Oral arguments heard in solar case

Attorneys made their oral arguments to Hardin Circuit Judge Larry Ashlock in the case of Hardin County Citizens for Responsible Solar versus Hardin County Fiscal Court Monday morning.

The Citizens organization, the petitioners in the case, is asking the court to overturn the fiscal court’s decision to approve a zoning change for Stonefield Solar after denial of the change was recommended by the Hardin County Planning Commission. Attorney David Broderick, representing the Citizens organization, argued that the fiscal court’s findings had to be based on the record presented, and the record presented included no findings of fact that the rezoning was in line with the county’s comprehensive plan. He also argued that solar production does not qualify as manufacturing. Broderick also argued that Magistrate Kenny Muse should have made it known that his niece was involved with Stonefield Solar so that arguments about a potential conflict of interest could have been made in the case.

Attorney Keith Bond, representing the fiscal court, said Muse had no obligation to discuss his niece because the definition of immediate family in the county’s code of ethics only includes a niece if the person has a direct tax consideration in the relationship. Attorney Gregory Dutton, representing Stonefield, argued that the question at hand is about whether the fiscal court’s decision should be overturned by the court as the state legislature gives the fiscal court the authority to make a zoning decision, while the planning commission makes a recommendation. Dutton said the fiscal court decision was not an arbitrary one based on the evidence that went before it ahead of the decision. Dutton also said the Kentucky Energy Cabinet has said that solar production is a manufacturing enterprise.

Ashlock took the arguments under submission and said he would make a ruling after reviewing submitted evidence as needed.