Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Daviess County fiscal court adopts zoning amendment adding temporary moratorium and 1,000-foot setback for wind and solar projects
Summary
On March 6, 2025, the Daviess County Fiscal Court approved an amended Owensboro Metropolitan Zoning Ordinance text change that inserts a temporary moratorium on wind and solar permit processing until March 1, 2026, and adds a 1,000-foot setback requirement for such installations.
Daviess County Fiscal Court voted March 6 to adopt an amendment to the Owensboro Metropolitan Zoning Ordinance that inserts a temporary moratorium on permitting for wind and solar energy installation businesses until March 1, 2026, and establishes a 1,000-foot setback requirement for those projects.
The change, presented as a second-reading ordinance amendment to Article 8 of the Owensboro Metropolitan Zoning Ordinance, passed after two separate amendments: one adding the moratorium language and a second increasing reference setbacks to 1,000 feet. The court approved the ordinance as amended by a 3-1 vote.
The modification places a temporary hold on the processing and approval of applications tied to wind and solar installation businesses. Section 4 of the final language states the moratorium shall be in place until 03/01/2026; it bars the board of adjustments and the planning and zoning commission from accepting, processing or approving conditional-use permits, zone changes, preliminary plats, or final development plans associated with wind or solar installation businesses during that period.
Commissioner Conder, who spoke at length during the vote, framed the issue in terms of regional power markets and local economic development. “Physically, the power stays within Daviess County. It will stay within ... the Midcontinent Independent System Operator,” Conder said, describing how power sales on regional grids operate and warning of potential future local supply constraints that could affect industrial customers.
Supporters of the amendment argued the pause would give the court time to ensure neighbor impacts and decommissioning plans are addressed. Opponents and project proponents said pauses risk deterring developers. James L. Nolfsinger, a resident who spoke during public comment, said he supports the solar projects and urged the court not to delay development. Mike Sullivan, representing a solar company, thanked the court for its willingness to work with applicants and said, “we are here to work with you. We’re here to share information.”
Judge Executive Charlie Caslin said the court will continue the conversation and hold a public work session; he said he has invited company representatives to attend and answer public questions before the court takes further action.
The court’s action was taken at second reading and adopts the ordinance as amended; the court recorded the amendment vote on the moratorium and the setback change prior to the final adoption.
Votes at a glance: the oral record indicates the amendment to add the moratorium passed 3–1. The final ordinance as amended also carried 3–1 (Judge Executive Charlie Caslin — yes; Commissioner Conder — no; Commissioner Mark Sperry — yes; another commissioner recorded as yes in the roll call). The transcript does not supply a complete, unambiguous roll-call list tied to each vote in every instance.
