Reno County Planning Commission votes to forward proposed Article 26 solar regulations and resolution to county commissioners

The Reno County Planning Commission on Feb. 20 voted to forward proposed Article 26 of the county zoning regulations and a companion resolution to the Board of County Commissioners for review. The proposal sets standards and processes for commercial solar energy systems, including developer and decommissioning plans, siting limits and technical requirements.

County planner Mark Lianston told the commission staff had incorporated the panel’s prior direction and additional clarifications into a clean draft for consideration. Key elements include a requirement that applicants submit a developer’s plan — renamed to distinguish it from a developer agreement — that must include a decommissioning plan and indemnification; specification that “if applicable” means an external permit must be obtained if required by county, state or federal law; and a requirement that applicants pay county-determined costs for studies and information needed to review projects.

On siting and scale, the draft regulation would cap any single commercial solar project at 1,200 contiguous acres (public road right-of-way excluded from the acreage calculation but not considered a barrier to contiguity) and would bar a commercial solar facility from locating within 3 miles of another approved commercial solar facility. The draft also retains a prohibition on placing any part of a solar facility within a regulatory floodway, and it prefers locating panels outside special flood hazard areas where feasible.

The commission debated several procedural and drafting questions. Commissioners sought clarity about the practical effect of the developer’s plan, which will be signed by the county commission after conditional-use approval. Staff and several commissioners said the document is intended to be a predictable list of items the county may require at project-specific development-plan stage — for example, road agreements, groundwater monitoring or vegetation plans — and that making those topics a resolution rather than placing all specifics in the text of the zoning ordinance makes it easier to update over time.

The commission also revised technical language in the draft. The operation standards originally required applicants to “mitigate” microwave, radio, telecommunications or navigation interference; commissioners opted to change that term to “eliminate” and added that applicants must take timely measures necessary to address any such interference, referencing applicable federal authority where relevant. The vegetation plan language was clarified to allow grass suitable for livestock grazing as acceptable ground cover if the lease agreement with the landowner specifies it.

On procedural timing, planners added a definition clarifying what constitutes “commencement of construction” for purposes of the regulation’s deadlines: physical alteration of the lease land such as parking equipment or other construction activity will trigger the project’s commencement date and associated time limits.

Commissioners voted to forward the draft Article 26 and the companion resolution to the county commissioners with the edits discussed at the meeting. The planning staff said the county commission will be asked to hold a study session before a public hearing, and the resolution can be amended by the commissioners as part of their review process.

The vote to forward the regulations and the resolution passed by roll call; commissioners present voted in favor. The documents will be provided to the county commission for study and potential adoption with or without further amendments.