Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. for medical cannabis added. Medical cannabis also known as. I may need your help with that. Some things? Okay. Yeah, medicinal cannabis. Daniel just asked me if I had a PowerPoint presentation, and I do not. So we're just going to wing it today. But we talked about this about six weeks ago, I guess, I guess, when we initiated the text amendment. And just for a little history and for everybody else that might be watching, the state passed some legislation last year. And it, at that time, was stated that it wouldn't go into effect until January of 2025. And that legislation really controls medical cannabis for the state, including five types of businesses, which are cultivators, the growing aspect of it, producers which is growing plus processing and then processors safety facility compliance sorry I messed that up safety compliance facility and then dispensaries which is the words given out to those cardholders that need it so those those regulations again went through last year effective January 1st then this session the legislature went back and tweaked a few things they were really minor changes but in doing so they provided for really a grace period of this six months from July 1st of this year to January 1st of next year where they will start issuing accepting applications and issuing licenses so that on January 1st the first person can actually go get medical cannabis in the state next year so with that we're on a bit of a fast track for the Commission to hear this and then get it to the council so that our regulations are in place prior to the July 1st date because as the state starts issuing licenses they are not necessarily asking that their license be subject to the local regulations as well they'll have to come to us but we want make sure our regulations are in place too of note with those regulations from the state they're doing a lottery system for the first round the initial round of licenses and they are distributing all of the dispensary licenses across the state into 11 regions and one of the regions our region is region 1 the Bluegrass and it includes Fayette County and 12 other counties so each region would normally receive four licenses but Lexington and Louisville or those two regions are being given six and that allows for both Jefferson County and Fayette County to have two dispensaries each in this initial licensing allocation so it is fairly limited see the state regulations do also provide for some really very narrow restrictions that relate to land use so I wanted to bring those up first the cultivators or producers have to establish an indoor growing space so it cannot be outside and it has to be a secure facility with locks and other security devices on on-site to ensure it's safe this also limits or kind of limits the size of those structures within the tiered approach for the cultivators, but also the structure can be larger than the grow area. I just want to keep that in mind. So our cultivators being located in ag zones doesn't mean the structure will be limited to the grow area square footage. So The first two tiers are 2,500 and then up to 10,000. That's the grow area. The grow area can be stacked on top of each other, but it's still limited square footage-wise. But the building itself would be generally larger because it would have office space, storage, and any other non-growing areas with it. And then the other restriction that relates to land use is that any medical cannabis business cannot be located within 1,000 feet of an elementary or secondary school or a daycare. So that will restrict all of the cannabis businesses within any county, really, across Kentucky. And there, the state will work to ensure that that happens, but we'll also be double-checking when they come in for a permit here in Fayette County. So in terms of the approach that we've taken to regulating the five types of businesses, we've looked at what they're similar to in terms of the definition, and then try to fit those new businesses into our zoning ordinance and kind of the appropriate category of use. So our cultivators are most similar to our agricultural uses. So we've suggested, the staff suggests that the Tier 1 and Tier 2, which allows up to 10,000 square feet, be an accessory use in our ag zones. And that line of the ordinance in the attachment, you'll see, it is only for an accessory use in connection with agriculture so it wouldn't be something that we would generally sign off on in terms of an accessory use in like Westmoreland or Greenbrier even though those neighborhoods those rural residential neighborhoods are agriculturally zoned they are not their principal use on their lot is not agriculture so they they would not in our drafting of the ordinance really be granted an accessory structure for a cultivator. And then for cultivators greater than the 10,000 square feet grower area, the idea is those would be conditional uses because they would be larger structures, theoretically would have more employees and potentially more traffic between deliveries and so forth at those locations. So again, those would be listed in our Ag zones, but as accessory for the first two tiers and then conditional in the second tier. The staff does think cultivators, processors, and then producers, which is a combination of growing and processing, should be in our industrial zones. So that's the I1, I2, and ED zones. And then going to the next kind of group of uses would be the safety compliance and that those are generally could be co-located with our growing nearby but not in the same, under the same license in our I1, I2, ED plus the, I didn't bring my table with me, plus the P1 as well as B4 and B3. and CC that those would sorry not CC B3 and B4 so those would be more higher intensity business uses and then the dispensaries would be similar in some regards to a pharmacy or a retail sale establishment and so the staff recommends that those be located within our business zones which includes B1, B2 B2A B6P, CC in the expansion area, and then our mixed use zones because they carry forward the B1 uses. And then the staff did make sure in this text that in our residential zones it was specifically prohibited and that that would generally, once it's put in the R1A zone, it carries forward to all the other residential zones. But there was some we had some questions internally about Another text element that's still going through the process for the urban growth management Where in our higher density or higher intensity residential zones the R4 and the R5? There's a possibility of bringing a conditional use in from B1 so we wanted to explicitly label that is prohibited in residential not the B1 part but dispensaries as prohibited in the R4 and R5 so that there wouldn't be any confusion so again dispensaries would be prohibited in all our residential zones the last real part of the staff text report just talks about this addresses only medicinal cannabis so if there was ever a change at the state level or national level that talked about non-medical use of cannabis or marijuana that that would not be covered by this we would do a separate text amendment at that time to address that use and then the staff did present to the rural land management board in April about this the initiated text and they did provide a letter and a map regarding the text I think we have it in the in the packet for you. Generally they were supportive of the text, but did mention a few concerns which we've listed in the staff report. So one of the concerns was about business uses or the dispensary in an agricultural zone because they do have B1 and B3 out in the rural service area. In addition, they expressed some concern about the size of a medicinal cannabis structure in the ag zones because of the prime soils and then the and I addressed this kind of earlier in my discussion the potential for a cultivator to be an accessory use to a single-family home in one of the rural subdivisions and they specifically mentioned Westmoreland so as an accessory use that line of text reads as follows accessory uses in connection with agriculture farming dairying stock raising or similar uses such as and it starts with agricultural structure stables then we've added tier 1 and tier 2 medicinal cannabis cultivators farm tours hayrides petting zoos and then it it talks about meeting the yard requirements for a principal residence but that particular accessory use is geared towards being accessory to an agricultural use not a single-family family home so we feel like that addresses that particular concern so all in all the staff suggested two changes to the draft text that we initiated and that was to specifically list medicinal cannabis businesses as prohibited in our R4 and R5 zone and then for clarification in the ED zone to list medical cannabis dispensaries as prohibited otherwise they would have they would have to fall under our supportive uses and get kind of mixed into that group of things so that was a change that staff suggested so the staff recommends approval of the alternative text which is in your packet there just ensures that we stay in line with the state regulations for this particular use since those uses are a little bit different than what we would normally see and are regulated at a higher level by the state thank you Tracy are there any questions yes sir thank you for working this in to the zoning ordinance the one question I have just you touched on this with the residential component to the B1 was we discuss you all kind of have a major reworking of the B1 which was kind of conceived to make it the zone overall much more compatible inside of our residential neighborhoods also sort of with the idea that it would be more palatable for future rezonings in residential areas to be one and no I don't I guess the I don't know that I object to this logic but I guess what comes to mind are either sort of blank walls, sort of higher security type retail because of the product that they're selling or, you know, where it's recreational use, you know, and this, I guess because of the product and the security that they impose, it seems like it has a different interface with the street and with the other businesses than most typical retail. And so I wonder just about that sort of concept that we're testing with can we make the B1 a more integrated zone in the residential areas if this is maybe contradictory to that. I see. We did talk about that internally some, and because of the oversight at the state level, we felt that our first proposal should be to include, be inclusive as opposed to exclusive it in the B1 zone, knowing that if there was concern expressed by the commission or the public that we could absolutely, you know, remove it from B1 and leave it in the other business more intense business zones all right any other questions I do want to talk about the consideration from Rural Land Management about making AR just a little bit more restrictive than the other a you or a B and what did staff think about well a you is all inside of our urban service boundary so I don't I don't foresee there probably being a lot of cultivators that would want to be within the urban service boundary but I don't think that we should regulate that one more strictly obviously a you because it's really a holding zone and hopefully it's moving towards another zone anyway and a B and a N are very limited in terms of where they're located so again they are probably not the best choices for this particular use so I'm not sure why we would regulate them no I think they wanted the AR regulated a little more than the other eight zones but in doing that you promote it to go to an a in or a B zone as opposed to the AR zone and The AR zone is really the zone that covers all the whole of the rural area for the most part. So I think we should treat all of the ag zones the same. So if we're going to be more restrictive, it should be a restrictor across the board. So because the AR is so big and so diverse, why wouldn't we just make it a conditional use for any tier? We certainly could recommend that. I think, again, our approach was to be a little bit more open about it because it is generally an agricultural use. They're growing something, and that's really the intent of that zone is to promote agriculture. Well, and my concern may be I share it with Mr. Mickler. I mean, yeah, you're growing something inside of a concrete secure building. It can be a greenhouse, too, evidently, according to the regulations. I mean, I just don't want to – I guess I think it's worth making it at least a conditional use in each tier because the zone is so large and so diverse. And I don't know if anyone else has thoughts about that. Zach, could you speak to what conditions in the zone would warrant denial of the conditional use? Well, that's – I don't know because there are so many variables. I just would feel better knowing that the rural area has that one final little extra layer of Board of Adjustment approval. Just for my refresher, because you covered a lot of information there, am I understanding from this proposal correctly that it would... Did you bring the table with the staff report? It would be an accessory use instead of a conditional use only if the growing area is 10,000 feet or less. 10,000 or less, it would be accessory. It would be accessory. And if the growing area is larger than 10,000 feet, it would be a conditional use. I mean, I think that's sort of maybe the threshold that makes sense to discuss. It seems to me like in today's era that 10,000 feet for a growing area is certainly smaller than what places are typically constructing for modern day buildings. agriculture because you're, I mean, people are putting in facilities much larger than that. So I think, I guess what it seems to me is that most, most I mean, that's not a huge, in a rural area, that's not a huge growing area, would, but, you know, I think to Zach's point, what is kind of a question that I would like to hear sort of as these get developed is, you know, Zach's pointing out that part of our rural area is aesthetic. And as these buildings get bigger, I think those kinds of details that the Board of Adjustment would be hearing, is this a concrete, tall structure, or is this a greenhouse structure, are important. But the question is, we let people build metal barns at a certain size, so the question may be, what size is that where we want those details discussed in a public hearing? So with the 10,000 square foot growing area, that didn't limit the size of the structure. That's true. What would the limit of the size of the structure be? Is that a different part of the AR zone? The agricultural zones don't limit accessory structure size when it's an agricultural use. So this type of building would, I would assume, need some sort of permit because you'd have water going to it. It's not just a strictly agricultural business. You'd have office uses, storage, other things, pesticides. So they would probably issue a permit. It's not just a pull barn or something. So when it's an accessory use, there's not a size limit to the structure itself? No. And our residential zones does have a limit, right? It's half the house, but not in an ag zone, right? You don't want to limit agricultural uses in that way. The other thing that didn't, it's sort of a fringe issue but may come into the conversation, is that the state does have the ability to, no matter what permit they issue to a cultivator, to up to triple it. So that's not something that I think, obviously, they're not going to start out doing that, but based on demand, they could go to the existing licensed cultivators and say, we're going to issue you an expansion of your permit because, I guess, it's easier to do it that way than grant more. up to three times so the 2,500 square foot could end up being 7,500 right and our 10,000 could grow to 30,000 I think that is again it's like an emergency as the state deems demand requires it but obviously locally we don't have any control over if they do that and under what those circumstances are. So that may play into kind of shifting that line. Greenhouse operations right now are a conditional use at any size or are they an accessory use at a certain size? They, a commercial greenhouse, is a conditional use, which means that you have, that you're selling the things you're growing, right? You're growing shrubs and trees and then maybe you have mulch to offer too so you're selling to the public. What about a production greenhouse like you're growing tomatoes in a commercial setting that would be indoors sort of similar? I believe that's a plant nursery where you're growing in order to transplant it someplace else for future sale. No like say you're harvesting you're growing tomatoes you're growing strawberries, other products that would be harvested on the production floor and shipped in this case to restaurants or groceries if it's a food product instead of to a medical dispensary. Those greenhouses are not regulated. There currently would be an accessory use in the ag area. Right. They're only regulated if it's a plant nursery for transfer of the plant to a garden center? Yes, I think that we like parse it out. The plant nursery I think does shrubs and trees, so it wouldn't even cover raising fruits and vegetables. . Yeah. . More bulk selling to the . Okay. I mean, I guess I'm just trying to find how, I guess hear from you how we're regulating these other structures that are indoor growing spaces, heated growing spaces, essentially. I'm not sure. It sounds like it's all over the place. Right. It sort of depends on what you're, if you're bringing people to the greenhouse, it's definitely a conditional use if there's a commercial retail component to the site. If you're transplanting to another location or selling, delivering, then that's still a conditional use, but it does have a lesser impact, and we've allowed greenhouses with those. So those are both conditional uses as well. Obviously, personal greenhouses aren't going to be conditional use, and to some extent, it depends on the product. For whatever reason, that's the way our ordinance is written. And the trees and shrubs generate obviously a lot more space and have a bigger impact. So they became a conditional use, I don't know, maybe 20 years ago. Thanks. All righty. Any other comment? All right. Is there a motion or discussion? This is coming up next week. So if there's a request to modify the text, I think we'd want to hear that from you all today. So if that's moving Tier 2 to conditional, leaving Tier 1 accessory, or moving them both to conditional. I'll say I think you answered my question on the B1 zone satisfactory. I'm satisfied with your all's discussion and perspective on that zone. I was curious maybe from the other two people hearing your take on the AR question of whether it's worth requiring a conditional use hearing or whether we would not require or ask the staff to not require that. I have a question, I guess. There's discussion about greenhouses versus concrete buildings. What is the history in other states? What types of structures are generally being built for this purpose? You know, we did not look into that. I don't know. I don't know if anyone else has any experience coming from other states. I just know that it's highly secure. Is it dead? You can borrow mine. For the states that have what is either adult or recreational use, they have less concern than our state may have with the security of it as it relates to just medicinal cannabis. And I know the discussion related around the conditional use for the two lowest tiers is really the size and the impact on the property, which is why the discussion was that for larger than that, it would be appropriate to have a conditional use discussion before the Board of Adjustment as it relates to the impact on the property. The state has said every discussion I've been involved with that greenhouses would be acceptable, but they still have to meet the requirements of security in the regulations. So I don't know enough about greenhouses to necessarily understand how those things weave together because they are, I would say, fairly significant security requirements on those. But they have said greenhouses would be okay versus if you're envisioning a completely block building that would be the indoor grow house. There is fencing requirements, camera requirements, lighting requirements, et cetera, for that. I think I'm okay with the language as staff is proposing it, but I could go either way. Thank you, Keith. The lighting was the other concern I had that I completely forgotten because of its effects on livestock and ovulation cycles of mares and cattle. I just think it deserves that little extra layer of scrutiny. But if I'm in the minority, I'll drop it. One of the things as we talk about this and what have you, I was comfortable with what the staff has provided, but we can always modify it once we get into it, see if there's any issues or things that might come up. We can always change. That's true. I think I'm kind of on the fence about this one. I know a little bit about the greenhouse companies just from reading the trade magazines. The cost difference for a greenhouse that would meet the requirements of what they're talking about versus what you would usually see on a farm for their transplants of tobacco is millions of dollars. is the cost difference between a tempered glass, metal, and concrete greenhouse structure versus a hoop with plastic pulled over. It's an immense cost to use tempered and or laminated glass across that structure that's a completely concrete and metal frame. There's a company not far from here that builds the high-end greenhouses, but they are very expensive and usually built for large research institutions and not that frequently in commercial settings because of their cost. I kind of am curious to how this agricultural use, given the state requirements, would play out on the built landscape with effects of lighting and structure type. and the way that they would be designed. And so while I don't personally maybe really object to the staff language, I'm also probably leaning a little bit towards what Zach is saying, that it may be at this early stage does warrant that step of review and approval of their concept, not just of the product. I guess so with that I would make a motion to approve with the change that the cultivation sites in the AR zone be moved to a conditional use. Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? No. Otherwise, good to vote. Raise your hand. Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. Thanks. And we have another text amendment for you. Mr. Crum? Yep. All right. Good afternoon, committee. The next items we have is a request by Silicon Ranch. So this is a zoning ordinance text amendment that is really centered around solar energy systems. And just as sort of a prelude, as I'm going through and describing the applicant's language, you should probably note that staff at this time is recommending a postponement just kind of from the sheer amount of information that is needed, the amount of outreach that needs to occur, best practices, research, et cetera. So what you'll be hearing today is essentially a presentation of the applicant's information, but not with a staff analysis of sort of the relative appropriateness of the text. So just as I'm going through, just kind of keep that in mind. But to kind of start us off where we are currently as far as solar energy systems, solar panels, and the like, it's not currently a defined use within our zoning ordinance. It's mentioned in passing in sections of the ordinance that deal with the height of structures, So there's an acknowledgment that these solar panels, solar equipment exist. However, it really hasn't been fully fleshed out in our ordinance. There was a Board of Adjustment case that made a determination that sort of the solar production is in and of itself a light industrial use, so kind of fit into that umbrella category of other industrial uses. And so that interpretation really limits the applicability of kind of solar throughout the community. The applicant here is a solar energy provider, specifically dealing in sort of a mix of agriculture and solar production. But they're seeking to essentially create an entire new section of the ordinance that deals specifically with solar energy systems in kind of a comprehensive manner. So the applicant's proposal has kind of multiple parts. So this is sort of a comprehensive look at defining these different uses, where are they appropriate, what conditions are they appropriate, and what sort of other restrictions are we going to place on them. So they create this section of the ordinance, create the categories for the different types of solar energy systems that are outlined within your staff report here. I'll bring in the definitions momentarily, but basically based on the size, scope, and type, assigning them to various zoning ordinance categories. both urban and rural. So some of the definitions that you've got in front of you on the blue sheet, they describe what's called an agrivoltaic project. Essentially, that is just the combination of a solar energy system with an agricultural use. So attempting to kind of utilize in the more rural context, kind of more harmoniously integrate those. So that really refers to a specific type of project. But where this really starts to really create new definitions is splitting up solar energy systems based on the type. So integrated is sort of the first definition they look at. That's when this is incorporated into actual building materials. By contrast, rooftop would be sort of secondary panels that are put on existing structures but aren't necessarily incorporated. And then ground-mounted kind of covers the other aspects. These are where they are not on a principal structure. They may be the only principal use on a particular lot, so they do not require another use, another structure to sort of function. They break out based on scale of a small, intermediate, or large-scale system. So essentially they are trying to parse out some differences in the way that they can legislate these uses based on the square footage of a particular solar operation. They also get into some siting board regulations, but really the breaking it into those separate definitions is really sort of the framework that they use to then provide this use table. So essentially they break down between the integrated and rooftop systems that you'd find in a building as well as the small, intermediate, and large-scale mounted. So they provide a table here that lists comprehensively all of the zones within the zoning ordinance. Once again, parsing out sort of the appropriateness in each of the residential zones, business zones, agricultural and industrial zones is sort of a larger undertaking, one that needs to be done with kind of a firm understanding of the impacts, how these uses operate, and sort of what externalities kind of may arise of that. But this is the applicant's proposed language, essentially being more permissible with the integrated systems that would be accessory and on existing buildings. And then as you scale up to from small scale to large scale, increasing kind of the need for scrutiny where a conditional use permit is appropriate in their eyes. They also have some language that deals with accessory uses. But generally, this table here is sort of the main thrust. Once again, this is sort of multiple conversations in and of itself of, you know, lumping all of residential zones when they behave sort of separately, all of the commercial zones when they behave separately kind of from one another is something that staff, you know, moving forward is definitely looking to have greater comment on. Other elements that are included in this zoning ordinance text amendment, kind of broken down by, once again, the type of facility being proposed, are other restrictions that sort of try to parse out sort of the impact. So height restrictions of any particular solar energy systems, necessary setbacks in certain cases, as well as screening, decommissioning, and conditions for a conditional use consideration. So overall, staff is recommending postponement at this time. We really need more time to really understand what we are dealing with here, look at other ordinances, best practices that relate to solar energy systems, not just in an urban context, but also in our rural areas as well. And another kind of necessary inclusion of this is, as this is sort of a countywide endeavor impacting every single zone, that greater effort or greater public outreach is needed. The applicant has indicated that they've, within the past year or so, had some preliminary discussions, but really get a greater involvement from the community, especially some of the more sort of applicable agencies, such as Rural Land Management Board, Empower Lexington, Kentucky Solar Energy Society, Division of Environmental Services. So we really want to get as much feedback as we can kind of on this language because it could have a large impact. So staff is recommending postponement at this time. We have, as it is, a zoning ordinance text amendment. There is a larger window compared to the medicinal cannabis because this is being initiated by an outside party. So we have the six-month review window on this. So there is time to do a little bit more digging and have kind of a better framework for evaluating this. But staff is recommending postponement for those reasons at this time. Thank you, Daniel. Are there any questions for Daniel? Thank you. Mr. Turner. And if you could bring up the other. Thank you members of the committee I'm Darby Turner here representing Silicon Ranch who's the applicant relative to this ZOTA request Silicon and we don't disagree with with Daniel at this point in terms of the postponement we understand and he advised us of that and we understand that but I thought we might take the opportunity to introduce why who we are why and what we're what we're thinking about and what we do and particularly the concept of agrivoltaics because I think that's an important one in this conversation Silicon Ranch is a company in out of Nashville it operates I think up to a hundred solar facilities at this point primarily in the southeast it has a currently has an operating plant or operating facility in Garrett County called Turkey Creek that just open it is has land in Fayette County under option and with the idea of placing an approximately 700 to 800 acre solar facility so we're generating facility it that will produce about 80 to 100 megawatts and just for reference that is about based on current we're approximately about 2.65 percent of Fayette County's electrical usage based on you know prox those are very approximate but just to give you a sense of scale that it takes to produce that that type of energy we are not East Kentucky power who's recently indicated they are seeking authority from the Public Service Commission to site up a large similar solar array in Fayette County the you know if this is all and this is all coming of course because you've got it in your comprehensive plan to be carbon neutral by 20 2030 3040 2050 but this is what you have to do to start getting there I mean you know you've got to be carbon neutral you've got to do your part for the carbon that you create or we create so this is this this is why these things are starting to come to you and come to the state and the industry. We have met with the staff a number of times over the last six months or so and in that process we've said you know we're interested in it in an agricultural area because obviously with that many acres to require that kind of scale you You can't and wouldn't want to do that in an urban area where you're trying to maximize your urban uses, if you will. And in talking with them, they indicate we really don't have any coordinates as to solar power generation. So let's look at it as a comprehensive ordinance. So that's why we presented it in the form that we have done so. One of the key characteristics in this ordinance that you'll see is the concept of agrivoltaics, which is basically a dual use of the land, using it both for agriculture and for solar generation at the same time. and what Silicon Ranch does and other agrivoltaics is they maintain the pasture and typically can either row to run some crops flower crops things of that nature but more typically graze livestock primarily sheep there there's There's efforts to do it with cattle, but obviously cattle are larger animals and can be more destructive to the solar system as you go. And Silicon Ranch may shortly be one of the largest sheep producers in the country, with one of the largest herds of sheep scattered all over the southeast. So that's the concept, and Blake Sturgeon is with Silicon Ranch. It just has a little handout. You can kind of see what we're talking about, how that agrivoltaics works, and that's what's going on in Garrett County. And we will continue to be having the conversation with staff, But obviously the scale of Silicon Ranch or any similar type of company is of such a scale it requires siting board approval under the PSE regulations. which also requires a decommissioning plan, which also requires bonds for that decommissioning plan. It also requires those bonds that plan to be reviewed every five years and the bonds to be reset every five years, etc. So that at the end of the day, if the company goes away, there's the money to decommission the field. The life of one of these solar fields at this point is about 40 years. Now, with technology, who knows? That could increase rapidly and could change rapidly, but that's what we know at this point. So, it's a very interesting concept because it allows the land, the prime soils, to be maintained and actually protected and utilized. And at the end of the day, the solar arrays are gone and you're left with prime soils. You're not concreteing over, you're not asphalting over, you're not graveling over. So it's a nice balance of a way to have a dual use of agricultural land. It's increased income to the landowner if it's a lease operation. Silicon Ranch tends to be a purchase. have purchased most of their facilities and own them but it is it is another use or another opportunity for agriculture to receive additional income generating from their agriculture and their their land operations and so that you know as this green energy evolves this green energy concept evolves you're getting more and more kind of thinking of how do we keep it green and still supply the energy and so forth and so on. And this is one of, this is the, this is, that's what Silicon Ranch does. We don't want to eliminate any and all solar projects that aren't agrivoltaic, but we think significant credit ought to be given relative to those types of uses where there is this dual use going on on agricultural land and we'd be happy to answer any questions that we can but we just took this opportunity to kind of lay it out to you in terms of who we are what we want and why we want it and how we want to fit in and how this company has fit in with these process with with agricultural land in the past so thank you mr. Turner how's that are there any questions mr. Mickler so you all or if I understand correctly you all run the sheep component to the business as well or is that then leased back to another entity that runs the sheep component both ways we have in Silicon Ranch in in some locations leases the rights to grazing rights and so forth to local sheep operations and shepherds in others they own the sheep and employ the shepherds in Alabama particularly they own most of the flocks and that's where they're generating a fairly large flock at this point and there's a whole other side to the company relative to the agricultural side and the sheep raising and breeding raising and improving and so forth so there's there's an energy side and there's an agricultural side to the company. Thank you. All right. A question I would have, Mr. Turner, is is there anything within the ordinance that is a minimum for the agricultural aspect of the project? Meaning, if I lease 300 acres and I put a chicken coop way over there in the corner, can I say I'm an agra, you know, or is there standard? We haven't and that's a good question and basically it requires I mean it requires it be used for agricultural purposes which means you could have no you could have nothing you could have no livestock on it but as long as you maintained it as grazing land or grasslands you would be you know there are a lot of farms out today that basically try to find somebody cut their So, you know, with sheep production, that's something hard. You would obviously divide it into grazing areas and move your livestock accordingly. And in certain times of the year, you would move the livestock entirely to cooler climes and so forth. for it. So, interesting in talking to UK too, the solar arrays, they rotate, they follow the Sun. And one of the interesting discussion points is, does it improve agricultural production to have that much shade available, you know, in different spots? If you're familiar with the herd of cattle, particularly in the summer you'll find them on a fence row under the trees all bunched up trying to find shade and will they will let improve for sheep or whatever livestock if you've got shade spread out through their grazing area kind of interesting so there there's a lot of research that actually can be done and Silicon Ranch is doing it on the Ag side to determine what these effects and what the best practices are with regard to that. Great. Well, we obviously have a long way to go. That's just something that even if you are growing grass, I think there has to be some sort of a mechanism or a standard that it can be measured by in order to qualify as an agrib project. Well, I think what you're mainly trying to do in this is preserve the prime soils. Okay? You don't want them just rocked, the whole thing rocked so that it stifles grass so it doesn't have to be maintained. You don't want it covered. You want to protect the soils. Whether you've got 1,000 sheep on it or not, The main point is to maintain that grassland, that pasture area, and not have it covered up with some artificial surface so that you basically eliminate the soil. Sure. And, again, as we get further in, I would like to see, I'd be very curious to see how Silicon Ranch installs their panels. Because we've all seen what others have done, which is exactly what you just said. It's totally destroyed the topsoil, poor concrete. And then when they leave, they, quote, put it back, which it will never be put back at that point. So that's a really. And I think there can be standards. And one of the things that we had proposed as standards is that there be incorporated as a part of the conditional use application. Well, I don't know if we have it in there or not. This was the last discussion we talked about. But having an agricultural plan that's associated with the project. so that that would be going to go along with a decommissioning plan so that you would have a periodic review of that plan, which would address what you're really talking about. What are you going to do with the property and spell it out? And that's part of the approval process. Yes, exactly, because Silicon Ranch may be great, but this is countywide zoning that we're changing for everybody. We understand. Any other questions? Mr. Wilson? Maybe. I am totally ignorant related to the solar stuff. But let me ask you this. I'm looking at these pictures. These panels seem to be straight-lined as such. So I'm surely somewhere in this that you've got some ordinance related to tree protection and stuff like that. Yeah, I mean, obviously you're talking about you're in an agricultural field in an area, so it needs to be open. and most farms are open except maybe on the fence lines and yes you may have to rearrange some of the the vegetation to maximize the efficiency of your project project but in all of the again is a part of the the the plan that you present is okay what do you do during this description this construction obviously you're going to have to maybe grade, get some areas a little flatter, fill in. You've got to provide for drainage. You've got to have to, what are you doing with your top soils? Where are you doing some grading? Do you put it back? So forth and so on. All of that would go into it. Obviously with what makes land, for instance, in Fayette County very attractive, to have a solar farm, you need relatively flat land and you need proximity to the main grid or the further away you get from the main grid where you can put your power into it the less efficient that project becomes so you need flat land in relatively flat land and that location and that proximity and that'll dictate kind of where where things might go because you get parts of the county you may have flat land but you're miles and miles away from being able to connect into the grid All right. Thank you, Mr. Turner. Thank you. Mr. Wilson, anybody have anything further? Do we need a motion to... Sorry. Anyone from the public? Mrs. Rothmeier. Thank you, commissioners, for the opportunity. Bernie Rothmire, of course, on behalf of Fade Alliance. It seems, you know, a lot of the, I think, important topics and considerations have really already been brought up. You know, I appreciate, Blake came to my office and we chatted about this a couple of weeks ago from Silicon Ranch. I really appreciate the staff's recommendation for postponement and thoughtfulness as to this. This is, we've seen this all over the country, solar and other communities, I think, have experienced some of the harmful consequences of moving forward with solar, industrial-scale solar development, without fully thinking through what policies should be so that we can protect our prime farmland. So I appreciate the time and the recommendation for postponement to really dig into this and see what analysis research we can do to find out what are the best policies for Fayette County. We obviously have a lot at stake. We've talked about this. our prime farmland, our nationally recognized soils. And I think that we owe it to ourselves and the community not to be short-sighted about the trade-offs between sustainable energy in our rural areas. And frankly, farmland loss, because I think that they both have important environmental and economic impacts that we have to consider moving forward. I think there have been other communities across the country that have done this well and have a lot more experience. States like Georgia and Virginia, cities across those states have been experiencing solar development over the last decade and can, I think, offer us a lot of good information as they've had time to see what the negative impacts can be and how we can avoid those. And so I think that there are good policy models out there, and we look forward to digging in as well. We hope that you all will continue to consider recommendations from the rural stakeholders who are going to see the biggest impacts from some of this. And so I think there are groups that are working actively to make some good recommendations about how we can do this. And I do want to be clear that Fate Alliance supports sustainable energy, supports renewable energy. I personally even know many people who have done solar on all of their barns. That's powering their farms. And these options are there. and I think permitting solar arrays and solar development in appropriately zoned commercial and industrial areas, certainly, but I think and I hope that this community will continue to be committed to protecting our most prime farmland for agricultural production and being very wary and erring on the side of caution as we move forward with what it looks like to permit solar development on our most prime soils because as I think has been discussed, those few inches of topsoil are really what is so special here, and destruction of those few inches takes quite literally hundreds of years to redo. So going into it, being very thoughtful, I think is going to be key. It seems that everyone is on the same page with the way that we move forward. I do think it's important to note that the proposal that I think was based on a model ordinance that came out of the Kentucky Resources Council quite a few years ago was written by a gentleman who has now publicly testified against solar development. So I think I say that because I think we need to be careful about the models that we're going from. And as we take recommendations and things like that to bring forward new recommendations for the way we should move forward with this, I think that's important. I think that the proposed ordinance that was based on the model also left out a lot of the provisions that were included in that model that specifically relate to protecting prime land overlays with soil maps and things like that, which are all available. So I look forward to digging a little bit more into those and ensuring that here in Lexington and Fayette County that we get it right the first time around because we have so much at stake. So we appreciate Ural's consideration as we move forward, and you'll continue, I think, to anticipate recommendations from Fayette Alliance and other groups that have such a stake an interest in our rural area, and we look forward to all hopefully working together as we move forward before we put policies in place that we can't reverse. As we know, they're currently over 1,000 acres in Fayette County right now with proposals for solar development. So I'm very hopeful that we'll continue to be very careful about the way we move forward. Thank you all. Thank you. Any other public comment? If not, Commissioner comment or room for motion or discussion? I was going to make a motion Mr. Chairman I move that we postpone PLNZOTA 24-3 regulations of solar systems for the reasons provided by staff Second Alrighty any discussion Seeing none all in favor Thank you very much Motion carries unanimously Do we have anything else on the agenda today Then without objection we are adjourned Thank you Thank you. Thank you.