By William Meiners
Herald Staff Writer
[private] Alleging a violation of the Michigan Open Meetings Act, lawyers from Invenergy, the Chicago-based company behind the Heartland Farms Wind Project, have appealed Fulton Township’s decision to deny the placement of 12 wind turbines within their community. The appeal was filed last month in the 29th Circuit Court of Gratiot County.
On April 20, the Fulton Board of Trustees reversed a recommendation from its planning commission to approve a special land use permit for the project.
To date, Fulton is the lone township out of six to opt out. Washington was the last to approve the plan “with conditions” in June. They joined Newark, New Haven, North Shade and North Star townships in a project that could still break ground late this year.
Originally slated to build 72 wind turbines, this would be the county’s sixth and final wind farm.
Kathleen Defever, a San Francisco lawyer who is from Fulton Township, called the litigation a “bold move.”
Defever was instrumental in organizing efforts to keep the wind turbines out of the township. She’s flown home several times throughout the first half of the year, meeting with family, neighbors, and other experts to progress the cause.
After reviewing a copy of the court filing, Defever maintained that Invenergy did not offer any evidence of the violation of the Open Meetings Act. “Because there isn’t any,” she said.
The appeal did address some confusion in the April meeting when Robert Baxter, a township trustee, made a motion to adopt the planning commission’s recommendation. Township treasurer Melissa Zemla seconded the motion, which would have led to the vote to approve the application. After some board discussion, Baxter admitted he was confused and withdrew the motion.
“Trustee Baxter then made another motion, reading from a piece of paper” to deny the application, the court filing said. An Invenergy lawyer asserted that Baxter “did not state or disclose who had prepared the written motion which he read.” Though it “was not prepared by the Spicer Group or Fulton Township’s legal representatives.”
Defever took issue with that characterization. “Invenergy seems to be insinuating that the board is doing something illegal, otherwise how dare they deny the application,” she said. “The other argument they are making is that because they satisfied the ordinance it should be approved.”
All in all, Defever viewed the filing as a somewhat “toothless” appeal, though maybe a procedural exercise that will not cost Invenergy that much. “Unfortunately, it’s an expensive defense cost for the township,” she said. “It’s one of those true cases of the big corporation trying to push around the little guy. But that’s been the theme the whole time.”
The circuit court judge, according to Defever, can deny the appeal, send it back to the Fulton Board with advice, or affirm Invenergy’s claims, effectively overriding the board’s denial. “They are asking the court to override the voices of the people,” she said.
The Herald reached out for comment to an Invenergy representative but received no response by its Tuesday deadline.
[private]