Articles filed under Legal from New York
“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 ...Both the state departments of Public Service and Environmental Conservation said they have withdrawn from the particular stipulations due to Apex’s decision not to divulge the knowledge of the nest and the lack of studies to address it.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.
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 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.
More than a year later since the initial suit was filed, attorneys still are compiling information regarding the Hardscrabble Wind Farm in Herkimer County.
The controversial Monticello Hills wind farm project proposed for the town of Richfield has hit a snag in the form of a court ruling annulling the special-use permit developers received from the town planning board in August. State supreme court justice Donald Cerio found there was a lack of evidence to support the claim that the project would not impact the parcels of adjacent landowners.
The neighbors challenged the Planning Board’s first special permit for the wind project in 2011, and in August of 2012, Judge Cerio annulled the special permit based on procedural irregularities. In June of 2013, the Appellate Division upheld the annulment of the special permit, holding that the Planning Board’s procedures were flawed. The Planning Board held the required public hearing, and then in September of 2013 voted to issue the special permit a second time. The neighbors brought their second suit immediately after and this ruling was issued.
According to court documents filed Tuesday at the Jefferson County clerk’s office, Judge McClusky determined that even though at some point it became evident the developer no longer was going to be reimbursing the town for legal bills related to the project, this did not relieve the town of its obligation to be responsible for the law firm’s subsequent bills. He entered a judgment against the town in the full amount due, plus interest.