County hears hours of public comment, agency reports on proposed Sundance Solar and battery project

Elbert County planning staff recommended the Board of County Commissioners approve both a major 10‑41 permit (case 2024‑1310) and a Special Use by Review (SUR2024‑0028) for the proposed Sundance Solar and battery energy storage facility, but commissioners recessed the hearing after extended presentations and public comment and did not issue final votes on either application during the session.

Jennifer Jones, planning manager with the Elbert County Planning Department, presented the applications and staff findings. Jones said the proposed site lies at the southeast corner of Kiowa‑Bennett Road and County Road 154, is about 1,100 acres of land currently zoned Agriculture, and includes a development footprint of roughly 600 acres. The project would locate solar arrays, an on‑site substation and up to 50 megawatts of battery energy storage (BESS) with up to 74.9 megawatts of solar generation; Jones said a corresponding road‑use agreement and development agreement would be required and were being finalized as recommended conditions of approval.

Cypress Creek Renewables representatives presented the project. Peter Moritz Burke, vice president of development for the company’s western region, said Cypress Creek expects the project to generate local tax revenue and community contributions including scholarships and a community working group. Senior project developer Zach Bartholomew described technical details: tracking solar arrays with a maximum panel height of about 15 feet when fully tilted, containerized battery units with a maximum structure height of about 10 feet, an approximately 1,000‑foot voluntary setback from Kiowa‑Bennett Road and a 200‑foot setback along County Road 154, and an on‑site interconnection to a nearby existing CORE substation. Bartholomew said the developer had updated surveys, environmental studies and geotechnical work since the project was first approved in 2018 and that Cypress Creek and CORE had a power purchase agreement executed in late 2024.

Staff recited the applicable approval criteria. For the major 10‑41 permit, staff summarized Article 17 criteria (including protection of water quality and supply, avoidance of hazards, habitat impacts, traffic and sustainability principles) and recommended approval with conditions including a financial security (bond or irrevocable letter of credit) for decommissioning and the requirement to execute a road‑use and development agreement. Jones said the Planning Commission had recommended denial of both the 10‑41 permit and the SUR (7‑2 votes) citing concerns about compatibility, archaeological sites and the industrial nature of the use for agricultural property; staff’s analysis differed and recommended approval with conditions.

Public comment stretched through dozens of speakers and several hours. Residents and stakeholders who opposed the project raised repeated concerns about:

- Fire and emergency response: volunteers noted Kiowa Fire District’s limited staffing and water supply, questioned response times to a site with a single access road and expressed worry about thermal runaway events in lithium batteries and the difficulty of extinguishing or containing such fires. - Evacuation and traffic: many speakers said County Road 154 is a dead‑end road with a single entry/exit for adjacent neighborhoods and that heavy construction traffic and temporary road impacts could impede evacuation during an emergency. - Environmental and water concerns: commenters expressed worry about panel breakage, runoff into Kiowa Creek and effects on wells and wildlife habitat. Colorado Parks and Wildlife had coordinated with the applicant and provided guidance on fence design, wildlife corridors and avoidance measures; staff included CPW’s recommendations in the record. - Visual and property‑value impacts: several residents said the simulations did not fully reflect nearby homes and that the project would degrade the rural aesthetic.

Project proponents, including representatives from Cypress Creek and contractor McCarthy Companies, emphasized economic and grid benefits: Cypress Creek presented a fiscal analysis that estimated roughly $9.8 million in cumulative county revenue over 40 years, a one‑time 2% construction fee (about $3.4 million) payable to the county before mobilization, an estimated 50–250 construction jobs and roughly four permanent operations jobs, and the capacity to serve approximately 15,000 homes on the CORE system. The applicant described community investments, a scholarship program and a community working group that would distribute local funds.

Technical and agency responses were included in the hearing record. The Colorado Division of Water Resources said the project will not use wells for operations; Colorado Parks and Wildlife worked with the applicant on fencing, wildlife corridors, gates for animal egress and suggested game cameras; CORE noted its easements and clearance requirements for interconnection. Public Health and Kiowa Fire District reviewed septics, construction permit needs and fire‑safety checklists; Kiowa Fire approved the applicant’s solar checklist and requested emergency trainings.

Cypress Creek and its contractors described mitigation measures: 8‑foot agricultural mesh fencing (no barbed wire), buried collection and interconnection lines, containerized battery systems with manufacturer testing and NFPA 855–compliant designs, a decommissioning bond to cover removal costs (company liability), and annual first‑responder trainings. The applicant also proposed beige or brown fence colors rather than standard green and a wildlife corridor through the fenced area.

County staff noted several recommended conditions of approval if the BOCC ultimately grants the permits: recordation of exhibits within 180 days, execution of a road‑use and development agreement, payment of the 2% construction fee under resolution 22‑39 (SUR fee schedule), and posting of financial security to cover decommissioning. Jones said those agreements were in draft and being finalized.

The board recessed the hearing and continued it to the next day at 10:00 a.m.; no final BOCC decision on the 10‑41 permit or the SUR was recorded in this session.