Pulaski County BZA says documents for Mammoth Solar permit existed; declines stop-work order

The Pulaski County Board of Zoning Appeals on an administrative appeal found that documentation supporting building permit 4242 existed when the permit was issued and declined to order a stop-work directive.

The hearing began after an appeal filed by Gail Lambert, represented by attorney Jason Kuchme, challenged the building inspector’s decision not to revoke permit 4242, a permit tied to the Mammoth South solar project. Kuchme said the appeal turned on three discrete questions: whether a decommissioning plan, a road‑use agreement approved by the commissioners, and adequate financial assurance were in place before the permit issued.

Nut graf: The dispute focused narrowly on whether required documents were submitted and effective before the February 2025 permit issuance. Petitioners argued the county lacked project‑specific signed exhibits and bond amounts before the permit; Mammoth Solar and county staff said signed agreements, maps and bonds had been submitted and that some attachments had been updated after the original agreement.

Kuchme told the board the county’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requires a signed decommissioning plan, a road‑use agreement approved by the commissioners and demonstrable financial assurance before a permit may be issued. He told the board, “Under the clear language of your UDO, permit 4242 never should have been issued. … We would ask that you enter an order reversing the building inspector’s decision and issuing a stop work order for all work in connection with permit 4242.”

Carla, the county’s plan administrator and building inspector, told the board she had received and submitted the materials to the BZA. “I stand by my decision based on the fact that I received them, and I’ve submitted them to your board,” she said.

Representatives for Mammoth Solar said the road‑use agreement (RUA) and other documents existed in signed form and that maps and appendices were intended to be updated as the multi‑phase project evolved. Chris Shillman, a Mammoth representative, summarized the company’s view: “At the time the permit issued, the county and developer were operating under an existing RUA that included a general haul route map. … Revisions were underway, not to imply that no RUA existed or that construction lacked authorization.”

The petitioners cited a set of documents provided in the BZA packet: a packet described by Kuchme as including a notice of appeal, a February 10 county report describing proposed additions of roughly 684.56 acres to the Mammoth project, and various agreements and maps. Kuchme told the board he obtained material via a Freedom of Information Act request and said that the specific maps and signed appendices required by the UDO were either incomplete in the 2022 agreements or were not project‑specific to permit 4242 when the permit issued. He said that decommissioning plans dated January 17, 2025, and other materials were submitted but asserted they post‑dated the permit issuance.

County staff and Mammoth representatives pointed to signed documents and to a sequence of later submissions and addenda. The record in the hearing packet included an RUA dated November 3, 2022 (which petitioners characterized as incomplete), decommissioning plans dated January 17, 2025 for separate Mammoth sites, and bond instruments with document dates that participants cited as November 3, 2022; January 30, 2025; and February 2025. Board discussion and public comment also referenced bond amounts and engineering cost estimates; participants disagreed about whether bonds present at the time of issuance were sufficient for the expanded acreage.

Several members of the public and landowner representatives spoke. Toni Ehrlich, who identified herself as a Pulaski County resident, argued the UDO requires the road‑use, drainage and decommissioning agreements to be in place prior to permit issuance and urged the board to revoke permit 4242. “The UDO is very clear that the road use agreement, drainage agreement, and decommissioning agreement must be in place prior to issuing the building permit,” Ehrlich said. Brianna Schroeder, an attorney representing landowners in favor of the project, urged the board to respect property owners’ reliance interests and raised procedural questions about timeliness of challenges.

After questions of staff and counsel, a motion was made and seconded that the BZA find the required documents did exist for permit 4242 and that no stop‑work order was necessary. The motion passed; the record indicates one board member abstained from the vote. The board chair then closed the new‑business hearing and moved on to other agenda items.

Ending: The BZA’s vote was limited to the administrative appeal before it — whether the three categories of documents were in the county record when permit 4242 issued — and did not itself alter the permit or the county’s agreements. Several public speakers said they may pursue further legal review; others urged closer contractor oversight and clearer public records going forward.

(Quotes and attributions in this article come from the hearing record and public comments presented to the Pulaski County Board of Zoning Appeals.)