Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenter urges Morrow County review of Mount Gillette solar zoning, cites ownership rule
Summary
A public commenter asked Morrow County commissioners to review a recent zoning approval for the Mount Gillette community solar project, arguing the applicant submitted materials too late for adequate review and that county code requires the owner listed in the auditor’s records to match the project owner.
A public commenter told the Morrow County Board of Commissioners that the Mount Gillette community solar proposal was rushed through the zoning process and may not comply with the county's ownership requirement.
"I'm here, obviously, about the Mount Gillette solar project...They submitted this proposal less than a week prior to the zoning meeting," the commenter said, adding the submission totaled "over 500 pages" split across multiple emails. The commenter asked commissioners to consider a 30-day tabling so the community and the zoning commission could fully review the materials.
The speaker also cited a zoning-code provision they identified in the hearing as "section 145, letter e," saying it requires that "the owner shall be that person named in the [county] Auditor of Records." The commenter said the listed owner for the project would not be the operating company but rather a party outside the county and that, in the speaker's view, the discrepancy merited closer review or corrective action. "Now my understanding that Metropolitan is not gonna own this facility. He's just gonna lease it," the commenter said.
Another participant in the discussion noted that an appeals process exists and that zoning actions can be challenged through that process. No commissioner made a formal motion at this meeting to reopen or remand the zoning approval.
Why it matters: Community solar projects are typically sited and permitted at the local level; questions about whether the recorded owner matches the operator can affect who holds legal responsibility for the site, tax and assessment obligations, and who can be required to address decommissioning or other long-term obligations.
What’s next: The board did not take formal action on the zoning matter during this session. The commenter asked for a 30-day delay; commissioners did not approve a tabling motion on the record. Appeals or further review would follow the county zoning process as available to affected parties.
