Goodhue County tables conditional-use permit for 35-acre solar project amid decommissioning and parcel-split concerns

The Goodhue County Board of Commissioners on an on-the-road meeting at the Cannon Valley Fair tabled action on a conditional-use permit for a utility-scale solar project proposed to cover about 35 acres of a 120-acre parcel owned by David and Mary Winkle.

Planning staff presented the application and recommended materials; the Planning Advisory Commission met June 16 and recommended approval. Megan Smith, land-use staff, told the board the applicant submitted a decommissioning plan and a 25-year lease with five-year renewal terms and that the file includes the project narrative, construction plan and soil information. Smith said the county’s solar energy system ordinance appears in Article 19 of the county zoning ordinance and that the project is on property zoned A-1 in Cannon Township. She also noted state-level reporting and permitting obligations and recommended conditions the commission could attach, including a requirement that the owner notify the county after the 25-year lease period whether the project will be decommissioned or renewed, that a copy of MPCA construction-stormwater permit be filed with the building permit, and that the county reserve the right to require financial security equal to 125% of the decommissioning cost estimate in the plan.

Why it matters: commissioners raised taxpayer-protection and long-term-liability questions tied to decommissioning, potential abandonment and the possibility that project parcels could be split from larger parental parcels. Several commissioners said the county has not historically required bonds for solar projects and that imposing one now would be a major policy shift; others pressed staff to research how other counties handle financial security and whether the county should prevent splitting parcels that host utility-scale projects so tax-forfeiture and cleanup costs remain paired with sufficient land value to recoup costs.

Cole Buran, who attended on behalf of New Leaf Energy, was present to answer questions, Smith said. Board discussion focused on three issues: whether to require a financial security/bond tied to decommissioning costs; whether to prohibit splitting a solar site into separately taxable parcels; and whether to treat large solar projects differently from smaller installations or from other land uses that may create long-term cleanup costs (for example, manure storage sites or gravel mines). Several commissioners recommended broader study rather than imposing a new bond requirement on this single project.

A commissioner moved to approve the conditional-use permit but then withdrew the motion after extended discussion. The board then voted to table the matter to the board’s next regular meeting to give staff time to gather comparative county practices and to clarify options for tying land, bonds or other financial-security mechanisms to projects. The applicant had told staff it could accommodate a short delay.

What the record shows: planning staff listed the lease length (25 years with the option to renew in five-year increments), the proposal’s footprint (about 35 acres of a 120-acre parcel), and the applicant’s need to obtain interconnection and state permits. The Planning Advisory Commission recorded no public comments at its hearing.

The board’s action was procedural: the conditional-use permit was tabled for further study; there was no vote to approve, deny or modify the permit on the record.

Next steps: staff will return with research about financial-security practices used by other counties, options for preventing parcel splits tied to utility-scale projects, and any ordinance language the board could consider if it wishes to apply different rules to projects above a given acreage or other thresholds.