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
OWENSBORO, Ky. — Daviess County Fiscal Court approved two ordinances Thursday that place new limits on utility-scale solar projects, capping acreage, requiring setbacks from homes and other sensitive sites, and mandating financial guarantees for cleanup and road repairs.
The zoning text amendment to Articles 8 and 14 of the Owensboro Metropolitan Zoning Ordinance passed 3-1. Commissioner Chris Castlen voted no. The companion county ordinance creating a new chapter under business regulations for renewable energy and energy storage facilities passed unanimously. Both take effect upon publication.
Judge-Executive Charlie Castlen said residents had asked the court early in the process to ban industrial solar farms outright. He said an absolute ban is not an option under state law, so the ordinances instead establish restrictions intended to protect neighbors and public funds.
“We were asked at the very beginning to just ban industrial solar farms,” Castlen said. “We cannot do an absolute ban. What we can do is put in restrictions that are protective of our community, and that’s what we’ve tried to do.”
Under the zoning changes, which the Owensboro Metropolitan Planning Commission recommended Aug. 13, a single project’s development area cannot exceed 300 acres. Required buffer areas are excluded from that figure. No more than 1,200 acres of farmland countywide can be used for the facilities. Projects must be at least three miles apart. Equipment must stay at least 1,000 feet from residential neighborhoods, schools, places of worship, hospitals, nursing homes, county parks and public rights-of-way. Project entrances and exits must also meet a 1,000-foot setback from residential property lines. Maximum panel height drops from 20 feet to 15 feet. An 8-foot solid black fence and required landscaping must be installed before construction begins. Developers must provide an irrevocable letter of credit or escrow account for screening and decommissioning.
The separate county ordinance addresses construction, operations, environmental protections and removal. It requires transportation plans, road-use agreements, stormwater controls and a letter of credit or escrow, sized by the county engineer, to cover potential road damage during construction, operation and decommissioning. Projects must include plans to limit soil compaction, control erosion and restore agricultural land. Water quality testing is required quarterly at applicable discharge points. Fire prevention and emergency response plans must be developed with local agencies, with the developer responsible for necessary equipment and annual training for responders. Decommissioning plans must be updated every three years.
Rod Kuegel, a western Daviess County farmer who is the Democratic candidate for judge-executive against Castlen in the November election, addressed the court on the cleanup provisions. He said solar projects frequently change ownership and that a letter of credit or bond may not be sufficient if the company responsible for removal is not the original developer.
“The company that builds this, even under these restrictions, may or may not be the company you’re dealing with in the end that has to clean this mess up,” Kuegel said. “These solar fields trade like commodities. And I would recommend that you look at cash in the bank on the cleanup.”
Planning staff said both ordinances contain decommissioning requirements. The new language increases the amount that must be posted and requires a letter of credit or escrow account payable to the county, with updates every three years rather than every five. The ordinances do not specify that the escrow account must be held at a local bank.
Commissioner Janie Marksberry suggested requiring any new or assigned lease to be recorded at the county clerk’s office within seven to 10 days so ownership changes are publicly documented. County counsel indicated the court could impose such a requirement, but it was not added to either ordinance Thursday.
Kimberly Demarest, who has researched solar regulations in other communities, urged the court to pass the zoning amendment now and make further changes later. She cited a national average property-value decline of about 7 percent associated with proximity to solar projects and described a home near the Haycraft solar project surrounded on four sides by panels. She also said large-scale solar removes productive farmland and affects related agricultural businesses.
Chris Castlen, the west district commissioner and Castlen’s nephew, supported the county ordinance but opposed the zoning text amendment. He said the rules should protect both property owners who host projects and neighboring landowners, as well as the character of the county’s farmland, but that additional work is needed on the zoning changes before he can support them.
“I think that what we have put together is a very good start,” he said. “But there is some more that needs to be done before I can support the changes on this second reading.”
Castlen said after the votes that the court may still revise the rules if needed. He rejected suggestions that a prior solar moratorium was timed to the election and said it was enacted once projects were under active consideration.

source