Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Farm Denial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sherburne County planning panel recommends denial of land‑use change and permit for 2.475 MW solar farm
Summary
After testimony from the applicants and many nearby residents, the Planning Advisory Commission voted to recommend denial of both a Comprehensive Plan land‑use map amendment and an interim use permit for a proposed 2.475 MW solar array near Becker.
The Sherburne County Planning Advisory Commission on May 21 recommended denying both a Comprehensive Plan land‑use map amendment and an interim use permit for a proposed 2.475 MW, 5,200‑module solar farm in Santiago Township.
Senior Planner Mitch Glines summarized the proposal from Cedar Creek Energy and the property owners Lee and Roselie Peterson: a photovoltaic array covering about 13.74 acres of a 43.22‑acre parcel, underground cable to a nearby Connexus Energy pole and a decommissioning plan with a proposed 43‑year lease running through 2069. Staff materials included wetland delineation and an agricultural impact assessment; the application listed numerous recommended conditions if approved: wetland credit purchase, pollinator‑friendly vegetation, tree screening, MPCA stormwater and NPDES compliance, a decommissioning financial guarantee, and Minnesota DNR avoidance measures for species such as Blanding’s turtle.
Roselie Peterson described the project as an additional revenue stream to sustain her family’s Christmas tree and apple orchard operation and said the owners had tried to site the arrays to minimize impacts. Alex Gast of Cedar Creek Energy said the developer would install a single‑axis tracker system with anti‑glare modules, revegetate the site with pollinator‑friendly seed mix, and provide operations and maintenance commitments.
Numerous neighbors opposed the requests during the hearing, raising concerns about traffic during construction, visual impacts and glare, effects on private wells and groundwater, noise from inverters and transformers, loss of rural character, wildlife impacts and the permanence of a 43‑year land‑use change. Jamie Smith, a nearby resident, asked whether traffic and groundwater studies had been completed and called for public availability of any glare or environmental reports.
Santiago Township had submitted comments opposing a land‑use change pending further county study; the town board also had proposed a moratorium. Commissioners discussed screening, the denied variance for west‑side trees, and the project’s interconnection limits to Connexus Energy.
On motions by Commissioner Bruce Aubol (seconded by Francine Larson), the commission voted 5–2 to recommend denial of the Comprehensive Plan land‑use amendment and separately recommended denial of the interim use permit by the same 5–2 tally. Commissioners cited proximity to residences and neighborhood‑level impacts in their findings.
The record includes the applicant’s decommissioning plan and natural‑resource review; the County Board will review the recommendation and the full public record at its June 23 meeting.
