I am sorry to hear of this outcome. I suspect that it is partly a result of the way things went in Dryden where zoning and NIMBY combined to kill a project that never got a fair hearing (or so it looked from where I am sitting). The fact that Cornell was proposing it didn't help, since there are many who see Cornell as the enemy and line up against most anything coming from that institution. The pro-wind folks are justifiably concerned that it is virtually impossible to get a fair hearing. The Enfield Board was apparently subjected to some pent-up anger and frustration. I myself suspect that the reason for the meeting was unlikely to have been to discuss how to support the project and encourage its repetition or extension elsewhere.
To come back to my earlier point, though, Enfield has no Zoning Law. It is no coincidence that John Rancich chose Enfield for this project. I think it was a perfectly rational decision to avoid the same kind of response the Cornell proposal got in Dryden. For those of you unfamiliar with how Zoning laws are structured, there is always a statement to the effect that any use or activity not specifically permitted is prohibited. Thus anything new is not allowed until the ordinance is revised to accommodate it. Some, ordinances have limited flexibility built in -- as in allowing "uses similar to" those specifically allowed, but wind turbines are unlikely to be covered under such an umbrella. Most ordinances also have a height restriction. Structures exceeding that height (like telecommunication towers) are specifically provided for. Hence the need for a wind energy ordinance or specific provisions in the zoning ordinance to allow wind turbines, and under what conditions. In the absence of zoning, there is no need for the wind ordinance unless the municipality wants to specifically regulate the wind turbines. This may well be the topic of discussion in Enfield. The issue there, where all regulation is suspect, will be whether any regulation is desirable. No doubt those who don't want wind turbines in their view will be lobbying for action. Even if they succeed, the outcome will affect future projects, not this one, since laws cannot be retroactive in their effect. Joel Gagnon On the At 07:33 AM 5/3/07 -0500, you wrote: >Thanks Simon for your understanding. Unfortuneately, the torches and >pitch forks came out last night... and mostly from the "pro-wind" crowd >(or at least the extremist portion of it). It's amazing the poor manners >and basic disrespect for our fellow human beings that showed itself. I >don't care how ferverent you are about something, this is still a *free* >country and even people you disagree with have the right to be heard >without rude and interrupting outbursts at a public meeting. Cudos to our >town supervisor, Jean Owens, who did her best to keep the crowd under >control. The meeting eventually did settle down a bit. > >Michael Miles >_______________________________________________ >RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for: >[email protected] >http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins >free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org _______________________________________________ RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for: [email protected] http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
