The NY Supreme Court in Jefferson County ruled against the Atlantic Wind petition for an injunction against the Clayton moratorium specifically regarding wind study met towers and on wind relayed development in the town of Clayton, NY. Apparently this was only in regards to the injunction. There is yet to be a hearing on the validity of the moratorium law itself.
Here is the related article in the Watertown Daily Times:
http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/news03/judge-claytons-moratorium-on-meteorological-towers-stands-for-now-20160715
In addition here is the Clayton defense response which I find far more enlightening in regards to the Art 10 law issue. Thanks to John Droz for sending this information from his site.
http://wiseenergy.org/Energy/TI/Clayton_Lawsuit_Response.pdf
STOP, The regional wind energy industrialization of one of New York State's most beautiful and environmentally sensitive areas, the 1000 Islands of the St. Lawrence River and the Golden Crescent of Eastern Lake Ontario. If you don't think you are seeing the most recent posts click on the current month in the archives to the right.
Art, your comments on the wdt article were well delivered and I believe an accurate interpretation of both the ruling and the Town's response. I found several of the Town's assertions and statement particularly interesting and perhaps revealing.
ReplyDeleteThis line from page 37- Petitioner's Motion for Preliminary injunction must be denied because a
balancing of the equities favors the Town's constitutional right to
regulate the use of its own land.
This on page 27-By Petitioner's own admission, and separate analysis under Wallach, the plain language
of Article 10 does not evince an express intent to preempt local land use laws and zoning
ordinances such as the Moratorium.
and then this on page 20 -. The Court
has also "repeatedly highlighted the breadth of a municipality's zoning powers to provide for the
development of a balanced, cohesive community." Id. (internal citations omitted).
This statement clearly is designed to address the legitimacy of prohibiting an unwanted development that is deemed to pose a threat to the health and general welfare of the citizenry as opposed to allowing it and attempting to regulate or zone it. Wind exclusion zones or wind overlay districts are completely discriminatory if one follows the logic of this statement. If a development (such as industrial wind generation) can be shown to be detrimental to residents health and the general economy or property values, the only sensible action to provide cohesion and balance in the community would be to protect all of the town by not permitting the offensive development in the entire town.
The numerous allusions to the questionable legality or validity of the State's pre-emption authority that you noted , although subtle in the text, stood out as clearly as if it were tea floating in the Boston Harbor.
I have to agree that this response by the Clayton legal team is intriguing and welcome.