A number of our Cape Vincent town zoning officials, as well as the supervisor have now recognized there is a significant contradiction in our new zoning regarding the siting of solar energy projects. This is pretty much what precipitated the Alexander solar zoning fiasco. Surprise, surprise!
I think that was my point when they were drafting the law that in a rush to create a new zoning law in fear of the State's Art X laws we were going to get into trouble suddenly falling in love with solar with no real research or examination to back it up. And here we are!!!
So what do we do about this?
Well some members of the CV Zoning Board of Appeal think essentially we can just ignore one conflicting part of the law and move forward case by case and if somebody doesn't like it they can sue the ZBA decision. Yeah, that is a great solution! Let's just take a confusing contradictory law and arbitrarily keep applying it...including for the town supervisor mind you...who apparently got caught crosswise himself in this mess.
(More on that later)
The faulty reasoning of some on the ZBA is that there is going to be a re-write of the law anyhow in the future so in the mean time just ignore the part we don't like and keep applying it anyhow.
Yup...Great and reckless idea...let's just keep racking up more law suits for the town tax payers!!!
I think now the necessary and responsible thing to do to straighten out this solar zoning mess is for the town supervisor and his board to immediately call a special meeting of the town board and call for a temporary moratorium on all solar siting in the town until they rectify a confusing and contradictory zoning law that could create more serious costly legal issues.
I am not against personal solar projects. I even think after examining this issue that maybe our law is a bit restrictive in places on the solar issue and needs changes. But a lot more study needs to be done...and not under some irrational fear of appeasement of Art. X. But you certainly don't just rectify the situation by letting an out of control ZBA and planning board suck you into a legal black hole by overstepping their authority with faulty opinions on what they admit is a faulty law!!!
Besides...with the solar zoning mess already created on the Alexander project, and a faulty law, and the fact that the supervisor is now applying for a variance that would allow him a project...where he already got caught crosswise by his very own zoning "experts" ...the best thing he could do to save his own political skin and do the right thing is once and for all take control of his run amuck zoning officials, and take it out of their hands by calling for a solar zoning moratorium till the mess can be properly fixed. Which can ONLY be fixed by the power of the town board...not the ZBA by ignoring the law!
For God's sake Urban if you aren't going to take control over Art X. at least take control over your own run amuck zoning process which is supposed to defend us against BP.
And finally I would suggest Mr. Hirschey and the town board and the ZBA stop listening to Mr. Brown and Macsherry for a while from the planning board on this issue. Isn't it ironic that when I sent lots of zoning information to Brown when he directed the new zoning law committee he outright REFUSED to look at it. Oh...he didn't like me from what I had said about town officials and his zoning process. Well BOOOO HOOOO!!! Call 911!
Well...guess who ends up right in the heart of this solar zoning fiasco and a faulty new zoning law on that issue...THAT THEY WROTE!.
Yup...you got it...Mr. Brown and Mr. Macsherry! Go Figure!!!
STOP, The regional wind energy industrialization of one of New York State's most beautiful and environmentally sensitive areas, the 1000 Islands of the St. Lawrence River and the Golden Crescent of Eastern Lake Ontario. If you don't think you are seeing the most recent posts click on the current month in the archives to the right.
I would take issue with your agreement with town officials that there is contradiction, and confusion in the new law concerning solar projects. The law is quite clear in that it allows for ground mounted solar arrays up to 100 square ft per 10,000sq. ft of lot, except in certain districts (i.e- the river district and lake district) where it allows only 100 sq. ft of ground mounted array. In both the Ag. Res. district and the LM district, larger arrays are allowed according to the proscribed ratio. Officials are claiming the text of the law contradicts the chart that details which districts projects are allowed in.
ReplyDeleteIf their is any confusion it would be whether in the districts where multiple 100sq.ft. arrays are allowed, could they be lumped together in one spot? The language is not perfectly clear, but common sense and practicality seem to indicate they could and should .
The obvious intent here was to promote solar development, but restrict it in the waterfront areas, where the primary goal is to preserve the scenic quality of these areas as part of the overall desire to preserve the viewshed of the 1000 Islands.
There are numerous other examples in the law where certain development is restricted in a certain area for a specific reason. For example, there are setbacks from residential property lines for the siting of industrial wind turbines specified in the law, yet none are allowed in the waterfront districts, or in certain other "protected zones" These are not considered contradictory, nor confusing, and neither should the zoning for solar arrays.
It has become problematic because certain individuals want to site large solar arrays in these restricted districts, and the planning /zoning depts. do not have the conviction to refuse them.
I do agree that if the town wishes to allow unlimited ground mounted solar in all districts ,they should not allow the ZBA to circumvent these restrictions with unjustified use variances, or by ignoring the restrictions and inviting lawsuits. They should take the proper actions and amend the law.
In actuality the ZBA would be usurping the town board's legislative authority to determine criteria for development, if they purposefully ignore significant details provided in the law. Utilizing use variances to do so would be bad government.
D. LaMora