Montezuma County residents on Tuesday aired out their thoughts about solar energy, and the Board of County Commissioners declined to issue a second moratorium, voting instead to adopt land-use regulations for alternative energy.
The public hearing drew 60 to 70 people and marked the latest chapter in a long debate over utility-scale solar development in the county.
A six-month moratorium on new solar developments expired Oct. 15. During that time, commissioners and staff researched the issue and drafted new land-use codes.
The updated regulations, focused largely on solar, were unanimously approved Tuesday. The codes favor solar projects combined with agriculture, limit visual impacts on scenery and neighboring properties, and require proper decommissioning of solar farms.
After County Attorney Stephen Tarnowski presented the amendments, 29 people spoke during a public hearing. Fourteen supported another moratorium; the rest urged commissioners to adopt the amendments.
“We have groups that hate it adamantly, and we have groups that love it totally,” Commissioner Jim Candelaria said of solar. “We’re right in the middle of it trying to figure out what’s going to be best for the community. I understand that nobody wants it in their backyard.”
“But at the end of the day an all-source energy solution is really what we have to focus on and that means everything; an all-source energy solution to provide the power that is going to be needed for the future.”
About half the speakers favored a moratorium.
“I can tell you this commission does not kick the can down the road, and to extend a moratorium, I think, is just kicking the can down the road,” Candelaria said.
As Tarnowski introduced the proposed additions to the county’s land-use code, he said he worked with the Planning and Zoning Department to uphold values in the county’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan, adopted in 1997.
Affordability, continued agriculture, protected private property and land use intended for the community’s benefit were all considered, Tarnowski said.
When alternative energy proposals are submitted, they will follow the normal high-impact and special-permit process, he said.
As for solar specifically, utility-scale panels must meet key criteria.
Solar panels that can accommodate agricultural use – often called “agrovoltaics” – receive preference under the new codes. Preventing panels from blocking views through fencing or screening is required. Panels cannot exceed 15 feet in height.
Solar projects must be at least 500 feet from residential property lines, a last-minute change from 150 feet.
“One hundred, 50 feet out your front door is 50 yards,“ said Commissioner Kent Lindsay. ”And I don’t know anybody in this room would be willing to live with that.“
When the life span of the solar farms end, the new code prevents the burden of decommissioning from falling to the county.
“The goal here is that these are really temporary uses and that the property should essentially be returned to some kind of prior state that it existed in,” Tarnowski said.
For some, the updated land-use code was enough to greenlight solar. For others, the language was insufficient, and they wanted another moratorium.
Those who wished for a new moratorium voiced concerns about solar’s impact on wildlife and soil. Another person asked how regulations would be enforced. A few worried property values could drop and farmland could disappear.
Others said solar power would be deficient or would disrupt the county’s rural way of life. Some advocated for a moratorium but said they only wanted a slower approach.
“The decisions made now will shape our food security, our landscape, and the character of this county for decades,” said Landan Wilson of Pleasant View.
“An extension of the moratorium would allow us the necessary time to develop stronger land use codes policies, understand cumulative impacts, and ensure that renewable energy projects are (seated) where they provide the most benefit with the least harm.”
Still, those in favor pointed to the energy and revenue solar could bring. Organizers with the advocacy group Montezuma County for Solar spoke out.
“I believe it’s in the best interest of the entire county regardless of what you decide on those codes to not put a new solar moratorium in place,” said Kate Bennett of Lewis-Arriola.
“Even if the codes need revision, refinement, more hearings, more discussion, we’ve been without a ban for the last month and a solar project has not just randomly appeared.”
“We’re going to make 50% of this room mad and 50% of this room happy with any decision that we make,” Candelaria said.
With speakers’ views almost evenly divided and with commissioners voicing reservations, the pro-solar side ultimately prevailed.
Commissioner Gerald Koppenhafer took issue with what he described as a special pass for the solar industry. Lindsay cited technical uncertainties and said solar could be unsightly. Candelaria described limitations on transmission lines for the panels.
The updated land-use codes are a new chapter for the county. That doesn’t mean they are enshrined in stone, however.
“As stated previously, (the land-use code is) a living document,” Candelaria said. “It can be changed at any time with public hearings, public comment. It can be changed by any commission.”
