| Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005. |
Second wind lawsuit is filed
Translate: FROM English | TO English
Translate: FROM English | TO English
A second lawsuit has been filed against the town of Stamford over issues related to a proposal to develop a wind farm.
Ellen West, of Hobart, filed an Article 78 last week in Otsego County, protesting the Stamford Town Board’s approval Feb. 13 of a resolution to accept an application by Moresville Energy, which wants to build a wind-energy facility.
The Wests refused to comment on the lawsuit.
In a letter written to The Daily Star on May 15 and signed by Ellen West and her husband, Tony West, they wrote that “the application, signed on Dec. 7 by Dave Groberg, on behalf of Moresville Energy, under penalties of perjury, as true and accurate states, together with all the other required items, that the setback clauses of the Stamford ordinance regarding the siting of turbines have been respected.
“However, as Dave Groberg and the Stamford Town Board know, this is not so. There has been no respect of setbacks. All of the 10 Stamford-side turbines are within the setbacks, and refusals to sign waivers for at least eight of them were sent to the Town Board and Invenergy well before Dec. 7,” according to the couple’s letter.
Moresville Energy is a subsidiary of Invenergy.
The Wests indicate in the letter that all 33 turbines, planned to be in the towns of Stamford and Roxbury, are within the setback rules.
The Wests contend “the application is therefore perjured and should have been rejected by the Stamford Town Board.” Before filing the lawsuit, they asked Delaware County District Attorney Richard Northrup to investigate the filing and acceptance of the application.
Northrup said Wednesday he has reviewed the application and is looking into the allegations that it constitutes a false filing.
David Groberg, Moresville Energy vice president, said, “We think we put together a pretty good application.”
Groberg added that he hadn’t seen the lawsuit as of Friday and therefore could not comment.
Stamford Supervisor Michael Triolo said Friday that he was not going to comment on the lawsuit.
Triolo said the town spent $12,000 related to the Article 78 filed last year against Stamford by the Western Catskill Preservation Alliance over the wind law adopted by the town.
The Western Catskill Preservation Alliance withdrew the lawsuit against the town of Stamford and Invenergy in February because the delay of the judge’s decision allowed Invenergy time to file an application.
Ron Karam, WCPA president, said previously that winning the lawsuit would have left the town with no governing wind law and no basis to challenge the location of the 10 turbines proposed in Stamford.
The first Article 78 lawsuit was filed June 16 in Chenango County, and a decision had been expected by last September.
By Patricia Breakey
Delhi News Bureau
11 June 2008
This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.
The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial educational effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.
| Wind Watch relies entirely on User Contributions |
 (via Stripe) |
 (via Paypal) |
Share:
[ Short URL: https://wind-watch.org/news/?p=53670 ]
