Think twice before turning our countryside into a solar field
In Fincastle and across Botetourt County, many of us are concerned about clean energy— not because we oppose progress, but because we’ve seen what happens when big energy companies move faster than small communities can keep up. We’re told that “going green” is always good. But when corporate developers like New Leaf Energy show up promising profit, we need to look beyond the sales pitch and ask: who really benefits, and who bears the risk
Why it matters here.
Botetourt County, with just over 34,000 residents spread across our rolling hills and farms, represents one of Virginia’s most beautiful rural communities.
But the very landscapes that define us— our farmland, our pastures, our forest edges— are now being targeted for industrial-scale solar farms. Once you pave over good soil, cut roads for maintenance trucks, and install miles of panel racks, that land won’t go back to agriculture easily.
The danger to local landowners:
One of the least discussed risks of large solar projects lies in how they recruit landowners. Companies like New Leaf Energy often approach property owners with glossy brochures and friendly representatives, offering long-term lease payments that sound too good to pass up. But behind the sales pitch are complex contracts filled with loopholes and long-term obligations that can leave families vulnerable.
Here’s what’s really happening:
Leases can run 25-40 years, often longer than a mortgage— and many allow the company to transfer ownership to another developer without the landowner’s consent.
If the company goes bankrupt or sells the project, the new owner inherits the rights, but not necessarily the same obligations.
Some contracts give developers control over access roads, fencing, and even trees and water features— with limited recourse for the landowner.
Cleanup or decommissioning is often not fully guaranteed. If the panels stop working or the market shifts, a landowner could be left with hundreds of metal racks and broken glass to remove at their own expense.
Many local farmers and retirees are told these leases are “safe, guaranteed income.” But the truth is: if the company folds or walks away, the landowner is the one left holding the liability.
Profit shouldn’t come at the expense of permanent loss of property value and generational control of family land.
Other red flags:
Land-use trade-offs: solar farms need hundreds of acres of flat land— exactly the kind of terrain used for farming and grazing.
Decommissioning: panels last 25-30 years; contracts rarely guarantee full removal or soil restoration.
Degradation & performance: solar panels lose 0.5-1 % efficiency per year, meaning revenue drops even while leases stay fixed.
External ownership: companies like New Leaf often sell their projects to out-of-state investment funds once built— leaving local communities with no voice.
Hidden infrastructure costs: power-line extensions, road upgrades, and drainage modifications often fall on local governments or taxpayers.
What Fincastle and Botetourt must demand:
Before granting any permit or signing any lease, we should require:
Full environmental and land-use impact studies, publicly released before approval.
Transparent lease and ownership terms, reviewed by independent counsel— not company lawyers.
Performance and decommissioning bonds so taxpayers and landowners aren’t left with cleanup costs.
Local benefit agreements, including guaranteed tax revenue and fair-wage jobs for residents.
Strict limits on land transfers, so property owners aren’t blindsided by new operators years later.
Final thought:
Being concerned about clean energy means protecting our people, not rejecting progress. When a corporation like New Leaf Energy promises “green profits,” landowners must read the fine print— and county leaders must ensure no one signs away their heritage for a short-term check.
Clean energy is only clean if it’s honest, transparent, and locally accountable. Let’s keep Botetourt green the right way— by standing guard over our land, our people, and our future.
Chad Bean
Fincastle
Concerns regarding the proposed solar farm on Route 220
I am writing to express serious concern about the proposed New Leaf Energy solar farm on Route 220, located at Parcel 73-157 and owned by Erryn and Virginia Barkett. According to Botetourt County parcel data and public planning information, this site lies in a residential and agricultural area that would be directly affected by large-scale solar development.
While I understand and support the broader goal of renewable energy, this specific location raises significant concerns for nearby residents. The proposed site could impact seven to ten adjoining properties and potentially many more homes in the immediate vicinity. Large solar installations can permanently alter the rural landscape, increase surface runoff, and reduce property values for those living nearby.
It is also disappointing that this project is not proposed for the Barkett family’s historic 86.9-acre Mill Creek property, but instead on a parcel in a more populated section of the county. This choice gives the appearance that financial gain is being prioritized over neighborhood well being. The irony is that the property owners have invested in several local businesses that rely on community support, including 1772 Rooftop on Main (18 S. Roanoke Street), Compass Capital Investments (10 W. Main Street), The Pie Shoppe (18 S. Roanoke Street), and farm or event ventures on Parcel 75-134 along Lee Highway. If they truly value this community as patrons and business owners, they should demonstrate the same respect and consideration for their neighbors that they expect from their customers.
Our community has long valued cooperation and mutual respect among neighbors. We welcome responsible development, but only when it balances progress with preservation. This proposal threatens both the scenic character of the Route 220 corridor and the sense of trust that defines our rural community.
I urge New Leaf Energy and county officials to explore alternative locations— areas zoned for commercial or industrial use, or existing structures and parking lots— where solar panels could be installed without disturbing farmland or residential neighborhoods. Solar power should be part of our energy future, but placement matters.
Research consistently shows that residential properties closest to large-scale solar farms— especially within one mile— experience measurable declines in value.
A Virginia Tech study found homes within three miles of large solar sites saw an average 4.8 percent decrease in value, with the strongest effects for smaller lots under five acres.
An LSU Center for Energy Studies review found homes within 0.6 miles of rural or farmland installations showed a 1.5 to 5.8 percent decline in value, especially where panels were visible or caused glare.
These studies demonstrate real, data-driven risks for rural homeowners— risks that deserve careful consideration before any approval is granted.
Renewable energy should not come at the cost of rural beauty, local property values, and community harmony. I respectfully urge the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission to review the potential impacts of this project thoroughly and ensure that all affected property owners have a fair opportunity to voice their concerns.
Brandy M. O’Keefe
Buchanan
