Planning commission debates solar farm size limits; staff to draft regulations

Shawnee County planning commissioners spent an extended April 14 work session discussing proposed regulations for solar energy conversion systems, focusing on parcel size, setbacks, decommissioning requirements and battery-storage safety. Commissioners gave staff direction to prepare draft regulations and signaled intent to ask the Board of County Commissioners to extend the county’s moratorium while rules are drafted and reviewed.

Joanie, planning staff, framed the trade-offs: smaller parcel caps make projects easier to site near homes but limit the ability to achieve a commercially viable one-megawatt installation; larger parcel caps allow utility-scale projects but increase potential impacts. "The smaller the parcels are with solar energy conversion systems, then obviously you have fewer panels, arrays," Joanie said during the discussion. Commissioners debated limits ranging from 10–50 acres up to several hundred acres and discussed examples from neighboring counties.

Participants cited local and regional precedents. Staff noted a Shawnee County facility of roughly 13.6 acres and referenced FreeState and Evergy projects; commissioners and staff also reviewed other Kansas counties’ approaches — Sedgwick County’s small/medium/large definitions, Douglas County’s 1,000-acre threshold (with exceptions), and Harvey and Pottawatomie counties’ more restrictive limits. Commissioners discussed whether to treat solar primarily via conditional-use permits with guiding regulations or to write more prescriptive standards.

Key issues raised: - Size and spacing: Commissioners discussed maximum project-area limits (50–80 acres suggested by several members) and larger upper bounds (200–300 acres) proposed by others. Staff said it would draft language based on a working concept of a 240-acre maximum and suggested a separation distance between project areas (staff discussed a two-mile buffer as an illustrative option). - Setbacks and visibility: Commissioners favored clear setbacks from residences and structures; commissioners discussed grading setbacks by project size but recognized that variable standards could create legal challenges. - Decommissioning and bonding: Commissioners and staff recommended a required decommissioning plan and bond so funds would be available to remove panels and restore land if a developer abandoned a site or panels reached end of life. - Stormwater and roads: Public Works would require drainage reports for projects and the county may require road agreements if heavy construction traffic would affect local roads. - Battery storage: Commissioners and fire officials expressed concern about lithium-ion battery fires and firefighting capacity; staff recommended treating storage separately and developing safety requirements or a moratorium on storage while standards are drafted.

Commissioners were divided on prescriptiveness. Some favored a relatively open framework with case-by-case review and a standard set of expected studies; others wanted clearer standards so applicants know upfront what studies and mitigations are required. Chad Gearhart repeatedly argued for fewer pre-conditions; other commissioners — including Terry Robinson and Jeanette Johnson — urged a defined set of expectations to limit legal uncertainty and community concern.

Procedural notes from the meeting: the commission voted 5-0 earlier in the evening to move public comment to after the solar discussion to accommodate an attendee, and Joanie said she would prepare draft regulations based on the discussion for the commission and for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners. Staff also said a moratorium-extension item could be placed on the commission’s May agenda to preserve time to draft regulations before the county’s current moratorium expires.

Next steps: planning staff will prepare draft regulations for review, including proposed maximum project size, setback standards, decommissioning and bonding requirements, and recommended spacing between projects; staff indicated it would treat battery storage rules separately and return to the commission with a draft to consider prior to briefing the BCC.