Neighbors of Proposed Mt. Kisco Solar Farm File Lawsuit Against Village
A group of Mount Kisco residents and the Marsh Sanctuary has filed litigation against the village charging the municipality engaged in spot zoning to allow a solar farm to be considered on a 25-acre parcel.
The suit, filed on behalf of six individual residents, the Mount Kisco Chase Homeowners Association and the sanctuary on Sept. 24 in state Supreme Court, also contends that there is a conflict of interest and there was a failure to properly notice the public hearing connected with the village’s solar law that was adopted by the Village Board in November 2018.
Robert Howard, one of three attorneys listed for the plaintiffs, said the key issue is that the village has allowed a site-specific use at the parcel located in the Conservation District at 180 S. Bedford Rd. for the benefit of one property owner, Skull Island Partners.
The use is inconsistent with Mount Kisco’s Comprehensive Plan, is incompatible with surrounding uses and would cause harm to surrounding property owners, it also charged.
Another solar farm installed at Oakwood Cemetery is not in the conservation zone, Howard said.
“The real objection here, and the real issue here, is this is the only property within any Conservation District where this degree of solar farm is permitted,” he said.
According to the litigation, spot zoning “is the process of singling out a small parcel of land for a use classification totally different from that of the surrounding area for the benefit of the owner.”
Although Planning Board Chairman Douglas Hertz has recused himself from any board discussions on the solar farm application, there is still conflict of interest because he is still involved in the project through his company Sunrise Community Solar, Howard said.
Furthermore, the vice chairman, John Bainlardi who leads the board in discussion regarding the parcel, was the previous land owner who sold the property to Skull Island Partners, he said.
“He may be innocent of any actual conflict,” Howard said. “We don’t know that, but the issue is a public official needs to stay clear of even the appearance of a conflict.”
Regarding inadequate notice, the litigation mentions that the legal notice failed to advise the public that the proposed solar energy law would result in a change of zoning for the parcel at 180 S. Bedford Rd., making it “fatally defective and the entire solar law should be stricken based on this fatal defect.”
An Oct. 9 statement released by the village refuted the spot zoning allegation, noting that the application is being vigorously reviewed by the Planning Board and guided by the village’s planner, engineer and attorney.
“The Village believes that it is disingenuous to assert that this is impermissible ‘spot zoning’ when the Village has not rezoned a single parcel of land, instead only changing the permitted uses within said districts, whereby Tier-3 solar installations are permitted in 14 of the Village’s 25 zoning districts and other solar installations are allowed in every single zoning district throughout the Village,” the statement read in part.
It also explained that the solar legislation adopted by the village nearly two years ago was enacted to promote the production and use of renewable energy in every zoning district in Mount Kisco. That action is consistent with the municipality’s Comprehensive Plan and its goal of working with public and private organizations to promote solar and renewable energy.
Officials used the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority’s model law, the statement read.
“While the Village encourages and values the participation of its residents in the planning and application review process, it is unfortunate that the few who disagree with thoughtfully and lawfully enacted legislation elect to bring false claims in a lawsuit,” the statement continued. “It is also unfortunate that the Village will have to use taxpayer dollars to defend the solar legislation and to correct all the misrepresentations outlined in this ill-conceived lawsuit. The Village expects to prevail and that the Complaint will be summarily dismissed.”
In addition to the solar farm, there is also a separate application for a 140-foot monopole, that if approved, would allow several cell phone carriers to use the structure to enhance cell service in the area.
That issue is not addressed in the recently filed litigation.
In addition to the municipality, the village, planning and zoning boards are all named as defendants along with Skull Island Partners and Sunrise Community Solar.
Martin has more than 30 years experience covering local news in Westchester and Putnam counties, including a frequent focus on zoning and planning issues. He has been editor-in-chief of The Examiner since its inception in 2007. Read more from Martin’s editor-author bio here. Read Martin’s archived work here: https://www.theexaminernews.com/author/martin-wilbur2007/
