Daviess County Fiscal Court voted 3-1 on Thursday to implement a 12-month moratorium on wind and solar energy projects, allowing more time to refine regulations governing renewable energy installations. The decision follows residents’ concerns over property rights, infrastructure impacts, and economic development related to the proposal of a 1,200-acre solar farm on agricultural land in Daviess County.
The moratorium, which is a resolution rather than a legally binding ordinance, temporarily halts all applications for zone changes, conditional use permits, and development plans related to wind and solar energy.
Fiscal Court also heard the first reading of an ordinance amending zoning regulations for solar farms. Judge-Executive Charlie Castlen worked with NextEra Energy Resources, the company behind the proposed solar farm, to develop the amendments.
NextEra’s project involves a large-scale solar farm designed to generate 150 megawatts of renewable energy. While the company has agreed to comply with updated regulations, the moratorium places their project on hold. Multiple Fiscal Court members expressed confidence that NextEra will respect the moratorium and continue collaborating with officials to develop regulations that work for both the company and the community.
Commissioner Larry Conder was the lone opponent of the moratorium, arguing that it could send a negative message to businesses considering investment in Daviess County. He emphasized that renewable energy companies, like any other legally recognized business entities, should not face unnecessary delays from local government. Conder pointed out that since 2019, Kentucky has recognized solar development, and the county has already revised its regulations twice.
“So we must consider the economic development aspect — you have local government, you have the business itself, and you have the property owners who have made that public concern. It should be done all together, not one over the other,” Conder said. “In my opinion, this moratorium basically kicks the can down the road on the elected responsibilities we have. This has been an issue for at least seven months. … I have talked to property owners, done research, and so I don’t see what one more year is going to get you.”
Judge-Executive Charlie Castlen and the other commissioners pushed back against Conder’s concerns, insisting that the moratorium was not about stopping economic development but ensuring regulations were properly structured.
“I do not agree,” Castlen said. “This is limited to solar. It absolutely is not broader than that.”
Castlen explained that the county had discovered significant gaps in its existing ordinances, particularly regarding decommissioning bonds, which were underfunded by as much as $8 million compared to other counties. He had initially proposed a moratorium in August 2024 but lacked majority support at the time.
Some residents advocated for a 24-month moratorium, but Castlen said that wasn’t the right approach, as it would extend past the next election cycle.
“We are elected officials. It’s our obligation to deal with this before we are out of office,” he said. “A 24-month moratorium would put us beyond the next election, whether we’re re-elected or not, and I wasn’t going to do that.”
He also acknowledged that residents had raised issues the Fiscal Court had not previously considered.
“The neighbors told us they had put in over 200 hours of research since they first found out about this project. All of my research has been done by (Director of Legal Services) David Smith, and it has focused entirely on what other counties have done,” Castlen said. “We’ve been looking at other counties, trying to pick pieces that work, and then trying to get this decommissioning component passed.”
Commissioner Chris Castlen emphasized that the moratorium provides an opportunity to study best practices from other communities and craft regulations that balance property owners’ rights with responsible development.
“I just want everyone to know, I am super in favor of solar energy and other energy resources in our community. I’m also a supporter of doing the best for our citizens,” he said. “Local government needs to help us process these things, and as we do with our current ordinance related to solar energy, this moratorium will give us an opportunity to investigate what has and has not worked for other communities in Kentucky as it relates to the rules around solar farms.”
Commissioner Janie Marksberry, who also supported the moratorium, said the decision was not about economic development but rather ensuring environmental and infrastructure concerns were addressed. She noted that she had not been included in prior zoning amendment discussions and wanted a closer examination of the long-term effects of large-scale solar projects before allowing more development.
“What I’m really excited about is getting together with the other commissioners, with the judge, and with researchers to really dive into this,” she said. “I told the judge, ‘I will agree to the moratorium, but I want to do the work. I don’t want to just push this down the road for several months and not actually look into it.’ We need to really get into what we need to find out about this.”
While public input raised concerns over property values, infrastructure damage, and agricultural impacts, Fiscal Court members maintained that the moratorium was necessary to ensure responsible long-term planning. With the moratorium now in effect, the court plans to use the next year to engage in research, community discussions, and regulatory revisions. The next Fiscal Court meeting will include further discussions on proposed zoning amendments related to solar energy projects.
Castlen said NextEra told him they would not officially file their application until the new regulations were in place. While the moratorium remains in effect, Fiscal Court is expected to approve the amendments to solar farm regulations at its next meeting.
The amendments introduce several key restrictions for Level 3 Solar Energy Systems (SES):
- Equipment must be placed at least 75 feet from perimeter property lines, though non-participating landowners can waive this.
- A 150-foot setback is required from any residential structure and 500 feet from any county park.
- All inverters must be located at least 450 feet from residential structures.
To reduce visual impact, projects must be screened with an 8-foot fence and a double row of staggered pine trees, planted 15 feet apart along public rights-of-way and adjacent residences. Barbed wire and sharp-pointed fences are prohibited, and screening must be in place before operation begins and maintained throughout the project’s lifespan.
The City of Owensboro also heard a first reading of the amendments earlier this week.
