Jack Gosselink was taken out by Sheriff’s Deputies, but otherwise, Thursday’s third-in-a-series Richmondville wind meeting was more subdued than its predecessors.
For the most part.
About 60 people, a smaller crowd than in the past, turned out to talk about turbine setbacks.
Steve Eisenberg, CEO for Reunion Power, the Vermont-based company that started the whole wind debate, was given a seat at the front table for his input—something that drew Mr. Gosselink’s and others’ anger.
“You’re listening to a snake-oil salesman who’s out to sell his project,” Mr. Gosselink said, before Supervisor Betsy Bernocco made good on her promise to have troublemakers removed and he was led out by reluctant deputies, his wrists stretched out as if for handcuffs.
Richmondville has been considering establishing turbine setbacks of 1,000 feet from homes and property lines; Councilman and Supervisor-elect John Barlow said he’d like to see that bumped up to 1,200 feet.
“Could you work with that or would it kill your project?” he asked Mr. Eisenberg—a question he came to regret.
Mr. Eisenberg answered that 1,200 feet would certainly address safety issues and is at the “maximum” edge of what would work for Reunion.
“Beyond that, there’s no question it would affect the viability of the potential project,” he said.
Mr. Barlow’s question--and the fact that Mr. Eisenberg and no other wind developers were asked to Thursday’s meeting—angered some.
“That isn’t the purpose of this law, to worry about killing his project,” said Dolores Benedict.
“Having someone with a vested interest in this as your expert, answering questions on setback is entirely inappropriate,” agreed Doug Putnam.
“I’d like to see the project killed said neighbor Eric Walther.
“I’d like to see it a mile [setbacks]. You’re here for the residents. Come on John [Barlow], let’s kill the project.”
Mr. Putnam and Mr. Walther live on Karker Road; Mr. Gosselink lives on Doge Lodge Road.
Both have been talked about as likely sites for turbines should tests there prove there’s enough wind to make the project fly—results are expected by April or May--and if Reunion gets the necessary approval.
With his question to Mr. Eisenberg drawing so much attention, a chagrined Mr. Barlow explained his intent.
“My concern isn’t so much Reunion, but that is we pass a law that’s impossible for…turbines to come in, are we opening up ourselves for lawsuits?”
Mr. Barlow added he’s made it clear in all the discussions that his concerns are turbine noise and flicker; the expanded setbacks are intended to address that, he said.
Fellow Councilman Dick Lape said he’s also concerned about the visual impact of the turbines on neighbors.
“It’s easy to sit here and say a certain distance is okay, but adjoining property owners have their rights too,” he said.
While several asked about the potential for the turbines themselves to fail and come crashing down, Don Airey of Jefferson, who owns a business in Richmondville and is one of the organizers of the anti-wind Schoharie Valley Watch, said setbacks need to address things like noise, strobing, landscape and view issues as well and called for limits of 2,500-3,000 feet.
“If setbacks are properly done, I think most of the opposition will probably go away,” said Claire Driscoll of Fulton, another place Reunion is eyeing for turbines.
Bob Nied pointed out the standard of 1,000 foot setbacks is 30 years old and “probably not relevant to Richmondville” topography—a concern John Pendergrass of Cross Hill Road shared.
“The only protection property owners have…are setbacks,” he said. “I have five absentee landlords surrounding me…The way my land runs, an 800 foot turbine will still tower above my property.”
Alicia Terry, head of Schoharie County Planning, said in her research, turbine setbacks in New York State range from 500-2,500 feet.