Brandon Leuallen, The Business Times

The Mesa County Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to deny an appeal that challenged the basis for approval of a solar project near Palisade. The commissioners concluded the project meets the county’s fire-protection requirements based on a service agreement with a local fire district.

The commissioners voted 3–0 to affirm the planning director’s approval of the Pivot Solar 49 LLC and Pivot Solar 69 LLC site plan during a public hearing March 10.

Commission Chair J.J. Fletcher said the board’s role was limited to reviewing whether the administrative decision complied with the Land Development Code.

The appeal was filed by the Sobre el Rio Homeowners Association, which argued the county improperly relied on a legal opinion from County Attorney Todd Starr that state mutual-aid agreements between fire agencies could satisfy fire-protection requirements for developments located outside a fire district.

Concerns about precedent for future projects

One of the central concerns raised by the homeowners association was the county attorney’s opinion regarding mutual-aid agreements could influence how future development proposals outside fire districts are reviewed.

During the hearing, attorney Andrew Atkins, representing the HOA, said the county code clearly outlines how projects outside fire districts must obtain fire protection.

“Section 8.10.B.1 of the Land Development Code explicitly requires any site-plan applicant outside of a fire-protection district to be annexed into a district or have a service agreement with a district,” Atkins said.

If a property in Mesa County annexes into a fire-protection district, the owner becomes subject to the district’s property taxes, which fund fire-protection services such as staffing, equipment and facilities. If a project remains outside the district but signs a service agreement, the developer typically pays a negotiated fee to the district for providing protection to that property. Fire-protection districts in Colorado are special districts funded primarily through property-tax revenue.

The opinion from the Mesa County Attorney’s Office, issued during review of the project, concluded existing mutual-aid agreements between the Mesa County Sheriff’s Office and local fire districts could ensure fire-protection services in areas of unincorporated Mesa County outside fire-district boundaries.

During the hearing, HOA representatives argued that if the opinion were treated as a valid basis for compliance with the county’s fire-protection requirements, it could be used by other developers in the future, including Pivot Energy, for additional solar or battery-storage projects at the taxpayers’ expense and without proper fire-safety measures.

Emails included in the administrative record show Pivot representatives communicating with Mesa County staff about the interpretation. In one message cited by the HOA, Pivot’s vice president of project development, Kyle Sundman, wrote to county staff that discussions about the fire-protection issue appeared to have produced an “elegant solution” that could unlock development opportunities beyond the solar project.

HOA representatives cited those communications during the appeal as evidence the legal interpretation could influence how future projects outside fire districts are evaluated.

Mesa County Planning Department staff member Brent Deveris told commissioners that while the project’s initial approval referenced the county attorney’s legal opinion, a subsequent approval issued Nov. 26, 2025, cited the fire-protection service agreement with East Orchard Mesa Fire Protection District as the basis for compliance with Section 8.10 of the Mesa County Land Development Code.

“The final approval of that site plan application issued on November 26, 2025, cited a fire-protection service agreement between Pivot Energy and East Orchard Mesa Fire Protection District as the basis of compliance with Section 8.10,” Deveris said.

Atkins told commissioners the appeal was not an attempt to overturn the project itself.

“We’re not asking to overturn the approval of the site plan,” Atkins said. “We’re asking you to clarify the administrative decision … that the sole basis for approval is the applicant’s service agreement.”

Commissioners ultimately determined the appeal did not demonstrate that planning staff made an error when approving the site plan.

Commissioner Cody Davis said he understood the concerns raised by residents, but he agreed the issue before the board was limited to whether the planning director erred in determining the project complied with county code.

“By everything that’s been presented, the Todd Starr letter was not the basis for decisions in the site plan,” Davis said.