The Scott Solar facility in Powhatan is among several solar projects that are operational or still in the works. (Courtesy Dominion Energy)
The prospects for solar energy projects have gotten dimmer in Powhatan.
The county’s Board of Supervisors last month approved an amendment to its zoning ordinance that eliminated solar farms as a conditional use on agriculturally zoned land.
The change applies to land zoned in two agricultural designations, including Agriculture (A-10), which covers most of the largely rural, 260-square-mile county. The move means it is now impossible to get county approval to build new solar farms on land with those designations.
Also new is that solar energy facilities are now a conditional use in the county’s Light Industrial (I-1) districts, whereas before they were only an accessory use. That change effectively expands the potential scope of solar projects in I-1 area, and means that such developments can now be situated on those properties. Solar facilities remain a conditional use in Heavy Industrial (I-2) zoning districts in Powhatan.
A staff memo included in the board’s agenda materials at its July 22 meeting supported the removal of solar as a conditional use as a means to preserve the county’s rural areas and drive such development to industrially zoned properties. The changes come at a time when several solar facilities are either currently operational or in the works within Powhatan.
“The county has made significant progress in bringing renewable energy to Powhatan on A-10 zoned land. Removing the use ‘solar energy farm’ as a conditional use in this prime agricultural district will insure potential future solar development will take place on more suitable areas, namely industrially zoned land,” the memo read. “This change will assure residents of the county’s commitment to protecting valuable farmland while supporting renewable energy sources.”
It’s still possible to rezone agricultural land to a new designation in order to allow a solar project in Powhatan, though the rezoning process is arguably more involved than a conditional-use permit approval.
Both a rezoning and a conditional-use permit require public notices and case-by-case reviews by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, which hold public hearings prior to the votes. But they vary in some ways, and the county’s conditional-use permit process is typically a less involved process for developers, Powhatan Planning Director Ligon Webb said in an interview with BizSense.
Rezonings generally require developers to pay higher application fees than they would for a CUP. Rezoning proposals that would increase the density of the subject property require applicants to hold at least one community meeting prior to the Planning Commission’s consideration of the request, whereas CUP requests do not require a community meeting, according to the county’s applications for each zoning request.
Webb noted that officials can impose development conditions on a CUP applicant, while in a rezoning request the applicant can offer proffers for the county’s consideration.
“One process gives the governing body the ability to impose reasonable conditions, the other is more of a negotiation,” he said.
Powhatan’s move to eliminate solar as a conditional use in agricultural areas comes after a handful of solar projects have been established in the county. All seven of the “utility-grade” projects in Powhatan that are operational or in the works have sought CUPs and are located on agricultural (A-10) land, Webb said.
There were four completed solar facilities, two under construction and one still in review in the county as of late July, per a project list provided by Webb. He said that once all the projects were up and running, Powhatan would be home to a total of about 150 megawatts of solar energy facilities.
Of the completed projects, three of them comprise Dominion Energy’s Scott Solar facility, a 34-megawatt facility on 413 acres at 4325 Old Buckingham Road. The county considers the plant to be two separate projects (Scott Solar I and Scott Solar II). The 12-megawatt battery storage facility on the same site is also considered a separate project.
The ordinance changes were approved unanimously by the board at its July 22 meeting. There was no public discussion on the matter.
Agenda materials for that same meeting didn’t reference the addition of solar facilities as a conditional use in Light Industrial areas, though that change was also approved by the board that day.
The Scott Solar facility in Powhatan is among several solar projects that are operational or still in the works. (Courtesy Dominion Energy)
The prospects for solar energy projects have gotten dimmer in Powhatan.
The county’s Board of Supervisors last month approved an amendment to its zoning ordinance that eliminated solar farms as a conditional use on agriculturally zoned land.
The change applies to land zoned in two agricultural designations, including Agriculture (A-10), which covers most of the largely rural, 260-square-mile county. The move means it is now impossible to get county approval to build new solar farms on land with those designations.
Also new is that solar energy facilities are now a conditional use in the county’s Light Industrial (I-1) districts, whereas before they were only an accessory use. That change effectively expands the potential scope of solar projects in I-1 area, and means that such developments can now be situated on those properties. Solar facilities remain a conditional use in Heavy Industrial (I-2) zoning districts in Powhatan.
A staff memo included in the board’s agenda materials at its July 22 meeting supported the removal of solar as a conditional use as a means to preserve the county’s rural areas and drive such development to industrially zoned properties. The changes come at a time when several solar facilities are either currently operational or in the works within Powhatan.
“The county has made significant progress in bringing renewable energy to Powhatan on A-10 zoned land. Removing the use ‘solar energy farm’ as a conditional use in this prime agricultural district will insure potential future solar development will take place on more suitable areas, namely industrially zoned land,” the memo read. “This change will assure residents of the county’s commitment to protecting valuable farmland while supporting renewable energy sources.”
It’s still possible to rezone agricultural land to a new designation in order to allow a solar project in Powhatan, though the rezoning process is arguably more involved than a conditional-use permit approval.
Both a rezoning and a conditional-use permit require public notices and case-by-case reviews by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, which hold public hearings prior to the votes. But they vary in some ways, and the county’s conditional-use permit process is typically a less involved process for developers, Powhatan Planning Director Ligon Webb said in an interview with BizSense.
Rezonings generally require developers to pay higher application fees than they would for a CUP. Rezoning proposals that would increase the density of the subject property require applicants to hold at least one community meeting prior to the Planning Commission’s consideration of the request, whereas CUP requests do not require a community meeting, according to the county’s applications for each zoning request.
Webb noted that officials can impose development conditions on a CUP applicant, while in a rezoning request the applicant can offer proffers for the county’s consideration.
“One process gives the governing body the ability to impose reasonable conditions, the other is more of a negotiation,” he said.
Powhatan’s move to eliminate solar as a conditional use in agricultural areas comes after a handful of solar projects have been established in the county. All seven of the “utility-grade” projects in Powhatan that are operational or in the works have sought CUPs and are located on agricultural (A-10) land, Webb said.
There were four completed solar facilities, two under construction and one still in review in the county as of late July, per a project list provided by Webb. He said that once all the projects were up and running, Powhatan would be home to a total of about 150 megawatts of solar energy facilities.
Of the completed projects, three of them comprise Dominion Energy’s Scott Solar facility, a 34-megawatt facility on 413 acres at 4325 Old Buckingham Road. The county considers the plant to be two separate projects (Scott Solar I and Scott Solar II). The 12-megawatt battery storage facility on the same site is also considered a separate project.
The ordinance changes were approved unanimously by the board at its July 22 meeting. There was no public discussion on the matter.
Agenda materials for that same meeting didn’t reference the addition of solar facilities as a conditional use in Light Industrial areas, though that change was also approved by the board that day.
Solar has it’s advantages, but if you live anywhere near the thousands of acres that have been clear-cut to accommodate it, you have mixed feelings at best. For proof, drive south towards Surry and witness the litany of “no solar” signs in the front yards.
I advocate for requiring “decommissioning bonds” to be issued at the time of permits so that when these things reach their life expectancy in 20-30 years, there’s an automatic funding mechanism for restoring the land if the energy provider chooses not to replace the aged equipment.
Prime example “big brother” telling you what you can or can not do with your own land. Kinda like a HOA for farmers.
I was at a public meeting were someone tried to ask the planning commission to ban all electric car chargers inducing the tiny ones on the side of homes due to them looking ugly. But Powhatan County is still building tons of gas stations and vast empty parking lots.
I’ll hazard a guess neither you nor Carl live in Powhatan as we currently have multiple Solar “Farms” in operation. Prior to the County adopting “Solar Farm” criteria, Solar Farms attempted to develop on acreage which were Tree Farms – these generally are the largest tracts of land. Imagine taking a 3,000 Acre Tree Farm and requesting it be developed as 2,600 acres of solar mirrors. There’s nothing rural about that land use change, and landowners have a right to argue against that development / land use change! Powhatan now limits Solar Farms to 500 Acres with setback requirements etc.
I do live in Powhatan County. I do support solar farms but I think they do need to be limited in size. Such as the 32 acre 3 to 5 megawatt solar farm that was on a 150 acres that was rejected at the last Board of Supervisors meeting to me was a good fit for Powhatan due to it being next to a substation and was not to large. A 2,600 acre solar farm would make it 800 megawatts which would be rare https://www.virginiabusiness.com/article/charlotte-county-approves-va-s-largest-solar-farm/ The area covered by panels is around 2,700 acres The Chesterfield Town Center has 12… Read more »
The original submission by the Purcell Family was for the entirety of their Tree Farm on Cartersville Road (2942.26 Acres; parcel 013-16). That proposal was pulled when it was met by overwhelming local opposition; the County subsequently developed its Solar Farm Zoning Ordinance. Powhatan has done its fair share of SF’s; Chesterfield zoning requires them to go on land zoned Industrial, so Powhatan is now in agreement.
I think solar farms should get their own zoning map like Solar or S or Sun. But in Australia and in Germany it is not uncommon to have sheep or cows or goats walk among the solar panels and graze. I really think Powhatan should leave building solar farms open in case their is a energy shortage in that this is kind of like limiting a new energy source in a power scarce world. In that it would be nice to keep the tax revenue from the farms at the least. In that technically Powhatan County could house a 1,000… Read more »
How about forcing all the energy vacuums known as server farms, technology parks, etc. to build them on the roofs of their enormous sprawling warehouses