Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debates rezoning vs. overlay for solar projects; staff warn about spot‑zoning risks
Summary
Commissioners discussed whether to require rezoning of parcels that host large solar or BESS projects, create a new 'energy' district, or use an overlay; staff cautioned rezoning many AG parcels could amount to spot zoning and inadvertently broaden permitted industrial uses.
Commissioners weighed three options for allowing commercial-scale solar and battery facilities: keep solar as a conditional use in the Agricultural District, create a new energy/solar zoning district, or adopt an overlay to identify eligible areas.
Planning Director Alan Thomson and consultant Rachel Granrath cautioned that wide rezoning to industrial could trigger spot‑zoning concerns and broaden permitted uses beyond renewable energy. Thomson explained the procedural implications: a rezone would require a SEPA review for the zoning change itself and—depending on how the new district is written—could make many industrial uses allowed unless carefully limited.
Commissioner Dave Gibney said he favored a process that gives landowners and developers a clear path but cautioned against county-level economic judgments: "It's not our business to be limiting it. OK, if there's somebody stupid enough to want to build unviable solar panels in Whitman County... it's our place to make sure that they don't affect the rest of us negatively and that they don't do eyesores, but it's not our place to say you're a dumbass and you want to..." (commentary paraphrased for clarity in official record). The commission did not adopt a rezoning approach and asked staff to draft overlay and conditional‑use options for the SEPA packet.
