Wind Zoning - Behind Before You Even Start!

I noticed in the latest edition of the 1000 Islands Sun there was a report regarding the Clayton Town Board meeting on Grindstone Island. 

The discussion in the meeting soon turned to the industrial wind development proposed by Iberdrola in the town of Clayton.

 In regards to wind development Clayton  town councilman Chris Matthews explained about the new comprehensive land use plan being drafted”  He refers to the wind issue in regards to Article 10 which is the state process the wind developers now have to use to site their large  wind projects.  The siting is no longer in the hands of the local communities since the state removed the home rule rights of local communities on this issue.  Of course this is a rather controversial issue when local community’s rights are preempted by a state law.  Mr. Matthews says this in the Sun paper:

“The (Clayton) Comprehensive Plan with regard to Art. 10 is very important.   Art. 10 is the state’s way to look at it (the project) and they can ignore our laws.  If our Comprehensive Plan is not in order they’re going to run right over the top of us, he said.”

Then town supervisor Mr. Storandt said this as quoted in the Sun:

“Last week we met with our special wind attorney to discuss what our new wind law should look like, and we considered items that should be added, drawing from wind laws from other areas of the state, he said”

Unfortunately based at least on these statements I’m not sure these gentlemen have fully grasped the issue surrounding Art. 10.

First, I would agree with Mr. Matthews that the comp plan is very important for a community, and having read what is available it looks like Clayton is doing a very good job with theirs.  As to its effectiveness against Art 10 that is another matter.  The state can still run right over you with their power to preempt your zoning laws no matter what your comp plan says or looks like.  And although they are connected in legal ways, it is the wind zoning regulations that will actually get overturned.

And if the state decides your zoning is “too burdensome” to the wind developer, it won’t matter what your comp plan says.   Your wind zoning  will get preempted, and that in essence makes your comp plan worthless in many ways, especially if your plan is about protecting scenic assets, which the Clayton plan does. 

So at least in the way Mr. Matthews is quoted he is putting way to much faith in the comp plan, ...even as good as it is, and confusing the issue.

And unfortunately both Matthews and Storandt seem to be missing something in the Art. 10 process.

They are talking about  writing wind zoning as if will protect the community.  But the state can preempt those laws if it sees fit.  

In fact Storandt and Matthews should grasp that when they draft a wind law, virtually half has been remove by the state already!!!  Virtually all of the procedural sections in the law, like in most of these types of wind laws, has been preempted.  Things like where, when and how the town requires the wind developer to present an application, getting a permit, fees, site pan reviews, variances etc...all preempted!

Why?    Because the developer no longer even goes to the town for any of those requirements written in that wind law.  The developer goes to the state Art 10 process with and application and to get a permit, not the town.

The state specifically took all those powers away from the local community.    And then the state siting board will determine if what’s left in your law will apply or not.  The entire point of Art. 10 was to take the siting of large scale generating facilities, like industrial wind, out of the hands of local communities.

 So if the Clayton town board  decides to write a wind law thinking  it will protect your community from wind development, they are in a system where they are already  way behind right out of the gate.  They aren’t telling you they are in a system that removed most of your rights in your zoning law even before it is written!!!  At least about half of your wind law will be irrelevant before it even starts.

I’m sure that Mr. Storandt and Mr. Matthews and the rest of the Clayton board mean well and are doing what they think is best for the community.  However, in my opinion that isn’t an effective way to protect your community by being obedient to the state Art. 10 system that has preempted nearly half of your law even before you start drafting it, and has the power to waive the rest!!!

I believe they should have stuck with their original idea a few months ago to prohibit wind development outright.