Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Pl25130 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves 5‑megawatt Farmcrest shared solar farm; accepts siting agreement
Summary
After a lengthy staff presentation and applicant Q&A, the board approved a special‑use permit for a 5 MW shared solar array on Farmcrest Drive and accepted a county siting agreement that would bring recurring payments if the project is later approved through land‑use process.
Campbell County supervisors voted 4‑2 to approve Special Use Permit PL25130, clearing the way for a proposed 5‑megawatt shared solar facility on about 22.3 acres at 144 Farmcrest Drive.
Planning staff described the project as a tracking array mounted on driven posts, secured by an eight‑foot fence and a self‑locking gate. The Planning Commission had recommended approval by a 5‑1 vote. County administration presented a separate siting (signing) agreement from the applicant that would deliver two one‑time $30,000 payments at certain construction triggers and an ongoing payment schedule that county staff estimated could total roughly $857,691.65 over a 40‑year term if the land‑use approval proceeds.
The applicant, Griff Jones of New Energy Equity, told the board the company had submitted a detailed landscape and screening plan with 5‑ to 6‑foot trees at planting and had omitted salvage value from its decommissioning‑bond estimate to ensure funds are available to restore the site at end of life. Jones said decommissioning estimates would be reviewed every five years and that the project would generate no demand for water, sewer, roads or schools during operations.
Supervisors asked for technical clarifications: who may subscribe to the shared‑solar offering (customers of the local utility APCO), how decommissioning bonds work, whether salvage value is included (staff and applicant said it was not), and whether geotechnical surveys would address bedrock and well‑safety concerns. The applicant offered to sample nearby wells before construction as a baseline and to adjust screening if neighboring property owners remove trees.
Before the land‑use vote the board separately accepted the applicant’s siting agreement—an administrative step that staff characterized as not predetermining any later land‑use decision. After an initial motion to deny failed on a 3‑3 tie, the board approved the special‑use permit 4‑2.
The approval allows the county to move forward with conditions required by the permit process, including decommissioning bond and state and federal permits. The board and staff said they would continue work on county code amendments to address solar projects and broader siting guidance in the coming months. The project’s final construction and operation remain contingent on permit compliance and prescribed conditions.
