Bastrop residents and developers clash over solar projects as council clarifies planning and zoning authority

Developers described two planned solar fields and a small data center in and near the old mill site as council members and residents pressed city staff and the city attorney for clearer zoning rules and a record of administratively approved permits.

The debate matters because several solar installations were approved “by right” by the administrator, and some residents said those approvals used the wrong zoning definition — treating solar panels as "heavy equipment" — before panels were installed.

Company representative Moss Hunt told the City Council the projects include two solar fields (about 3 megawatts at one site and 6–9 megawatts at another) and work toward a data center that he said would require far more power. “When we talk a lot of power, we’re talking about 70 megawatts,” Hunt said, and he added the combined sites and infrastructure work could bring fiber optics and local jobs: “It’s gonna bring fiber optic. It’s gonna bring jobs. It’s gonna bring a modern data center.”

Residents and one council member countered that some approvals were handled administratively and that the zoning classifications used to justify those approvals were inconsistent. The council heard that some administrators had treated solar panels as if they were "machinery or heavy equipment," a classification that, if applied, would place the installations in a different permitting path.

City attorney (Mr. Jones) explained the local process for determining whether a proposed use is “conforming” with existing zoning. He said the administrator first determines if a use conforms to the current zoning rules; if it is conforming, the administrator can issue the permit, often described in the meeting as "approved by right." If a use is nonconforming, the applicant can appeal or seek a variance, which may go to planning and zoning or the board of adjustments. “By right just means that the administrator had determined it was conforming with the zone that it was there, and therefore it could be approved,” the city attorney said.

Debbie Rogers of the Planning and Zoning Commission said the planning commission had long had authority to grant variances and that an amendment in 2015 gave the commission more autonomy to handle certain special permits without moving every application to council. “We always have the right to make variances,” Rogers said, and she described the 2015 amendment as increasing the commission’s discretion to approve special permits under defined criteria.

Councilors and other speakers pressed for better transparency and consistency. Councilor James Green asked for a list of administratively issued special permits and denials: “Can we get a list of which special permits to turn down? Because this is how we can measure. Approve and not approve.” Several council members said they had repeatedly asked staff for a record of actions taken by code enforcement and the planning administrator and had not received it.

Staff reported there were two pending special-permit applications that had been placed on the agenda but then set aside to await the city attorney’s guidance; the planning staff member said those applications would be returned for council consideration when legal clarification is available. The council discussed, but did not adopt during the meeting, a temporary pause on new special-permit approvals until the city clarifies the applicable definitions and paperwork flow. A formal motion to pause was discussed in the public exchange but no recorded vote appears in the transcript.

Company filings and name changes were also raised. Planning staff said a previously filed application listed an earlier company name (Sunbeam Solar) and that the applicant later filed a name-change; staff characterized that as an administrative correction because the underlying company ownership was the same. Planning staff also identified Golden Beam Power LLC as an applicant associated with the New Mill site.

Speakers emphasized different stakes: proponents described renewable energy, grid upgrades and a modest number of local jobs tied to a data center and fiber buildout; opponents and some council members warned of long-term land-use tradeoffs, saying Bastrop has limited developable land and that large ground-mounted arrays could reduce options for future industrial projects.

The council directed staff to coordinate with the city attorney and planning and zoning commission to clarify (1) whether installed solar arrays had been approved under correct zoning definitions, (2) the record of administrative approvals and denials of special permits, and (3) whether the city should temporarily change permit procedures. The attorney and planning staff said they would follow up with written clarification and that items tabled would return to the agenda after legal review.

Community members who spoke during public comment also raised questions about safety and long-term environmental effects; one resident read from a university paper on safety and decommissioning, and Hunt and other proponents disputed assertions that panels posed health risks.

No ordinance change or final council vote on a moratorium or new definition was recorded in the transcript; the meeting ended with directions to follow up and with two specific special-permit applications set aside pending legal review.

The council's next planning-and-zoning agenda is expected to include clarified language on variances and administrative approvals, plus any returned applications once the city attorney completes his review.