Gila Bend council hears split views on solar-field overlay rules as former manager urges 15% cap

Community Planner Sandra Hoffman presented draft language for a Solar Field Overlay Zone (SFOZ), outlining application procedures, minimum project sizes and proximity requirements, and prompting sharply different views from an industry representative and a former town manager.

Hoffman told the council the draft SFOZ (section 16312) treats a commercial solar field as a temporary use, requires a minimum project size of 100 acres (40 acres only if contiguous with an existing SFOZ), and allows battery energy storage as an accessory use up to 20% of a project’s area. The draft also proposes separation distances — 2,500 feet from residential districts and 3,000 feet from schools, parks and airport property — and proximity criteria tied to high‑voltage transmission corridors and substations.

Autumn Johnson, representing the Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association, urged Council against a hard cap on the total area allowable for SFOZ in town limits. “I would encourage you not to kind of eliminate that on the front end,” Johnson said, arguing that case‑by‑case council review allows negotiation on community benefits and that interconnection feasibility is typically determined through utility processes rather than zoning.

By contrast, former Town Manager Fredrick Buss submitted and read a written letter urging the council to restrict SFOZ and utility‑scale solar to no more than 15% of the town’s land. Buss said roughly 6,500 acres of projects are already in advanced stages of the APS interconnection queue and that Gila Bend’s municipal area is about 41,200 acres, meaning the queued projects alone could exceed a 15% limit. Buss argued utility‑scale solar yields relatively low recurring tax revenue under Arizona’s valuation rules and consumes scarce, transmission‑adjacent land that could be used for higher‑value industrial employers.

Town Attorney Allen Quist and Vice‑Mayor Chris Riggs raised process questions about caps and permitting. Quist noted SFOZ proposals would still come to council for approval and that proximity‑based mapping could change as infrastructure grows. Riggs asked about permitting for vehicle restoration timelines in the zoning update (see related zoning article).

The council did not take final action on SFOZ language at the meeting; planners indicated the draft is at an early stage and that the public and other stakeholders will be invited to weigh in.

Ending: The council received public comment and staff presentations; next steps include written comments from stakeholders (Autumn Johnson said she would submit written suggestions) and further council review of draft zoning language before any formal ordinance amendments are noticed for adoption.