Sherburne County denies land‑use change and interim permit for 3.5 MW Elk River solar project after contested hearing

The Sherburne County Board of Commissioners voted April 7 to deny a request by Minnesota Municipal Power Agency and developer US Solar to reclassify roughly 38 acres in Big Lake Township from rural residential to energy production and to approve an interim use permit for a proposed 3.5‑megawatt solar farm known as Elk River Solar.

The decision followed a second public hearing and extensive public comment. The planning advisory commission had earlier recommended denial by a 6–1 vote, and staff presented follow‑up research on three issues the board had requested: potential property‑value impacts (staff cited a 0 to –4% range in some analyses), access for an adjacent lot (public works confirmed an access solution), and wetland review (a Technical Evaluation Panel issued a "no loss" wetland determination in the permitting process).

Residents who live adjacent to the site urged denial at the hearing, citing the project’s proximity to homes, the presence of wetlands and wildlife habitat, and concerns about property values. "We, the undersigned residents and property owners, respectfully request that Sherburne County commissioners maintain existing residential zoning and oppose the placement of a large scale solar farm," Big Lake Township resident Mike Wirz told the board while presenting a petition with 108 signatures opposing the project.

Courtney Wirtz, another nearby resident, framed the vote as a question of plan consistency. "This isn’t about being against solar," she said. "The county has approved many solar projects before, but those were placed where they didn’t disrupt natural systems to this degree. That consistency matters." Wirtz pointed the board to Chapter 5, Policy 7 of the Sherburne County 2040 comprehensive plan, arguing the denial findings more closely tied facts to policy than the approval findings did.

The applicant’s attorney, Tim Kelly, asked the board to approve the applications, saying the record showed MMPA had satisfied approval criteria. "Access was confirmed not to be an issue," Kelly said, and he pointed to the staff‑provided wetland approval and the Technical Evaluation Panel’s work that led to a no‑loss determination. "There’s no factual basis for concern about the impact to wetlands to deny this project," he told commissioners.

Board members discussed the property‑value studies, topography and screening limitations, and the potential for a seven‑foot security fence and removal of native vegetation to disrupt contiguous habitat. Commissioner Felber, who moved to deny the amendment, said proximity of the solar field to adjacent residences weighed heavily. The motion was amended with a "friendly amendment" to include inconsistency with surrounding neighborhood character and the property‑value articulation; the board adopted the motion and carried it by voice vote.

The resolution the board read into the record cites the Sherburne County 2040 comprehensive plan (Policy 7) and lists the board’s conclusions: potential negative impacts from fencing, vegetation removal and panel posts; the availability of more appropriate locations for solar farms; and concern for property values for immediately adjoining parcels. The board also noted the planning commission’s history of approving solar projects sited in existing farm fields that avoid high‑value natural areas.

The board subsequently moved and carried a second motion denying the interim use permit for the same PID (10‑00113‑1300) on the same basis. Commissioners and staff emphasized that the public hearing record, the planning commission recommendation, and the specific local site conditions formed the factual basis of the denials.

Next steps and effect: the denials are final actions of the county board for the requested comprehensive plan amendment and the interim use permit; the record and findings were entered into the meeting record. County staff noted there was no legal deadline that forced immediate action that night, and commissioners acknowledged the board had reviewed all materials in the administrative record. The developer and applicant representatives were present and were offered the opportunity to pursue administrative or legal options available under county and state law.

Why this matters: the vote illustrates how Sherburne County is weighing renewable‑energy development against locally adopted comprehensive‑plan priorities for habitat and natural‑resource protection, and it underscores the role of proximity and perceived impacts on adjoining residential property values in county land‑use decisions.