Lexington work group hears experts urge protections for prime farmland in proposed solar ordinance

The Planning Commission work group convened to re-examine a council‑initiated revision to Lexington City’s solar ordinance and heard detailed testimony Wednesday about the risks of permitting large‑scale solar in agricultural zones.

Stakeholders and an academic researcher told the commission the proposal as drafted does not adequately protect prime soils, lacks clear decommissioning standards and underestimates stormwater risks. "We do not believe that this use is appropriate on agricultural land," said Britney Rothmeyer, executive director of Fayette Alliance, urging the group to treat soils of statewide significance as a fundamental consideration.

The discussion matters because council initiated the review after a split vote on whether large‑scale solar should be permitted in ag areas. Staff reminded the group that council‑initiated text amendments must be returned within 60 days; the Planning Commission must act by the statutory deadline and therefore the work group was asked to gather findings and contextual data the commission can use.

Rothmeyer outlined local acreage figures and economic stakes, saying Fayette County has roughly 180,000 acres with about 112,000 acres classified as prime farmland or soils of statewide significance. She cited a University of Kentucky economic impact update that, she said, shows the county’s ag cluster supports thousands of jobs and contributes hundreds of millions in economic activity. "Those are the types of operations that I think we put in danger by considering use large scale uses of solar in our community," she said.

University of Kentucky researcher Dr. Lisonbee Davis cautioned that developers tend to target high‑value land and that evidence on whether removed topsoil fully recovers after decommissioning is mixed. "What I learned in the master gardener class is that soil also has a structure. We just barely understand the importance of soil structure these days," Dr. Davis said, calling for soil‑scientist input and stronger decommissioning bonds where appropriate.

Council members pushed back on the scale argument in different ways. One member said modest caps would not change the county’s character, arguing "I don't think 1% of land in Fayette County dramatically changes anyone's picture of the way Fayette County looks," while others warned that local caps can be circumvented by regulated utilities or projects tied to existing transmission corridors.

Work group members and staff discussed alternatives and mitigation: prioritizing brownfields and built‑environment siting (rooftops, parking‑lot canopies), adopting viewshed and buffering standards, improving stormwater rules for solar fields, and writing clearer criteria for conditional use review. Council member Hill Boone noted meeting with staff working on net‑zero goals and said, according to that staff, large‑scale projects are not necessary to meet the city’s goals.

Before adjourning the group asked staff to bring additional data to the next meeting: an NRCS soil scientist to explain soil quality and the effects of topsoil disturbance; a GIS map stacking soils, transmission lines and recognized brownfields; and tourism impact data from VisitLex. Staff said the currently proposed next meeting date (June 9) has limited room availability and that chambers could be an alternative if broadcasting is needed.

The work group did not take a formal vote. Members said the goal is to produce a fact‑based packet the Planning Commission can use when it considers the council‑initiated ordinance changes.

The work group will reconvene after staff circulates the requested maps and expert availability; staff also will provide a redline summary showing what the council changed after the commission’s earlier recommendation.