Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Renewables topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission reviews proposed zoning changes for power generation, battery storage and other uses; schedules follow‑up
Summary
Commissioners began a detailed review of proposed zoning amendments addressing large‑ and small‑scale renewable energy, battery energy storage systems (BESS), agrivoltaics incentives, PPA timelines, decommissioning securities, and new use designations for natural medicine and massage businesses; the hearing will continue with workshops and written comments and a special follow‑up was scheduled.
The Planning Commission opened a lengthy public hearing Feb. 27 on a draft zoning regulations amendment that would change how Montrose County classifies and permits power‑generation projects and add new use and definition language for other activities.
Key elements staff described include: categorizing large‑scale renewable energy facilities (those with capacity above roughly 5 megawatts) as special‑use projects; creating a separate small‑scale solar category (1–5 megawatts) that would be a permitted site development in certain districts; explicitly identifying standalone battery energy storage systems (BESS) and treating standalone BESS as requiring a special use permit unless accessory to a permitted renewable facility; and adding design and operational standards such as setbacks, dust‑mitigation plans, FAA glare coordination within three miles of airports, decommissioning plans, and financial securities (performance bonds/irrevocable bonds) for decommissioning.
Commissioners and members of the public questioned specific provisions. Commissioners queried whether the proposed two‑year time limit to secure a power purchase agreement (PPA) is realistic for large projects; public commenters with development experience said multi‑year timelines are not uncommon and urged flexibility. The commission discussed agrivoltaics incentives — reducing buffering/landscaping requirements if panels are paired with agriculture — and debated a clause allowing reduced setbacks by negotiated agreement with adjacent owners (several commissioners expressed concern about long‑term enforceability and buyer awareness of negotiated setbacks).
Public commenters included renewable‑energy industry representatives and local energy experts who urged caution on onerous decommissioning and bonding requirements for smaller projects and asked that small standalone BESS be considered for use‑by‑right at an appropriate size threshold. County staff said the draft was an initial working version that incorporated Board of County Commissioners direction and outside stakeholder input; they recommended more time to workshop the draft. Several residents and stakeholders pledged written comments and asked for further economic and technical nuance in thresholds and remediation rules.
The commission did not finalize the regulations and voted to continue deliberations; commissioners set a follow‑up workshop/meeting (targeted March 11) and agreed to accept written comments for the record. Staff signaled additional packet material and drafting will follow prior to the next session.
Next steps: commissioners will workshop the draft between meetings, incorporate written comments, and aim to issue a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration in coming months; additional public outreach and review will continue.
