Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Array Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors appeal Vallet County approval of large ground-mounted solar array; commissioners delay decision
Summary
An appeal of a conditional-use permit for a 15 kW ground-mounted solar array at 30 Flicker Road centers on alleged procedural lapses, disputed visual and drainage analyses, and CC&R conflicts; the board tabled the appeal to June 15 for further review of drainage, sightline analysis, and substantive evidence.
Valley County commissioners on June 1 heard an appeal of a conditional-use permit (CUP25-032) for a ground-mounted solar array at 30 Flicker Road and moved to continue the matter to June 15 after neighbors and the applicant presented competing evidence.
Staff reported the Planning & Zoning Commission approved the CUP 3–2 on April 9. Appellants' counsel, Julia Thrower of Mountaintop Law, told commissioners that county code makes neighbor impacts a "determining factor" for detached arrays and that the PNZ record lacks the requisite analysis of glare, drainage and site alternatives. Thrower said the array is roughly 45 feet long and as much as 17 feet high at some tilts and sits in an open meadow visible from multiple neighboring houses; she urged denial because the record contained no realistic visual simulations, no evidence that a berm would mitigate impacts, and an apparent CC&R violation by the installer.
The project manager, Joey Richardson, described the system as a residential, grid-tied 15 kW installation and said the array is manually adjustable. Richardson said the system typically would operate at shallower angles and that the team would accept permit conditions to limit maximum tilt and provide mitigation. Owner Kristen Mlen displayed mockups and said she and her husband had begun plantings (about 30 lodgepole and ponderosa pines) and would implement a low berm and additional screening if required.
Several neighbors described the mount as industrial in their rural setting, said the structure was installed quickly and without adequate notice, and disputed statements that the HOA supported the project. "This was built within two to three days," neighbor Christy Peterson said, adding that neighbors were surprised when the CUP notice arrived after installation. Other neighbors argued relocation (for example placement on a south-facing roof or a different part of the parcel) would be less intrusive than the current siting behind the house.
Staff clarified that a building permit was submitted and that the county does not enforce private CC&Rs; commissioners said they wanted more information on drainage and sight-line analyses before making a denovo decision. The board voted to table the appeal to June 15 at 2 p.m. and to consider additional evidence and possible site visits.
The outcome will depend on whether the county finds the record demonstrates that the CUP standards, including neighbor-impact analysis under Section 9-5G, have been met or whether permit conditions (limits on tilt, berm/landscape screening and drainage controls) suffice.
