History Repeats Itself!!! We Have Already Been To This Zoning Rodeo Before!!!

A reader left the comment below under a post about the Town of Cape Vincent's lackluster attempts to zone for solar energy.  The commenter brings up a very good point about the possibility the town intends to regulate solar zoning mainly  through it's site plan review process, and as a result has left out many specifics in the zoning. 

Note also that this was exactly what the former wind conflicted zoning officials attempted as well, keeping industrial wind siting in the hands of the planning board with no wind law in place, and as the reader points out they were warned by county officials that this was not a wise idea. See the fax letter from the county below.

Same goes for this solar zoning!

For example as a planning board or zoning board  changes members over time different officials may apply different criteria unless there are specific zoning regulations and guidelines outlined in the law that are consistent over time.

It should also be noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals is now the board that approves solar applications through a special use permit, not the planning board, although the ZBA could seek advice or send the project plan to the PB for input.

That is another issue I will address later in this zoning revision.

But in last years solar zoning fiasco it was shown that these boards failed to do their jobs correctly, and in fact the PB took control and the ZBA was improperly left completely out of the loop in the beginning, until they were drawn into the mess later, and still failed to correct the issues.

This in fact demonstrates perfectly  my readers point that the zoning of solar should not be totally in the hands of site plan or special permit review with only vague zoning regulations as guidelines, and the zoning should spell out the details of the solar zoning.

Below is the readers comment...and below that is a fax letter from a county planner Mike Bourcy to former town supervisor Tom Rienbeck and former planning board chair Rich Edsall about the very issue the reader brings up, except in that case it was about industrial wind development.

We have already been to this rodeo once!!!  You would think we would learn!

Underlining emphasis is mine

The crafters of this amendment seem determined to create an ambiguous and confusing process for zoning solar energy.

Example- the text on page 57 describes commercial solar energy as being specifically for sale to the grid, yet the chart on page 12 provides for commercial energy used on site. The minimal criteria provided in the text apparently only refer to the solar energy generated (CSE), whereas the chart refers to the apparatus itself- commercial SECS.

Its difficult to understand the lack of clarity, and/ or consistency. It seems apparent that although there are many issues to deal with as you have pointed out, this zoning agency intends to regulate solar energy through the site plan review process. The county planners once warned the previous planning board that it was unwise to zone by site plan review without specific criteria in place. This proposed amendment falls short of providing clear guidelines. It could be surmised that this is intentional given this board's history of reluctance to adhere to it's own rules."

Of course when you consider that last summer in the solar zoning fiasco, when the planning board could find no solid justification for its actions, the former PB chair Dick Macsherry came up with a winner of an excuse for the mess they created, saying we really shouldn't take our law so literally!!!

Now he is the Dep. Town Super.  Another reason as to exactly why we SHOULD have details about solar regulations in the new zoning law and take them literally!!!