Dispute Over Landfill Likely To Go To Trail
MAYVILLE — The dispute over the establishment of a landfill in the town of Carroll may be heading to trial after the Chautauqua County Supreme Court hearing earlier this month.
Judge James Dillon denied Sealand Waste LLC’s summary judgment June 11 deeming a 2007 Waste Disposal law in the town of Carroll unconstitutional for being arbitrary and capricious. Similarly, Dillon also denied the town’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint of the law.
However, while the 2007 Waste Disposal law remains in effect, the three causes of action from Sealand waste are still pending and may require a trial to reach a verdict. Those three causes include criticisms of the 2007 law being a substantive due process violation, regulatory taking of property without compensation and being arbitrary and capricious.
“It’s pretty unfortunate,” said Jim Daigler of Daigler Engineering, the company representing Sealand Waste.
Daigler believes a verdict from Dillon, who previously ruled the 2007 law as unconstitutional, could have been reached at the hearing on June 11. While Daigler was “disappointed” with the outcome, he believes the dispute will likely head to trial — a destination where he believes Sealand’s argument will dominate.
“We’ll shred the town,” he said of potentially going to trial. “We’ll absolutely shred them.”
Laura Greenwood, town of Carroll supervisor, said the town is prepared for the continuation of a “long process.”
“It may go to trial,” she said. “We’ll continue on fighting.”
Greenwoood didn’t necessarily consider the recent hearing a win for the town, but she was optimistic of the outcome. Dillon previously ruled the 2007 law as unconstitutional and this time around he did not make that distinction.
The legal battle dates back over a decade when a new landfill was in the planning stages of development on the Jones-Carroll Landfill property, located on Dodge Road in Carroll.
The owner of the landfill dropped out of the legal battle years ago and Sealand Waste intended on intervening on their behalf. After an appeals court said Sealand Waste had a right to intervene, the town appealed. In May, it was decided that Sealand had a vested interest regarding the property and during the most recent hearing the legal battle was again extended. The 2007 Waste Disposal Law was drafted by the town to prohibit the creation of a waste management site.
Meanwhile, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation will review a Final Environmental Impact Study when Daigler Engineering and Sealand submit the paperwork soon.
Daigler told The Post-Journal he believes the opposition to the creation of such a landfill are misinformed. He said the landfill proposal would not impact water quality, a concern Daigler said often mentioned. He also said the proposed landfill is commonly referred to as a dump, but noted that there is a big difference between the a landfill and a dump.
“They are completely two different animals, you are on two different planets,” he said.
Daigler said he offered the opposition in the town of Carroll a tour of an actual landfill during a meeting, but claimed they did not accept his offer.
“They don’t want to know,” he said. “Their minds are like closed steel traps, period.”