NAHUNTA — The main focus of a two-day trial involving permitting by the Environmental Protection Division to Brantley County Limited Partners, LLC. and opposed by the Brantley County Commission here in the Brantley County Courthouse centered around whether there was a legal meeting/hearing held in December of 2016, or the lack thereof.
The EPD and Brantley County Limited Partners, LLC. claim the meeting was legal while the County’s stance is it was not because only two commissioners were present.
No decision was rendered by Judge Kimberly Schroer with the final day of the hearing scheduled for 9:30 a.m., Thursday, January 19 in Atlanta.
Six witnesses testified Thursday, December 5 and Friday, December 6 with four for the County. The court procedure went from 9 a.m. until nearly 6 p.m., the opening day and from 9:30 a.m. until approximately 2 p.m., the second day.
Former Commissioner Jesse Mobley, County Clerk Rene Herrin, former Brantley County Development Authority member Peggy Bowers, Brantley County Express publisher Mittie Vaughn, Senior Professional Engineer Chad Hall PhD, P.E. of Atlantic Coast Consulting, and EPD Program Manager William Cook were questioned by lawyers from both sides.
Mobley was the first witness Thursday morning for the Brantley County Commissioners. Mobley stated the location of the project was vague and wasn’t specific when brought forth to the commissioners. Mobley stated he was under the impression it was a pellet plant and not a garbage landfill.
“Our citizens need honesty,” said Mobley to Attorney Kimberly Hale, who represents the Brantley County Commission. “The Board of Commissioners felt like what we were told was going to happen and it didn’t happen. Our citizens are impacted the most by what happens in their community.”
When asked about the number of people who attended the December meeting, Mobley said there were between 150-200 people in that courtroom setting.
“The notice given for the hearing wasn’t enough time for the citizens to make it,” he responded. “I was not happy with the timing of it,” Mobley told Attorney Hale.
Brantley County Limited Partners, LAC Attorney Mark Johnson’s questioning to Mobley turned its focus to Bettie Jean Smith, who has been very vocal in the fight to stop the landfill.
“She has opposed the landfill from the start,” said Mobley.
When he was asked by Attorney Johnson why the commissioners did not believe her from the beginning he stated, “she attacked everything we did. As bad as it is to say, I thought she was a conspiracy theorist, and kooky.”
Mobley explained County Attorney Deen Strickland was heavily involved in the December 2016 meeting “trying to keep the peace among the citizens” inside the courtroom.
Herrin was second on the stand and stated for the record after being questioned that she began with the County Commission in the finance department 32 years ago and became the County Clerk in 2016. Herrin said she was present in the December 2016 meeting/hearing and she recorded the minutes for it.
Herrin was questioned about a subpoenaed request from 2021 for the audio of the February 2015 meeting at the county office on why the audio was not made available.
Herrin admitted it was the policy before she became Clerk in 2016 that all meetings were audio recorded to be able to have a transcript. She could not give a reasoning for the missing 2015 recording.
The third witness was Bowers, who was appointed to the secretary position for Brantley County Development Authority in 2004. Bowers stated her purpose was to make the economy better and give back to the community. Bowers also said she was the Chair from 2010 until 2011.
She said there was a brief meeting about Magnolia Holdings in 2010 and a presentation on Bio-Mass donating 75 acres to the Brantley County Development Authority, but it was all verbal and no contracts were ever presented.
The fourth witness, Vaughn, was called forward by Brantley County Commission Attorney Jonathan Wells to discuss the legal ad placed for the December 2016 meeting/hearing.
Vaughn stated she built the legal ad for the December 2016 meeting in an Arial Black font so the people would see the notice. She said that was the first time anyone had heard of the situation.
Vaughn added the legal notice came from an attorney in Atlanta and not the applicant itself. She stated she has published legal notices that way before as well.
Vaughn claimed she heard Magnolia Holdings was to give a grant for a Bio-Energy plant between Atkinson and Waynesville in 2010 by Daniel Duke. Vaughn stated she wrote approximately three articles on the situation.
When asked what type of research she did before writing the articles, Vaughn said, “I just cover the meetings.”
The final witness for the first day was Hall, who maintains the solid waste rules and regulations for Atlantic Coast Consulting (ACC). Hall told Attorney Wells he is involved in the managing roll in applications.
According to its website, ACC houses a team of scientists, engineers, designers, and technicians who work closely with clients for solid waste and hazardous waste landfills throughout the nation. The website says ACC tries to help minimize the environmental impact while maximizing the value of their clients resources and investments.
Hall observed the documentation from the December 2016 meeting and said it was too vague.
“We had no contact with the county, except with (Attorney) Strickland early on in the process,” Hall stated. “We had several emails and letters brought up from Mr. (Robert) Lovett.”
Cook, the Solid Waste Manager for EPD since 2015, was the lone witness to take the stand Friday. After discussing his qualifications and knowledge, Cook was classified as an “expert” in his field by the court.
Cook spent the majority of his time on the stand talking about permit laws and the zoning process. He said he was very involved in the permitting process and he reviewed documents in this case.
Cook stated he has seen 15-20 permits in his position and this was the first case of no action because of time that he is aware of. He also said this was the first case where a new landfill would be, and not an expansion or demolition of an already existing landfill.
Cook said the public can comment for site limitations. Once the review site assessment report draft shows requirements, the EPD then allows 30 days for public comment.
“This is not a state requirement, it is just our policy,” Cook said to Attorney Wells.
Cook stated that they didn’t know the exact location of Magnolia Holdings, and they didn’t need to know the location.
Cook said they (EPD) received over 1,000 emails, held a meeting, and had plenty of feedback from the community which shows they knew what was going on. He was referring to other witness statements who said the community did not know what was being planned.
When Cook was asked if he considered the December 2016 meeting/hearing an actual meeting by Attorney Wells, he responded with “We (EPD) just look at it as, did it occur? It is up to them (county officials) to make sure that it was legit.”
Cook said the only meeting evidence they have came from the county attorney (Strickland).
“We just checked the box that it had ocurred,” Cook said. “If the County didn’t properly conduct the meeting then that is on them.”
Judge Schroer questioned Cook on why it wasn’t his responsiblity to make sure the meeting was legit. She then stated “it seems it would be the EPD’s responsibility to make sure it was legit.”
Cook was asked by an EPD representative if the County ever alleged someone else besides the county attorney ran the meeting, and he responded with “not to my knowledge.”
As far as a site selection in the December 2016 meeting, Cook said the County didn’t make a site selection because a private company applied, therefore the County had no say in the matter.
