Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sherburne County tables proposed 3.5 MW solar farm, asks staff for more analysis
Summary
Sherburne County commissioners voted to table a requested 40‑year interim use permit for a 3.5 megawatt solar farm in Big Lake Township and a related comprehensive plan amendment, directing staff to gather more information on wetlands, property values, access and legal findings and to return the matter for public hearing before June 2, 2026.
Sherburne County commissioners on March 17 voted to table consideration of a proposed 3.5 megawatt solar farm and a related comprehensive land‑use amendment to allow staff to gather more information and return the matter for another public hearing before June 2, 2026.
Planning staff summarized the project as a Minnesota Municipal Power Agency proposal to place a 3.5 MW photovoltaic facility on roughly 38 acres in Big Lake Township, using about 30 acres because of wetlands. Staff said a wetland delineation and approvals were completed and the applicant had applied for both a dimminimis and a no‑loss wetland permit under the Wetland Conservation Act. The applicant requested a 40‑year interim use permit and proposed perimeter screening and a farm‑style fence if approved, the planner said.
Lynn, the county planner, told the board: “They are proposing to put a 3.5 megawatt solar farm on the property. … There was a wetland delineation done on this property that was approved in October of 2025.” Commissioners pressed staff on several technical points and recent filings that arrived after the planning commission hearing.
Commissioners said they wanted clearer analysis of wetlands impacts, potential effects on nearby property values, and whether the proposed layout could create a landlocked parcel or access concerns. Commissioner Felber said he was uncomfortable deciding the issue without additional record evidence and moved to table the request for roughly 60 days. “I would absolutely make a motion to table this around 60 days for additional staff research,” Felber said. The motion instructed staff to notify the applicant as required by statute, to extend the 60‑day review period, and to prepare information addressing wetlands, neighborhood impacts and the legal bases for approval or denial.
The board carried the motion by voice vote and made the same procedural decision for the associated comprehensive plan amendment. County staff noted that if the item returns, it will be set for a public hearing before the board and that staff will prepare findings and any additional documentation needed for a final decision.
Next steps: staff will compile the requested analysis and return the application and proposed plan amendment to the board for a public hearing and vote prior to the new April–June statutory deadline.
