File photo
The Botetourt County Planning Commission is asking for more time to review proposed changes to the county’s regulations governing solar energy facilities, with commissioners raising questions about agricultural land, site restoration, financial assurances, and how much local control remains under recent changes to Virginia law.
At its Aug. 10 meeting, the commission unanimously recommended denial of the current proposed zoning amendments and supported seeking an extension of the timeline for completing its review. The action does not prohibit solar facilities in Botetourt County. Instead, commissioners said they were not comfortable approving the draft after having limited time to review it.
The proposed amendments were developed after the Board of Supervisors authorized the Planning Commission in May to consider changes to the county’s zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan concerning solar facilities. County staff said the commission was working under a 100-day deadline and that Aug. 10 represented the end of that period.
Planner Jon McCoy recommended that the commission deny the amendments so the county could seek additional time to continue the work.
Recent changes to Virginia law are driving much of the proposed rewrite. The changes require localities to adjust their regulations concerning solar facilities and limit local authority over some aspects of solar development.
Among the changes are new classifications for solar facilities. Under the proposed regulations, utility-scale facilities would be those generating more than 1 megawatt for primarily off-site use, while minor-scale facilities would be more than 20 kilowatts and up to 1 megawatt. Small-scale facilities would be 20 kilowatts or less.
State law also affects development standards such as panel height, vegetative buffers, and battery storage. Battery energy storage associated with a solar facility is now permitted as a by-right accessory use under the circumstances outlined by state law.
While some of the proposed changes are required by the state, the draft also contains restrictions requested by the county.
Those include prohibiting minor- and utility-scale ground-mounted solar facilities on federally designated prime farmland and preventing solar equipment and fencing from being placed on highly erodible or potentially highly erodible land. The proposal also addresses wildlife movement, vegetation buffers, and community meetings for prospective solar projects.
The commission spent considerable time discussing what happens after a solar facility is no longer operating.
Commissioner Mark Tyson questioned whether the county could establish a defined operating period for solar facilities, potentially limiting them to 15 or 20 years before requiring removal and restoration.
Tyson also raised concerns about the cost of restoring agricultural land decades after a solar facility is constructed. He suggested establishing a baseline record of soil conditions before construction, including soil samples, so the county would have a way to determine whether the land had been returned to its previous condition.
County officials said existing regulations already require financial assurances for decommissioning. Under the proposed language, the surety would be based on a professional engineer’s estimate of the cost of removing the facility and restoring the property, plus an additional 10% for administrative costs, inflation, and potential damage to roads and utilities. The financial assurance would remain in place until the county verifies that the site has been restored and would follow the facility or property through ownership changes.
Commissioners nevertheless questioned whether the existing requirements would be sufficient if restoration costs prove substantially higher than anticipated.
The discussion also turned to the process used to develop the proposed ordinance.
Tyson and other commissioners said they wanted a clearer breakdown of which provisions in the draft are mandated by state law and which remain within the county’s control. The commission asked staff to prepare that information before its next work session.
At one point, Tyson attempted to have local farmer and crop and soil scientist Tom Williamson participate in the discussion as an invited expert rather than simply as a member of the public. Tyson made a motion to allow Williamson to provide his credentials and answer questions from commissioners, but the motion failed for lack of a second.
Williamson later spoke during the public hearing and discussed the importance of soil protections and the county’s agricultural land. He said he believed the proposed restrictions on prime farmland and highly erodible soils provided a strong foundation but could be strengthened.
Several residents also spoke during the public hearing, generally supporting additional restrictions on large-scale solar facilities. Speakers raised concerns about farmland, erosion, wildlife, scenic views, decommissioning, and the possibility of placing solar installations on existing buildings or parking areas instead of agricultural land.
The commission ultimately agreed that additional time was necessary.
Commissioners plan to individually review the proposed amendments and submit comments to county staff before a dedicated work session scheduled for Sept. 14. An additional work session is anticipated in October, and commissioners discussed the possibility of a public survey or other opportunities for community input.
The county will ask the Board of Supervisors to extend the commission’s deadline. The goal is to continue working on the solar zoning regulations alongside the comprehensive plan amendments before bringing a revised proposal forward for consideration.
The proposed comprehensive plan language itself says solar facilities should be carefully sited to preserve rural character, with preferences for rooftops, parking lots, brownfields, and previously developed areas, while discouraging facilities on prime agricultural farmland, sensitive wildlife habitat, and scenic areas.
The commission’s Aug. 10 action therefore leaves the county’s solar regulations in a holding pattern while commissioners determine what additional protections can legally be added and how those provisions should work alongside the new state requirements.
~ Fincastle Herald staff report
