This is a continuation of Cape vincent's timeline January 16, 2007:
Watertown Daily Times (WDT) reports, “St. Lawrence Wind Power has skipped an optional phase in the state Environmental Quality Review process. AES Acciona Wind Power NY, the development company that is pursuing the potential St. Lawrence Wind Power farm, presented the Planning Board with a draft Environmental Review Statement, a 300 to 400 page document that outlines the studies the company will do to pursue development in the town's agricultural district. [In one of the first decisions as lead agency, PBC Edsall and the PB permit AES-Acciona to opt out of one of the optional requirements of SEQR. Again, a decision Edsall makes without regard or consideration to his conflicts].
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Monday, January 1, 2007
Saturday, December 30, 2006
HOW TURBINES BECAME UTILITIES IN CAPE VINCENT
Preface
A reader sent me this; it is a good chronological progression of the events that unfolded in Cape Vincent.
These events ultimately led to the wind turbines being designated as utilities. This is the Truth and there is documentation to support it. Additionally the planning board and Town board in Cape Vincent are self serving liars, the planning board of Cape Vincent isn’t even following its own comprehensive plan. A comprehensive plan is a means to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the people in the community and give due consideration to the needs of the people in the region of which the community is a part.
K.M.
THE STORY OF HOW WIND TURBINES BECAME UTILITIES
THE BEGINNING
Nov. 8, 2006 Planning Board meeting:
Planning Board Chairman, Mr.Edsall and the planning board (PB) are asked the critical question that sparks the controversy.
“Is a wind farm an acceptable site plan review use in the agricultural district?”
Is this question asked by Acciona? The minutes aren’t clear.
The Planning board chairman, Mr. Edsall asks his board for a vote on the question. They vote 5-0 yes. (With 3 conflicted votes) Note that the question is NOT are wind turbines a utility.
That is where the confusion starts. The question is about a wind farm being a proper site plan review use. This is a very important point.
The Problem:
There is no discussion on why a wind farm is acceptable as a site plan use in the AG district by the PB. They give NO rational as to why it is allowed or under what category it might fall. There are 12 site plan review uses allowed in the AG district. A wind farm is not listed as a use. Utilities, light industrial, and commercial ARE listed uses, but the planning board never says which use a wind farm is. They just say it is acceptable and move on.
So they must have had some reason in their heads. They never clearly define why wind turbines are allowed and why.
Did they think that they are a utility because that is what the wind company told them? And that was what SLW listed on their permit application?
There is also the problem that it is out of the jurisdiction of the PB to make this determination or answer this question.
NY Town Law does not give the PB the power to interpret zoning law.
That is for the Zoning Enforcement Officer Alan Wood, and if there is a question it goes to the Zoning Board of Appeals. So even though everyone blames WPEG, it is the planning board that screwed up 1st.
Dec 2006: VERY IMPORTANT
WPEG challenges the planning board’s decision before the CV Zoning Board of Appeal.
It is critical to understand that… WPEG did not challenge whether turbines are utilities. They only asked for a determination, that if a wind farm is an acceptable site plan review use, which use is it, because wind farms are not listed?
The problem starts here because
SLW AND THEIR LAWYERS SWEEP IN AND SAY…”OH OUR PROJECT IS OK IN THE AG DISTRICT BECAUSE IT IS A UTILITY UNDER YOUR CURRENT ZONING AND UTILITIES DEFINITION”.
WPEG never said a word about utilities…it was SLW who defined turbines as utilities. Then WPEG challenged that as well, saying a wind farm is not a utility as defined by Cape Vincent’s zoning law. This is important…how did WPEG get blamed for turbines being utilities if they were fighting that turbines are not utilities…this makes no sense at all.
It is also very important to note that SLW’s application for a permit, and site plan review that was turned in to the town, also says their wind farm should be considered a utility.
WPEG didn’t write that on their application for them. The important thing is that even if WPEG didn’t challenge the PB decision these projects would have moved forward as utilities ANYHOW because that is what SLW put on their application. If nobody challenged it, it would have moved forward as a utility anyhow.
Now the other thing that is being lied about is they are saying WPEG is at fault for killing the 2006 wind law.
At the end of this post, I have included the minutes of an Aug 2006 meeting where [ Supervisor Reinbeck stated that on behalf of the board, he will request the planning board to adopt our proposed wind tower regulations as a guideline during their site plan review process]. So that is a lie too.
Also at the bottom of this post, is a letter from Richard Edsall: June 14, 2006. We propose that the town board abandon its efforts to amend the current zoning law.
Why does Reinbeck start a wind law committee, spend $20,000 on the law, and spend 5 months on it, when he knows he can’t pass it anyhow because of the conflicts of interest on his board? The answer is because he never wanted a wind law to begin with unless it was very weak and favored the wind company.
The wind law was finished in Jan…it is now almost May.
He is not going to pass a wind law because he and Edsall and the board and the lease holders do not want one.
No matter what they say, they want turbines as utilities so they can put as many of them in as possible and as close to the river and lake as possible!!!! THEY ARE LIARS!!!!
But to do this and create a public diversion they will blame WPEG for all the points above.
You have to have something for cover when you recklessly waste $20,000 of tax payer money.
Unsigned
A reader sent me this; it is a good chronological progression of the events that unfolded in Cape Vincent.
These events ultimately led to the wind turbines being designated as utilities. This is the Truth and there is documentation to support it. Additionally the planning board and Town board in Cape Vincent are self serving liars, the planning board of Cape Vincent isn’t even following its own comprehensive plan. A comprehensive plan is a means to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the people in the community and give due consideration to the needs of the people in the region of which the community is a part.
K.M.
THE STORY OF HOW WIND TURBINES BECAME UTILITIES
THE BEGINNING
Nov. 8, 2006 Planning Board meeting:
Planning Board Chairman, Mr.Edsall and the planning board (PB) are asked the critical question that sparks the controversy.
“Is a wind farm an acceptable site plan review use in the agricultural district?”
Is this question asked by Acciona? The minutes aren’t clear.
The Planning board chairman, Mr. Edsall asks his board for a vote on the question. They vote 5-0 yes. (With 3 conflicted votes) Note that the question is NOT are wind turbines a utility.
That is where the confusion starts. The question is about a wind farm being a proper site plan review use. This is a very important point.
The Problem:
There is no discussion on why a wind farm is acceptable as a site plan use in the AG district by the PB. They give NO rational as to why it is allowed or under what category it might fall. There are 12 site plan review uses allowed in the AG district. A wind farm is not listed as a use. Utilities, light industrial, and commercial ARE listed uses, but the planning board never says which use a wind farm is. They just say it is acceptable and move on.
So they must have had some reason in their heads. They never clearly define why wind turbines are allowed and why.
Did they think that they are a utility because that is what the wind company told them? And that was what SLW listed on their permit application?
There is also the problem that it is out of the jurisdiction of the PB to make this determination or answer this question.
NY Town Law does not give the PB the power to interpret zoning law.
That is for the Zoning Enforcement Officer Alan Wood, and if there is a question it goes to the Zoning Board of Appeals. So even though everyone blames WPEG, it is the planning board that screwed up 1st.
Dec 2006: VERY IMPORTANT
WPEG challenges the planning board’s decision before the CV Zoning Board of Appeal.
It is critical to understand that… WPEG did not challenge whether turbines are utilities. They only asked for a determination, that if a wind farm is an acceptable site plan review use, which use is it, because wind farms are not listed?
The problem starts here because
SLW AND THEIR LAWYERS SWEEP IN AND SAY…”OH OUR PROJECT IS OK IN THE AG DISTRICT BECAUSE IT IS A UTILITY UNDER YOUR CURRENT ZONING AND UTILITIES DEFINITION”.
WPEG never said a word about utilities…it was SLW who defined turbines as utilities. Then WPEG challenged that as well, saying a wind farm is not a utility as defined by Cape Vincent’s zoning law. This is important…how did WPEG get blamed for turbines being utilities if they were fighting that turbines are not utilities…this makes no sense at all.
It is also very important to note that SLW’s application for a permit, and site plan review that was turned in to the town, also says their wind farm should be considered a utility.
WPEG didn’t write that on their application for them. The important thing is that even if WPEG didn’t challenge the PB decision these projects would have moved forward as utilities ANYHOW because that is what SLW put on their application. If nobody challenged it, it would have moved forward as a utility anyhow.
Now the other thing that is being lied about is they are saying WPEG is at fault for killing the 2006 wind law.
At the end of this post, I have included the minutes of an Aug 2006 meeting where [ Supervisor Reinbeck stated that on behalf of the board, he will request the planning board to adopt our proposed wind tower regulations as a guideline during their site plan review process]. So that is a lie too.
Also at the bottom of this post, is a letter from Richard Edsall: June 14, 2006. We propose that the town board abandon its efforts to amend the current zoning law.
Why does Reinbeck start a wind law committee, spend $20,000 on the law, and spend 5 months on it, when he knows he can’t pass it anyhow because of the conflicts of interest on his board? The answer is because he never wanted a wind law to begin with unless it was very weak and favored the wind company.
The wind law was finished in Jan…it is now almost May.
He is not going to pass a wind law because he and Edsall and the board and the lease holders do not want one.
No matter what they say, they want turbines as utilities so they can put as many of them in as possible and as close to the river and lake as possible!!!! THEY ARE LIARS!!!!
But to do this and create a public diversion they will blame WPEG for all the points above.
You have to have something for cover when you recklessly waste $20,000 of tax payer money.
Unsigned
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
NYDEC submits a letter to the PB and Edsall concerning the pending DEIS
Dec. 20,2006:
The NYDEC submits a letter to the PB and Edsall concerning the pending DEIS and the town as lead agency. They do not object to the town PB as lead agency. However, they are not aware of the conflicts of interest since there is no mention of it in their letter, and more importantly, no conflicted town officers at this point had made any official disclosures as required by the town’s ethics code. So the DEC and public could not be aware of the conflicts. They recommend that a public scoping be done so important studies get included, and the public and other involved agencies have input. As you will see later the scoping was skipped over despite the request of experts at the DEC who express concerns over wind farm impacts particularly in this area. In addition the letter outlines numerous areas of study the DEC thinks are important.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The NYDEC submits a letter to the PB and Edsall concerning the pending DEIS and the town as lead agency. They do not object to the town PB as lead agency. However, they are not aware of the conflicts of interest since there is no mention of it in their letter, and more importantly, no conflicted town officers at this point had made any official disclosures as required by the town’s ethics code. So the DEC and public could not be aware of the conflicts. They recommend that a public scoping be done so important studies get included, and the public and other involved agencies have input. As you will see later the scoping was skipped over despite the request of experts at the DEC who express concerns over wind farm impacts particularly in this area. In addition the letter outlines numerous areas of study the DEC thinks are important.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Cape Vincents PB adopts un- adopted draft wind law as guideline for turbine siting
September 13, 2006:
The Planning Board approves a motion (4-0, Binsley absent) to adopt the Town’s previous un-adopted draft wind law as guidelines for wind turbines siting in the projects site plan review process. This was an illegal action on the part of Edsall and the planning board which has no authority to adopt anything. They are an advisory board with no legislative power. We believe this was a backdoor attempt to avoid specific wind zoning, and the Comp Plan issues. We believe it was another in a trend of actions by conflicted town officials to expedite the wind developer’s projects.
The Planning Board approves a motion (4-0, Binsley absent) to adopt the Town’s previous un-adopted draft wind law as guidelines for wind turbines siting in the projects site plan review process. This was an illegal action on the part of Edsall and the planning board which has no authority to adopt anything. They are an advisory board with no legislative power. We believe this was a backdoor attempt to avoid specific wind zoning, and the Comp Plan issues. We believe it was another in a trend of actions by conflicted town officials to expedite the wind developer’s projects.
Cape Vincent~ Wind HX~ Wpeg ~ Lawyer Judy Drabicki telling Mark Gebo that Edsall can't adopt the guidelines, it's illegal.
16) September 13, 2006:
The Planning Board approves a motion (4-0, Binsley absent) to adopt the Town’s previous un-adopted draft wind law as guidelines for wind turbines siting in the projects site plan review process. This was an illegal action on the part of Edsall and the planning board which has no authority to adopt anything. They are an advisory board with no legislative power. We believe this was a backdoor attempt to avoid specific wind zoning, and the Comp Plan issues. We believe it was another in a trend of actions by conflicted town officials to expedite the wind developer’s projects.
September 13, 2006:
Some of this is from the wind history that I have published before with added information.
The Planning Board approves a motion (4-0, Binsley absent) to adopt the Town’s previous un-adopted draft wind law as guidelines for wind turbines siting in the projects site plan review process. This was an illegal action on the part of Edsall and the planning board which has no authority to adopt anything. They are an advisory board with no legislative power. We believe this was a backdoor attempt to avoid specific wind zoning, and the Comp Plan issues. We believe it was another in a trend of actions by conflicted town officials to expedite the wind developer’s projects.
~~~~
Here is a quote from WPEG attorney back then Judy Drabicki telling Mark Gebo that Edsall can't adopt the guidelines, it's illegal.
Notice too in the copy of the minutes above , the mention of an escrow account~
Town law prohibits turbines in the River or Lake Districts. A developer will have to set up an escrow account. For what purpose ,no explanation given.
~~~
Later in a Watertown Times article it states that an escrow account is established by Acciona for all costs incurred during the environmental review process.
~~~
The Planning Board approves a motion (4-0, Binsley absent) to adopt the Town’s previous un-adopted draft wind law as guidelines for wind turbines siting in the projects site plan review process. This was an illegal action on the part of Edsall and the planning board which has no authority to adopt anything. They are an advisory board with no legislative power. We believe this was a backdoor attempt to avoid specific wind zoning, and the Comp Plan issues. We believe it was another in a trend of actions by conflicted town officials to expedite the wind developer’s projects.
September 13, 2006:
Some of this is from the wind history that I have published before with added information.
The Planning Board approves a motion (4-0, Binsley absent) to adopt the Town’s previous un-adopted draft wind law as guidelines for wind turbines siting in the projects site plan review process. This was an illegal action on the part of Edsall and the planning board which has no authority to adopt anything. They are an advisory board with no legislative power. We believe this was a backdoor attempt to avoid specific wind zoning, and the Comp Plan issues. We believe it was another in a trend of actions by conflicted town officials to expedite the wind developer’s projects.
~~~~
Here is a quote from WPEG attorney back then Judy Drabicki telling Mark Gebo that Edsall can't adopt the guidelines, it's illegal.
Notice too in the copy of the minutes above , the mention of an escrow account~
Town law prohibits turbines in the River or Lake Districts. A developer will have to set up an escrow account. For what purpose ,no explanation given.
~~~
Later in a Watertown Times article it states that an escrow account is established by Acciona for all costs incurred during the environmental review process.
~~~
Wednesday, September 6, 2006
Monday, August 28, 2006
Reinbeck resolves to end amending of Town of CV Wind zoning Law
August 28, 2006:
Because the cost of environmental studies exceeded expectations, Supervisor Rienbeck resolves (#33) to “discontinue the process of amending the Town of Cape Vincent Zoning Law to regulate wind towers.” The motion does not carry, but the zoning process is essentially dead. Rienbeck further states, “I will request the Planning Board adopt our proposed wind tower regulations as a guideline during their site plan review process.” This conforms to PBC Edsall’s June 14, 2006 request, but is at odds with recommendations by others, including the Town’s attorney, to adopt a wind law. At or about this time Supervisor Rienbeck stops soliciting advice from the Town’s attorney (Mark Gebo) and begins following the advice of an Albany attorney in the office of the New York Association of Towns. Rienbeck, when asked in the media
what happens if a wind law is not passed, comments that the town will call turbines
utilities under the current zoning, and they can be placed anywhere in town as a result. It should also be noted that the town had sufficient money to do the studies, and could have even charged the developers for the studies.
Because the cost of environmental studies exceeded expectations, Supervisor Rienbeck resolves (#33) to “discontinue the process of amending the Town of Cape Vincent Zoning Law to regulate wind towers.” The motion does not carry, but the zoning process is essentially dead. Rienbeck further states, “I will request the Planning Board adopt our proposed wind tower regulations as a guideline during their site plan review process.” This conforms to PBC Edsall’s June 14, 2006 request, but is at odds with recommendations by others, including the Town’s attorney, to adopt a wind law. At or about this time Supervisor Rienbeck stops soliciting advice from the Town’s attorney (Mark Gebo) and begins following the advice of an Albany attorney in the office of the New York Association of Towns. Rienbeck, when asked in the media
what happens if a wind law is not passed, comments that the town will call turbines
utilities under the current zoning, and they can be placed anywhere in town as a result. It should also be noted that the town had sufficient money to do the studies, and could have even charged the developers for the studies.
Tuesday, August 8, 2006
Edsall ~Turbines can be designated as utilities ~
Early August 2006
Edsall begins expressing public opinions that a wind law may not be necessary because turbines can be designated utilities under the current zoning law. The current zoning law has no provisions or codes for wind energy development and is completely inadequate to address this type of industrial development. The actions of Cape Vincent municipal officials are contrary to normal accepted practice at the time, since other towns around CV and New York facing wind development declared wind moratoriums and developed specific wind zoning amendments. We believe that Cape Vincent’s position to avoid a wind law is due the numerous officers’ conflicts of interest, and to expedite the process in favor of the wind developers.[Note: At the April 2009 meeting of the Cape Vincent Town Board, Councilman Joe Wood indicates that the TB cannot adopt a law fearing this action will initiate a lawsuit by WPEG. This admission in 2009 suggests the issue of their conflicts may have played a role in the decision to kill amending the zoning law in 2006. We could conclude that the CV TB shirked its legislative responsibility to adopt a zoning amendment for the biggest commercial development project in the Town’s history in order to avoid lawsuits.]
Edsall begins expressing public opinions that a wind law may not be necessary because turbines can be designated utilities under the current zoning law. The current zoning law has no provisions or codes for wind energy development and is completely inadequate to address this type of industrial development. The actions of Cape Vincent municipal officials are contrary to normal accepted practice at the time, since other towns around CV and New York facing wind development declared wind moratoriums and developed specific wind zoning amendments. We believe that Cape Vincent’s position to avoid a wind law is due the numerous officers’ conflicts of interest, and to expedite the process in favor of the wind developers.[Note: At the April 2009 meeting of the Cape Vincent Town Board, Councilman Joe Wood indicates that the TB cannot adopt a law fearing this action will initiate a lawsuit by WPEG. This admission in 2009 suggests the issue of their conflicts may have played a role in the decision to kill amending the zoning law in 2006. We could conclude that the CV TB shirked its legislative responsibility to adopt a zoning amendment for the biggest commercial development project in the Town’s history in order to avoid lawsuits.]
EDSALL ~ HE HAW WIND LAW ~ ADOPTED ~ LAW ~ THEY TRIED TO KILL !!!
Early August 2006
Edsall begins expressing public opinions that a wind law may not be necessary because turbines can be designated utilities under the current zoning law. The current zoning law has no provisions or codes for wind energy development and is completely inadequate to address this type of industrial development. The actions of Cape Vincent municipal officials are contrary to normal accepted practice at the time, since other towns around CV and New York facing wind development declared wind moratoriums and developed specific wind zoning amendments
August 28, 2006:
Because the cost of environmental studies exceeded expectations, Supervisor Rienbeck resolves to “discontinue the process of amending the Town of Cape Vincent Zoning Law to regulate wind towers.” The motion does not carry, but the zoning process is essentially dead.(Link here)
Rienbeck further states, “I will request the Planning Board adopt our proposed wind tower regulations as a guideline during their site plan review process.” This conforms to PBC Edsall’s June 14,2006 request(link here) but is at odds with recommendations by others, including the Town’s attorney, to adopt a wind law. At or about this time Supervisor Rienbeck stops soliciting advice from the Town’s attorney (Mark Gebo) and begins following the advice of an Albany attorney in the office of the New York Association of Towns. Rienbeck, when asked in the media
what happens if a wind law is not passed, comments that the town will call turbines
utilities under the current zoning, and they can be placed anywhere in town as a result. It should also be noted that the town had sufficient money to do the studies, and could have even charged the developers for the studies. (The developer refuses pay for the studies)
In the minutes Edsall request the planning board adopt the old 2006 law as guidelines. And Edsall adopts them....
With all the bungling and the “HE HAW Politics” that are going on in Cape Vincent could it get any more ridiculous?
What does the old law/guideline say?
Turbines are not utilities, and 5dba at the property line!
These moronic idiots just adopted what they tried to kill!
Read the law here page one clearly states that wind power facilities shall not be considered utilities.
Edsall begins expressing public opinions that a wind law may not be necessary because turbines can be designated utilities under the current zoning law. The current zoning law has no provisions or codes for wind energy development and is completely inadequate to address this type of industrial development. The actions of Cape Vincent municipal officials are contrary to normal accepted practice at the time, since other towns around CV and New York facing wind development declared wind moratoriums and developed specific wind zoning amendments
August 28, 2006:
Because the cost of environmental studies exceeded expectations, Supervisor Rienbeck resolves to “discontinue the process of amending the Town of Cape Vincent Zoning Law to regulate wind towers.” The motion does not carry, but the zoning process is essentially dead.(Link here)
Rienbeck further states, “I will request the Planning Board adopt our proposed wind tower regulations as a guideline during their site plan review process.” This conforms to PBC Edsall’s June 14,2006 request(link here) but is at odds with recommendations by others, including the Town’s attorney, to adopt a wind law. At or about this time Supervisor Rienbeck stops soliciting advice from the Town’s attorney (Mark Gebo) and begins following the advice of an Albany attorney in the office of the New York Association of Towns. Rienbeck, when asked in the media
what happens if a wind law is not passed, comments that the town will call turbines
utilities under the current zoning, and they can be placed anywhere in town as a result. It should also be noted that the town had sufficient money to do the studies, and could have even charged the developers for the studies. (The developer refuses pay for the studies)
In the minutes Edsall request the planning board adopt the old 2006 law as guidelines. And Edsall adopts them....
With all the bungling and the “HE HAW Politics” that are going on in Cape Vincent could it get any more ridiculous?
What does the old law/guideline say?
Turbines are not utilities, and 5dba at the property line!
These moronic idiots just adopted what they tried to kill!
Read the law here page one clearly states that wind power facilities shall not be considered utilities.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Friday, July 14, 2006
FOES WIN A ROUND IN WIND FARM TILT
July 14, 2006
FOES WIN A ROUND IN WIND FARM TILT
HEARING AT CAPE: COUNCIL TO ISSUE IMPACT DECLARATION BEFORE ZONING VOTE
Author: KELLY VADNEY
TIMES STAFF WRITER
Edition: Both
Section: Jefferson
Page: A1
Dateline: CAPE VINCENT
Article Text:
After listening to over two hours of public comment, the Town Council agreed to issue a positive declaration of impact under the state Environmental Quality Review Act before voting on a new zoning law for wind power facilities.
The decision was a victory for residents and advocacy groups that have been seeking a moratorium on wind-farm development.
"We can't go through with this thing without knowing the answer to these questions," said Arthur D. Pundt, a seasonal resident who is a member of Wind Power Ethics Group, a citizen's organization that has been researching turbine development on its own.
The hearing brought 100 people to the Recreation Center on James street. Residents spoke both in favor of and in opposition to the law. Many expressed frustration in a lack of information and knowledge concerning wind power issues. It was the third public hearing the town has held concerning zoning for wind turbines.
The proposed zoning law prohibits commercial wind turbine development in the river front and lake front districts. It requires commercial wind power facilities to be set back 1,000 feet plus 1.5 times the tower height from the high water mark on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River.
If the distance of a setback requirement were to fall within the river front or lake front district, turbines would not be permitted.
Ethics group member Sarah F. Boss presented the Council with a petition from 140 members of the community and two 4-inch ring binders of scientific research for review.
Not all were opposed to the terms of the law. Many landowners who attended the meeting not only supported short setbacks from the river, but lashed out at WPEGs research strategies.
Pictures of Paul C. Mason's farm with turbines digitally imposed were used in an informational packet put together by the group.
"This is of personal offense to me," Mr. Mason said. "This is not a true picture." He said he contacted a lawyer, who advised him the use of the pictures was illegal.
Mr. Pundt, who composed the packet, acknowledged in a phone interview prior to the meeting that the pictures were not professionally produced.
Wind-farm opponents questioned everything from possible impacts on the environment, to the degree of tax breaks, to the impact on views along the river. Many continued to encourage a moratorium while more information is gathered.
"This is a big decision, a huge decision. This isn't like picking out curtains. Once you put these things up, they're going to be there," said Andrew J. Norris, a year-round resident who lives on Route 12E across from County Route 7. "I'm not opposed to wind towers, just give us a bigger setback."
Seasonal residents expressed feelings of frustration regarding not only a lack of information, but representation in their government. Many stated they pay taxes on their property all year long, and deserve to have their interests protected.
Farmer Jarvis H. Radley said the town should protect the interests of year-round residents.
"Most of these people here, money doesn't really matter," he said. "This affects my income, this affects my future."
Town Attorney Mark G. Gebo said he will begin drafting the positive declaration to proceed under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. After the public hearing, the board completed a SEQR worksheet in which they determined there may be significant environmental, health and safety risks involved with possible turbine development under the proposed law.
The next step will be to find a consultant to study the possible impacts of enacting the zoning law.
"There is a process to this. It isn't going to be quick. It's going to take some time," Mr. Gebo said. He may have the declaration complete by the council's August meeting.
Town Supervisor Thomas K Rienbeck said he thought it was the best decision for the town to make at the time.
Copyright, 2006, Johnson Newspaper Corporation
Record Number: 0607140135
FOES WIN A ROUND IN WIND FARM TILT
HEARING AT CAPE: COUNCIL TO ISSUE IMPACT DECLARATION BEFORE ZONING VOTE
Author: KELLY VADNEY
TIMES STAFF WRITER
Edition: Both
Section: Jefferson
Page: A1
Dateline: CAPE VINCENT
Article Text:
After listening to over two hours of public comment, the Town Council agreed to issue a positive declaration of impact under the state Environmental Quality Review Act before voting on a new zoning law for wind power facilities.
The decision was a victory for residents and advocacy groups that have been seeking a moratorium on wind-farm development.
"We can't go through with this thing without knowing the answer to these questions," said Arthur D. Pundt, a seasonal resident who is a member of Wind Power Ethics Group, a citizen's organization that has been researching turbine development on its own.
The hearing brought 100 people to the Recreation Center on James street. Residents spoke both in favor of and in opposition to the law. Many expressed frustration in a lack of information and knowledge concerning wind power issues. It was the third public hearing the town has held concerning zoning for wind turbines.
The proposed zoning law prohibits commercial wind turbine development in the river front and lake front districts. It requires commercial wind power facilities to be set back 1,000 feet plus 1.5 times the tower height from the high water mark on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River.
If the distance of a setback requirement were to fall within the river front or lake front district, turbines would not be permitted.
Ethics group member Sarah F. Boss presented the Council with a petition from 140 members of the community and two 4-inch ring binders of scientific research for review.
Not all were opposed to the terms of the law. Many landowners who attended the meeting not only supported short setbacks from the river, but lashed out at WPEGs research strategies.
Pictures of Paul C. Mason's farm with turbines digitally imposed were used in an informational packet put together by the group.
"This is of personal offense to me," Mr. Mason said. "This is not a true picture." He said he contacted a lawyer, who advised him the use of the pictures was illegal.
Mr. Pundt, who composed the packet, acknowledged in a phone interview prior to the meeting that the pictures were not professionally produced.
Wind-farm opponents questioned everything from possible impacts on the environment, to the degree of tax breaks, to the impact on views along the river. Many continued to encourage a moratorium while more information is gathered.
"This is a big decision, a huge decision. This isn't like picking out curtains. Once you put these things up, they're going to be there," said Andrew J. Norris, a year-round resident who lives on Route 12E across from County Route 7. "I'm not opposed to wind towers, just give us a bigger setback."
Seasonal residents expressed feelings of frustration regarding not only a lack of information, but representation in their government. Many stated they pay taxes on their property all year long, and deserve to have their interests protected.
Farmer Jarvis H. Radley said the town should protect the interests of year-round residents.
"Most of these people here, money doesn't really matter," he said. "This affects my income, this affects my future."
Town Attorney Mark G. Gebo said he will begin drafting the positive declaration to proceed under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. After the public hearing, the board completed a SEQR worksheet in which they determined there may be significant environmental, health and safety risks involved with possible turbine development under the proposed law.
The next step will be to find a consultant to study the possible impacts of enacting the zoning law.
"There is a process to this. It isn't going to be quick. It's going to take some time," Mr. Gebo said. He may have the declaration complete by the council's August meeting.
Town Supervisor Thomas K Rienbeck said he thought it was the best decision for the town to make at the time.
Copyright, 2006, Johnson Newspaper Corporation
Record Number: 0607140135
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Saturday, June 24, 2006
A new citizens organization, Wind Power Ethics Group
Byline: Kelly Vadney
Jun. 24--CAPE VINCENT -- A new citizens organization, Wind Power Ethics Group, is investigating possible effects of proposed wind turbines in the town.
"There's been a lot of indecision on the board," said Dr. Charles J. Moehs, vice president and spokesman for the group. "I don't think they've covered all of the issues."
WPEG sent a letter to the town board urging it to consider a moratorium on turbines through Dexter attorney Judy Drabicki last week.
Dr. Moehs said 50 to 60 people are members of WPEG, both seasonal and year-round residents. He said the group has met two or three times in the past month to two
Jun. 24--CAPE VINCENT -- A new citizens organization, Wind Power Ethics Group, is investigating possible effects of proposed wind turbines in the town.
"There's been a lot of indecision on the board," said Dr. Charles J. Moehs, vice president and spokesman for the group. "I don't think they've covered all of the issues."
WPEG sent a letter to the town board urging it to consider a moratorium on turbines through Dexter attorney Judy Drabicki last week.
Dr. Moehs said 50 to 60 people are members of WPEG, both seasonal and year-round residents. He said the group has met two or three times in the past month to two
Friday, June 16, 2006
WIND TOWER SETBACK NIXED
Cape zoning plan: amendment changed to resolve deadlock
By Jude Seymour
Times staff writer
June 16,2006
Cape Vincent – two members of the town Council have reversed their positions on setback requirements of commercial wind towers, causing a deadlock that was resolved Thursday only by stripping any such regulations from up close zoning law amendment.
Two Councilman recusing themselves over apparent conflicts of interest, the three members remaining agreed May 11 two set a project boundary that would begin 1000 feet from the already established River district boundary. Proposed law therefore, restricted the first turbine from being placed any closer than 2600 feet from the center line over 12 the.
But supervisor Thomas K Rhinebeck and Councilman Mickey W Orvis offered a revised boundary Thursday that showed turbines as close as 1600 feet from the center line over 12 E. Councilman Clifford P. Schneider who had already compromised for the May 11 proposition did not alter his proposal.
“There’s been overwhelming support for total use of the Ag district, to begin with." Mr. Rhinebeck in explaining his change of course" and furthermore, I see no reason other than visual impacts for anything other than that"
Mr. Orvis added," I can't justify taking another thousand feet, whether it's a farmer or just a regular landowner of their property."
But Mr. Schneider said town residents have been misled by statements made at the June 3 public hearing, where many town farmers claimed they would have problems with the proposed setbacks.
“I found out these were basically three farmers affected by what the town was proposing," the councilman said." And two of these farmers still had 100 acres that could be developed. One farmer is seriously affected, but he still going to have 40 acres left to have a tower on."
The three Councilmen could agree to address setbacks only through forbidding wind power development in the lake and river districts. Their proposal also allows tower construction starting at 1600 feet from the high water mark of both Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River leaving the town planning board responsible for actual siting during each procedural review.
This revised zoning law amendment will be subject to a public hearing which has not been scheduled all three Councilman agreed not to pursue a six-month moratorium on wind power development.
“We have to take advantage of the tax relief that's going to be available to us." Said Mr. Orvis." We could wait and the wind company, the developer, could go to another spot and come back to us, but supply and demand.
We’re not the only ones in the country that are going to have wind towers built. The longer we wait the longer were going to wait for a supply of wind towers. And that's longer we have to wait for any tax relief."
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Assemblyman Aubertine’s letter to Cape Vincent’s Town Board written in June of 2006:
Assemblyman Aubertine’s letter to Cape Vincent’s Town Board written in June of 2006:
Re: Abstaining from Voting on the location of Wind Turbines in Cape Vincent
Ladies and gentlemen:
I regret that I was unable to attend the public hearing held on June 3rd at which time the above referenced subject was discussed and I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts with you now.
Specifically, I would like to comment about the issue of whether a board member should abstain from voting on an issue. As elected representatives, we are responsible to make decisions for the benefit of our constituents and community. This project, which affects thousands of acres and dozens of property owners, has the potential to positively affect every resident. Whether through a reduced property tax rate or new economic opportunities, Messrs.’ Wood and Mason will certainly not be the sole beneficiaries should this project move forward.
While some may feel that these elected officials should abstain from voting on this matter – my belief is that they should not. If they are restrained from voting in this instance, then shouldn’t the community decide now what the guiding principals will be for future abstention in different matters and with what representative? I.e. voting on a tax rate that affects their personal property.
Healthy and positive discourse is mandatory in a democracy; however, governing by referendum is unwise. After careful reflection, I feel it is ethically proper that in this case all board members should vote on the issue at hand. In fact, I believe it is their responsibility to do so.
Sincerely,
Darrel J. Aubertine
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Edsall Letter 6/14/2006 & Minutes
.
June 14, 2006:
Desperate to cut the public out of the zoning process, PB Chairman Edsall wrote a letter June 14, 2006, to the town board informing them that the PB passed a resolution by a 5-0 favor vote, that the current zoning law is sufficient to properly site any private or commercial wind turbines in the Town of Cape Vincent. No change to the current zoning laws are necessary at this time. We propose that the Town Board abandon its efforts to amend the current zoning law.” [This resolution effectively allowed developer’s unrestricted rights for development and give the planning board as much or as little control as they deem appropriate.
Edsall wrote that the resolution passed by a 5 to 0 vote indicating that neither PBC Edsall or two other members of the PB with ties to wind developers recused themselves from this vote.]
Was there even a vote? In the minutes from the Planning Board meeting of June 14, 2006, there is no record of any such vote.
Edsall Letter
Planning Board Minutes June 14, 2006 (1)
Planning Board Minutes June 14, 2006 (2)
June 14, 2006:
Desperate to cut the public out of the zoning process, PB Chairman Edsall wrote a letter June 14, 2006, to the town board informing them that the PB passed a resolution by a 5-0 favor vote, that the current zoning law is sufficient to properly site any private or commercial wind turbines in the Town of Cape Vincent. No change to the current zoning laws are necessary at this time. We propose that the Town Board abandon its efforts to amend the current zoning law.” [This resolution effectively allowed developer’s unrestricted rights for development and give the planning board as much or as little control as they deem appropriate.
Edsall wrote that the resolution passed by a 5 to 0 vote indicating that neither PBC Edsall or two other members of the PB with ties to wind developers recused themselves from this vote.]
Was there even a vote? In the minutes from the Planning Board meeting of June 14, 2006, there is no record of any such vote.
Edsall Letter
Planning Board Minutes June 14, 2006 (1)
Planning Board Minutes June 14, 2006 (2)
Cape Vincent Group Seeks Moratorium On Wind Farms
Cape Vincent Group Seeks Moratorium On Wind Farms
June 14, 2006 in WWNY-TV Watertown
A group of residents has hired an attorney in connection with proposals to build a wind farm in the town of Cape Vincent. Wind Power Ethics Group, made up of approximately 30 people, wants a moratorium on development of commercial wind power facilities.
The group hired Dexter attorney Judy Drabicki, who drafted a letter asking the town board to make no decisions on wind farm projects for six months.
Drabicki said the town needs to carefully examine the potential harm posed by wind facilities.
"You need to look at the view shed. You need to create computer generated images. You need to study the birds, study the traffic, not just click off boxes on a form," said Drabicki.
The attorney said a State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) is necessary before the town allows wind farm development.
Meanwhile, the town council is working on drafting zoning ordinances. It has been accepting letters from residents about the proposed wind farm projects.
The council will meet Thursday to discuss the issue.
"The SEQR is part of our process of changing any zoning law, which the town board will address all those issues. Link unavailable
June 14, 2006 in WWNY-TV Watertown
A group of residents has hired an attorney in connection with proposals to build a wind farm in the town of Cape Vincent. Wind Power Ethics Group, made up of approximately 30 people, wants a moratorium on development of commercial wind power facilities.
The group hired Dexter attorney Judy Drabicki, who drafted a letter asking the town board to make no decisions on wind farm projects for six months.
Drabicki said the town needs to carefully examine the potential harm posed by wind facilities.
"You need to look at the view shed. You need to create computer generated images. You need to study the birds, study the traffic, not just click off boxes on a form," said Drabicki.
The attorney said a State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) is necessary before the town allows wind farm development.
Meanwhile, the town council is working on drafting zoning ordinances. It has been accepting letters from residents about the proposed wind farm projects.
The council will meet Thursday to discuss the issue.
"The SEQR is part of our process of changing any zoning law, which the town board will address all those issues. Link unavailable
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)