Shawnee County planners debate draft solar regulations; decommissioning, battery safety and acreage caps draw scrutiny

Planning staff presented a draft set of regulations for solar energy conversion systems and engaged the Planning Commission in a multi-hour work session that focused on project size, decommissioning and financial assurance, interconnection, and battery-storage safety.

The draft would allow utility-scale solar through a conditional use permit in RA, RR, I‑1 and I‑2 zones (with exceptions for special flood hazard areas). Key proposed limits and requirements included a maximum project area of 240 acres, a minimum distance of 2 miles between project area boundaries, and setbacks of 500 feet from existing residences, 150 feet from other buildings or accessory structures, 50 feet from property lines, and 150 feet from roads or unimproved road rights-of-way. Staff also proposed a one-year operational review and subsequent reviews every five years. The draft includes a clause allowing the governing body (the Board of County Commissioners) to vary or waive minimum requirements upon written request and a finding that the waiver is consistent with the regulations27 purpose and intent.

Planning staff described much of the remaining detail as "may be applicable" items to be applied case-by-case — similar to how quarry conditions are handled — rather than hard regulatory mandates. Those items listed as potentially applicable include decommissioning and reclamation plans, financial assurance (bonding), soil erosion plans, vegetative buffers and landscaping, glare mitigation, traffic and construction management, hazardous‑materials and fire safety plans for battery storage, baseline soil and groundwater testing, and notification requirements for extraordinary events or changes in operator ownership.

Public comment and commissioners' discussion highlighted competing priorities. Mark Galbraith, a resident who identified himself as living in Topeka, argued for greater flexibility and landowner discretion, questioning whether a 240‑acre cap could unnecessarily constrain development and noting that solar and agriculture can sometimes coexist. Planning commissioner Jeanette Johnson explicitly said her "big issue" was to require a decommissioning plan and financial assurance to prevent abandonment and ensure reclamation; other commissioners and staff agreed those elements warranted strong consideration.

Commissioners and staff discussed technical and jurisdictional limits. Staff noted that transmission-line siting and larger transmission issues fall under state utilities jurisdiction (Kansas Corporation Commission and the utilities), but urged applicants to include interconnection plans or power purchase/interconnection agreements as part of the conditional use submittal so the commission can evaluate how projects will reach the grid. Several commissioners flagged battery storage as a high‑risk element requiring consultation with fire districts and potentially baseline water-supply or hydrant-pressure assessments because of the difficulty suppressing lithium-ion battery fires and the need for adequate water supply.

Staff recommended several practical edits: require a baseline soil and groundwater test at project start and require notification and additional testing after extraordinary events (for example, severe storms that damage panels). Commissioners discussed moving decommissioning, financial assurance, and interconnection documentation from the "may be applicable" list into required items. Staff said they would research battery-storage rules and fire-safety requirements and return to the commission at a future meeting.

No formal regulatory adoption took place at the work session; commissioners directed staff to refine the draft, research battery-storage and interconnection issues, clarify which items are administratively required versus commission-levied conditions, and return with revisions at a subsequent meeting.