Article 78 filed in Canandaigua, NY against Town of Cohocton
IMPORTANT NEWS !!!!
The Town Board of Cohocton did not follow correct and prescribed procedure when the Windmill Local Law No 1 was passed in January 2006. An “Article 78” action was submitted to the Seventh Judicial Court District on May 16, 2006 to challenge the passage of this law. James Hall filed the suit against the Town Board of Cohocton. David Miller, attorney from Naples, NY, represents Mr. Hall in this suit.
Cohocton Supervisor – Jack Zigenfus was duly served notice of this Supreme Court action at the regular town board meeting by Cohocton Wind Watch President Steve Trude.
Mr. Zigenfus asked Cohocton Town Attorney, Pat McAllister, if he had to accept the notice. When the town supervisor was asked if he had any comments for the citizens in attendance or the press covering this meeting, he declined to make a statement.
The Town of Cohocton will need to defend their actions in court. Upon a successful ruling, the Town of Cohocton would need to start the process over for any passage of a new Windmill Local Law.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Breaking News - Town of Cohocton Windmill Local Law
After an “Article 78” was filed against the Town of Cohocton Windmill Local Law and service upon the Cohocton Supervisor – Jack Zigenfus, the board acknowledged the serious nature of the action by passing a motion to re-write a new windmill local law.
Daniel A. Ruzow a Senior Partner of Whiteman Osterman & Hanna was introduced as representation for the Town of Cohocton in order to recommend correct procedures in writing a new addition to the zoning law. Mr. Ruzow’s Albany, NY firm has represented state agencies and authorities in the SEQRA process.
The Town Board of Cohocton’s action opens the door to a complete restart of the Cohocton Wind Power Project. The clear implication is that the current law has no legal standing and that any town board law would need to follow proper procedure for enactment of a new local law.
Citizens are urged to interact and involve themselves at every stage of this process.
It is imperative to voice your concerns and put them in writing to the Town and Planning Boards.
The question now is “WHERE is the entire wind project”? How can you have an EIS when you don’t know what the regulations governing the project are? Or are the Boards still ignoring the health, safety and financial well being of the citizenry?
James Hall
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Original Investigative Journalism from the
Columnist Guild News Bureau
The Town Board of Cohocton did not follow correct and prescribed procedure when the Windmill Local Law No 1 was passed in January 2006. An “Article 78” action was submitted to the Seventh Judicial Court District on May 16, 2006 to challenge the passage of this law. James Hall filed the suit against the Town Board of Cohocton. David Miller, attorney from Naples, NY, represents Mr. Hall in this suit.
Cohocton Supervisor – Jack Zigenfus was duly served notice of this Supreme Court action at the regular town board meeting by Cohocton Wind Watch President Steve Trude.
Mr. Zigenfus asked Cohocton Town Attorney, Pat McAllister, if he had to accept the notice. When the town supervisor was asked if he had any comments for the citizens in attendance or the press covering this meeting, he declined to make a statement.
The Town of Cohocton will need to defend their actions in court. Upon a successful ruling, the Town of Cohocton would need to start the process over for any passage of a new Windmill Local Law.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Breaking News - Town of Cohocton Windmill Local Law
After an “Article 78” was filed against the Town of Cohocton Windmill Local Law and service upon the Cohocton Supervisor – Jack Zigenfus, the board acknowledged the serious nature of the action by passing a motion to re-write a new windmill local law.
Daniel A. Ruzow a Senior Partner of Whiteman Osterman & Hanna was introduced as representation for the Town of Cohocton in order to recommend correct procedures in writing a new addition to the zoning law. Mr. Ruzow’s Albany, NY firm has represented state agencies and authorities in the SEQRA process.
The Town Board of Cohocton’s action opens the door to a complete restart of the Cohocton Wind Power Project. The clear implication is that the current law has no legal standing and that any town board law would need to follow proper procedure for enactment of a new local law.
Citizens are urged to interact and involve themselves at every stage of this process.
It is imperative to voice your concerns and put them in writing to the Town and Planning Boards.
The question now is “WHERE is the entire wind project”? How can you have an EIS when you don’t know what the regulations governing the project are? Or are the Boards still ignoring the health, safety and financial well being of the citizenry?
James Hall
Original Investigative Journalism from the
Columnist Guild News Bureau
posted by SARTRE at
4:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home