Reno County commissioners decline to impose commercial solar rules in unzoned areas, 3–2

Hutchinson, Kan. — The Reno County Board of Commissioners voted 3–2 on May 1 to leave unzoned portions of the county without specific regulations for commercial or industrial solar projects, rejecting a proposed referral to the Planning and Zoning Commission for broader public hearings and rulemaking.

The vote preserves the status quo for the countys unzoned areas: commercial-scale solar developers will not face county-level overlay regulations in those parts of the county unless a future petition or separate zoning action is initiated. Commissioners Randy Parks, Ron Vincent and a third commissioner voted in favor of leaving the unzoned designation unchanged; Commissioners Ron Hurst and Don Bogner voted against the motion.

Supporters of the motion argued that many residents in unzoned areas chose to live there to avoid additional land-use regulations and that spot or partial zoning could lead to repeated requests for piecemeal regulation. Opponents said the county owed residents a formal public hearing process through Planning and Zoning to consider an overlay that many landowners had requested for protections related to siting, soil and water safeguards, and long-term site remediation.

During the discussion, commissioners and other speakers raised several recurring points:

- Local autonomy and property rights: Several commissioners emphasized that property owners who bought land in unzoned areas expect fewer land-use restrictions and that expanding zoning or selective regulation could undermine those expectations.

- Public process and due process: Commissioners who opposed the motion said the current decision did not give affected residents the Planning and Zoning public hearings they requested. One commissioner described the immediate question before the board as whether to grant petitioners the "due process of law" by sending the proposal to the Planning and Zoning Commission for hearings, written comments and a formal recommendation back to the board.

- Environmental and cleanup concerns: Commissioners and other speakers discussed environmental safeguards, citing federal and state entities such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) as existing regulatory authorities. Concerns included potential soil contamination, runoff, water-quality protection and long-term cleanup costs. Some speakers said landowners would generally retain liability for cleanup under existing law; others argued that county regulations would create clearer expectations and protections for neighbors.

- Tax and payment issues: The board heard references to tax treatment and payment-in-lieu considerations; one speaker said the states rules can allow tax benefits for a limited time (described in the meeting as "about 10 years"), a point raised in the context of long-term fiscal impacts on local government and services.

- Transmission and feasibility: Commissioners noted that large-scale projects generally require transmission infrastructure; one participant reported recent surveying activity on Yoder Road related to a proposed power line, an item commissioners said bears on the practical likelihood of large projects being built in particular unzoned areas.

Several commissioners urged that, if citizens want protections, they could petition for full zoning of areas (for example, at the township level) rather than piecemeal spot zoning. Commissioners who supported referring an overlay to the Planning and Zoning Commission said that body could conduct multiple public hearings, accept written comments and provide a recommendation to the board, offering a more uniform, transparent record for any future decision.

The board also discussed (but did not immediately pursue) the countys moratorium that had been put in place earlier in the solar review process. After the main motion passed to leave unzoned areas without added solar regulations, at least one commissioner asked that a moratorium not be reinstated.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to leave unzoned areas without commercial/industrial solar regulations (motion to not send the proposal to Planning and Zoning): Passed, 3–2. - Yes: Commissioner Randy Parks; Commissioner Ron Vincent; one additional commissioner (recorded in roll call as "Yes"). - No: Commissioner Ron Hurst; Commissioner Don Bogner.

- Consent agenda (with item 6e pulled from consideration today): Carried unanimously in roll call earlier in the meeting; item 6e (a fence-viewing matter) was removed from the consent agenda at staff request so the involved landowners could continue private discussions.

Why it matters

The boards vote preserves the countys current regulatory approach in unzoned areas, meaning a developer proposing a commercial-scale solar installation in those parts of Reno County will not face a county overlay or use-specific zoning rules unless either the property owner seeks zoning, the board later agrees to add zoning, or a new referral is made to Planning and Zoning. Supporters of new rules said they would provide clearer standards on setbacks, soil protection, water runoff and remediation; opponents argued those protections can be addressed by existing state agencies and that countywide overlay rules would encroach on property rights in areas intentionally left unzoned.

Next steps

The decision does not bar residents, landowners, township groups or developers from asking the board to pursue full zoning or from seeking a formal Planning and Zoning review later. Commissioners who favor giving residents a dedicated public hearing said they can restart the process by formally requesting a Planning and Zoning referral or by encouraging petition-driven zoning at a township level. The debate over county-level solar rules is likely to continue if petitions, transmission proposals, or developer plans emerge in the unzoned areas.