Council member Sheehan presents draft solar zoning changes, prioritizes brownfields and farmland safeguards

Council member Liz Sheehan presented the work-group’s draft amendments to the county’s solar energy systems zoning ordinance at the Rural Land Conservation Board meeting on April 28, summarizing six months of research, public-interest considerations and model language her team adapted.

Sheehan said the draft keeps rooftop and integrated installations broadly allowed but clarifies scale tiers: small ground-mounted systems (up to 2,500 sq ft), intermediate projects (2,500 sq ft to 5 acres) and large-scale facilities (over 5 acres) with specific zone permissions and conditional-use requirements for agricultural zones. “Large-scale projects are about 300 acres to make them work,” she said, and added that the work group included council co-chairs and planning staff, and consulted the Kentucky Resources Council and American Farmland Trust for best practices.

The draft includes a local-preference cap described in the slides as 1% of county acreage and tied to a numeric acreage figure; Sheehan said that calculation in the presentation amounted to 827 acres, while board member Margaret Graves later referenced 1,827 acres when discussing the 1% figure, a discrepancy both speakers stated in the meeting record. Sheehan described other draft requirements that aim to limit visual and stormwater impacts—85% vegetative cover, land-management plans to be submitted to LFUCG, and stronger decommissioning language that would require removal of all structures, equipment and foundations rather than the state’s 36-inch soil-depth standard.

Sheehan also described provisions for co-located battery storage and hazardous-material assessments, and a dual-use option intended to keep continuous agricultural production on-site where solar is proposed. On brownfields, the draft creates a brownfield exception: projects entirely on EPA-identified brownfield property would not need the same conditional-use permitting hurdles intended for greenfield agricultural land. Sheehan said the EPA brownfields list is already used in the city’s Race to Net 0 planning work and could help prioritize sites that are more appropriate for solar.

Several board members raised objections to permitting solar on prime farmland. Margaret Graves said the board’s conservation mission makes prime soils a resource they want to protect: “I don’t think this is the way to get us where we want to go,” she said, urging more explicit restrictions that steer projects toward roofs, brownfields and industrial areas. Another member pressed whether rural–land staff should be tasked with assessing on‑site agricultural production; members worried the board has limited staffing to perform ongoing monitoring. Sheehan responded that rural‑land staff or their designee would review agricultural-production reports and noted that the board could submit formal feedback to council and the planning commission during the public-review process.

On community benefits, Sheehan said the draft includes a community‑benefits plan mechanism—examples in the redline include local‑hire or workforce requirements, educational funding, or funds routed through a community foundation—but cautioned that counsel advised the city cannot typically require such plans as a planning condition because mandatory requirements risk legal challenge. “Electrons flow like water,” Sheehan said when asked whether energy generated by a local solar project could be guaranteed for county ratepayers; she explained generation goes into the grid and cannot be earmarked to specific houses, which is why community benefits are structured around workforce, education and rate offsets rather than direct guarantees of delivered electrons.

Sheehan asked the board to review the redline and submit comments; she said the draft language is posted on Engage Lexington for public comment and staff expects the planning commission to hold a public hearing in June if council sends the amendment to planning (Sheehan mentioned June 25 as a potential date). She asked the board to provide written feedback so council members and planning staff can incorporate the board’s concerns before public hearings.

What’s next: the draft will remain open on Engage Lexington while the formal text‑amendment process proceeds; if council votes to initiate the text amendment the planning commission will run a 60‑day review with a public hearing before returning recommendations to council. The draft is not final and would come back to council for final approval following planning commission review.

Ending: The board agreed to continue reviewing the draft and to send written comments to staff; members said they will prioritize protecting prime farmland while seeking ways to incentivize rooftop and brownfield siting.