San Miguel County held a joint meeting in Telluride and Norwood, a work session with a Zoom option too, on March 27. Approximately 10 people met live in Telluride, 40 in Norwood and at least another 42 on Zoom for the 9:30 a.m. session to discuss the draft solar regulations that lasted several hours.
First, planning director Kaye Simonson gave a presentation of the current draft regulations, explaining some of the details. Commissioners and the planning commission also asked questions, and then the public made comments.
Simonson explained the moratorium on solar development (not small-scale though) lasts until May 2024, a full year from its implementation in 2023. On April 24, though, the county may vote to extend the moratorium, since the solar regulations won’t be adopted until June 26.
Planning commission board member Josselin Lifton-Zoline inquired about the potential to incentivize “lifetime” for solar projects, not assume projects will have a 30-year lifespan. She said these things should continue to be useful.
And, the commissioners and staff discussed the idea that the county has to have a permitted use to be able to mitigate solar. Simonson further explained this to the Forum on Friday.
“If we don't have regulations that are specific to solar facilities, then we would have to resort to using the existing generic special-use permit standards in our land-use code, which are much less detailed,” she said. “The full answer with all the ‘whys’ and legal requirements is actually much more complicated (an upper-level planning and land-use course), but that's the gist of it.”
Commissioner Anne Brown said she worried solar energy isn’t compatible with Norwood’s master plan at all. Simonson said applicants must demonstrate visual impacts.
Commissioner Kris Holstrom encouraged considering an “extra-large category” as an upper limit. Lee Taylor, chairman of the board, mentioned an industrial category at the top that could be excluded from the county’s plans altogether.
County representatives also discussed there being not much room on Wright’s Mesa for solar anyway, and that the BLM has many restrictions already. Brown asked why the county should be less restrictive than the BLM to accommodate solar. Many agreed.
County manager Mike Bordogna said some landowners might choose to have solar projects in the future to keep revenue incoming. He doesn’t want to trump private property rights.
After more than an hour and a half, the public was welcomed to comment.
Dr. Bob Grossman, of Norwood, warned against light pollution.
“This could take away one of our most precious resources,” he said.
Tami St. Germain, of Norwood, said locating solar projects in close proximity to a transmission line is advantageous to the developer. That’s a cost savings to the solar company, which avoids further federal permitting.
Zach Snyder, originally of Norwood, said “rural communities have a deep emotional connection to the land that cost-benefit analyses can’t measure.” He added solar companies are a “dime a dozen,” and that a county, if it is going to permit solar installations, must work with the best of them and the least impactive.
“Don’t sacrifice Wright’s Mesa because it looks easy on a map,” Snyder said.
President of Norwood Fire Protection District Jim Wells said the chemical used in fire suppression of the solar installations is one of the most toxic in existence. He said it’s dangerous to the animals, soils, first-responders and the watershed.
McKay Belk, of Telluride and Norwood, said the evidence that constituents have amassed supports removal of large-scale solar from the draft regulations. He also said the public must see the next copy of the draft regulations before they’re adopted. He added bald eagles are roosting on his property, next to One Energy’s proposed 640-acre solar project.
Others echoed similar sentiments, urging commissioners to cancel large-scale solar development on Wright’s Mesa.
