JPs reject requiring details on industrial projects

For the second time in three months, a proposal that would require developers of large-scale industrial projects in Carroll County to submit detailed plans for the project to the county government failed to gain approval from the county quorum court at its regular meeting on Tuesday, June 18.

However, unlike the quorum court’s April 16 meeting, when five of the seven justices of the peace in attendance voted in favor of the proposal by District 3 JP Harrie Farrow, the May vote — with all 11 JPs present — was 7-4 against. Six votes are required for approval.

The proposal would have created “a plan submission process” for large-scale industrial projects in the county. It would require developers to submit plans for any industrial project encompassing more than five acres of private land, with exemptions for farming, ranching and other “non-industrial” projects.

While the proposed ordinance stipulates that it does not give the county the authority to deny the legal use of private property, it does outline “violations” and “penalties.” The violations outlined in the proposal include falsifying reports, beginning construction before receiving clearance from the county and deviating from the submitted plans.

The proposal would establish penalties of $1,000 for each violation and $500 per day for ongoing violations, stipulating that those penalties are “in accordance with Arkansas State Code … .”

Farrow’s proposal is the latest in a series of measures that appear to stem from Scout Clean Energy’s plans to construct an industrial “wind farm” southeast of Green Forest, comprising wind turbines standing several hundred feet tall.

Scout, based in Boulder, Colo., plans for the wind turbine project to expand over approximately 9,000 acres — about 14 square miles — in Carroll County, much of it along County Road 905. Scout says the project could generate up to 180 megawatts of electricity at peak demand — enough, the company says, to power almost 30,000 homes. Scout says it has signed lease agreements with more than 50 landowners to place wind turbines on their property. The company estimates that the 30-year project will generate more than $14 million in lease payments and $25 million in tax revenue for the county.

The planned project has drawn vigorous opposition from opponents who say it will be harmful to wildlife, have adverse health effects and pose a potential safety risk for humans and potentially cause significant damage to county roads, along with disturbing the natural beauty of the area and having a negative effect on tourism. Opponents of the project also say Scout’s ownership can be traced to Chinese interests.

JPs have said they can do little to prevent the project from moving forward, with some saying they don’t want to interfere with the rights of individual property owners. Others, including Farrow, have pushed for measures to provide at least some degree of regulation — although Farrow has said repeatedly that her proposal would not prevent Scout from moving forward with the project.

Four proposed ordinances that would have imposed setback regulations on industrial towers in the county all have failed to gain approval from the quorum court.

Joining Farrow in voting in favor of her proposal at the June 18 meeting were District 2 JP Bruce Wright, District 7 JP Kellie Matt and District 8 JP Francisco Pedraza. Voting no were District 1 JP Jack Deaton, District 4 JP Hunter Rivett, District 5 JP Matt Phillips, District 6 JP Craig Hicks, District 9 JP Roger Hall, District 10 JP Jerry King and District 11 JP John Howerton. Deaton and King had voted in favor of the proposal at the April meeting.

In discussing her proposal before the vote, Farrow said it had been reviewed by the Carroll County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office and County Clerk Connie Doss as well as attorneys with the Arkansas Association of Counties. She said the proposed ordinance would not affect Scout, since the project is already in progress.

Hicks said the proposed ordinance, which was presented as “an ordinance creating a plan submission process for large-scale industrial projects in Carroll County,” should instead say “planning and zoning submission process.”

Hicks said the proposed ordinance was clearly “aimed” at Scout.

“We’re all smart enough to realize that this ordinance was created and aimed at Scout Energy, which goes back to private property rights,” Hicks said. “I truly believe this ordinance is creating more red tape for new business looking to come to Carroll County. What’s to stop a large business from going to Madison, Boone, Newton (counties) because Carroll County’s been arguing about this for two years? I’m not going to seek to hinder new business from coming to Carroll County. Decisions we make today may sound good on paper, but they may come back to haunt you tomorrow, next week, next year, five years from now, when new businesses are going elsewhere.”

Hicks also was critical of the re-introduction of a proposed ordinance that had already failed once to gain approval. Several proposals that would have established setback requirements for towers like those that Scout plans to construct also have failed to pass the quorum court.

“In my time as a JP, I’ve never seen us vote on items again and again because they didn’t pass,” Hicks said. “… When things fail, you probably shouldn’t be bringing them up again and again and again. No matter how you re-wrap this, it’s some form of planning and zoning. This quorum court has made it clear again and again that we’re not for that.”

Farrow responded by pointing out that only two JPs voted against her proposal in April.

“Two people voted against this ordinance,” she said. “Four people were absent. So I don’t think saying we rejected this is really an honest statement.”

Farrow reminded her fellow JPs that she had recited the definition of “zoning” at a recent meeting. Her proposal does not meet that definition, she said.

“This is simply a very simple thing,” Farrow said. “It’s asking for information, accountability, transparency … Stick to your plans, tell us what they are. I don’t think it’s helpful for what you’re trying to do to say things that aren’t really 100 percent honest. You call this zoning. It simply isn’t, under any definition. It doesn’t even resemble zoning.”

The Carroll County Quorum Court’s next regular meeting is scheduled for 5 p.m. Tuesday, July 16, in the courtroom of the Eastern District Courthouse in Berryville.