Montezuma County planning commission recommends denial of Canyonland Solar permit after hours of public comment

The Montezuma County Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously Thursday to recommend denial of a high-impact special-use permit for the proposed Canyonland Solar project, a utility-scale photovoltaic proposal sited on roughly 960 acres near Goodman Point.

The vote follows a public hearing in Cortez that included a planning-department summary of agency comments, a presentation by the applicant, Canyonland Solar LLC (a subsidiary of UV Inc.), and more than two hours of public comment from neighbors and other county residents. Commissioners Armstrong, Lynch and Doyle voted to recommend denial to the Board of County Commissioners.

The developer and planning staff gave differing technical summaries during the hearing. Planning staff described materials in the county file that characterize the proposal as a roughly 140-megawatt facility occupying about 960 acres of primarily agricultural land and noted agency review comments were on file. David Kimmett, manager of planning for UV, described the submission as a 40-megawatt photovoltaic facility during his presentation and said the proposal does not include battery energy storage. Kimmett said the project would connect to the existing Tri-State transmission system and that panel arrays would be mounted on tracking racks with 590-watt panels.

Why it matters: Commissioners framed the decision around the county land-use code and zoning. Commissioners and many public speakers said the project would change long-standing agricultural use on Goodman Point, raise concerns about water use and dust during construction, and risk wildlife and archaeological impacts near Canyons of the Ancients. The planning commission’s recommendation sends the application to the Board of County Commissioners with the commission’s formal opposition.

Most important facts

- Proposal and site: County staff and the applicant said the site plan covers roughly 940–960 acres of privately owned land; the applicant reported having option agreements on about 3,700 acres across 15 parcels owned by 10 landowners. The county notice named the applicant as Canyonland Solar LLC, agent David Kimmett, and multiple property owners listed in the public notice.

- Power and equipment: The record contains two characterizations: a planning department excerpt referencing a 140-megawatt figure and the developer’s presentation stating a 40-megawatt photovoltaic facility. The applicant repeatedly said the current application does not include a battery energy storage system (BESS) and stated a BESS is not planned or permitted as part of the submitted proposal.

- Water and construction: The Division of Water Resources (District 7) wrote that the project application indicates no water for long-term operations but estimates 700–775 acre-feet will be required for construction, to be delivered by truck. DWR said any construction water should be sourced locally and cautioned about potential interactions with existing water rights or irrigation ditches.

- Wildlife and cultural resources: Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) reviewed the materials and mapped parts of the project area as Mule Deer Wild Concentration Area and High Priority Habitat; CPW recommended wildlife-friendly fencing (modeled after Colorado Department of Transportation 8-foot woven-wire fencing), avoiding panels near canyon edges, and creating gaps between fenced arrays to permit big-game movement. Woods Canyon Archaeological Consultants performed archaeological surveys; portions of those reports are protected under federal rules and not publicly posted in full.

Public comment and concerns

Dozens of residents spoke during the public-comment period. Common themes included: - Protection of agricultural land and local farming heritage; multiple speakers said good farmland and dryland crops would be permanently removed from production. - Water availability and sourcing during construction and the potential effect on local irrigation users; residents asked the applicant and county to identify exact water sources before the Board of County Commissioners acts. - Wildlife, viewshed and cultural resources: commenters urged stronger mitigation for wildlife movement, voiced concerns about visibility from local public lands and national monuments, and asked for more detailed archaeological review of known sites and kivas in drainage areas. - Decommissioning and financial assurance: speakers pressed for firm, up-front surety or bonds to guarantee site cleanup and decommissioning, not a delayed or partially funded requirement.

What the applicant said

David Kimmett and Nick Miller of UV presented the project’s plans, mitigation sub-plans (decommissioning, dust control, fire protection, noxious-weed management, revegetation), and community-benefit proposals including potential school arrays and donations to local fire and 4-H programs. Kimmett said the company has changed the site design repeatedly after community and agency feedback, increasing residential buffers from early proposals to a stated minimum of 800 feet from known houses. He said the generation tie line would connect the project substation in the southwestern portion of the site to an existing main switch substation roughly 3,000 feet away and described coordination with local road-and-bridge staff about hauling routes and bonding.

Agency input cited in the record

- Division of Water Resources (DWR): construction water estimated at roughly 700–775 acre-feet to be trucked in; DWR requires local sourcing and notes potential interactions with existing irrigation features. - Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW): identified habitat sensitivity near canyon rims and recommended design changes including higher fencing standards and removal of arrays near canyon edges to preserve movement corridors. - Local fire protection: project fire-protection plan reviewed by Lewis Areola Fire Protection District Chief George Devers; the applicant said it revised design to set back from draws and discussed a community-benefit commitment for equipment donations.

Commission discussion and vote

Commissioners questioned the applicant on generation tie lines, potential for a future BESS, panel spacing and agrivoltaics, construction traffic and road impacts, water sourcing, and decommissioning assurances. Commissioner statements during deliberation focused on conformity with the county’s land-use code and zoning. One commissioner argued that utility-scale renewable developments belong in a heavy industrial zoning district and not as a permitted use on agricultural land without rezoning. Following discussion, a motion to recommend denial was made and seconded; the commission voted Aye (Armstrong, Lynch, Doyle), 3-0, to recommend denial to the Board of County Commissioners.

Next steps

The planning commission’s recommendation is advisory; the Board of County Commissioners will consider the application at a later public hearing. County staff noted that road-use bonds and conditions of approval are within the commissioners’ authority and that the Board may impose surety, mitigation conditions, or require rezoning if it wishes.

Ending note

The hearing drew broad local participation and robust agency comments. The record shows unresolved questions the Board of County Commissioners can require staff and the applicant to address if the matter appears on a future agenda: exact construction-water sourcing, financial assurance and timing for decommissioning, firm road-impact bonding, and additional wildlife and cultural-site mitigations.