Planning and Zoning recommends approval of solar facility
The Yuma County Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval Monday of a special use permit for a 680-acre solar generating facility just south of the existing APS solar farm, located on leased stateowned land.
Colorado-based Invenergy Solar Development LLC is proposing to build a 110-megawatt facility, including 12-foot solar arrays, backup battery storage for nighttime transmission and a storage area. It wraps around the south end of APS’ 400-acre Foothills Solar Project, and the Barry M. Goldwater Range forms its southern boundery.
It would connect to the electrical grid by building a new 69 kilovolt utility line to a substation on the existing field, said Rich Hamilton, representing Invenergy.
He said the company wants to have the project built by the end of 2020, and expects to create 300 construction jobs during the process. But it will only have about five permanent employees once it starts operating. He said nearby residents should not see any adverse environmental impacts from the solar farm.
“Water use, that’s a big issue with solar, a big selling point. During construction, it’ll be 28 acre feet. And after that you’ll be lucky to use 2 acre feet a year, of water. We don’t make noise, we don’t emit anything in the atmosphere. The only sound off of it, you have to be right next to it to maybe hear a buzz off a transmitter.” he said.
The solar installation is expected to be in place for 25 to 50 years, and Invenergy usually retains ownership of its projects, though it does sometimes sell them off, “based on what the utility that buys the power wants.”
Road access to the new Yuma Solar Energy Project would be from the southern end of Scottsdale Drive, with the western boundary starting about a mile and a half beyond the paved part of Fortuna Road and the eastern edge reaching within a fifth of a mile of Foothills Boulevard.
Scottsdale Drive runs to the east of St. John Neumann Catholic Church and on for another mile before reaching the boundary of the proposed solar project, which borders on undeveloped state trust land which could be sold off in the future for development. The county Comprehensive Plan envisions suburbanstyle development throughout the area.
Developer Glen Curtis told the board he owns an adjoining
property, and that Invenergy should be required to meet at least some of the same road-building requirements as the residential developers expected to come in later. If it were building housing, it would be required to build at least the adjacent half of Fortuna Road, for example.
“I’m not opposed to this project, I’m just asking you guys make them do, for 1100 acres in the middle of a potentially high-density area, that you just make them do their fair share of offsite improvements,” he said.
Senior Planner Juan Leal Rubio said county staff decided not to add such requirements for the special use permit: “We determined it’s not really going to be a high-traffic generator, because it’s only going to employ six people,” Invenergy is being required to complete a traffic study before construction starts.
The commission voted 7-1 to recommend approval of the permit, with member Gary Black voting no because he agreed Invenergy should be required to extend Fortuna Road.
Also Monday, the board decided to hold a public hearing on a proposed change to the county zoning code regarding a couple of thorny issues which arose from a case appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals last year.
A Somerton-area couple, Rosa and Mario Valenzuela, appealed a civil conviction and fine from a county zoning hearing officer, who said they were required to get a building permit for a structure built on their property by a previous owner, who did not seek any permits.
The county Board of Supervisors overturned the zoning officer’s ruling, which had stated the couple violated the code by constructing the shed without a permit. County staff then appealed the county board’s ruling to Yuma County Superior Court, with representation from the Yuma County Attorney’s Office.
Judge Lawrence Kenworthy sided with the couple, citing their attorney’s argument that a state statute precluded the county from requiring property owners to retroactively get a permit unless a matter of public health or safety is involved.
Staff appealed the case again. The state appeals court also ruled in favor of the Valenzuelas because the original violation alleged they had built the building, when all parties
agreed that they hadn’t. They threw out Kenworthy’s ruling without addressing the state statute, which satisfied the county staff, and the case didn’t go any further.
Commissioner Danny Bryant is proposing language which states no subsequent property owner would be required to get a retroactive permit “unless the building is an actual threat to public health and safety,” and all buildings which don’t pose a threat after the first five years will be “grandfathered” into the zoning code.
Another section would prohibit county staff from appealing any ruling made by the Board of Supervisors in a zoning case, though the defendant would still be
able to take a decision to Superior Court.
A report to the commission by Planning Director Maggie Castro said that neither change can be made under current state law, saying any unpermitted building constitutes a matter of public health and safety, and any party has the right to appeal a case, including county staff. If buildings are to be considered “grandfathered” in, she said, the time period should be considerably longer and the issue recorded on the property’s deed.
The commission ultimately agreed to hold a public hearing to get input on the proposed changes, which could happen as soon as its next scheduled meeting March 26.