STATE OF MAINE AROOSTOOK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO.: CARSC-CV-09-

Similar documents
129 Nev., Advance Opinion ~

Case 5:14-cv L Document 1 Filed 08/27/14 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

Chapter 8 - Common Law

Chico, CA Code of Ordinances. Chapter 9.38 NOISE

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/ :57 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2018

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES

STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF WAYNE. Hon. Leslie Kim Smith

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO HALL OF JUSTICE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 2:16-cv JTM-KGG Document 21 Filed 04/06/17 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Sec General Provisions. 1. Scope. This Section applies to the control of all sound and noise within

Case 2:15-cv AJS Document 50 Filed 10/20/15 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Court of Appeals. First District of Texas

NUISANCE (PRIVATE) ENGLAND AND WALES

SUPERIOR COURT ANDROSCOGGIN, ss. RECEIVED & FILED DOCKET NO. AUBSC-AP-16-2 SEP ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:08-cv REB Document 1 Filed 12/16/2008 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/07/ :29 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/07/2017 EXHIBIT 1

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

CIVIL ACTION. Defendant Jeff Carter, by and through his counsel Law Offices of Walter M. Luers, by

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF [COUNTY

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF CALAVERAS CIVIL DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Ths matter came on for a bench trial to the court without jury on the plaintiff's

Ashe County, NC Ordinance Chapter 163: Regulation of Wind Energy Systems

CHAPTER III ANIMALS. Part 1. Animal Nuisances

Chapter 2. Animals. Part 1 Prohibited Animals Keeping of Pigs, Maintenance of Pig Pens Unlawful

Wanganui District Council Noise Control Policy 2009

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT 2009 TERM DECEMBER SESSION Ricky D. Hewitt. Alan W. Tardif and Ann M. Tardif

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT JACKSON COUNTY. Memorandum Decision and Order Granting Motion to Dismiss vs.

Case3:05-cv WHA Document1 Filed02/14/05 Page1 of 5

Present: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Millette, Mims, and McClanahan, JJ., and Lacy and Koontz, S.JJ.

Case 3:33-av Document 4790 Filed 05/04/12 Page 1 of 10 PageID: 91151

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEHMAN TOWNSHIP LUZERNE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORDINANCE NO.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * COMPLAINT. COME NOW Plaintiffs, THOMAS FINCH and KATHLEEN FINCH, by and through

Case 2:10-cv GCS -VMM Document 1 Filed 12/14/10 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

v No Grand Traverse Circuit Court

LAW DIVISION: MORRIS COUNTY DOCKET NO.: MRS-L CIVIL ACTION. Plaintiff, Richard Balestrino, residing in Vernon, Sussex

EMERGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 1636

Case 1:13-cv MKB-RER Document 1 Filed 01/04/13 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1. Plaintiff, Defendants. REYES, M.J PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CENTRAL BRANCH -- UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

Case 3:15-cv JLS-JMA Document 1 Filed 06/26/15 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JURISDICTION AND VENUE

CITY OF MIDWAY ORDINANCE NO TITLE: AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO PROHIBITING AND CONTROLLING NOISE DISTURBANCE.

STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OF MILWAUKEE CIVIL DIVISION

Alhambra, California Code of Ordinances TITLE XVIII: COMMUNITY NOISE AND VIBRATION CONTROL CHAPTER 18.02: NOISE AND VIBRATION CONTROL REGULATIONS

ORDINANCE NO ~

Case 2:16-cv SGC Document 1 Filed 12/15/16 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:14-cv PD Document 16 Filed 05/15/15 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DECISION Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment, and Defendants Motion to Strike

ENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO JULY TERM, v. } Rutland Superior Court

HAMILTON TOWNSHIP ANTI-NOISE AND PUBLIC NUISANCE ORDINANCE. The Township of Hamilton Clare County, Michigan ORDAINS SECTION 1 TITLE

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/10/ :26 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO '. RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/10/2016

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Small Claims Court) BARBARA DOWDS. - and - SCHEDULE A PLAINTIFF S CLAIM

Chapter 8.05 NOISE REGULATIONS

LINCOLN COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT. Plaintiffs, Eliezer Cruz Aponte and Magdalena Caraballo ( Plaintiffs ), individually

Case 1:17-cv JCB Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/25/ :37 PM INDEX NO /2014E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/25/2018

Report. on an investigation into complaint no 05/B/04194 against Sedgemoor District Council

Case 4:12-cv Y Document 28 Filed 08/29/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID 179

372 Union Avenue Framingham, MA (Tel) (Fax)

Case 1:17-cv JCB Document 5 Filed 02/15/17 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL ACTION NO.

3:13-cv JFA Date Filed 04/04/13 Entry Number 4 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Noise. Fact Sheet 25. Environmental Defender s Office of Western Australia (Inc.) An introduction to Noise. What is noise?

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH. Case No. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Laguna Niguel Nuisance Animals

International Invasive Weed Conference: Risk, Roots & Research. Some Legal Considerations by Leo Charalambides 1

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO

CHAPTER 2 ANIMALS PART 1 PROHIBITING THE KEEPING OF ANIMALS CAUSING NUISANCES

Private Nuisance in Louisiana Law

PRIORITY BOOKING FORM REGISTERED CHARITIES The Fertility Show Manchester, March 24 th -25 th 2018

Case 1:07-cv NLH-AMD Document 1 Filed 08/10/2007 Page 1 of 12

604 Huntington Plaza STEPHEN W. FUNK 220 Market Aenue, South 222 South Main Street Canton, OH Suite 400 Akron, OH 44308

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION.NO.

Case 1:09-cv TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 04/01/2009 Page 1 of 11

The Student agrees with the Licensor to comply with the following obligations.

Case 3:12-cv CRS Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1

WRITTEN STATEMENT UNDER THE MOBILE HOMES (WALES) ACT 2013

ORDINANCE NUMBER 1082

Case 2:02-cv WHA-SRW Document 27 Filed 04/08/2003 Page 1 of 6. NORTH:F,l~. DIVISION =r--zq SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:17-cv Document 2 Filed in TXSD on 01/17/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LAREDO DIVISION

THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPROPRIATE LIBRARY BEHAVIOR

TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION Building and Planning Committee Issue Briefing. Prepared By: Robert Duncan, Assistant Township Manager

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA STATESVILLE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NATURE OF THE ACTION

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. Plaintiff. vs. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON, A CORPORATION SOLE; JOSEPH FLYNN; J. KEVIN MCANDREWS, Defendants

Case: 3:12-cv JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/21/12 1 of 7. PageID #: 1

ARTICLE III. - OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC PEACE AND ORDER

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR MARION COUNTY. Defendant/Petitioner ( Defendant ), Jason Carter, by and through his undersigned

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/06/ :00 PM INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/06/2015

Chapter 6.70 SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS

STATE OF LOUISIANA PLAINTIFFS VERSUS

Title 35-A: PUBLIC UTILITIES

NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING

Case 2:12-cv Document 1 Filed 06/08/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1

Transcription:

STATE OF MAINE AROOSTOOK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO.: CARSC-CV-09- Wallace & Ella Boyd, of Mars Hill, County of Aroostook, State of Maine, Mah'ssa Boynton & Rusty Johnston, of I, County of Aroostook, State of Maine, Robert & Rebecca Burtchell, of Mars Hill, Steven Burtchell, of Westfield, County of Aroostook, State of Maine, Merle & Carol Cowperthwaite, of Mars Hill, Mark & Kate Harris, of Mars Hill, County of Aroostook, State of Maine, C 0 LAINT Richard & Shirley Fletcher, of Mars Hill, Steven & Tammie Fletcher, of Mars Hill, Rodney & Dawn Mahan, of Mars Hill, Charles Radeil of Mars Hill, County of Aroostook, State of Maine, Arnold & Lorraine Tardy, of Mars Hill, Perrin & Wendy Todd, of Mars Hill, KELLEY & LEGER LAW OFFICES, P.O. BOX 66, CARIBOU, MAINE 04736

Fred & Marie Williams and Teresa Forester, of Mars Hill, County of Aroostook, State of Maine, Frances Kilcollins, of Mars Hill, County of Aroostook, State of Maine, LAINTIFFS, V. Energy, LLC, of Massachusetts, formerly U.P.C. Wind Management, LLC, and formerly Evergreen Wind Power, LLC, having a place of business in Mars Hill, and Sargent Corporation, a Maine aving a place of business in Stillwater, County of Penobscot, State of Maine, and Maine Drilling and Blasting, Inc., a Maine Corporation, having a place of business in Gardiner, County of Kennebec, State of Maine, and Inhabitants of the Town of Mars Hill, Maine, a body politic, DEFENDANTS. NOW COME, the Plaintiffs, by and through their attorney, Peter S. Keiiey, Esq. and state as follows: 2/7 KELLEY & LEGER LAW OFFICES, P 0 BOX 66, CARIBOU, MAINE 04736

. That all Plaintiffs are, and have been, residents of the Town of Mars Hill, except Steven Burtchell, who owns land in Mars Hill but is a resident of Westfield, Maine. 2. The Defendant, FIRST WIND of Massachusetts is a Corporation doing business in the State of Maine and having a wind turbine operation in Mars Hill, Maine. In the past, FIRST WIND has done business as Management, LLC and Evergreen Wind Power, LIC. 3. The Defendant, Sargent Corporation, is a Maine Corporation with a place of business in Stillwater, Maine. It was the general contractor for the construction of the windmills o Mars Hi!! Mountain in 2006-2007. 4. The Defendant, Maine Drilling and Blasting, Inc., is a Maine Corporation having a place of business in Gardiner, Maine. It was the sub-contractor who blasted portions of Mars Hill Mountain for construction of the wind turbines. 5. The Defendant, Inhabitants of the Town of Mars ill, is a body politic which was the co-applicant to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP for construction of said wind turbines. 6. The Plaintiffs are owners and/or residents of their homes which are located near the north and east of Mars Hill Mountain. 7. Prior to 2008, the Defendants, FIRST WIND and the Town of Mars Hill, were coapplicants to D.E.P. for a permit for FIRST WIND to construct windmills on Mars Hill Mountain. 8. It was the legal obligation of the applicants to notify by registered letter, return receipt requested, the owners regarding the application for the permit. This was not done. 9. It was also the obligation of the Mars Hill Town Manager and Town council to use due diligence to consult with its attorney and an engineer to determine if it should be an applicant for the DEP permit and to determine if the operation of the turbines would cause harm to the Plaintiffs. This was not done, thereby denying the Plaintiffs notice, due process of law, and fundamental fairness in the permitting process. A Notice of Claim was served on the Town pursuant to Maine Tort Claims Act in September 2007. 0. D.E.P. approved a permit for the construction and operation of Defendant's 3/7 KELLEY & LEGER LAW OFFICES, P 0 BOX 66, CARIBOU, MAINE 04736

wind turbines. The permitting process was flawed in that fundamental due process under the Maine and Federal Constitutions was denied to the Plaintiffs in that proper notice was not given to Plaintiffs of the construction, blasting, operation, and planning of the wind turbines.. In the Summer of 2006, the efendant, Maine Drilling and Blasting, Inc., performed extensive blasting which not only was extremely loud and disruptive, but which caused physical damage to the Plaintiffs' roperty and physical injury to the Plaintiffs' enjoyment of eace. The Piaint the times of when the blasting was to occur. 2. Before the blasting and operation of the windmills, the Plaintiffs lived in areas to the north and east of the Mountain in a peaceful, remote, quiet, serene, and visually pleasant setting. 3. When all of the turbines became operational for the first time in late March 2007, it became immediately obvious to the Plaintiffs that the noise from the turbines was invasive and caused them loss of enjoyment of life, loss of peace and quiet, loss of their full use of their home and land. Some Plaintiffs required medical treatment and counseling. Many have, and continue to, lose sleep, suffer headaches, suffer considerable stress, and other physical and emotional ailments. 4. The real estate values of the Plaintiffs' homes have been greatly reduced, as is supported by an expert's opinion, of their property values before and after operation of the turbines. 5. Damage to adjoining wetlands and streams have been altered by the blasting and operation of the turbines. 6. The presence of wildlife has been affected by the construction and the operation of the turbines. 7. The shadow flicker effects from the operation of the turbines have caused injury to the Plaintiffs and disruption of their right to live in a pleasant setting. 8. The visual effects of the presence of the windmills have negatively affected the Plaintiffs' peace and enjoyment of their remote setting. 9. Defendant's sound study shows noise levels above 45 and 50 decibels. The noise level from the 2006 blasting and by the turbines operation has been highly disturbing to the Plaintiffs. They have been unable to sit outside in their yard 4/7 KELLEY & LEGER LAW OFFICES, P 0 BOX 66, CARIBOU, MAINE 04736

without having their peace disturbed by the Defendant's wind turbines. They are also often bothered inside their homes as to sleep and comfort. 20. The strobe/shadow effects and blinking red lights have forced the Plaintiffs to keep the blinds on their windows closed. As a result the Plaintiffs have lost the use and enjoyment of the view they used to have from their home. 2. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference ail aliegations set forth above. 22. The Defendants' actions in constructing and operating its wind turbines on Mars Hill Mountain have, and do, cause disturbing noises, flashing red lights, strobe/shadow effect and the unreasonable interference with the Plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their property, causing a continuing private nuisance and trespass to them. TV reception has been adversely affected. 23. The Defendants' actions continue to cause significant harm to Plaintiffs and their property, including personal discomfort, inconvenience, annoyance, loss of enjoyment of life, and other damages. 24. The Plaintiffs incorporate herein all allegations set forth above. 25. Defendants' actions have been negligent and unreasonable because the wind turbines have and continue to cause disturbing noises, flashing red lights, and strobe/shadow effects, all of which cause Plaintiffs to suffer emotional distress and the adverse effect on their physical and emotional health and on their property values. 26. The Plaintiffs incorporate all allegations set forth above. efendants' activity in the construction, blasting, and operation of the wind turbines, has caused the fair market value of Plaintiffs' property to be diminished for residential and other uses. 5/7 KELLEY 8; LEGER LAW OFFICES, P 0 BOX 66, CARIBOU, MAINE 04736

28. The Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations set forth above. 29. The Defendants' activities have been undertaken pursuant to the permit E.P", a public re latory agency of the State of Maine, without Plaintiffs proc and substantial due process. e Defendants' actions and its construction and operation of its wind turbines have resuite n the taking of a negative nuisance easement over the Plaintiffs' property wi out compensation or due process of law. 3. The Defendants' actions constitute inverse condemnation of the Plaintiffs' property under Maine law and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, the Plaintiffs are entitled to just compensation for the loss of their property. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court order Defendant to compensate them for all past and future inconvenience, personal injury, annoyance, discomfort, damage to their wet lands, and other nuisance and emotional distress damages they have and will continue to suffer in the future because of the construction and operation of Defendant's wind turbines near their property. Defendant to compensate Plaintiffs for the diminution in the fair market value of their property caused by the construction and operation of Defendant's wind turbines near their property. Defendant to remove one or more of its wind turbines and/or install technological improvements and implement operational controls or procedures to abate the negative noise, ice, flashing red lights, and strobe/shadow effects of Defendant's wind turbines on the Plaintiffs and their property to the maximum extent possible, as equitable relief. Defendant to compensate Plaintiffs for the fair market value of the property which the Defendant has taken pursuant to the Maine Constitution, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. 6/7 KELLEY fit LEGER LAW OFFICES, P.O. BOX 66, CARIBOU, MAINE 04736

5. Defendant to pay Plaintiffs for their attorneys fees, costs and disbursements in this matter. 6. Such other relief as the Court deems fair and equitable. Dated at Caribou, Maine, this 27th day of March, 2009..,"-', ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS P.O. BOX 66 CARIBOU, ME 04736 Maine Bar #I940 7/7 KELLEY & LEGER LAW OFFICES, PO BOX 66. CARIBOU, MAINE 04736