Montezuma County adopts new utility‑scale solar rules, raises setback to 500 feet

The Montezuma County Board of County Commissioners on Nov. 18 adopted planned land‑use code additions creating Chapter 10 for renewable energy production and formalizing how utility‑scale solar applications will be handled in unincorporated parts of the county.

The board voted unanimously to adopt the published draft with one substantive amendment: a minimum 500‑foot setback measured from the property line for solar projects adjacent to residences, replacing the staff‑proposed 150‑foot standard.

Why it matters: Commissioners said the change responds to public concern about visual and property‑value impacts while allowing projects to proceed through the county’s existing high‑impact and special‑use permit processes. Staff framed the new chapter as intended to tie solar review back into existing zoning and the county’s comprehensive plan goals, including protection of private property rights and agricultural viability.

What the code does: The adopted language limits Chapter 10 to utility‑scale solar and similar energy production and exempts small private systems (roof‑mounted and systems under 100 kW that serve on‑site needs). The code adds:

- A preference (not a requirement) for agrivoltaics in agricultural zoning to encourage dual agricultural and energy uses.

- Visual‑impact mitigation requirements and a minimum setback standard (500 feet from the property line) to address neighbor concerns.

- A panel height limit of 15 feet for arrays, while allowing interconnection equipment to exceed that height and exempting agrivoltaic systems from the 15‑foot cap to permit grazing and other agricultural uses beneath panels.

- Decommissioning plans that require removal of above‑ and below‑ground equipment, access roads and firebreaks within six months of ceasing operations and site revegetation per the landowner’s specifications.

- Financial assurance language authorizing the county to require security (cash deposit, irrevocable bond, letter of credit or equivalent) adequate to cover construction, mitigation and reclamation; the draft limits the amount to no more than 125% of the estimated cost and requires review at least every five years.

Staff and public debate: County counsel and planning staff urged a flexible, site‑by‑site approach and emphasized that many environmental and technical studies (surface and groundwater, floodplain, wildlife mitigation, scenic byways, CDOT reviews) remain required as part of any high‑impact permit submittal. Staff said the proposed financial‑assurance framework aims to ensure funds are available to reclaim sites if operators fail to do so.

Public commenters were divided. Eleanor McFarland urged stronger wildfire, vegetation and wildlife protections and asked that the county consult NRCS and Mesa County guidance. Mary Anne Mait, who supported the code and lifting the moratorium, said local projects could provide needed revenue and cited a county assessor estimate that one proposed project could yield about $250,000 a year. Don Howell and multiple speakers asked for an extension of the moratorium and for clearer definitions of project sizes and cumulative density, while many others urged the board not to reinstate a ban and to allow projects to come forward under the new rules.

Representative quotes from the hearing include staff reading the financial assurance cap: "the amount of financial security shall not exceed 125% of the estimated cost of taking the action that it secures" (staff). Pro‑solar public commenter Mary Anne Mait said, "Continuing the moratorium ... is not the answer. Be the leaders we need." Opponents emphasized reclamation and cumulative‑impact concerns.

What happened next: Commissioner Lindsey moved to adopt the published amendments with a revised 500‑foot setback from the property line; the motion passed by a 3‑0 voice vote. The board closed the hearing and returned the matter to normal planning and permitting procedures.

What remains open: The code as adopted leaves some technical thresholds and detailed performance standards to the high‑impact and special‑use review process and future amendments. Several speakers asked the board to revisit setback distances, cumulative caps and decommissioning detail; commissioners and staff said the code is a living document that can be adjusted with additional public hearings.