Reno County planning commission narrows proposed commercial solar rules, sets 1,200-acre cap and 3-mile buffer

The Reno County Planning Commission on Jan. 16 reopened consideration of Case 2023-10, a proposed Article 26 to regulate commercial solar energy systems, and reached early agreement on several key limits while leaving some enforcement details to the county commission.

Planning staff and commissioners spent most of the meeting reviewing changes staff had placed in the draft regulations, discussing maximum project size, inter-project separation, wildlife connectivity and decommissioning language intended to govern how a facility is removed at end of life.

Mark (planning staff) told the commission the draft seeks to make clear what the county would treat as "unusual and extraordinary expenses" for a project and noted "anything that goes above and beyond the normal conditional use permit fee of $300 will be charged" to an applicant. He also reviewed proposed new language on developer agreements and a definition of "commencing construction."

The commission debated project scale for more than an hour. Harley (commissioner) urged a larger limit and offered technical context, saying, "1 megawatt of power basically requires 8 to 10 acres of ground" and that, based on that math and Census housing counts, a very large project could supply a substantial share of county household demand. Several members countered that market factors, transmission access and landowner rights argued for a clear cap.

On size, commissioners reached a consensus to treat a single project as limited to 1,200 contiguous acres. Commissioners said "contiguous" may include parcels across a road if used for the same project; the panel asked staff to reflect that wording precisely in the draft regulation.

The commission then debated whether to require a fixed buffer between commercial solar projects. After discussion, a commissioner moved to set the separation at 3 miles. The planning staff called the roll; the measure passed 4–2 (Strand: no; Schaefer: yes; Seltzer: yes; Maquin/Macklin: yes; Martin: no; Gertson: yes). The commission instructed staff to update the draft regulation’s letter "n" to reflect the adopted acreage cap and the new 3‑mile buffer.

Commissioners also discussed wildlife connectivity language in the draft. Members agreed the extent and form of wildlife corridors depend on site specifics and recommended moving the detailed requirement into the developers agreement or a planning commission resolution rather than keep prescriptive standards in the regulation itself. Several commissioners said applicants could be required to consult Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism or provide a wildlife biologist’s assessment as part of a conditional‑use record if the site is in known habitat.

A separate motion to retain the draft decommissioning and indemnification provisions as mandatory regulations (Section 26‑1‑11 in the draft) was made and seconded and then put to a roll‑call vote. That motion failed 2–4 (Strand: yes; Schaefer: no; Seltzer: yes; Maquin/Macklin: no; Martin: no; Kurtzen/Gertson: no). Commissioners divided on whether to require decommissioning specifics in the zoning regulation (which would create a non‑negotiable standard) or leave the detailed decommissioning terms to a developer’s agreement and a planning commission resolution that would guide the county commissioners.

Several commissioners said standardizing decommissioning details in regulation would give applicants and landowners clear expectations, while others said those details are better negotiated case‑by‑case by the Board of County Commissioners, which will implement and enforce developer agreements.

Planning staff was directed to prepare edited language reflecting the 1,200‑acre contiguous limit, the 3‑mile separation between projects, to move site‑specific wildlife connectivity language toward the developer's agreement or resolution, and to clean up wording and typographical issues identified by commissioners. Staff and the chair discussed timing for the next steps and noted that the draft could proceed to the Board of County Commissioners for review; the county commission will also decide whether to extend any existing moratorium while it considers the proposed rules.

What passed and what failed at a glance: the 3‑mile separation requirement was approved 4–2; the proposal to keep decommissioning and indemnification requirements as mandatory regulations failed 2–4; commissioners reached consensus (not a formal roll‑call vote) to cap single projects at 1,200 contiguous acres and asked staff to reflect that in the draft.

The commission’s next steps include passing a clean draft to the county commission and preparing a planning commission resolution with recommended developer‑ and decommissioning‑agreement items for the county commissioners to use during negotiations.

This discussion builds on earlier hearings and on changes the commission circulated in a packet prior to the meeting; the commission had previously considered a 640‑acre starting point and other county examples such as Sedgwick and Douglas counties during that drafting process.