A solar garden near Ignacio was constructed by Shaw Solar for La Plata Electric Association in 2015. The electric cooperative is pursuing a similar project along U.S. Highway 550 near the Sunnyside community about 13 miles south of Durango and received approval from the La Plata County Planning Commission on Thursday, but area residents object to the plans as presented. （Courtesy of LPEA）
The La Plata County Planning Commission approved La Plata Electric Association’s Sunnyside solar field project, but not before neighbors of the development site shared their objections.
The intent of the meeting was to determine whether LPEA’s proposal conforms with the county’s comprehensive plan, which the Planning Commission decided it does.
The 1.7-megawatt solar field project, capable of generating the equivalent energy needed to power 600 homes, will be erected over the course of eight to 10 weeks on a 50-acre parcel beside LPEA’s Sunnyside substation that sits directly east of U.S. Highway 550 about 13 miles south of Durango. The solar field will itself occupy 9 acres.
In a staff report to planning commissioners, Alison Layman, county planner, said the solar field will offset power currently brought to the area by power lines, assist LPEA, the state and the county meet it’goals for carbon reduction, and can reduce residents’ and businesses’ power bills by using LPEA’s services.
But several residents who live near the development site said they oppose the project citing concerns about wildlife disturbance, noise pollution and what they consider a fundamental misuse of the county-designated residential and agricultural zone. They made their voices heard at the Planning Commission meeting on Thursday.
Residents are worried about the impacts to their way of rural life and questioned the county’s public input process in considering the solar field proposal.
Naiomi Reese, a county contact for the Florida Mesa district, said the project represents a change of use for the parcel in question （which historically has been mostly agricultural and residential with some limited industrial use） to wholly industrial in nature, and its impact is large enough to warrant additional review.
She said the county comprehensive plan “clearly speaks to the need for citizen review and engagement over long periods of time,” as does the Florida Mesa district plan.
She suggested additional conditions for approval of the project should include a site plan for the whole property in question, not just the specific project area. She also suggested comprehensive weed mitigation, prairie dog management and landscaping plans. And, the county should retain review and control over those conditions of approval.
“The neighbors will be watching over a long period of time,” she said. “We would just say that out of respect for the district plan, for the neighbors, for the land, Florida Mesa as a whole, we would ask that you help us ensure some good stewardship of this land.”
Jabes Webb, a resident of 31 years whose property is directly beside the project site, said he understands that solar panels have become a popular source of sustainable energy, but LPEA’s proposed solar field is not the right fit for the Sunnyside community.
He also said that area stakeholders – neighbors and Sunnyside Elementary School – should have been involved in “comprehensive consultation” about the project.
“It is essential for the local government and cooperatives to genuinely listen to the concerns and feedback of community members who will be most directly affected by this project,” he said.
Construction noise, limited economic benefits to neighbors as well as possible detriments in decreased property values were among his concerns.
“The construction of a solar field behind our home will significantly impact our quality of life,” he said. “We chose this neighborhood for its tranquillity and natural beauty. And the presence of a large-scale solar field would disrupt the peaceful ambience we cherish.”
He said dust and noise from construction would hurt the area’s aesthetic appeal. And he questioned whether residents would benefit from the power being amassed next door.
“If this solar field is built it is likely the power generated will be sent to the grid, benefiting a broader region rather than directly benefiting our community,” he said.
Dan Harms, LPEA vice president of grid solutions, said energy will be physically delivered to the closest residents and will help the cooperative keep its cost of power down for the larger community. And, the solar field will allow users to tap into solar power without needing to install solar panels of their own.
Webb said his real property line may not be what county maps display. He said two Colorado Department of Transportation surveys conducted several years ago concluded his actual property line is located 30 to 40 feet east of what is considered the boundary.
“I was compensated based on their survey. Any approval of this project should stipulate a survey of the property line, which LPEA has indicated they are amenable to doing,” he said.
Gail McDermott said wildlife mitigation solutions proposed by LPEA don’t pair well with her experience living near the site.
Harms said the solar fields are planned to be installed on the south side of the coop’s parcel, about 60 feet from neighbors, to minimize disturbances to wildlife and limit activity to where developments have already happened.
LPEA plans to use 8-foot-high fencing along the project boundaries to prevent people and wildlife from accessing the solar field.
But McDermott said she regularly sees deer crossing residents’ backyards and the rows and fields at the south end of LPEA’s property.
“Kind of saying that we don’t matter because we don’t have wildlife in our backyard isn’t true,” she said.
And she is worried about the industrial aesthetic that would be introduced.
“When people come into Colorado from New Mexico, they see a beat up wooden sign that says ‘Welcome to Colorful Colorado’ and then they’re going to see a dusty field with solar panels in it,” she said.
Planning commissioners approved the solar field with one finding and seven conditions in a 4-1 vote, with Planning Commissioner Charly Minkler being the sole ‘no’ vote.
The commissioners said Webb, the neighbor with a property line dispute, and LPEA must work together to resolve the issue.
Minkler said the project could be designed in a way to have less impact on neighbors, and that is why he voted against it.
Geri Malandra, chair of the Planning Commission, said the commission’s responsibility is to consider projects in terms of location, function, environment and local precedence, and LPEA’s project fits the land-use code and standards and the county’s comprehensive plan, although that does not negate residents’ concerns.
