Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Regulation Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montrose County planning panel rejects stricter solar rules after hours of public comment
Summary
After a multi-hour public hearing, the Montrose County Planning Commission voted 3–2 to deny Alternative 2 — a stricter zoning draft that would have tightened where utility-scale solar and other power-generation facilities can be located — and will forward that recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.
The Montrose County Planning Commission voted 3–2 to deny Alternative 2, a county-drafted zoning amendment that would have tightened siting rules for solar and other power-generation facilities, after a public hearing dominated by residents, industry representatives and commissioners' questions.
The vote followed a staff presentation by Talmadge and more than two hours of public comment. Talmadge said Alternative 2 was circulated after the Board of County Commissioners requested a second alternative and that the new draft focuses on the power-generation sections of the code. "Alternative 2 is based on comments from the board," he told the commission.
The draft proposed several substantive changes from the commission’s earlier recommendation. It replaces megawatt-based sizing with acreage categories (small: up to 5 acres; medium: 5–30 acres; large: 30–100 acres), limits how much of a facility may be located on NRCS-designated prime farmland (a maximum of 30% of the disturbed area, with different aggregating rules in some cases), raises certain setbacks (including a 1,000-foot proximity requirement to existing transmission lines and a scenic-byway buffer requested at two miles by some Board members), and increases required decommissioning financial assurance to 125% of estimated reclamation costs.
Industry and many local residents strongly opposed Alternative 2. Don Coram, who identified himself as a consultant and president of a 501(c)(3), told the commission the new draft was a "stall tactic" and warned it could "lead to court action." Utility and industry speakers urged adoption of the earlier draft (Alternative 1). "At this time, the off-the-shelf availability for renewable technology that works in our region is solar," said Wiley Freeman of San Miguel Power Association, arguing that the county should preserve pathways for local projects that could lower costs for ratepayers.
Commissioners debated trade-offs during deliberations. Some members said a higher reclamation/security requirement better protects taxpayers and the land at end-of-life; others said a 125% bond could make projects financially infeasible and harm prospects for agrivoltaics and small-scale local projects. Commissioners also asked staff for clarity on enforcement, complaint-driven code compliance, and the practical application of the prime-farmland limits.
A motion to deny Alternative 2 was made by a commissioner citing public opposition and the county’s master plan references supporting renewable energy; the chair announced the motion carried 3–2. Under the county’s process the commission’s denial and staff report will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for final action.
What happens next: The Planning Commission’s decision is advisory. The BOCC may accept, modify, or reject the commission’s recommendation. Staff told the commission they will include the commission’s findings and any recommended edits in the staff report to the BOCC.
The commission also spent time during the meeting on related code and implementation items — including buffer/landscape rules, fire-mitigation language, and how acreage-based categories interact with agrivoltaic practices. Those details remain open for comment and potential revision when the BOCC considers the amendment.
