[ 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

Judge denies Yarmouth intervention in ARC case  

Credit:  By Nicole Muller, The Register, www.wickedlocal.com 25 January 2012 ~~

ORLEANS DISTRICT COURT – Yarmouth may not intervene in the case of Aquaculture Research Corporation v. Old King’s Highway Regional Historic District Commission and Rosemarie Austin of Dennis.

Orleans District Court Judge Brian Merrick ruled on Jan. 9 that he would take under advisement Yarmouth’s argument that as an abutter to the proposed 243-foot wind turbine on ARC’s property adjacent to Chapin Beach in Dennis, it has a right to intervene on behalf of Rosemarie Austin of Dennis. Austin considers herself to be a “visual abutter” to ARC’s property and challenged the Dennis OKH’s 2010 decision to allow the project.

When the regional OKH commission overturned the local decision, ARC appealed. Merrick later allowed the town of Dennis to intervene on behalf of ARC. Dennis selectmen took issue with an outside board overturning an elected, local board’s decision to allow the turbine.

Earlier this month, Yarmouth’s attorney Bruce Gilmore argued that, as an abutter, Yarmouth did not receive by mail notification of ARC’s application to the Dennis OKH Committee. Speaking on behalf of ARC, attorney John Kenney said that Yarmouth repeatedly chose not to participate in the case. Kenney quoted minutes from Yarmouth selectmen and OKH meetings that he maintained clearly established Yarmouth’s knowledge of ARC’s application in Dennis.

In his written statement issued Jan. 12, Merrick gave Yarmouth leave to file a brief as a “friend of the court.” This ruling allows Yarmouth to provide information it considers relevant to the matter that has not been submitted by either party in the controversy and that the court may consider as being of “considerable help.”

In his response, Merrick denied Yarmouth’s claims that as an abutter, it was not provided written notice of ARC’s intention. “It does not appear that the low water mark of any property of the town of Yarmouth actually abuts the low water mark of the property of ARC involved here,” Merrrick wrote in his decision. While a statement to Yarmouth selectmen in the public comment portion of their meetings would not constitute notice, the minutes of one meeting show a selectman stating that the board had decided not to take a position on the issue.”

Yarmouth’s interest in the matter is “adequately represented” by the OKH Commission, Merrick wrote in his ruling. “The town of Yarmouth has no right to intervene in this appeal … nor am I inclined to add additional and unnecessary parties to this action.”

Merrick claimed jurisdiction over the case while it is pending at Orleans District Court “given the complexity of the case at this point.”

The next hearing is scheduled for 2 p.m. Monday, Jan. 30. At that time, Merrick will consider whether Austin is “a person aggrieved” and had standing to appeal the Dennis committee’s decision and whether the OKH commission substituted its own judgment for that of the local committee.

In the case of the first motion, should Merrick rule that Austin did not have standing to appeal the local decision, the case would be closed, the Dennis OKH committee’s vote would stand and ARC would be issued a certificate of appropriateness. If Merrick rules that Austin is, indeed, a person aggrieved, Merrick will then determine if the OKH Commission had a right to substitute its judgment for that of the local committee.

Source:  By Nicole Muller, The Register, www.wickedlocal.com 25 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.