Wind opponents file lawsuit
Published on -8/26/2008, 9:31 AM
Printer-friendly version
E-Mail This Story
By MIKE CORN
Opponents of a proposed wind farm southwest of Hays filed a lawsuit in Ellis County District Court on Tuesday seeking to reverse the decision to issue a conditional-use permit.
The lawsuit did not, however, ask for any type of restraining order.
The case was filed by Wichita attorney Patrick Hughes on behalf of 44 plaintiffs -- a virtual who's who of residents living in the area surrounding the proposed wind farm -- against the Ellis County Commission.
The lawsuit claims the proposed project requires the use of land not included within the conditional-use permit, that it would not comply with county zoning regulations, and that the commissioners' decisions to approve the development plan and permit were unreasonable and unlawful.
On July 28, commissioners voted 2-to-1 to approve the wind farm's development plan and the conditional-use permit application. The lawsuit had been expected to be filed by Thursday at the latest.
Because no restraining order was requested, Hughes said the lawsuit will proceed much like any other civil case, in that the defendants will have 20 days -- plus an automatic 10-day extension if requested -- to respond to the lawsuit.
Hughes said there was no need for a restraining order because development of a wind farm is a multimillion dollar project and likely would not take place in a short period of time. Construction of the 100-turbine, 200-megawatt wind farm is not expected to start for at least a year.
Neither Dennis Davidson, the Russell attorney who has been representing Ellis County on the wind issues, nor Mel Sauer, the attorney representing Hays Wind, could be immediately reached for comment. It's likely Hays Wind will ask to intervene in the lawsuit.
Hughes said that while the lawsuit was filed Tuesday, he had not yet received notice that a copy of the lawsuit had been served on the county.
"Right now, the next step is to get an answer from them," Hughes said.
Once the county has filed its response, attorneys and the court will conduct a scheduling conference to determine dates of hearings and deadlines for filing any documents or motions.
The five-page lawsuit details the chronology of events that ultimately resulted in the county's decision to issue a conditional-use permit for Hays Wind.
After first being denied a permit, Hays Wind sought a waiver from the county's one-year waiting period for filing a subsequent application. Commissioners granted the waiver June 2.
"Hays Wind LLC submitted an incomplete conditional-use permit application and development plan application along with its request for a waiver," the lawsuit states.
It went on to say the permit application "placed the proposed facility on essentially the same property as the original application," but excluded land that was within 1,000 feet of any neighbor who had not signed an easement agreement.
Doing so, the lawsuit says, meant the "neighbors would not have protest rights ... with respect to the new application and so that a 2-1 county commission vote in favor of the application would result in its approval."
After the filing waiver was approved, the application then went to the Ellis County Joint Planning Commission, which ultimately voted June 25 to recommend approval of the permit to the commissioners.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are: Timothy O. Davis, Penny J. Davis, Rod Bittel, Pat Bittel, Anthony Eller, Deb Eller, A.J. Pfannenstiel, Linda K. Pfannenstiel, C.J. Pfannenstiel, Georganna G. Johnson, Wilfred T. Barnes, Mary C. Barnes, Sally E. Gager, Vernon F. Riedel, Jeanne M. Riedel, Keith F. Pfannenstiel, Jody Pfannenstiel, James Kramer, Luanne Kramer, Mike E. Butler, Sheryl Butler, Jane Matlock, Paul W. Faber, Jacinta Faber, Mary Meier, Linda Donlay, William T. Wierman, Agnes M. Wierman, Terence J. Wierman, Gary M. Fagan, Doug Marrs, Maren K. Moody, Mary Barnes, John Barnes, Wanda L. Pinkington, J.P. Michaud, Angela K. Grant, Clara Kramer, Robert A. Kramer, Helen M. Miles, Marion Brown, Jerry Wiedeman, Dianne Wiedeman and Louis D. Bowman, doing business as Bowman Oil. Co.
Sunny- Wind farms are becoming a cancer spreading throughout the country. As soon as Ellis county is completely infected and dead you'll most likely get your wish. I suspect, a wish that will be regretted when 400 foot towers are abandoned all over your county.
(Posted by: Fred D. Jones)
wind opponent: 8/28/2008
bring the wind towers to north central kansas--we will welcome them
(Posted by: sunny)
: 8/28/2008
What these people are doing makes no sense to me. They all complain the turbines are unsightly, and loud, but yet we are continuing to drill oil wells through out the state and those are unsightly, load and smell. I do not see anyone filling lawsuits against them. No they love them especially when oil is over $100 a barrel. We should be embracing the opportunity to have a wind farm in our area of the state. We need to start producing our own clean energy locally instead of relying on other parts of the state to do it for us.
(Posted by: Dustin)
wind opponents: 8/28/2008
People forget how the rotten commissioners brought in zoning with the ruse that the intent was to protect people from big business putting in facilities next to their property. These same commissioners have done nothing to protect the very people they said they were going to protect. They should be sued personally for the liars that they are.
(Posted by: jd)
What's the issue: 8/28/2008
It would be interesting to know on what groups they are protesting on? Are the turpines noisy or propose a health risk?
(Posted by: Joe)
they are against all wind: 8/28/2008
according to the a letter sent to 'supporters' against the wind, they're against all four sites, and will take anonymous donations. let's hope they don't use those illegally for campaign contributions. in the end, a lawyer always wins.
(Posted by: blow hard)
NIMBYS: 8/28/2008
There are too many NIMBYS in Ellis County. Maybe these people need to look up the definition of "backyard" and realize that it ends at their property line. They need to quit acting like they own everything around them. If they want a nice view from their homes and have some control over their view, maybe these people who want to "live in the country" should buy more land instead of a few acres and expect to have control over what is CLEARLY NOT THEIRS. It's a good thing these people weren't around when Electricity was invented, they probably woudn't have wanted the power lines from those either or the interstate system. Look at all the people who had to give land for that and what a great thing the interstate is. Come on people, its about PROGRESS. Blame corporate America all you want and complain about the area landowners receiving profits. If the money was to go in your pocket, I'm sure the bickering would stop. Be happy for others instead of always complaining because someone is making some money. Come on Ellis County, quit costing the taxpayers more money with these costly lawsuits. Quit complaining about your property values, do you like paying all that money on taxes. Does it really make you worth more?
(Posted by: Progress)
Wind Farm: 8/28/2008
It sounds like these folks are mad because they are not getting these ugly towers on their land to rack in free money like all the other people that leased ground.
(Posted by: ANON)
: 8/27/2008
The gathering of profits by major corporations from alternative energy sales shouldn't require neighboring homeowners to lose value in their property. This project has been a farce from the start and I certainly hope they win the suit and run these gold diggers out of the county once and for all.
(Posted by: Frank Sens)
NIMBY run amuk: 8/27/2008
Hays should be trumpeting the forward-looking, low-impact, clean energy development. Instead you get this stuff.
(Posted by: Dave)
Legal fees: 8/27/2008
Who is paying for the defense of all these lawsuits? I believe the county is, which means us taxpayers are. You can't please all the people all of the time. What people don't own, they don't own. They need to get over it. Enough already.
(Posted by: taxpayer)
: 8/27/2008
Oh my. People still don't get why they are protesting. They aren't against the wind farm, they are against the current planned location being so close to people's homes. To my understanding, the plaintiffs are trying to get the planned farm moved to a more remote location, not 1,000' for people's homes.
(Posted by: Anonymous)
Plaintiffs: 8/27/2008
Hopefully, none of the plaintiffs suing here were duped like those poor folks in Victoria who were shocked to find out that the petition they signed made them part of a lawsuit against the commissioners (i.e. suing the commissioners over their decision to approve a cell tower).
(Posted by: Anon.)
: 8/27/2008
Why these people are against alternative energy sources and progression towards a better environment is beyond me. They are making themselves the laughing stock of the state.
(Posted by: Jeremy)
: 8/27/2008
I count only about 28 households. Doesn't sound like many are protesting. They either all have a lot of money or local oil is paying all their legal fees. So sad these folks only think of themselves.
(Posted by: Maura Walbrick)
COMMENT ON THIS STORY
All comments are subject to approval before being posted. Please keep comments constructive and relevant. Opinions certainly can be expressed, but comments that are rude, abusive, slanderous, threatening, sexually oriented, contain profanity or are vulgar will not be tolerated. Comments will not be edited. Any comment that violates the above-listed rules will be deleted.
