Shawnee County planners outline draft solar regulations; propose 240-acre cap, setbacks and decommissioning requirements

Planning staff presented a draft of solar energy conversion system (SECS) regulations and solicited input from the Shawnee County Planning Commission on key provisions including allowable zones, project size limits, setbacks, decommissioning and financial assurances.

Planning and Zoning Administrator Herrine Perez said personal solar installations intended for an owner’s on-site use would be allowed in any zoning district and permitted through building permits, but larger utility-scale or commercial SECS would be allowed only by conditional-use permit in RA, RR, I-1 and I-2 zones. Perez proposed prohibiting all SECS within mapped special flood hazard areas (including floodplain and floodway) based on guidance from a Division of Water Resources engineer who recommended avoiding floodplain siting to reduce permitting complexity and potential engineering requirements.

Among the draft standards Perez described: a proposed maximum project boundary of 240 acres, a rule that no project-area boundary be nearer than 2 miles to another project-area boundary (measured as straight-line distance), a 500-foot setback from any residence or accessory building on another property, a 150-foot setback from roads or unimproved road rights-of-way, and a minimum 50-foot setback from property lines (with greater setbacks required where residences or structures exist). Perez also proposed an initial review after the first year of operation and subsequent reviews every five years to confirm operation and to reassess decommissioning financial assurances.

Perez told commissioners the application package for a project should include a site plan, project narrative, total acreage, number of arrays and phasing, technology and mounting details (panel height and mounting), a drainage report, soil erosion controls, vegetation and landscaping plans, glare prevention, and a decommissioning and reclamation plan with financial assurance (bond or cash escrow). She said some items would be required and others recommended; the commission or staff could request additional materials case-by-case, including traffic analysis, construction management plans, plans for removal of damaged panels, FAA coordination if near airports, environmental assessments, soil and groundwater testing, emergency contact information and fire plans.

On enforcement, Perez said the applicant would be responsible for filing required operational reviews; if an applicant failed to comply, planning staff could issue violation notices and refer enforcement to the county counselor’s office, which could pursue court remedies or seek use of any financial surety to remediate sites. Perez advised that bond amounts should be based on the applicant’s cost estimates for reclamation, reviewed by county staff, and adjusted every five years for inflation.

Commissioners raised questions about whether the 240-acre limit should vary by zone (for example, larger limits in RA) and whether projects must be contiguous. They also asked about limiting projects near city limits or in urban growth areas, and suggested sending the draft to municipal planning departments, townships and fire districts for comment. Perez said she would refine sections on battery storage, electrical distribution and transmission-line details and would circulate a revised draft for further study; she also asked commissioners to send written comments to her directly.

The commission agreed to continue reviewing the draft in preparation for a longer discussion at the next meeting. Perez said the moratorium extension on SECS would be placed on the June 9 agenda and, if the commission acts, would be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners so any extension would occur before the moratorium’s expiration.

No formal regulatory changes were adopted at the meeting; staff and commissioners agreed to further edits and intergovernmental review prior to a public hearing.