Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Solar Vested Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Worth County supervisors order ordinance publication, consider resolution to recognize Solar West vested rights
Summary
Supervisors were told a 2019 zoning amendment adding commercial solar to conditional-use requirements was never incorporated into the published ordinance; staff will publish corrected text and project counsel will review a draft resolution recognizing Solar West’s vested rights before the item returns for possible action next week.
The Worth County Board of Supervisors directed staff to publish corrected zoning text and asked project counsel and county attorneys to confer before a potential vote recognizing vested rights for the Solar West project.
County and project attorneys told the board that a 2019 amendment adding commercial solar and battery storage as conditional uses in the A zoning district had not been incorporated into the county’s published ordinance text. That omission means the county’s record did not reflect the change the supervisors believed they had made in 2019. A drafted resolution circulated to the board would (a) publish and update the ordinance text and (b) explicitly recognize that the Solar West project already advanced far enough under the preexisting, unpublished text to have vested rights.
Jeff Grieve, who circulated a draft resolution and asked that it be placed on the agenda, said the resolution is intended to fix both problems: correct the ordinance publication error and, in the same action, grant the specific project recognition of vested rights so it would not be required to “go backwards” through a conditional-use process. Grieve urged prompt action to correct the text and to resolve the project’s status so work already completed (road, drainage, and related agreements) could continue without delay.
County Attorney Greavves told supervisors they can move to amend and publish the ordinance text now and affirmed the board’s authority to take steps to correct the administrative omission. Greavves recommended a clear, predictable process so any legal questions could be resolved before final action. Kate Miller, representing the project team, said she would have project counsel review Grieve’s draft and return comments; she confirmed she had circulated the materials to counsel and would follow up.
Supervisors discussed alternatives including sending the amendment back to the zoning commission for new language. Several board members said that would be slower and risk reopening settled expectations; others noted the value of public input. The board agreed to publish the corrected ordinance language promptly and to place “discussion, possible action” on next week’s agenda so attorneys could report back and the board could consider the resolution.
Next steps: staff will post the updated ordinance text for publication, project counsel will review the draft resolution and propose edits if needed, and the supervisors will revisit the item on the next agenda for possible action.
