Planning and Zoning Commission fails to approve Gateway Trail solar farm conditional use permit

The Clay County Planning and Zoning Commission on April 1 failed to approve a conditional use permit for a proposed 20-megawatt commercial solar farm on property owned by Roy and Sherry Sams at approximately 12222 N. Highway.

Commissioners did not adopt the motion to approve the request for case April25-109CUP; the motion to approve with staff conditions failed on a roll call vote. The application will still be considered by the County Commission on April 24, staff said.

The proposal, filed by Gateway Trail Solar LLC and presented by Michael McHugh of Solis Renewables, called for an array sited on a portion of a roughly 210-acre parcel, with about 70 acres in the leased area and the solar array footprint described in materials as roughly 11 acres. McHugh said the project is designed as a 20-megawatt system that he estimated would supply the equivalent of about 2,300 homes and represents about a $50 million investment.

"These projects generate local American jobs," McHugh said, adding the developer expects about 80 construction workers over a nine-month build and long-term operations jobs. He pointed to lease payments to the Sams family and a potential tax agreement as county benefits, saying a 40-year example in the applicant's materials illustrated roughly $1.4 million in property taxes over the term, most of which would go to the school district.

The applicant submitted a packet of studies, including a noise study, glare study, property-value and economic-impact reports, a stormwater and operations plan, and a decommissioning proposal. McHugh said the company would post a bond or letter of credit for decommissioning and that the county would review the security every five years.

Technical project details offered by Kelton Sharp of Kimley‑Horn included a proposed minimum clearance of roughly 18 inches under panels to allow vegetative cover; a perimeter fence described in the submittal as an 8-foot farm‑mesh fence (not chain link with barbed wire); inverter placement to limit noise; and NPDES permitting and erosion-control measures during construction. Sharp said perimeter sound would be about 45 decibels in model results and that, on comparable sites, surface-temperature increases dissipate within a short distance from large installations.

Neighbors and local officials raised multiple concerns during a lengthy public comment period. Mallory Brown, a representative of the City of Excelsior Springs, said the city opposed the project because the site lies inside the county's managed growth area adjacent to city limits and could be used for future annexation and residential expansion. Brown said the city lacks water infrastructure and hydrants for firefighting at that location and that its fire department does not train for large-scale solar‑facility fires.

Residents cited potential negative effects on property values and views, the adequacy of proposed decommissioning security if the project company or an associated LLC failed, wildlife and habitat loss behind some homes, the proximity of panels to the Fishing River and floodplain areas, and truck traffic and construction impacts on local roads.

"I'm concerned that there's — we'll be able to see the solar panels with the barbed wire for the security fencing. Could possibly devalue our property," said Erin Perdau, a nearby resident. Roy Sams, the landowner, told the commission he supports leasing the ground to the developer because farming income is uncertain and the lease would provide long-term income without converting ownership: "I'll still own the ground, just leasing it to him. And after 30 years, it will come back to my family."

Staff recommended denial in its report, citing two of the six CUP criteria the county requires applicants to address: whether the proposed use complies with the comprehensive plan and the LDC, and whether the use is compatible with adjacent uses in scale, site design and operating characteristics. The staff report included 21 recommended conditions for approval if the commission chose to approve, including a required bond or letter of credit for decommissioning and a pre‑permit stormwater study. Staff also noted outreach to outside agencies and included letters from the City of Excelsior Springs among the record.

At the vote, Commissioners David Rodis and Tom Decker voted to approve with conditions; Commissioners Tom Degenhardt, Jerry Nolte, Randall Morris and Mark Beggs voted no. The motion to approve failed and the chair indicated that outcome effectively constituted a denial by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The matter will proceed to the County Commission on April 24 for further action.

The commission's discussion and public testimony repeatedly distinguished three types of concerns: (1) policy and land‑use compatibility with the county's comprehensive plan and the adjacent city's growth plans; (2) technical and operational questions about noise, stormwater, decommissioning security, bond sufficiency and fire response; and (3) community impacts, including viewshed and property‑value concerns.

The commission did not adopt an alternative motion to approve with modified conditions; no formal amendment to staff's recommended conditions was adopted. Staff told the commission it will post an additional exhibit (an extra letter submitted before the meeting) into the record.

The Planning and Zoning Commission meeting recorded the exchange and testimony; the transcript shows the case drew substantial public interest with more than a dozen speakers for and against the project. The county staff reminded commissioners that the case will go before the County Commission on April 24 at 6 p.m., if the commission had taken action that night.