Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mesa County denies homeowners' appeal; upholds Pivot Energy service agreement as basis for site-plan approval
Summary
The Mesa County Board of County Commissioners denied an administrative appeal from the Sobrio/El Rio Homeowners Association challenging whether a Sheriff's mutual-aid letter or county-attorney opinion could satisfy fire-protection requirements for Pivot Energy's community solar site plan. The board concluded the existing service agreement with East Orchard Mesa Fire Protection District met section 8.1(b)(1) of the county Land Development Code and denied the appeal, 3-0.
The Mesa County Board of County Commissioners voted 3-0 on March 10 to deny an administrative appeal by the Sobrio/El Rio Homeowners Association challenging the Planning Division's approval of the Pivot Solar 49 LLC and Pivot Solar 69 LLC site plans.
Planning staff presented the administrative record and said the approval was supported by a service agreement between Pivot Energy and East Orchard Mesa Fire Protection District. The appellant's attorney, Andrew Atkins, argued the record erroneously treated a sheriff's mutual aid agreement and an earlier county-attorney opinion as sufficient substitutes for the annexation or service-agreement requirement in section 8.1(b)(1) of the Mesa County Land Development Code. "We are asking you to use your authority under the county's appeal standards to modify a decision...to make it abundantly clear that the sole basis for approval is the applicant's service agreement," Atkins said.
Nina Hutchins, appearing for the homeowners association, said the county's reliance on the attorney's opinion and mutual-aid language set a precedent that could apply to large-scale industrial or energy projects. She and retired firefighter Jeff Barrino said mutual aid alone does not guarantee on-site suppression, inspections or training that an incorporated fire district would provide.
Planning and county staff, and several commissioners, told the board the administrative record contains both the county-attorney opinion and the executed service agreement; the board's limited review is confined to that record and to whether the planning director erred. Commissioners said the record showed the service agreement provided the basis for clearance under section 8.1(b)(1) and that expunging a public record item was not within the board's purview in this appeal. One commissioner summarized the view: "The basis of approval is that service agreement and not the letter." The board then moved to deny the appeal and voted 3-0.
The appeal decision leaves the November approvals of the Pivot Solar site plan intact; the board did not introduce new evidence and the ruling is confined to the administrative record. County staff noted the county is updating its Land Development Code and that broader policy questions about fire-protection standards and mutual-aid practices may be addressed in that process.
The board closed the public portion of the hearing after issuing the decision.
