Bastrop council debates review of Sunbeam Solar permit after public objections

Bastrop councilors spent the bulk of their Feb. 20 meeting weighing legal and procedural questions tied to a proposed solar project on the city’s old mill brownfield site, as company representatives and an attorney urged the council to avoid actions that would jeopardize investors.

The dispute centers on a special‑use permit for a Sunbeam Solar project (also referenced as Golden Beam/Golden Veil in the record) that speakers say was issued in January 2025 and a subsequent moratorium the council adopted in the spring. Jay Mitchell, an attorney appearing for Golden Veil Sundae LLC, told the council: “Respectfully, I don't think it's appropriate for the council to go into executive session to discuss matters concerning the client when there's been no threat of litigation and there is no ongoing litigation.” Mitchell said his client had received no written demand and that going into closed session would be premature.

City Attorney Daniel Jones replied that the item was listed on the agenda for an executive session as a precaution after “rapidly developing things that occurred yesterday” and said the council could also address the matter in open session. “Otherwise, we can just make those comments in open session,” Jones said, explaining the narrow circumstances that permit closed‑door discussion under state law.

Developer representative Hamad Khan told the council his company followed city direction, submitted a survey and paperwork, and recently obtained an occupational license. “We followed the process and the procedure the way we were told,” Khan said, adding that the site is a Louisiana LE2 brownfield and that remediation funds were contributed by Entergy and others. He urged the council to set a public forum and help resolve any outstanding paperwork so the project and its investors would not be harmed.

Council members pressed staff and the city attorney for documentary clarity. Speakers raised questions about whether the special‑use public hearing was properly recorded, whether the company’s state registration and application materials were complete, and whether signatures or other application elements were deficient. Several councilors noted the moratorium the council adopted (discussed in testimony as passed in March and adopted in April) is prospective and may not automatically invalidate permits already issued, but that perceived irregularities in the application record required review.

The council and staff also debated administrative improvements: councilors supported aligning occupational‑license checks (code/fire signoffs) with zoning review so applicants do not pay for licenses they cannot use, and discussed an ordinance change to allow revocation of occupational licenses when properties violate health, sanitation or beautification ordinances.

Multiple council members urged hiring outside counsel to provide an independent legal opinion on the permit, the application record and any possible vulnerabilities. Daniel Jones said an outside review could help triage the issues and provide a neutral assessment after facts previously relied on changed. No formal vote on retaining outside counsel is recorded in the meeting transcript; the item was discussed and advocates urged a prompt external review.

Councilors voiced competing concerns about speed and caution: some warned that a delayed legal opinion could put investors and the project at risk, while others emphasized the need to protect the city and its process if documentation or procedures were flawed. The council asked staff to compile records and to pursue an independent legal review to clarify whether the permit, notifications and public‑hearing procedures were properly followed. The meeting record indicates further follow‑up rather than a final council determination at that session.