Cape Vincent Wind History ~PB & TB advised by attorney to seek advisory opinion from county Ethics Board

April 17, 2006:

In a letter to Supervisor Rienbeck town’s attorney Mark Gebo advises Planning Board and Town Board members to request an advisory opinion from the Jefferson County Board of Ethics regarding their ties to wind developers and their official duties with the town. Gebo concludes, “I would certainly highly encourage you and your board members to participate in this process to remove any potential claim that the process has somehow been biased or unfair, and further to take away any ethical argument challenging any approvals or regulations that may be adopted.”

Residents Are Airing Concerns

RESIDENTS ARE AIRING CONCERNS
WIND FARM: SOLUTION TO LOCATING PROJECTS NOT MADE AT MEETING
By JUDE SEYMOUR
TIMES STAFF WRITER
CAPE VINCENT -- After almost two hours of discussion, Planning Board Vice-chairman Thomas D. Ingersoll reported that his board had no recommendation about the siting of wind farm projects.
Mr. Ingersoll advocated a setback of 2,500 feet from the riverfront district boundary line. Since the district is defined as ending 1,000 feet past the center line of Route 12E, his recommendation was to prohibit any turbine closer than 3,500 feet from the centerline of the road.

His suggestion was supported by fellow planner George A. Mingle, who said the wind energy farms would provide an economic benefit to the town taxpayers and reduce the state's dependence on fossil fuels.

But member Karen Bourcy supported a recommendation previously offered by Chairman Richard J. Edsall, who recused himself from the vote because he has signed a contract with one of the developers.

Mr. Edsall wants to permit turbine development in the town's agricultural/residential zone, with no setback stipulation, and to ban development in the riverfront and lakefront district. The lakefront district uses County Route 6 as its eastern boundary.

Mr. Edsall made his suggestion again Wednesday, but not, he said, as the planning board chairman. He petitioned to be included on the board's agenda as a private citizen and representative of a community group that has met monthly to discuss wind turbine issues.

Mrs. Bourcy would have found support for her vote from her colleague, Andrew R. Binsley, if the planning board member hadn't left the meeting before a vote was attempted.

Mr. Binsley said he wanted to follow Mr. Edsall's and Mrs. Bourcy's recommendation. After disclosing that six of his relatives have signed contracts with the company, he added, "If some people here would like to say I have no right to speak on this, I will say, 'Thank you. This is America. I will speak.'"

But as Mr. Binsley left, he had a different opinion.

"I believe as many relatives as I have and as many family and friends in this community, I no longer have a say in this," he said. "Have a nice day."

Susan Johnson, the wife of Watertown Daily Times editor and co-publisher John B. Johnson Jr., encouraged town planners to protect their lakefront and riverfront districts.

"Since you have a very valuable investment in riverfront properties and lakefront properties, and those properties pay a lot of taxes in the town of Cape Vincent, I would think you would want to do everything that you could to protect that investment for the town," she said. "Do you feel that property owners in that lakefront district will enjoy looking over their shoulders at rolling windmills?"

But planners stressed that sites couldn't be blocked just to protect aesthetics.

And Mr. Binsley said the wind projects could reduce the potential for residents defaulting on their taxes, which would negatively impact all taxpayers, by providing a financial boost to farmers in transition.

"I have one brother-in-law that walks with a limp," he said. "He can't afford health insurance, but if he can put one windmill on his property maybe he can. Maybe he can stay here. Maybe he can live here."

The more stringent setback of 3,500 feet was seen as a compromise offered to members of the Concerned Riverview Citizens committee, some of whom countered Wednesday by saying they would reduce a setback suggestion from two miles to one.

But since the 1-mile setback would eliminate a significant portion of one of the two proposals to develop wind farms in the town, Mr. Edsall said the compromise wouldn't appease land owners.

The discussion will continue at 6 p.m. today during the regular town board meeting.

County Planner Bourcy expresses concerns wind zoning law must be in accordance with the Town’s Comp Plan as per NY Town Law./2007

April 7, 2006:
In a FAX to Supervisor Reinbeck and PBC Edsall, County Planner Bourcy provides a number of comments and recommendations regarding the zoning amendment process. Regarding the type of discussions within the zoning committee he notes, “I have not heard anyone on the Committee talk specifically that these impacts are mitigated by the proposed setbacks. The discussion has always been who will or will not benefit depending on which setback is used.” He further advises to be careful using site plan review to guide wind development instead of adopting a zoning law. He states, “An example is Rich’s (Edsall) statement that during site plan review the planning board would not allow towers close to the road. If that is true, then there should be a minimum setback in the law.” Bourcy is concerned about Edsall’s interest in circumventing the process of adopting a wind law. [Bourcy may be a source of notes regarding attendance and comments in these “secret” meetings of the the PB’s wind committee. Bourcy also expresses his concerns that any wind zoning law must be in accordance with the Town’s Comp Plan as per NY Town Law.]