Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bourbon County debate on solar setbacks exposes limits of non‑zoned county authority
Summary
Commissioners heard hours of public comment and legal briefing on setbacks for industrial solar projects; counsel said the county can recommend setbacks but cannot force changes to private contracts without zoning or negotiated agreements, and commissioners agreed to continue public hearings and study options.
Bourbon County commissioners spent the bulk of their meeting on a work session about setbacks and future county zoning for industrial-scale solar projects, hearing sustained public comment and a legal briefing on the limits of their authority.
The county’s volunteer committee had recommended a 50‑foot setback with a tree buffer around project perimeters. Several speakers, including rancher Monty Keriker, described why they had chosen to lease land for panels and urged the commission not to adopt overly burdensome setbacks that would "kill" projects. Other residents and commissioners urged larger setbacks—300 to 600 feet from residences—and the addition of visual barriers such as tree lines.
County counselor Justin Meek told the board the county’s authority is constrained because Bourbon County is unzoned. He said private contracts between landowners and developers remain enforceable absent zoning or negotiated development agreements, and that imposing arbitrary, large setbacks after contracts are signed creates litigation risk; he also noted the county’s insurer does not cover inverse‑condemnation exposure in the scenarios discussed.
Speakers raised fire and environmental concerns after the meeting’s questioner cited a San Diego battery‑storage fire. Counsel and a commissioner said the state fire marshal and manufacturers would likely provide technical training and that evidence of groundwater or heavy‑metal contamination from modern solar panels is minimal in reputable sources cited by public speakers.
Commissioners discussed tools to address future projects, including public hearings, conditional‑use permits or special‑use reviews, spot zoning, a comprehensive plan, or pursuing a countywide zoning initiative. Counsel advised against passing a zoning resolution on the spot, citing legal risk; the board agreed not to vote on zoning that night and to continue the process with additional public input and a possible committee.
The meeting produced no binding change to existing private contracts; commissioners said they could request—though not require—that developers voluntarily observe larger setbacks and visual buffers. Next steps include more public hearings, further legal review, and continued outreach to developers and neighboring landowners.
