Wind power setback nixed
Cape zoning plan: amendment changed to resolve deadlock
This story was purchased from the archives of the Watertown Times
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."
Watertown Times article
Link not available
~~~
Darrel Aubertines Shameful Letter
6 comments:
Any attempt by British Petroleum to supersede local zoning will be met with great resistance and publicity. It will be very embarrassing for the New York State siting board and the Governor.
Mr. Aubertine is a Cuomo appointee and is his Agriculture Commissioner.
Cuomo ran for office claiming he was going to clean up government. But he appointed a commissioner of Agriculture who had a financial interest and was being paid by a wind developer.
And he was well aware of Aubertine's wind leases.
Because I told Mr. Cuomo that when I had a chance to meet him personally and explain to him what was going on in Cape Vincent with the wind ethics situation.
Aubertine wrote the above letter AFTER he had filed two financially bearing wind leases with the Jefferson County Clerk.
In that letter, Aubertine told the Cape Vincent wind lease holding councilmen to:
1. Vote on wind matters despite their financial interest with the developers.
2. Rewrite the codes of ethics (guiding principles) so as to serve Aubertine's as well as the board members' self interest.
3. And, ignore the will of any citizens (via public referendum) who might think otherwise of giving our town to wind developers who would turn it into an crap hole.
Three very serious violations of ethical and responsible government that have been upheld by the SCOTUS on numerous occasions.
The pro- wind are screaming for compromise.
Once upon a time the anti -wind were willing to compromise but the lease holders wouldn’t budge, it was all or nothing and they got nothing.
The new zoning law does a 35 sound restriction for night. Which is very generous in compromising from what is normal in the 25 range.
Regarding referendum...
The Rienbeck board that had the wind conflated guys on it refused an 800 signature request for wind moratorium.
However, Mason, Orvis and Mason accepted a little over a hundred petition that was used by Harold Wiley and voter for wind to try to prevent new registered people from voting agains Marty And Donnie.
Mickey married Harold wileys niece and Darrel Married harold wileys nice.
If that is true 3:04 it sure does explain why the head oligarch once said, "they are doing a good job even if they do have conflicts of interest/"
Pandora
Just a few months ago, the SCOTUS unanimously upheld a Nevada ethics law that governs when lawmakers should refrain from voting on official business because they might have a conflict of interest.
The court reversed a Nevada Supreme Court decision that said elected officials have a constitutional right to vote on official business and that the state law violated that right.
The decision came in the case of Michael Carrigan, a Sparks, Nev., council member who voted on a casino project even though his campaign manager served as a project consultant.
It was a small town council member who just like Don Mason and Marty Mason was serving his own self interest and those of his friends. The Spark's councilman's claim was like Marty Mason's who tried to use the Darrel Auberint logic claiming that everyone has a conflict of interest.
Post a Comment