Russell County’s fiscal court voted to adopt Ordinance 25-10, a new local licensing and regulation framework for large-scale ground-mounted solar energy systems, after a second reading and a roll-call vote.

Attorney Chris Davenport, retained by Round Trip LLC and several local landowners, told the court the ordinance risks conflict with state planning and zoning law and urged magistrates to pause and consult counsel. "Russell County does not have a zoning board," Davenport said, and he warned that treating the measure like a zoning ordinance could invite appeals under KRS Chapter 100. He recommended exempting existing contracts rather than using a "began physical construction" standard that he called contrary to Kentucky case law.

Resident Elena Greider urged the court to consider the projects’ local impacts, saying her 150-acre property on Bottoms Road lies at the edge of a planned 500-plus acre solar footprint. "This particular project is very near and dear to me; it is literally at my front door," Greider said, and she warned that five projects could remove more than 5,000 acres of croppable farmland countywide.

The ordinance text, read aloud in full by county staff, cites KRS 67.083 and KRS 278.718 and establishes: a Russell County solar-energy licensure process; application materials and notice requirements for adjoining property owners within 2,500 feet; minimum setbacks for large-scale systems (setback language in the ordinance establishes a 2,000-foot minimum from nonparticipating property lines and rights-of-way); fencing and double-row evergreen screening specifications; decommissioning plans and surety requirements; and enforcement provisions including misdemeanor penalties and per-day fines.

Magistrate Richardson moved to adopt the ordinance on second reading; the motion was seconded and the court conducted a roll-call vote. The recorded votes were: Magistrate Skaggs — yes; Magistrate Richardson — yes; Magistrate Wilson — yes; Magistrate Waddell — yes; Magistrate Garner — abstain. The motion carried and the judge executive’s office was directed to record the licensure and follow the post-adoption procedures described in the ordinance.

During the meeting, Davenport reiterated his concern that the county’s authority may be limited if the ordinance operates as a zoning regulation without compliance with KRS Chapter 100; he pointed to precedent (including discussion of Darlington v. Frankfort) suggesting narrow grandfathering standards and the potential for appeals. Residents asked how state laws on setbacks and noise (Chapter 278) intersect with local rules and whether the county’s ordinance would stand up in court.

The ordinance includes timelines for decommissioning (initiate no later than 12 months after cessation, removal within six months of start of decommissioning with full restoration within five years), surety instrument requirements, and a 60-day county review period for complete license applications. The court’s adoption concludes the second-reading process; the ordinance will be recorded with the county clerk as provided in the text.

Court members and residents were advised that legal questions and possible appellate challenges remain. The meeting record shows no immediate legal action taken by the court beyond adoption; opponents and the developer’s counsel both said they would consider next steps, including potential dialogue or, if unresolved, litigation.

The court moved on to other agenda items after the ordinance vote.