HomeMy WebLinkAbout20251824.tiffHearing Certification
Docket No. 2025-31.B
Board of County Commissioners
Weld County, Colorado
Use by Special Review Permit, USR25-0004, for a Solar Energy Facility (SEF)
outside of subdivisions and historic townsites in the A (Agricultural) Zone District
— 35321 Estate, LLC, c/o RDC CO Weld County RS 72 II, LLC
A public hearing was conducted on August 6, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., with the following
present:
Commissioner Perry L. Buck, Chair
Commissioner Scott K. James, Pro-Tem
Commissioner Jason S. Maxey
Commissioner Lynette Peppier
Commissioner Kevin D. Ross
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Jan Warwick
Deputy County Attorney, Karin McDougal
Department of Planning Services Representative, Molly Wright
Development Review Representative, Mike McRoberts
The following business was transacted:
I hereby certify that pursuant to a Notice dated May 15, 2025, and duly published May 17,
2025, in the Greeley Tribune, a public hearing was conducted on July 2, 2025, to consider
the request of 35321 Estate, LLC, c/o RDC CO Weld County RS 72 II, LLC, for Use by
Special Review Permit, USR25-0004, for a Solar Energy Facility (SEF) outside of
subdivisions and historic townsites in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. At said hearing
the Board continued the matter to August 6, 2025, to allow the applicant additional time
to address the concerns of surrounding property owners. Karin McDougal, Deputy County
Attorney, made this a matter of record.
Molly Wright, Department of Planning Services, presented a brief summary of the
proposal, described the crew size and hours of operation, stated preventative
maintenance will occur once a year with two (2) technicians on -site at a time, and shared
vegetation maintenance occurrence and no irrigation will be required once vegetation is
established. She relayed, since there will be no employees onsite, no water or sewer is
required, and screened portable toilets, handwashing units, and bottled water are
acceptable during construction. She relayed a Noise Narrative was submitted, along with
a Dust Mitigation Plan, and a Decommission Plan was also submitted and is under review.
She described the sign posting, and shared seven (7) SPOs were noticed, one (1) letter
was received with concerns, an additional letter of concern was received with eight (8)
property owners' signatures included, and one (1) individual submitted separate letter
ce PL(DE/MN/Kw/DA/KR) 2025-1824
I l/iV../25 PL2960
Hearing Certification (USR25-0004) — 35321 Estate, LLC, c/o RDC CO Weld County
RS 72 II, LLC
Page 2
regarding property values. Ms. Wright shared the site is located within the three (3) mile
referral areas of the Towns of Eaton and Severance. She shared the Town of Eaton
submitted a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) response expressing no interest in annexation, but
indicated solar facilities are not supported or endorsed as an acceptable land use in the
Eaton Urban Growth Area. She stated the applicant has come to an agreement with the
Town of Eaton's review process, to add landscaping along County Road (CR) 72. The
Town of Severance's referral was returned with no comments, and their NOI stated no
annexation is requested at this time. Ms. Wright stated the subject site is located in the
Town of Severance's Future Land Use Map and is designated as rural
residential/agricultural. Ms. Wright entered the favorable recommendation of the Planning
Commission into the record, as written, and displayed images of the site and surrounding
views.
Mike McRoberts, Department of Planning Services, Development Review, stated access
is on CR 72 which is a local, gravel road, with 185 vehicles per day, with 58% trucks, and
the 85th percentile speed is 44 mph. He shared, per the applicant's traffic information,
material and equipment deliveries occurring over approximately four (4) weeks will result
in up to 24 vehicle trips per day consisting of conex container trucks, delivery trucks, and
equipment hauling trucks, and the SEF installation phase will consist of approximately 28
vehicles per day. He shared a Road Maintenance Agreement is required, and the
applicant has submitted Drainage Narrative. He stated the site consists of NRCS soil
groups, and a Grading Permit will be required if disturbing more than one (1) acre of land.
James Bentley, Reactivate, represented the applicant, and in response to Chair Buck,
indicated they had not had contact with any of the Commissioners regarding this case.
Commissioner Ross stated, for full disclosure, he received an email from the applicant
which he forwarded to the Clerk and the Planning Department. Mr. Bentley shared today's
hearing is a continuance from July 2, 2025, and he narrated a slide show presentation
(Exhibit G) sharing the history and operations of the company. He stated the site is
currently designated as grazing land, which has had no irrigation in the last ten (10) years.
He described the project details, including the proposed perimeter fence, identified the
500 -foot setback, explained the Decommission Plan, and stated a native seed mix will be
used for revegetation. He shared access is on the southeast corner of the site, described
the neighboring land uses, and reviewed the solar panel details, site access, project
lifespan, and opaque perimeter fencing, and confirmed there are no critical habitats, as
indicated by Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). Mr. Bently relayed the timeline of
communication with the Town of Eaton, stated CR 72 is an entrance corridor into the
Town, described proposed landscaping along CR 72, and shared the Town requested
early decommission to coincide with the 30 -year plan of the Town of Eaton; however, that
would not work with the lifespan of the SEF and the agreement with the property owner.
He explained the personal contact made with the closest SPO and described the attempts
for electronic meetings scheduled. In response to Chair Buck, Mr. Bentley stated there
are no water rights, and the application for a contract is pending with Xcel Energy.
2025-1824
PL2960
Hearing Certification (USR25=0004) — 35321 Estate, LLC, c/o RDC CO Weld County
RS 72 II, LLC
Page 3
In response to Commissioner Maxey, Mr. Bentley stated the initial contact was for SPOs
within 500 feet of the property, which he later expanded to one mile. Responding further
to Commissioner Maxey, he stated the middle of the site has an elevation change, thus
the panels will be installed around the rise. In response to Commissioner Ross,
Mr. Bentley described their process to pinpoint the entry to the site location, relayed the
incident of the landowner halting the project, sharing the initial Planning Commission
hearing was on June 3, 2025, where concerns were raised. He explained the landowner
wanted the opportunity to speak to the neighbors regarding the concerns and possible
purchase offers; however, an offer was not made and there appeared to be no point of
compromise. In response to Commissioner Maxey, Mr. Bentley shared the traffic
concerns were not in the forefront of the application process, nor was it a topic of
discussion with the Town, rather, the traffic and landscaping issues came up after the
application was submitted. Mr. McRoberts confirmed there was a pipeline access near
the proposed entrance. Commissioner Maxey shared his preference for screening
(earthen berms or fencing) along CR 72.
In response to Commissioner James, Mr. Bentley described the preapplication process
and relayed there is no current agreement with Xcel. Commissioner James asked, in
relation to Weld County Code Section 23-2-230.B.3, Compatibility, how are solar panels
compatible with the surrounding uses. Mr. Bentley referenced Section 23-3-10,
Agriculture in the county, allows for areas of natural resources extraction and energy
development. In response to Commissioner Ross, Commissioner Maxey clarified her
previous inquiry concern access alignment was related to an aerial photo that depicts an
access on the north side of CR 72, but it does not clarify whether it is an approved access.
In response to Commissioner Ross, Mr. Bentley explained the applicant owns the north
side of the site. Responding to Commissioners Peppler and Ross, Mr. Bentley relayed,
at this point, landscaping is proposed to consist of low maintenance plant species, along
with water trucks for native seed mix vegetation. He also noted there will be mechanical
maintenance every ten (10) days, agrivoltaics may be utilized to assist with weed
mitigation, and the panels provide shading which would assist in plant growth, and he
confirmed the traffic count is accounted for in the application.
Lanny Cook, SPO, relayed he has not been contacted, stated there are three (3) pipelines
that run under the proposed site, and he expressed concern regarding an eagle's nest on
the property. He also stated there is an irrigation headgate available to the property. In
response to Commissioner Maxey, Mr. Cook indicated the location of his property on the
displayed map.
Patrick McNear, SPO, stated the property owner previously relayed his intention to
withdraw the application, and he explained the proposed purchased of the property. He
shared his property is 0.5 miles from the proposed site (account number R3524805),
which is a 35 -acre parcel. He stated his belief that the request is a commercial/industrial
use and not compatible with surrounding uses. Mr. McNear stated SEFs haven't been
2025-1824
PL2960
Hearing Certification (USR25-0004) — 35321 Estate, LLC, c/o RDC CO Weld County
RS 72 II, LLC
Page 4
around long enough to document whether follow-up of reclamation requirements will be
fulfilled. In response to Commissioner James, Mr. McNear reiterated the owner has an
irrigation headgate and the water rights are a prescriptive use.
Lawrence Merritt, SPO, relayed he visited with the applicant, who confirmed the project
was going to be cancelled, as documented by text messages between himself and the
applicant. Mr. Merritt requested a continuance to provide the SPOs time to obtain counsel.
Commissioner James shared his concern with the issue of incompatibility. Commissioner
Ross asked if the berm or screening would alleviate concerns, and Mr. Merritt stated a
berm would not be feasible on a 26 -acre site. He further stated traffic on CR 72 has
increased, road conditions are very poor during rainy weather, and the speed of trucks
creates a dangerous situation. In response to Commissioner Ross, Ms. McDougal stated
providing copies of the text messages would be appropriate, which Mr. Merritt submitted
(Exhibit F).
Mr. Bentley thanked the surrounding property owners for expressing their concerns. He
shared conversations were had with Mr. Merritt; however, the parties agreed to disagree.
Additionally, he stated the applicant did reinstate his desire to proceed with the project,
and an offer to purchase the property was entertained but not fulfilled. Regarding
Mr. Cook's comments, Mr. Bently stated the potential hazards of pipelines will be
addressed, the eagle's nest was not listed by CPW, and he apologized for the error in
failing to provide a Notice to Mr. Cook. Regarding the water rights, Mr. Bentley shared the
applicant explored various land use options; however, they were not as economically
viable as the SEF. He also confirmed the well was redrilled, but it could not pump the
water up the hill. He stated he believes there are no grounds for a continuance at this
point. Commissioner James stated he believes the SPOs have a right to protest the
project, Mr. Bentley reiterated the SPOs had notice the project was moving forward.
In response to Chair Buck, Mr. Bentley indicated, on behalf of the applicant, they have
reviewed, and agree to abide by, the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards,
as presented.
The Board discussed the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Commissioner Maxey proposed to insert the word "attempt" in COA #1.C, delete
COA #1.D.8, and delete DS #19 as there is no proposed lighting. The Board agreed to all
of the aforementioned changes.
No public testimony was offered regarding changes made to the Conditions of Approval
and Development Standards.
Commissioner Maxey commented both sides of the proposal have tough arguments. He
stated the Comprehensive Plan encourages energy development, the accessibility of
water cannot be an assumption if not economically feasible, and CPW had no concerns;
2025-1824
PL2960
Hearing Certification (USR25-0004) — 35321 Estate, LLC, c/o RDC CO Weld County
RS 72 II, LLC
Page 5
however, the criteria of Compatibility must be satisfied, which has not been demonstrated.
Commissioner James cited Section 23-2-230.B.3 Compatibility, agreeing the applicant
has satisfied all the other criteria, but he questioned the level of ambiguity expressed by
the applicant and how the resulting impacts can be mitigated. Commissioner Ross
commented private property rights are important; however, when the use is changed,
compatibility becomes an issue. He agreed there has been miscommunication and
conflicting discussions between the applicant and the neighbors, and he also expressed
concern with safety issues on CR 72, including non -alignment of the access and
increased traffic, thus he does not find the application compatible with future development
of surrounding municipalities and fails to satisfy Section 23-2-230.B.4.
Commissioner Ross moved to deny the request of 35321 Estate, LLC, c/o RDC CO Weld
County RS 72 II, LLC, for Use by Special Review Permit, USR25-0004, for a Solar Energy
Facility (SEF) outside of subdivisions and historic townsites in the A (Agricultural) Zone
District. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Maxey. After discussion among the
Board addressing property rights, ambiguity of the application, and incompatibility with
the surrounding area as common concerns, a roll call vote was taken, and the motion to
deny the application passed four (4) to one (1), with Commissioner Peppier opposed, and
the hearing was completed at 11:56 a.m.
The Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, approved the above
and foregoing Hearing Certification, on motion duly made and seconded, by the following
vote on the 20th day of August, A.D., 2025:
Perry L. Buck, Chair: Aye
Scott K. James, Pro-Tem: Aye
Jason S. Maxey: Aye
Lynette Peppier: Nay
Kevin D. Ross: Aye
Attest:
Esther E. Gesick, Clerk to the Board
2025-1824
PL2960
ATTENDANCE LIST
/L,01Z5
NAME - PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY
` ' ADDRESS (CITY, STATE ZIP)_
EMAIL
—
CQUNTY OF`
RESIDENCE:
, SPEAKING
(YIN)?
z
-dr9t E .._..= 3 `-- ...
N.vim" �-=F"-,,: 3
,^-.. f.,,,, �._ 1r" —
'
�.�1 ,,. �t� ,+,+.� .�. 1 +' r
¢ t.. `- a }
r e � � �. 'f Y [t'�`h '} f� fin, � 3� �y�..;iPt ;� f k a c
d
i y₹f ('�4 f
1 P "9 p �
# F i&'+�..�,-,,,,,<
� �
fi 4/A" , a hr—
.3G/D 6,5-44A, 64,,,, 6 44.-5
age„,. z. 4, Q:' - ,°,Coo►47
ik9+y
j
jczpArnA3 e
/q Soo rve.A '1'1
6 51. tool{443r0Azaroa�,.�
CJd
;u
..) c....rhe 5 P2,4 )1.3
1°1 L h 'C�`ja
Ni
C A 1i 411g-1 h til-
2�� 5— w � � c `. ���°
'tat,,,,s
►�.►,�� � ���
i'� '�JIAG 1,.ra.
��
%�
L,,q
e.,L9' cA 3 f
A
\0_4, id
,6,4.
L0,,,-�� Vv. a.;;--�
1 ��7� -� 12-iL
� � «,k.t 4
y
Hello