[ exact phrase in "" ]

[ Google-powered ]


News Home

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Elm Springs voters to decide annexation; Proposed wind farm site may not remain part of town  

Credit:  By Dan Holtmeyer | Posted: February 7, 2016 | www.nwaonline.com ~~

ELM SPRINGS – Voters in the coming weeks will decide if the proposed site for a controversial wind farm will remain part of this small town.

An election is set for March 1, the same day as the partisan primaries, on whether to repeal the annexation of about 312 acres on the west end of Elm Springs. The City Council approved the annexation in October, but a petition drive that ended in December put the question on the ballot.

Early voting begins Feb. 16 at six locations in Washington County.

Executives with the Texas-based corporation Dragonfly Industries International have said they hope to use the land for Arkansas’ first wind farm. The project could include dozens of 150-foot turbine towers that would use an unusual shrouded, or covered, wind turbine design. The proposal has sparked opposition from neighbors and town residents.

The land’s owner, an Arkansas company called Elite Energy, successfully petitioned the county and Elm Springs to join the town last year. Dragonfly CEO Jody Davis told residents last year the project would benefit the town but would go forward with or without the annexation.

If that’s the case, the March 1 vote is essentially about whether Elm Springs or Washington County officials and planners will oversee the project’s permitting.

In Elm Springs, the project would go before the planning commission, where there’s some uncertainty about the approval process. Some members of the planning commission, including the chairman, said last month the land wouldn’t need to be rezoned from residential-agricultural use because the zoning allows utility facilities. Developers dropped their request for rezoning last year while it was considered by the City Council.

Commission members disagreed on whether the turbines would need a largescale development permit, which basically lays out the construction plan. They agreed the turbines would at least need individual building permits.

If the land is deannexed and goes back to the county, the process could have more steps, Planning Director Juliet Richey said Wednesday. The project would need to get a conditional-use permit from the Planning Board, which looks at construction’s impact on surrounding properties and whose decision can be appealed to the Quorum Court. The conditional-use permit essentially covers the building permit portion, Richey said. The project would definitely need a largescale development permit as well, she said.

Critics of the project, including neighbors who live outside the city and can’t vote, have said Dragonfly’s technology is untested and could harm their health or property values.

On social media, at town meetings and in personal interviews, several opponents during the past year have also questioned the developers’ expertise and backgrounds. Jonathon Hamby, a neighbor to the land who helped rally the opposition, has said he believes the county’s board and planning staff would be better equipped and less invested in the project’s approval or disapproval to ensure a thorough review of the plan’s details.

Elm Springs Mayor Harold Douthit has said the town’s planning commission would be up to the task. Commission Chairman Matt Casey also works as engineering design manager for Fayetteville’s engineering division.

Douthit has said he generally supports the project as a potential source of tax revenue and an overall boost for the city of around 1,700. He also fired back at the project’s opponents, saying the ones living within city limits are a small number of the town’s population.

Davis, the Dragonfly CEO, last month sued two project opponents in Washington County Circuit Court for defamation. Hamby and his wife, Vivian, who live outside city limits, help run a Facebook page against the project, the lawsuit states.

Davis claims the Hambys posted untrue and disparaging comments about him and his company on the page, citing posts that focus on Davis’s past convictions for a hot check violation and embezzlement. Davis has said he paid for his mistakes and has grown past them. Jonathon Hamby in interviews has said he doesn’t believe Davis can be trusted.

[rest of article available at source]

Source:  By Dan Holtmeyer | Posted: February 7, 2016 | www.nwaonline.com

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User contributions


« Later PostNews Watch HomeEarlier Post »

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook


© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.
Formerly at windwatch.org.

Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook