Get the best experience and stay connected to your community with our Spectrum News app. Learn More
Continue in Browser
Get hyperlocal forecasts, radar and weather alerts.
Please enter a valid zipcode.
Save
LEXINGTON, Ky. — The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council voted 8-7 this week to advance zoning language that would allow private developers to pursue large-scale solar farms on up to 1% of Fayette County, including farmland.
The proposed zoning ordinance text amendment, commonly called a ZOTA, is not final. It must come before the council again for final approval.
The issue has been debated for about two years as council members considered what types of solar projects should be allowed in the county. Public comment during the Urban County Council work session included speakers on both sides of the proposal, as it has in past meetings.
Supporters said the ZOTA could help Lexington meet its goal of net-zero emissions by 2050 while responding to rising energy demand.
“We have an opportunity to positively contribute to the region with clean energy in a way that supports our land,” District 5 Councilwoman Liz Sheehan said.
Sheehan was one of several people who helped develop changes to the ZOTA.
Other council members cited a white paper by the Lexington Environmental Commission that supported the change. Opponents pointed to the city’s planning commission, which recommended banning solar farms in the county’s agricultural spaces.
Fayette County Farm Bureau President Robert James raised concerns about the impact on farmland and soil.
“Anytime there’s development, you’re losing that soil structure,” James said. “With these solar installations, there’s not been one successfully decommissioned and returned to productive agriculture.”
James also said he is concerned the 1% cap could be expanded later.
“All it would take is another ordinance in the future to change it from 1% to 2% or 5%,” James said.
Fayette County has a land area of about 284 square miles, meaning the 1% cap would limit solar development to just under 3 square miles.
James believes Lexington can pursue its emissions goals without using large amounts of farmland for solar development.
“I believe we can reach net-zero without sacrificing large amounts of farmland for that purpose,” James said. “There are ways to do it and achieve both goals.”
Supporters among the council and public speakers said the ordinance includes provisions meant to protect farmland. Under the ZOTA, solar farms would be required to maintain agricultural production on the land, with vegetation under mounted panels.
One option discussed is combining solar panels with sheep grazing.
“It’s an environmentally positive way to enhance the vegetation,” said James Mansfield, who runs a sheep farm in Versailles.
Mansfield said people he knows in the sheep industry have seen benefits when grazing is managed correctly.
“Here we go to about four inches at the most, and then we move to keep the quality of the forage up and not harm the land,” Mansfield said.
Vice Mayor Dan Wu said concerns about energy use tied to large data centers make renewable energy part of the conversation.
“If we are worried about, and I think rightfully so, about the energy impacts of hyperscale data centers, we have to absolutely support renewable sources like solar,” Wu said.
Sheehan said she supports preserving agricultural land and would not support solar development without land protections.
“The proposal we brought forward for solar that requires co-location with agricultural production does both,” Sheehan said.
Some opponents said the focus should be on solar panels for individual homes. District 2 Councilwoman Shayla Lynch said state laws limit rooftop solar and can increase costs for some residents.
“State laws are highly restrictive regarding rooftop solar and can create a high energy burden on our low-income neighbors,” Lynch said.
Lexington does offer programs to support discounted rooftop solar.
There are two solar farm projects currently in the works in Fayette County, but neither would be affected by the proposed ordinance. One is on city-owned land, and the other is from a public utility company that falls under different rules.

source