Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Keith County commissioners table one solar project and approve another after debate over aesthetics, decommissioning and safety
Summary
Commissioners tabled Midwest Electric’s 1 MW solar and battery proposal (CUP 24-13) to gather more technical and financial assurances, but approved a separate 500 kW permit (CUP 24-14) after discussion of glare, setbacks and the applicant’s decommissioning plan.
Keith County Board of Commissioners members spent a large portion of the Nov. 13 meeting debating two Midwest Electric conditional-use permit applications for ground-mounted solar arrays and associated battery storage.
One proposal, conditional use permit 24-13, would place a 1-megawatt solar array with battery storage on 9.9 acres leased from property owner Janice Spurgeon about 4.7 miles southeast of Paxton. Planning staff said the county planning commission recommended approval after the applicant revised its decommissioning plan to include numbers previously missing from the packet. Jason Bishop, identified in the record as general manager of Midwest Electric, described the project site, lease arrangements and a decommissioning plan and told commissioners he is pursuing USDA loan paperwork tied to federal infrastructure funding streams.
Commissioners and members of the public raised several concerns: neighbors and one commenter argued the county should not approve the Paxton-area project while another rural solar proposal was denied by the planning commission; several commissioners asked for clearer, bond-backed decommissioning terms and for the county’s technical staff to review equipment and operations. Commissioner Joan and others said they wanted the county’s technical “expert” (Corey) present to offer a formal opinion on site plans, bonding and equipment compatibility before making a decision. After extended discussion about aesthetics, remaining technical questions and a request for a specific financial surety approach, the board voted to table CUP 24-13 for one week to allow staff and the applicant time to provide additional documentation.
The other project, conditional use permit 24-14, proposed a 500-kilowatt array with battery storage on a north strip alongside Highway 26. Planning staff reported the planning commission had recommended denial for that site because of incompatibility with surrounding uses, and the applicant supplied a glare analysis and site photos for the board packet. Jack Cook Coyle, identified as a solar energy consultant with Premier Energy, told the board the proposed arrays are compatible with surrounding farming uses, described panel size and dual-axis tracking, and said the glare study showed only brief periods of potential glare at sunrise and sunset during parts of the year.
Despite the planning commission’s recommendation of denial, commissioner Schroeder moved to approve CUP 24-14; the motion passed on roll call with all members voting yes. The board attached conditions discussed during the hearing, including a haul-road agreement with the county highway department and the site plan presented to the board.
What’s next: CUP 24-13 will return to the board at the next meeting with additional documentation on decommissioning financial assurance and technical review; the county approved CUP 24-14 with conditions and will proceed with any required administrative follow-up.
