Barren County officials debate 1,000‑foot solar setback after statute cited

Barren County officials debated an ordinance to set larger setbacks for utility-scale solar installations after a speaker cited KRS 278.1704, which the speaker said requires utilities to be 1,000 feet from property lines and 2,000 feet from schools.

The debate centered on balancing property rights and community impacts: some participants emphasized landowners’ rights and uncertainty about health or environmental harms, while others stressed that a 1,000‑foot setback would still allow many farming operations to continue on adjoining land.

Why it matters: The ordinance would change where solar panels can be sited relative to homes, property lines and schools in Barren County and could alter the development footprint of planned installations. Several speakers warned that if the ordinance does not pass, the county would revert to the current, smaller setback regime discussed during the meeting.

Discussion highlights

Speakers repeatedly framed the issue as a tension between private property rights and community protection. One participant said, “I don’t particularly agree with solar panels to start with,” and added that removing landowners’ decision‑making authority should require high standards of proof for health or environmental harms. Another speaker noted familiarity with large farmers in the county and said a 1,000‑foot setback would still leave significant acreage available for farming.

A speaker referenced state law aloud: “KRS 278.1704 says ... utilities are supposed to be a thousand foot off the property line and 2,000 feet from schools,” and presented that as context for the local ordinance discussion. Other participants clarified that if the county does not adopt the proposed ordinance, the existing setback pattern discussed in the meeting—which participants characterized as permitting structures as close as 10 feet from a property line and another 10 feet to some structures—would remain in place.

Procedure and next steps

Meeting speakers discussed an amendment and a roll call vote; the transcript records that the body proceeded to vote on an amendment and that a roll call was started, but the transcript does not include a final tally or an explicit record that the ordinance or amendment passed. A later motion to adjourn was made by Kinzlo and seconded by Ken Rolfe Anderson; the meeting then moved toward closure.

What was not decided

The transcript does not record a final, certified vote result for the ordinance or amendment. No formal direction to staff or implementation timetable for a new setback rule appears in the recorded portion of the meeting.