Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Renewables topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montrose County delays zoning changes for utility-scale power after lengthy public hearing
Summary
Following extensive public comment, the Montrose County Board of County Commissioners voted to deny the proposed zoning regulation amendment (as drafted) for power-generation facilities and asked staff to return for further work sessions and public input before taking final action.
The Montrose County Board of County Commissioners on Dec. 11 declined to adopt proposed zoning regulation amendments that would impose special-use permitting and renewable-energy-specific standards for utility-scale power generation, and directed staff to continue work with stakeholders.
Planning staff said the draft incorporated standards on issues such as dust mitigation and siting; the board priority was to require special-use permits for power generation facilities while developing renewable-energy-specific standards. Planning staff clarified that the proposal under consideration would "require all power-generation facilities to require special-use permit," saying the emphasis on renewables reflected the kinds of projects that prompted the moratorium and rulemaking.
Multiple members of the public urged changes or broader approaches. Ryan Sedgley, who said he serves on the DMEA board, urged the county not to "single out and target this one type of land development" and recommended a uniform siting rule that would apply to all industrial land uses rather than only to solar. Tony Hoag, a Montrose resident and farmer, urged requiring agrivoltaics on prime farmland and suggested raising the project-size threshold (he proposed 5 megawatts rather than the 1-megawatt figure discussed in the packet) to better align with industry norms and farm operations. Ken Dolezal, speaking as an attorney, warned of potential litigation risks if the county imposes special permitting that developers might view as discriminatory or unduly burdensome.
Planning staff and several commissioners acknowledged those concerns and discussed battery/storage regulation, power-purchase-agreement timing and whether the county should craft a broader power-generation regulatory framework rather than focusing narrowly on solar. Several commissioners said they were open to additional public process and refinements; Commissioner Sue Hansen moved to deny the proposed amendment as drafted and to schedule a work session and further hearings to refine the rules. The motion passed; one commissioner recorded opposition in the voice vote as noted in the transcript.
Board and staff noted the moratorium on power-generation permitting expires Jan. 10 and said there is time to schedule additional public sessions or a continuation of the public hearing if the board elects to extend the moratorium. Planning staff said they will accept additional written input and return with revisions and scheduling options.
Why it matters: The decision pauses a regulatory change that could affect how large-scale solar and other power facilities are sited and permitted in Montrose County, with implications for farmland use, local economic development and future private investment.
What happens next: Staff will collate the public input received at the hearing, incorporate further written comments submitted by commissioners and stakeholders, and propose next steps (work session dates, possible moratorium extension or revised draft regulations) for the board to consider in early January.
Sources: Public-comment testimony at the planning public hearing (notable speakers: Ryan Sedgley, Tony Hoag, Isaac Ketchum, Don Corman, Ken Dolezal), planning staff clarifications and board deliberations recorded in the meeting transcript.
