Residents who live adjacent to the site where La Plata Electric Association plans to build a 9-acre “community solar garden” are objecting to the development.
Homeowners say the project could impact their water, ruin their views and negatively impact their property value – a list of concerns shared by detractors of the proposed Hesperus Solar project (which, in contrast, would cover 1,900 acres).
Their objections once again highlight the obstacles that solar developers in the region are likely to encounter as the nation’s energy transition proceeds. Infrastructure for renewable energy must go somewhere – but vocal La Plata County residents seem hesitant to accept it anywhere other than the small-scale projects on their own rooftops.
The neighbors are not opposed to solar, they say.
“I just don’t want to have it right in my backyard,” said Christine Raap, whose home shares a property line with the project.
But when asked where the project should be located, no clear answers emerge.
Raap suggested the panels at least be installed on the northern part of the 50-acre parcel, putting more land between them and her property, her two neighbors’ property and Sunnyside Elementary School.
Staff members for Konisto, the contractor awarded the construction bid, told attendees of a community meeting on the project last week that the panels would be placed at the southern end of the parcel to avoid conflict with wildlife, per the suggestion of Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
Three residential properties and the school border LPEA’s land to the south. Residents have had to contend with LPEA’s Sunnyside substation since its construction on the site in 2008.
“It’s an industrial complex that is in my backyard now,” said Tom McDermott, one of the property owners to the south.
He could not cite a specific element of the project that did not comply with the land-use code.
In a previous interview with The Durango Herald, LPEA Vice President of Grid Solutions and Special Projects Dan Harms said he would meet with neighbors this week to formulate agreeable solutions, but he declined to provide specific examples of what those solutions might entail. Raap confirmed she has a meeting with Harms on Thursday.
At the community meeting about the project last Thursday, Naomi Reiss, who leads the Florida Mesa district planning group, said she and the group’s members take issue with the process, not the solar project itself.
“The planning group is not in favor of NIMBYism,” Reiss said, referring to an oft-leveled critique of solar opponents who support solar energy, but “not in my backyard.”
Like the Hesperus site, the Sunnyside location was chosen because of its proximity to an existing substation. By building solar arrays near existing infrastructure, developers avoid having to build large power lines that can affect more property owners and disturb more land.
The project will receive a lower level of scrutiny in the review process because the community development director determined the project would undergo a location and extent review. Under the county’s land-use code, utility projects undergo location and extent review, a process in which the planning commission will vote on whether the project is in “general conformance” with the county’s comprehensive plan and the Florida Mesa District Plan.
A separate section of the code says a solar project of this size could undergo the minor land-use permit process, which would receive a higher level of scrutiny and consideration. The director of the department determines which approval process a project follows.
Alison Layman, wildfire and watershed mitigation/protection fund coordinator for the county, is a former county planner and stepped back into the role for this project during a period of lean staffing in the department.
She said that in her mind, the matter of which review track is most appropriate is “up for debate.”
To address some of the concerns and present information on the impact of the project to the Planning Commission, Layman said she dug deep in her application of the code. She will recommend the project for approval before the commission on June 22, but will include five conditions with her recommendation.
The conditions, if accepted, would specifically cite certain elements of the code with which LPEA would have to apply. One conditions says that LPEA should develop a decommissioning plan for the site, which includes a recycling plan for inoperable solar panels. The plan should “consider” working with the Cooperative Extension weed management program.
“It wouldn’t be typical with an L&E (location and extent) that your staff report has a bunch of conditions of approval, or that it really references other code standards,” Layman said.
But her report included those elements to fulfill the spirit of the director determination, which shepherded the project into the location and extent review process.
Members of the public will have the opportunity to offer public comment, which will be limited to three minutes per person, before the Planning Commission when the project is presented for approval at 6 p.m. June 22 in the County Administration building.
rschafir@durangoherald.com
This story has been updated to clarify that La Plata Electric Association is not associated with the Hesperus Solar project.
