Library filed under Legal from New York
“The Freedom Town Board changed the allowable height of commercial wind turbines from 450 feet to 600 feet but without any consideration of the potential adverse impacts on the environmental or the community. This violates at least two laws, the State Environmental Quality Review Law, and General Municipal Law which requires such a review. ..."Actions like these by cash-strapped towns seeking to cultivate intrusive industrial wind farms without any concern for the impact of what they’re doing are understandable, but illegal."
“They tried to sneak a change into their zoning law without anyone noticing what was going on, because their zoning law doesn’t permit windmills,” Henderson Supervisor John J. Culkin said. ...According to the lawsuit, Hounsfield was required under state Town Law to notify Henderson’s town clerk in writing at least 10 days in advance about a Nov. 7 public hearing, but failed to do so.
The company failed to disclose relevant information, and its application should be tossed out. Apex previously claimed that no evidence of an eagle nest existed but acknowledged under oath that the island caretaker made the firm aware of the nest in the spring of 2017. ...even after being made aware of the presence of the nest, Apex saw no “material reason” to update its application ...so it allowed its inaccurate statement to stand. This is the very definition of deception.
After findings surfaced that an application for a Galloo Island wind farm failed to include the discovery of a bald eagle’s nest... the state departments of Public Service (DPS) and Environmental Conservation (DEC) withdrew their signatures on executed stipulations, agreements between parties that can pertain to studies that must be included in applications.
Lippes said he is almost finished with discovery in the lawsuit and the two sides are expected to exchange the names of their expert witnesses soon afterward. ...The lawsuit cites constant noise and vibration from the turbines “significantly diminishes the value of plaintiff’s property and homes.” The 50 dBA noise limit “is violated on a regular basis,” the suit alleges.
After it was revealed that Apex Clean Energy omitted the finding of a bald eagle nest on Galloo Island in spring 2017 from the application for its 109-megawatt project, administrative law judges allowed parties involved in the review to withdraw from the stipulations pertaining to studies of terrestrial ecology, wetlands and other related matters. ...Both the state departments of Public Service and Environmental Conservation said they have withdrawn from the particular stipulations due to Apex’s decision not to divulge the knowledge of the nest and the lack of studies to address it.
A petition to suspend, adjourn or dismiss the Article 10 review of the Galloo Island Wind project has been filed with the state Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment. Cara and Anthony Dibnah, who in 2000 purchased the former U.S. Coast Guard lighthouse on the island, are seeking relief from the board because of an ongoing easement dispute with the owner of the largest part of the island, Galloo Island Corp.
New York state ratepayers will pick up the tab for the Cuomo Administration’s multi-billion dollar plan to jump-start the offshore wind industry, but most won’t benefit from the energy produced.
The filing alleges that the leasing process for BOEM did not adequately consider the impact the proposed New York Wind Energy Area would have on the region’s fishermen. According to the FSF, the site is in the waters of the New York Bight on vital, documented scallop and squid fishing grounds, which serve as essential fish habitat and grounds for other commercially important species, including black sea bass and summer flounder.
“(Atlantic Wind) did not point to any deadlines they will miss and inadequately explained how or if the delay prevents them from taking any further steps along the regulatory path,” Judge McClusky wrote. “In addition, both sides acknowledge that wind testing has been going on for several years from preexisting Met Towers associated with an earlier proposed (wind project), and the Court is not aware as to how these new measurements effect the process.”
The suit asks that a judge annul a local law passed by the council that prohibits the Planning Board from reviewing and approving applications for permits to construct temporary wind measurement towers, commonly called Met towers.
The focus will be the Article 78 proceedings sought by Save Ontario Shores, which has asked the court to annul a June 11 Town Board resolution granting a special use permit for the data-collection structure, the voiding of a building permit and declaration that the resolution violated the state’s law classifying the environmental review for the project.
This complaint before the State of New York Supreme Court was filed by property owners in the Town of Yates, in Orleans County. The court action was in response to a resolution by the Town of Yates Town Board granting a special use permit for the installation of a 60 meter tall wind measurement tower ("MET tower") and the subsequent building permit issued to Donna Rae Bane. Ms. Bane owns the property on which the met tower will be sited.
Town Supervisor Fran Enjem said he expects the town board will discuss the ramifications of the decision in June. He also said he wants to strengthen the provisions in the community host agreement between the town and the developer. Enjem pointed out that he never signed that agreement.
A half-dozen landowners near the site of the proposed Monticello Hills wind farm in Richfield filed a lawsuit Friday against the town planning board and three of its members, alleging that the approval of the project violated their rights to due process and fair compensation.
In their lawsuit, Lippes' clients are looking to be compensated for what Lippes says is an adverse impact on their quality of life and lost property value. “The turbines are close enough so that they can constantly hear very loud noises,” Lippes said. “Very loud like a jet engine. Some also say it's like a huge diesel truck continually going by their front door.”
The suit alleges “constant noise, vibrations and flicker” significantly impacted the plaintiff’s health and well-being, causing sickness, soreness, lameness and disability. It also accuses Invenergy of diminishing the plaintiffs’ property values, creating noise pollution, and regularly violating the town’s 50-decibel noise ordinance.
The lawsuits were filed in State Supreme Court in Wyoming County and they also seek restrictions on operation of the wind turbines.
Nearly 60 New York residents from Wyoming County are listed as plaintiffs in this lawsuit filed against Invenergy for lost quality of life and property value in relation to the Orangeville Wind Farm. The complaint was filed in early-August with the State Supreme Court in Wyoming County. Attorney Richard Lippes, of Lippes & Lippes in Buffalo, is representing the residents. The text of the complaint is posted below and can be accessed by clicking the link on this page. The names of the plaintiffs have been omitted from the filing.
The three-judge panel also said the citizens group’s lawsuit was not the primary reason for the company’s failure to proceed with the project in a timely manner. Instead, the company had told the press that it was delaying construction until it learned if Congress would extend the federal Production Tax Credit.