Florence holds public hearing on Boone County-led zoning text amendments to regulate solar systems and battery storage

The City of Florence held a public hearing April 15 to review zoning text amendments forwarded by the Boone County Planning Commission that would define and regulate solar energy systems and battery energy storage systems within Florence’s municipal limits.

Planning presenter Mr. Morgan summarized the proposed ordinance language, including new definitions for rooftop, integrated and ground-mounted solar energy systems; a three-tier footprint system for ground-mounted arrays (tier 1: footprint less than 2,500 square feet or no more than 10% of the principal structure’s roof area; tier 2: 2,500 square feet to 5 acres; tier 3: greater than 5 acres); and two tiers for battery energy storage (tier 1: aggregate capacity ≤600 kilowatt-hours; tier 2: capacity >600 kWh or multiple storage technologies). Mr. Morgan said some Florence provisions are identical to those adopted by the Boone County Fiscal Court while others are stricter or tailored for city zoning districts.

Why it matters: the draft would allow rooftop systems as accessory uses in all Florence zoning districts subject to roof-location and height limits and new visibility rules; it would permit some ground-mounted systems only in industrial and airport zones as accessory uses and make tier 1 ground-mounts conditional in agricultural zones; and it would limit certain battery facilities to conditional use in industrial and airport zones with setbacks, noise and decommissioning rules. The changes would also specify concealment requirements for wiring and screening or interior placement for inverters and equipment.

Key provisions discussed by planning staff

- Definitions and tiers: Ground-mounted tier 1 is defined as a footprint under 2,500 sq ft or no more than 10% of a principal structure’s roof area; tier 2 is 2,500 sq ft to 5 acres; tier 3 is greater than 5 acres. Battery storage tier 1 is ≤600 kWh; tier 2 is >600 kWh or multi-technology systems.

- Rooftop and integrated systems: Proposed rules allow rooftop solar in all zones as an accessory use but impose visibility and roof-placement limits, including that panels on pitched roofs not extend beyond ridges, hips, valleys or eaves and that flat-roof installations be screened by parapet walls in certain zones. In industrial or airport zones rooftop panels may extend up to 10 feet above the highest portion of the roof or parapet when adjoining industrial or airport properties.

- Ground-mounted systems: Florence’s draft differs from the unincorporated Boone County code by restricting tier 1 ground-mounted systems as permitted accessory uses in industrial and airport zones only and as conditional uses in agricultural zones. Height limits proposed: 10 feet maximum where a subject parcel adjoins residential or agriculturally zoned property, 20 feet otherwise. Wires and conduits must be buried or concealed; fences must follow section 36-55; decommissioning requires removal of structures and wiring within six months after cessation of generation.

- Battery energy storage facilities: Tier 1 battery cabinets/containers would be allowed as accessory uses citywide if they are not visible from public streets or are screened; tier 2 systems would be conditional in industrial and airport districts and subject to a 200-foot setback from any residential district property line (50 feet from other property lines), cleared buffer zones within 10 feet of the facility, an average noise limit of 60 decibels measured at the property line, undergrounding of on-site utility lines to the extent permitted by the servicing utility, and six-month decommissioning timelines.

Public comment and concerns

Several residents and property owners spoke in favor of making it easier to install solar, described personal experience with rooftop systems, and urged Florence to remove barriers. Jonathan Andrews, who said he installed a rooftop array in October 2021 and established net metering with Duke Energy, described reduced bills and the financing terms of his system: "The panels produced 360 kilowatt-hours while I had only used 332, meaning I produced 28 kilowatt-hours in excess." Andrews told council the city should be "friendly to the efforts of private individuals and businesses" to install solar.

Other speakers urged revisions or clarifications to the draft. Brandon Ashcraft, who said he works in energy-efficiency upgrades, supported the draft but urged the city to reconsider requirements that would force equipment enclosures out of public view, noting that in some homes conduit from roof to service panel is already visible and that overly strict concealment could prevent practical, safe installations. Zeb Gentry and others pressed for clearer distinctions between integrated systems and ground-mounted arrays (for example, solar carports over parking), and raised concerns that conduit and equipment-access rules could conflict with electrical-code or emergency-access requirements. Gentry also asked for clarity on what counts as a separate "technology" for battery-tier definitions and how small, single-panel devices (garden lights, camera panels) would be classified.

Ed Arnold and Naomi Levson urged the city to embrace solar more actively. Levson framed solar as part of climate resilience and asked council to consider establishing a climate-change committee to develop a local climate action plan.

Council procedure and next steps

Mayor (name not stated) and city clerk Melissa Kramer recorded that two written comments had been entered into the record and said the Planning Commission’s staff report and the county planning record are part of Florence’s hearing record. The mayor announced that council would not vote on the proposal that night and would schedule a formal council vote at a later date; the mayor stated he does not vote on zoning matters. Mr. Morgan said the full draft code and planning attachments are available for review and that staff will continue to analyze public input and the planning commission recommendations before the council vote.

Ending

No formal action or vote was taken at the April 15 hearing. Council members, staff and members of the public agreed to further review the draft language, particularly the provisions on visibility, conduit/equipment access, battery-technology definitions and allowances for integrated structures such as solar carports. The council will schedule the ordinance for a future council meeting where a vote may be taken.