Sundance Solar Project Draws Extensive Public Comment; Planning Commission Continues Hearing to April 16

The Planning Commission opened a combined major 10-41 permit and Special Use by Review (SUR) public hearing April 15 for the Sundance Solar project, a proposal by Sundance Solar LLC / Cypress Creek Renewables to construct up to 74.9 megawatts of solar generation with 50 megawatts (4-hour) of battery energy storage on land east of Kiowa Bennett Road and south of County Road 154. After a lengthy staff presentation, developer remarks and more than an hour of public comment and commissioner questioning, the commission voted to continue the hearing to April 16 at 6:00 p.m. to allow additional review and follow-up.

Planning Manager Jennifer Jones summarized the applications and the project site: approximately 1,119 acres under lease, with about 603 acres proposed for the facility footprint; the site is currently zoned Agriculture. Jones said the application requests a major 10-41 permit and a Special Use by Review to operate a utility-scale solar facility with up to 74.9 MW of solar and up to 50 MW of battery storage, including an on-site substation and operations/maintenance building. She reviewed the project timeline (pre-application and community meetings in 2024, formal application submitted December 2024, referral period March 2025) and noted prior approvals from 2018 (BOCC Resolution 18-9) had lapsed.

Jones outlined referral responses and recommended conditions. Among the referral agencies, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) coordinated with the applicant on wildlife mitigation; Division of Water Resources raised issues about wells but the applicant stated wells would not be used for construction water; Kiowa Fire and local fire districts reviewed and provided standard solar requirements; public works required a finalized road-use agreement as a condition of approval; public health required on-site septic for operations and portable toilets during construction. Staff recommended approval of both the 10-41 permit and the SUR, with conditions including recordation, financial security (bond or irrevocable letter of credit sized for the facility lifespan), completion of development agreements and a payment of 2% of the project cost to Elbert County as part of SUR conditions.

Zach Bartholomew (senior project developer, Cypress Creek Renewables) and project team members described siting choices, the project footprint (approximately 603 acres of a larger leasehold), equipment specifications (panels with a maximum tilt height near peak of ~12–15 feet; 8-foot agricultural mesh fencing; containerized battery systems), community engagement and a breakdown of the developer’s economic analysis projecting approximately $9.8 million in cumulative county tax revenue over 40 years. Developer representatives said battery containers would follow NFPA 855 guidance and would include manufacturer-provided emergency response plans; they said batteries for this project are lithium-iron-phosphate (LFP) containerized systems and that design includes spacing, fire suppression strategy and annual first-responder training.

More than two dozen members of the public spoke during the hearing. Supporters included representatives from CORE Electric Cooperative (Mark Jurgenmeier, COO) and some community members who cited local jobs and generation serving CORE’s territory. Speakers opposing or expressing concern raised issues including wildfire and battery storage fire risk, air and soil contamination from large battery incidents, impacts to property values, harm to wildlife and habitat (including Kiowa Creek and pronghorn), visual impacts and adequacy of local emergency response and funding for fire protection. Multiple speakers asked for higher community payments than the 2% SUR condition and for stronger commitments on first-responder equipment and training. Several commenters cited national battery fires (for example, the 2021 Moss Landing fire) and requested detailed, documented emergency-response and evacuation plans and clarity about locations of panel and battery suppliers and of decommissioning financial assurances.

Commissioners asked detailed technical and permitting questions covering site grading, drainage and reclamation, water sourcing for construction (contractor McCarthy said water would come from an irrigation well in Bennett), product sourcing and tariffs, decommissioning bond calculations, proposed setbacks (developer increased setback along County Road 154 to 200 feet), CPW-recommended wildlife mitigation measures (sliding gates for animal egress, game cameras, rounded fence corners and a wildlife corridor to preserve movement), lighting specifics and monitoring/SCADA arrangements for remote surveillance. Applicant, consultant and contractor representatives responded to several technical questions but the commission requested additional documentation and time to review the large packet and public comments.

After the discussion the commission voted to continue the hearing to a set date (April 16 at 6:00 p.m.) to allow staff and commissioners more time to review submitted materials and for applicants to provide requested follow-up: drainage and drainage-basin permanence, decommissioning bond methodology and updates, a copy of the recorded lease/memorandum and final road-use agreement, detailed emergency-response and evacuation coordination with local fire and the county’s emergency management office, and further documentation on economic assumptions and tax revenue allocation. No final votes on the 10-41 permit or SUR were taken at the April 15 meeting.

The commission asked the applicant and staff to provide written responses to the technical and emergency preparedness questions and to share updated exhibits with the public before the continued hearing on April 16.