State Supreme Court Justice Grace Hanlon was apparently not impressed with the arguments of the trio of Fredonians who sued the village over its Sept. 10 water decision.

Hanlon rejected all three of the grounds claimed by James Lynden, Gladys Sedota and Marie Sedota in the lawsuit that sought to overturn the September Board of Trustees resolution. The resolution declared that Fredonia planned to connect with the North County Water District, and shut its own water plant and reservoir.

The plaintiffs claimed the resolution was a violation of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The village did a State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) on the NCWD water connection project before the resolution was passed. Fredonia made a “negative declaration” of little to no environmental impact from the project.

“The court finds that the village neither abused its discretion nor was arbitrary or capricious in its determination,” Hanlon said, explaining the steps Fredonia took.

The petitioners also claimed the project could pose a risk to historical properties, specifically on Water Street. Hanlon wrote, “At conclusion of the project, the land, i.e.. the road, will be returned to its pre-construction condition, thus avoiding any constructive or viewshed impacts on these historic built structures.”

In addition, the lawsuit alleged that Fredonia misstated the project’s effects on ground and surface water, wetlands, and bald eagles. However, according to Hanlon, “The village took the necessary hard look at each of these issues and provided a reasonable elaboration.”

A water tower storage tank planned by the town of Pomfret, that could be shared with Fredonia as part of the project, was also tagged by the petitioners. Hanlon concluded the impact of Fredonia’s Sept. 10 resolution is “incremental expansion and use of the water tower — not the erection of the water tower itself. Thus, from an environmental standpoint, that impact is negligible, and petitioners have not alleged otherwise.”

The second set of grounds claimed by Lynden and the Sedotas to halt the Sept. 10 resolution was that there was no referral on the water project to the Chautauqua County Planning Board, as required by state law. Hanlon called that “not accurate.”

She wrote that an Aug. 5 “Notice to Involved Agencies” about the proposed project was sent by the village to the planning board. The notice included documents such as a description of the proposal and a map of sites to be affected. That satisfied state requirements, Hanlon ruled.

The third argument to throw out the resolution was that Fredonia failed to comply with its own zoning code by neglecting to get a special use permit for the project.

“This claim is without merit,” Hanlon stated.

She wrote that “courts hold that SEQRA review may not serve as a vehicle for adjudicating ‘legal issues concerning compliance with local government zoning,'” quoting a previous court’s decision.

“The request to annul the September 10, 2025, resolution is denied,” Hanlon concluded.

The judge’s 11-page ruling, dated Wednesday, stands in marked contrast to her previous ruling on a lawsuit against Fredonia water plans.

That lawsuit — filed by Gladys Sedota and four others who were not part of the latest case — resulted in the overturning of a Dec. 26, 2023, resolution to shut the plant and reservoir, but buy water directly from Dunkirk. Hanlon upheld the earlier lawsuit in part because Fredonia failed to do a SEQR before trustees passed the 2023 resolution.

Fredonia officials, mindful of Dunkirk’s cascading financial problems, changed course and sought to get water from the North County Water District. The district, which supplies several municipalities neighboring Dunkirk, buys its water from the city.

This time, Fredonia did a SEQR — and in her ruling on the latest lawsuit, Hanlon held that the village did it properly.