Wind panel corrects errors; No turbines will be allowed in lakefront, riverfront districts
CAPE VINCENT — There will be no wind turbines in the riverfront and lakefront districts.
Town Supervisor Thomas K. Rienbeck began the wind law committee’s meeting on Thursday afternoon by clearing up some mistakes and misconceptions about the draft amendment to the zoning law.
“No one was ever interested in it being in anywhere but the agricultural-residential district,” he said.
To that end, the committee agreed to add a setback from the riverfront and lakefront district boundaries of one and a half times the height of the turbine. The district boundaries are 1,000 feet south of the centerline of 12E.
Mr. Rienbeck also reiterated that he alone was responsible for the makeup of the committee.
“I wanted to get a mix of the community,” he said.
The other members are Michael J. Bourcy of the Jefferson County Planning Department, Councilman Mickey W. Orvis, town Planning Board Vice Chairman Thomas D. Ingersoll, Planning Board member George A. Mingle, village Trustee Robert G. Doud, Urban C. Hirschey of the Wind Power Ethics Group and Beth A. White of Voters for Wind.
Richard H. Macsherry, Tibbetts Point, sat in for Mr. Hirschey at Thursday’s meeting.
Mr. Bourcy told the committee he is not a voting member and is not related to any Bourcys in Cape Vincent.
Setbacks and noise requirements occupied much of the two-hour meeting. Mr. Macsherry suggested expanding the setbacks to 1,000 feet from nonparticipant property lines and at least 3,500 feet from nonparticipant residences.
“You all have heard an awful lot about distance and noise factor issues,” he said.
Mr. Doud favored leaving the setback as is, letting the noise requirement act on its own. The draft noise requirement says that sound should not exceed six decibels above ambient sound levels at nonparticipant residences and 10 decibels above ambient sound levels at nonparticipant property lines.
The section says compliance will be checked by the town’s code enforcement officer or other designated town officer.
“I think if you let them know about these requirements, they’ll follow them,” he said. “Or we’ll use the money in abatement and tear them down at their expense.”
The draft law also includes an abatement section in which the town could require a decommissioning plan in which the developer sets money aside for the town to take the turbines down. The town also could use the permit revocation section in which permit violations can be punished by forcing the permit holder to stop operation of the turbines.
Mrs. White suggested working on the enforcement section more, especially for noise.
“What would constitute a violation?” she asked. “Where would we measure it? How long — 10 minutes? Twelve hours? Days or weeks? How is that going to be mitigated?”
Other changes Thursday were suggested by Mr. Bourcy to make the amendment fit in with current zoning law more easily. Primarily, that meant describing the turbines not as utilities, as they are now categorized, but as their own entity.
Utilities, under the town’s zoning law, require special use permits in all three districts. By separating turbines, they will need a permit in the agricultural district, but can be banned from the riverfront and lakefront districts more easily.
The committee tentatively planned a trip to Maple Ridge Wind Farm in Lewis County on Sept. 12 and its next meeting for 4 to 6 p.m. Sept. 25.
By Nancy Madsen
Times Staff Writer
5 September 2008
The copyright of this article is owned by the author or publisher indicated. Its availability here constitutes a "fair use" as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law as well as in similar "fair dealing" exceptions of the copyright laws of other nations, as part of National Wind Watch's effort to advance understanding of the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development. For more information, click here.
Blog it:
Tags: Wind power, Wind energy
|
