Commissioners weigh adopting new commercial-solar zoning rules after Berkeley Group review

County legal staff previewed proposed changes to the unified zoning code governing commercial solar projects and said an outside consultant, the Berkeley Group, had produced a report that was placed on the MAPD website this week.

"Coming before you is the same item that has come before you several times within the last year: consideration of potential changes to the zoning code in regards to commercial solar projects," Deputy County Counselor Kurt Sponse said, noting the Berkeley Group reviewed MAPC proposals, commissioners' concerns and common regulatory standards.

Commissioner Dennis thanked MAPD, legal staff and the Berkeley Group for their work and said he had begun reviewing the roughly 400 pages of materials in the agenda packet. "This morning, I did start reading through the 400 pages that, I was in the agenda," Dennis said.

But Commissioner Howe said several commissioners had not had adequate opportunity to air concerns and urged a formal public hearing and a one-week delay so the public and commissioners could "chew on" the materials before adoption. "I think it's appropriate for we would actually delay action on this for 1 week," Howe said.

Staff explained the procedural options: adopting the MAPC-recommended changes as presented would require a simple majority (3 of 5). If the board adopts additional modifications beyond MAPC's recommendations, statute requires a supermajority (0.667 or 4 of 5). Staff also said an alternative, staff-drafted set of revisions informed by the Berkeley Group's analysis may be included in the final agenda packet for commissioners to review before the next meeting.

Sponse told commissioners a representative of the Berkeley Group and MAPD staff would be present at the next meeting to answer detailed questions. Commissioners agreed the county-level public hearing is discretionary — MAPC already held the statutorily required hearing — but that a formal public hearing at the county level would be an appropriate way to collect additional testimony before adopting any changes.

The board did not adopt code changes during the preview; the item was set for further consideration at the next meeting, with commissioners weighing whether to open a formal public hearing and whether to delay final action.