The Amelia Bulletin Monitor

Planning commission defers decision on solar farm


After a marathon two and a half hour session Monday (March 28) the Amelia County Planning Commission decided to defer a decision on a request from Amelia Energy Facility LLC for a Special Exception Permit to permit the construction of a solar farm on 1,103 acres off West Creek Road (Rt. 607).

The acreage has been reduced from the earlier, original application, directly impacting fewer residences. The company plans to use a maximum of 635 acres for the actual solar panels and a maximum of 700 acres will be disturbed. Several parcels have been removed from the original plan. Those parcels include the cropland the loss of which several residents objected.

According to a company spokesman, the facility-produced electricity will be directly connected to the Dominion Energy grid. The site was the only suitable one in the county because of its proximity to the Dominion grid. No storage batteries will be used and the system is designed to prevent any “back-feed” if the grid went down.

Asked if the company or its parent company, Torch Clean Energy, intended to sale of the facility once it is constructed, the spokesman answered Amelia Energy Facility plans to maintain and operate it.

Used solar panels, if and when the facility is decommissioned or new panels are installed, can be recycled or reused by a secondary market, he said.

The energy produced would match that consumed by approximately 21,000 homes, helping the state to meet its clean energy goal.

The spokesman pointed out economic benefit to the county such as adding personal property and real estate tax revenue. In addition, the facility will not require an increased demand for county services and will have minimal environmental impact.

According to the spokesman, natural buffers will be left in place between the facility and adjacent landowners and the 0.16-mile of road frontage on Buckskin Creek Road (Rt. 640) will be 1,300 feet from the panels and screened from view by a “forested stream channel.”

The county would receive $1 million plus taxes initially and the spokesman estimated the county would gain $10 million over the 30-year estimated lifetime of the facility.

The commissioners asked about local jobs, pointing out other solar farms in the county had also promised those but had hired mostly from out of the county and outof state.

In the public hearing, someone from the Land and Liberty Coalition noted a new solar energy training program has been opened in Blackstone. He also said solar energy was good for the economy.

The company said it would hire locally as much as possible.

Another commissioner questioned how much grading would have to be done, as he was concerned about the loss of topsoil, which he said takes about 100 years to replace one inch.

The spokesman explained the panels would be elevated with the rows’ heights planned to provide a uniform array. Most of the property intended for the panels has been forested and not former cropland. The vegetation planted to provide erosion control on most of the property, with some graveled paths, will actually help the land recover. Some facilities even graze sheep on their property and pollinators such as bees may actually aid neighboring farm crops.

In the public hearing, one of the intended lessees, Joanne Scott Webb, said she has studied solar energy since 2015 and they have been discussing this project for three years. She urged the commission to respect the Constitution-guaranteed property owner’s rights, while noting their desire to be good neighbors. Pointing out the rising cost of energy, she said the U.S. “needs all types of energy.”

But a West Creek Road resident, Robbie Parsons, declared the facility would not be a “farm” but an “industry” and would devalue neighboring properties. He asked the commissioners to consider a recent letter in the Blackstone Courier-Record from a Nottoway County attorney warning of the negative aspects of solar farms.

Allison Crews said she has “pro solar energy” but her property was near the intended main entrance on Buckskin Creek Road and did not believe the company would be a good neighbor.

Village resident Martin Konkel said this would be a good, needed investment if done correctly, which the solar facility on Genito Road (Rt. 616) was not.

A Williamsburg resident who owns property in that area was concerned about the facility’s impact on wildlife, topsoil and the narrow roadways. She urged the commission to reject it a second time.

Susan Wade, another property lessee, said it would be a benefit from the land.

Another non-resident said she and her husband intend to retire to a home on property they own near the site and they do not want the solar farm there as it will devalue their property.

Corey Busic appeared to be satisfied with the current land reduction but was concerned about any possible future expansion. The spokesman assured there were no plans to expand and commission Chairman Larkin Moyer informed him any expansion would require the company to apply for another permit, meaning the planning commission process would be repeated.

There were other questions about the visibility of the panels from neighboring homes and they were told the nearest home would be at least 1,000 feet from the panels with a natural buffer left and a fence around the array. It would not be visible from any house, the spokesman assured them.

Asked about whose responsibility it would be to “fix the soil” if and when the facility was decommissioned, the questioner was informed the landowner would have that responsibility but could accommodate that in the lease agreement with the company. The facility’s ground-cover could actually benefit the soil, adding nutrients missing from forested land.

There was also questions about the effects of facility on any crops grown on the property after the facility was decommissioned. Stephen Lalland, executive director of NC Clean Energy Technology Center, who gave the commission an informative presentation on solar farms, explained although there has been little research by crop scientists, the only adverse impact found so far was a slight harm to peanut crops from the aluminum leached into the soil by the galvanized posts used to support the panels.

Mr. Lalland also said most of the components of the solar panels could be recycled and the effects of the electromagnetic fields (EMF) from the facility would be about the same as in a normal background.

Someone would have to stand within a few feet of the panels for several months to be harmed by the EMF, he said.

Following the public hearing, the commissioners discussed the request. Commissioner Roy Easter was concerned about the lack of arrangements to decommission the facility within the first five years. He was told there were options that could be discussed.

Mr. Easter said otherwise the application “covered a lot of bases,” but said the facility would be “like a 700-acre warehouse” in that it would not “look rural.” Chairman Moyer replied he would prefer it to houses all the same, but was concerned about the citizens’ concerns.

Commissioner Richard Cumbie said he was still getting calls from people who were against the solar farm. He was also concerned the county was not getting enough from the project and moved to recommend the supervisors deny the request.

That motion died for lack of a second and Mr. Easter said there was no one on the commission who could say whether the project was “good or bad.” He suggested the commission get a third, neutral party to look at the proposal, and the commission table the question for 30 days. Commissioner Juan Whittington moved to defer the decision and his motion passed.

The commission will review the request after getting more information from other counties about their experiences with solar farm projects.

Earlier, with only an across the road resident speaking in support of the conditional rezoning of 3.781 acres on West Pridesville Road (Rt. 681) at the intersection of Huntington Church Lane (Rt. 669) from Agricultural A- 5 to Industrial M-2, the commission moved to recommend approval of Royal Langford’s request. The landowner intends to re-establish a former concrete plant on the property and readjust the boundary line to move the existing home to another parcel, using only 1.5 acres for the actual plant.

The commission also voted to recommend the supervisors add campgrounds as a use with a Special Exception Permit to the Agricultural A-5, Rural Preservation RP-5 and Rural Residential RR- 3 zones. Community Development Director Holly Steele said she had received several inquiries about possible campgrounds off back-roads, including one which would have tents in trees. The zoning ordinance currently makes no provision for campgrounds.

The commissioners decided to recommend “detached dwelling units” with Special Exception Permits in the Residential R-1 zones which includes the Village area and a small section in Jetersville.

Assembly halls are currently allowed by-right in nearly all zones except Rural Residential RR-3 and the commission voted to recommend these be allowed with a Special Exception Permit. Ms. Steele noted most of these would be wedding chapels.

There were no comments during the public hearings for these proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *