Boards vote no surprise
By Anne Adams Staff Writer
MONTEREY Though quite a number of opponents could not resist holding out hope Highland supervisors would turn it down, few were really surprised at the 2-1 vote by the board to approve a conditional use permit for Highland New Wind Development.
Before the meeting last Thursday, nearly 200 had gathered at the courthouse, including armed deputies requested by the county to ward off any potential outbursts.
Resident Nettie Johnson said she was determined to attend the nights proceedings. Im here to hear it straight from the source. I dont want to get my information on how the vote went from hearsay, she said.
Board chairman Jerry Rexrode opened the meeting with stern instructions on the ground rules, saying, No disturbance would be tolerated.
The boards newly-hired land use attorney, Greg Haley, was introduced, and county administrator Roberta Lambert outlined the boards process and listed some of the research the county had done since the developer applied for its permit July 20, 2004. She mentioned a number of agencies contacted by the county, including local power companies, the Department of Energy, the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in Green Bank, W.Va., the U.S. Air Force, the State Corporation Commission, real estate appraisers, and other states with wind energy utilities.
Lambert mentioned the 1,500 some signatures on a petition opposing the project, pointing out they constituted 39 percent of 3,200 county landowners (1,246) and 28 percent of 1,900 registered voters (563).
Rexrode noted no public comment would be allowed by the board during the meeting. Supervisor Lee Blagg then made the board motion to accept HNWDs application, which received no second. As no second was needed, Rexrode explained the board had prepared two resolutions before the meeting one to adopt if the board approved the permit; one to adopt if the permit was denied.
Lambert read the boards resolution in favor of granting the permit (see sidebar), which included a list of conditions that HNWD must meet before it can obtain a building permit or store equipment on its site.
After the resolution was read, supervisor Robin Sullenberger made a brief statement about why he was voting no on the permit request. Based on the enormous support he received last election (54 percent of voters), he said he felt he had a mandate to stick to his beliefs and trust his instincts. He called permit approval questionable land use policy exacerbated by bad timing (see complete statement).
Simply put, I think this is premature, he concluded.
Rexrode said Sullenberger was a pessimist and Im an optimist. He pointed to the years worth of research done by the board, saying he could not find any justifiable reason to deny HNWDs permit. Sifting through thousands of pages of documentation on the issue, Rexrode said he just couldnt find any major reason to turn it down.
The process is far from over, he said, describing the studies that HNWD will undertake during its application for a certificate from the State Corporation Commission. But I cant see where its not going to benefit the county. Rexrode said he even sees increased tourism as one of the ways the project could add to the countys economic stability.
Blagg said nothing until after the roll call vote in which he and Rexrode voted in favor; Sullenberger voted to deny.
As a first term supervisor, Blagg said, This has been a real education. He thanked Rexrode and Sullenberger for their insights into local government, and those who had provided information along the way, including the Central Shenandoah Planning District Commission, Lambert, and county attorney Melissa Dowd.
He also thanked members of the public for providing so much information and expressing their views.
Blagg said he was distressed at not being able to explain his position on the project, noting, The freedom of speech was taken away from us when the lawsuits were filed, but said he was willing to debate (the issue) if and when litigation was no longer a threat. He also said he was disturbed most recently by what he perceived as a bribe from one member of the public.
After the meeting, both Blagg and Rexrode said they could not further explain their positions on their vote due to pending lawsuits. I need to be honest, Rexrode said. Our hands are tied. Attorneys will scrutinize every word we say. But we have to represent the whole county.
HWND owner H.T. Mac McBride said, Obviously I would have liked a 3-0 vote, but Im pleased. I hope we can move forward. Im happy … lets leave it at that.
His attorney John Flora said the company expected to apply for its certificate from the SCC immediately, and was not concerned about lawsuits. Theyre typical, he said. I wish they werent there, but were not surprised.
The vote went the way I thought it would, said Margaret Ralston afterward. We desperately need the money.
Austin Shepherd said he was disappointed in not hearing more about the supervisors thought processes on the issue. Supervisors showed a lack of vision, and they have not given us a reason why, he said.
Weve been sold out, added resident Richard Brintzenhofe.
Blagg declined to comment on his statement about a perceived bribe, but gave The Recorder a copy of an e-mailed letter from Laurie Berman he was referring to.
Berman, a resident with property adjoining the wind project site, had sent a letter to the board three days before the meeting reiterating her concerns about approving the permit. You have said there would be lawsuits either way you vote, she wrote. I have always maintained that McBride would have no leg to stand on if you turn him down. You have been diligent in the due process and you have no reason why you have to accept his proposals … I would like to offer my financial assistance to the county if McBride files an appeal after you turn down his proposal. And I feel quite certain that other lovers of Highland, in good financial standing, will offer to do the same. Obviously it would be in our best advantage to fight for the good of the county and not against the very county which we cherish. Please consider this a pledge of good faith.
This week, Berman was very surprised at how Blagg interpreted her letter. She said after reading last weeks Recorder editorial suggesting many residents would vigorously support the county if the permit was turned down and it faced a suit from HWND, she wanted to show the board that was true. I just thought it was a generous, caring thing to do, she said. It was at the last minute … The turbines are bad for the county and I care about the county. I hope Mr. McBride feels so badly with all the outcry that he will decide not to build them.
Sullenberger said he didnt see Bermans suggestion as a bribe though he had not read the letter thoroughly. I just think Lee was put off by a couple of things, he said. She (Berman) just meant if there was going to be litigation (from McBride) she would be happy to help.
Prior to the meeting, Rexrode expressed confidence in Haley, the boards new attorney, to see through the lawsuits. The board felt like we needed help. We wanted to get different opinions from outside sources. He said whichever way the board voted, supervisors wanted to make sure it was legal and that they were protecting the county. Either way we vote, I think legally, were fine. The courts may not think so, but I feel sure.
Haley said this week he expected HNWD to soon file for its SCC certificate and the project would then undergo a subsequent round of review by the agency.
He explained two resolutions had been prepared by attorneys and county staff for the board to consider, and their content reflected input and suggestions from individual supervisors and other county staff members. Two were drafted because county staff did not know which way the vote would go, he said, and prior to the vote, supervisors reviewed both resolutions and made some changes.
Attorney David Bailey, representing landowners opposed to the project, said he expects to file a second suit on behalf of his clients within 30 days to challenge permit approval. Basically, we believe the boards actions were illegal, and that they have been for some time. He referred to the countys height ordinance change made weeks ago, and said numerous mistakes have been made (by the county) since then.
His biggest task at this point, he says, is sifting through all the people who want to sign on to the second suit. People have been filling my e-mail and leaving phone messages. They are very upset and angry. Bailey will have to decide who can be a party to the suit and cut off the numbers at some point because we have too many already, he said, including all of those who are plaintiffs in the first suit.
Bailey says he will be working closely with Roanoke law firm Woods Rogers, whose attorney James Jennings, and co-counsel Chris Singleton of Bath County, are representing another set of landowners. Jennings served notice on the county before the board vote that if the permit is approved, they will seek injunctive relief in federal court under the Endangered Species Act. We will work together on all of the cases, Bailey said.
Bailey called the countys drafting of two different resolutions a wasted effort. It was window dressing, he said, and not unusual. The resolution for denying the permit, he said, had no teeth. They never anticipated that would be used. All the members of the board had already made up their minds.
And Bermans letter to the board, he said, was in no way improper or illegal. People do things in good faith, and this cant be called a bribe. Thats meaningless. If the board had voted against (the permit) my clients would have had me intervene, and argue (on behalf of the county) to the extent the courts would let me. Its perfectly legal; people file friends of the court briefs all the time … Its common practice. Even Mr. McBrides attorneys fees are probably being covered by someone else. Its perfectly legal to offer financial support.
As the legal actions and state level reviews unfold, there is apt to be a complicated series of events during the coming months and maybe years before any construction can begin on the 39-megawatt wind utility.
This is the way the process works, Sullenberger said. This has all played out, and now we move on to the next phases of this, whatever they may be.
With reporting by James Jacenich and Will OConnor, Recorder staff writers
| 
