If the impact of solar is high, the impact of wind will be even higher—and more costly.
That was the overwhelming sentiment in Jefferson Thursday at a public hearing on changes to the town’s 2010 Wind Energy Facilities Law.
The issue’s complex and complicated said Supervisor Peggy Hait after nearly an hour of questions and concerns—pointing to a $2.4 million bill the Town of Sharon could be facing to rebuild roads damaged by a solar developer.
“I’d like to make sure we go down the right road,” Ms. Hait said, and so, the hearing will remain open through at least June or July.
The County Planning Commission has already voted against the amended wind law, citing concerns over setback, a lack of restrictions on turbine height or the maximum number of turbines, the potential for flicker and strobing, noise, and wind development’s potential impact on property values—all concerns raised Thursday over a potential project and MET—wind measuring tower--above North Road.
Callan Liddle lives directly across from the MET tower site and said she woke up one day in February 2023 to find it had been installed by then-Borrego, now New Leaf Solar—and she’d never been notified—not by the land owner, not by the Planning Board.
The law flies in the face of Jefferson’s comprehensive plan, Ms. Liddle said.
“Please help us help ourselves,” she said, “and extend the public hearing and moratorium…before we let large corporations get their foot in the door any farther.”
But her cousin, Ben Buck, who also lives with his family on North Road, where he runs several businesses, said he sees the potential of wind as a plus.
“If you’re for green energy in 2024,” it includes wind, Mr. Buck said. “If I could earn an income…that would be great.”
Mr. Buck was the only one supporting the wind law---though Bob Glas, a member of the Planning Board, pointed out it’s amending an existing law.
“If you’re dead-set against wind, we would need to rescind the law we have,” Mr. Glas said.
Great, said Bill Parker, who lives off Enid Road.
“To Bob’s point, I’d like to rescind the wind law”--a suggestion that went nowhere.
Ted Werner, a member of the CPC who moved its disapproval at that meeting, said wind is different than solar in that its impact will be felt beyond a town’s borders; turbines in Jefferson, he said, will be visible as far away as Oneonta.
Mr. Werner—and others—also asked what Jefferson’s recourse would be if wind developers ignored the law.
“You’d have no recourse but to go to court,” he said, something that could bankrupt the town.
Don Airey lives just across the Jefferson-Blenheim town line on Westkill Road, so he’d surely feel—and see--the impact of turbines on the North Road ridge, he said.
He’s also Blenheim supervisor and as chair of the Energy Committee, has been leading the fight to reverse changes in tax law for solar and wind that will cost host communities millions.
“If we have these projects, we’re going to have costs,” Mr. Airey warned, not only to damaged roads—and transporting turbine blades is going to be much more destruction than moving solar panels—but in eventual removal costs.
“Wind is an out-of-scale industrial use in rural areas,” he said.
“I understand we all have the right to do what we want with our land,” said Martha Hacklin, whose father-in-law, Allan Hacklin, lives just below the MET tower.
“But this law opens the door” and favors outside companies at the expense of Jefferson residents.
Industrial wind will only discourage families like hers from moving home, Ms. Liddle said.
Which is maybe its real cost, Mr. Airey said.
“When wind comes to your town, it sets friend against friend, neighbor against neighbor, and sometimes family against family,” he warned.