Montezuma County planners seek public input on draft rules for large-scale solar

Montezuma County Planning Commission members opened a public comment session on proposed land use code revisions for alternate energy and large-scale solar projects, taking about an hour of testimony from residents, farmers and developers.

Commissioner Hernandez, a member of the Montezuma County Planning Commission, told the room that a previously proposed 900-acre project "is probably not something that's not gonna fly with this county," and said commissioners want a workable upper limit between the existing 50-acre projects and the larger proposal. He also urged requiring evidence of transmission entitlements and written decommissioning guarantees so cleanup costs do not fall on county residents.

The submissions from more than two dozen speakers outlined recurring concerns and recommendations: set clear size categories for solar installations; require decommissioning plans and inflation-adjusted surety bonds; require evidence of power purchase/offtake or transmission entitlements before permitting; protect agricultural productivity and wildlife corridors; require visual-impact studies and neighbor notification; and define standards for fencing, vegetation management, and battery storage disclosure.

Speakers representing a range of perspectives pressed competing priorities. Lauren Kapke, representative of Accelergen Energy, urged the commission to "implement regulations that allow for large scale solar development while protecting the county, nearby residents and those property rights of the landowners who are choosing that solar may be the best use for their property at this time." Kapke recommended modeling Montezuma County's rules on Mesa County's recently updated code, and said decommissioning bonds that are periodically refreshed are an industry practice.

Several farmers and rural residents urged limits to protect productive farmland and property values. Landon Wilson, who said he farms 2,000 acres in the county, asked the commission to "define what productive ag land is" and warned that dryland farming can still be productive. Joy Cochran, who said she would have been surrounded by a large proposed project, asked for "an independent impact study to the neighboring community" and regular progress reports with enforceable penalties for noncompliance.

Speakers offered detailed drafting suggestions. Eleanor McFarland recommended keeping agricultural and rural character protections and placing renewable facilities on existing industrial or disturbed sites where possible; she listed nine elements the county should require, including classified size categories, density standards, evidence of power contracts, water sources, county-specified decommissioning timelines, county-determined financial assurance, and county-specified engineers for oversight. Don Howell and others urged recorded owner authorizations, public hearings for project transfers, and clearer agrivoltaics definitions.

Residents also raised visual and health concerns. Amanda Barcinas called for visual-impact imaging from neighboring properties and recommended that all equipment be removed within 12 months of nonoperation, backed by inflation-adjusted surety bonds refreshed every five years. Samantha Sanchez urged health studies about vibration and electromagnetic effects, and Jurgen Korp and others requested larger dwelling buffers than those previously proposed.

Commissioners and planning staff acknowledged competing interests. Commissioner Armstrong emphasized respect for private property rights while noting a strong set of decision criteria could address view sheds and wildlife corridors. Commissioner Lynch reiterated the need for operational "guardrails," including bonding or other financial assurance to ensure decommissioning and to prevent projects from becoming abandoned.

Planning staff said the commission will use Mesa County's land use code as a model and continue drafting revisions with public input. The meeting included a public notice that "The hearing is to be held Thursday, 07/24/2025 at 6PM in the Commissioner's Hearing Room, Montezuma County Administrative Offices, 109 West Main, Cortez, Colorado." No formal motions or votes were recorded at this session.

The commission asked for focused comment on what the land use code should require rather than general opposition or support; items likely to reappear in the draft revisions include project size categories, decommissioning and bonding rules, transmission entitlements, siting preferences (industrial/disturbed vs. productive ag land), wildlife and visual-impact mitigation, battery storage disclosures, and public-notice and construction routing enforcement.