Strata Clean Energy’s zoning request tied to a proposed solar facility on 1,500 acres in Hanover was recently rejected by county supervisors. (BizSense file)
It looks like a massive solar farm proposed on a 1,500-acre site in northwestern Hanover won’t see the light of day.
County supervisors last week denied a zoning request for the project pitched by North Carolina-based Strata Clean Energy.
The 72-megawatt facility was planned to feature solar arrays on about 250 acres of the overall project site across multiple parcels north of the intersection of Beaver Dam and Ben Gayle roads and along the North Anna River.
While some supervisors said positive things about the project during last week’s vote, the entire seven-member board ultimately gave it the thumbs-down, following the lead of Supervisor Jeff Stoneman, who represents the Beaverdam district where the project was proposed.
Stoneman told Strata representatives at the meeting that while the project was in line with the county’s solar development guidelines and was responsive to public feedback, he couldn’t support the project because he felt it wasn’t a good fit for his rural district.
“You’ve done a lot to address a lot of the situations our citizens have brought to you and I can appreciate that. As far as our solar policy is concerned, you checked a lot of the boxes there. But if that were the end of the story, we’d be done here,” Stoneman said. “Beaverdam is just a different place. It’s rural. It’s got a character to it that people are very proud of.”
Supervisor Faye Prichard said she felt the project was an alternative to more residential development, but she wasn’t inclined to vote against the representative of the district where the project would be built.
“I’ve been doing local land planning for 23 years. The most frequent thing I’m ever asked is, ‘Please don’t turn Hanover into Henrico or Chesterfield. Please don’t build more houses.’ … But when we come up with alternatives that don’t put houses there, ‘Well, we don’t want those either,’” Prichard said. “I am going to support the Beaverdam supervisor’s motion because I don’t vote against people in their district unless I got a really good reason.”
Similarly, Supervisor Sean Davis was disinclined to vote differently than Stoneman, but expressed concerns that a rejection of the Strata project potentially leaves the door open to residential development on the property. The wooded project site is zoned agricultural (A-1), which allows the construction of single-family, detached homes as a by-right use.
Supervisor Susan Dibble said she felt the project had merits, but worried that measures intended to prevent the development from having negative effects on the river weren’t adequate.
“To those of us who live in western Hanover, the North Anna River is our identity. It means a lot to us,” she said. “While this particular project checks a lot of boxes for me, … I think we need to pump the brakes on anything in the vicinity of our North Anna River and make sure the calculations for erosion control are good and adequate. In my humble opinion, I just don’t think we’re there yet.”
A Hanover staff report stated that the project, dubbed the North Anna River Solar facility, appeared to be in line with the county’s land-use, transportation and solar policies.
In a statement to BizSense this week, Strata said it was disappointed with the board’s vote on the project. The company said its proposal had public support and stood to provide an economic boost in Hanover.
“We submitted to Hanover County a model solar project, with tremendous local support. The project fully complied with Hanover County’s policy, ordinance, and comprehensive plan and would have provided Economic Development revenue for all of Hanover County,” the company’s statement read in part. “The project had support from many of the Board Members, but ultimately, they chose to support the District Supervisor who made the motion to deny the project.”
Strata says it is now evaluating what its next steps might be for the project, and did not elaborate on what was being considered.
Strata Clean Energy’s final version of its solar project proposal featured fewer acres of solar arrays and increased setbacks from the North Anna River. (County documents)
Following a Planning Commission meeting in July where commissioners voted to recommend denial of the project, Strata trimmed the number of acres where solar arrays would be installed to about 250, down from 342 acres in an earlier plan.
The company also increased the setbacks to 750 feet from a previous plan of 500 feet from the North Anna River.
Strata additionally eliminated plans to build arrays along Ancient Acres Road. Though fewer acres would have featured solar arrays, the plan was to build taller structures to maintain a capacity of 72 megawatts.
Over a 35-year period, the development would have generated an estimated $8.8 million in machinery and tools taxes for the county, as well as $4.8 million in real estate taxes, Morgan Quicke of Strata told the board last week.
Strata also planned to pay $1.7 million directly to Hanover as part of the project.
More than a dozen people spoke in opposition to Strata’s project during the public comment period at last week’s hearing. They voiced concern about the development’s effects on local wildlife and its environmental impacts.
About 10 people spoke in favor of the project at the meeting, and Strata said that more than 50 county residents had submitted letters of support.
Strata said it held six community meetings to discuss the project since April and had conducted a door-knocking outreach campaign. The company said it intended to take steps to minimize environmental impacts and would have left most of the project site undisturbed.
The Hanover project wouldn’t have been Strata’s first project in the region. The firm, founded in 2008, built Dominion Energy’s Dry Bridge Battery Energy Storage System facility in Chesterfield as well as the Scott Solar facility in Powhatan and Correctional Solar facility in New Kent, both of which are owned by Dominion.
The Hanover board’s rejection of the solar project followed its approval earlier this year of a 1,200-acre data center project outside Ashland. Meanwhile, a legal battle over a rejected apartments development in Hanover is headed to state appeals court.
Strata Clean Energy’s zoning request tied to a proposed solar facility on 1,500 acres in Hanover was recently rejected by county supervisors. (BizSense file)
It looks like a massive solar farm proposed on a 1,500-acre site in northwestern Hanover won’t see the light of day.
County supervisors last week denied a zoning request for the project pitched by North Carolina-based Strata Clean Energy.
The 72-megawatt facility was planned to feature solar arrays on about 250 acres of the overall project site across multiple parcels north of the intersection of Beaver Dam and Ben Gayle roads and along the North Anna River.
While some supervisors said positive things about the project during last week’s vote, the entire seven-member board ultimately gave it the thumbs-down, following the lead of Supervisor Jeff Stoneman, who represents the Beaverdam district where the project was proposed.
Stoneman told Strata representatives at the meeting that while the project was in line with the county’s solar development guidelines and was responsive to public feedback, he couldn’t support the project because he felt it wasn’t a good fit for his rural district.
“You’ve done a lot to address a lot of the situations our citizens have brought to you and I can appreciate that. As far as our solar policy is concerned, you checked a lot of the boxes there. But if that were the end of the story, we’d be done here,” Stoneman said. “Beaverdam is just a different place. It’s rural. It’s got a character to it that people are very proud of.”
Supervisor Faye Prichard said she felt the project was an alternative to more residential development, but she wasn’t inclined to vote against the representative of the district where the project would be built.
“I’ve been doing local land planning for 23 years. The most frequent thing I’m ever asked is, ‘Please don’t turn Hanover into Henrico or Chesterfield. Please don’t build more houses.’ … But when we come up with alternatives that don’t put houses there, ‘Well, we don’t want those either,’” Prichard said. “I am going to support the Beaverdam supervisor’s motion because I don’t vote against people in their district unless I got a really good reason.”
Similarly, Supervisor Sean Davis was disinclined to vote differently than Stoneman, but expressed concerns that a rejection of the Strata project potentially leaves the door open to residential development on the property. The wooded project site is zoned agricultural (A-1), which allows the construction of single-family, detached homes as a by-right use.
Supervisor Susan Dibble said she felt the project had merits, but worried that measures intended to prevent the development from having negative effects on the river weren’t adequate.
“To those of us who live in western Hanover, the North Anna River is our identity. It means a lot to us,” she said. “While this particular project checks a lot of boxes for me, … I think we need to pump the brakes on anything in the vicinity of our North Anna River and make sure the calculations for erosion control are good and adequate. In my humble opinion, I just don’t think we’re there yet.”
A Hanover staff report stated that the project, dubbed the North Anna River Solar facility, appeared to be in line with the county’s land-use, transportation and solar policies.
In a statement to BizSense this week, Strata said it was disappointed with the board’s vote on the project. The company said its proposal had public support and stood to provide an economic boost in Hanover.
“We submitted to Hanover County a model solar project, with tremendous local support. The project fully complied with Hanover County’s policy, ordinance, and comprehensive plan and would have provided Economic Development revenue for all of Hanover County,” the company’s statement read in part. “The project had support from many of the Board Members, but ultimately, they chose to support the District Supervisor who made the motion to deny the project.”
Strata says it is now evaluating what its next steps might be for the project, and did not elaborate on what was being considered.
Strata Clean Energy’s final version of its solar project proposal featured fewer acres of solar arrays and increased setbacks from the North Anna River. (County documents)
Following a Planning Commission meeting in July where commissioners voted to recommend denial of the project, Strata trimmed the number of acres where solar arrays would be installed to about 250, down from 342 acres in an earlier plan.
The company also increased the setbacks to 750 feet from a previous plan of 500 feet from the North Anna River.
Strata additionally eliminated plans to build arrays along Ancient Acres Road. Though fewer acres would have featured solar arrays, the plan was to build taller structures to maintain a capacity of 72 megawatts.
Over a 35-year period, the development would have generated an estimated $8.8 million in machinery and tools taxes for the county, as well as $4.8 million in real estate taxes, Morgan Quicke of Strata told the board last week.
Strata also planned to pay $1.7 million directly to Hanover as part of the project.
More than a dozen people spoke in opposition to Strata’s project during the public comment period at last week’s hearing. They voiced concern about the development’s effects on local wildlife and its environmental impacts.
About 10 people spoke in favor of the project at the meeting, and Strata said that more than 50 county residents had submitted letters of support.
Strata said it held six community meetings to discuss the project since April and had conducted a door-knocking outreach campaign. The company said it intended to take steps to minimize environmental impacts and would have left most of the project site undisturbed.
The Hanover project wouldn’t have been Strata’s first project in the region. The firm, founded in 2008, built Dominion Energy’s Dry Bridge Battery Energy Storage System facility in Chesterfield as well as the Scott Solar facility in Powhatan and Correctional Solar facility in New Kent, both of which are owned by Dominion.
The Hanover board’s rejection of the solar project followed its approval earlier this year of a 1,200-acre data center project outside Ashland. Meanwhile, a legal battle over a rejected apartments development in Hanover is headed to state appeals court.
Nothing new here: Hanover‘s Board voting against its best interest. Development will happen as the region grows and a solar farm would help keep the area rural.
Nothing that goes into the manufacture and frequent replacement of panels is clean. If they placed the panels on the roofs of all the mega gas stations in the area there would be no need to eat up farmland.
This wouldn’t work. The sad but obvious truth is individual solar installations don’t make financial sense. The average person can’t do the math but Dominion can.
What does make sense is 100s of acres next to a transmission line or substation or such. The latter matters, and I’m sure is why Beaverdam was chosen.
Personally, I’ve seen these in rural areas and they are great. Put a buffer around it and no one knows it’s there. Ridiculous this was denied
I have a house in Surry, and I would say 99% of my neighbors would disagree. These things are ugly as sin, resembling a prison yard with chain link fence and razor wire. The fields are a sea of gravel that has oftentimes replaced exquisite natural beauty. They often have the thinest of buffers. And they go on forever. Take a look at Google Earth and compare them to say the city of Hopewell. They are 10 or 20x that size or more. They take an ecosystem of plants, animals and insects and replace it with a sterile monoculture. People… Read more »
Thumbs up to for the denial of the solar project in Hanover County. If it had been built what would take place after the 35 year life cycle of the solar panels ended? Solar panels have toxic chemicals , and disposal of solar panels needs to be addressed everywhere. Being so close to the river would make the abandoned panels that much more vulnerable, in fact, as the recent flooding due to hurricane Helene points out a major event along the river could be catastrophic!
This is not a good point. I imagine they would be replaced after they failed, as that is what makes the most financial sense. And I’m pretty sure the phone or computer this was typed on is far worse for environmental disposal than a glass and metal solar panel. Per the DOE 85% of a solar panel is glass and aluminum
So Hanover votes to approve a speculative data center complex and then votes against a way to power it in a cleaner method than fossil fuels. Got it.
I really have no strong opinion on the solar farm either way but the last I read it said when fully built out the proposed data center park could need 2400MW of power. This solar project is 72MW, to fully power all those data centers in this one development you would need 50,000 acres of solar based on the math of this project being 1500 acres. I applaud the goal of a grid of truly green power however solar and wind are not going to be the total solution and that’s IF you can get them permitted.
If you agree with the project or not, but have an adopted solar policy and guidelines for such a use, how do you deny it on such an ambiguous statement or reason?
Politics.
Insanity.
Sorry—but development is ongoing all around the Richmond area. It sucks. But to pull the plug on passive energy production seems short-sighted. Residential run off of fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, and automotive and other pollutants would be worse.
Bless your heart Hanover. I get that you want to keep rural areas rural. Reserving land from home development does that. A quiet, clean, money-making solar farm fits the bill. Only a matter of time before part or all of this is a not-as-clean, not as-quiet, cookie cutter subdivision in a few decades.
Put down your phones. Stop posting egomaniacal photos on Instagram. Learn how to write, and to think… critically.
You won’t need “data” centers, AI, or more of the chicken that is coming before the egg that is driving energy consumption.
Park your cars, turn off your furnaces, stop ordering things from overseas, stop using electricity. Then you won’t need fossil fuels, and you can make America great again like it was in 1800. That’s a reasonable request to make of a society that’s completely dependent on that technology.
but yet, here you are posting on a phone or computer and driving up the use of data centers…
I don’t oppose them myself. I think data centers are great. And I certainly realize I use them all day constantly in many ways, from phone to car to Alexa to computer etc etc, rather than pretending technology isn’t part of my life.
This is why I’m “from” western Hanover and no longer live there. It’s sadly a dying community with no interest in developing to prevent it’s slow and steady decay. Most people under 30 leave for a reason.
Same. I grew up in Hanover and I left as soon as I could due to the backwards mindset. Sadly I don’t have much hope for Hanover and seeing how the 301 corridor is growing like a weed without real planning confirms it.
Stoneman’s cavalry came and tore up the tracts again. Sorry, I couldn’t resist.