Montrose County planning staff and commissioners debate draft renewable-energy zoning rules

Planning staff presented a broad rewrite of Montrose County’s renewable-energy zoning rules at a special planning commission meeting, prompting a detailed review by commissioners and extended public comment from solar industry representatives and residents.

The draft would divide renewable facilities into ‘‘small-scale’’ and ‘‘large-scale’’ projects with a 5-megawatt AC threshold, add a separate designation for battery energy storage systems (BESS) and set application requirements including site photos, impact analyses and decommissioning plans. The staff presenter summarized the scope as ‘‘the bulk of the amendment is related to power generation facilities including dividing uses between large scale renewable energy facilities and small scale renewable energy facilities, battery energy storage systems, both accessory and stand alone’’ (Staff member).

Why it matters: the proposed changes shift many large projects into a special-use review process and formalize safety, reclamation and mitigation requirements officials say are intended to protect view sheds, adjacent property owners and public infrastructure while enabling renewable development.

Industry and resident concerns: several speakers told the commission they generally supported the draft but urged adjustments to avoid creating barriers for smaller, community-based projects. ‘‘I think those decommissioning requirements are a bit onerous,’’ said Lou Belair, co-owner of Elastos Solar, urging a less burdensome financial-security timeline. Public commenter Tony Hoag warned the bond and decommissioning requirements could ‘‘stop a lot of those projects before they get out the door’’ and suggested bonding be focused on large-scale facilities.

Technical clarifications and definitions: commenters and staff discussed whether capacity thresholds should be measured in AC rather than DC. Isaac Ketchum, who said he works at 3040 Arrow Tech, asked that definitions clarify alternating-current (AC) ratings — staff agreed AC is a clearer standard for grid export and sizing. Commissioners also debated whether to keep a lower trigger (1 MW) in the definitions to avoid on-site projects being mischaracterized as small-scale generation.

BESS and safety: the draft adds both accessory and stand-alone BESS designations; staff described different chemistries and risk profiles and said application requirements (fire mitigation and suppression plans) could be calibrated to the technology. Staff noted some chemistries have had fire incidents while others, like lithium iron phosphate, appear to have lower incident records.

Setbacks, buffering and visual protections: the draft proposes minimum setbacks (50 feet from property lines for panels, 200 feet from off-site residential structures, substations at least 500 feet from residences) and a combination of setbacks, berms, fences and landscaping to mitigate glare and visual impacts. Staff said negotiated reductions between adjacent owners could be allowed in some cases but commissioners discussed adding a lower bound for reductions to prevent extreme encroachments.

Decommissioning and reclamation: the draft requires an engineer-prepared cost estimate, reclamation plan and financial security. Staff proposed removal to 36 inches below the surface; industry groups suggested 24 inches as a reasonable alternative. Commissioners flagged possible conflicts with buried utilities and discussed exemptions allowing certain facilities to remain with BOCC approval.

Other additions: the draft would explicitly allow ‘‘natural medicine’’ production in industrial districts (with separation requirements prohibiting siting within a quarter mile of schools, churches and daycares) and treat massage-therapy businesses as a defined commercial use that counties may regulate to distinguish legitimate practices from illicit operations. Staff also proposed impact-analysis requirements and consultation with CPW for wildlife assessments.

Next steps: staff said the work will continue, staff will refine definitions and red lines, and the item is expected to return to a future meeting for further consideration. The planning commission did not take a final vote at the session; commissioners indicated the draft will be revised and discussed again (next scheduled discussion noted for March).