Shawnee County approves solar zoning rules after debate over project size and battery safeguards

Shawnee County on April 13 adopted new zoning rules that govern large-scale solar farms and associated battery storage after a public hearing that drew dozens of speakers and a lengthy discussion among county commissioners.

Joe Nithadoni, director of the county land use and development department, summarized a multi-year rulemaking process that began after two solar projects applied for conditional use permits in 2022 and included research, public outreach and planning commission hearings. Nithadoni said the regulations distinguish rooftop and other small-scale solar from larger commercial projects that interconnect to the grid and that a CUP will still be required for any proposed farm. “No, they have to come apply,” Nithadoni said, describing the CUP process and the materials applicants must file.

The ordinance package adopted by the board includes several core elements: a cap on the standard maximum project area (amended at the meeting to 640 acres), setbacks measured from residences and property lines (the draft called for a 500-foot setback from residences, 150 feet from roads, 150 feet from other buildings in some cases and a 50-foot property-line setback for certain parcels), a 2-mile buffer between project-area boundaries to prevent clustering, decommissioning and reclamation plans with financial assurance, and treatment of battery energy storage as an appurtenant facility only if it complies with the National Fire Protection Association’s NFPA 855 standard.

Supporters who spoke during the public hearing, including the League of Women Voters, the Kansas Sierra Club and the Climate and Energy Project, urged the county to adopt the rules so permitting would be predictable and local landowners could pursue leases or development. Paul Post, vice president of the League of Women Voters of Topeka and Shawnee County, told the board the ordinance “opens the door to a new market” and framed the rules as a way to protect public health and private property while enabling renewable energy.

Opponents raised safety and health concerns—particularly about battery storage and fire risk—and urged tighter acreage limits and larger setbacks. A group representing petition signers urged limiting projects to 240 acres and recommended setbacks of more than 1,600 feet; Jan Davis, who said she had a family member near a previously approved site, warned that battery storage “is loaded with lithium and cadmium and lead” and expressed concern about thermal-runaway fires and toxic smoke. Several speakers also urged that batteries be prohibited or more tightly regulated; staff repeatedly pointed to NFPA 855 as the baseline standard the county would require for battery installations and said fire plans and training for local fire districts could be included in CUP reviews.

One public speaker, Richard Johnson, alleged bias by members of the planning commission and urged recusal, a charge the board did not act on during the meeting. Nithadoni and other staff described a deliberative process that included outreach to neighboring jurisdictions, input from fire districts, and consultation with industry groups and subject-matter experts.

Commissioners debated the appropriate maximum project area at length. The planning commission had recommended a 1,000-acre cap with a 2-mile buffer between projects; after discussion about Shawnee County’s parcel sizes and urban-edge density, Commissioner Mayes moved to lower the cap to 640 acres (one section). Commissioner Cook seconded; the motion carried 2–1 with Commissioner Rippon opposed. The board then voted 3–0 to adopt the home-rule resolution as amended, formally enacting the updated solar energy conversion system regulations.

The adopted rules also include provisions for decommissioning financial assurances (public comment noted a 110% assurance figure in the planning commission material), the capacity for the board to vary or waive requirements in specific cases, and language enabling payment-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT) discussions to address potential state tax exemptions for solar projects.

The board closed the public hearing after a broad set of pro and con comments, moved the ordinance as amended and, after brief administrative communications, adjourned. Under the new rules, developers still must submit conditional use permit applications, submit technical materials for review by public works, environmental health and local fire districts, and meet the NFPA 855 standard for battery facilities if storage is proposed.

What happens next: the ordinance takes effect under Shawnee County’s adoption process and will govern how future utility-scale solar projects and appurtenant battery installations are reviewed and conditioned through the county’s CUP process. County staff and the planning commission retained flexibility to modify conditions for specific projects, and the board preserved the option to waive requirements on a case-by-case basis.