Montrose commissioners send more restrictive solar zoning back to planning commission, keep earlier plan under consideration

The Montrose County Board of County Commissioners voted on Aug. 6 to return a newly proposed, more restrictive draft of county power-generation zoning to the planning commission for further review and public comment, while keeping the planning-commission-recommended draft active for future action.

Planning director Talmadge Richmond presented two alternatives during a lengthy public hearing. "Alternative 1 is the draft that was recommended by the planning commission," Richmond said. "Alternative 2 is designed to be more restrictive to prevent many large‑scale solar facilities to be installed all over and change the beautiful landscape of the county." The differences Richmond outlined included larger residential setbacks (500 feet in the new draft versus 250 feet in the planning-commission draft), a two‑mile buffer from scenic byways in the newer draft, limits on projects on prime farmland unless agrivoltaics are used, a proposed countywide cap of three large-scale permits in five years, and a 1,000‑foot proximity requirement to transmission lines in the restrictive draft.

The public hearing drew more than two dozen commenters. Supporters of the planning-commission draft said it would provide clear rules that allow projects to move forward while protecting neighbors. "After a two‑and‑a‑half year effort, the Montrose Commissioners decided June 4 to continue discussing regulations of utility solar power generation instead of adopting the regulations that have been crafted in a bipartisan manner," said Tony Hoag, a Citizens Climate Lobby volunteer. "We feel there is little to be gained from further discussion and request the Montrose Board of County Commissioners adopt the regulations as of June 4."

Several residents and agricultural stakeholders urged stricter limits. "There's no way to explain it other than it is industrial," said Scott Reba, who urged support for the more restrictive alternative and warned about long‑term risks from battery storage and utility impacts. Farmers and landowners raised concerns that new restrictions are needed to protect prime farmland, water rights and property values.

Industry and utility voices also testified. Paul Hora, speaking on behalf of San Miguel Power Association, told commissioners he supported the planning-commission draft as workable for future projects. Developer representative Don Coram warned that prolonged delay could jeopardize projects and cited a procedural rule counsel could use if approvals are unduly delayed.

In discussion the board drew repeatedly on legal and procedural constraints. County Attorney Julie Andress confirmed the board could consider returning a substantially different draft to the planning commission and that doing so would require the planning commission to review and provide recommendations within the statutory timeframe.

Commissioner Sue Hansen (voice on the transcript identified by role) moved to adopt the planning‑commission draft (Alternative 1) and end the moratorium; that motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner (identified in the record as the member who introduced the alternative and moved the referral) moved to send Alternative 2 back to the planning commission for review and comment and to keep Alternative 1 active for future decision-making; that motion passed 2–1. The board instructed staff to republish and solicit additional public comment as the planning commission reviews the draft version returned to it.

The board also noted the county moratorium on new large-scale solar projects extends through December, giving planning staff and commissioners time to refine alternatives and schedule additional hearings. County staff said if the board selects the more restrictive draft after planning commission review, the change must be republished and go through additional public hearings.

The decision leaves the planning commission-recommended draft available for eventual approval but advances the county process for the more restrictive option by sending it back for more formal review and public notice. The board said it wanted broader public input beyond the frequent attendees who have followed the issue for more than two years.

The meeting also included other agenda items: the board approved several minor subdivisions and a final plat, continued a variance hearing for a home addition into a setback to Aug. 22 pending verification from Tri County Water District, met in executive session on county‑manager applicants, and adjourned.

The planning commission now has the opportunity to review the alternative returned to it and to republish the draft for additional comment. The board scheduled no final decision on either draft at this meeting.