[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


News Home

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Legal standing on Fairhaven wind complaint questioned  

Credit:  By BETH PERDUE, www.southcoasttoday.com 4 January 2012 ~~

FAIRHAVEN – Residents opposed to the town’s plan for two commercial wind turbines had their legal concerns heard in New Bedford Superior Court Tuesday, but it remains to be seen whether they will get the injunction they are seeking.

Judge Thomas F. McGuire took the matter under advisement after hearing attorneys representing plaintiffs, the town of Fairhaven and developers Fairhaven Wind LLC make their arguments.

Although he offered few comments during the process, McGuire frequently questioned attorneys on plaintiffs’ legal standing or right to challenge the project in court. That meant very little attention was placed on potential harm from turbines or whether the town took appropriate steps in pursuing the project, despite the complaint being based on these issues.

In her complaint, plaintiffs’ attorney Ann DeNardis challenged the town’s actions, presenting four arguments against them: They signed a lease for lot locations that are different from those approved by a 2007 Town Meeting vote; that one of two lots being built upon has less than the 10 acres required by zoning law; that the building permit was issued for the wrong lot, and that the lease was signed by selectmen before the board voted to approve it in open meeting.

Nevertheless, most of Tuesday’s legal arguments focused on standing.

DeNardis presented two arguments: One maintains that the project interferes with their rights as property owners and has a likely impact of harm; the other says 10 or more taxpayers can legally challenge a municipality’s expenditures or future expenditures under state statute.

But Town Counsel Thomas Crotty countered that plaintiffs are not following proper procedure with their complaint and have no standing under zoning issues until they first go before the town’s Zoning Board of Appeals.

“In the absence of following the appeals process, this court cannot act,” he told the judge.

Crotty also challenged standing under the 10 taxpayers’ statute, saying that plaintiffs’ arguments do not challenge the town’s power purchasing agreement, which is the only agreement under which the town is planning to spend money.

“They have to be challenging the commitment to spend money (in order to bring the complaint),” he explained after the hearing.

Both sides put forth a case of harm: plaintiffs from moving the project forward and the defense from peremptorily stopping it.

DeNardis noted Falmouth residents’ health and quality-of-life complaints about turbines there and said experts substantiating harm to plaintiffs’ health, safety and welfare would be presented once the complaint goes to trial.

But defendants called the argument about irreparable harm speculative.

“Maybe there’s harm; maybe there isn’t,” said Crotty.

On the town’s side, Crotty said Fairhaven could be harmed if the project does not move forward as planned because towns are vying to sell their renewable energy to utilities before the mandated 2 percent quota is reached.

“Once that 2 percent is met, utilities don’t have to deal with us,” he said.

As for appealing the matter to the zoning board, DeNardis questioned whether plaintiffs had a likelihood of success after being denied access to multiple boards in town, including selectmen. She asked the judge if these plaintiffs, most of whom are abutters or abutters to abutters to the project, don’t have standing, then who does?

“These people have a right to a hearing,” she said. “They have a right to have these issues addressed by the court.”

Source:  By BETH PERDUE, www.southcoasttoday.com 4 January 2012

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 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 Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook


© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.