Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Landowners and developer urge Cleveland County to drop legal fight over Brookcliffe Solar permit
Summary
Multiple landowners and Brookcliffe Solar representatives urged the Board of Commissioners to stop appealing a judge’s reinstatement of a zoning permit for the Brookcliffe Solar project, saying millions have been invested and the county's continued appeal is costing taxpayer money.
Several landowners and the Brookcliffe Solar developer told the Cleveland County Board of Commissioners during public comment that the county should drop an ongoing appeal and allow construction of the Brookcliffe Solar project to proceed.
Donna Wallace, who said her family signed a lease seven years ago, urged the commissioners to "vote to drop the appeal against Brooklyph Solar," saying the county's legal challenge threatens long-term financial security for her family and others. "If the commission continues to appeal against Brooklyph Solar, then those promises are just empty words," Wallace said.
Property owner William Wallace described spending years on the project and said a judge previously reversed the county’s decision to close out the permit. He and other landowners said Brookcliffe has invested millions in testing and development and that the county's appeal is delaying lease revenues they were expecting.
Stuart Sloan told the board Brookcliffe spent more than $8 million on testing and development and that the county has paid more than $39,000 in legal fees to oppose the judge's decision. "Please tell me why the county is against this project," Sloan asked, saying landowners had agreed to vegetation and setback requirements.
Ben Stockdale, a developer who said he grew up in the region, told commissioners Brookcliffe received its zoning permit in 2020 and that COVID and supply-chain issues delayed construction. "This project is a win-win," Stockdale said. "For 40 years, Cleveland County and its citizens will receive steady paychecks from Brookcliffe...It does not require new services, does not require new public investment. All it requires is a vote from this body to let the project you already approved move forward."
Speakers asked the board to use the closed session with legal counsel scheduled later that night to address the case; one public commenter explicitly requested the board discuss the matter with the county attorney. The transcript includes multiple requests to "meet with counsel" and for staff to explain why the county continued to pursue the appeal after a judge ruled in Brookcliffe’s favor.
Commissioners did not take a vote on the project during the meeting. The board later entered closed session citing attorney-client privilege under state law; the public record in the meeting notes states the board "met and discussed with county staff and gave county staff direction to the manager of the attorney" and that it gave direction under the closed session statutes, but the transcript does not record a public decision on the Brookcliffe appeal.
Speakers named costs and investments in the project: Brookcliffe and supporters gave figures ranging from $7 million to $8 million invested by the company and more than $39,000 in county legal fees so far. Those amounts were presented by speakers and are reported here as stated in public comment. No county staff figure or formal financial report was provided at the meeting.
The public comment period included five speakers who focused on Brookcliffe; commissioners accepted the speakers in order and did not take a formal motion on the project during the meeting. The transcript shows members of the public pressing the board to either drop the appeal or explain why the county continues legal action despite a judicial ruling in Brookcliffe's favor.
