Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Spencer County adopts solar siting and licensing ordinance for large ground‑mounted arrays
Summary
The Fiscal Court approved Ordinance #20‑2025 to regulate licensing, setbacks, screening, decommissioning and surety for large‑scale ground‑mounted solar systems, referencing KRS 278.718 and local home‑rule authority. The measure passed unanimously on second reading.
Get email alerts on the Solar Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Spencer County Fiscal Court on April 21 adopted Ordinance No. 20‑2025, establishing licensing and siting requirements for large‑scale ground‑mounted solar energy systems in unincorporated areas.
The ordinance divides solar installations into categories (integrated, rooftop, small‑scale, intermediate and large‑scale) and applies only to Large‑Scale Ground‑Mounted Solar Energy Systems (greater than 40 acres or merchant facilities subject to state siting review). Key provisions include a 2,000‑foot minimum setback from non‑participating property lines and public rights‑of‑way, an eight‑foot security fence plus a double row of staggered evergreen screening, limits on lighting (full cut‑off, motion sensors where feasible), and a mandatory decommissioning plan prepared by a licensed professional engineer. Applicants must post a surety instrument to cover decommissioning costs; the plan and surety must be updated at least every five years.
The ordinance cites KRS 67.083 for local authority and KRS 278.718 for the primacy of local permits and setback rules when they conflict with certain state siting statutes. The court discussed site‑specific concerns (agricultural land loss, erosion control, wildlife and tornado resilience) and referenced examples of storm damage to large arrays; the planning staff and county attorney recommended conditional‑use and permitting elements to protect adjoining properties. Judge Scott Travis moved to adopt the ordinance; the motion was seconded by Esq. Cotton and passed unanimously.
Why it matters: the ordinance gives the county an explicit local permitting pathway and standards for large solar projects — including substantial setback, screening, and decommissioning requirements — intended to protect property values, soil and drainage, and to provide clarity for developers and landowners. It also builds in a five‑year review and surety to ensure eventual removal and restoration of sites.
