Resident urges commissioners to review Mount Gillette solar approval, cites zoning and ownership concerns

A resident told the Morrow County Board of Commissioners on March 17 that the Mount Gillette community solar project on 10 Road 30 was not properly vetted by the zoning authority and urged the board to investigate and consider delaying the project.

“They submitted this proposal less than a week...that was not enough time for the zoning commission,” the resident said, noting the submission was more than 500 pages in total and presented in multiple emails and attachments.

Why it matters: The resident says the project’s approval could affect drainage and adjacent properties and that inconsistent ownership records could violate the county’s zoning rules, which — if accurate — could affect the validity of the zoning decision or prompt an appeal.

Key points from the public comment

- Review time and materials: The speaker said the proposal was submitted fewer than seven days before the zoning meeting, spread across several emails and attachments, and that the short window did not give the zoning commission or neighbors adequate time to review the material.

- Drainage and site concerns: The resident reported drainage issues on adjacent property and asked commissioners to scrutinize the project’s site plans and approvals.

- Ownership and zoning-code citation: The resident cited a provision he identified as “section 14.5, letter e,” saying the zoning code requires the owner to be the person named in the county auditor’s records. He said project paperwork indicates the developer will lease rather than own the facility and named “J.D. Bartlett Trust” and an entity the transcript rendered as “Metropolitan” in the discussion, and urged commissioners to confirm whether the owner recorded with the county auditor matches the application.

- Request to pause: The speaker said he requested a 30-day tabling of the project at the zoning meeting; that request was dismissed, he said, and he asked the commissioners to “get involved” to ensure the zoning rules and the appeals process were followed.

Quotes and attribution: Direct quotes in this article are taken from the resident’s remarks to the board. The transcript records the speaker as "Mister Miller" during the turn to public comment; the speaker identified themselves as a nearby property owner.

What the transcript records and limits: The resident said he sent a representative to the zoning meeting and that his family owns land adjoining the proposed site. He said if the parcel owner — identified in the record as J.D. Bartlett Trust — were also the project owner, he would withdraw his complaints; he said he believed the current application indicates a lease rather than ownership. The transcript does not include a copy of the zoning materials, the formal zoning commission record, or any response from the zoning authority explaining the timing of submissions.

Next steps: The speaker urged the commissioners to review zoning-record ownership, the appeals options and whether the zoning commission followed the local code when allowing the project to proceed. The board did not make a formal ruling at the meeting; the matter remained in public comment.

Ending: The board heard the comment and continued with other business; the transcript does not record a formal referral or directive by the commissioners at the meeting.