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.
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: dated June 14, 2006informing the Town Board, 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
12 comments:
Edsall and the Rienbeck Gang wanted the 2006 defunct wind law adopted as guidelines for one reason and only one reason - to keep turbines off our beaches. In spite of conflicted Edsall's protestations, the current law was NOT adequate to site wind turbines. Using Cape's zoning law and allowing wind turbines to be a utility had one, BIG drawback - it allowed the damn things along the lake and river waterfront. Even these idiots knew that would invite disaster.
Conflicted Edsall and Angry Rienbeck devined a solution to keep Acciona and BP off our waterfront, adopt the draft wind law they just torpedoed and have the planning board use them as a guideline for site plan review. Within the guideline it states no turbines in the river and lake front districts, perfect solution - maybe.
However, their high-fives at the solution were overshadowed by their own stupidity. Those same guidelines state that turbines are not to be considered utilities, ugh! Moreover, turbine noise levels cannot exceed 5 dBA above ambient sound levels measured at property lines, double ugh! BP's Madden raised hell over this provision and told Edsall to kill it.
It didn't take long for Edsall and Rienbeck to discover they pulled a bonehead move. Edsall even admitted the mistake publicly. But, when confronted about the guideline fiasco last week and why it was not still in force, Edsall replied because someone said it was illegal at one of their meetings, he couldn't remember which meeting. Rienbeck followed by saying, yeah, I remember that. These fools suggested a scream from the audience during one of their meetings was sufficient to alter planning board adopted policy. Holy Crap!
Lord, Lord, where did I sin and what sin did I commit to have been sent to this place where these fools try to screw me like this everyday. Forgive me Lord and deliver us all from our conflicted hell!
At more than one of the meetings, it was also suggested from the audience that Edsall resign his position of corruption. Why hasn't he done it?
Anon 12:09, Edsall is another pick and chooser. He picks the things that further his ultimate payday and ignores those things that protect the public. He's the Cape's equivalent of the movie "Wall Street's" Gordon Gekko. Remember the iconic quote - "Greed is good."
Only difference between Gekko and Edsall, however, is that Gekko was a scumbag with class; Edsall is just a scumbag.
There is one more thing here to bring clarity to this discussion.
Edsall and Rienbeck have stated and would like you to beliive that the NY Courts said turbines are utilities, so they have NO choice no, they can't go against the court decision.
Now there is crap...and there is crap...and this is TOTAL CRAP!!!
The court NEVER said any such thing. I have all the briefs for this case and the decisions All the court did basicalliy is say that the ZBA had a right to make the decision they did, and it was not arbitrary or illegal. That is all. They never actually said that turbines ARE utilities, or got into that argument. In a home rule state they basically deffered to the ZBA decsion.
However, there is a problem, but the WPEG case never really forced a case on the conflicts, it was secondary or terciary, and that was a mistake. Just like the current WPEG suit on the FEIS, which puts conflicts secondary.
But we now know on the previous ZBA utilities decision that 1 ZBA member had a conflict. If he had recused the vote would have been 2-2 and a deadlock, and therefore turbines would not be utilities, there would have had to be a wind law, and that would take the power out of Edsall's hands because unlike right now he would have had to follow the wind law and not make it all up in site plan review. The wind companie could not have given the PB a set of crtiteria, becuase the LAW would have dictated the criteria.
This whole fiasco with no law is engineered by Edsall to keep him in the pinnacle of power by having all decisions made by the PB. And our current TB tolerates this disaster.
Out 2 friendly TB members should be screaming bloody murder over this at every meeting instead of passively enabling it.
Get it legally over with. Have a NO wind TB leaglly pass a BAN on industrial wind developement, and shut down this PB disaster once and for all.
And nobody commented on this in in a previous post above from NY law.
The TB can not outright over rule a ZBA, ZEO or PB decison. BUT...the TB CAN appeal a ruling just like any citizen. In otherwords if Rienbeck and Edsall thought it was WPEG's fault that turbines were now utilities, and they honestly didn't like it...THEN THEY COULD HAVE APPEALED THE ZBA DECSION THEMSELVES!!!
And I think under the right circumstances that decsion could still be appealed. And it could probably been appealed when the turbine went up behind Mary Grogan's house...but somebody dropped the ball on that one. And on our focus on guideline, and site review, and criterai etc we are still mssing the point!
Thanks to Urban Hirschey and Brooks Bragdon, many of these things will come forth. Now, if we can concentrate on the election of Clif Schneider and John Byrne and re-elect Urban Hirschey these things could be re-visited.
i would bet the farm there never was a vote.nothing would surprise me with that criminal.
I was at a planning board meeting one night when cliff schneider mentioned their letter to the town board. Karen Bourcy looked like he told her she was screwed by an alien. She had no idea what he was talking about. Then Schneider pulled a copy of the letter but Edsall started shouting and ranting. It was obvious to the few of us who were at that meeting that other members of the board had no idea the letter ever existed. It was probably a Cindy Edsall letter and not an official letter of the planning board. Bourcys face proved that. This kind of crap has got to be illegal.
someone needs to go to jail here .
I was at a PB meeting where John Byrne quoted the letter. That's right, said the infuriated Edsall.
8:43
Do you also think Cindy wrote the letter to herself telling herself that she did not have to pay the fifty dollar fee for putting the met tower on her land?
Post a Comment