Will construction begin next week?

Will construction begin next week?

Supervisors disagree about course of action

By Anne Adams • Staff Writer

Supervisors Robin Sullenberger (left) and David Blanchard say determining how to proceed with reviewing Highland New Wind Development’s project is made harder because they cannot discuss the issues outside public meetings, but both are pursuing their own contacts at the state level for guidance. (Recorder photo by Anne Adams)

MONTEREY — Pressure on every side of the wind project review mounts this week.
Highland New Wind Development attorney John Flora is asserting nearly all its county permit conditions have been met, and the company is prepared to start construction early next week.
For many Highlanders, and some county officials, things are moving too fast, and the project review is weighing heavily on supervisors.
A.L.L. Construction has been hired to do excavation work, and is ready to begin on Tuesday, Aug. 4, Flora told county officials Thursday.
He summarized what HNWD believes are issues left to be resolved when the county’s Technical Review Committee of Roberta Lambert and Jim Whitelaw meets Monday.
• The E&S plan — Flora told the TRC that to his understanding,
there were no significant issues left to be resolved about HNWD’s erosion and sediment control plan.
That plan was approved by building official Jim Monday (see related story).
• VDOT approval — HNWD gave the TRC a letter from the Virginia Department of Transportation showing VDOT had extended its approval of two entrance permits.
• The National Radio Astronomy Observatory at Green Bank — The county contacted the NRAO to see if it needed any further information. Flora said he hoped the county would proceed to approve its plans if NRAO did not respond by Monday.
This week, supervisor Robin Sullenberger said NRAO had contacted the county, and appreciated the opportunity to learn some details about the project. “They had specific questions about technical aspects, and those are being addressed by (HNWD),” he said. “Their equipment is so sensitive, but those issues are being addressed.”
• Performance bond — Flora gave county attorney Melissa
Dowd a draft performance bond security agreement July 10. “She has informed me that she wants to obtain outside legal assistance in reviewing those documents,” he wrote. “The performance bond is not a condition for approval of the site plan, but is instead a condition to the issuance of any building permit.”
• Turbine close to West Virginia line — Dowd was to get an opinion about one turbine which is only a few feet from the border with West Virginia, and Sullenberger said she expects to have that by the time the TRC meets Monday.
• Recording certificate for the project — Flora said he had sent this document to Dowd and had not heard anything more. “I assume it is satisfactory and unless I hear otherwise,
I will have that document recorded on Aug. 3 when I am in town again,” he wrote. “Likewise, if the site plan is approved on Aug. 3, I will make arrangements to have the setback waiver document … recorded on Aug. 4.”
• More simulations from Camp Allegheny — The TRC had requested more visual simulations from the Civil War battlefield nearby, and Flora said Tal McBride will have them ready early next week. “Assuming you obtain the written consents and cooperation for pictures to be taken … from the homes of two of the opponents, all requested viewshed analysis will be complete,” Flora said.
• FAA approval — Flora modified his position about whether HNWD needed an approval for its project from the Federal Aviation Administration, according to the conditions of its permit. “HNWD has satisfied the notice requirement of the FAA,” he said. “There is no permit issued.
The only action to be taken by the FAA is to provide the minimum required lighting for safe aviation purposes. Arguably, that is not the issuance of a permit but simply a determination of how many of the turbines must be lit, which satisfies ... the conditional use permit. That determination
will be forthcoming and much like the performance bond being in place before the building permit, the FAA determination must be in place before the first building permit issuance for a turbine.
“In short,” he continued, “the FAA determination is a building permit condition, not a site plan condition. Nevertheless,
we are working diligently to try to obtain that final lighting analysis, but as of yet, do not have that in hand.”
Who’s checking what?
The big question, in the minds of residents who fear the imminent loss of the Laurel Fork watershed, not to mention their business or property value, is — who is checking to see that all the strict conditions attached to this project are being met?
Supervisor David Blanchard says it’s the county’s responsibility
to check with state agencies on the approvals needed before HNWD is issued a building permit.
“My concern is that the county needs to work with state agencies on this,” Blanchard said. He said he intends to bring his concerns to his colleagues on the board. “I will keep pressing the issue that we are the first check on the (State Corporation Commission) ruling. It’s all interconnected,
and we (the county) are a branch of state government.
We represent them, and we need to report to them if things aren’t being followed. I think we’re the first ones who need to be asking the questions on everything … The project is in our county and if we aren’t asking, who else is going to ask?”
Blanchard says he’s making calls to various individuals about what the county should do at this point, but declined to say whom he’d spoken to. “Even with The Recorder’s articles, I will follow up and call the same people to verify things,” he said. He had called SCC chief counsel Bill Chambliss last week after a Recorder article outlined SCC processes. “He confirmed what (the article) stated. We need to be asking these questions,” Blanchard said.
Asked about Blanchard’s position, supervisor Robin Sullenberger
said, “I’ll tell you how I feel about that: If David wants to request some things get done … he needs to say that to the board, not the newspaper. You (The Recorder) are an expert at coercing people to talk, at getting people to spill their guts. I have the utmost respect for David’s intellect and concern on this issue. We want him to come to the board. Then, if we all three agree we need to take action, we will do that.”
Blanchard said he does plan to make recommendations on the matter and present those to his colleagues. “This could be a frictionless process, if the process was clear,” Blanchard said. “It’s one of the underlying problems — the frustration is at all levels, and it’s simply because of a process
that’s unclear, and one that doesn’t have the appearance of being very transparent, which is a very difficult thing to do with a three-member board.”
Because Highland only has three supervisors, they cannot
discuss county business outside of a public meeting — something both Blanchard and Sullenberger said would be useful in this case. But as it stands, Sullenberger said, “You (The Recorder) won’t let us do that. And I understand you can’t let us do that. We would if we could, but those are the guidelines we’re under. It would be so much easier to get together (privately) and talk about each other’s thinking on this, but we can’t.”
Sullenberger has consistently opposed the idea of increasing the county’s board to five members, but says he could reconsider if he felt five totally objective people would be elected. “But at least 2-3 would come with a personal agenda, and that’s just not good democracy,” he said.
Sullenberger said most of SCC’s conditions address things to happen after construction, not before. “The applicant
is really vulnerable to things like not having an incidental take permit,” he said, “and they are going to suffer the consequences but we can’t force them to do certain things.
“The county will also suffer — absolutely,” he added. “But there are just certain aspects of this project where the applicant has to make these choices.”
Blanchard will be out of town next week, when two critical meetings are scheduled — one for the TRC on Monday, and a regular board meeting Tuesday. He says he has considered changing his plans, or arranging to stay involved somehow by phone in a conference call.
Blanchard said in spite of HNWD’s pressure on the TRC to issue a building permit as early as Tuesday, he has confidence the TRC it will not approve one next week. “They still have questions,” he said. “I don’t think this will be their last meeting … I don’t feel that from them. They still have questions that need answers.”
Sullenberger is not as sure. With all the issues related to the conditional use permit, he said, “virtually everything’s been addressed.”
He thinks it’s unlikely a building permit would be issued next week, but “it’s a possibility,” he said. “We’ll see on Monday whether everybody agrees if we’ve reached the appointed hour.”
“At the moment, with all the uncertainty with the SCC, and the poor performance of the process with all involved, from the county and the developer’s standpoint, I would like it to slow down,” Blanchard said. “This last minute submittal is bothersome.”
“No matter how far we go,” Sullenberger said, “we’re never going to satisfy everyone. When do you get to your point where you say all these concerns have been addressed?”
Asked whether he felt he was doing everything possible related to these decisions to protect his constituents and Highland’s environment, Sullenberger said, “Personally and professionally, yes, but recognizing that a select group of constituents will never believe that to be true.”