Cache County delays vote on solar code amendment after public hearing, asks for more info
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The council opened public comment on a proposed solar code amendment Oct. 28 but did not vote, instead asking staff and the proponent to provide comparative visuals, decommissioning details and clarification about rezoning implications.
Cache County Council opened public comment Oct. 28 on a proposed code amendment advanced from planning commission that would add specific commercial-solar and battery-storage use types, but council members agreed to continue the item to gather examples, visual materials and policy guidance before deciding.
Staff presentation: Angie Zutterquist, interim development services director, told the council the proposal was initiated by the applicant about 18 months earlier and that planning staff and the planning commission collaborated with the applicant to draft a new chapter (proposed Chapter 17.12) and definitions. The draft separates projects into five categories (small-scale 1'5 acres, community 5'20 acres, commercial >20 acres, battery storage associated with solar, and a prohibited category for concentrated-solar thermal). Small-scale and community projects would be allowed in agricultural, commercial and industrial zones with conditional-use permits; "commercial" facilities as proposed would only be allowed in the industrial zone with a CUP, which the planning commission supported on a 5'1 vote.
Public comment and applicant responses: Cole Stalker, representing the proponent and his company, said the ordinance addresses concerns the county and neighbors raised and argued that large-scale solar is a likely, recurring proposal: "Even if you don't want solar, it's gonna just keep coming," he said, urging clear regulatory standards. Stalker said operators routinely include restoration plans and financial guarantees, and that many facilities support pollinator habitat or grazing under arrays. Applicant Jason Blackham, the local landowner whose Wellsville-area parcel has been discussed elsewhere on the agenda, told the council a portion of his property had been leased and that he is pursuing development that could include site improvements.
Council concerns and continuation: Several council members pressed for limits on project size and highlighted a key planning implication: rezoning to industrial to enable large commercial solar would open a parcel to the full list of industrial uses (manufacturing, warehousing, animal-related uses, private airstrips, crematoriums, etc.). One member described the risk of a developer using a solar project to rezone land and then later seeking unrelated industrial development. Council members asked staff to gather photos of comparable facilities, details on restoration and decommissioning, sunlight-reflection/glint studies and examples from projects in other jurisdictions.
Action taken: The council closed the public comment portion of the hearing and continued the item for additional study and materials. No ordinance was adopted.
Provenance: Planning commission recommendation and August public hearing were cited by staff. Planning commission vote (5'1) and staff'prepared standards appear in the packet.