Southampton Town analyst says proposed wind turbine would harm environment

A Shinnecock Hills couple pushing to build a controversial wind turbine on their waterfront property were sent back to the drawing board last week when Southampton Town deemed that their proposal would threaten nearby wetlands.

At a public hearing held on the evening of Wednesday, December 16, Southampton Town’s Chief Environmental Analyst Marty Shea recommended that the Conservation Board not grant the couple, Marianne and Domenico Seddio, a wetlands permit to build the wind turbine on their Bayberry Cove Lane property. Mr. Shea said the turbine, in the form it is currently being proposed, would pose a danger to wildlife and mar the view of the shoreline for the public.

The Conservation Board requested that the Seddios submit further information on the project and explore alternative locations and designs for the turbine before they return for another public hearing on February 24.

The Seddios want to use the turbine to help power their home, which sits near town- and state-designated tidal wetlands along Middle Pond, just off of Shinnecock Bay. They need to seek a special wetlands permit from the Conservation Board because the turbine would stand within 200 feet of the wetlands. As per their current proposal, the turbine would be installed between 40 and 45 feet away from the edge of the wetlands, Mr. Shea said.

The Seddios’ current application proposes that the wind turbine would stand approximately 32 feet high, and be situated in the northeast corner of the 2.2-acre property, near the couple’s driveway.

Mr. Shea spent much of last week’s public hearing presenting a lengthy environmental analysis of the proposal, which concluded that the wind turbine could imperil bats and birds, including endangered piping plovers and least terns that nest along Shinnecock Bay and breed on the beach along Middle Pond. He also said that the noise and vibrations from the turbine could disturb animals, and cause them to leave nearby habitats.

It is the burden of the applicants to demonstrate that their proposal is the only way they can meet their goals, and will have the least possible impact on wetlands, Mr. Shea explained. He said the Seddios have yet to show that they cannot power their home with renewable energy in some other way that will have less potential impacts on the environment.

“There is, without question, significant cause for the Conservation Board to request additional information,” Mr. Shea said.

He also noted that the wind turbine would stand well above the trees that might screen it from the views of neighbors and passersby. Along with wildlife, the scenic quality of the wetlands is another commodity that needs to be protected, he explained.

Mr. Seddio, a co-owner of Wind Source Energy of Flanders, was present for the public hearing but chose not to address the board. Neither he nor his wife could be reached for comment afterward.

The Seddios first applied for a wetlands permit on July 8, and an initial hearing was held on October 28.

Throughout the months since the Seddios first proposed installing the turbine, neighbors have filed a slew of letters with the Conservation Board, expressing outrage over the project both for its aesthetics and potential impact on nearby wetlands. A petition decrying the device, carrying more than 120 signatures, was sent to the board on October 28.

Two residents addressed the board during last week’s public hearing.

Kurt Hauquitz, who lives in North Sea but said he often visits a friend who is a neighbor of the Seddios, said he supports alternative energy in general, but not in this case.

“For this situation, it just doesn’t appear to be the right place at the right moment for it all,” he said.

Peter Hunsinger, who lives near the Seddios on Bayberry Cove Lane, added that the project was not worth the danger it would pose to the wetlands.

“One of the great things about being in Southampton is the way things are preserved,” he said. “And we obviously encourage that to continue.”