Turbine: Town responds to KWI complaint

Credit: By Kathryn Gallerani | The Kingston Reporter | Feb. 8, 2016 | kingston.wickedlocal.com ~~

Translate: FROM English | TO English

KINGSTON – The town has responded to a complaint against the Board of Health from the owner of the Independence wind turbine with a complaint of its own.

Town counsel Jay Talerman responded by claiming that Kingston Wind Independence is in breach of its contract with the town – in part because KWI has failed to make several of its required monthly rent payments.

He also claims that KWI is not in full compliance with either the Board of Health’s original abatement order or its second abatement order for shutdown of the turbine under certain conditions.

The contract requires that KWI comply with all governmental regulations, standards and orders relative to the operation of the turbine, but the Board of Health has determined that operations of the turbine are not in compliance with state Department of Environmental Protection standards.

“As a direct and proximate result of such breach of contract, the town and its residents have suffered severe injury and damage while KWI has continued to be unjustly enriched by the operation of the turbine,” Talerman states.

He requests that the court require KWI to comply with all the terms of its contract and its lease with the town, and also abide by the terms of both abatement orders and dismiss KWI’s complaint against Kingston. The town is also seeking damages and court costs, including attorneys’ fees.

Those figures are not stated in the court filing from the town in response to the claims by KWI.

KWI alleges that the order shutting down the wind turbine under certain conditions does so for substantial amounts of time based on an “erroneous ruling” and, as a result, has and will continue to cause significant financial hardship to its business.

In its filing, KWI claims the company has performed its contractual obligations and complied with all operational and technological stipulations in its contract with the town.

Leland Road resident Doreen Reilly and her family are directly affected by the operation of the wind turbine and are watching the town’s response to the legal action closely.

“The filing is a step in the right direction, but much more needs to be done to correct this colossal mistake that subjects us to noise and flicker in our home, not to mention the tremendous amount of stress we have endured since May of 2012,” she said, when asked for her response to the town’s actions.

Also, Reilly said she and her husband, Sean, have not had one response from the town to their numerous noise complaints. It’s a disappointment for them, she said. Several times this month they have contacted town officials about excessive noise levels and power production levels they say either violate the abatement order or are not covered by it.

“The abatement falls far short of giving us our quality of life back pre- turbine,” she said. “The turbine is out of compliance at all times of the day. The highway does not mask the noise, it just adds to it.”

Source: By Kathryn Gallerani | The Kingston Reporter | Feb. 8, 2016 | kingston.wickedlocal.com

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: