Sidewinder Sues Jefferson County Planning Commission Over Rejected Water Bottling Plant

After plans for a water bottling facility in Jefferson County were rejected last month, the company behind the project is suing the local planning commission over their decision.

Updated on Monday, April 21, 2025 at 3:07 p.m.

Developers seeking to build a water bottling facility in Jefferson County have taken their efforts to the courtroom, following a rejection from local officials.

Sidewinder Enterprises is a single-purpose development company that aims to build Mountain Pure Water Bottling Facility in the rural community of Middleway. After months of anticipation, the Jefferson County Planning Commission unanimously rejected the project March 12, arguing its concept plan did not comply with county zoning ordinances.

After the decision, a representative for Sidewinder told West Virginia Public Broadcasting by email they disagreed with the commission’s decision and would be “pursuing all options” to bring their project to life.

On April 10, Sidewinder filed a legal complaint in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County arguing the planning commission lacks the authority to reject their project, and instead should have granted them guidance on how to conform their concept plan to local and state regulations.

Additionally, Sidewinder disputes the terms of the planning commission’s rejection. Commissioners cited possible harm to historic sites in their reasoning for denying the project, but Sidewinder maintains that the project would not harm the historic preservation of Middleway.

In their complaint, Sidewinder lists the Jefferson County Planning Commission and each of its members as respondents. It urges the court to bar them from rejecting the Mountain Pure concept plan, and require them to compensate the company for related legal fees.

In an email provided through a media representative, Sean Masterson, managing partner for Sidewinder, declined to comment on this story, saying it would be “inappropriate for us to comment given the pending litigation.” A representative for the planning commission also declined to comment in an email to WVPB because the matter is “subject to pending litigation.”

Meanwhile, the lawsuit follows months of grassroots organizing from residents of Middleway and West Virginia’s Eastern Panhandle.

Residents have widely expressed concern that the project would result in water overuse or contamination, unsustainable truck traffic and degradation of local historic sites. The Middleway Historic District is listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places.

Concerns like these culminated in an eight-hour meeting stretching from March 11 to 12, when the planning commission voted to reject the project’s concept plan. During that meeting, 125 individuals delivered comments regarding the project proposal; 122 of them spoke in opposition to it.


View the circuit court legal complaint in full:


**Editor’s Note: This story was updated to note that the Jefferson County Planning Commission declined to comment.

Circuit Court Records Soon To Be Digitally Accessible

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia announced Monday it would make circuit court records from across the state accessible online, beginning March 10.

Beginning next month, West Virginia residents will be able to access circuit court records from the comfort of their own homes.

That is because the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia announced Monday it would make circuit court records from across the state accessible online, beginning March 10.

Currently, residents must visit their local courthouse in person to access circuit court records. But the digital West Virginia Public Access Search System will soon include all circuit court documents filed from 1999 onwards.

Registration to access the system is free, and documents can be downloaded for 25 cents per page, plus “a nominal credit [or] debit card processing fee” according to a Monday Supreme Court press release.

Supreme Court Justice C. Haley Bunn said the digitization reflects the judicial system’s commitment to being “as transparent and accessible to the public as possible.”

“Beginning next month, our citizens will be able to search and download public civil and criminal case information dating back to the turn of the century from the convenience of their computer or mobile device,” she said in Monday’s press release. This will bypass “the need to go to a courthouse and search for records in person.”

Court filings “under seal and juvenile cases” will not be available, the press release said.

Last year, the state’s Supreme Court launched a similar program for the state’s magistrate courts, also accessible online. The Supreme Court aims to expand its online record system to the appellate courts in the future.

“The court is proud to announce the launch of this long-awaited system that will bring county circuit court records into the digital age,” Chief Justice Bill Wooton said in the press release. “Online access to court records is an essential public service, and I want to thank all parties involved for their commitment to making this a reality.”

Residents can access digital records from the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia at the court’s website.

Corrections Officials Call For More Remote Hearings To Save Money

Some West Virginia corrections officials called for more virtual trials during a House subcommittee meeting Thursday morning.

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic changed the face of court proceedings in West Virginia, allowing many hearings to move online.

As lawmakers look to reduce state spending, some corrections officials are urging an expansion of pandemic-era virtual conferencing technology to reduce prison-to-court staffing and travel costs. Others in the criminal justice field warn that virtual trials remain imperfect, and warrant special consideration before expansion.

Several West Virginians involved in the corrections and criminal justice fields appeared before the West Virginia House of Delegates Courts Subcommittee for a meeting Thursday morning. These individuals were invited to “give us their expertise” on addressing “inefficiencies” in West Virginia’s court system, said Committee Chair Del. Phil Mallow, R-Marion.

Last year, the West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation (WVDCR) transported individuals more than 1,370,800 miles between its 18 prisons and jails and state courtrooms for in-person court proceedings, according to WVDCR Assistant Commissioner Scott Patterson.

This cost the state approximately $3.4 million, and required nearly 82,000 hours of staffing from corrections personnel, Patterson testified at Thursday’s subcommittee meeting.

In 2020, WVCDR staffing and travel expenses for court proceedings were just a fraction of the 2024 figures. For example, South Central Regional Jail transported individuals about 94,000 miles last year, but just 2,600 in 2020. That was thanks to the wider usage of remote hearing technology.

“We have the capability to do many of these hearings by video,” Patterson said. “That’s a huge cost savings.”

The softening of pandemic-era public health restrictions brought a resurgence of in-person hearings.

Patterson said certain legal proceedings, like evidentiary hearings for criminal trials, have been and must be conducted in person. But he advocated for other proceedings, like bail hearings, to move virtual.

Rodney Miller, executive director for the West Virginia Sheriffs’ Association, echoed Patterson’s perspective. For law enforcement officials, he described transporting individuals to court proceedings as a “personnel drain.”

“With the transportation of inmates to the courthouses, one, it’s a burden on [the WVDCR] to bring them here. They’ll have to come back and get them,” he said. “It also is a burden on the counties, because the counties will have to have staff sitting with those inmates and monitoring them.”

Miller said different counties implement court transportation policies in different ways, based on local needs and capabilities. The West Virginia Legislature can pass policies modifying court operations, but those policies are first interpreted by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, then implemented by courts on the local level.

That can mean law enforcement officers have to spend extra hours accompanying defendants to meet the needs of the court, according to Miller.

“There are policies in place, as I understand it,” he said. “But still, you have authoritarian figures that do the way they want to do in their locale.”

Justin Hershberger is a public defender for Monongalia County. He told West Virginia Public Broadcasting that remote conferencing technology can work for “smaller issues” in the court, but can cause hiccups for longer hearings and criminal proceedings.

When a defendant is in the same room as their counsel during a trial, they can quietly ask them questions or provide comments throughout the process.

But defense counsel often joins remote hearings virtually, Hershberger said. That makes it harder to communicate with a defendant, and can require the entire trial to be put on pause if an individual wants to speak with their lawyer.

“If a client, a criminal defendant, has a question during a hearing for their attorney, we can’t answer that without everybody leaving the room and us having a discussion with our client,” Hershberger said. “We can be as prepared as we can, but sometimes our client wants to whisper something to us.”

Allowing attorneys to participate in a hearing from the same remote location as their client could rectify some of these issues, but it would move the onus of travel time and mileage onto defense attorneys, Hershberger said.

For Monongalia County, “our jail is an hour and 15 minutes away,” he said. “So, for us to travel to the jail and be present with our client, that’s a whole half a day.”

From his experience, Hershberger also said in-person hearings generally take less time and “run smoother,” because there are fewer pauses to allow for confidential conversations between a defendant and their attorney.

Regardless, defendants are constitutionally entitled to attend “all critical stages of the proceeding” in person, he added. Hershberger said it is the state’s obligation to uphold each resident’s constitutional right to a fair trial.

“They really need to focus on and make sure that they’re not running afoul of any constitutional right to be present in person,” he said.

De Soto Granted Home Incarceration, Lower Bail In Terroristic Threats Case

A magistrate court granted W.Va. Delegate-elect Joseph De Soto a move to home confinement and a lower bail during a pretrial hearing Monday morning.

West Virginia Delegate-elect Joseph De Soto will return to his Gerrardstown residence for home incarceration, the Berkeley County Magistrate Court ruled during a pretrial hearing Monday morning.

West Virginia State Police arrested De Soto on Dec. 12 under the felony charge of making “threats of terrorist acts.”

In a criminal complaint and public comments from multiple state lawmakers, De Soto is accused of threatening to kill several Republican legislators. These threats occurred over text and email in the days following a Dec. 8 Republican caucus of the West Virginia House of Delegates, according to the complaint.

Prior to the hearing, De Soto was detained at the Potomac Highlands Regional Jail. Defense counsel requested De Soto be moved to home incarceration, under conditions that he make no contact with the state lawmakers he allegedly threatened and possess no deadly weapons.

Defense Attorney Jake Mills argued that De Soto did not create a formal plan to target elected officials, held strong community ties, complied with law enforcement and had medical issues necessitating home care. De Soto used an oxygen tank during the hearing, Mills noted.

Berkeley County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Garrett Robertson sought to keep De Soto’s bond at its initial amount and to keep De Soto in the regional jail. Robertson said De Soto posed a threat to members of the community and had expressed intent to carry out violence against elected officials.

Ultimately, Judge David DeHaven ordered that De Soto be moved to home incarceration under the conditions set forth by his defense counsel. If he follows the conditions, De Soto can remain at his residence until he posts bond or is convicted of a crime.

DeHaven also obliged defense requests to lower De Soto’s bail. De Soto’s initial $300,000 cash bail was lowered to $150,000 in cash or a surety bond.

De Soto was elected to represent Berkeley County in the West Virginia Legislature in November, and has not yet been sworn in. Prior to the Dec. 8 caucus, De Soto faced criticism for making fraudulent claims about his medical and military background.

Tony Hodge, chair of the West Virginia Republican Party, told West Virginia Public Broadcasting that some Republican state lawmakers sought to remove De Soto from office over the claims. The criminal complaint alleges that this effort made De Soto feel “ attacked and forced out” of the state legislature.

Mills told members of the press after the hearing that defense counsel aims to secure De Soto’s release to his Berkeley County residence by the end of the day. Mills also said it could take 30 to 60 days for the court to hold De Soto’s preliminary hearing, the next step in the judicial process.

Mills added that he simply “wanted to litigate [De Soto’s] bond issue during the hearing to “maintain his innocence until proven guilty.”

W.Va. Churches Now Eligible To Incorporate

Updated on Monday, September 30, 2024 at 3:40 p.m.

Churches and religious organizations in the Mountain State can now also operate as businesses, following a Thursday decision from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.

The federal court ruled that a clause of the West Virginia Constitution prohibiting churches and religious bodies from incorporating violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects the “free exercise” of religion.

Incorporation is the process of registering a business with the state government as a legal and financial entity. Corporations have central management and are owned by shareholders who are “not personally liable for the obligations of the company,” according to the West Virginia Secretary of State Business Division.

West Virginia was the only state in the nation that prohibited churches from incorporating, according to the district court. Virginia had a similar provision in its constitution until 2002, when a separate district court ruled the policy unconstitutional.

The district court’s memorandum opinion and order released last week said the West Virginia secretary of state “began issuing certificates of incorporation to churches” after the 2002 decision, despite being prohibited under state law. According to Michael Queen, deputy chief of staff and director of communications for the secretary of state’s office, the practice was followed through three different secretary of state tenures, resulting in the registration of more than 400 religious groups as nonprofit corporations in West Virginia.

The court said this practice continued until 2022, when a ballot measure to remove the policy from the West Virginia Constitution was voted down by the public.

“After the majority of voters voted down the proposed amendment, and given the previously cited constitutional language, there was no longer an arguable potential for exercising discretion when interpreting the incorporation prohibition, and our office stopped accepting corporate filings from churches and religious organizations to form nonprofit corporations,” Queen wrote in a Monday email to West Virginia Public Broadcasting.

The state then continued to refuse applications to incorporate from churches until a complaint was filed by Hope Community Church, located in the Berkeley County town of Hedgesville. The church did not respond to phone call or email requests for comment on this story.

The West Virginia secretary of state filed an answer to this complaint, after which the church filed a motion for judgment from the court. This gave the district court the opportunity to review the provision in the state’s constitution, which it ultimately deemed unconstitutional.

“West Virginia’s prohibition on the incorporation of churches is neither neutral nor generally applicable because it denies incorporation to a defined class of individuals solely based upon their religion,” read the decision. “Every other group in West Virginia may apply for incorporation, but members of ‘any church or religious denomination’ are uniquely prohibited from incorporating the organizations to which they belong.”

Queen said the court’s decision took effect immediately upon release.

“The staff in the West Virginia secretary of state’s office has been made aware of this judicial directive,” Queen wrote. West Virginia Secretary of State Mac Warner “has indicated that we will no longer reject applications for incorporation by churches or religious organizations.”

Queen wrote that he has not personally seen any requests to incorporate from churches since the decision was released Thursday. Any religious groups interested in registering would file an application with the secretary of state’s office including articles of incorporation and a 501(c)(3) statement from the Internal Revenue Service, he wrote.

Queen also said Warner has no plans to appeal the court’s decision.

View the full text of the court decision here:

**Editor’s note: This story was updated to include comment from Michael Queen, deputy chief of staff and director of communications for the West Virginia secretary of state’s office.

Court Hearing Arguments On-the-Road for Constitution Day

The West Virginia Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) will leave their Charleston courtrooms on Tuesday to hear an argument docket at Davis & Elkins College in Elkins, West Virginia. The event falls on Constitution Day. Proceedings will begin at 9:30 a.m. in the college’s Harper-McNeeley Auditorium.

Tuesday’s event is the third in the ICA on Campus series, aimed at engaging the public with the judiciary’s role in West Virginia. Judges have taught in selected colleges’ classrooms on topics such as checks and balances and disparities in the legal system based on socioeconomic factors like race and gender.

“Every part of life is tied, in one way or the other, to the law and our legal system,” Chief Justice Thomas Scarr said.

Scarr said the court tries to assemble on-the-road dockets with topics that interest students or have regional relevance along with engaging lawyers arguing the cases. Tuesday’s docket will include a West Virginia University Law student arguing a case, a first for the ICA.

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals will visit Williamstown Middle/High School on Oct. 8. Both courts’ oral arguments are always open to the public both in-person and via webcast on the West Virginia Judiciary YouTube page.

Exit mobile version