain the lawyer logic behind that one???