Reno County planning commission narrows commercial solar project rules, sets 1,200‑acre cap and 3‑mile buffer

Reno County Planning Commission members on Jan. 16, 2025, debated and revised a proposed Article 26 to the county planning and zoning regulations intended to regulate commercial (utility‑scale) solar energy systems, ultimately setting a 1,200‑acre contiguous maximum and a 3‑mile separation between projects while voting not to require detailed decommissioning language inside the zoning regulation text.

The discussion matters because the rules will shape which solar developments can seek conditional‑use permits in Reno County, how large a single project may be, and what technical or contractual steps the county will expect developers to take before and after project operation.

Mark, a county planning staff member, walked the commission through edits in the packet, including a proposed definition of "unusual and extraordinary expenses" (expenses above the standard $300 conditional‑use fee) and a suite of items the commission had requested for inclusion or clarification. "Anything that goes above and beyond the normal conditional use permit fee of $300 will be charged," Mark told the commission when describing how extra county costs would be recovered from applicants. He reviewed proposed limits on project size, separation between projects, wildlife connectivity language, submittal requirements (including input from the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, groundwater districts or USDA), and draft language tying developer agreements and decommissioning obligations to project approvals.

Commissioners debated several size and spacing options at length. Commissioners who supported a smaller cap argued smaller maximums protect neighboring nonparticipating landowners and reduce visual and land‑use concentration; others said market and transmission constraints often limit how large projects can be, and that landowners should retain options to lease or participate. After extended discussion the commission coalesced around a 1,200‑acre contiguous maximum (a change from earlier proposals of 640 and 1,280 acres discussed during the meeting) and adopted a 3‑mile buffer between separate commercial projects. The commission clarified that "contiguous" may include parcels separated only by a public road when the parcels function as a single project.

On wildlife connectivity, commissioners agreed the regulations should encourage wildlife corridors but left detailed, site‑specific design requirements to the developer agreement or project‑level review. Commissioners repeatedly said the county could require a qualified wildlife assessment when needed, and that specific corridor dimensions and fencing designs are best determined in consultation with Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks or a qualified wildlife biologist at the conditional‑use or developer‑agreement stage.

The commission also debated where to place decommissioning and indemnification requirements. One motion would have retained the detailed decommissioning and indemnification text in the zoning regulation; that motion failed on a 2‑to‑4 roll call. Commissioners who opposed leaving the detailed text in the regulation said the county commission — which negotiates and enforces developer agreements and surety — is the appropriate place to finalize financial guarantees, bond amounts and other site‑specific decommissioning details. Commissioners who voted to keep the requirements in the regulations said doing so gives applicants and landowners an upfront, consistent standard.

Votes at a glance

- Separation buffer between commercial projects: motion to set a 3‑mile separation passed on roll call, 4 ayes, 2 nays (Strand: No; Schaefer: Yes; Seltzer: Yes; Macklin: Yes; Martin: No; Gertrisson: Yes). Outcome: approved.

- Retain decommissioning and indemnification requirements in the zoning regulation (Section 26‑1‑11 as drafted): motion to retain the detailed decommissioning language in the regulation failed on roll call, 2 ayes, 4 nays (Strand: Yes; Schaefer: No; Seltzer: Yes; Macklin: No; Martin: No; Gertrisson: No). Outcome: failed; commissioners directed staff to prepare a planning‑commission resolution and to coordinate with the county commission on a developer agreement and a decommissioning resolution.

What happens next: Planning staff said they will produce a clean draft and a planning‑commission resolution that summarizes the items the commission expects in developer agreements and decommissioning plans; the draft will be forwarded to the Reno County Commission for review and potential action. Commissioners discussed placing the item on a county commission agenda as early as late February or March, depending on packet and scheduling. No final county‑level regulations or developer agreements were adopted at the Jan. 16 meeting.

Background and context: Commissioners compared other Kansas counties' rules (examples cited included Sedgwick, Douglas and Butler counties) and noted transmission access, tax incentives, and evolving market conditions influence project economics and siting. Commissioners emphasized that conditional‑use permitting remains the public forum for neighbors to weigh project‑specific impacts and that a developer must demonstrate compliance with whatever size, buffer, wildlife, decommissioning and developer‑agreement requirements are in force at the time of application.

Ending: The commission left several technical issues for future action: precise corridor widths and fencing standards, specific surety/bond calculations for decommissioning (to be developed with county legal counsel and the county commission), and final drafting of Article 26 language before referral to the Reno County Commission for formal adoption.