Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
COUNTY OF JEFFERSON
Respondents-Defendants, and
Respondent-Defendant.
Respondent Planning Board of the Town of Cape Vincent, by its attorneys, Whiteman
Osterman & Hanna LLP, for its Verified Answer herein states as follows:
Verified Petition.
truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Verified Petition.
-2
Petition.
Petition, except that Respondent denies that Planning Board member George Mingle is a current
6. Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and
Petition.
Petition insofar as Respondent adopted a SEQRA findings statement on September 15, 2010 in
accordance with 6 N.Y.C.R.R. § 617.11 and denies the remainder of the allegations set forth in
Petition.
10. With respect to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 21 of the Verified Petition,
Respondent respectfully refers the Court to the written statement of SEQRA findings for
determination of the content, meaning and effect thereof and Respondent otherwise denies any
truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26 of the Verified Petition.
-3
truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 27 of the Verified Petition, insofar as the meaning
14. Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 29 of the Verified
Petition.
15. With respect to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 30 of the Verified Petition,
Respondent respectfully refers the Court to the Joint Comprehensive Plan for determination of
the content, meaning and effect thereof and otherwise denies any allegations that are inconsistent
therewith.
16. Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 31 of the Verified
Petition.
17. With respect to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 32 of the Verified Petition,
Respondent respectfully refers the Court to the Town of Cape Vincent Zoning Code for
determination of the content, meaning and effect thereof and otherwise denies any allegations
18. Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 33 of the Verified
Petition insofar as the location of the proposed project is described and Respondent denies the
20. Respondent denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 35 of the Verified
Petition.
21. Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 36 of the Verified
Petition insofar as SLW proposed to make its transmission line available for co-location of
others, possibly BP and Respondent denies the remainder of the allegations set forth in
22. Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 37 of the Verified
respectfully refers the Court to the written comments for determination of the content, meaning
and effect thereof and otherwise denies any allegations that are inconsistent therewith.
23. Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 38 of the Verified
Petition insofar as the Tovvns of Clayton and Orleans have previously considered a wind project
proposal by Atlantic Wind, LLC. Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief as to the remainder of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 38 of the Verified Petition.
24. Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 39 of the Verified
Petition.
25. Respondent denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 40 of the Verified
Petition.
26. Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 41 of the Verified
Petition insofar as SLW prepared and submitted an SDEIS to the Planning Board in January
2009 and Respondent respectfully refers the Court to the SDEIS for determination of the
content, meaning and effect thereof and otherwise denies any allegations that are inconsistent
therewith.
-5
27. With respect to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 42 of the Verified Petition,
Respondent respectfully refers the Court to the March 2009 submissions by the Planning Board's
engineering consultant for determination of the content, meaning and effect thereof and
28. Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 43 and 44 of the
Verified Petition.
29. Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 45 of the Verified
Petition insofar as involved agencies and the public, including WPEG, submitted written
comments on the SDEIS and Respondent respectfully refers the Court to the involved agency
and public comments on the SDEIS for determination of the content, meaning and effect thereof
30. Respondent denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 46 of the Verified
Petition.
31. With respect to the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 47, 48 and 49 of the
Verified Petition, Respondent respectfully refers the Court to the written comments on the
SDEIS and FEIS for determination of the content, meaning and effect thereof and otherwise
32. Respondent denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 50 of the Verified
Petition.
33. Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 51 of the Verified
Petition.
34. With respect to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 52 of the Verified Petition,
Respondent respectfully refers the Court to the written comments referenced for determination of
6 - -
the content, meaning and effect thereof and otherwise denies any allegations that are inconsistent
therewith .
35. Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 53 of the Verified
Petition insofar as the Planning Board received written comments from a Town of Lyme
Planning Board member in August 2010 and Respondent denies the remainder of the allegations
36. With respect to allegations set forth in Paragraph 54 of the Verified Petition,
Respondent respectfully refers the Court to the written comments referenced for determination of
the content, meaning and effect thereof and otherwise denies any allegations that are inconsistent
therewith.
37. Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 55 of the Verified
Petition.
38. With respect to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 56 of the Verified Petition,
Respondent respectfully refers the Court to the September 8, 2010 Planning Board meeting
minutes for determination of the content, meaning and effect thereof and otherwise denies any
39. Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 57 of the Verified
Petition insofar as the Planning Board adopted a statement of SEQRA findings in accordance
with 6 NYCRR § 617.11 on September 15, 2010 and Respondent denies the remainder of the
40. In response to Paragraph 58 of the Verified Petition, Respondent repeats and re-
41. Respondent denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 59 of the Verified
Petition.
42. With respect to the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 60, 61 and 62 of the
Verified Petition, Respondent respectfully refers the Court to the statutes and regulations
referenced therein for determination of their content, meaning and effect and otherwise denies
43. Respondent denies the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 63, 64 and 65 of the
Verified Petition.
44. In response to Paragraph 66 of the Verified Petition, Respondent repeats and re-
45. With respect to the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 67, 68, 69 and 70 of the
Verified Petition, Respondent respectfully refers the Court to the regulations referenced therein
for determination of their content, meaning and effect and otherwise denies any allegations that
46. Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 71 and 72 of the
Verified Petition.
47. Respondent denies the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 73 and 74 of the
Verified Petition.
48. Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 75 of the Verified
Petition.
49. With respect to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 76 of the Verified Petition,
Respondent respectfully refers the Court to the regulations referenced therein for determination
8
of their content, meaning and effect and otherwise denies any allegations that are inconsistent
therewith.
50. Respondent denies the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 77 and 78 of the
Verified Petition.
51. Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 79 of the Verified
Petition insofar as WPEG and a Tovvn of Lyme Planning Board member submitted comments to
the Planning Board on or about August 17, 2010 and Respondent denies the remainder of the
53. With respect to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 81 of the Verified Petition,
Respondent respectfully refers the Court to the regulations referenced therein for determination
of their content, meaning and effect and otherwise denies any allegations that are inconsistent
therewith.
54. Respondent denies the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 82, 83 and 84 of the
Verified Petition.
55. In response to Paragraph 85 of the Verified Petition, Respondent repeats and re-
56. Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 86 of the Verified
Petition.
57. With respect to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 87 of the Verified Petition,
Respondent respectfully refers the Court to the regulations referenced therein for determination
9
of their content, meaning and effect and otherwise denies any allegations that are inconsistent
therewith.
58. With respect to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 88 of the Verified Petition,
Respondent respectfully refers the Court to the written comments submitted to the Planning
Board for determination of the content, meaning and effect thereof and otherwise denies any
59. Respondent denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 89 of the Verified
Petition.
60. In response to Paragraph 90 of the Verified Petition, Respondent repeats and re-
61. With respect to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 91 of the Verified Petition,
Respondent respectfully refers to the regulations referenced therein for determination of their
content, meaning and effect and otherwise denies any allegations that are inconsistent therewith.
62. With respect to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 92 of the Verified Petition,
Respondent states that they are conclusions of law for which no responsive pleading is required.
63. Respondent denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 93 of the Verified
Petition.
64. Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 94 of the Verified
Petition insofar as the Town of Cape Vincent has adopted a local code of ethics and with respect
to the remainder of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 94 of the Verified Petition, Respondent
respectfully refers the Court to the regulations referenced therein for determination of their
content, meaning and effect and otherwise denies any allegations that are inconsistent therewith.
- 10 -
65. With respect to the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 95 of the
Verified Petition, Respondent respectfully refers the Court to the regulations referenced therein
for determination of their content, meaning and effect and otherwise denies any allegations that
66. With respect to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 96 of the Verified Petition,
Respondent states that they are conclusions of law for which no responsive pleading is required.
67. Respondent denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 97 of the Verified
Petition.
68. The Verified Petition fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be
granted.
69. The claims asserted in the Verified Petition are barred by the Statute of
Limitations.
70. The claims asserted in the Verified Petition are barred by laches, estoppel and/or
waiver.
71. Petitioner lacks standing to assert the claims in the Verified Petition.
72. The municipal approvals challenged herein were rendered in full compliance with
all statutory and regulatory procedures, including, but not limited to, the State Environmental
Toad M. Mathes
Attorneys for Respondent
Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board
One Commerce Plaza
Albany, New York 12260
(518) 487-7600
Ruth E. Leistensnider
Attorney for St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC
Nixon Peabody, LLP
677 Broadway, 10 th Floor
Albany, New York 12207
- 12 -
VERIFICATION
2. I have read the foregoing Verified Answer and the same is true to my own
knowledge, except those matters stated to be upon information and belief, and as to those
3. The reason why this verification is made by me and not by Respondent is that
Respondent does not have its principal place of business in the County of Albany.
01'6AL •
TODD M. MA HES '
r-71
(i/Va O\A-/-e1C
Notary Public of the State of New York
Theresa L. Powell
Notary Public, State of New York
Qualified in Rensselaer Coun4f
No. 01PO4931966
Commission Expires June 20. 20 I