A map showing the flight paths from the Watertown Municipal Airport and the location of the proposed Concord-Highland Solar project circled in red.
The parcel where the proposed Concord-Highland Solar Project would be built near Watertown.
A map showing the flight paths from the Watertown Municipal Airport and the location of the proposed Concord-Highland Solar project circled in red.
The parcel where the proposed Concord-Highland Solar Project would be built near Watertown.
WATERTOWN — The Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Committee passed the proposed solar project north near the STH 26 Bypass in Watertown, despite the City of Watertown’s opposition.
The Concord-Highland Solar Energy Systems project is an approximately 25-acre, 5MW solar array proposed by the Seattle-based solar company OneEnergy Renewables LLC.
The City of Watertown has officially opposed the development.
In a letter to the Jefferson County Board, Watertown Mayor Robert Stocks outlined the City’s concerns, citing conflicts with the City’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use provisions, as well as safety concerns.
“A solar farm is not compatible with the planned mixed-use designation,” wrote Stocks. “It is not contemplated or permitted under the City’s adopted comprehensive plan and would significantly constrain future economic development that the plan identifies as vital for the greater community.
“A solar farm located near an aircraft landing zone can (also) create significant safety concerns for pilots, passengers, and people on the ground. Solar panels can produce glare or reflected light that may temporarily impair a pilot’s vision during critical phases of takeoff and landing.”
The Watertown Municipal Airport has been attempting to rebuild its runway for the past 15 years and an opportunity presented itself this summer for the refurbishment.
In his letter, Stocks also outlined concerns regarding the Jefferson County Solar Energy Systems Ordinance and approval from the closet municipality to the process. Stocks said the Town of Watertown did approve the development.
“In addition, a small (solar energy system) may be permitted as a conditional use, subject to the requirements of this ordinance, within the A-T zoning district with written approval from the closest municipality,” the ordinance reads.
“I’m not in favor of it,” District 5 (Watertown) Supervisor James Braughler. “It falls within the five miles (of the) airport. It also needs approval from the municipality, and there’s some potential litigation. I think it’s a poor use of the land. The first thing (when) you come into a town, you do not want to see a solar farm right there.”
Jefferson County Director of Planning and Development Matt Zangl noted that a glare analysis had “showed no glare or potential hazards of that nature.” He said that the Federal Aviation Administration had determined a, “null hazard,” relating to the proximity of the proposed project to the airport.
According to Zangl, OneEnergy had also submitted an affidavit showing that they provided notice to the airports in compliance with zoning ordinance requirements.
A letter sent to the county from Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, the law firm representing OneEnergy, said the City did not provide a, “lawful basis” to deny the project’s conditional use permit.
“Any restriction on the project must fit within one of the categories set forth in Wis. Stat. section 66.0401(1m). The Wisconsin Court of Appeals found that a municipality cannot restrict a solar project based on generalized local concerns (e.g., impact on aesthetics and property values) or incompatibility with land use and development plans. Therefore, the City’s opposition to the Project based on its comprehensive plan is not a lawful basis to deny the Project’s CUP application or impose conditions on it,” stated the letter.
“I know the big conflict is the proximity to the city. Obviously, the City (does) not provide its approval. The ordinance allows the committee to modify the conditional use requirements, meaning, if there’s a standard that the committee finds overburdensome or not applicable, the committee can modify it,” said Zangl.
Zangl stated that each solar farm should be reviewed “on a case-by-case analysis,” and the Planning and Zoning Committee “may modify (the ordinance) or make modification as necessary to ensure compliance with Wisconsin statute.”
Jefferson County Administrator Michael Luckey explained that, as far as he understood, any proposed expansions for the Watertown Municipal Airport would not overlap with the project’s footprint.
“As far as the runway expansion goes, from what I understand, they’re actually looking to expand up to 5,000 feet for runway, but most of that will be occurring on the northeastern portion of it as you go southwest,” said Luckey.
Zangl said that if the county had more information regarding possible expansions from the City, it could request OneEnergy examine any possible conflict with expansions.
Jefferson County Corporation Counsel Danielle Thompson said that the Committee could not deny the development based solely on one municipality’s disapproval.
“You cannot just rely on the fact that the City of Watertown said no,” said Thompson. “If you choose to deny today, (you) have to articulate, based on the record that’s been provided, some reason in which you believe denial is necessary to preserve or protect public health or safety.”
Zangl mentioned that a similar situation had happened, “west of Koshkonong.” The town had attempted to overturn a Public Service Commission of Wisconsin decision to approve a solar farm. The attempt did not pass and the Koshkonong facility is currently under construction.
The Jefferson County Board of Supervisors will review the proposed development during its next meeting.
Get any of our free email newsletters — news headlines, obituaries, sports, and more.
{{description}}
Email notifications are only sent once a day, and only if there are new matching items.
Your comment has been submitted.
Reported
There was a problem reporting this.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.
Your browser is out of date and potentially vulnerable to security risks.
We recommend switching to one of the following browsers:
