Winona County planning panel deadlocks on 1.5 MW Apple Blossom Drive solar project, forwards matter to county board without recommendation

The Winona County Planning Commission deadlocked on a proposed 1.5-megawatt community solar array on land at Lidol’s Orchard and then voted to forward the petition to the Winona County Board without recommending approval.

The application (docket PC31926-2) by Ice House Solar 4 LLC would place a utility-scale solar array in the Agricultural Resource Conservation zoning district and within the Mississippi River Bluffs overlay, triggering multiple conditional-use criteria and special setbacks. After hours of staff presentation, applicant testimony and public comment, a motion to approve the conditional-use permit with staff’s recommended findings and 14 conditions ended in a 4–4 tie; by rule that meant the motion failed. The commission then voted to send the matter to the County Board without a recommendation; the county-level hearing is scheduled for April 14 at 9:00 a.m.

Why it mattered: The parcel sits near a scenic corridor locally called ‘‘Apple Blossom Drive’’ and within bluff protections. Neighbors said the project would harm views, wildlife and local character; the applicant and landowner said the orchard is no longer economically viable and leasing for solar is a way to keep the family property under ownership and generate revenue. Commissioners raised technical and policy questions, including stormwater and erosion control on 12–18% slopes, enforcement when developers sell projects, the adequacy of a $50,000 cash decommissioning escrow, and whether the utility (XL Energy/‘‘Excel’’ in discussion) still has feeder/substation capacity.

Staff presentation and proposed conditions

Planning staff explained the request and said the project triggers four separate ordinance provisions requiring a conditional-use permit: large-scale solar in agricultural-resource conservation districts, Chapter 12.3 solar standards, the Mississippi River Bluffs overlay, and top-of-bluff setbacks. Staff noted required setbacks include 130 feet from County Road 1 centerline, 65 feet from Burns Valley Road centerline, 20 feet minimum side-yard setback, a 300-foot neighboring dwelling setback and a 100-foot top-of-bluff setback. The applicant updated site plans to keep panels outside the most sensitive bluff setback areas, staff said.

Staff listed 14 draft conditions the commission could adopt if it approved the CUP. Those include: a landscape plan with vegetative screening and pollinator-friendly ground cover reviewed with the Soil and Water Conservation District; an erosion control plan meeting county and MPCA standards (a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/MPCA SWPPP may be required); stray-voltage testing; an escrow/decommissioning assurance (cash escrow proposed at $50,000); and conditions placing repair responsibility for township road damage on the developer during construction.

Applicant and utility questions

Michael Cathkart, representing Sunrise Energy Ventures and Ice House Solar 4 LLC, told the commission the company has built similar projects in the region and that this site is in active interconnection study with XL Energy; he said a final interconnection agreement and facility study costs are close to being available. Commissioners repeatedly asked for direct documentation from XL showing remaining feeder/substation hosting capacity, saying published hosting-capacity maps are sometimes misleading. Cathkart said he could provide a recent pre‑application report and noted the project has progressed through system and transmission studies.

Neighbors’ concerns and landowner’s rationale

Multiple neighbors testified. Jenny Zinci identified her home near the site and said Apple Blossom Drive is commonly treated as a scenic byway; she said sunsets, wildlife and public enjoyment would be diminished and that she could already hear a hum from existing transformers on nearby solar installations. Another neighbor, Gar Sinki, said the view from his house faces the slope proposed for panels and raised concerns about property values and screening effectiveness (he cited studies and a 5–10% potential impact figure that he attributed to national comparisons). He asked that staff require stray-voltage testing and robust enforcement of all conditions.

Landowner Kevin Lidle, who said the property has been in his family for generations, said orchards on the parcel are no longer economically viable and leasing for solar is a way to preserve the land in the family. He told the commission that staff’s packet included an analysis that did not flag glare concerns and he disputed some public assertions about remaining orchard productivity.

Tension points in the hearing

Commissioners expressed several recurring concerns: - Visual impact vs. property rights: some members emphasized property-owner rights and the county’s interest in encouraging locally generated renewable energy; others said the panels’ industrial appearance is inconsistent with the bluff-scape and scenic drive designation. - Erosion and stormwater: commissioners wanted stronger assurance that erosion control and SWPPP requirements would prevent runoff during construction on 12–18% slopes; staff said MPCA permits and SWCD review are required before final development certificates. - Decommissioning assurance: staff said applicants submit a decommissioning analysis and the county requires a cash escrow sized to that estimate; commissioners said a fixed $50,000 escrow without an inflation/escalator mechanism is likely insufficient for full reclamation decades from now. - Utility interconnection and local solar access: several commissioners asked for documented proof from XL Energy about feeder/substation capacity. Some said large community projects can effectively block residential-scale solar interconnections once a feeder nears capacity. - Enforcement and developer turnover: commissioners worried that conditions can be hard to enforce when developers reorganize ownership or sell projects; staff noted that conditions run with the property and county enforcement actions are ultimately directed at the property owner.

Commission outcome and next steps

A motion to approve the CUP with staff findings and the 14 conditions plus an added three‑year “use it or lose it” clause (the permit would lapse if not acted on within three years) failed on a 4–4 tie. The commission then voted to forward the petition to the Winona County Board without a formal recommendation. The county board is scheduled to consider the petition at its April 14 meeting; staff said the commission will provide its record and packet materials to the board.

What’s next: The County Board will hold the final decision on the conditional-use permit. Commissioners encouraged staff to collect additional documentation requested at tonight’s hearing — notably evidence of XL Energy interconnection capacity and a more robust approach to decommissioning escrow sizing and landscape/screening standards — so the board can consider those items.

Quotes

"It’s one of the most beautiful areas I’ve ever seen… I think it’s going to ruin that view." — Jenny Zinci, neighbor and public commenter.

"The orchard is no longer economically viable; leasing for solar is a way to keep the property in the family." — Kevin Lidle, landowner.

"We’re in active study with XL; we’re close to facility-study results and an interconnection agreement." — Michael Cathkart, Sunrise Energy Ventures, applicant representative.

Ending

Because the commission did not reach an approving majority, the final decision rests with the Winona County Board at its next scheduled meeting, and staff will supply the board with the full record of testimony, the staff report and draft findings. The planning commission also asked staff to examine decommissioning-escrow standards and to try to obtain clearer utility-hosting-capacity evidence for the county record.