Winona County board approves Lytle’s Orchard conditional use permit for 1.5 MW community solar, adds safety and screening conditions
Loading...
Summary
After hours of public testimony and commissioner questions about viewshed, stacking of nearby solar farms, decommissioning and tax treatment, the Winona County Board approved a conditional use permit for a 1.5 megawatt community solar project at Lytle’s Orchard with two added conditions: TCLP-type toxicity testing for panels and a developer discussion with the adjacent cooperative about moving the array west if feasible.
The Winona County Board of Commissioners voted to approve a conditional use permit for a 1.5 megawatt community solar garden proposed on land owned by Lytle’s Orchard, concluding a lengthy public hearing and deliberation that focused on visual impacts, grid capacity and long-term liabilities.
County planning staff described the application as triggering review under sections of the county zoning code, including parts of the Mississippi River Bluffs overlay district that require heightened review for projects with potential viewshed impacts. Planner Lou Overhaug said staff’s draft findings and an updated site plan and renderings were supplied to the board after planning commission members deadlocked on a recommendation.
Developers with Sunrise Energy Ventures said they reduced visible panel rows, will use agricultural-style fencing rather than chain link, and intend to submit a landscape-screening plan as a condition of a building permit. Michael Cathcart and Dean Lishow said the arrays are being designed to comply with the ordinance’s slope, bluff and setback limits and to fit Xcel Energy interconnection constraints. The developers said the project is pursuing Minnesota’s LMI community solar rules and must complete Xcel Energy interconnection studies before pulling construction permits.
Neighbors and residents told the board the project will be visible from private homes and warned of a “stacking” effect where multiple nearby solar installations create concentrated industrialized development on formerly agricultural parcels. Garth Zanky, whose home sits adjacent to the Lytle parcel, said his living room and deck face the bowl-shaped site and that he expects the project to be “industrial looking” from his property.
Commissioners raised concerns about whether the project sets a new visual standard for Apple Blossom Drive (a scenic byway) and whether multiple co-located projects on the same landowner’s property should be treated as a single development for taxation and permitting. Commissioners also pressed developers on decommissioning surety and who bears long-term responsibility if ownership changes.
Rather than denying the permit, the board approved the staff findings and granted the CUP with two explicit additional conditions requested during deliberations: the panels proposed for use must pass toxicity/leaching certification (the EPA’s TCLP or equivalent testing specification) as a condition of approval, and the developer must pursue a documented discussion with MyEnergy (the neighboring cooperative) about whether relocating some panels to the west is technically and contractually feasible and report back to the county. The board recorded one abstention (Commissioner Elsing) and approved the permit by voice vote.
Developers told the board they would submit a detailed landscaping and screening plan for approval, and they agreed to include any screening measures that block direct views from neighboring properties as part of the permit conditions. Staff noted the county will hold required escrow for decommissioning funded by the solar company and that the permit runs with the land subject to that agreement.
What’s next: The developer will return with final landscaping and screening plans and the required interconnection paperwork. The board’s approval is subject to the stated conditions; if any condition is unmet the county retains enforcement options, including suspension of permits.
Speakers quoted or paraphrased in this report are listed in the meeting record. The conditional use permit was approved by the Winona County Board with conditions and an abstention; the vote was handled by voice, and the record shows the motion passed.
