Cobleskill Follows Countys Moratoriums

COBLESKILL - The Cobleskill Town Board held a plethora of public hearings at their regular meeting last Monday, and their most prevalent topic was an amendment to a previous piece of legislation earlier this year.

Local Law 2, an agreement to impose moratoriums on a variety of renewable energy sources, followed in line with many other municipalities and their battle against large corporations grabbing as much land as they can.

According to Supervisor Werner Hampel, that law did not go far enough, and so they opened a public hearing for Local Law 4 to add several amendments, namely more moratoriums on solar and large-scale wind facilities.

Supervisor Hampel said that the decision was made after careful review of “what was happening in the rest of the county,” specifically citing Sharon and Jefferson’s recent dealings, and the Board admitted that the amendments should have been there from the beginning of the first draft.

Members faced some backlash over this from the audience, as some people in attendance thought that following the status quo wasn’t a smart move. Instead, they wanted to see what the community actually thought about solar and wind, rather than the Board imposing their demands upon local landowners.

Supervisor Hampel quelled things with an explanation that land in Cobleskill should be saved for long-term economic development rather than these facilities, and went further by saying that laws are “living documents” that can change with time.

Once the public hearing was over, members unanimously voted to pass Local Law 4 and added the amendments.

In other news, the Board held two more public hearings that same night, with one discussing department head spending and the other sparking a conversation about squatters’ rights.

The first, recognizing that inflation is becoming more unbearable, authorizes department heads to spend up to $3,000 on their own without consulting the Board for approval. The idea was well received and a motion was passed without issue.

The second, however, was met with more animosity and confusion from the public. The drafted law stated that a landowner could involve police to forcibly remove any unlawful occupant off their property within the first thirty days of their stay.

The law was taken straight from the county level and used much of the same language. However, the audience was unsure of where the line between squatter and tenant was, along with asking other questions ranging from civil cases to criminal proceedings.

As a result of this, Supervisor Hampel ended the public hearing and agreed to table the matter until later, stating that they should “take a harder look” at some of the pain points in the draft.