News
Wind park developer says state court missed facts and wants case reheard
Township Solicitor William Vinsko has already argued against the Energy Unlimited Inc. in Commonwealth Court regarding a proposed Bald Mountain wind park, but he might have to do it again.
Energy Unlimited filed an application for reargument to the Commonwealth Court, Vinsko said during the township supervisors meeting Monday.
Commonwealth Court sided with the township last month, in its case against the company’s plan to place 25 of a proposed 34 turbines on county-owned land. Vinsko argued that company’s plans were preliminary and didn’t follow zoning procedures.
In its application for reargument, Energy Unlimited is arguing that Commonwealth Court misinterpreted the law and missed some of the facts in the case.
“I think it is highly unlikely, highly unlikely, that the court would reverse its decision,” Vinsko said.
Attempts to reach Energy Unlimited’s attorneys Monday night were unsuccessful.
March 6, 2007
by Coulter Jones
in The Citizens Voice
BEAR CREEK TWP. — Township Solicitor William Vinsko has already argued against the Energy Unlimited Inc. in Commonwealth Court regarding a proposed Bald Mountain wind park, but he might have to do it again.
Energy Unlimited filed an application for reargument to the Commonwealth Court, Vinsko said during the township supervisors meeting Monday.
Commonwealth Court sided with the township last month, in its case against the company’s plan to place 25 of a proposed 34 turbines on county-owned land. Vinsko argued that company’s plans were preliminary and didn’t follow zoning procedures.
In its application for reargument, Energy Unlimited is arguing that Commonwealth Court misinterpreted the law and missed some of the facts in the case.
“I think it is highly unlikely, highly unlikely, that the court would reverse its decision,” Vinsko said.
Attempts to reach Energy Unlimited’s attorneys Monday night were unsuccessful.
