The Land Court lawsuit by Palmer Renewable Energy does not demand a set amount of money but centers on permit restoration.
Rendering of proposed biomass plantSPRINGFIELD – A lawsuit by the firm seeking to build a biomass plant in East Springfield charges the City Council acted with “either bad faith or at least gross negligence” when it revoked the special permit for the plant last month.
Frank P. Fitzgerald, a lawyer for Palmer Renewable Energy, said Tuesday the firm “made a conscious decision to not put a demand for a significant amount of money in this complaint.”
“They wanted the focus to be on returning the permit that was wrongfully taken from them,” Fitzgerald said of the suit filed in Land Court in Boston.
Both Fitzgerald and City Solicitor Edward M. Pikula said the company had 20 days from the revocation to file a lawsuit.
Frank FitzgeraldFiling with Land Court within the time period, Pikula said, preserves the firm’s rights and sets the groundwork for any further legal action it wants to take in any other court.
The suit asks the court to annul the City Council’s revocation of the Sept. 25, 2008 special permit. It asks the court to award the firm “costs” and to “grant such further relief as this court deems just and proper.”
There is no dollar amount listed in the suit contrary to what was previously reported.
On May 23, the 13-member City Council voted 10-2 to revoke the Palmer-based developer’s special permit to build a $150 million, 35-megawatt biomass plant near the intersection of Page Boulevard and Cadwell Drive.
In the “factual background” written in the suit, the firm said it has spent about $5.8 million in project development.
Lawyers for Palmer Renewable Energy have said the project is eligible for $46.5 million in federal tax grants that will expire Dec. 31.
Pikula said he saw the suit, filed Friday, for the first time Monday and is still reviewing it.
Palmer Renewable Energy Lawsuit vs. Springfield City Council and Related Documents
He outlined a complex web of possible scenarios that could take place in different arenas.
“There are a lot of variables right now. There are many forks in the road so it’s virtually unknown how all the variables are going to play out,” he said.
In March, Pikula issued an opinion to the City Council saying under the developer’s revised plans to burn just green wood, the city’s code enforcement commissioner “would be warranted to allow the proposed use on this property located in an area zoned ‘Industrial A’, even without a special permit.”
The state Department of Environmental Protection will either issue an air quality permit or will not, Pikula said.
Whichever side is unhappy with the state agency’s action can appeal within the agency and if still unhappy, then appeal to Superior Court, he said.
If the firm gets the state Department of Environmental Protection approval it could apply for a building permit, Pikula said.
Edward PikulaIf the city does not issue a building permit the firm can appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Whoever doesn’t like that decision, can appeal to Superior Court.
Asked if there are any other steps that will be taken aside from the Land Court suit, Fitzgerald said, “We’re evaluating all of our options.”
Pikula said the city will submit a response to the suit to Land Court.
“Typically these types of cases are resolved on motions and pleadings after oral arguments,” he said.
The Land Court suit could get amended, transferred to another court or merged with other actions, he said.
Michaelann Bewsee, a representative of Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield, said, “We provided plenty of legal grounds for the City Council to revoke the permit and the City Council will prevail in any lawsuit if it does go forward.”
“Even if it does cost us something from our city coffers it is better for the city to pay than the individuals like people with parents of kids with asthma who are paying medical bills and have to take time off from work to deal with their kid’s illness. There’s a lot of costs with air pollution,” she said.