The Westhampton Beach Village owned property that was leased to a solar farm developer. BILL SUTTON
The site of a proposed solar farm at 172 South Country Road in Quiogue. DANA SHAW
Editor-in-Chief
The Westhampton Beach Village owned property that was leased to a solar farm developer. BILL SUTTON
The site of a proposed solar farm at 172 South Country Road in Quiogue. DANA SHAW
A State Supreme Court justice dismissed a lawsuit filed by neighbors living in a Quiogue cul-de-sac adjacent to a 13-acre property owned by the Village of Westhampton Beach, seeking to annul a lease between the village and a solar energy developer.
The case has been ongoing for a number of years. The judge, Justice C. Stephen Hackeling, had originally dismissed the suit in October 2024 but reversed course in early 2025, allowing a portion of the suit to be heard.
A hearing on the suit began late last year and culminated with the final portion of the hearting last week. Hackeling dismissed the case on a technicality, arguing that the statute of limitations to challenge the lease had expired.
The neighbors, led by attorney John Lynch — who also lives adjacent to the property with his wife, Kara Bak, Southampton Town’s housing and community development director — vowed this week to appeal the decision. “We will also oppose the solar company’s application with the Town Planning Board,” Lynch said. “We will challenge the town solar code as flawed and unconstitutional. We will fight to protect our homes and the environment.”
Village officials approved a 25-year lease agreement, with an option to renew it for two additional five-year terms, in February 2023 with CVE North America of Delaware, which was also named in the suit.
The plan calls for CVE to build a 4,000-panel, 2-megawatt solar array, as well as a battery energy storage system, on about 10 acres of the 13.56-acre property. The lease was contingent on CVE gaining the necessary approvals for the project from Southampton Town. While the property is owned by the village, it is not in the village’s jurisdiction, so town approval would be needed to move forward.
The neighbors argued that the village had been remiss in notifying neighbors of the project or considering the possible negative environmental impact of the array. It also argued that then-Village Trustee Brian Tymann, whom village officials have credited with bringing CVE to the table, had an interest in the lease being approved and should have recused himself from the vote.
The village contended that it was under no obligation to notify neighbors — that responsibility fell to the town in considering the application.
The recent hearing focused on three elements of the original lawsuit: purported violations of the state’s Open Meetings Law by the village, failure to comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and the assertions of ethical violations against Tymann.
The suit also made several other allegations against the village and developer, but those points were dismissed in 2024.
Lynch said this week that he was disappointed with the decision, and that the actions of the village were blatant in officials’ disregard for the neighbors.
“The village made their position clear — that they did not need to disclose to the public that the lease allowed for a BESS, because the law didn’t specifically require it. The village made their position clear that they did not need to notify their neighbors that they were condemning to having to live next to a solar facility, because the law didn’t specifically require them to.
“And that is a problem not just for the homeowners I was representing but for all of us. When a local government deliberately chooses to bury information over transparency, the public can’t help but be harmed.
“The village attorney claimed we simply were not paying attention to what the village was doing. His favorite phrase is that we were ‘asleep at the switch.’ Well, that switch was buried until we dug it up.”
Attorney Anthony Pasca, whose firm serves as the village attorney, said officials were happy with the recent decision.
“We are pleased with the outcome and believe that the court’s determination that there was no misconduct on the village’s part was a vindication of the position we have been taking for nearly two years,” he said.
On the prospect of a further appeal, he suggested that the neighbors might better well direct their fight to the town’s permitting process, rather than the lease issued by the village.
“It’s unfortunate that the petitioners would continue to misdirect their focus against the Village of Westhampton Beach,” he said, “when the town has the decision-making power over the solar project. The village only approved a conditional lease that is subject to the town’s right to approve or disapprove the solar plan. The town is where the petitioners should direct their energy.”
Editor-in-Chief
{{description}}
Email notifications are only sent once a day, and only if there are new matching items.
Your browser is out of date and potentially vulnerable to security risks.
We recommend switching to one of the following browsers:
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Account processing issue – the email address may already exist
Sign up with
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Invalid password or account does not exist
Sign in with
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Secure transaction. Secure transaction. Cancel anytime.
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
A receipt was sent to your email.
