** CAPE VINCENT WIND HISTORY II

This is part II of a series of Wind education posts.

British Petroleum's new project manager Peter Gross said that he wanted to educate the community about wind development .
~~~~~~

Oct. 12, 2005, a couple of weeks before PB Chairman Edsall signed his wind lease with British Petroleum he wrote a letter to his wife informing her that permission had been granted for a MET tower on her parents’ Burnt Rock Road property and that a permit was not required. This maneuver may have been designed to keep the existence of the MET tower away from the scrutiny of the public.[1]

Planning Board minutes and supporting correspondence indicate that in 2002, Acciona was required to get a permit however, the community was unaware at that time of the planned projects and it was easy to keep the wind test tower permits under the radar.[2]

During the fall of 2005, through March 2006, a series of clandestine meetings took place in the office of the town supervisor to construct a wind law that would best serve the interests of leaseholders and conflicted officials. This effort was orchestrated by PB Chairman Edsall and attended by conflicted TB, and PB members and lease holding citizens as well as a representative from Jefferson County Planning Department, Michael Bourcy. The regulations they designed were tailored exclusively to suit their best interests, and those of the developers. (Oct. 28, 2005, Marty Mason signed his second lease with Acciona.)[3]

In early 2006, the secretive wind campaign began to emerge and it became open to public scrutiny. Initially the big point of contention was the setbacks, the distance between the wind turbines and riverfront properties.
As the setback, issue heated up Edsall began to make statements that reflect his ambitions: "If we don't pass a law one way or another, they're still coming. People have already signed contracts." As the public involvement and discontent grew Edsall attempted to gain control over the turbine setbacks making the statement, “I arbitrarily make a recommendation to go back to the River Front and Lake Front zones as setbacks.” Citizens in the community wanted a protective setback of 2 miles and Edsall openly responded by saying, "Two miles would wipe out both projects.[4],[5]

" In response to Edsalls zoning amendment process, Jefferson County Planner Mike Bourcy expressed his concerns in a fax dated April 7, 2006, writing, “Anytime an amendment to a zoning law is proposed it must be in compliance with a comprehensive plan. Article 2, of the proposed amendment, states that the purpose of the amendment is to mitigate potential negative impacts on the Seaway Trail, St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario."
“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."
“I also wanted to point out that you want to be careful saying that an issue will be taken care of during site plan review. If a requirement is not in the Zoning Law, then the planning Board must have a good basis for requiring it.” “The Town should not depend on Department of Environmental Conservation requiring a setback from the shore in the area of the AR. (Agricultural Residential) district by the lake. Cape Vincent's comprehensive plan , clearly defines its goals of discouraging commercial development i.e. utilities where the impact would have a negative impact on scenic vistas and tourism assets." [6]

Edsall sat on the committee that constructed the comprehensive plan and because he was well aware of the interest in Cape Vincent for wind development, it is doubtful that he ever intended to follow it. As seen by his actions, after signing a wind lease in September2005, he completely ignored the comprehensive plan. [7] , [8]

Edsall also ignored Bourcey’s concerns as he took his agenda to the April 12, 2006, PB meeting where he petitioned to be included on the PB agenda. Edsall actually got up from his chairman’s seat, moved into the audience, and sat down to make the recommendation to permit turbine development in the town's AR. zone, with no setback stipulation, and to ban development in the riverfront and lakefront district . Edsall said that he was not making this recommendation as the PB chairman but as a private citizen and representative of a community group that meets monthly to discuss wind turbine issues. Edsall also said that he saw no conflict of interest in his participation at the monthly stakeholder meetings (i.e., the fall 2005 through spring 2006 clandestine meetings), because the sessions were not planning board meetings. At this same time, there were reports that Edsall had Voters for Wind sign in his yard for over a year. Both the wind developers and Voters for Wind require the signing of a loyalty and assistance clauses for leaseholders.[9],[10]

As community pressure continued to mount over conflicts of interest, town attorney Mark Gebo advised both boards to request an opinion from the Jefferson County ethics board. Marty Mason and Joe Wood were the only officials to petition the county and received notice of that opinion by May 12, 2006. The Jefferson County Board of Ethics advised Marty Mason and Joe Wood to recuse themselves from any votes or discussions of wind development issues. Edsall did not petition for a formal opinion, but at the April 12, 2006, PB meeting he promised to recuse himself from votes that related to his property. However, because of the shared transmission line between Acciona and British Petroleum Edsall is conflicted with both companies.[11]

May 11, 2006, brought a compromise when Joe Wood and Marty Mason recused themselves and the remaining board members Reinbeck, Schneider, and Orvis proposed a boundary that would restrict the first turbine from being any closer than 2,600 feet from 12E. Incidentally, Orvis, Darrel Aubertine’s cousin, was elected to Town Board in 1999, and over the years has consistently sided and voted with other conflicted town council members.[12]


Sources:

[1] Edsall letter to Mrs. Edsall (no permit required)

[2] Correspondence between PBC , Edsall & NYW, Re: met tower permits

[3] Acciona conflict disclosures

[4] WDT article ,Edsall quotes 3/26/2006

[5] WDT article Edsall quotes 4/6/2006

[6] Letter from County Planning / M. Bourcy Re: concerns that wind zoning law must be in accordance with the Town’s Comp Plan.

[7] Cape Vincent's Comp Plan

[8] Bp conflict disclosures

[9] WDT article Edsall quotes 4/13/2006

[10]Acciona & BP ~ Wind lease loyalty clauses.

[11] WDT article Re: conflict opinion 4/14/2006

[12] WDT article Re: setback compromise