Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Solar Energy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Shawnee County planning commission agrees to continue drafting solar regulations

2532668 · March 11, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Shawnee County Planning Commission unanimously voted to continue drafting regulations for solar energy conversion systems, directing staff to refine definitions, zoning allowances, setbacks and limits while flagging floodplain, battery‑storage and eminent‑domain concerns.

The Shawnee County Planning Commission voted unanimously to continue drafting regulations for solar energy conversion systems during a work session on solar policy.

Planning staff said the work will focus on where countywide projects should be allowed, how to classify different types of solar installations and which requirements — conditional use permits, setbacks, size caps and floodplain restrictions — the commission should require before forwarding proposed regulations to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC).

The motion to continue discussion was made by Planning Commissioner Terry Robinson and seconded; the roll call vote was unanimous in favor. Planning staff emphasized that the session was a preliminary, legislative step to shape draft regulations, not a final decision on any particular project.

Joanie, planning staff, told commissioners the county will treat small, rooftop or on‑site systems for a single residence or business as "personal" systems and allow those by right under existing building‑permit procedures. Larger systems were described in three categories used as working definitions: personal (serving a single property), limited or community scale (collectives such as co‑ops, subdivisions or municipal projects) and commercial/utility scale (systems that sell to the broader grid). "My recommendation would be to recommend a conditional use permit on all of them," Joanie said, referring to non‑personal projects.

Staff proposed allowing limited/community and commercial solar projects in RA (rural agricultural) and RR (rural residential) zoning districts only under conditional use permits, and to permit them in I‑1 and I‑2 (industrial) either by conditional use or by right depending on further discussion. Joanie noted the county's zoning code dates to 2006 (originally drafted in 1992) and that any change could be implemented either as targeted amendments or as part of a broader zoning rewrite.

Commissioners were given examples of existing county installations. Staff said two current Shawnee County sites are roughly 1‑megawatt farms; the Auburn Road site is roughly 15–20 acres and is sited next to a substation. Staff said cooperative arrangements between utilities were used for those projects (FreeState and Evergy cooperated on at least one Auburn Road installation). Commercial and community installations on large parcels would generally want to be near substations or high‑voltage transmission lines to reduce line losses and connection costs.

Key policy questions flagged for follow‑up included: - Size limits: staff recommended a project cap in the 150–200 acre range for an entire project area (panels plus setbacks, roads and appurtenances) but asked commissioners whether a smaller limit would be preferable. Staff suggested also limiting panel coverage to a percentage (for example, no more than about 70% of the project area) to preserve setback and buffer space. - Zoning mechanism: commissioners discussed whether to allow projects via conditional use permit (CUP) in RA/RR to preserve underlying zoning once a solar farm is removed, rather than rezoning to I‑1/I‑2 which could permit more intensive future uses after a solar farm's lifespan. - Floodplain and floodway: staff, as the county floodplain manager, recommended not allowing utility‑scale ground‑mounted solar in the floodway and advised against locating large projects in the floodplain without extensive engineering review and a no‑rise certificate. Joanie explained FEMA, state and Corps of Engineers permitting requirements and noted floodplain placement raises both safety and regulatory issues. - Tall‑grass moratorium area: commissioners were reminded that the state‑level "tall grass" moratorium bans wind projects in parts of the Flint Hills but does not explicitly ban solar. Staff asked whether the commission wanted to restrict solar in that same geographic band; Joanie said, "It does not. It just says wind." and left the question as one for further policy discussion. - Battery storage and public safety: commissioners raised fire‑safety and emergency‑response concerns tied to battery storage systems co‑located with solar arrays, including water supply and fire district readiness, since Lithium‑ion battery fires can require special suppression and long cooling times. - Net metering and monitoring: staff said monitoring whether a large facility is using net metering or exporting to the grid can be difficult to enforce at the county level and would require more legal and technical research. - Eminent domain and transmission tie‑ins: commissioners discussed rights‑of‑way and whether private entities could exercise eminent domain for feeder or collector lines; staff said eminent‑domain authority is currently limited and that changes to state law would complicate future cases.

Staff said it will circulate the Auburn Road Conditional Use Permit/conditions and other examples used earlier in the county as starting points. Joanie also said GIS staff has identified parcel sizes across the county to help gauge how many projects of various sizes are realistically feasible.

On timing, staff reminded commissioners that an earlier county moratorium was adopted and published in June and that an extension or replacement regulatory package would need BCC action before the moratorium's publication anniversary in late June to avoid a regulatory gap. Joanie told the commission the moratorium was approved June 13 and published June 24; she recommended the planning commission reach decisions in time for the BCC to act before June 23.

Next steps: staff will e‑mail prior CUP conditions and a prioritized list of issues for commissioners to consider ahead of future work sessions. Commissioners asked staff to prioritize four to five discrete topics for near‑term votes to make steady legislative progress on a draft ordinance.

Action taken at this meeting was limited to a procedural vote to continue drafting and discussion; no CUPs, rezoning or regulatory text was adopted.

Shawnee County Planning Commission members present at the vote were Jeanette Johnson, Rosa Cavazos, Terry Robinson, Myron Linwetter, Dan Bryan and Chad Gearhart.