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.”
I'd be buying all the excess electricity from him I could and tell LIPA to go pound Salt!!
Who would really want to live next to this monstrosity ?
Southampton has finally been trying to put a stop to this kind of overbuilding and complete disregard for the wetlands and it's inhabitants, both Human and otherwise. Money no longer speaks the loudest !
Move on !
A bird will collide with a given wind machine about once every 8-15 years; higher incidences may occur in locations with large concentrations of waterfowl or in areas of high migration
Each year, an estimated 57 million birds dies in collisions with vehicles, ...more 1.25 million in collisions with tall structures (buildings, towers), and 97.5 million in collisions with plate glass.
Source:Healthlink.org
Remember people this in not a giant turbine like that used in wind farms. What does more damage to the enviroment...a 32' high wind turbine or a 32' McMansion?
The neighbor directly next to Mr. Seddio's house is the head of a group called LI Green, he is also the one ...more spearheading this protest. Check out CoweeDewey's post in a previous article on this matter, it is VERY enlightening.
http://www.27east.com/story_detail.cfm?id=236461
This guys makes a living advocating for the implementation of renewable "green" energy throughout long island, cramming projects such as this down the throats of unhappy neighbors. Funny how his tune changes when the shoe is on the other foot. "Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony." -Morpheus.
I took the time and read the entire file. It is about 1000 pages long. Go read it. There is very compelling evidence that completely backs up Shea's analysis that this shoreline site is totally inappropriate for an industrial wind device like proposed.
We're glad you left our beautiful town. One less person to destroy it.
These people want the turbine on their property because they hope to sell them. It's a business venture, not a "green" venture. The issue is whether their waterside property is suitable for it, or not. If they simply wanted to be green, solar would work perfectly, but they want to put up their turbine to be able to show it to potential clients. Simple.
I'd like to put a cell phone tower on my property, ...more but I would not be allowed to. This is not much different.
Back then, farmers also used DDT and other carcinogenic pesticides.
Not to smart Eh?
Pull your own head out of the sand.
CHILL MAP...
Iowa temps 'a solid 30 degrees below normal'...
Peru's mountain people 'face extinction because of cold conditions'...
Beijing -- coldest in 40 years...
World copes with Arctic weather...
global warming lol
>>
I see that Mr. Schwartz is not mentioned in this article - maybe the opposition recognized their spokesman's hypocracy?
Also, LI Green has a redesigned web site, but you can still find the old mission statement at the link listed above.
Finally, what's up with Marty Shea citing the "scenic quality of the wetlands" to neighbors ...more and passersby as a basis for not approving the application? What about the homes that the Town approved and that were built in the immediate proximity of the wetlands - didn't these destroy the wetlands' "scenic quality" forever?
Every action we take in or near an environmentally-sensitive area has consequences, whether cutting a path, building a road, constructing a home or setting up a wind turbine. The question is whether the benefits outweigh the consequences. So when they've already allowed roads/homes/lawns/fertilizers/cars/trucks/noise to be introduced into these sensitive areas, it's hard to take them seriously when they say that a wind turbine shouldn't be allowed because of its impact on the environment.
I'll try again to reproduce it below:
This story is missing critical facts regarding LI Green's opposition.
First, Charles Schwartz (head of LI Green) lives directly next to Mr. Seddio's home (where the windmill is planned). So It's not really LI Green that opposes the windmill, it's Charles Schwartz pulling a NIMBY (not in my backyard).
Second, ...more this is exactly the kind of project LI Green should support. The article says LI Green's mission is to "reduce the release of greenhouse gases and other pollution" - this is misleading. According to LI Green's web site:
"The mission of LI Green is to enhance economic development and jobs growth by facilitating the expansion of Long Island’s “Green Economy.” (See http://www.ligreen.com/whatis.htm)
LI Green is concerned with economic development of LI's green economy, NOT preserving the wetlands in Shinnecock Hills (I'm not saying they're in favor of polluting - I'm just saying that wetland preservation is not LI Green's mission). This is further reinforced by the web site's statement that "LI Green was formed by two Long Island entrepreneurs each with decades of experience building businesses in this region." It's about business development, pure and simple. And, I'm 100% supportive of their mission. BUT...
Here's the question: If LI Green supports ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT and JOBS GROWTH, and if Mr. Seddio owns a windmill company in Flanders that is developing this project, then isn't this EXACTLY the kind of project LI Green supports? Obviously, yes. So, how can Charles Schwartz seriously claim that his opposition is consistent with LI Green's mission???
Bottom line is that Mr. Schwartz apparently doesn't walk the LI Green walk, presumably because this particular instance of "enhancing Long Island's "Green Economy" is located in his (waterfront) backyard. In my opinion, that's hypocritical (to put it mildly).
I invite anyone to review the LI Green web site and show how opposition to this project is consistent with LI Green's stated mission or goals
First a little about me. I am an environmental engineer with both a bachelors and masters engineering degree. For decades I have worked on environmental projects and have a very strong practical understanding about ecology, biodiversity and habitats as well ...more as pollution.
And yes I am one of the many residents in the community that lives very near Mr. Seddio's property.
Let's please start with the attacks that I have personally received concerning LI Green, the not for profit organization that I work for. LI Green is based at Stony Brook University and is affiliated with the Advanced Energy Research Center there, a NY State Center of Excellence for CleanTech. Our organization, which is research based, provides a community service to residents of Long Island by providing a free home energy audit and consultation about home energy efficiency. Our focus in the energy space is exclusively on conservation and efficiency. We do not work on renewable energy systems such as solar or wind.
Does LI Green have an economic development mission. Absolutely. We believe that there are major job growth opportunities through making homes and other buildings more efficient. And we have made multiple hires in the past year toward this goal and are working to encourage significant business growth in this area.
Taking my employer out of the equation now let's talk about why I personally believe that the proposed Seddio turbine device should not be installed. First of all it should not be installed because it is not permitted by the Town Code to be installed in this location. The Town Code clearly states that a wind conversion system (aka Industrial Urban Turbine) is not appropriate for this residential area. Next it is important to really understand what the Seddios are asking for. When their home was built they agreed to create a non disturbance zone to ensure that the fragile wetlands at this site were protected. The application that they have is not just to allow them to build an urban industrial turbine device but to install it inside the non disturbance area that they already agreed to provide just 40 feet from Honey Pot Pond. I encourage anyone that is questioning the point of view of the residents in this community to come meet with us and view the site that is under consideration. You will quickly change your opinions on this issue and see that Mr. Shea's assessment is correct.
All that is marketed as green isn't always green. There is a term called "greenwashing". Installing large dynamic industrial devices along shoreline habitats is a great example of it. This equipment belongs in areas where the impacts will be benign. The Sierra Club, clearly an advocate of renewable energy and an organization that by the way gave me a major environmental award this past year, created a policy statement concerning where wind energy devices should be installed and where not. I quote it below:
"We support wind production on public and private land where specific and substantial reasons to oppose it do not exist. We particularly support the development of wind power on agricultural land where wind production complements existing land use. The Sierra Club opposes development in protected areas such as national and state parks, national monuments, wilderness areas, wildlife refuges, designated roadless areas, critical habitat and designated habitat recovery areas for wildlife, and areas of cultural significance, sacred lands, and other areas that have special scenic, natural or environmental value. In these areas, it is inappropriate to build wind turbines, roads, transmission lines, or any other structure related to wind development . "
If anyone would like to contact me to discuss this issue in a civil manner I would certainly welcome it.
Sometime since this past Monday, LI Green removed from its web site the page I quoted (previously available at http://www.ligreen.com/whatis.htm), which stated that LI Green's mission is "to enhance economic development and jobs growth by facilitating the expansion of Long Island’s “Green Economy.”" The site did not state that its mission was liminted to making buildings and homes more efficient (a laudable and essential goal, and one I wholeheartedly support). ...more If I misstated LI Green's mission, it was because its own web site misstated it.
Also, the original Chronicle article (see http://www.27east.com/story_detail.cfm?id=236461&message=posted) stated that Mr. Schwartz had "drummed up opposition to the windmill in the community," and that Mr. Schwartz said that his opposition to the windmill was not contrary to LI Green's mission "because the windmill would be a detriment to the local wetlands environment." But, (1) LI Green's stated mission said nothing about wetland preservation, and (2) as the article noted, LI Green's stated mission also included ""reduc[ing] the release of greenhouse gases and other pollution” by promoting renewable energy." The reporter apparently did not bother to look at LI Green's web site, or only partially quoted its mission, thus leaving out the critical economic development component.
So at the time of the original article, Mr. Schwartz indicated that LI Green's mission included wetlands preservation, but as I said then (and as Mr. Schwartz says above), it is not - instead, it is to promote growth of LI's green ecomony through creating more energy-efficient buildings and homes. It's mission is not wetland preservation (and as I said before, its mission is not wetland destruction either - LI Green's mission has nothing whatsoever to do with wetlands).
The article did not state these facts, and I thought they were important, so I posted them.
I still do not understand how opposition to the turbine is consistent with LI Green's mission.
As for the Sierra Club statement: Does the Sierra Club favor homes being built in these areas? Roads, cars, trucks, exhaust? Lawns, chemical fertilizers? The noise and disruption to the environment caused by human development?
If there were no development whatsoever in this area, and they were proposing a wind turbine, then you've got a point. But when we've already allowed all of this development in this once-pristine area, it's hard to take opposition to an energy-saving, greenhouse gas reducing wind turbine seriously.
Good god man are you stupid or what???
You cannot compare today with 100 years ago..I have heard other people make that statement, "gee, 100 years ago no-one minded " and the cluelessness astounds me..Perhaps your second reply is kidding..
So ...more you cannot compare those windmills existing from 80 or so years ago, you just can't compare it at all. The amount of visual pollution we put up with is enourmous, and bats habitat is severely reduced, therefor if they are there, one more little pressure could send them into extinction..I am sure you have heard of the white-nose fungus that is presently devastating populatinos of east coast bats..
Thank you for jumping in and helping shed some light on the real situation.