Chino Valley commission recommends denial of 281‑acre Wilkinson solar project after public hearing

The Chino Valley Planning and Zoning Commission on June 3 voted to recommend denial of Conditional Use Permit CUP2025‑01, a proposal by Prospect 14 to build a photovoltaic solar facility and battery energy storage system on family‑owned land.

The project would place roughly 281 acres of solar array and battery storage on two parcels (parcel numbers cited in materials as 306‑02‑300H and 306‑01‑003H) near 3245 Jerome Junction in Chino Valley. Prospect 14 presented the proposal on behalf of Running W Branch Ranch LLC and Wilkinson Investments LLC. After a staff presentation and more than a dozen public comments for and against the project, the commission voted 4–2 with one abstention to recommend denial to town council; the recommendation is advisory and the council will make the final decision.

Staff and applicant history: Town planning staff recounted a multi‑year review. A prior conditional use permit for a solar farm on the larger site had expired without construction. The town’s general plan and multiple internal reviews led staff to develop a solar ordinance; that ordinance was not approved by council earlier in 2025. Staff said the applicant held a neighborhood meeting on May 15, received at least one written neighbor objection and that staff expanded the draft conditions for a CUP in response to neighbors’ concerns. Staff recommended the commission hold a public hearing and forward the case with its record to council for final action.

Prospect 14 representative Sarah told commissioners the Wilkinson family has been in the area for generations and seeks steady income to keep the ranch in the family. She described the proposal as “a smaller‑scale project, especially for Arizona,” noting the site abuts an APS substation and that the company has “a signed interconnection agreement, that is, currently in suspension and in good standing.” She said the firm is willing to accept the conditions proposed by staff and has identified potential community benefits gathered at the neighborhood meeting, including trail and landscaping improvements, a pilot rainwater collection research project and possible recreational improvements such as a memorial pickleball court.

Neighbors and public commenters raised several recurring concerns: visual impacts and property values, heavy equipment and road wear during construction, fire risk associated with battery storage, the adequacy of setbacks and the possibility that a future owner (for example a utility) could expand or alter the facility. Supporters said the project would supply renewable generation, provide tax revenue to the county and school district and respect private property rights.

Technical and clarifying details discussed at the hearing included: - Project footprint: roughly 281 acres proposed for the array on a larger ~642‑acre property; parcel numbers were cited in the application materials. - Ownership/leasing: Prospect 14 has an option on the full property but proposes leasing about 281 acres; the applicant said land leases run 25–40 years and “probably ask for the full 40” years with renewals possible. - Interconnection: the site is adjacent to an APS substation (Old Home Manor); applicant said it has a signed interconnection agreement currently in suspension but in good standing. - Battery storage: applicant described proposed containerized battery systems and multi‑level suppression systems; commissioners and residents pressed fire‑safety questions and whether panels or batteries had proven cooling or suppression timelines. - Roads and decommissioning: applicant said heavy equipment use is concentrated during a short construction window and offered to maintain or return internal project roads to prior condition; repaving public roads was described as economically infeasible for the project alone. - Wildlife and environmental review: staff said the project has been submitted to Arizona Game and Fish for recommendations and that mitigation measures would be considered. - Taxes and local benefit: applicant presented a third‑party tax estimate showing school district revenue over the life of the project (figures presented on slide were described as a multi‑million‑dollar estimate over 25 years); several commissioners and residents noted the town receives limited direct property tax revenue under current local tax structure and urged applicant to explore payment‑in‑lieu or other community benefit agreements.

A motion to forward CUP2025‑01 to the town council for consideration (neither recommending approval nor denial) failed on a roll‑call vote after commissioners split on whether the planning commission should make an advisory recommendation. A subsequent motion explicitly recommending denial of CUP2025‑01 passed by roll call 4–2 with one abstention; the commission recorded individual votes during the meeting. The recommendation now goes to the Chino Valley Town Council for a final decision.

Applicant representatives and several neighbors asked the council to consider conditions that would address roads, public‑safety protections, tax or community benefit agreements and site landscaping if the council elects to approve the CUP. Town staff advised that, absent an adopted ordinance, the CUP application includes a longer set of staff‑recommended conditions intended to address neighbor concerns.

The commission’s action was advisory; any permits, construction or transfer of ownership would require the town council’s decision and any applicable permits, including further review if the project were expanded beyond the 281‑acre footprint for which the CUP was requested.

The commission closed the public hearing and moved the matter forward accordingly; the town council will schedule the application for its consideration.