HomeMy WebLinkAbout20203562.tiffSec. 23-1-90e Definitions.
The following specific words and phrases, when appearing in this Chapter in uppercase
letters, shall have the meanings stated in this Section:
ELFCTRIC TRANSMISSION LINES: The system, including lines and support
STRUCTURES, used to transmit electric energy in amounts of less than one hundred fifteen
(115) kV and above.
•,•
roduction of electrical energy from
•. •
9
lines, which is developed for the purpose of supplying or distributing electrical energy to users,
•
•
PRIZCIPAL and ACCESSORY BUILDINGS and designed to supply power to the principle
LSE(S) on site. Large Scale Solar Facilities are permitted in all zones through permits issued
pursuant to the procedures found in Chapter 21 of this Code.
•.
energy produced by the sun including solar energy collectors, poorer generation facilities;
. • •
•
es
g
9
e •
supplying or distributing electrical energy to users, a customer or customers and is located on
twenty (20) acres or
systems located on permitted PRINCIPAL and ACCESSORY BUILDINGS and designed to
SETBACK.- The horizontal distance between any BUILDING or STRUCTURE, as measured
from the farthest projection of the BUILDING or STRUCTURE, except for window wells, air
conditioners, gutters, downspouts, or fences and the established PUBLIC or private
STREET/ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY line other than that of an ALLEY. If the abutting PUBLIC
STREW _ 4;T/ROAD is designated by the Transportation Plan adopted in Chapter 8 of this Code as a
collector or arterial STREET/ROAD, then the SETBACK shall be measured from the future
right-of-way line. The minimum required RIGHT-OF-WAY width is found in Section 8-8-10 of
this Code. No STRUCTURES shall be allowed in RIGHT-OF-WAY. It shall be the
responsibility of the property owner to locate the RIGHT-OF-WAY lines. Setbacks for Solar
Energy Facilities are set forth in Section 23-4-1030 of this Code.
SITE SPECIFIC DE Vi,'LOPMMNT PLAN: A Use by Special Review (including OPEN
IVIII\
IN G and MAJOR FACILITIES OF A PUBLIC UTILITY OR PUBLIC AGENCY),
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Final Plan, SUBDIVISION final plat, resubdivision,
or minor SUBDIVISION application which has been submitted to the COUNTY
and receives approval or conditional approval by the Board of County Commissioners, or by the
Planning Commission in the case of MAJOR FACILITIES OF A PUBLIC UTILITY OR
PUBLIC AGENCY. SITE -SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN includes 1041 WOGLA
land division,
rural
0
Permits issued pursuant to the provisions of Article V of Chapter 21 of this Code, and permits for
1041 Solar Energy Facilities approved pursuant to the provisions of Article VII of Chapter 21 of
this Code. Final or conditional approval by the Board of County Commissioners creates vested
rights pursuant to Article 68 of Title 24, C.R.S. No other type of land use application shall be
considered a SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
SOLAR ti,Nte,RGY FACILITY [SWF]: means a commercial facility whose primary purpose is
to supply electricity and consists of one or more solar arrays and other accessory structures,
equipment, including substations, switchyards, battery storage, electrical infrastructure,
generators, transmission lines, communications infrastructure, and other appurtenant structures
and/or facilities. A SET of less than five (5) acres in size (5 ACRE SEF) is governed by the
procedures set forth in Division 6 of this Chapter 23. A SEF in the N ear/Urban Area as shown
on Appendix 21-B being more than five (5) acres in size but less than one -hundred sixty (160)
acres, or in the Ag/Rural Area as shown on Appendix 21-B being more than five (5) acres but
less than three -hundred twenty (320) acres, is governed by the procedures set forth in Article II,
Division 4. of this Code. A 1041 SET is only allowed by pen -nit, pursuant to Article VI of
Chapter 21 of this Code, and shall have an Improved Area of more than one -hundred sixty (160)
acres in the N ear/Urban Area as shown on Appendix 21-B, or more than three -hundred twenty
(320) acres in the Ag/Rural Area as shown on Appendix 21-B. This definition shall not include
roof and/or ground mounted solar systems located on permitted PRINCIPAL and ACCESSORY
BUILDINGS and designed to supply power to the principle USE(S) on site.
er appurtenant facilities and any transmis
•
lines under one hundred fifteen kilovolts (1151 •
v�°' ���� ���• ¢ �, � ose of
supplying or distributing electrical energy to users, a customer or customers and will be located
on less than twenty (20) acres. This designation shall not include roof and/or ground mounted
STRUCTURE: Anything that is built, constructed or erected, an edifice or BUILDING of any
kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some
definite manner, but not including poles, lines, cables or distribution facilities of PUBLIC
utilities. The term includes an object, including a mobile object, constructed or installed by man,
including but without limitation, BUILDINGS, towers, cranes, smokestacks, earth formations,
overhead ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION LINES, and gas or storage tanks that are principally
above ground, and solar collectors, buildings, and substations on SOLAR ENERGY
FACILITIES (SFIT's).
Seco 23-3-40. Uses by special review outside of subdivisions and historic townsites.
The following BUILDIN GS, STRUCTURES and USES may be constructed, occupied,
operated and maintained on LOTS outside of SUBDIVISIONS and HISTORIC TOWNSITES in
the A (Agricultural) Zone District upon approval of a Special Review Permit in accordance with
the requirements and procedures set forth in Article II, Division 4 of this Chapter, or Article II,
C�
Division 5, in the case of MAJOR FACILITIES OF PUBLIC UTILITIES O''. PUBLIC
AGENCIF:S.
23 4 1030.
Fly'. SOLAR ENERGY FACILITIES (SD -I 'S) being more than five (5) acres in size but less
than one -hundred sixty (160) acres in the Near/Urban Area as shown on Appendix 21-B,
or being more than five (5) acres but less than three -hundred twenty (320) acres in the
Ag/Rural Area as shown on Appendix 21-B.
Sec. 23-3-60. Uses by special review in subdivisions.
The following BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES and USES may be constructed, occupied,
operated and maintained on LOTS in SUBDIVISIONS in the A (Agricultural) Zone District
upon approval of a Special Review Permit in accordance with the requirements and procedures
set forth in Article II, Division 4 of this Chapter.
Y SMA T T SG n T E SOLAR ENERGY FACILITIES (SEF'S), subject to the additional
requirements of Section 23-4-1030.
Sec. 23-3-65. Uses by special review in historic townsites.
The following BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES and USES may be constructed, occupied,
operated and maintained on LOTS in HISTORIC TOWNSITES in the A (Agricultural) Zone
District upon approval of a Special Review Permit in accordance with the requirements and
procedures set forth in Article II, Division 4 of this Chapter.
JJ. SN4 n T T cG n T E SOLAR EN F,RGY FACILITIES (SEF'S), subject to the additional
requirements of Section 23-4-1030.
Sec. 23-3-310. I-1 (Light Industrial) Zone District.
C. Uses allowed subject to Site Plan Review. The following USES shall be allowed in the I-
1 Zone District following approval and recording of a Site Plan in accordance with
Article II, Division 3, of this Chapter. Any USE conducted outside of an ENCLOSED
BUILDING shall be SCREENED from adjacent PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY and
ADJACENT LOTS in any Zone District other I-3.
26. SMALL SCALE SOLAR ENERGY FACILITY
additional requirements of Section 23-4-1030.
I _ F,S (SF,F'S)
, subject to the
F. Uses by Special Review. The following BUILDIN GS, STRUCTURES and USES may be
constructed, occupied, operated and maintained in the I-1 Zone District upon approval of
a permit in accordance with the requirements of Article II, Division 4 of this Chapter.
Section 23 4 1030.
Sec. 23-3-320. I-2 (Medium Industrial) Zone District.
C. Uses allowed subject to Site Plan Review. The following USES shall be allowed in the I-
2 Zone District following approval and recording of a Site Plan in accordance with
Article II, Division 3, of this Chapter. Any USE conducted outside of an ENCLOSED
BUILDING shall be SCREENED from adjacent PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY and
ADJACENT LOTS in any Zone District other I-3.
28. SMALL SCALE SOLAR 1-A IH,RGY FACILITYIF S (SEF'S), subject to the
additional requirements of Section 23-4-1030.
F. Uses by Special Review. The following BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES and US FiS may be
constructed, occupied, operated and maintained in the I-2 Zone District upon approval of
a permit in accordance with the requirements of Article II, Division 4 of this Chapter.
8. MEDIUM SCALE SOLAR FACILITIES, subject to the additional requirements of
Section 23 4 1030.
Sec. 23-3-330m I-3 (Leavy Industrial) Zone District.
C. Uses allowed subject to Site Plan Review. The following USES shall be allowed in the I-
3 Zone District following approval and recording of a Site Plan in accordance with
Article II, Division 3, of this Chapter.
33. SMALL SCALE SOLAR 1-NERGY FACILITYII--{;S (SEF'S), subject to the
additional requirements of Section 23-4-1030.
F. Uses by Special Review. The fallowing BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES and USES may be
constructed, occupied, operated and maintained in the I-3 Zone District upon approval of
a permit in accordance with the requirements of Article II, Division 4 of this Chapter.
Section 23 4 1030.
Division 6 Wind Generators and Permitting Requirements for Wind Generators and for Solar
Energy Facilities Less than Five (S) Acres (S ACRE SEF)
Sec. 23-4-455. Submittal requirements and standards for Solar Energy Facilities Less than
Five (5) Acres (5 ACRE SEF).
The following submittals and standards are required for a 5 ACRE SEF:
A. Surface Drainage Analysis. At the time of 5 ACRE SEF application submittal, a
preliminary drainage report shall be provided for review by the Weld County Department
of Public Works pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 8, Article XI of this Code. Prior
to applying for a Grading Permit, a final drainage report stamped and signed by a
Professional Engineer registered in the State of Colorado is required. Soils shall be
planted to and maintained in perennial vegetation to prevent erosion, manage runoff and
build soil. Ground -mounted solar collector systems shall be exempt from impervious
surface calculations if the soil under the collectors is designated hydrologic A or B soi
1
groups by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS).
B. Dust and Weed Mitigation Plan. The Dust Mitigation Plan shall be provided at the time
of 5 ACRE SEF application submittal, which includes a description of those methods by
which dust emanating from the proposed 5 ACRE SEF and the weeds growing upon the
Impacted Area will be mitigated.
C. Floodplain Mapping. On the map of the base area, or another appropriate map, indicate
any flood plain associated with the proposal. Documentation of the historical flooding
activity should be included. Detail potential, adverse impacts related to the associated
floodplain. (Note: If the 5 ACRE SEF location is located within a Special Flood Hazard
Area identified by maps officially adopted by Weld County, a Flood Hazard
Development Permit (FHDP) is required prior to a building permit. The FHDP is issued
by the Weld County Department of Planning Services pursuant to Article XI of this
Chapter.)
D. A Decommissioning/Reclamation Plan. A Decommissioning/Reclamation Plan shall be
provided at the time of 5 ACRE SEF application submittal which will be signed by the
party responsible for decommissioning and the landowner (if different), addressing the
following:
1. Decommissioning/reclamation shall commence within twelve (12) months after
power production has permanently ceased and be completed within twelve (12)
months from the start date of the decommissioning/reclamation work.
2. All non -utility owned equipment, conduits, structures, fencing, and foundations to a
depth of at least three feet below grade shall be removed.
3. All fences, graveled areas and access roads shall be removed unless landowner
agreement to retain is presented, in writing, in which the property owner agrees for
this to remain.
4. Property shall be restored to a condition reasonably similar to its condition prior to
development of the 5 ACRE SEF.
5. The developer or owner of the 5 ACHE SEF is responsible for the decommissioning.
6. Decommissioning/reclamation cost estimates, which shall be updated every five (5)
years from the establishment and submittal of the Security, shall include all costs
associated with the dismantlement, recycling, and safe disposal of facility
components and site reclamation activities, including the following elements:
a. All labor, equipment, transportation, and disposal costs associated with the
removal of all facility components from the facility site;
b. All costs associated with full reclamation of the facility site, including removal of
non-native soils, fences, and constructed access roads;
c. All costs associated with reclamation of any primary agricultural soils at the
facility site to ensure each area of direct impact shall be materially similar to the
condition it was before construction;
d. All decommissioning/reclamation activity management, site supervision, site
safety costs;
e. Any other costs, including administrative costs, associated with the
decommissioning and reclamation of the facility site; and
f. The estimated date of submission of the Security to Weld County.
7. Prior to construction, an irrevocable standby letter of credit, bond, or alternate form of
Security in an amount sufficient to fund the estimated decommissioning/reclamation
costs required by this Code. The Security shall:
a. Name the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County as the sole
beneficiary of the letter of credit;
b. Be issued by an A -rated financial institution based upon a rating provided by
S&P, Moody's, Fitch, AM Best, or other rating agency with similar credentials;
c. Include an automatic extension provision or "evergreen clause"; and
d Be "bankruptcy remote," meaning the Security will be unaffected by the
bankruptcy of the 5 ACRE SEF operator.
Weld County, in its sole discretion, may approve alternative forms of Security such
as, but not limited to: bonds, letters of credit, corporate guarantees from electric
utilities serving the County, or other securities, if it finds that such alternative forms
will provide an assurance of the availability of financial resources for
decommissioning/reclamation that equals or exceeds that provided by the form
required herein.
8. Access to decommissioning/reclamation fund. Weld County shall have the right to
draw upon the irrevocable standby letter of credit, or other form of financial security,
to pay for decommissioning in the event that the holder has not commenced
decommissioning/reclamation activities within ninety (90) days of the Board of
County Commissioners' order or resolution directing decommissioning/reclamation.
F. Statement of Transportation Construction Impacts.
1. Describe what impacts construction of the project will have upon transportation
patterns in the area intended to be served or affected by the proposal.
2. Describe the potential construction impact on roads within the County.
3. Identify improvements required to any roads within the County in order to serve the
project adequately.
A haul route map and agreement to mitigate construction traffic impacts to the area
surrounding the proposed 5 ACRE S 1-T may be required.
F. Development standards for a 5 ACRD; SEF.
1. Height limitation. Ground -mounted solar collectors shall not exceed twenty-five (25)
feet in height, measured from the highest grade below each solar panel to the highest
extent of the solar panel rotation.
2. Glare. A 5 ACRE, S1 -4,F shall be designed, located or placed so that concentrated solar
glare from its solar collectors will not be directed toward or onto nearby properties or
roadways at any time of the day.
3. Setbacks. The Improved Area of the 5 ACRE SET shall conform to the setback
requirements of the underlying zone. Additionally, the improved area must be at least
five hundred (500) feet from existing residential buildings and residential lots of a
platted subdivision or planned unit development. The residential setback requirement
may be reduced if appropriate screening through landscape or an opaque fence is
installed, or upon submittal to weld County of a waiver or informed consent signed
by the residence owner agreeing to the lesser setback. If landscaping or opaque
7
fencing is substituted for setback, a landscaping plan or fencing plan shall first be
submitted to and approved by the Department of Planning Services.
4. Dust mitigation. The operators of the 5 ACRE SEF shall continuously employ the
practices for control of fugitive dust detailed in their dust mitigation plan submitted as
required by Subsection B.2., above.
5. Underground cables. All electrical cables on the improved area shall be buried,
except for direct current string wires that connect between solar collectors, direct
current collection circuits between rows of solar arrays that are no more than four (4)
feet above grade crossings, substations, switchyards, and circuit voltages greater than
34.5 kilovolts (where necessary).
6. Fencing. The 5 ACRE SEF shall be enclosed with a security fence as approved
pursuant to a fencing plan submitted to the Department of Planning Services.
Appropriate signage shall be placed upon such fencing that warns the public of the
high voltage therein.
7. Stormwater management. The Operator of the 5 ACRE SEF shall submit a drainage
report to comply with required Storm Drainage Criteria pursuant to Chapter 8, Article
XI of this Code. Additional requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
System (MS4) areas may be applicable pursuant to_Chapter 8, Article IX of this Code.
Ground -mounted solar collector systems shall be exempt from impervious surface
calculations if the soil under the collectors is designated hydrologic A or B soil
groups by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (FRCS).
8. Access permit. Prior to construction of the 5 ACRE SEF, the applicant shall apply
for and obtain an approved Access Permit from the Weld County Department of
Public Works, pursuant to the provisions of Article XIV of Chapter 8 of this Code.
9. Existing irrigation systems. The nature and location or expansion of the 5 ACRE
SEF must not unreasonably interfere with any irrigation systems on or adjacent to the
solar facility.
G. The 5 ACRE SEF applicant must show that all reasonable alternatives to the proposed
location have been adequately assessed, and the proposed action is consistent with the
best interests of the people of the County and represents a balanced use of resources in
the affected area.
H. Only one 5 ACRE SEF is allowed per 35 acres. No 5 ACRE SEF may be located
immediately adjacent to another SEF.
8
Secs 23-4-460. Zoning Permit for Wind Generator or 5 ACRE SEF and general application
requirements.
An application for a Zoning Permit for a WIND GENERATOR or 5 ACRE SEF shall
include the following:
A. Name, address and telephone number of the applicant.
B. Name, address and telephone number of the owner of the land, if different from
Subsection A., above.
C. Parcel number and legal description of the property for which the application is made.
D. hvidence of interest in the subject land held by the applicant.
E. If proposing to interconnect to a utility company, copy of a "letter of intent to
interconnect" or interconnection agreement signed by the utility company.
F. Number of acres of the property.
G. Elevation drawings of the proposed facility showing all towers, STRUCTURES and other
improvements related to the facility, showing specific materials, placement and colors.
H. Weld County Access Permit.
I. A vicinity map showing ADJACENT properties, general land USES, zoning and
STRE4 _ 4.TS/ROADS :
1. Within five hundred (500) feet of the proposed WIND GENERATOR
SEF
site.
or 5 ACRE
J. A sketch plan of the site at the scale of one (1) inch represents fifty (50) feet, or other
suitable scale to show:
L The proposed location of the WIND G1 -4;N ERATOR or 5 ACRE S I ---4;F and other
support STRUCTURES (guy wires), including distances from the property LOT
lines, above -ground power lines and other STRUCTURES on the property.
2. Location and measurements of any easements or rights -of -way.
3. An access is or can be made available that provides for safe ingress and egress to a
PUBLIC STREET/ROAD. All accesses shall be in accordance with the access
requirements set forth in Chapter 8 of this Code.
4. Identification of any COUNTY, state or federal STREETS/ROADS or highways.
9
5. Fixisting STRUCTURES on the property.
K. An application fee. An additional fifty (50) percent of the application fee shall be added
to the cost of the application fee if the USE, is started prior to issuance of a permit. l'he
payment of the investigation fee shall not relieve any persons from fully complying with
the requirements of this Chapter, nor from any other penalties.
L. A certified list of the names, addresses and the corresponding Parcel Identification
Dumber assigned by the County Assessor of the owners of property (the surface estate)
within five hundred (500) feet of the property lines of the parcel on which the WIN')
GENERATOR or 5 ACRE SE F shall be placed. The source of such list shall be the
records of the County Assessor, or an ownership update from a title or abstract company
or attorney derived from such records or from the records of the County Clerk and
Recorder. If the list was assembled from the records of the County Assessor, the
applicant shall certify that such list was assembled within thirty (30) days of the
application submission date.
Sec. 23=4-470o Delegation of authority.
The hoard of County Commissioners delegates the authority to issue a zoning permit for a
WIND GENERATOR or 5 ACRE S N; _ -i' which otherwise requires the approval of the .hoard of
County Commissioners through a public hearing process to the Department of Planning Services
upon a determination by the Department that:
A. The applicant is in compliance with the criteria identified in this Chapter for the specific
category of zoning permit for which application is being made.
B. The Department of Planning Services has sent notice and has not received signed
notification from at least thirty percent (30%) of surrounding property owners within five
hundred (500) feet of the subject property in opposition to the location of the WIND
GENFRATOR or 5 ACRN; SET within twenty-eight (28) days.
Sec. 23-4-1030. o Sol
•3
Sit
energy
A. The Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall consider the
following criteria in making their determination in approving or denying a Special eview
Permit for a Solar Energy Facility (SEE) in addition to those criteria enumerated in Chapter
,$c� 9mv'�an$ nr r�r�mr� �r�r�nii� i�����n� �x� -a,�,r� �s ,c�
. .
23, Article II, Division 4 I ° s .soils
. Submittal Requirements and Standards. The following submittals and standards are
required:
1. Surface rainage Analysis. At the time of SEF application submittal, a preliminary
drainage report shall be provided for review by the Weld County Department of Public
Works pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 8 Article XI of this Code. Prior to
applying for a Grading Permit, a final drainage report stamped and signed by a
Professional Engineer registered in the State of Colorado is required. Soils shall be
planted to and maintained in perennial vegetation to prevent erosion, manage runoff
and build soil. Ground -mounted solar collector systems shall be exempt from
impervious surface calculations if the soil under the collectors is designated hydrologic
A or B soil groups by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
2. Dust and Weed Mitigation Plan. The Dust Mitigation Plan shall be provided at the
time of SEF application submittal, which includes a description of those methods by
which dust emanating from the proposed SEF and the weeds growing upon the
Impacted Area will be mitigated.
3. Floodplain Mapping. On the map of the base area, or another appropriate map, indicate
any flood plain associated with the proposal. Documentation of the historical flooding
activity should be included. Detail potential, adverse impacts related to the associated
floodplain. (Note: If the Sri' location is located within a Special Flood Hazard Area
identified by maps officially adopted by Weld County, a Flood Hazard Development
Permit (FHDP) is required prior to a building permit. The FHDP is issued by the weld
County Department of Planning Services pursuant to Article XI of this Chapter.)
4. A Decommissioning/Reclamation Plan. A Decommissioning/Reclamation Plan shall
be provided at the time of S 1-;F application submittal which will be signed by the party
responsible for decommissioning and the landowner (if different), addressing the
following:
a. Decommissioning/reclamation shall commence within twelve (12) months after
power production has permanently ceased and be completed within twelve (12)
months from the start date of the decommissioning/reclamation work.
b. All non -utility owned equipment, conduits, structures, fencing, and foundations to
a depth of at least three feet below grade shall be removed.
c. All fences, graveled areas and access roads shall be removed unless landowner
agreement to retain is presented, in writing, in which the property owner agrees for
this to remain.
d. Property shall be restored to a condition reasonably similar to its condition prior to
development of the S�;F.
e. The developer or owner of the S F,F is responsible for the decommissioning.
f. Decommissioning/reclamation cost estimates, which shall be updated every five (5)
years from the establishment and submittal of the Security, shall include all costs
associated with the dismantlement, recycling, and safe disposal of facility
components and site reclamation activities, including the following elements
i. All labor, equipment, transportation, and disposal costs associated with the
removal of all facility components from the facility site;
ii. All costs associated with full reclamation of the facility site, including removal
of non-native soils, fences, and constructed access roads;
iii. All costs associated with reclamation of any primary agricultural soils at the
facility site to ensure each area of direct impact shall be materially similar to
the condition it was before construction;
iv. All decommissioning/reclamation activity management, site supervision, site
safety costs;
v. Any other costs, including administrative costs, associated with the
decommissioning and reclamation of the facility site; and
vi. The estimated date of submission of the Security to Weld County.
g. Prior to construction, an irrevocable standby letter of credit, bond, or alternate form
of Security in an amount sufficient to fund the estimated
decommissioning/reclamation costs required by this Code. The Security shall:
i. Name the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County as the sole
beneficiary of the letter of credit;
ii. Be issued by an A -rated financial institution based upon a rating provided by
S&P, Moody's, Fitch, AM Best, or other rating agency with similar credentials;
iii. Include an automatic extension provision or "evergreen clause"; and
iv. Be "bankruptcy remote," meaning the Security will be unaffected by the
bankruptcy of the SEF operator.
Weld County, in its sole discretion, may approve alternative forms of Security such
as, but not limited to: bonds, letters of credit, or other securities, if it finds that such
alternative forms will provide an assurance of the availability of financial resources
for decommissioning/reclamation that equals or exceeds that provided by the form
required herein.
h. Access to decommissioning/reclamation fund. Weld County shall have the right to
draw upon the irrevocable standby letter of credit, or other form of financial
security, to pay for decommissioning in the event that the holder has not
commenced decommissioning/reclamation activities within ninety (90) days of the
Board of County Commissioners' order or resolution directing
decommissioning/reclamation.
iot
5. Statement of Transportation Construction Impacts.
a. Describe what impacts construction of the project will have upon transportation
patterns in the area intended to be served or affected by the proposal.
b. Describe the potential construction impact on roads within the County.
c. Identify improvements required to any roads within the County in order to serve
the project adequately.
A haul route map and agreement to mitigate construction traffic impacts to the area
surrounding the proposed SEF may be required.
C. Development standards for a SEF.
1. Height limitation. Ground -mounted solar collectors shall not exceed twenty-five (25)
feet in height, measured from the highest grade below each solar panel to the highest
extent of the solar panel rotation.
2. Glare. A SEF shall be designed, located or placed so that concentrated solar glare
from its solar collectors will not be directed toward or onto nearby properties or
roadways at any time of the day.
3.
Setbacks. The Improved Area of the SEF shall conform to the setback requirements
of the underlying zone. Additionally, the improved area must be at least five hundred
(500) feet from existing residential buildings and residential lots of a platted
subdivision or planned unit development. The residential setback requirement may
be reduced if appropriate screening through landscape or an opaque fence is installed,
or upon submittal to weld County of a waiver or informed consent signed by the
residence owner agreeing to the lesser setback. If landscaping or opaque fencing is
substituted for setback, a landscaping plan or fencing plan shall first be submitted to
and approved by the Department of Planning Services.
4. Dust mitigation. The operators of the SEF shall continuously employ the practices
for control of fugitive dust detailed in their dust mitigation plan submitted as required
by Subsection B.2., above.
5. Underground cables. All electrical cables on the improved area shall be buried,
except for direct current string wires that connect between solar collectors, direct
current collection circuits between rows of solar arrays that are no more than four (4)
feet above grade crossings, substations, switchyards, and circuit voltages greater than
34.5 kilovolts (where necessary).
/3
6. Fencing. 1 _ lie SEF shall be enclosed with a secu- icy fence as approved pu_suant ``,o a
fencing -plan submittec to the Department of Plan�ling Services. Appro-yiate signage
sbe placed upon such fencing that warns the public of the high voltage therein.
7. Stormwater management. The Operator of the SEF shall submit a drainage report to
comply with required Storm Drainage Criteria pursuant t0_Cha;xer 8, Article XI of
this Code. Additional requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
(MS4) areas may be applicable pursuant to_Cha_Dter 89 Article IX of this Code.
Ground -mounted solar collector systems shay be exem at from impervf,ous surface
calculations if the soil under the collectors is designated hydrologic A or A soil
groups by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
8. Access permit. Prior to construct:o; o: the SE-I,the applicant shall apply `or and obtain
an approved Access Permit from the weld County Department of Publ' c works,
pursuant to the provisions of Artie e X=v of Chapter 8 of this Code.
9. Fixisting irrigation systems. The nature a -d location or expansion of the SEF must not
unreasonably interfere with any irrigation systems on or adjacent to the solar facility.
). Tne SEF applicant must show that a 1 reasonable alternatives to the proposed location have
been ac.equately assessed, and_ the proposed action is consistent with the best interests of
the people of the County and represents a balanced use of resources in the affectec area.
rl
Trees, shrub
As no single landscap -n
features, to
is extremely important for -mob
Land.sca-i
and/ol
is operties a
G
G.
1 reasonabire- tenciaties to the
ld�:}�- �s co siste
Prue nem
int e-ga ion
�4.
acloor s tora
s,
O
A
F.y m
rthianieat associated wi-1� he soles
approval the
�--fnC
g
omng of
p -
fie area°
ffering land
0
Board of County Commissioners may set a greater distance than mentioned above when,
in its opinion, it is justified.
shall address dust, weeds and erosion. The property shall be maintained in such a manner as
•
.
•
/cc
Cheryl Hoffman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Cheryl:
Bruce Barker
Thursday, April 22, 2021 12:58 PM
Cheryl Hoffman; Tom Parko Jr.; Esther Gesick
RE: 0rd2020-20 - Solar Ordinance - 2nd reading Monday, 04/26/21
SEE Changes to Chapter 23 - Final with all changes through 4-22-21.docx
Thanks. See attached. Fixed the numbering and added language in some sections. This version is accurate and includes
all of the suggested changes from yesterday. Please go with this version.
Bruce T. Barker, Esq.
Weld County Attorney
P.O. Box 758
1150 "O" Street
Greeley, CO 80632
(970) 400-4390
Fax: (970) 352-0242
Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for
the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is attorney privileged and confidential, or
otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify
sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action
concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly
prohibited.
From: Cheryl Hoffman <choffman@weldgov.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2021 12:02 PM
To: Bruce Barker <bbarker@weldgov.com>; Tom Parko Jr. <tparko@weldgov.com>; Esther Gesick
<egesick@weldgov.com>
Cc: Cheryl Hoffman <choffman@weldgov.com>
Subject: Ord2020-20 - Solar Ordinance - 2nd reading Monday, 04/26/21
Attached please find Bruce's changes to Chapter 23 (with highlighted areas in turquois where I'd like you to pay
particular attention to my drafted Ord2020-20 for 2" reading. Bruce and Tom, please pay special attention to the added
Sec.23-4-455 and Sec. 23-4-1030. The numbering was a little off, so I made a best guess at what it should be, but I could
be totally off base. Please indicate if this is good or if corrections need to be made. Thanks so much!
a
Deputy Clerk to the Board
1150 O Street/P.O. Sox 758
Greeley, CO 80632
Tel: (970) 400.4227
choffman@weldgov.com
2
BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Troy Mellon, that the following resolution be introduced for denial by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER:
PRESENTED BY:
REQUEST:
ORDINANCE 2020-20
TOM PARK°
IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND REENACTING, WITH
AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 21 AREAS AND ACTIVITIES OF STATE
INTEREST AND CHAPTER 23 ZONING, OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE.
be recommended unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reason:
1. The Planning Commission does not believe the stakeholder community has been thoroughly
engaged in the drafting of the new regulations.
2. The Planning Commission does not believe the three (3) mile limit from municipalities is a good value
3. The Planning Commission does not feel that the consideration of rangeland is applicable.
4. The Planning Commission is concerned with the distance to municipalities when there are flagpole
annexations.
5. The Planning Commission feels that more time is warranted for the proposed changes.
Motion seconded by Tom Cope.
VOTE:
For Denial
Tom Cope
Lonnie Ford
Elijah Hatch
Skip Holland
Butch White
Troy Mellon
Against Denial Absent
Gene Stille
Dwaine Barclay
Sam Gluck
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this
case to the Board of County Commissioners for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Michelle Wall, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County,
Colorado, adopted on December 1, 2020.
Dated the 1St of December, 2020
Michelle Wall
Secretary
Sec. 21-3=20. o Deco loons.
n addition to the terms defined in Section 21-1-90 of this Code, the following terms specific to the
designation of site selection and construction of major facilities of a public utility shall be construed to
lave the meanings set forth as follows:
Large scale solar facility: A facility which is used for the production of electrical energy from energy
collected by the sun including solar energy collectors, power generation facilities, facilities for storing and
transforming energy, other appurtenant facilities and any transmission lines, which is developed for the
purpose of supplying or distributing electrical energy to users, a customer or customers and will have a
rated capacity greater than thirty (30) megawatts. This designation shall not include roof and/or ground
mounted solar systems located on permitted principal and accessory buildings and designed t0 supply
power to the principle use(s) on site. Large scale solar facilities may only be permitted in the industrial
zone district.
Bead 2301-90. A DefhlKoornso
The following specific words and phrases, when appearing in this Chapter in uppercase letters, shall
have the meanings stated in this Section:
LARGE SCALE SOLAR FACILITY A facility for the production of electrical energy from energy
produced by the sun including solar energy collectors, power generation facilities, facilities for storing and
transforming energy, other appurtenant facilities and any transmission lines, which is developed for the
purpose of supplying or distributing electrical energy to users, a customer or customers and will have a
rated capacity greater than thirty (30) megawatts. This designation shall not include roof and/or ground
mounted solar systems located on permitted PRINCIPAL and ACCESSORY BUILDINGS and designed to
supply power to the principle USE(S) on site. Large Scale Solar Facilities are permitted in al -I -s
throughthe A (Agricultural) Zone District, which are 1) located outside three (3) miles of
existing city limits, 2) meets the definition of "Rangeland" as defined by the NRCS, and 3) meet all the
requirements pursuant to the procedures found in Chapter 21 of this code. Large Scale Solar Facilities
are also permitted in the I-2 and I-3 Industrial Zone Districts pursuant to the procedures found in Chapter
21- 23, Article II, Division 3 of this Code.
MEDIUM SCALE SOLAR FACILITY. A facility for the production of electrical energy from energy
produced by the sun including solar energy collectors, power generation facilities, facilities for storing and
transforming energy, with a rated capacity over five (5) MW, but less than thirty (30) MW, other
appurtenant facilities and any transmission lines under one hundred fifteen kilovolts (115 kV), which is
developed for the purpose of supplying or distributing electrical energy to users, a customer or customers
and is located on twenty (20) acres or more. This designation shall not include roof and/or ground
mounted solar systems located on permitted PRINCIPAL and ACCESSORY BUILDINGS and designed to
supply power to the principle USE(S) on site. Medium Scale Solar Facilities are permitted in the A
(Agricultural) Zone District, which are 1) located outside three (3) miles of existing city limits, 2) meets the
definition of "Rangeland" as defined by the NRCS, and 3) meet all the requirements pursuant to the
procedures found in Chapter 21 of this code. Medium Scale Solar Facilities are also permitted in the I-1,
-2 and I-3 Zone Districts pursuant to the procedures found in Chapter 23, Article II, Division 3 of this
Code
SMALL SCALE COMMUNITY SOLAR FACILITY: A facility for the production of electrical energy
from energy produced by the sun including solar energy collectors, power generation facilities, facilities
for storing and transforming energy, with a rated capacity of up to five (5) MW, other appurtenant facilities
and any transmission lines under one hundred fifteen kilovolts (115 kV), which is developed for the
purpose of supplying or distributing electrical energy to users and/or, a customer or customers. and will
be locateo on kDss t an by ty (20) acres. The facility shall not exceed twenty acres or twenty percent
(20%) of the total parcel size, whichever is less. No SMALL SCALE COMMUNITY SOLAR FACILITY
shall be located closer than two -hundred (200) feet from any other solar facility. Small Scale Solar
Facilities are permitted in the "A" Agricultural Zone District pursuant to the procedures found in Chapter
23; Article II, Division 4 and also permitted in the 0-1, I-2 ant I-3 Industrial Zone Districts pursuant to
Chapter 23; Article II, Division 3 of this code. This designation shall not include roof and/or ground
mounted solar systems located on permitteo associated with PRINCIPAL and ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
and designed to supply power to the principle and/or accessory USE(S) on site.
Sec. 23-3-40. - Uses by special review outside of subdivisions and historic townsites.
The following BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES and USES may be constructed, occupied, operated and
maintained on LOTS outside of SUBDIVISIONS and HISTORIC TOWNSITES in the A (Agricultural) Zone
District upon approval of a Special Review Permit in accordance with the requirements and procedures
set forth in Article II, Division 4 of this Chapter, or Article III Division 5, in the case of MAJOR FACILITIES
OF PUBLIC UTILITIES OR PUBLIC AGENCIES.
A. ANIMAL BOARDING and animal TRAINING FACILITIES where the maximum number of ANIMAL
UNITS permitted in Section 23-3-70.D below is exceeded or traffic to and from the facility exceeds
sixty (60) average daily trips.
B. CAMPGROUNDS.
C. More than the number of CARGO CONTAINERS allowed by Section 23-3-30.
D. CHILD CARE CENTERS.
E. COMMERCIAL rodeos and COMMERCIAL roping arenas.
F. CEMETERIES.
G. CHURCHES.
H. COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL FACILITIES.
I. CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, subject to Article XV, Section 15-5, of the Weld County Charter.
J. EVENT FACILITIES not agriculture -related.
K. Keeping, raising or boarding of EXOTIC ANIMALS.
L. HOME BUSINESSES.
M. HELIPORTS.
N. KENNELS, subject to the additional requirements of Section 23-4-400.
O. LIVESTOCK CONFINEMENT OPERATIONS, subject to the additional requirements of Section 23-
4-350
P. LUMBERYARDS/WOODWORKING.
Q. MAJOR FACILITIES OF PUBLIC UTILITIES OR PUBLIC AGENCIES in accordance with Division 5
of Article II of this Chapter.
: !viEDIUNI SCALE SOLAR FACILI
SR. Open MINING and processing of minerals, subject to the additional requirements of Article IV,
Division 4, of this Chapter.
TS. MULTI -FAMILY DWELLINGS for persons PRINCIPALLY employed at or engaged in FARMING.
UT. NONCOMMERCIAL TOWERS requiring approval of a Use by Special Review.
VU. OIL AND GAS STORAGE FACILITIES.
W\/. OIL AND GAS SUPPORT AND SERVICE.
XW. ORGANIC FERTILIZER PRODUCTION/COMPOSTING FACILITIES.
YX. OUTDOOR STORAGE of PUBLIC utility -related equipment.
ZY. PIPELINES - DOMESTIC WATER in accordance with Division 6 of Article II of this Chapter.
PAZ. Private SCHOOLS.
-B-BAA. RACING FACILITIES.
CCBB. REPAIR SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT.
-D -D -CC. RESEARCH LABORATORIES.
EEDD. RESIDENTIAL THERAPEUTIC CENTERS.
-FFEE. More than the number of SEMI -TRAILERS as ACCESSORY storage allowed by right or by
permit.
OFF. SMALL SCALE SOLAR FACILITIES, subject to the additional requirements of
Section 23-4-1030.
HHGG. Solid and hazardous waste disposal sites and facilities requiring Certificate of Designation in
accordance with Sections 12-8-10 and 23-4-380 of this Code.
I4HH. TELECOMMUNICATION ANTENNA TOWERS requiring approval of a Use by Special Review.
Jai TRANSLOADING.
KKJJ. USES similar to the USES listed as permitted as long as the USE complies with the general
intent of the Zone District.
LLKK. WIND GENERATORS requiring the issuance of Special Review Permit under Division 6 of
Article IV of this Chapter.
COMMUNITY
Sec. 23-3-310, - I-1 (Light Industrial) Zone District.
A. Intent. The purpose of the I-1 Zone District is to provide a zone to accommodate light industrial and
compatible COMMERCIAL USES that create minimal negative impacts and are conducted primarily in
ENCLOSED BUILDINGS. I-1 District properties are accessible to the public, consumer -oriented, less
resource -intensive than heavy industry, have minimal environmental impacts, and may be located near
residential areas if designed properly. Properties zoned I-1 should provide economic development and
employment, encourage a balanced, diversified economy, and may serve as a transition between
nonindustrial USES and the more intense Industrial Zone Districts.
B. Uses Allowed by Right. No BUILDING, STRUCTURE or land shall be used and no BUILDING or
STRUCTURE shall hereafter be erected structurally altered, enlarged or maintained in the I-1 Zone
District except for one (1) or more of the USES listed in this section.
1 Asphalt or concrete batch plants used TEMPORARILY and exclusively for an on -site construction
project or the completion of a PUBLIC STREET/ROAD improvements project. The six-month
limitation for this TEMPORARY USE may be extended in six-month increments at the discretion of
the Director of Planning Services up to two (2) times, and thereafter by the Board of County
Commissioners.
2. COUNTY grader sheds.
3. One (1) NONCOMMERCIAL TOWER up to forty (40) feet in height per LEGAL LOT. (See Section
23-4-895.)
4. PUBLIC PARKS.
5. PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
6. TELECOMMUNICATION ANTENNA TOWERS up to thirty-five (35) feet in height.
7. TEMPORARY borrow pits used exclusively for the completion of a PUBLIC STREET/ROAD
improvement project.
8. UTILITY SERVICE FACILITIES.
Uses allowed subject to Site Plan Review. The following USES shall be allowed in the I-1 Zone District
following approval and recording of a Site Plan in accordance with Article II, Division 3, of this Chapter.
Any USE conducted outside of an ENCLOSED BUILDING shall be SCREENED from adjacent PUBLIC
RIGHTS -OF -WAY and ADJACENT LOTS in any Zone District other I-3.
1. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION.
2. An indoor USE of a manufacturing, fabricating, assembling or warehouse nature.
3. BREW PUBS, BREWERIES, DISTILLERIES, and WINERIES.
4. CAR WASHES and gas stations.
5. COMMERCIAL SCHOOLS.
6. COMMERCIAL STORAGE BUILDINGS.
7. CUSTOM MEAT PROCESSING.
8. DISTRIBUTION CENTERS.
9. FUNERAL HOMES and mortuaries.
10. Golf courses.
11. Headquarters or service facilities for taxi services, bus services and other services involving the
transportation of people.
12. HELIPORTS.
13. HOTELS/MOTELS.
14. INDOOR SHOOTING RANGES.
15. LANDSCAPING COMPANIES.
16. LUMBERYARDS/WOODWORKING.
17. MEDIUM SCAL SOLAR FACILITIES, subject to the additional requirements of Section 23-4-1030
X18
2019
2120
2221
2322
2423
224
2625
OFFICES.
OUTDOOR STORAGE of PUBLIC utility -related equipment.
PET CREMATORIES.
Police, ambulance, and fire stations or facilities.
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, COMMERCIAL, PUBLIC and PRIVATE.
REPAIR SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT.
RESTAURANTS.
RETAIL/SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS with a total GROSS FLOOR AREA of up to three
thousand (3,000) square feet per LEGAL LOT
2726. SCHOOLS, private.
227. SMALL SCALE COMMUNITY SOLAR FACILITY, subject to the additional requirements of
Section 23-4-1030.
2928. THEATERS and convention halls.
3029. VEHICLE RENTAL, SALES, SERVICE and/or REPAIR ESTABLISHMENTS.
3130. Veterinarian clinics and animal hospitals.
3231. WHOLESALE TRADE ESTABLISHMENTS.
D. Accessory Uses. The following BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES and USES shall be allowed in the I-1 Zone
District so long as they are clearly incidental and ACCESSORY to an allowed USE and included on an
approved and recorded Site Plan. Any USE conducted outside of an ENCLOSED BUILDING shall be
SCREENED from adjacent PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY and ADJACENT LOTS in any Zone District other
I-3
1. CARGO CONTAINERS.
2. Loading areas.
3. Parking areas and parking STRUCTURES for USE by employees, customers and company
vehicles.
4. SEMI -TRAILERS as accessory storage.
5. STRUCTURES and BUILDINGS ACCESSORY to USES permitted under Section 23-3-310.B.
6. WIND GENERATORS allowed as ACCESSORY USES in Section 23-4-450 of this Chapter.
E. Uses Allowed by Permit. No USE listed in this Subsection shall commence construction or operation in
the I-1 Zone District without prior approval of a land use permit from the Department of Planning
Services.
1. One (1) MANUFACTURED HOME per LEGAL LOT, when used as living quarters for caretaker or
security personnel responsible for maintaining or guarding the property, permitted under Division 3
of Article IV of this Chapter.
2. One (1) NONCOMMERCIAL TOWER between forty (40) and seventy (70) feet in height per LEGAL
LOT permitted under Section 23-4-895.
3. OIL AND GAS FACILITIES.
a. 1041 WOGLA Permit Required. No OIL AND GAS FACILITY shall be developed in the I-1
(Industrial) Zone District until a 1041 WOGLA Permit has been issued in accordance with the
application and hearing procedures set forth in Article V, Chapter 21 of this Code.
4 PIPELINES - NATURAL GAS or PIPELINES - PETROLEUM PRODUCTS OTHER THAN
NATURAL GAS permitted under Division 11 of Article II of this Chapter.
5. TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANTENNA TOWERS between thirty-five (35) and seventy (70) feet in
height permitted under Division 10 of Article IV of this Chapter.
6. TEMPORARY seasonal uses permitted under Division 7 of Article IV of this Chapter.
7. WIND GENERATORS requiring a zoning permit under Division 6 of Article IV of this Chapter.
F. Uses by Special Review. The following BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES and USES may be constructed,
occupied, operated and maintained in the I-1 Zone District upon approval of a permit in accordance with
the requirements of Article II, Division 4 of this Chapter.
1. AIRSTRIPS when they are ACCESSORY to the Use Allowed by Right.
2. Asphalt or concrete batch plants.
3. CHURCHES.
4. CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, subject to Article XV, Section 15-5, of the Weld County Charter.
5. DOMESTIC SEPTAGE disposal subject to Chapter 14 of this Code.
6. _
LARGE SCALE SOLAR FACILITIES pursuant to th-eg-rec-;ec s found in Cha-pter 21 of t-h-i-s
Cadet -m1]-
67. MEAT PROCESSING.
7. N -1-E D, - Ai� .O -AC I L I TI E S, s u-bieet-to th ditio - 23 4 1030T
8. Open MINING and processing of minerals.
9. PIPELINE - DOMESTIC WATER in accordance with Division 6 of Article II of this Chapter.
10. RESEARCH LABORATORIES.
11. TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANTENNA TOWERS over seventy (70) feet in height.
12. USES similar to the USES listed as permitted as long as the USE complies with the general intent
of the Zone District.
13. WIND GENERATORS requiring the issuance of Special Review Permit under Division 6 of Article
IV of this Chapter.
Sec. 23-3-320. -1-2 (Medium Industrial) Zone District.
A. Intent. The purpose of the I-2 Zone District is to designate areas for industrial USES with more intense,
higher traffic, or larger scale USES than the I-1 Zone District.
8.
9.
10.
11.
B. Uses Allowed by Right. No BUILDING, STRUCTURE or land shall be used and no BUILDING or
STRUCTURE shall hereafter be erected, structurally altered, enlarged or maintained in the I-2 Zone
District except for one (1) or more of the USES in this section.
1 Asphalt or concrete batch plant used T IVi PORA61' ILY and exclusively for an on -site construction
project or the completion of a PUBLIC STREET/ROAD improvements project. The six-month
limitation for this TEMPORARY USE may be extended in six-month increments at the discretion of
the Director of Planning Services up to two (2) times, and thereafter by the Board of County
Commissioners.
2. COUNTY grader sheds.
3. One (1) !NONCOMMERCIAL TOWER up to forty (40) feet in height per LEGAL LOT. (See Section
23-4-895.)
4. PUBLIC PARKS.
5. PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
6. TELECOMMUNICATION ANTENNA TOWERS up to thirty-five (35) feet in height.
7. TEMPORARY borrow pits used exclusively for the completion of a PUBLIC STREET/ROAD
improvement project.
8. UTILITY SERVICE FACILITIES.
C. Uses allowed subject to Site Plan Review. The following USES shall be allowed in the I-2 Zone District
following approval and recording of a Site Plan in accordance with Article II, Division 3, of this Chapter.
Any USE conducted outside of an ENCLOSED BUILDING shall be SCREENED from adjacent PUBLIC
RIGHTS -OF -WAY and ADJACENT LOTS in any Zone District other I-3.
1. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION.
2. A USE of a research, repairing, manufacturing, fabricating, assembling, PROCESSING, or storage
nature.
3. Asphalt or concrete batch plants.
4. BIOSOLID and DOMESTIC SEPTAGE disposal subject to Chapter 14 of this Code.
5. BREWDRIES, DIS T I
_LERIES, and WINERI
6. CAR WASHES and gas stations.
7. COMMERCIAL STORAGE BUILDINGS.
CUSTOM MEAT PROCESSING.
S
RI,UTIOIN CENTERS.
Golf courses.
S.
Headquarters or service facilities for taxi services, bus services and other services involving the
transportation of people.
12. HELIPORTS.
13. INDOOR SHOOTING RANG S.
14. LANDSCAPING COMPANIES.
15.
LARGE SCALE SOLAR FACI
TIES , sub
ect to the additional requirements of Section 23-4-
10301M21.
15. LUMBERYARDS/WOODWORKING.
16. MEDIUM SCALE SOLAR FACILITIES, subject to the additional requirements of Section 23-4-
1030.
1817. OFFICES.
X18. OIL AND GAS SRAGE FACILITIES.
2-419. OIL AND GAS SUPPORT AND SERVICE.
2120. OUTDOOR STORAGE.
2221. OUTDOOR STORAGE of PUBLIC utility -related equipment.
222. ORGANIC FERTILIZER PRODUCTION/COMPOSTING FACILITIES.
2123. Parking areas and parking STRUCTURES.
224. PET CREMATORIES.
225. Police, ambulance, and fire stations or facilities.
2726. RACING FACILITIES.
2-827. REPAIR SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT.
2928. RETAIL/SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS with a total GROSS FLOOR AREA of up to three
thousand (3,000) square feet per LEGAL LOT.
3029. SMALL SCALE COMMUNITY SOLAR FACILITY.
3-30. TRANSLOADING.
3231. THEATERS and convention halls.
-3-832. VEHICLE SERVICE/REPAIR ESTABLISHMENTS.
D. Accessory Uses. The following BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES and USES shall be allowed in the I-2 Zone
District so long as they are clearly incidental and ACCESSORY to an allowed USE and included on an
approved and recorded Site Plan. Any USE conducted outside of an ENCLOSED BUILDING shall be
SCREENED from adjacent PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY and ADJACENT LOTS in any Zone District other
1-3.
1. AIRSTRIPS.
2. CARGO CONTAINERS.
3. Loading areas.
4. RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, COMMERCIAL, PUBLIC and PRIVATE.
5. SEMI -TRAILERS as accessory storage.
6. STRUCTURES and BUILDINGS ACCESSORY to USES permitted under Section 23-3-320.B
7. WIND GENERATORS allowed as ACCESSORY USES in Section 23-4-450 of this Chapter.
E. Uses Allowed by Permit. No USE listed in this Subsection shall commence construction or operation in
the 1-2 Zone District without prior approval of a land use permit from the Department of Planning
Services.
1. One (1) MANUFACTURED HOME per LEGAL LOT, when used as living quarters for caretaker or
security personnel responsible for maintaining or guarding the property, permitted under Division 3
of Article IV of this Chapter.
2. One (1) NONCOMMERCIAL TOWER between forty (40) and seventy (70) feet in height per LEGAL
LOT permitted under Section 23-4-895.
3. OIL AND GAS FACILITIES permitted under Division 10 of Article II of this Chapter.
4. PIPELINES - NATURAL GAS or PIPELINES - PETROLEUM PRODUCTS OTHER THAN
NATURAL GAS permitted under Division 11 of Article II of this Chapter.
5. TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANTENNA TOWERS between thirty-five (35) and seventy (70) feet in
height permitted under Division 10 of Article IV of this Chapter.
6. TEMPORARY seasonal USES permitted under Division 7 of Article IV of this Chapter.
7. WIND GENERATORS requiring a zoning permit under Division 6 of Article IV of this Chapter.
F. Uses by Special Review. The following BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES and USES may be constructed,
occupied, operated and maintained in the I-2 Zone District upon approval of a permit in accordance with
the requirements of Article II, Division 4 of this Chapter.
1. Coal gasification facility.
2. COMMERCIAL JUNKYARDS.
3. COMMERCIAL SCHOOLS.
4. COMMERCIAL TRUCK WASHOUT FACILITIES.
5. CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, subject to Article XV, Section 15-5, of the Weld County Charter.
6. LARGE—SC/4F 144-I.�-pu d s uan-�tthe-pfoced _ tires b oistnrd--i-R-O-t , apia r 21 of this Code.
67. MAJOR FACILITIES OF PUBLIC UTILITIES OR PUBLIC AGENCIES in accordance with Division
5 of Article II of this Chapter.
78. MEAT PROCESSING.
b1'\fil E D I UM -SCALE S O LA -R FLak !ES, s u! ct- h-e-ad,--iti-on a 9- q u i re me nts of Section 23-4-1030.
9. Open MINING and processing of minerals.
10. PIPELINE - DOMESTIC WATER in accordance with Division 6 of Article II of this Chapter.
11. RESEARCH LABORATORIES.
12. Solid and hazardous waste disposal sites and facilities requiring Certificate of Designation in
accordance with Sections 12-8-10 and 23-4-380 of this Code.
13. TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANTENNA TOWERS over seventy (70) feet in height.
14. USES similar to the USES listed as permitted as long as the USE complies with the general intent
of the Zone District.
15. WIND GENERATORS requiring the issuance of Special Review Permit under Division 6 of Article
IV of this Chapter.
Sec. 23-3-330. o I- ( : ,vy Mdustri l) n
e Istria
A. Intent. The purpose of the I-3 Zone District is to provide a zone to accommodate industrial USES that
require larger amounts of space, are more resource -intensive than light industrial, and have limited
public access. Properties zoned I-3 should be located near transportation infrastructure such as
highways, railroads, or AIRPORTS.
B. Uses Allowed by Right. No BUILDING, STRUCTURE or land shall be used and no BUILDING or
STRUCTURE shall hereafter be erected, structurally altered, enlarged or maintained in the I-3 Zone
District, except for one (1) or more of the USES listed in this section.
1 Asphalt or concrete batch plant used TEMPORARILY and exclusively for an on -site construction
project or the completion of a PUBLIC STREET/ROAD improvements project. The six-month
limitation for this TEMPORARY USE may be extended in six-month increments at the discretion of
the Director of Planning Services up to two (2) times, and thereafter by the Board of County
Commissioners.
2. COUNTY grader sheds.
3. One (1) NONCOMMERCIAL TOVVER up to forty (40) feet in height per LEGAL LOT. (See Section
23-4-895.)
4. PUBLIC PARKS.
5. PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
6. TEMPORARY borrow pits used exclusively for the completion of a PUBLIC STREET/ROAD
improvement project.
7. TELECOMMUNICATION ANTENNA TOWERS up to thirty-five (35) feet in height.
8. UTILITY SERVICE FACILITIES.
C. Uses allowed subject to Site Plan Review. The following USES shall be allowed in the I-3 Zone District
following approval and recording of a Site Plan in accordance with Article II, Division 3, of this Chapter.
1. ADULT BUSINESS, SERVICE or ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENT subject to the provisions
of Article IX of this Chapter.
2. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION.
3. AIRSTRIPS and AIRPORTS, including crop -dusting operations.
4. A USE of a research, repairing, manufacturing, fabricating, assembling, PROCESSING, or storage
nature.
5. Asphalt or concrete batch plants.
6. BIOSOLID and DOMESTIC SEPTAGE disposal subject to Chapter 14 of this Code.
7. BREWERIES, DISTILLERIES, and WINERIES.
8. CAR WASHES and gas stations.
9. COMMERCIAL STORAGE BUILDINGS.
10. COMMERCIAL TRUCK WASHOUT FACILITIES.
11. CUSTOM MEAT PROCESSING.
12. DISTRIBUTION CENTERS.
13. Golf courses.
14. Headquarters or service facilities for taxi services, bus services and other services involving the
transportation of people.
15. HELIPORTS.
16. INDOOR SHOOTING RANGES.
17. LANDSCAPING COMPANIES.
18.
LARGE SCALE
FACILITIES subject to the additional requirements of Section 23-4-
1030
TPJ31.
18. LUMBERYARDS/WOODWORKING.
19. MEAT PROCESSING.
20 MEDIUM SCALE SOLAR FACILITIES, subject to the additional requirements of Section 23-4-
1030.
a021.
2122.
2423.
2-324.
2425.
2-526.
2627.
2728.
2829 .
2930.
3031.
3-132.
OFFICES.
OIL AND GAS STORAGE FACILITIES.
OIL AND GAS SUPPORT AND SERVICE.
ORGANIC FERTILIZER PRODUCTION/COMPOSTING FACILITIES
OUTDOOR STORAGE.
OUTDOOR STORAGE of PUBLIC utility -related equipment.
Parking areas and parking STRUCTURES.
PET CREMATORIES.
Police, ambulance, and fire stations or facilities
RACING FACILITIES.
REPAIR SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT.
RESEARCH LABORATORIES.
3-233. RETAIL/SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS With a total GROSS FLOOR AREA of up to three
thousand (3,000) square feet per LEGAL LOT.
3334. SMALL SCALE COMMUNITY SOLAR FACILITY, subject to the additional requirements of
Section 23-4-1030.
-435. THEATERS and convention halls.
X36. TRANSLOADING.
X37. VEHICLE SERVICE/REPAIR ESTABLISHMENTS.
D. Accessory Uses. The following BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES and USES shall be allowed in the 1-3 Zone
District so long as they are clearly incidental and ACCESSORY to an allowed USE and included on an
approved and recorded Site Plan.
1. CARGO CONTAINERS.
2. Loading areas.
3. RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, COMMERCIAL; PUBLIC and PRIVATE.
4. SEMI -TRAILERS as accessory storage.
5. STRUCTURES and BUILDINGS ACCESSORY to USES permitted under Section 23-3-330.B.
6. WIND GENERATORS allowed as ACCESSORY USES in Section 23-4-450 of this Chapter.
E. Uses Allowed by Permit. No USE listed in this Subsection shall commence construction or operation in
the 1-3 Zone District without prior approval of a land use permit from the Department of Planning
Services.
1. One (1) MANUFACTURED HOME per LEGAL LOT, when used as living quarters for caretaker or
security personnel responsible for maintaining or guarding the property, permitted under Division 3
of Article IV of this Chapter.
2. One (1) NONCOMMERCIAL TOWER between forty (40) and seventy (70) feet in height per LEGAL
LOT permitted under Section 23-4-895.
3. OIL AND GAS FACILITIES permitted under Division 10 of Article II of this Chapter.
4. PIPELINES - NATURAL GAS or PIPELINES - PETROLEUM PRODUCTS OTHER THAN
NATURAL GAS permitted under Division 11 of Article II of this Chapter.
5. TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANTENNA TOWERS between thirty-five (35) and seventy (70) feet in
height permitted under Division 10 of Article IV of this Chapter.
6. TEMPORARY seasonal USES permitted under Division 7 of Article IV of this Chapter.
7. WIND GENERATORS requiring a Zoning Permit under Division 6 of Article IV of this Chapter.
F. Uses by Special Review. The following BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES and USES may be constructed,
occupied, operated and maintained in the 1-3 Zone District upon approval of a permit in accordance with
the requirements of Article II, Division 4 of this Chapter.
1. Coal gasification facility.
2. COMMERCIAL JUNKYARDS.
3. COMMERCIAL SCHOOLS.
4. CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, subject to Article XV, Section 15-5, of the Weld County Charter.
5. HEAVY MANUFACTURING - PROCESSING.
6- Li'a� G -r= -LC -A E LSO FACTLI-T - ur-u-a-n- the -p-recczd a res fouinfi in C-h-ei ter -12-1 -o h s- 'ecieT
67. MAJOR FACILITIES OF PUBLIC UTILITIES OR PUBLIC AGENCIES in accordance with Division
5 of Article II of this Chapter.
7. IV-E-Lil- S C�� E S OLAR-FAC I L °TIES, s u b je 4-t -had ° aon-a-l-r-equi-reme-Pts of Section 23-4-1030.
8. Open MINING and processing of minerals.
9. PETROLEUM REFINERIES.
10. PIPELINE - DOMESTIC WATER in accordance with Division 6 of Article II of this Chapter.
11. Solid and hazardous waste disposal sites and facilities requiring Certificate of Designation in
accordance with Sections 12-8-10 and 23-4-380 of this Code.
12. TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANTENNA TOWERS over seventy (70) feet in height.
13. USES similar to the USES listed as permitted as long as the USE complies with the general intent
of the Zone District.
14. WIND GENERATORS requiring the issuance of Special Review Permit under Division 6 of Article
IV of this Chapter.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, December 1, 2020
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Administration
Building, Hearing Room, 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado. This meeting was called to order by Chair,
Elijah Hatch, at 12:30 pm.
Roll Calla
Present: Butch White, Dwaine Barclay, Elijah Hatch, Lonnie Ford, Skip Holland, Tom Cope, and Troy
Mellon.
Absent/Excused: Gene Stille and Sam Gluck,
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Chris Gathman, and Tom Parko, Department of Planning Services; Lauren Light,
Department of Health; Mike McRoberts, Melissa King, and Zack Roberson, Department of Public Works;
Bob Choate, County Attorney, and Michelle Wall, Secretary.
CASE NUMBER:
PRESENTED BY:
REQUEST:
ORDINANCE 2020-20
TON` PARKO
IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND REENACTING, VVITH
AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 21 AREAS AND ACTIVITIES OF STATE
INTEREST AND CHAPTER 23 ZONING, OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE.
Tom Parko, Department of Planning Services, stated that the existing regulations have been in place since
2016. In late November, he received direction from the Board of County Commissioners to modify the Code
and the changes presented today is a product of their discussion with staff. The proposed changes have
generated a lot of correspondence over the last 24 hours. He received a call from the County
Commissioners and met with there this morning and went through all of the comments received. Therefore,
they have made some changes to this proposed Ordinance.
Mr. Parko provided a brief overview of the existing and proposed changes. He referred to the medium
scale solar facilities and said that after meeting with the County Commissioners this morning the rated
capacity of up to five MW, but less than 30 MW was added. Originally, the proposed change was going out
of the agricultural zone district; however we are now putting it back in as long as the following criteria are
met: 1 } located outside three (3) miles of existing city limits, 2} meets the definition of "Rangeland" as
defined by the NRCS, and 3} meet all the requirements pursuant to the procedures found in Chapter 21 of
this code. Medium scale solar facilities are also allowed in the I-1, I-2 and I-3 zone districts through a Site
Plan Review Process.
Mr. Parko said that the three criteria applies to the large scale solar facilities as well. Large scale solar
facilities can be allowed in the agricultural zone as long as they go through the 1041 process in Chapter
21. The only difference here is that I-1 is considered a Light Industrial Zone and so large scale is considered
more commercial in nature so it wouldn't be permitted in 1-1 but it would be permitted in I-2 and I-3 through
a Site Plan Review process.
Commissioner Mellon said it appears we are cranking the screws pretty tight in the ag zone and is
concerned with the distance from a municipality. He added that it would appear that it would be spot zoning
and he doesn't believe that is the intent on 10 or 20 acres in the middle of agricultural. He added that
restricting it to rangeland is pretty restrictive and it encourages people to get the spot zone. He would argue
that dryland farms do not meet the rangeland definition.
Nr. Parko said that the intent from the County Commissioners is to preserve the prime agricultural farms in
Weld County. Anything outside of three miles of city limits is allowed in the agricultural zone district through
a 1041 process. Within three miles you could find property and zone it to industrial and might run into a
potential issue with spot zoning but spot zoning is not defined and is a planning concept that we try to
adhere to.
Commissioner Barclay asked what the biggest issue has been with most of the comments received. He
further asked if it is the three-mile issue. Mr. Parko said that most of the comments are that they still want
to site solar facilities in the agricultural zone district.
Commissioner Mellon said he would like to see medium scale facilities reeled into one or one and one-half
miles. He said that he thinks more people are more willing to put up with solar arrays than oil and gas
facilities.
Commissioner White said he doesn't have a problem with three miles and added he doesn't know if it can
be worded that it can go within three miles if it fits within the jurisdiction's comprehensive plan. Mr. Parko
said that we send the applicant to talk with the municipality about annexation. If the municipality said that
they don't like the proposed project, then Staff will consider those comments and make sure the applicant
understands, but it doesn't mean that the project still can't move through the County process.
Commissioner Barclay liked the change in the definitions to define these systems clearly; however, he
asked what was broken before that needed to be changed. Mr. Parko said that the County Commissioner's
rationale is to preserve prime agricultural land.
Commissioner Hatch said that based on the rangeland definition you can change your property's definition
of rangeland just by tilling it up and planting wheat grass and there is no time frame invested in that.
Commissioner Barclay said that he understands the intent, however he is in support of property rights and
in doing what you want with your property to an extent. Additionally, he doesn't see that there is that much
broken to fix what is wrong. He is not a fan of telling someone they can't lease their property to somebody.
Additionally, he agreed that the three miles seems a little far.
Commissioner Hatch said that you should be able to do what you want with your property to a certain extent.
If you have prime ag land you are more suited to utilize that to the best of its ability and make more money
farming that land than leasing as a solar facility. However, it is isn t prime ag land and is rangeland where
you are not utilizing it then it does make sense to have the opportunity to lease it out to a solar facility that
you will make the income you otherwise would not. He added that you will do what is best as far as the
value for your return on investment.
Commissioner Mellon referred to the previous case today regarding the screening and landscaping and
added that if these projects are on rangeland there is typically little to no water available and it becomes a
real burden to do the landscaping. Mr. Parko said that we try to look at a USR on a case by case basis
where it may make sense to screen or landscape a particular use from another use but yes the issue of
water comes up and if you don't' have the water to maintain landscaping it is a problem.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Scott Peterson, 15002 CR 36, stated that he received approval in August for his solar array. He said that
if these changes go through he cannot put any more facilities in. He added that he had planned to put
additional facilities next to each other on 81 acres and added that his property is blow sand. He expressed
concern that these changes are a government overreach and that these facilities would provide for 40 years
of income for his family. If this is approved it won't allow them to pursue the highest and best use of their
land and he is tired of being in a political battleground.
Rich Werner, Upstate Colorado, 822 Th Street, Greeley, stated that the considerations on these types of
code changes are critical in looking at economic development future in Weld County and added that it is
important to get it right. He said that Staff and the Board of County Commissioners have listened to the
correspondence submitted and have made some amendments to the proposed changes. He said that
when he hears about flagpole annexations and the definitions of rangeland, we need to make sure that we
do not prohibit future projects to come to fruition that will have dramatic affect on property owners and the
solar industry. He recommended taking the extra time to make sure and get it right.
Commissioner Cope asked what sort of recommendations he would make to receive additional input. Mr.
Werner said that they went through this a few years ago and they had allowed the industry to come in and
make recommendations. Mr. Cope said that they were told the same thing when they recently updated the
Comprehensive Plan that it was being rushed and there were a few people that attended but little input was
given on anything new or different. He added that we have received a stack of papers on these proposed
code changes except that it isn't broken so don't change it. Mr. Cope said that he thinks the Commissioners
are concerned with the same thing when the gentlemen just said that he is trying to put two small facilities
adjacent to each other and it seems to circumvent the code and it becomes a medium solar facility. Mr.
Werner agreed and said that those meetings are sparsely attended but the letters before you are from
specific landowners or industry representatives who have had a very short window to respond. Mr. Werner
said that we really need to look at how these projects are affected by the rangeland definitions.
Wayne Howard, 7227 West Canberra Street, stated that he submitted a letter for the hearing today and
said that with these new amendments today it is a good to hear that we are being heard. Most people want
to do what is right within the rules. He said that this boils down to a lands right issue and even with these
new changes it has raised a lot of new questions. It is obvious that this needs a whole lot more work and
suggested delaying the forwarding of this to the County Commissioners.
John Fitzpatrick, Pivot Energy, 1750 15th Street, Denver, Colorado, stated that he is opposition to the
ordinance and believes it is a solution in search to a problem. He was involved with the working groups in
the previous code changes for solar facilities. If this ordinance passes there will be a lot of investment in
Weld County that will dry up. He read his letter that he submitted into the record.
Jennifer Berg -Ramsey, 41750 CR 23, stated that they have 240 acres north of Severance. She expressed
concern regarding the rush of these code change and that this ordinance is attempting to tell them what
they can do on their property. Additionally, if she can't lease this ground to the highest bidder than what is
keeping her from selling it to become 10 acre parcels with a golf course community and then that means
agricultural land is now gone as well. Ms. Berg -Ramsey said that industrial areas need utilities and there
is no water for a mile and no natural gas lines or utilities in that area so it doesn't make sense where she
lives. She added that Severance is eight miles from where she lives but within three miles because of
flagpole annexations.
Recess from 3:30 p.m. to 3:35 p.m.
Dwaine Barclay left the meeting at 3:30 p.m.
Alvan Shipps, 518 Logan Avenue, Nunn, Colorado, stated that they farm close to 3000 acres and dryland
farming has been tough the last several years and added that solar has allowed them to pay off some debt.
He is concerned that these new regulations are devastating to them.
Amanda Mack, SunShare, 1724 Gilipin Denver Colorado, cautioned them and said that maybe some of the
calculations are a little inaccurate. She said that you can't fit 5 MW on 20 acres logically and asked them
to take more time to allow more community members to speak.
Haley Sutton, Holland and Hart Law Firm, stated that they don't believe the notice provided for the
amendments meets the State and County Code requirements. She pointed out that the new regulations
amend Chapter 23 but because the changes apply to large scale solar facilities, which are designated as
an activity of state interest, they are still subject to the State law requirements for regulations governing
state activities. State law requires that amendments to regulations governing activities of state interests
have public hearings and that there is at least 30 -days notice. Ms. Sutton stated that notice was provided
on November 21St and so it didn't hit the 30 -day notice. She recommended to stay these discussions to
satisfy the 30 -day notice.
Doug Carter, 1949 South Marion Street, Denver, Colorado, referred to the comment that there was a lot of
correspondence but no solutions. He said that this happened so fast that they haven't been able to discuss
the changes and provide solutions. They need time to figure out what they need to do.
Commissioner Mellon asked counsel about the notice issue. Bob Choate, County Attorney, said that notice
is proper because these are changes to Chapter 23 and the 30 -day requirement in C.R.S. 24-65.1-404(2)(a)
can be legally applied to the Board of County Commissioners hearing. He added that the final hearing is
scheduled at the end of December.
Commissioner Mellon inquired if this case can be continued. Mr. Parko said that if you want to continue
this to the next Planning Commission hearing you can; however, he understands that the County
Commissioners will still move forward with their hearing tomorrow. Mr. Mellon said that he is in a position
where he doesn't think that he can make a judgement on what he has and added that it is a train wreck to
find a solution and doesn't know what the problem is.
Commissioner Cope is concerned on how quick this has come about and it doesn't seem right to him that
notice came out just before the holidays. He understands that there are some issues with the existing code.
However, when we came this morning we had a draft and it was changed and even during this hearing
there are some things that need to be worked out so he is not comfortable making a recommendation
unless it is for denial also.
Commissioner Holland said that his position is either to oppose or to reschedule this case so he can become
more familiar with the details.
Commissioner Ford said that the biggest difference is the distance to municipalities. So he feels that that
there are problems that needs to be addressed.
Motion: Commissioner Mellon moved to forward a recommendation of denial of Ordinance 2020-20 for
the following reasons:
1. He does not believe the stakeholder community has been thoroughly engaged in the drafting of the
new regulations.
2. He does not believe the three (3) mile limit from municipalities is a good value.
3. He does not feel that the consideration of rangeland is applicable.
4. The Planning Commission feels that more time is warranted for the proposed changes.
The Motion was seconded by Tom Cope.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: No = 6).
No: Butch White, Elijah Hatch, Lonnie Ford, Skip Holland, Tom Cope, Troy Mellon.
Absent: Dwaine Barclay.
Commissioner Ford said that he sees a problem with definition of rangeland applied to this because
rangeland can be any land in Weld County just by modifying your crop. He agreed that the 3 -mile limit is
not good either.
Commissioner Cope said he is concerned with the distance, not necessarily applied to a specific set city
limit, but with flagpole annexations and adjusting it that way.
Meeting adjourned at 4:02 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Michelle Wall
Secretary
MEM
ANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: TOM PARKO, DIR. DEPT. OF PLANNING
SERVICES
DATE: DECEMBER 1, 2020
RE: ORDINANCE 2020-20 (SOLAR)
Ordinance 2020-20 would:
1 Modify Chapter 23 to clarify the definitions of solar facilities. SMALL SCALE SOLAR
FACILTIES (SSSF) will remain an allowed use in the Ag zone district via a Use by
Special Review. SSSF's will be renamed to be consistent with Xcel Energy's policy.
Xcel policy attached to this memo. In addition, SSSF's will have facility size limitations
and buffering (setback) requirements.
2. Prohibit MEDIUM SCALE SOLAR FACILITIES (MCSF) from locating in the
Agricultural Zone District and allow them in the I-1, I-2 and I-3 Industrial Zone Districts.
MSSF used to require a Use by Special Review (USR), but staff is proposing that
MCSF could be permitted with a SPR (Site Plan Review).
3. LARGE SCALE SOLAR FACILITIES (LSSF) will no longer be permitted is all zone
districts. LSSF's will be allowed in the I-1, I-2 and I-3 zone districts pursuant to the
Chapter 21 regs (aka 1041 regs).
The Board held a work session on the topic of this ordinance on November 17, 2020.
Timetable:
12/1 — PC
12/4 — Kris to have documents to CTB
12/7 — Read to audio
12/2 — 1St Reading
12/1 (pre -publish hoping no changes are made at 1St reading)
12/4 — Publish 1St reading
12/16— 2nd Reading
12/15 — Send to paper (pre -publish hoping no changes are made at 2nd reading)
12/18 — Publish 2nd reading
12/30 — Final Reading
12/30 — Send to paper
1/6 — Publish 3rd reading
1/11 — Effective
BoCC Docket ##2020-87 2020-3562
Land Use Table 9/30/2o
This table is for reference only.
SOLAR FACILITY, MEDIUM SCALE (See 23-4-1030.)
A
(Agricultural)
Ag
Subdivisions
(after 1961)
SOLAR FACILITY, SMALL SCALE COMMUNITY (See 23-4-1030.)
SOLAR FACILITY, LARGE SCALE (SEE CHAPTER 21)
USR
USR
C-1
(Neighborhood
Commercial)
(General
Commercial)
Ag Townsites
(pre -1961)
USR
liml
(Light
industrial)
SPR _
SPR
1041
R-2
(Duplex
Residential)
R-3 R-4
(Med-Density (High -Density
Residential) Residential)
ACC = Accessory Use EH = Environment Health Department NA = Not applicable SPR = Site Plan Review TAP = Temporary Assembly Permit TSU = Temporary Seasonal Use UBR = Use by Right USR = Use by Special Review ZPAG = Zoning Permit for certain uses in the A zone ZPAS = ZP for accessory storage semi -trailer
ZPCV = ZP for commercial vehicle ZPHB = ZP for class II home occupation ZPHO = ZP for class I home occupation ZPMH = ZP for manufactured homes (See Div. 3 of Art. IV) ZPNCT = ZP for noncommercial tower ZPTT = ZP for telecommunications tower ZPWG = ZP for wind generator
TT E
CE EC
r
ADDRESS
EMAIL
NAME lE - PLEASE
PRINT
LEGIBLY
.:� "--4
John
®®e
123
Nowhere
Street, City, State,
Zip
/Th I'�-
�� �
1
I
_
`
-�
"'"
—.. 11
CI ,
_
1 l c u y ,�
Z 1 a' --3 1 .
°�,. c,, t) I L p � `c, �1 ) H'i's
." � A �� � d -� a
1
d� f •�./ _, j I
�: �`M !' " ¢
� t� � .,� , may' GI
�. �'
> � V
' C
('A_ moo-
# A f 7 i—_ .,.s /
, qy A° / /' ^
� E� C• AIC)art
' / "'�
ill
_ a r'^� _ _
� g
/j/�p 6 �.
"`"a� '.'Le ' O' `ate
..s>� - D 'Y' i
��
7.
- `�- - -C) 1 1 t \
;
I S__q 8
0 ._
i 1161 47 i O.11 el 114
t _
I.
on.(
it
S i 101--A tp-in
'�,-.51.
a wn gun eZ
Int 1 t-1-4
c't
1
-� �S
9 CD I
Qd�'^
1
F .r • -
�,.�,��fi
d.
r ter" '
/
ai1}
'' ,.�F-
I.
�a.
¢r
�" '-� Ft \ f��
J� t r -{f p�*•qry G
�� �'Ss �4� ��� ► �^��� 66
_
�: - -.,,,..„--'amuck
..
..
)
-la)
t
���
•lam . r�
pr
C II
(- 1 -
d i M k l t c\A(-- _xi-
-.. /
r P°t' /� f�i
�-.y C. � °°' `' II
r
y'
I
�/e:\ it ,-{ ? h , Li ;. y� � yA / •
�i6 "Q.i= Yr '� 8" sift/evil/ ro.L ���'L pl vd .r L� S 8�`l /. r
¢ LLL U EF\4�.. ! l /J&&'
{ ! ®'" AJ��)�yy �� j
�� �` '� '" — r
J� 01 JJ� 0 {®�Jp� /���/i{lsyg
/J ///�
3 CaY' r?l �/ L� 6r' Ca9' " 11' 9' �pI "' { c3 ,f / OJl
1Ap ���CCc��... 11rr b
1 YP
d
�j/j.Y/! /.5
f .�6IC)�'
�'a
^�'.',
e
� ILI
�i
r V� �'. s .7 a
y
_j' !
a
�
s sn�ls`'•
��..�@i
�'
/....O
�1 ., �L�-d, . f.,_3 �'.' -Ky� ti:0- •5
�;O�j' 1 ., 4,-...c i'-e. �. � V� ,.:''
if`l!r cry, t .irvii �--
,tfic-- err pr.
-ems -30
'1 a"
.K
-
0-2
CD inte'o
INVENTORY OF ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
Applicant Weld County
Case Number ORD2020-20
Submitted or Prepared
Prior to
Hearing
At
Hearing
1
Letter
Association
of
Opposition
dated
11.30.2020
from
Mike
Kruger, Colorado
Solar
& Storage
X
2
E -Mail
of
Opposition
from
David Wiley
dated
11.30.2020
X
3
Inc.
E -Mail
dated
of
Opposition
11.30.2020
from Justin
Peterson,
McCarthy
Building
Companies,
X
4
E -Mail
11.30.2020
of
Opposition
from Gary
McCormick
and
Boles
dated
X
Tammy
5
E -Mail
of
Opposition
from Guy
Berry dated
11.30.2020
X
6
E -Mail
of
Opposition
from Jennifer
Berg -Ramsey
dated
11.30.2020
X
7
Letter
Inc.
of
dated
Opposition
11.30.2020
from Wayne
Howard,
West
Real
Estate
Services
X
Terra
8
E -Mail
of
Opposition
from Cindi
Sauer dated
11.30.2020
X
9
E -Mail
of Opposition
from
Linda
Blehm
dated
11.30.2020
X
10
E -Mail
of
Opposition
from Jon
Fitzpatrick,
Pivot Energy
dated
12.1.2020
X
11
E -Mail
dated
12.1.2020
of
Opposition
from Scott
Tempel,
Novel
Energy Solutions
LLC
•
12
E -Mail
of
Opposition
from Ann
Leahy
dated
12.1.2020
•
13
E -Mail
of
Opposition
from Wade
Hamlin,
N
Line
Electric
dated
12.1.2020
•
14
E -Mail
of
Opposition
from Chuck
Bird
dated
12.1.2020
15
Letter
of
opposition
from Jason
Sharpe,
Namaste
Solar
dated
12.1.2020
•
16
Letter
Colony
of
Opposition
dated
12.1.2020
from
Robert
Bwchtholdt
&
Kate
Faulkner,
Douglass
I hereby certify that the items identified herein were submitted to the Department of Planning Services at
or prior to the scheduled Planning ommissioners hearing.
Tom Parko
Planning Services
(last tonG,timis An 6,11O-1:
INVENTORY OF ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (CONT'D)
Applicant Weld County Case Number ORD2020-20
Submitted or Prepared
Prior to
Hearing
At
Hearing
17
Email of Opposition from Scott Temple, Novel Energy Solutions dated
12.01.2020
X
18
E -Mail of Opposition from Ken Bowers dated 12.01.2020
X
19
Letter of Opposition from David Rodenberg, Colorado State Land Board
dated 12.1.2020
X
20
Letter of Opposition from Poudre Valley REA dated 12.1.2020
X
21
E -Mail of Opposition from Michelle Simms dated 12.1.2020
X
22
E -Mail of Opposition from Troy Whitmore, United Power, Inc. dated
12.1.2020
X
23
E -Mail of Opposition from Ben Rainbolt dated 12.1.2020
X
24
E -Mail of Opposition from Duane and Janice Brown dated 12.1.2020
X
25
Letter of Opposition from Andrew Klein, Westside Property Investment
Company, Inc. dated 12.1.2020
X
26
E -Mail of Opposition from Barry Reider dated 12.1.2020
X
27
Email of Opposition from Heath Lovell dated 12.1.2020
X
Colorado Sole &Storage Association
1536 Wynkoop St
Suite 104
Denver, Colorado, 80238
November 30, 2020
Tom Parko
Planning Director, Weld County Planning Department
Weld County Planning Services
1555 North 17th Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Dear Mr. Parko,
am writing about concerns regarding Ordinance 2020-20 in Docket #2020-087. As the
representative of the solar industry in Colorado, we believe that the proposed changes have
been done hastily with little -to -no opportunity for public input. These code changes were
introduced on Tuesday evening (11/24) and the first hearing by the Planning Commissioner is
tomorrow (Tuesday 12/1) and first hearing by the Board of County Commissioners is
Wednesday (12/2).
This unnecessary increase in regulation will increase costs and delay projects, which makes
Weld County less business friendly. The proposed changes put millions of dollars annually in
investment and tax revenue at risk. Weld County landowners stand to lose millions of dollars
over the course of the projects in lease payments and other royalties.
Additionally, if these changes are adopted, Weld County may not be adhering to their own
statutes, such as Sections 22-4-40.A.3 & 4, 22-5-130, 22-5-140.A.5 and 22-5-160.A.1.
Given the amount of solar that is currently in service or planned in Weld County, these changes
are substantial and should have more time for public input. We ask that Commissioners please
convene a larger stakeholder group that could meet to discuss the concerns about solar
installations in Weld County. It is important that all voices are heard, so the stakeholder group
should be expansive enough to capture them all.
Sincerely,
Mike Kruger
President
Colorado Solar and Storage Association
From: David Wiley <dwiley1123@gmail.com>
Scamto Monday, November 30, 2020 12:12 PM
To: PCTechs <PCTechs@co.weld.co.us>; Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com>; parko@weldgov.com;
Kim Ogle <kogle@weldgov.com>; Mike Freeman <mfreeman@weldgov.com>; Scott James
<sjames@weldgov.com>; Barbara Kirkmeyer <bkirkmeyer@weldgov.com>; Steve Moreno
<smoreno@weldgov.com>; Kevin Ross <kross@weldgov.com>
Subject: Weld County Code Changes
This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
My name is David Wiley, and I am a resident of Weld County. My address is: 5880 Wood Duck Ct,
Frederick 80504. I am also employed in the solar industry. Every day, my family supports Weld County's
economy through our property taxes, sales taxes, and intentional patronage of locally owned
businesses. My job in the solar industry allows me to spend this money in Weld County. Solar supports
Weld County's economy.
I oppose the proposed code changes to the Weld County Zoning code related to solar projects. The
current code is working fine. There isn't a solar problem in Weld County, and the proposed code
restricts landowner's rights to do what they want with their land. It's difficult for many people in Weld
County to make ends meet, and removing a viable opportunity for Weld County citizens to use their land
to generate revenue isn't what Weld County stands for.
Please continue to boldly stand up to the overreaching state bureaucracy and continue to uphold
constitutionality in the greatest County in Colorado.
Respectfully,
David Wiley
From: Peterson, Justin <JPeterson@mccarthy.com>
Sent: Monday, November 30, 20201030 PM
To: PCTechs <PCTechs@co.weld.co.us>; Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com>; parko@weldgov.como
Kim Ogle <kogle@weldgov.com>➢ Mike Freeman <mfreeman@weldgov.com>; Scott James
<sjames@weldgov.com>; Barbara Kirkmeyer <bkirkmeyer@weldgov.com>; Steve Moreno
<smoreno@weldgov.com>; Kevin Ross <kross@weldgov.com>
Subject: Weld County Solar Codes
This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To whom it may concern:
As a large employer in Weld County, McCarthy Building Company is committed to ensuring good paying
jobs for Coloradans in all available energy sectors. In many cases in Weld County, this includes oil and
gas development on our lands. We have supported this industry for decades, and with our long-
standing relationships with many oil and gas companies, we expect this to continue for many years into
the future.
More recently, we have also been able to build multiple projects alongside solar developers in Weld
County, and across Colorado. Such an arrangement allows us to provide good paying jobs to Weld
County residents. Oil and gas development and solar development are well suited partners, and their
combined benefits help our economy.
McCarthy Building Company believes the current solar code, enacted in 2016, sufficiently protects the
interests of Weld County while allowing Weld County landowners the autonomy they deserve in making
decisions about how to use their lands. The proposed code changes would significantly impact the
State's ability to pursue solar projects on our lands in Weld County. As a large employer, we would be
disappointed by any actions that would reduce our ability to invest in Weld County.
Please continue to enforce the existing solar code "as is" without any of the proposed changes. This is a
solution in search of a problem that would only hurt Weld County landowners and workers.
Respectfully,
Justin Peterson
Vi e Presi ent u eras ions
Iv; 303-901-1308
McCarthy Building Companies, Inc.
2` 01 15th Street, Suite 350 ! Denver, CO80202
mccartny:Cprn
Linkedin I -twitter &book,' lourpbg.
t'N* This electronic mail message, including attachments, is intended only for the person or entity to
which of is addressed :and may contain 'confidential and/or privileged material, Any unauthorized use,
re iew, disclosure, distribution, or actions taken in reUace on the contents this infrrnation, 7�
prohibited. If you received this —mail in error and are not the 'intended a edpiient, ip ease notify rn
immediately by to °phone or reply e-majl and destroy a l copies of the original message, ***
From: Gary McCormick/Tammy Boles <mgl4@gwestoffice.net>
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:24 PM
To: Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com>; PCTechs <PCTechs@co.weld.co.us>; Tom Park° Jr.
<tparko@weldgov.com>; Kim Ogle <kogle@weldgov.com>; Kevin Ross <kross@weldgov.com>; Steve
Moreno <smoreno@weldgov.com>; Barbara Kirkmeyer <bkirkmeyer@weldgov.com>; Scott James
<sjames@weldgov.com>; Mike Freeman <mfreeman@weldgov.com>
Subject: County Code Related to Solar Projects within Weld County
. This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To Whom it May Concern,
My name is Gary McCormick and my address is 17778 CR 25, Platteville, CO 80651. As a landowner and
taxpaying citizen of Weld County, I strongly oppose the proposed changes to the County Code related to
solar which seek to limit the development of Solar Projects within Weld County. This is an overreach by
the Board of County Commissioners and limits my rights as a landowner to develop my property as I
choose. I signed a lease with a solar developer and looked forward to the potential increased revenue I
would have received from a project being constructed on my land. The County Commissioners are
overstepping their rights and ignoring the interests of the citizens of Weld County to advance their own
personal agendas.
Sincerely,
Gary McCormick
E.XHIBIT
b a r-� tune 4.zo
2 4
From: Guy Berry <guyberry767@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 7:38 PM
To: Kim Ogle <kogle @weldgov.com>
Subject: Ordinance 2020-20
This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mr. Ogle,
I was only made aware of Ordinance 2020-20 last week, right before Thanksgiving. I will get right to the point.
I urge you not to support Ordinance 2020-20 as introduced. As a Weld County landowner and taxpayer, I
am greatly concerned about Ordinance 2020-20 and its impacts to the community of Weld County. I'm equally
concerned with how Ordinance 2020-20 is being introduced — just before Thanksgiving, with only a week to
prepare and comment before initial consideration.
I feel I currently have the right to do what is prudent with my land. Be that farming my agricultural land,
leasing the minerals to gas companies, allowing utility easements across the property, or renting the surface to
solar farms. Ordinance 2020-20 restricts my property rights unnecessarily, when all these uses are in harmony
with agricultural practices. Solar farms give agricultural landowners like me the opportunity to keep the land in
agriculture for years to come.
I hope you would agree that solar projects provide an environmentally sensitive way to meet both the energy
requirements of our vibrant community, while protecting our community from more harmful aspects of
conventional energy development. Agricultural use may continue at the same time that solar energy is being
produced, and the land may easily be returned to full time, traditional agricultural use after the lease is
fulfilled. This is much different than most industrial uses which render the land scarred after industrial use, due
to permanent buildings, impervious surfaces, and heavy utilities.
I also feel rezoning is unnecessary with our current county review process. I've allowed oil & gas companies to
rent my land for mineral rights and surface access, and that has never required a rezoning for their equipment.
The same is the case for my neighbors with wind turbines, transmission lines, and substations. I see no
difference with renting my agricultural land for solar panels vs a well pad, a pipeline easement, or other
electric generation and transmission equipment. Ordinance 2020-20 singles out solar for no clear reason to
me.
I urge you not to support Ordinance 2020-20. Large Scale Solar projects, if allowed to develop under the
existing code, can provide real landowner income benefits in our County, real property tax benefits to our
County and our schools, and real construction jobs to our community. The negatives of discouraging or
prohibiting Large Scale Solar greatly outweigh any potential benefits to Ordinance 2020-20 - by taxing
agricultural land as industrial, by prohibiting Large Scale Solar through an unnecessary rezoning process, or by
turning rural areas into industrial corridors.
Thank you very much for listening,
Guy Berry
Guyberry767@gmail.com
408-420-4199
Frorri jenniYer berg-ramsey <jbirdscoop@hotmail.com>
Sent° Monday, November 30, 2020 7:58 PL/1
To: tom Parko Jr. Cparko@weldgov.corn>; Kira Ogle <kogle@weldgov.com>
Cc: TerryTEXT Ramsey <terrystap@hotmail.com>
Subject° ordinance 2020-20 and private landowner rights
Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good eve
ing
Mr Park
and ogle,
are writing this evening to let yu know about our concerns for Ordinance 2020-20 which was
introduced just before Thanksgiving and is being discussed and voted up•;n by County
Commissioners just 2 weeks later. How can an ordinance which could impact families and
businesses for years to core be introduced and voted upon without leaving time for hose
families and Yusinesses to prepare a defense/response?
I am concerned that this solar project is being unfairly acted upon when compared to the oil
and :as projects, wind projects, landfills, and even farming/ranching/feeding projects triat go
on in Weld nty. County Cornnnissioner Freeman's grandparents were never asked to rezone
the paid easements to industrial when the Platte River transmission line was placed. The oil
and gas companies that we have leased our land to for running water lines for mineral drilling
have never been required t`• rezone to industrial with much more "industrial" equipment on
the surface. I have not been asked to rezone the 13 acres that Great Western has leased r
dri liEig up to 50 wells. I see no difference with leasing our agricultural and for solar oa[ els, vs
leasing the surface for a well pad or pipeline easement.
Only 1 mile fr,• m ray hc• me lies agricultural land that has many more tacks, roads, support
shps, and potential pollution of ground water and land surface within the WM landfill which is
not zoned I-3. Within a few miles my home lies several drilling and well servicing companies
that have 100s of trucks being serviced, run, aid parked daily and they are not zoned l-
3. An•;ther several miles from our home lies large scale feedlots which have much more impact
tagricultural land than the solar panels that foil•w the sun or 30 years and then will be
completely remived to leave the land as it is now. It makes no sense to me that the county
vnuld attempt to re -zone our pr,•;perty to industrial when there will be much less traffic, road
deveopment, land compaction, potential for pollution, noise, and many other •ffenses than ail
and gas development, landfill do velopment or livestock reeding.
Other industrial areas in Weld county are close to large cities, have improvements like water,
sewer, electricity, roads. These inc ust Pial areas are c ense commercial areas. Large
Scale solar farms are in rural areas close to substations anc transmission lines. Rezoning Our
agricultural land to I-3 in the middle of 9 sections of agricultural land would set a c'angerous
precedent in our agricultural community. We survive on up t0 500 gallons of water per day
from a lI5C fo deep viell. We guilt our own septic system, anc paid over $80,000 to run 1
mi e of RFA dower lines ti :our home 23 years ago. We have c• ne home and one shop as
improvements. The placement of solar panels will not build more buildings, add significantly
more traffic/trucks/noise. It will not change the land, the resources below the land, require
water, or sewer. It simply is not industrial land.
urge you NOT to support Ordinance 2020-20 as introduced and to not support an Ordinance
introduced in one week without full consideration of these issues.
Thank you very much for your time.
Jennifer Berg -Ramsey
fonnifer
Jennifer Berg -Ramsey
970-689-1140
jbirdscoophotmail.com
REAL ESTATE SERVICES INC
November 30th, 2020
To: Weld County Board of County Commissioners; Weld County Planning Department
Attention: Commissioner and Chair Mike Freeman (mfreeman@weldgov.com), Clerk to the Board Esther E. Gesick
(egesick@weldgov.com)
Attention: Planning Director Tom Parko (tparko@weldgov.com), Kim Ogle (kogle@weldgov.com)
Dear Commissioners and Staff,
My name is Wayne Howard, and I am the Owner of Terra Vilest Real _ ;state in Greeley. I manage several agricultural
properties for absentee land owners and represent several land owners who own agricultural lands in Weld County.
Last week, right before Thanksgiving I was made aware of the proposed Ordinance 2020-20. I am very concerned
in the way this Ordinance is being added at the very last minute to the County Code updates currently in process.
It does not allow adequate time to allow affected or interested land owners to provide input to this process.
As you are aware, Weld County is a Right to Farm county, and a county where agricultural practices are protected
by right. Many agricultural lands host other supporting industries such as oil and gas, wind energy, electrical
transmission lines, underground pipeline easements and even hunting and fishing -and yes, even potentially solar
energy. All of the above industries support the agricultural sectors' income potential, by stabilizing cash flows, that
are often very cyclical, or subject to weather trends or natural disasters. These activities on agricultural lands
actually help agricultural lands and farmers to survive the bad years, and upgrade their equipment and livestock
herds to keep farming and grazing in the 21St century.
Agricultural land owners should have the continued right to put their lower producing lands to productive use for -
not only their benefit, but for the benefit and improvement of the county infrastructure, schools, and economy - and
ultimately the state and country. We should have the right to use their land in a way that is prudent and in their best
interest, as long as it meets with the same overall requirements of other similar agricultural land uses. Solar farms
give us agricultural landowners the opportunity to survive, and to keep the land in agriculture for years to come.
Proposing to site solar projects only in existing I-3 corridors is an impossible standard to meet and deprives rural
landowners of solar projects' benefits where they're needed most. Rezoning to I-3 is unnecessary and unwarranted
with our current County review process for 1041 permits. Many land owners have allowed oil & gas companies to
lease their land for mineral rights and surface access that have not required a rezoning for their equipment.
Similarly, many have entered into leases and easements with wind turbines, transmission lines, and substations
without rezoning. Solar projects are no different.
I hope you would also recognize that solar projects provide an environmentally sensitive way to meet both the
energy requirements of our growing community and the growing demands for renewable, economical energy
statewide, all without permanently developing the land. Of the counties currently hosting Large Scale Solar projects
across Colorado, none that I'm aware of require industrial zoning in addition to the 1041 process. Those other
counties are implementing the 1041 standards, realizing solar project benefits, and leading the charge on Colorado's
transition to solar energy, and none see industrial zoning as appropriate or necessary. I want to see Weld County be
a leader with responsible all of the above energy development, not deprive its residents and taxpayers of future
economic opportunity of solar with restrictive policies that drive solar projects to neighboring counties.
I urge you NOT to support Ordinance 2020-20. Large Scale Solar projects, if allowed to develop under the existing
code and the existing, rigorous 1041 permit process, can provide real landowner income benefits in our County,
with real property tax benefits to our County and our schools, and real construction jobs to our community.
Discouraging or prohibiting Large Scale Solar development will have a very negative impact on the future our
County and agriculture.
Respectfully,
Wayne Howard, Owner
TERRA ` E S T
REAL ESTATE SERVICES INC.
6200 W. 10th St, Greeley, Co 80634
wayne@terrawestusa.com
970-590-5982
EXHIBIT
9-i 009 1.01-* 4-7.
From: Cindy Sauer <cindys@skybeam.com>
Seat: Monday, November 30, 2020 6:41 PM
To: Tom Parko Jr. <tparko@weldgov.com>o Karla Ford <kford@weldgov.com>
Subject: Weld County Solar Development zoning
Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government, Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
November 30, 2020
To the Weld County Planning Commission and the Weld County Board of County
Commissioners
From: Cynthia Sauer, Abe Sauer and Alex Sauer, Residents of Weld County, Johnstown, CO
RE: Proposed Zoning regulations related to Solar Development of Agricultural Property
As landowners and taxpaying citizens of Weld County, we strongly oppose the proposed
changes to the Weld County Code, which seek to limit the development of solar projects within
Weld County's jurisdiction.
We believe this is an overreach by the Weld County Planning Commission and the Board of
County Commissioners and limits our potential opportunities as a landowner to develop our
property as markets emerge. We perceive Boulder County's restrictions on energy
development as being self -sabotaging and anti -capitalistic but would never have expected Weld
County to consider following suit. We believe that the proposed policy change is short-sighted
and not in the best interest of Weld County.
As a family farm operation in Weld County for 5 generations, we have been proud to be
residents of Weld County and have appreciated the political environment that supports private
property rights and respects agriculture and its supporting industries.
If this change is approved, Weld County Will be arbitrarily dictating and restricting the highest
and best use of private property. It Would seem to us that Weld County Will discourage and
deter any serious solar developments, as it will not be economically viable to build them in
Weld County with the proposed changes.
The current regulations seem to be working well and we don't understand the reasoning for
imposing the proposed limitations. What is the goal in mandating such a restriction?
We appreciate your recent leadership and guidance, but this proposed change seems
counterproductive. Please reconsider this zoning policy change.
Front Linda Blehm <lindadblehm@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 9:53 AM
To: Mike Freeman <mfreeman@weldgov.com>; Tom Parko Jr. <tparko@weldgov.com>
Subject: Ordinance 2020-20
Caution; This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Mike and Tom,
My name is Linda Blehm and I'm a landowner in weld County. I was recently made aware of Ordinance
2020-20 and would like to strongly urge you not to support it.
My family has been farming in weld County for 3 generations and I believe this ordinance would be
detrimental to farmers. Especially small family farms, like mine.
I currently have a lease agreement for a large solar project on my property and I believe I have the right
to farm or lease my ag land as I think it will benefit my family the most. I have leased it for underground
pipelines and well pads and the extra money has been allowing my family to continue to farm. I don't
see why solar should be any different. If solar projects are only allowed on industrial land, it will force
us to have it rezoned. The property tax would increase and if we want to farm it again in the future, we
would not be able to. The oil and gas companies that rent my land have never required a rezoning for
their equipment and I don't believe solar should either.
As a long time resident and tax payer in weld County, I really hope you will not support this ordinance. I
see absolutely no benefits from it to landowners.
Have a good day,
Linda Blehm
From: Jonathan Fitzpatrick <jfitzpatrick@pivotenergy.net>
Sent Tuesday, December 1, 2020 8:41 AM
To: PCTechs <PCTechs@co.weld.co.us>; Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com>
Cc: Tom Parko Jr. <tparko@weldgov.com>; Kim Ogle <kogle@weldgov.com>
Subject: Comment on proposed ORDINANCE 2020-20, Docket #2020-087
This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To Whom It May Concern,
My name is Jon Fitzpatrick and I work for Pivot Energy. I'm voicing my opposition to Ordinance 2020-20.
I believe this ordinance is a solution in search of a problem. The current Weld County Zoning code's
provisions for solar projects approved in 2015/16 are working, and our industry is investing millions of
dollars into the Weld County economy every year. If Ordinance 2020-20 passes as written, those
investments will dry up overnight. Ordinance 2020-20 is not in the best interest of Weld County, and it's
not in the best interest of Weld County's citizens and landowners.
Our company is currently developing:
• 4 projects at 2 MW each
• Approximately $4MM invested in each for a total of $16MM
• Ongoing revenue of hundreds of thousands of dollars in property tax will also flow into Weld
County over the next 20 years
® Our projects are on Ag lands where landowners chose the option that was best for them
None of these projects would have gone forward under the rules of ordinance 2020-20
If these changes go through, our company will be unable to continue our significant investment in Weld
County:
® Local workforce
• Local bars, restaurants, grocery stores, hotels
• Local businesses who complete surveys, soils investigations, compliance reports, ancillary
services
• Community involvement, including $90,000 donated to Bright Futures so far this year, with
portions of future projects donated in Weld County as well.
Xcel Energy is currently running an RFP for solar projects which will be awarded later this month. The
RFP:
• Highlighted several Weld County areas as suitable
• Allows larger projects - 35 acres each
• Will results in each project investing around $13MM with ongoing property tax revenue, plus
ungraded electrical infrastructure bringing new, more robust and reliable electrical grid at no
cost to ratepayers
• Has 75 MW available, awarded in 5 MW projects, many will be awarded in Weld County.
• Under Ordinance 2020-20, it's likely that none of these will move forward in Weld County
Please consider the answers to the following questions when considering this ordinance:
4�
What's wrong with the current code for solar?
What is the reason for the proposed code change?
What is being made better for the people of Weld County by passing Ordinance 2020-20?
Regards,
Jon Fitzpatrick
JON FITriA"I _ RIO< VP, Project Development
i fitzpatrickivotenergy.net
D 303506.7792 LinkedIn
r1vot EnEer I Clean Energy. Clear Choice
pivotenergy.net
From: Scott Tempel <scott.tempel@novelenergy.biz>
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2020 9:40 AM
To: Chris Gathman <cgathman@weldgov.com>
Cc: Paula Fitzgerald<paula.fitzgerald@novelenergy.biz>
Subject: Tonight's Ordinance
Importance: High
This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Chris -
Hi it's Scott Tempel. You may remember me from Adams County a decade ago. We worked on
several projects together. I am now working with a solar development company. We are very
concerned about the proposed changes regarding solar in your ordinance. I'm wondering if you
have enough knowledge of the proposal to give me some background on where this is coming
from and why. Having lived in Weld County for 15 years and serving on Progressive 15 for 5,
think I can pretty much fill in the blanks, but I don't want t0 make assumptions.
Also, can I get a copy of the proof of publication for this ordinance? From what I know, there
wasn't a 10 -day notice period for either the PC or the Board. We need the appropriate time to
respond as we have multiple clients in the county.
I would appreciate a response today if possible, as the hearing is tonight.
Thanks,
Scott
Novel Energy Solutions is working regular hours and supporting the nationwide effort to combat the
coronavirus. We are following CDC guidelines, and most employees are working from home. Our office
phones are being transferred to cell numbers and everyone has secure computer access. Please contact
us if you have any questions. Our team is here to assist you in any way possible.
sassideatleCealilatiown.„
NOVEL ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC
2303 Wycliff Street • Suite 300 • St. Paul • 61N • 55114
into@novelenr,rgy.biz
' ilv 1 E ergyibiz
https://www.novelenergy.biz/
Please consider the environment before printing this emmail.
NOTICE -CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION - The information in this communication is proprietary and strictly confidential. Any
financial models, technical designs or other business -related information is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity
named above, and the intellectual property of those items remains with NES/MNCS unless otherwise stated. If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, any
dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of the information contained in this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please first notify the sender immediately and then delete this communication from all data
storage devices and destroy all hard copies.
EXHIBIT
X102 c
From: Ann Leahy <mx2rivers@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2020 10:14 AM
To: Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com>
Cc: Tom Parko Jr. <tparko@weldgov.com>; PCTechs <PCTechs@co.weld.co.us>; Esther Gesick
<egesick@weldgov.com>
Subject: Re: Ord #2020-20 (Solar provisions)
This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
My sons Patrick and David Leahy and I have operated a small business with a permitted USR in Weld
County since November 1997. As landowners and taxpayers in Weld County, we are strongly opposed to
the proposed changes to the County Code which will severely limit our choices to supplement income and
our ability to pay taxes while operating our business in the future. I ask that Planning and Zoning and
Weld County Commissioners RE -CONSIDER and take NO ACTION at the present time and give those
who will be severely impacted by this decision, time to present various options to the planning
commission and eventually, to the Weld County Commissioners. Solar development is one of the options
which would not impact housing development around us. The two small communities (Johnstown and
Milliken) would benefit from a collaboration with a solar farm. Please consider the impact this decision has
had and will continue to have on small business owners during this time of economic distress and Covid
pandemic. We are struggling. We don t want to sell and we don't want to quit. As landowners in Weld
County, we need options.
Thank you for your time. Ann Leahy, 1714 14th Street Road, Greeley, CO 80631
From: Wade Hamlin <wade@nlineelectric.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 10:15 AM
To: Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com>; Tom Park° Jr. <tparko@weldgov.com>; Kim Ogle
<kogle@weldgov.com>
Subject: Solar Changes
Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To whom it may concern:
My name is Wade Hamlin and I own two properties in Weld County. My business is N Line Electric
located at 14293 Longs Peak Court, Mead, and my residence at 2002 Yonkee Drive, Windsor. As a
landowner, business owner, and taxpaying citizen of Weld County, I strongly oppose the proposed
changes to the County Code, which seek to limit the development of Solar Projects in Weld County. This
is an overreach by the County Board of Commissioners and limits the rights of a landowner to develop
their land as they choose.
Our business has employed many Weld County residents over the past 17 years and we offer good
paying jobs because of the solar projects and oil and gas projects we've built over the years.
N Line Electric believes the current solar code put into place in 2016 sufficiently protects the interests in
Weld County while allowing Weld County landowners the autonomy they deserve in making decisions
about how to use their lands. The proposed code changes would significantly impact the State's ability
to pursue solar projects on our lands in Weld County. As a small business that relies on this industry we
would be disappointed by any actions that would reduce our ability to invest in Weld County.
Please continue to enforce the existing solar code as is without any of the proposed changes.
Respectfully,
LINE ELECTRIC
Wade G. Hamlin
303.702.1147
866.510.3919 fax
970.217.1834 cell
www . n l i n ee I ectri c. co m
EXHIBIT
*2 oar, T -
s 13
From: Chuck Bird <mpco3@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 11:10 AM
To: Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com>; Tom Parko Jr. <tparko@weldgov.com>; Kim Ogle
<kogle@weldgov.com>
Cc: Mike Freeman <mfreeman@weldgov.com>; Scott James <sjames@weldgov.com>;
Kirkmeyer@aol.com; Barbara Kirkmeyer <bkirkmeyer@weldgov.com>
Subject: changes to code inhibiting solar developement
This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
• This is an infringement to do what I want on my property.
• This will take away opportunity for diversifying revenue from my property
• Weld County updated their solar code in 2016 and the code has been
working without any issues
• This code change would prevent millions of dollars in local economic
development and personal property tax revenue to the county
• Weld County's current "all of the above" energy strategy is working well.
Why are the commissioners attempting to limit this successful approach in
the county?
12-01-2021
"To Whom it May Concern,
My name is ChuckBird and my property address is 2169 WCR 62. As a landowner
and taxpaying citizen of Weld County, I strongly oppose the proposed changes to the
County Code, which seek to limit the development of Solar Projects within Weld
County. This is an overreach by the Board of County Commissioners and limits my
rights as a landowner to develop my property as I choose. I have signed a lease with a
solar developer and looked forward to the potential increased revenue I would have
received from a project being constructed on my land. The County Commissioners are
overstepping their rights and ignoring the interests of the citizens of Weld County to
advance their own personal agendas. Please consider this my public comment for both
the 12/1 Planning Commission Meeting and the 12/2 Board of County Commissioners
First reading"
Thanks
Chuck and Debi Bird
narnasuel
SOLAR
To whom it may concern:
Namaste Solar, founded in 2005, is a small Colorado business that employs over 175 people, including
residents and constituents of Weld County. We feel that Ordinance 2020-20, Docket #2020-87 has been
hastily and opaquely crafted and is being rushed through a process with little to no stakeholder input.
For these reason it fails to account for the numerous negative impacts to local Weld County residents
and the economy that will come because of this proposed change.
At its core, the proposed changes are ones of increased government regulations that take away Weld
County landowner rights. Additionally, this regulation would depress local job creation and put millions
of dollars annually in investment and tax revenue at risk. It squarely opposes free market economic
principles by artificially attempting to "choose" winners and losers in the energy space, reducing
opportunities for Weld County businesses and residents in order to solve a problem with solar energy
that does not exist. In the "Weld County Strategic Plan, 2019-2023n, the Energy Development section
concludes by suggesting that "the county will need to continue its partnership with the industry to insure
that good public policies can be achieved to continue to take advantage of the energy development
opportunities in Weld County." We agree and do not believe it is in Weld County's interest to take this
stance with the oil and gas energy industry on the one hand, while enacting prohibitive regulations for
solar energy with the other.
When cities and counties partner with and support small local businesses, it magnifies the impact on the
local economy and creates well -paying jobs within the community. This proposed change to the code
does just the opposite. We believe that Weld County should continue to enforce the code as written in
2016. However, if changes are sought to the current code, those changes should at least be deliberated
with all vested stakeholders, transparently and collaboratively in a venue where all information can be
considered, and all voices heard.
We ask the commission to slow down enough to consider how solar energy could support the stated
priorities of your strategic plan. Respect free markets, landowner rights, and allow the voices of your
constituents to be heard. Please refrain from adopting any of the proposed changes to the code with this
rushed and exclusive process until a larger stakeholder group can be convened to adequately address
any reasonable concerns the County has with the continued development of energy in the county.
Respectfully,
Jason Sharpe
CEO and Co -Owner, Namaste Solar
*Please consider this my public comment on behalf of Namaste Solar and include in the record for both
the 12/1 Planning Commission Meeting and the 12/2 Board of County Commissioners First reading.
Al ti .maeNnazOs* .*4^Mve»'c..mesh494.1ea..«Ma....vr Sta{40A14.4.0..aro4•44.~ ua�xe»...^rm.ersaxaurozrorMY4Wn «+a9R.•<06bW realxY4M7t4rk.ICeM2 AllaNkir>b✓ .N4 ,:arks trnaw.w..v naNa4004%+/gf 0.1ayevetwieori M.alowY•srr
Boulder Office
6707 Winchester Circle, Ste 700
Boulder, CC) 80301
Denver Office
888 Federal Boulevard
Denver, CO 80204
.no..w wataa+o-••...waawr. a eo.warhwata.v .wo-e..nrwImaw
Contact Us
303A/17.0300
namastesoiar)com
December I, 2020
AT'N: N: Welc County Planning Commission
Weld County Board of Commissioner
Esther E. Gesick (Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners
Reference: Orthnarriice 2020=20 D cket #2020-087
To the weld Coy
Commissioners,
my Planning Commission and Weld County Board of
l any writing about concerns regarding Ordinance 2020-20 in Docket 2020-
087. At Douglass colony, we are deeply entrenched in the meld County community,
having one of our principal offices in Greeley, and as longtime community members
we share many values in common with our neighbors. The freedom to do what you
wisa with your oven property is foremost among these shared values, and as such,
Douglass colony opposes the proposed change to the Weld County code that would
take that decision out of landowners' hands. Me onerous regulations placed on the
development of solar in Weld County by these proposed changes will put in the
government's lands decisions that are best made by the individual.
These proposed changes are also likely to recuce solar development in weld
county, which will likely have negative knock -on effects to economic growth in the
county, Deduced solar development will make weld county less business friendly oy
delaying projects and decreasing the number of well -paying local jobs as there will be
lower ongoing demand for labor, Additionally, this will put millions of dollars of annual
We d County tax revenue at risk and reduce revenue for landowners through a
reduction in lease payments and other project royalties.
vve believe that this decision is being made hastily and with little opportunity
for pudic contemplation and input. f issues have arisen with the way the code is
currently written, the county should brine all stakeholders to the ,sable to discuss low
any of those issues can oe oest addressed without taking rights and freedoms away
from landowners in VVeld County.
Sincereily,
1,�d
()bed B toldt
President & CEO
303-288-2635
Kate Faulkner
Solar Division 'Manager
kfaulkner@douglasscolony.cony
303-288-2835
Headquarters
5901 E. 58th Ave.
Commerce City, CO 80022
303.288 .2635
Greeley
1 1 U 1 th Ave.
Greeley, CO 80631
970 .352 .2040
Colorado Springs
3131 N. Century St.
Colorado Springs, CO 80907
719.633.6222
i
From: Scott Tempel <scott.tempel@novelenergy.biz>
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2020 12:41 PM
Tie PCTechs <PCTechs@co.weld.co.us>
Subjects ORDINANCE 2020-20
This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello. I are voicing concern over the hurried process for this ordinance amendment. I would
request a larger stakeholder group be formed to provide input. V'Veld County should be making
solar easier to develop, not harder.
Thanks,
Scott
Novel Energy Solutions is working regular hours and supporting the nationwide effort to combat the
coronavirus. We are following CDC guidelines, and most employees are working from home. Our office
phones are being transferred to cell numbers and everyone has secure computer access. Please contact
us if you have any questions. Our team is here to assist you in any way possible.
..,: ,„irenk
NOVEL ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LIC
230'3 Wyetiff Street • Suite 300 Q. St. Paul • MN • 05114
info@novelenergy.biz
velEnerg
https://www.novelenergy.biz/
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
NOTICE-CONFIDENT1AL INFORMATION - The information in this communication is proprietary and strictly confidential. Any
financial models, technical designs or other business -related information is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity
named above, and the intellectual property of those items remains with NES/MNCS unless otherwise stated. If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, any
dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of the information contained in this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please first notify the sender immediately and then delete this communication from all data
storage devices and destroy all hard copies.
From: Kenneth Bowers <kvbowers.md@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2020 12:29 PM
To: PCTechs <PCTechs@co.weld.co.us>
Subject: PC Hearings
'autioirr, This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Kenneth Bowers, MD
51320 County Road 33
Nunn, Colorado 80648
Weld County
(925)548-5490
December 1, 2020
The Board of Weld County Commissioners and Planning Board
1150 O Street
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80631
Dear Commissioners and Planning Board Members,
am writing about concerns regarding Ordinance 2020-20 in Docket #2020-087. I own 125 acres near
Nunn, CO. and have the potential to lease part of that land to a solar company. With the changing
climate harming my ability to put up hay on the land this potential has been a financial lifesaver for my
future. My entire life savings went into the purchase of this land and the ability to make money off the
property seems like a long held American right. The current proposal unduly targets the Solar Industry
at a time when the rest of the world in trying to help industries that not only do not contribute to
climate change but work to reverse the damage it is doing. The right to use my land to help our future
and make a living in a manner that harms no one (except potentially the oil industry) should be an
unalienable right.
Beyond my rights as a landowner, I have grave concerns about how this is occurring. The noticeably
short and limited input from stake holders' smacks of a middle of the night political favor. Yes, the
recent elections did overwhelming show that our county is a conservative county, but not all
conservatives have been bought off by the oil industry. Conservatism means not regulating certain
businesses unfairly while showing favors to those who may have contributed to a campaign. This poorly
disguised assault on an alternative energy source and our unalienable landowner rights is deeply
disturbing and raises the question about big oil's control of our local politicians.
Finally, I am not going to preach on the virtues green energy as those who deny its need will never
change their minds. However, if one only looks at what is occurring throughout our state and across our
country the move to change our energy sources is undeniable. Our county should not be the last in this
country to begin the change. It is going to occur elsewhere, and we should also begin the transition. If
we do not, we will be left with yesterdays' non profitable energy business and behind the eight ball on
the future profitable energy businesses.
Thank you for your consideration,
Ken Bowers
4
December 1, 2020
COLORADO
State Land Board
Weld County Planning 8t Building Department
1555 N 17th Avenue
Greeley, Co 80631
Re: Weld County Planning Commission Meeting December 1, 2020 -Item 4. D. Ordinance 2020-20
The Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners (State Land Board) is a constitutionally created agency
that manages a $4 billion endowment of assets for the intergenerational benefit of Colorado's public
schools (K-12 school children) and public institutions. The agency is the second-largest landowner in
Colorado and generates revenue on behalf of beneficiaries by leasing nearly three million surface acres
for agriculture, grazing, recreation, commercial real estate, rights -of -way, renewable energy and
leasing four million subsurface acres for oil, gas, and solid minerals.
The State Land Board supports the oil and gas industry which has generated approximately $1 billion in
the past decade for our trust beneficiaries, including K-12 school children. We continue to support the
industry with 1,250 active oil and gas leases, many of which are in Weld County. Additionally, the State
Land Board supports the renewable energy industry by leasing state trust lands for wind and solar
development. Renewable energy leasing on state trust lands currently generates approximately $1.8
million of annual revenue for our trust beneficiaries, including K-12 school children. The State Land
Board's oil and gas lessees and renewable energy lessees work collaboratively to help ensure the State
Land Board can develope all of the available resources on state trust land,
The State Land Board believes the current solar code, enacted in 2016, sufficiently protects the
interests of Weld County while allowing Weld County landowners the autonomy in making decisions
about how to use their lands. The State Land Board owns approximately 150,000 acres of land in Weld
County and believes the proposed code changes would significantly and negatively impact the State
Land Board's ability to pursue solar projects on our lands and therefore significantly impact our
potential to generate additional revenue for our trust beneficiaries, K-12 school children.
The State Land Board requests that the Weld County Planning Commission continue to enforce the
existing solar code "as is" without any of the proposed changes.
Respectfully,
David S. Rodenberg
Right -of -Way Manager/Tower Site Manager/Renewable Energy Leasing
P 303.866.3454 ext 3328
david.rodenberg@state.co.us
Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT
b ocio Tee 4O
§ I
1127 Sherman Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO 80203-2206 P 303.866.3454 F 303.866.3152
www, colorado.8ov/statelandboard
Your Touchstone Energv'Cooperative yir
Poudre
Valley
December 1, 2020
RE: Statement to Weld County Planning Commission regarding ORDINANCE 2020-20
Poudre Valley REA is a local, member -owned electric cooperative serving a large portion of Weld
County. Changes to the existing code will have a negative financial impact on Poudre Valley REA and
our Weld County members.
® Poudre Valley REA strongly believes changes to the existing code are not required. Weld
County, Poudre Valley REA and our members have all benefited from the current structure.
® We estimate the proposed changes would cost ratepayers more than $2 million annually in
savings over next several years due to lost opportunities for future solar development. s
® Poudre Valley REA will continue to add renewable resources and would like to continue to build
these projects in the communities we serve. While we recognize projects can be located
elsewhere in or outside the state, we are limited by our infrastructure making Weld County an
ideal location for future large utility scale solar projects.
® Poudre Valley REA fully supports providing options for rural landowners, particularly
agricultural producers, to diversify their income sources through appropriate solar energy
development. Integration of solar energy development with agriculture, particularly with Weld
County's extensive sheep industry, is also vital.
Poudre Valley REA values our collaborative relationship with Weld County. We request the process
be one that is open and ask the Planning Commission to delay sending these ordinance changes to
the Board of County Commissioners to allow for proper evaluation, input, suggestions and other
considerations.
EXHIBIT
1-020 -etc
2,0
Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association e 7649 REA Parkway ® Fort Collins ® Colorado e 80528 ® 800-432-1012
P.O. Box 272550, Fort Collins, CO 80527-2550 e www.pvrea.coop pvrea@pvrea.coop
From: michelle.simms@us-solar.com <michelle.simms@us-solar.com>
Sent® Tuesday, December 1, 2020 12:19 PM
To: Kim Ogle <kogle@weldgov.com>
Cc: 'David Watts' <david.watts@us-solar.com>
Subject: FW: Proposed changes, Weld County Code, for Solar Facilities
Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Kim,
Thanks again for taking the time to talk through these suggested ordinance modifications coming into
effect in Weld County. I had a couple follow-up questions for you.
First of all, what would be the best way for the County to receive feedback from the industry? Let me
know if we should provide this at the public hearings or if there's a specific comment process we should
follow.
Secondly, in the jurisdictions we've worked with in the past, the ordinance in place at the time of
application applies to that specific application. I'm assuming this would also be true in Weld County — if
we apply before the proposed language changes go into effect, we will fall under the current ordinance
language for these applications. Please confirm that this is correct and if you have any additional Intel
we should keep in mind.
Thanks again for your time and I hope you had a great holiday weekend!
Best,
Michelle
From: Troy Whitmore <twhitmore@unitedpower.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2020 1:41 PM
To: PCTechs <PCTechs@co.weld.co.us>
Cc: Bryant Robbins <brobbins UnitedPower.com>; Jay Mendoza <jmendoza@unitedpower.com>
Subject: Proposed Changes to Weld County Solar Regulations -Case D
Caution; This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Honorable Members of the Weld County Planning Commission:
United Power is a cooperative electric utility that serves electric power to more than 40,000 members in
southern Weld County. We have a number of solar facilities located in Weld County that provide low-
cost, renewable energy to our members within Weld County.
We understand that the County is once again seeking to amend solar regulations and related zoning
requirements that could cause significant and detrimental consequences to future solar development.
Weld County represents a model for the State of Colorado, and indeed other counties throughout the
region regarding its "all of the above" energy production. In addition to its extensive oil and gas
resources, it should be noted that Weld County is also a leader in solar, wind and landfill energy
production. With the 2016 updates to the Weld County Code to determine the land use rules
associated with these renewable resources, the County established itself as a model for the rest
of the State in providing a template for zoning, permitting and reviewing these projects and
supported United Power in providing economic benefit to all its member -consumers. We were
pleased to participate in the thorough stakeholder involvement in this process. Unfortunately
today, it appears that a stakeholder process on this matter is not going to happen. We are concerned
that the utilities, solar developers and local landowners have not had an adequate opportunity to give
and exchange input with Weld County officials on this important matter.
As mentioned before, we were pleased to work with the County and many others in a collaborative
manner in 2016 to craft regulations that served all parties appropriately. We simply ask that a
collaborative process is considered in these potential amendments. As a corporate citizen in Weld
County for more than 80 years, we pledge to work constructively with all parties involved in this matter.
Thank you for your consideration.
Trty Le Whitmore
Government & Regulatory
Relations Officer
United P,,.°ero inc.
500 Cooperative Way
Brighton, CO 80603
Offices (303) 637-1207
Mobile: (303 475-1214
Esther Gesick
r'sw
0
S a rat:
T
bject:
Kevin Ross
Tuesday, December 1, 2020 3:52 PM
Ben Rainbolt
Esther Gesick
RE: Solar Code
Ben
Thank you for your respectful email. I have submitted this to the clerk for the record
Kevin Ross
From: Ben Rainbolt <benarainbolt@rmfuoorg>
Sti=nt: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 3:47 PM
T•: Kevin Ross <kross@weldgovacorm>
Subjects Solar Code
Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
ear Weld County Board of Commissioners:
As a landowner in field bounty, I know that tax revenue derived from my lard supports
Colorado's schools, fire protection, and city and county government. As a farmer, I always want
to make. my own decisions about options for additional income opportunities from energy
development For many landowners - including me - this includes oil and gas developments My
family has supported this industry for decades, and with our long-standing relationships with
many oil and gas companies, we expect this to continue for many years into the future. Oil and
gas development and solar development are will -suited partners for farmers, ranchers, and rural
communities. Their combined benefits help underwrite all of our efforts as well as provide
support for farm and ranch families and our rural communities looking for ways to survive and
thrive. As a landowner, I want to have all options on the table for future revenue.
This seems to be rushed. Why not have a stakeholder meeting and invite all to help craft
changes if needed? This seems to be driven by a personal agenda and perceived war with
agencies/government entities outside meld County and the land owners will be the victim.
on't tie my hinds and take away my property rights.
The current solar code, enacted in 2016, sufficiently protects the interests of field County while
allowing Weld County landowners the autonomy they deserve in making decisions about land
use. The proposed code changes would significantly impact my ability to pursue solar projects
on my own land in Weld County, As a landowner, I am strongly opposed to any actions that
would reduce my ability to generate revenue based on what I know is right for me.
This is not how we want to do business in Weld County.
As a landowner I strongly encourage enforcing the existing solar code "as is" without any of
the proposed changes. This is a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist, and it would
only hurt Weld County landowners.
Ben Rainbolt
20028 CR 29
Platteville, CO 80651
2
Esther Gesick
From:
,ntm
d
Subject:
Janice Brown <janicebrown49@gmail.com>
Tuesday, December 1, 2020 12:55 PM
Esther Gesick; Mike Freeman; Scott James; Barbara Kirkmeyer; Steve Moreno; Kevin Ross
Weld County Code Ordinance 2020-20
Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
To Whom It May Concern
We would like to go on record as opposing Weld County Code Ordinance 2020-20, which pertains to rezoning
agricultural land to industrial land for large scale solar facilities in Weld County. We have been dryland wheat
farmers and cattle ranchers in northern Weld County for four generations and value our agricultural heritage and
property rights.
Our first concern is why would Weld County consider such an ordinance and what is the purpose of this
ordinance? What benefit does this rezoning have for Weld County? With the majority of the land in Weld
County zoned agricultural, this ordinance goes against all that Weld County stands for. Answers to these
questions are extremely important to those of us who own agricultural land in Weld County. It is our opinion
that the solar industry is being discriminated against, especially as you look at both the wind industry and oil
and gas. Why solar?
We are also concerned with how quickly and hastily this code ordinance is being done with little to no
opportunity for public input from Weld County residents. Docket 112020-087 was not listed in the public record
as of Wednesday afternoon, November 25. However, the first hearing by the Planning Commission is
scheduled for today, Tuesday, December 1 and the first hearing by the County Commissioners on Wednesday,
December 2. This short time frame does not allow enough time for public input.
Also, how will the land be zoned if/when a solar farm is decommissioned in the future? Will it revert back to
agriculture or will it continue as industrial? There are questions that need answers.
It has been our experience that Weld County, its planning commission and county commissioners have always
been open and transparent when it comes to the agricultural economy in our county or to any changes that may
affect the well-being of all Weld County residents. Why has this suddenly changed? We should be .roud of
our agricultural heritage and work hard to keep us still 66rural79.
i
Thank you.
Duane and Janice Brown
13415 CR 88
Pierce CO 80650
2
Wesfside Properly Investmenf Company,. Inc. SPARS La
4100 Esf Mississippi Ave, Sul
December 1, 2020
Re 500 Denver, CO 80246 p 303.984.9800 303.984.9874
Weld County Board f County Commissioners
Weid County Nanning Department
ttno Esther- E. Gesick (egesick@weldgov.com), Clerk to the Board of County Comrnissioners
Attn: Tom Parka (tparko@weldgov.com), Planning Direc, r, Weld County Planning Department
Attn: Kin, Ogle (kogie@welduv.cord principai Planner, Oa County Nanning [department
1555 North 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO t0631
Dear
•
epresentativese
I ang writing to subunit forrna0 comments on the proposed amendments to the Wield County C�
ca+ntained in ordinance 2020-2o,, regarding large sole slar facilities, in advance of the Planning
Comiiss' n and Board of County Commissioners hearings scheduled for Dcernb r 1, 2020 and
December 2, 2 20, respectively. These comments are tieing provided on [behalf of Westside
Pr • perty Investment Company Inc., and SPARS .C, affiliate of WestsMe (Westside), which
owns in excess of 6,500 acres of land in Weld County.
As a landowner, Westside has concerns ah sut the negative umpact thesamendments would
nave on the property rights of landners and future land development within the County. We
res-3ectful y request that, you vote against the proposed ame dments for the reasons outined
be ow.
The propftsed arnendnien_ts are i"ssance a wholesale revision to the allele. As it currenthe exists,
the code allows Large scale solar facilities tco be co istructed and operated its Li zoning
categoriesp BUT ON--IY after completing the 1041 Use by Special Review process under We d
ou t y Code Chapter LL. regarding Areas and Activities of Stet= interest, AnHe. Ill, Major
Face ties of a Public Utility (the '1041 Process"). The 1041 Process, as of already exists, is rigorus,
comprehensive ensive and requires a lengthy application and two (2) public hearings.. As such, the
current code adequately protects the public and, purposefully and appropriately, regulates the
activities of solar facility operators, N T the rights of property owners. We believe the attempt
„o res:riot the property rights of Dandowners in this manner is unconstitutoons I and actionable, as
the same wouki preclude a property ovitner from using its property for uses that at currently has
the right to doe and unduly burdens those rights wnile sufficient protectens already exist, As an
aside, we wou0d further like to point out that the results of such actions will resu t in fewer solar
energy firms being interested in development in the County due to less certainty in the
entitlement and development process, which ultima&y translates into fewer solar development
projects and an imbaDance of fossil fuel and alternative ener :y projects (including less County
EXHIBIT
f O
revenue through fees and taxes}. Accordingly, we respectfully request that you uphold
landowner property rights and vote against these amendments.
Furthermore, it appears that the proposed ordinance did not comply with the notice
requirements under either the County code or state statutes and is being pushed through the
system in a hasty and reckless manner, without consideration of its effect on property rights or
the overall economy, and certainly without the chance for landowners to meaningfully weigh the
merits of the proposed ordinance or participate in the legislative process. It appears that both
the County code and state statutes require at least thirty -day prior notice for such legislation,
which did not happen in this instance.
In conclusion, we believe that the code, as the same was recently amended in 2016, purposefully
and appropriately regulates the activities of large-scale solar facility operators, adequately
protects the public by requiring operators to successfully complete the 1041 Process to operate
large scale solar facilities, and does not need to be amended to now strip property owners of
their property rights. Additionally, we believe the required notice process was not complied with,
that the ordinance is being hastily and recklessly pushed through the system, and that as a result
the adverse effects of the legislation have not been fully considered and landowners have been
denied their rights to participate in the legislative process. We respectfully ask that you consider
our request to vote against this legislation.
Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter.
Sincerely,
Andrew R. Klein
President
Westside Property Investment Company Inc.
Manager
SPABS LLC
4100 East Mississippi Avenue, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80246
From: Barry Reider <barry.reider@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2020 2:45 PM
To: PCTechs <PCTechs@co.weld.co.us>
Subject: Ordinance 2020-20 feedback
Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Just a comment, this is not something I expect an answer to from the Planning Commission:
I'd like to understand why the County Commissioners would like to slow or stop the growth of solar in
the county.
-Barry Reider
Barry Reider
barry.reider@gmail.com
EXHIBIT
d
�/�� �� te) `'
..o
.o
z6,
Esther Gesick
From:
Sent
To:
Subject:
Tom Pa rko Jr.
Wednesday, December 2, 2020 7:25 ,AM
Esther Gesick
FW: Ordinance 2020-20 Public Input
Importance: High
From: Kristine Ranslem <kranslem@weldgov.com>
Seat: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 2:40 PM
To: gnconstruction1996@gmail.com; dwaine@feiscocpa.com; ehatch@hiredgun.net; gene@skybeam.com;
lon4hp@hotmail.com; samuelgluck@icloud.com; skip.l.holland@stantec.com; tcope@rmg-engineers.com;
tdmellon@gmail.com
Cc: Bob Choate <bchoate@weldgov.com>; Tom Parko Jr. <tparko@weldgov.com>; Kim Ogle <kogle@weldgov.com>;
IVichelle Wall <mwall@weldgov.com>
Subject: FW: Ordinance 2020-20 Public Input
Importance: High
Please see comments below for Ord 2020-20
From: Barry Reider <barry.reider@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2020 2:35 PM
To: PCTechs <PCTechs@co.weld.co.us>
Subject: Ordinance 2020-20 Public Input
Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
have some concerns about the new limitations being placed on solar facilities. These new regulations and limitations
make it far more difficult to develop clean energy in Weld County. Zoning an area as industrial or requiring land to be
considered "rangeland" seems very restrictive. I've done some looking at the county GIS systems and I see a lot of oil
and gas well sites and tank batteries that exist on prime farmland with no zoning or special use permits. To consider
solar industrial without considering an oil storage facility industrial seem ludicrous.
-Barry Reider
Barry Reider
barry.reider@gmail.com
From: Heath Lovell <hlovell@discoveryland.com>
Seat: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 3:07 PM
To: Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com>; Tom Parko Jr. <tparko@weldgov.com>; Kim Ogle
<kogle@weldgov.com>; Mike Freeman <mfreeman@weldgov.com>; Scott James
<sjames@weldgov.com>; Barbara Kirkmeyer <bkirkmeyer@weldgov.com>; Steve Moreno
<smoreno@weldgov.com>; Kevin Ross <kross@weldgov.com>; PCTechs <PCTechs@co.weld.co.us>
Subject: Re: Ordinance 2020-20, Docket #2020-087, WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, December 1, 2020
This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Greetings Weld County Planning Commission & Board of County Commissioners. I hope that you and
your respective families had a good Thanksgiving. My name is Heath Lovell. I am currently Vice President
of Discovery Land Services, LLC which is an oil and gas brokerage service company. My entire career
has been in oil and gas. Most recently in my career I worked for Bison Oil and Gas, I & II, LLC, and
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (now Occidental Petroleum Corporation) here in Colorado since I was
recruited and transplanted from Texas by Anadarko six years ago. I am submitting this testimony
regarding Ordinance 2020-20, Docket #2020-087 expressing concerns impeding solar activity in Weld
County via proposed ordinance changes that unnecessarily stifle solar development which indirectly hurts
other types of energy companies such as oil and gas.
Many traditional oil and gas capital providers are now diversifying their portfolios and their services into
renewables. Weld has a long history with oil and gas and is likely well aware of the cyclical nature and
boom and bust periods that face that industry. Private landowners that are struggling due to the
recession, Covid, or other hardship can look to renewable energy as a source of income to help them
keep their land or maintain their traditionally ag way of life. Ultimately, landowners want to be
compensated for their resources, and giving them multiple possible avenues for compensation will lead to
happier constituents.
Oil and gas companies that have employees versed in permitting, title work, land development, and
construction management can easily use those same skills in renewable energy. In some cases oil and
gas companies actually own surface land in addition to their mineral holdings. Oil and gas companies
such as the ones I have worked with have begun leasing surface land to solar companies as a means of
taking full advantage of their land holdings and their employees. It's entirely possible to co -locate oil and
gas infrastructure next to solar infrastructure which maximizes the use of the land and the ability of the
landowner to use their land assets.
Given the current oil and gas market, and the attempt for the global economy needing to diversify energy
sources to reduce emissions, I find these relationships paramount to local economies. I know that oil and
gas has been an important portion of the Weld County economy, and it is my personal opinion that solar
can be too. The industries are already starting to work together and allowing this to continue will certainly
create and maintain jobs for residents in Weld County.
EXHIBIT
b °�to zo t
r
Thank you for your time and consideration. I wish you all good health and prosperity during the holiday
season.
Respectfully,
Heath Lovell, MS, CPL
Vice President
Discovery Land Services
1738 Wynkoop Street, Suite 302
Denver, CO 80202
Office: (303) 993-3591
Cell: (806) 786-2206
hlovell@discoveryland.com
From: Heath Lovell <hlovell@discoveryland.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 3:07 PM
To: Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com>; Tom Parko Jr. <tparko@weldgov.com>; Kim Ogle
<kogle@weldgov.com>; Mike Freeman <mfreeman@weldgov.com>; Scott James
<sjames@weldgov.com>; Barbara Kirkmeyer <bkirkmeyer@weldgov.com>; Steve Moreno
<smoreno@weldgov.com>; Kevin Ross <kross@weldgov.com>; PCTechs <PCTechs@co.weld.co.us>
Subject: Re: Ordinance 2020-20, Docket #2020-087, WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, December 1, 2020
Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Greetings Weld County Planning Commission & Board of County Commissioners. I hope that you and
your respective families had a good Thanksgiving. My name is Heath Lovell. I am currently Vice President
of Discovery Land Services, LLC which is an oil and gas brokerage service company. My entire career
has been in oil and gas. Most recently in my career I worked for Bison Oil and Gas, 1 & II, LLC, and
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (now Occidental Petroleum Corporation) here in Colorado since I was
recruited and transplanted from Texas by Anadarko six years ago. I am submitting this testimony
regarding Ordinance 2020-20, Docket #2020-087 expressing concerns impeding solar activity in Weld
County via proposed ordinance changes that unnecessarily stifle solar development which indirectly hurts
other types of energy companies such as oil and gas.
Many traditional oil and gas capital providers are now diversifying their portfolios and their services into
renewables. Weld has a long history with oil and gas and is likely well aware of the cyclical nature and
boom and bust periods that face that industry. Private landowners that are struggling due to the
recession, Covid, or other hardship can look to renewable energy as a source of income to help them
keep their land or maintain their traditionally ag way of life. Ultimately, landowners want to be
compensated for their resources, and giving them multiple possible avenues for compensation will lead to
happier constituents.
Oil and gas companies that have employees versed in permitting, title work, land development, and
construction management can easily use those same skills in renewable energy. In some cases oil and
gas companies actually own surface land in addition to their mineral holdings. Oil and gas companies
such as the ones I have worked with have begun leasing surface land to solar companies as a means of
taking full advantage of their land holdings and their employees. It's entirely possible to co -locate oil and
gas infrastructure next to solar infrastructure which maximizes the use of the land and the ability of the
landowner to use their land assets.
Given the current oil and gas market, and the attempt for the global economy needing to diversify energy
sources to reduce emissions, I find these relationships paramount to local economies. I know that oil and
gas has been an important portion of the Weld County economy, and it is my personal opinion that solar
can be too. The industries are already starting to work together and allowing this to continue will certainly
create and maintain jobs for residents in Weld County.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I wish you all good health and prosperity during the holiday
season.
Respectfully,
Heath Lovell, MS, CPL
Vice President
Discovery Land Services
1738 Wynkoop Street/ Suite 302
Denver, CO 80202
Office: (303) 993-3591
Cell: (806) 786-2206
hlovell@discoveryland.com
EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET
CODE ORDINANCE #2020-20 (CHAPTER 23 - SOLAR)
Exhibit Submitted By Description
A. Ellen Ritter Email of opposition, dated 12/1/2020
B. Ron and Sally Harms Email of opposition, dated 12/1/2020
C. Benjamin Searl
D. Randy Beineke
E. Vernon Vail
F. Walter M. Sharp
Stephanie Lauer/
G. Henry Yun
H. Arthur M. Griffiths
I. Troy L Whitmore
J. Carlyle Currier
K. Amy Rosier
Email of concern, dated 12/1/2020
Email of opposition, dated 12/2/2020
Email of opposition, dated 12/2/2020
Email of comments, dated 12/6/2020
Email of comments/suggestions, dated 12/14/2020
Email of opposition, dated 12/14/2020
Letter with comments/suggestions, dated 12/15/2020
Letter with comments, dated 12/15/2020
Email with comments, dated 12/15/2020
L. David Dechant Email of concern, dated 02/21/2021
M.
N.
O.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
u.
V.
W.
X.
Y.
2020-3562
Esther Gesick
From:
Sent
To:
Subject:
Steve Moreno
Weld County Commissioner At Large
1150 O Street
PO Box 758
Greeley CO 80632
Phone: 970-336-7204 Ext. 4207
Fax: 970-336-7233
Email: smoreno@weldgov.com
Website: www.co.weld.co.us
Steve Moreno
Tuesday, December 1, 2020 4:05 PM
Tom Parko Jr.; Esther Gesick
FW: County Code for Solar Projects
Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for
the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise
protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return
e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the
contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited.
From: Ellen Ritter <ritterranch@skybeam.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 10:19 AM
To: Scott James <sjames@weldgov.com>; Steve Moreno <smoreno@weldgov.com>
Subject: County Code for Solar Projects
Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize
the sender and know the content is safe.
"To Whom it May Concern,
My name is William Ritter and my property address 22501 County Road 3, Berthoud, Co. As a landowner and taxpaying
citizen of Weld County, I strongly oppose the proposed changes to the County Code, which seek to limit the
development of Solar Projects within Weld County. This is an overreach by the Board of County Commissioners
and limits my rights as a landowner to develop my property as I choose. I am considering signing a lease with a solar
developer and looked forward to the potential increased revenue I would have received from a project being
constructed on my land. The County Commissioners are overstepping their rights and ignoring the interests of the
citizens of Weld County to advance their own personal agendas."
Esther E. Gesick, Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners
Phonel: '970) 400-4226, Phone 2: (970) 400-4225
Email: egesick@weldgov.com
Tom Parka Planning Director, Weld County Planning Department
1555 North 17th Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 80631
970-400-3572 Direct
tparko@weldgov.com
Kim Ogle, Principal Planner, Weld County Planning Department
970.400.3549 Direct
kogle@weldgov.com
County Commissioners:
District 1: Mike Freeman, Chair, mfreeman@weldgov.com
District 2: Scott James, SlameS@weldgOv.COm
District 3: Barbara Kirkmeyer, bkirkmeyer@weldgov.com
At -Large: Steve Moreno, Chair Pro-Tem, smoreno@weldgov.com
At -Large: Kevin Ross, kross@weldgov.com
Esther Gesrck
Front
Sent:
To:
Subject:
SALLY HARMS <srharms@msn.com>
Tuesday, December 1, 2020 4:43 PM
PCTechs; Esther Gesick; parko@weldcov.com; Kim Ogle; Mike Freeman; Scott James;
Barbara Kirkmeyer; Steve Moreno; Kevin Ross
Solar Code amendment issue
C: u ticm: This email originated from outside of weld County Government, Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe,
December 1, 2020
Dear Weld bounty oard of Commissioners:
As landowners in Weld County, we know that tax revenue derived from our land supports
Colorado's schools, fire protection, and city and county government. As former farmers, we
always want to make our own decisions about options for additional income opportunities from
energy development. For many landowners - including us - this includes oil and gas
development. We have supported this industry for decades, and with our long-standing
relationships with many oil and gas companies, we expect this to continue for many years into
the future. Oil and gas development and solar development are well -suited partners for farmers,
ranchers, and rural. communities. Their combined benefits help underwrite all of our educational
efforts as well as provide support for farm and ranch families looking for ways to survive and
thrive. As landowners, we want to have all options on the table for future revenue. Don't tie our
hands and take away our property rights.
The current solar code, enacted in 2016, sufficiently protects the interests of Weld County while
allowing Weld County landowners the autonomy they deserve in making decisions about land
use. The proposed code changes would significantly impact our ability to pursue solar projects
on our own land in Weld County. As landowners, we are strongly opposed to any actions that
would reduce our ability to generate revenue based on what we know is right for us. This is not
how we want to do business in Weld County.
As landowners we strongly encourage enforcing the existing solar code "as is" without any of
the proposed changes. This is a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist, and it would
only hurt Weld County landowners.
Ron and Sally Harms
17486 County Road 8
Brighton, CO 80603
srharms@msn.com
Cheryl Hoffman
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello Mr. Searl,
Esther Gesick
Wednesday, December 2, 2020 6:08 AID
Ben Searl; PCTechs; Tom Parko Jr.; Kim Ogle; Mike Freeman; Scott James; Barbara
Kirkmeyer; Steve Moreno; Kevin Ross
Esther Gesick; Cheryl Hoffman
RE: Weld County Solar Codes
Your comments have been received and will be included with the public file as an Exhibit for the Commissioners to
review at First Reading of Code ordinance #2020-20, which will be heard by the Board of County Commissioners today,
Wednesday, December 2, 2020, at 9000 a.m.
Thank you,
Esther E. Gesick
Clerk to the Board
1150 O Street lP.O. Box 758lGreeley, CO 80632
tel: (970) 400-422b
Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed
and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please
immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents
of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited.
From: Ben Searl <ben@nesco-us.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 9:45 PM
To: PCTechs <PCTechs@co.weld.co.us>; Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com>; parko@weldgov.com; Kim Ogle
<kogle@weldgov.com>; Mike Freeman <mfreeman@weldgov.com>; Scott James <sjames@weldgov.com>; Barbara
Kirkmeyer <bkirkmeyer@weldgov.com>; Steve Moreno <smoreno@weldgov.com>; Kevin Ross <kross@weldgov.com>
Subject: Weld County Solar Codes
This email originated from outside of weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
To whom it may Concern
As a homeowner and business owner in Weld County I am disturbed by the proposed code changes that could impact
solar development in our county. First and foremost, I do not understand who or what this proposed code change is
intended to protect. Maybe I am missing something here but there seems to be no public benefit from these proposed
code changes and the consequences seem to be aimed directly at solar development and agricultural landowners who
are attempting to utilize their land for its intended purpose of harnessing our natural resources. It seems to me that this
is a small sample of what has plagued our country for far too long which is big government interfering with small
business and private property owners.
Second, on a professional level these code changes would directly interfere with future opportunities for my business
and the nearly 30 full-time employees and 100+ temporary/seasonal employees that work for New Energy Structures
Company(NESCO) which is headquartered in Weld County. Our team of workers specializes in building ground mount
solar projects all over the country and many of our employees relish in the opportunity to work close to home. It is
disheartening to hear that our elected officials are choosing to use their power to disrupt free enterprise and limit our
ability to conduct business in our own backyard. Our business receipts totaled over $13M in 2019 and many of our
expenses are on heavy equipment and trucks that are registered in Weld County and materials that are delivered
directly to our shop that we pay sales tax on. I have worked in construction my whole life and in solar since 2011. The
jobs we provide are skilled labor positions (electricians, equipment operators, laborers) and exactly the type of jobs that
weld county has been known for providing for so many years. Again, maybe I am missing something here but I can tell
you with certainty that these code changes will impact our business next year, can you tell me with certainty who these
code changes are intending to benefit?
On a personal note it is quite frustrating to find out that the board of commissioners would consider adopting rule
changes that limit enterprise in our county with no clear benefit to public interest. I was born in Longmont and am a
proud Weld County resident. I believe strongly in what Weld County has come to represent in our state. The county has
been a staple in providing good blue collar jobs for as long as I can remember and more recently has taken a public
stance against government interference in enterprise as it relates to COVID-19 restrictions. As recently as this past
weekend I said to my neighbor "I am glad I live in weld county" when discussing the ongoing state mandated lockdowns
that have cost so many people their jobs and livelihoods. It really is a sense of pride that we have as a community when
we hear Longmont's mayor say that we could be denied health care at their facilities because of what the county
commissioners have done to protect businesses and nevertheless all of my neighborhood is in support of what the
board did to stand-up to the Governor. However, this sense of pride was quickly diminished when I received a phone
call from a colleague informing me of these fast tracked rule changes the board is trying to push through. I guess that is
the state of politics in our country right now, publicly the board says it's open for business, but privately it is only open
for business that it approves of.
Maybe I am off base here and there is some reasonable explanation to these proposed rule changes and if that is the
case please respond to this and let me know what those may be so I can make an informed decision when I go to cast
my vote in the future.
Thank you for your time.
Benjamin Searl
President/CEO
New Energy Structures Company
4022 Mulligan Street
Longmont, CO 80504
Ben@nesco-us.com
Mobile: 720-378-3521
Office: 970-535-6116
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail and its attachments (if any) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged
information. If you are not the intended recipient (or believe you have received this e-mail in error) please do not read it
or open any attachments, and immediately notify the sender by return email or telephone that you have received this e-
mail in error and then delete it and all attachments. Any unauthorized use, copying, disclosure or distribution of the
information in this e-mail and its attachments is strictly forbidden.
2
Esther Gesick
From:
Seat:
To:
Subject:
Randy Beineke <5020randy@gmail.com>
Wednesday, December 2, 2020 11:08 AM
PCTechs; Esther Gesick; parko@weldgov.com; Kim Ogle; Mike Freeman; Scott James;
Barbara Kirkmeyer; Steve Moreno; Kevin Ross
Additional regulations on solar power operations
Caution: n: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
.sender and know the content is safe.
From the Greeley Tribune:
Weld Coun Commission ers
considering additional re • ulations
on solar power operations
must be confused. I thought the Weld County Commissioners were in favor of individual property rights (especially the
Republicans among you). But apparently not when it comes to Solar FARMS. This must be the same group that a few
years ago wanted to break away from the GREAT State of Colorado and form the State of North Colorado. What a waste
of time and effort. Find another way to waste the taxpayers money! Don't make up problems that don't even exist.
Randy Beineke
15000
i
Esther Gesick
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Vern Vail <vernvail@hotmail.com>
Wednesday, December 2, 2020 6:05 PM
Esther Gesick; Tom Parko Jr.; Kim Ogle; Nike Freeman; Scott James; Barbara Kirkmeyer;
Steve Moreno; Kevin Ross
County code change
Cauti n: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
4
sender and know the content is safe.
To Whom it May Concern,
My name is Vernon Vail and my property address is 5194 State Hwy 60 Johnstown, CO 80534. As a landowner and
taxpaying citizen of Weld County, I strongly oppose the proposed changes to the County Code, which seek to limit the
development of Solar Projects within Weld County. This is an overreach by the Board of County Commissioners
and limits my rights as a landowner to develop my property as I choose. I am considering signing a lease with a solar
developer and looked forward to the potential increased revenue I would have received from a project being
constructed on my land. The County Commissioners are overstepping their rights and ignoring the interests of the
citizens of Weld County to advance their own personal agendas.
Sincerely,
Vernon Vail
Cheryl Hoffman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Walter M Sharp, SETVG <walter@setventuresgroup.com>
Sunday, December 6, 2020 1:26 PM
CTB
Walter M. Sharp public comments Code Ordinance 112020-20
. r.=�' r� y. � •�—'ZriY3'i4�: �e+}"``.y�r—•r -'mil
x XHISr
Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Respectfully submitted to the Weld County Commissioners for consideration.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration in these matters.
I work with Weld County farmers, ranchers and the water districts who serve them in a collaborative manner.
They want to continue to provide sustainable agriculture to their communities.
To this end they wish to co -locate Solar photovoltaic (PV) Farm/Island facilities among their land based agricultural
activities and/or on their open water storage lakes and reservoirs.
When on land this method is commonly known as agrivoltaics/agrophotovoltaics.
When on water this is known as floating PV (FPV)/Solar PV Islands.
Utilizing agrivoltaics/FPV allows both solar PV and agricultural operations to co -exist for mutual benefit.
Agrivoltaic land uses on range and/or irrigated agricultural (AG) zoned land may include, although not limited to,
irrigated/dry land crop cultivation, small animal/poultry grazing/pasturing (sheep, chicken, turkey, etc.), low water
irrigation of row and/or medicinal crops, pollinator supportive plantings, greenhouse horticulture, etc.
On water, evaporation rates are reduced by 50% or more providing more local water for beneficial uses.
In addition, water quality is improved through reduced algal growth and reduced seasonal water temperature
stratification.
In reference to the proposed Code Ordinance #2020-20, please consider including the following in the final version:
- for land based Solar PV Farms incorporating agrivoltaics add 'net PV'
land use definition and increase land coverage to 35%
(please see below for a 'net PV' example)
- allow Small, Medium and Large scale agrivoltaic/agrophotovoltaic Solar Farms on agriculture (AG) zoned parcels
- remove 250 foot distance between Solar Farms when located on commonly owned/leased parcel(s).
- exempt floating solar PV, the higher the reservoir coverage the greater the available local water for beneficial uses
- allow municipality approval/exemption for Medium Scale on AG Zoned land within 3 -miles of City/Town limit
- use alternating current (AC) nameplate rating for determining PV Scale; Small, Medium, and Large
1
Possible Code language for agrivoltaic/agrophotovoltaic Solar Farms:
"When determining Solar PV land use coverage on agricultural (AG) zoned lands when operated in a
agrivoltaic/agrophotovoltaic manner, the agriculturally operated land under and around the PV modules and racking
systems is considered agricultural/open space for land use purposes."
Example: solar PV modules mounted on single axis trackers are configured in six (6) feet wide rows aligned north to
south with twelve (12) feet between PV module rows.
The 'net PV' land use coverage calculation is PV module region divided by total land area within the PV array region.
Using the above example of 6 foot wide PV rows separated with 12 foot clear land is 6/18 = 33% Solar PV Farm 'net PV'
coverage ratio within the PV array region.
Gross PV region is —4.5A/MWDC, 'net PV' array region 4.5 * 33% _ —1.5A/MWDC. And further adjusted by total parcel
acreage.
Applying the agrivoltaic/agrophotovoltaic calculation to a hypothetical Solar Farm located on a 70 acre AG zoned parcel
is: (10MWDC * 1.5A)/70A = 21.4%
Without the agrivoltaic/agrophotovoltaic adjustment 70 * 20% = 14A would allow a maximum of "3.1MWDC, BIG
Difference in terms of farmer/rancher/community/water sustainability.
Questions and/or comments may be directed to the undersigned.
NOY "J
With deep appreciation for your time and consideration in these matters, Walter
***
Walter M. Sharp
Founder & Chief Collaboration Architect
Sharper Energy Technologies
+1720.232.1089
2
Esther Gesick
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
Steve Moreno
Monday, December 14, 2020 6:09 AM
Tom Parko Jr.; Esther Gesick
Fwd: 174 Power Global letter to Weld County
image001.png; ATT00001.htm; 174PG_WC BOCC Letter_20121211 (executed).pdf;
ATT00002.htm
From: Stephanie Lauer<stephanie.lauer@174powerglobal.com>
Date: December 13, 2020 at 11:08:25 AM MST
To: "mfreeman@weldg_ov.com" <mfreeman@weldgov.com>, "s*ames@weldgov.com"
<s'ames@weldgov.com>, "bkirkmeyer@weldgov.com" <bkirkmeyer@weldgov.com>,
"smoreno@weldgov.com" <smoreno@weldgov.com>, "kross@weldgov.com" <kross@weldgov.com>
Cc: Ed Maddox <ed.maddox 174powerglobal.com>, Jeremy Call <<call@iogansimpson.com>,
"thenderson@outshine.energy" <thenderson@outshine.energy>, "Home, to and SolarGen"
<douglas b carter@me.com>
Subject: 174 Power Global letter to Weld County
Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize ti
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Weld County Commissioners,
Please accept this letter offering comment and suggestions regarding Weld County's proposed
revisions to solar development regulations. We appreciate the work the County is doing to
work through the process and we look forward to further participating as a community partner.
Respectfully,
Environmental Permitting Manager
POWER
GIO A
HANWHA ENERGY USA HOLDINGS CORPORATION
d/b/a 174 Power Global (formerly 174 Power Global Corporation)
300 SPECTRUM CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 1020,
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92618
T+1 949 748 5970
December 11, 2020
Weld County Department of Planning Services
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO, 80631
Attention: Tom Parko
CC: Board of County Commissioners
Dear Mr. Parko,
In response to rising demand from agricultural landowners interested in exercising their right to permit
solar energy on their properties, Weld County joins dozens of other counties across Colorado and the U.S.
in updating development regulations with use -specific standards for different types of solar development.
174 Power Global supports updates to current regulations that result in reasonable, tested land use
standards that better achieve the positive benefits of Weld County and Large Scale Solar.
We participated with interest and concern in the December I Planning Commission hearing December 2
Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) lst Reading, and December 8 Stakeholder Meetings that were
held to evaluate BOCC-proposed changes to Weld County regulations to address solar energy
development. The purpose of this memo is to offer solutions and to share our interest in working with
Weld County to develop considerate and valuable updates to the Weld County regulations. We are
confident the BOCC has good intentions, but this particular process has been rushed during this especially
busy time of year, not to mention there was a lack of public participation due to COVID-19 restrictions,
and a lack of virtual participation options. Updates appear to be changing faster than stakeholders can
review. The public has offered up solutions, but we have yet to hear a single member of the public speak
in favor of the any of the BOCC's proposals.
It is our understanding that the 1041/USR already grants the Commission the ability to approve or deny
large scale solar based on property specific details. If Small Scale Solar seems to have circumvented
Weld County regulations, then let's get Small Scale Solar right. We are of the opinion that Large Scale
Solar is fundamentally different and is treated as such through the 1041/USR process.
The faults of the current proposal and process have been well articulated by hundreds of meeting
attendees, emails, and letters. We trust that the BOCC will listen to the recommendations of those that
have provided feedback and drop the 3 -mile buffer and rangeland criteria.
At BOCC's invitation on December 8th, this letter offers six constructive recommendations ahead of the
BOCC 2nd Reading on December 16th, organized around the BOCC's primary and valid concerns on a)
the potential industrial appearance of solar, b) the county being used as a "dumping ground" compared to
surrounding counties, and c) potential long-term impacts to agricultural productivity, which we recognize
is the heart of Weld County.
POWER
A
GLOBAL
1. 1. Base Recommendations on Proven Best Practices. Our recommendations are drawn from decades of
academic studies and dozens of model ordinances related to Large Scale Solar development prepared
by non -industry groups. We implore the BOCC to approach updates unprejudiced and with an open
mind, to learn from what is proven to be working — and not working — in similar contexts. Not
reflected in the BOCC's proposal are non -industry recommendations from the American Planning
Association that you are a member of, so we encourage you to incorporate the planning resources on
Planning.org, especially https://www.planning.org/knowledgebase/solar/. You will find that most of
the American Planning Association's recommendations are already encapsulated in the current
1041/USR regulations, further supporting the adequacy of Weld County's current approach to
evaluating Large Scale Solar.
2. Learn from Sister Counties. Most relevant to this process are the regulations of Adams, Alamosa,
Las Animas, Arapahoe, Larimer, El Paso, Pueblo counties, which all have successful and documented
experience with permitting, approving, and realizing the beneficial results of Large Scale Solar
projects in operation. Over 30 Large Scale Solar projects in these counties have been evaluated
through 1041, Conditional Use Permits, Solar/Wind Energy Overlay Zoning, and Use by Special
Review processes. Not a single one has found that an agricultural land use definition (prime, irrigated,
etc.) or a distance requirement from municipalities is necessary. We ask that the BOCC study these
nationwide best practices and the actual experience of other Colorado counties before bringing the
next iteration of your proposal forward to 2' Reading.
3. Base Decisions on Reality Rather than Speculation. A survey of built and permitted Large Scale
Solar in the seven counties listed earlier in this letter finds that Weld County has not and is not likely
to accrue disproportionate burdens or benefits. Approximately 30 Large Scale Solar projects have
been approved elsewhere, while not a single project has formally applied for a 1041/USR in Weld
County. The majority of proposals in Weld County will likely continue to be Small Scale as a result
of the Community Solar statues that affect large investor owned utilities like Xcel. The three utilities
that serve portions of Weld County and its municipalities combined — PVREA, United Power, and
Platte River Power Authority — only have limited transmission and distribution capacity for Large
Scale Solar projects. Because high voltage transmission capacity and substation interconnections are
finite and may not have adequate capacity to transmit new solar sources, some permit applications are
speculative and may never be built.
4. Evaluate Industrial Appearance in Agricultural Settings. The 1041 process was established
specifically to "To protect the beauty of the landscape" (Sec. 21-3-10.E, Purpose and intent). Site -
specific alternatives, buffering, visual and landscaping analysis and solutions are already specifically
addressed in the 1041 procedures (Sec. 21-3-330.B.4.xi, Sec. 21-3-330.B.13, Sec. 21-3-330.B.15, and
Sec. 21-3-330.C.2.e, 1041 Submittal Requirements). Furthermore, Sec. 23-4-1030.A, Additional
Standards for Solar Facilities, requires that staff, Planning Commission and BOCC consider
additional criteria for Large Scale Solar in approving or denying a Use by Special Review. If these
prove insufficient, these regulations further require compliance with the County's Comprehensive
Plan, which includes goals and objectives such as "Harmonize development with surrounding land
uses" (Goal C) and "Transition between [incompatible] land use types and intensities with
buffers...to mitigate conflicts" (Objective C.1). These goals, objectives, and regulations recognize
that visual compatibility is site -specific, and therefore cannot be appropriately addressed through an
broad -brushed prohibition on Large Scale Solar in the western half of Weld County as the BOCC 1"
Reading Draft intends. We encourage BOCC to review these strict regulations in this regard. Should
they see further gaps, you might consider two additions to Sec. 23-4-1030.A, Additional Standards
for Solar Facilities:
ER
s
• Setbacks — in the Agricultural Zone, current requirements are 20 feet from the edge of the ROW
without regard to Small, Medium, or Large (Sec. 23-3-70, Bulk requirements). To address
incompatibility, the Large Scale Solar setback could be increased to 150 feet for Federal and
State Highways, 100 feet for Arterial and Collector roads, and 50 feet for local County Roads.
• Viewshed and/or visual simulation studies — current requirements consider visual impacts but do
not specify how analyses prone to subjectivity should be prepared. To add rigor and defensibility
to visual resource analysis, you might consider requiring before/after photographic simulations
or seen area analysis that evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation measures (landscaping, berms,
setbacks, etc.)
5. Evaluate Agricultural Productivity through Property Management Plans. We appreciate BOCC's
concern that some Small Scale Solar is poorly sited. Yet for Large Scale Solar, agricultural
productivity and soils are already foundational to the 1041/USR evaluation, such as:
• Sec. 21-3-10.D (Purpose and Intent). "To conserve soil, water and agricultural resources"
• Sec. 21-3-330.C.2 (Environmental Impact Analysis): "Summarize analysis of impacts upon
agricultural productivity and agricultural resources and upon vested water rights.... Detail the
agricultural productivity capability of the land affected by the proposal."
• Sec. 21-3-340.A.18 (Approval of Permit Application). "The benefits of the proposed
developments outweigh the losses of any natural resources or reduction of productivity of
agricultural lands as a result of the proposed development."
• Sec. 23-4-1030.A (Additional Standards for Solar facility). Determinations of "impacts on prime
agricultural land which is defined as soils with agricultural capability classifications of I, II and
III as indicated on maps completed by the U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service."
• In addition, Chapter 21 requires compliance with the new Comprehensive Plan which has several
goals/objectives regarding agriculture, such as "Energy development facilities should preserve
agricultural areas and enhance the rural landscape" (Objective B.5).
To use agricultural soils as a criteria to prohibit Large Scale Solar (as contained in the BOCC's 1st
Reading Draft) is redundant and unnecessary as the 1041/USR already accounts for many site -
specific factors that contribute to agricultural productivity, especially the availability of water rights
and infrastructure, and the economics of dryland farming.
What is missing from consideration in the proposed revisions, as was noted in the December 8`"
Stakeholder Meeting, is an understanding of how Large Scale Solar fits within a property portfolio's
management objectives. Most properties have portions that are less productive, and many farmers
struggle to make ends meet. A one -size -fits -all lot coverage ratio will not achieve the BOCC's desired
outcome. Instead, if a property management plan committing to agricultural use through the duration
of the solar project were presented in the 1041/USR application, the Planning Commission and
BOCC could then weigh each individual case in terms of the impact on well thought out management
objectives. A Large Scale Solar facility would be an acceptable land use with beneficial effects on the
community if it is located by itself in a rural area, close to major transmission lines, not prominently
visible from highly traveled roadways, set back from residential areas, and not located on irrigated
farmland, wetlands and critical habitats, or near cultural landmarks, and informed by feedback from
nearby residents, communities and landowners.
POWER
GLOBAL
Properly evaluating and, to the extent possible, mitigating the potential impacts of these facilities
through a management plan is key to ensuring that Large Scale Solar facilities can help meet broader
economic and social goals without compromising a community's agricultural future.
6., Incentivize Partnerships with Agricultural Communities. We would welcome a shift in the dialogue
towards the positive outcomes BOCC hopes to leverage from solar investments. An initial list BOCC
could consider to incentivize partnerships with agricultural industries and communities includes:
• Establishing a community fund to improve adjacent water infrastructure, public recreation areas,
or fire and library services
• Contributing to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) programs at local schools
• Committing to employ a local workforce
• Encourage beekeeping, grazing, and pollinator plants within the fence to benefit agricultural
industries
• Fund conservation easements of irrigated farmlands
In conclusion, the 1041/USR permitting hurdle is an expensive, unpredictable deterrent that has
historically kept Large Scale Solar away from Weld County. It has been tested through several Large
Scale Solar pre -application meetings over the years and been found quite daunting, hence not a single
Large Scale Solar project has initiated a formal application. A review of the permitting procedures of
Larimer, Adams, Arapahoe, El Paso, Pueblo, Alamosa counties finds that Weld County is the only county
to require both a 1041 and USR, which creates a double deterrent. The reality is that the 1041/USR is not
broken, and we are of the opinion that this review and permitting process is sufficient to address Weld
County's concerns. Additional requirements should not be added on.
174 Power Global appreciates the County's consideration of these recommendations. We welcome an
opportunity to discuss these constructive approaches in a more constructive process. I can be contacted
directly via the contact information below.
Respecfjully,
my Yuri/
President
174 Power Global
300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1020
Irvine, CA 92618
Cell: +1 408 667 9584
Email: henry.yun@174powerglobal.com
n.w•...ee.rr»....... m-nu�nwtGx:air.rl'� fr.�..
,«:,4».:.. w _ ...•!..•+'.«w•...
Arthur M. Griffiths
P. 0. Box 38
Johnstown, CO 80534
December 14, 2020
Board of weld County Commissioners
C/O Esther Gesick, Clerk to the Board
1150 0 Street
P.D. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80631
egesick weldgov.com
Ea Proposed ORD202O-20 (Solar Facilities)
Commissioners:
My family and I own and operate a farm in western weld County near Johnstown that has been in
the family since 1979. Like most in our position, we struggle to keep the operation going and
continuously search for ways to supplement farm income. We have been presented a great
opportunity to do just that with a solar leasing arrangement that would allow us to continue
agricultural operations while receiving a strong supplemental income stream. The County's
proposed code amendments ("Proposal") would potentially cut by 50% the benefits we are in the
process of securing,
The County released its Proposal on December 1, 2020, and has stated its intent to finalize the
changes by the end of this year. At the same time, County representatives have admitted publicly
to the Greeley Tribune that the Proposal has been placed on an unnecessarily accelerated timeline
(during the Christmas holidays, no less) since it addresses no urgent problem. Allowing a mere
30 days for public discussion of code amendments having far-reaching and negative impacts to the
agricultural sector is wholly inadequate.
The County's stated goal with the Proposal is to protect agricultural lands. Notably, the solar lease
arrangement would allow us to continue agricultural operations on the farrn, including on the very
land occupied by the solar panels. We plan to run sheep among the panels, and deliver irrigation
water to this area to maintain beneficial use of our water rights.
Moreover, unlike other land uses, the solar array will not permanently change the nature or
integrity of the land. The solar company would be contractually obligated to remove all
infrastructure and return the land to its pre -lease conditions upon expiration of the lease. Thus, the
land will remain suitable for farming (likely with improved soil health).
Ironically, the Proposal would actually encourage the permanent conversion of farmland by
requiring land under a solar lease to be zoned industrial. Once that happens, the land is unlikely
to be rezoned to agricultural use even after the lease ends.
Y FAZ M1 < 4��1 TS f;{�
t . o,^
_.-..., Y:.m:araur..r...‘s.1. .+ ±.'.max
y �ivy.tiYL Iit,7, Yr11�L 1,: SJrIs O'Sr�ls'SSi��}y �lvt •
LCO�Y'yI}'J�]gy�.Ty�rpWy(' T y>SE 1
•P u •
•
y���i. 3141V
...._ _ 1er.••.«rtore,. ....»... .. ,.,.�:;;..,r,.o,.,;.._,. ._w: -
Weld County Commissioners
December 14, 2020
Page 12
Finally, it is notable that the County's agricultural zone district is not only intended to promote
agriculture as an essential feature of the County, but also to provide for energy development. The
solar lease we have pursued falls squarely within the County's stated purpose for this district.
It goes without saying that enacting an ordinance that interferes with a farmer's ability to
supplement his income while continuing agricultural operations does not promote or protect
agriculture. We respectfully request the Board of County Commissioners to withdraw its Proposal
and engage the geld agricultural community to explore other ways of addressing the County's
concerns without unnecessarily constraining options for the agricultural community to maintain
fanning operations in a difficult agricultural economy.
Sincerely,
6{41044
Arthur M. Griffiths
cc: Tom Park°, Director, Department of Planning Services aparktiggLom)
Karla Ford, BOCC Office Manager (kford(aweldgov.com)
Cheryl Hoffman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Esther Gesick
Wednesday, December 16, 2020 7:14 AM
Cheryl Hoffman
Fwd: Ordinance 2020-20
0153_001.pdf; ATT00001.htm
From: Steve Moreno <smoreno@weldgov.com>
Date: December 16, 2020 at 6:17:01 AM MST
To: Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com>
Subject: Fwd: Ordinance 2020-20
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Troy Whitmore <twhitmore@unitedpower.com>
Date: December 15, 2020 at 2:49:36 PM MST
To: "mfreeman@weldgov.com" <mfreeman@weldgov.com>, "smoreno@weldgov.com"
<smoreno@weldgov.com>, "kross@weldgov.com" <kross@weldgov.com>,
"bkirkmeyer@weldgov.com" <bkirkmeyer@weldgov.com>, "sjames@weldgov.com"
<sjames@weldgov.com>
Cc: Bryant Robbins <brobbins@UnitedPower.com>, Jay Mendoza
<jmendoza@unitedpower.com>, Tom Parko Jr. <tparko@weldgov.com>
Subject: Ordinance 2020-20
Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you re
sender and know the content is safe.
Mr. Chair and Commissioners:
Pleased find attached a letter in regard to Ordinance 2020-20 which is on your agenda
for public hearing tomorrow morning.
Thank you for welcoming and considering our input in this matter. We look forward to
future collaboration with you and all other stakeholders.
Regards,
Tro" Whitmore
Government & Regulatory Relations Officer
United Power, Inc.
(303) 475-1214
rrr r
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended
solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you received this message in
error, please contact the sender and delete the message. Any disclosure, copying, review
December 15, 2020
Your Touchstone Energy. Cooperative
Weld County Board of Commissioners
1150 O Street
Greeley CO, 80632
RE: Weld County Ordinance 2020-20
Honorable Commissioners:
Weld County is truly the energy capital of Colorado. With this recognition we appreciate our long-
standing partnership with Weld County in producing and delivering affordable electric energy for
our member consumers in your county.
Thank you for the stakeholder meeting last week as we all share perspectives and work together
to craft solar regulations that appropriately serve our mutual constituents in Weld County.
As we move forward in this process, we pledge to work collaboratively with you, your staff,
landowners, the solar industry and all other interested parties. Because of the complexities of this
issue, we believe it would be prudent to continue discussions. Perhaps another stakeholder group
meeting or another collaborative discussion of some sort, would be helpful to an-ive at a win -win
outcome for all parties involved. We believe this could be promptly accomplished during the first
quarter of 2021 and we plan to fully participate in this process.
Again, thank you for seeking and valuing our input. As always, we look forward to working with
Weld County in this regard.
Sincerely,
Troy . Whitmore
Government & Regulatory Relations Officer
CC: Bryant Robbins, United. Power Acting CEO
Toni Parko Jr. Weld County Planning Director
IINITEn Pl1WER. INC_ snn ennnprativp way Rrinhtnn nn Rnnnti �nl-f sq-nss1 R Rnn-4RR-RRnci fax 1111-Rcq-2172 www i initprinnwpr r.nn
Cheryl Hoffman
From:
Sent:
,ko
Cc:
...; o
c :
Subject:
Attachments:
Bruce Barker
Wednesday, December 16, 2020 8:12 AM
CTB
Tom Pa rko Jr.
FW: Letter from Colorado Farm Bureau
CFB letter to Boulder_Weld Commissioners.pdf
Let's include in solar ordinance file.
Bruce T. Barker, Esq.
Weld County Attorney
P.O. Box 758
1150 "0" Street
Greeley, CO 80632
(970) 400-4390
Fax: (970) 352-0242
Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for
the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is attorney privileged and confidential, or
otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify
sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action
concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly
prohibited.
From: Karla Ford <kford@weldgov.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 7:36 AM
To: Bruce Barker <bbarker@weldgov.com>; Don Warden <dwarden@weldgov.com>
Subject: FW: Letter from Colorado Farm Bureau
FYI
Karla Ford
Office Manager, Board of Weld County Commissioners
1150 0 Street, P.O. Box 758, Greeley, Colorado 80632
:: 970.336-7204 :: kford@weldgov.com :: www.weldgov.com ::
**Please note any working lours are Monday -Thursday 7:00a.m.-5:00p.m.**
Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed
and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please
1
immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of
this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited.
From: Martini, Shawn <shawn@coloradofb.org>
Seat: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 7:49 PM
To: Mike Freeman <mfreeman@weldgov.com>; Scott James <sames@weldgov.com›; Barbara Kirkmeyer
<bkirkmeyer@weldgov.com>; Steve Moreno <smoreno@weldgov.com>; Kevin Ross <kross@weldgov.com>;
commissioners@bouldercounty.org
Cc: Karla Ford <kford@weldgov.com>; Currier, Carlyle <carlyle@coloradofb.org>
Subjects Letter from Colorado Farm Bureau
This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Commissioners,
Please find the attached letter from Colorado Farm Bureau's president Carlyle Currier regarding the regulations on
energy production in your two counties.
Best,
u
(Shawn Martini
Vice President, Advocacy
C (303) 895-5070
www.ColoradoFarmBureau.com
- recognized as One of Denver's "Best Places to Work" in 2018, 2019 and 2020
- T ; help prevent the spread of COVID-19, CFB staff members are working from home. Y.• II may reach me .,rn my
cell: (303) 895-5070
2
FARM
BUREAU
COLORADO
COLORADO FARM BUREAU
Promoting and protecting the future of agriculture and rural values.
December 15, 2020
Boulder County Commissioners
Boulder County Courthouse
Third Floor
1325 Pearl Street
Boulder, CO 80302
Dear Boulder and Weld County Commissioners,
Weld County Commissioners
1150 O Street
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80631
On behalf of the 24,000 -plus members of the Colorado Farm Bureau, I write to you today regarding new and
proposed regulations on energy development in your respective counties.
The Colorado Farm Bureau represents agriculture producers in 45 counties across the state of Colorado. For
more than 100 years the organization has served to protect and advance the interests of our state's farmers,
ranchers, and consumers, as well as the rural communities that make up our state's agricultural producing
regions.
The list of public policy areas of interest to farmers and ranchers is long, but none so important as the rights
of property owners afforded by the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions. The ability of American citizens to
privately own, control access, and determine the best use of property is the key to the success of Colorado
and American agriculture. Property owners are best placed to make decisions on how to use their property in
a way that provides the most value based on their individual priorities, subject to reasonable restrictions to
protect the livelihoods and quiet enjoyment of their neighbors.
In some areas, the best use of that property may be to grow crops or feed cattle. It may be the best use to
construct a dairy or farm stand and sell directly to consumers. In other cases, it may make the most sense for
a landowner to engage in the production not of food, but of energy. In Colorado, agriculture producers
frequently work to produce both food and energy with their property. That energy takes many forms, from
traditional oil and natural gas to renewable sources like solar, wind, and biofuels. In either case, farmers and
ranchers may best ensure the success of their agricultural enterprise, by diversifying into energy production as
well.
Both local and state officials in Colorado must consider this dynamic when enacting land -use policies. Rural
communities are suffering both from the COVID-19 crisis and from ongoing economic trends in the
agriculture industry. Policies that unnecessarily and arbitrarily limit farmers and ranchers' ability to use their
property in a way that will best provide value for their agricultural enterprise are extremely problematic. In
many cases, it may mean the difference between success or failure of a particular farm or ranch business,
many of which are multigenerational, historic, and a part of Colorado's unique heritage.
� r
303.749.7500 (phone) 1303.749.7703 (fax) I 9777 E. Mineral Circle, Centennial, CO 80112 I www.ColoradoFormBureau.org 1°91911
cotoRAooionnuu
FARM
BUREAU
COLORADO
COLORADO FARM BUREAU
Promoting and protecting the future of agriculture and rural values.
We are extremely concerned about the efforts of your counties, which are among the state's largest and most
historic agriculture -producing counties, to limit the ability of farmers and ranchers to engage in energy
production on their property. By singling out different forms of energy production for arbitrary regulation
and restriction, your policies, at a minimum, serve only to cause economic harm to a particular sector. Caught
in the middle are farmers and ranchers, deprived of both financial gains during a time of significant economic
stress and their unalienable rights as property owners.
We urge you to put aside grievances and allow farmers, ranchers, landowners, and energy producers to work
cooperatively to provide the sustainable energy production, financial security, economic growth,
environmental protection, and job creation that has led Colorado to be a national leader in these very areas.
Your new regulations on energy production provide none of these benefits.
Our state is a model for this dynamic brand of cooperation between industries and policy priorities. We
should continue to be so both during a time of such difficulty and into the future as well.
Thank you for your consideration,
CA)
Carlyle Currier
President
303.749.7500 (phone) I 303.749.7703 (fax) I 9177 E. Mineral Circle, Centennial, CO 80112 I www.ColoradoFarmBureau.org
�`\�6ptOTUR►'B r
f`
1919
COLORADO WAOREM
Cheryl Hoffman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Esther Gesick
Wednesday, December 16, 2020 8:58 AM
Cheryl Hoffman
FW: Ordinance 2020-20
PVREA Letter RE Weld County Ordinance 2020-20.pdf
From: Amy Rosier <arosier@pvrea.coop>
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 4:31 PM
To: Mike Freeman <mfreeman@weldgov.com>; Steve Moreno <smoreno@weldgov.com>; Kevin Ross
<kross@weldgov.com>; Barbara Kirkmeyer <bkirkmeyer@weldgov.com>; Scott James <sjames@weldgov.com>
Cc: Jeff Wadsworth <awadsworth@pvrea.coop>; Tom Parko Jr. <tparko@weldgov.com>
Subject: Ordinance 2020-20
Caution; This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Mr. Chair and Commissioners,
Please accept the attached letter in regards to Ordinance 2020-20, which is on your public hearing agenda tomorrow.
Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to meaningful collaboration with you and the other stakeholders.
Best,
Amy
Army Rosier
Vice President, Member and Government Relations
Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association, Inc.
o: 970.282.6422
m: 720.626.8297
pvrea.coop Facebook I Twitter I Instagram I YouTube
1
Your Touchstone Energy° Cooperative
December 15, 2020
Weld County Board of Commissioners
1150 O Street
Greeley, CO 80632
Re: Weld County Ordinance 2020-20
Honorable Commissioners:
Thank you for taking the time to listen and discuss the possible changes to the Weld County land
use codes. As a local, member -owned electric cooperative serving a large portion of land and
some of the largest employers in Weld County, Poudre Valley REA (PVREA) appreciated the
opportunity to participate in the Stakeholder Meeting you held on Tuesday, December 7th
PVREA recognizes and respects Weld County's desire to preserve prime agricultural land and
our way of life. Our core mission is to provide low cost electricity. Strategically placed solar
facilities enable PVREA to deliver on that mission of providing low cost electricity to our
member -owners. We believe it is possible to strike a balance between land rights and land use
regulation.
We value our collaborative relationship with Weld County. The Stakeholder Meeting provided a
good forum to exchange ideas, hear and share concerns, and the ability to work together to find a
solution. Continuing the dialogue with another stakeholder meeting or similar working group
would be beneficial for all parties. PVREA is willing to participate in such meetings and would
welcome the opportunity.
Sincerely,
Amy Rosier
Vice President, Member and Government Relations
Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association, Inc.
CC: Jeffrey C. Wadsworth, PVREA President and CEO
Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association • 7649 REA Parkway • Fort Collins • Colorado • 80528 • 800-432-1012
P.O. Box 272550, Fort Collins, CO 80527-2550 • www.pvrea.coop • pvrea@pvrea.coop
Cheryl Hoffman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
ddech8029@aol.com
Sunday, February 21, 2021 7:53 PM
CTB
Solar farm comments Feb. 22 Commissioner meeting
This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Weld County Commissioners,
am 65 years old and have farmed in southern Weld County since I was big enough to follow my dad around. I am in
favor of solar farms and think they should be encouraged in Weld County.
The two words, "solar" and "farm" together make a very fitting term. After all, when we farm or ranch, we are harvesting
solar energy. How much of it we can harvest is determined by the growing season and how much leaf area we can
expose. Naturally, we can expose much more leaf area to the sun on irrigated lands than we can with dryland. With this in
mind, I think solar farms are much more suited to dry and range lands than irrigated lands.
Were a solar farm be established neighboring me, I don't think I would mind, even it would take up a half section or more
of ground. There already are a couple of large solar farms in my area and when I drive by them, they don't bother me. And
they fit in quite well with the landscape. I would much rather live and farm next to a solar farm that I would next to a
housing development or any other bunch of new neighbors, be they residential or industrial.
I have heard of concerns of Weld County becoming an industrial dumping ground for the Front Range if it allows large
scale solar. I don't see it that way. Solar farms would bring in a tax base and income along with a few jobs. Let the front
range cities have their "Los Angeles" of the Rockies if all they want is houses. I like what's left of rural Weld County. I see
solar farms being compatible with the rural nature of the county. After all, they are just harvesting the sun, the same thing
as I do, just in a different manner.
Sincerely,
David Dechant
8029 CR 39
Ft. Lupton, CO 80621
tel: 303-717-0060
i
Hello