Crook County opens public process on possible temporary moratorium for large solar farms

The Crook County Board of Commissioners voted to direct staff to prepare notices and documents to begin public hearings on a possible temporary moratorium on commercial photovoltaic (solar) facilities and, separately, interim protections tied to the county’s Goal 5 inventory update.

John Isak, community development director, told the board that a moratorium would require a 45‑day notice to the Department of Land Conservation and Development and that the county would have to demonstrate “a compelling need to prevent irrevocable public harm” to meet the statutory standard. Isak said an alternate or supplemental route is the Goal 5 interim protections route, which can rely on Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) maps as a safe harbor and provide a 120‑day pause while the county completes an economic, social and environmental analysis.

Why it matters: commissioners and members of the public said the county needs a public process to weigh competing interests — protecting wildlife and scenic resources, preserving local control over land use, and balancing private property and economic-development interests. Several speakers warned of legal risk and of developers racing to file applications if a stopgap is announced.

During public comment, residents urged clearer, earlier outreach and said they learned about large projects only after construction began. Julie Thompson said transparency and clearer agenda wording would bring more public engagement. A resident, Lorien (last name on file), said she had “no idea” projects were coming until she saw them being built.

New Sun Energy’s in‑house counsel, Max Yaclik, said the company supports the Goal 5 inventory process but urged collaborative public forums rather than an immediate moratorium: “I don’t know if a moratorium is necessary to accomplish that. I think we can have public meetings,” he said, adding that the company values local permitting and public input and prefers not to be forced to a state review process.

Several commissioners said they favored opening both processes — the moratorium pathway and the Goal 5 interim protections pathway — not to enact prohibitions immediately but to invite public input and prepare required materials and notices. After discussion the board approved a motion to direct staff to prepare materials for consideration of a solar moratorium; the motion passed with recorded votes (two recorded ayes and one recorded nay). The board separately approved directing staff to prepare documents to consider interim protections under the Goal 5 process.

What happens next: staff will prepare the legally required notices and ordinance drafts and send required notices to DLCD. Those actions will trigger public hearings in coming weeks. Commissioners stressed that neither a moratorium nor an interim protection is in effect yet; the motions create the public-review process that could lead to formal ordinances or to no change, depending on what the hearings produce.

The board also discussed limits to a moratorium — for example, narrow geographic scope and time limits tied to completing the Goal 5 inventories — and cautioned that larger projects could seek state review (FSEC), which would reduce local control. Legal and staff costs, the potential for appeals (including to LUBA), and the risk applicants may file quickly were repeatedly raised during the exchange.