Solar proposals sparks broader debate over Botetourt’s future

By Matt de Simone

A proposal to build Botetourt County’s first utility-scale solar facility became about far more than renewable energy during the June 23 joint public hearing of the Botetourt County Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission.

By the end of the lengthy discussion that evening, supervisors unanimously denied OneEnergy Renewables’ application to construct a 2-megawatt shared solar facility along Catawba Road near Daleville. But the debate leading to that vote revealed competing visions for the county’s future, as officials, residents, and experts weighed renewable energy against farmland preservation, environmental stewardship, long-term planning, and the county’s rural character.

According to the meeting’s agenda packet, the proposal called for a utility-scale solar facility on approximately 20.7 acres located about 2.6 miles from the intersection of Catawba Road and U.S. 220. Roughly 9.5 acres would have housed about 3,800 solar panels participating in Appalachian Power’s Shared Solar Program, allowing subscribers to receive credits on their electric bills without installing solar panels on their own properties.

OneEnergy representatives described the project as an example of “agrivoltaics,” an approach intended to combine solar energy production with continued agricultural use. Plans included sheep grazing beneath the panels, pollinator-friendly vegetation, and an onsite apiary.

“This site works because it preserves the rural and agricultural character of the county,” OneEnergy representative Alyssa Miller told supervisors and planning commissioners on June 23. “Solar is a good, quiet neighbor.”

Company officials emphasized that less than half of the property would actually be occupied by the solar array. Existing vegetative buffers would remain in place, no permanent lighting was proposed, and the site would require little traffic after construction.

Planning staff reported that the application met the county’s current utility-scale solar ordinance, including requirements related to environmental studies, wildlife assessments, stormwater management, glint and glare analysis, and a professionally engineered decommissioning plan backed by financial assurances.

Technically, the proposal complied with the county’s existing regulations.

Whether those regulations were enough became the central question of the evening.

Throughout the hearing, Planning Commission members repeatedly stressed that they were not necessarily opposed to solar energy but questioned whether the county should approve its first utility-scale project before completing updates to its Comprehensive Plan and ongoing revisions to its solar ordinance.

Planning Commission member Mark Tyson questioned why some Virginia localities that previously embraced utility-scale solar have since adopted more restrictive policies.

“If it’s such a good and quiet neighbor,” Tyson asked, “why are other communities… actually retreating, going the other way?”

Tyson also raised concerns about erosion, runoff, long-term maintenance, decommissioning, and whether commitments made by today’s developer would necessarily be honored decades from now if ownership changed.

Planning Commission Chair Beth Leffel acknowledged that OneEnergy had addressed many concerns commonly associated with utility-scale solar proposals and praised the company’s effort to keep the property in agricultural use.

“I appreciate that you did present us with a well-thought plan,” Leffel remarked.

Still, she concluded that the county first needs clearer guidance identifying where utility-scale solar belongs.

“I think we need better guidelines as to where solar should go,” she added.

Planning Commissioner Steve Hartman echoed those concerns, saying he remained uncomfortable approving projects before revisions to the county’s long-range planning documents were complete. He also expressed concern after learning portions of the facility would be visible from at least one location along the Appalachian Trail.

The Planning Commission unanimously recommended denying both the commission permit and special exception permit. Minutes later, the Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted that recommendation, effectively ending the proposal.

The OneEnergy application was originally one of two utility-scale solar proposals scheduled for consideration that evening. A separate proposal submitted by Barkett Solar LLC for property near Fincastle was removed from the agenda before the hearing at the applicant’s request. County officials said the application could be resubmitted at a later date, meaning the Board of Supervisors’ vote applied only to the OneEnergy proposal.

Although the vote was unanimous, interviews conducted after the meeting suggest the broader debate is far from settled.

Mark Hanson, a Fincastle resident whose home has been powered by solar panels since 2008, viewed the decision as a missed opportunity but agreed the county should establish clearer policies before considering future projects.

“I think you probably should get guidelines,” Hanson explained. “To me, it seems obvious that we need solar, but to people who aren’t familiar with it, maybe they need some guidance.”

Hanson said his nearly two decades of experience with residential solar has given him confidence in the technology’s reliability and environmental benefits.

“I haven’t had any problems with them,” he recalled. “Our volunteer club has been putting them in for about 20 years, and they’ve been pretty reliable.”

For Hanson, one of the proposal’s greatest advantages involved Appalachian Power’s Shared Solar Program, which would allow apartment residents and homeowners whose properties are unsuitable for rooftop systems to subscribe to locally generated solar power.

“Community solar is good for people who live in apartments,” he noted. “They can offset their electric bills and benefit from clean energy.”

Hanson also challenged several concerns raised during the hearing. He dismissed claims that modern solar panels contaminate surrounding soil, noting the panels are sealed products, and argued that agrivoltaics demonstrates renewable energy and agriculture can coexist.

“That’s been done across the country,” he remarked. “They mix it with other uses.”

Questions about what happens decades into a project’s lifespan generated some of the evening’s longest discussion.

County officials questioned whether financial guarantees required today would remain adequate if ownership changed hands years later.

Hanson acknowledged relatively few utility-scale facilities have reached the end of their operational lives, making long-term data somewhat limited. However, he said many existing projects are upgraded with newer equipment rather than abandoned altogether.

“I’ve never heard of a solar farm just being abandoned,” Hanson said. “Usually they repower them.”

When asked about concerns that farmland could become unusable after decommissioning, Hanson questioned that assumption.

“I don’t see how the land would not be usable again,” he said. “If they’re removed, then you could use it again.”

Tom Williamson, a local farmer and environmental scientist who spoke against the proposal during the public hearing, agreed with Hanson on one point: the county needs clearer policies before approving utility-scale solar.

Where the two sharply diverged was over what those future policies should permit.

Williamson emphasized that his opposition is not rooted in opposition to renewable energy itself.

“It’s not that I’m against solar,” he explained. “It just needs to be done responsibly and in the right places.”

Like several planning commissioners, Williamson believes the county should complete revisions to its Comprehensive Plan and solar ordinance before considering utility-scale facilities. He argued that the proposal highlighted the need for clearer policies governing where such projects should be located and how agricultural land should be protected.

“I don’t think we have proper policies laid out yet for Botetourt County,” he said. “We haven’t really put enough thought into it or planning, and I think going into anything without proper planning is a horrible idea.”

Beyond planning, Williamson believes the proposed site itself presented environmental concerns. He described the property as highly erodible farmland and argued that installing a utility-scale facility there could increase runoff and accelerate soil loss.

“We’ve spent billions of dollars as a nation and hundreds of millions in Virginia trying to clean up our waterways,” Williamson observed. “Doing this would completely be going the other way.”

Drawing on his background in soil science, Williamson pointed to soil classifications developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, arguing portions of the site are already considered highly susceptible to erosion. He also disputed the applicant’s position that state-required stormwater controls would sufficiently address those concerns.

“I’m a soil scientist from Virginia Tech,” Williamson maintained. “They were wrong.”

OneEnergy representatives, however, told county officials the project had been engineered to comply with state stormwater regulations and maintained that permanent vegetative cover beneath the panels would reduce erosion while improving soil stability compared with some traditional agricultural practices. Planning staff likewise reported the proposal met the county’s existing stormwater requirements.

That disagreement reflected one of the hearing’s recurring themes.

Supporters and opponents frequently relied on different interpretations of the available information. In some cases, those differences centered on engineering or environmental studies. In others, they reflected fundamentally different views about acceptable long-term risk and how agricultural land should be managed.

The debate over decommissioning illustrated those differences as well.

Williamson questioned whether farmland could realistically be restored to its previous condition decades after construction, particularly if topsoil is disturbed during installation.

“If it takes 100 years for every inch of topsoil to regenerate,” he said, “the odds of this getting back to prime farmland again aren’t going to happen in our lifetimes– probably not our kids’ lifetimes.”

He also questioned what might happen if ownership of a facility changed multiple times or if a future company became financially unable to meet its restoration obligations.

“Money’s got to come from somewhere,” Williamson said.

Hanson acknowledged that some long-term questions remain simply because utility-scale solar is still a relatively young industry.

“I guess it’s hard to say that far out because it hasn’t happened yet,” he said of large-scale decommissioning.

Despite reaching very different conclusions, both men recognized that some of the issues debated during the hearing have yet to be fully answered by decades of real-world experience.

That uncertainty also surfaced repeatedly during the public hearing.

Planning commissioners praised portions of OneEnergy’s proposal while simultaneously concluding that the county should first establish clearer policies before approving utility-scale solar facilities. Leffel commended the company’s effort to preserve agricultural activity through agrivoltaics. Tyson acknowledged that Botetourt’s ordinance already contains safeguards– including setbacks, stormwater requirements, and decommissioning provisions– that exceed standards adopted by some Virginia localities years ago.

Even so, commissioners ultimately concluded that approving the county’s first utility-scale solar project before completing updates to the Comprehensive Plan would be premature.

Public comments reflected many of the same themes.

Some residents expressed support for renewable energy but urged officials to determine appropriate locations before approving projects. Others questioned potential impacts to farmland and the environment, while supporters emphasized the need to diversify Virginia’s energy portfolio and expand access to locally generated renewable power.

In the end, the discussion was less about whether solar energy has a place in Botetourt County than where– and under what conditions– it should be developed.

That distinction may ultimately prove to be the hearing’s lasting takeaway.

Although Hanson believes the county should encourage additional renewable energy development and Williamson hopes future regulations place tighter limits on where utility-scale facilities may be built, both agreed clearer guidance would benefit applicants, elected officials, and residents alike.

County officials are already working toward that goal through updates to the Comprehensive Plan and proposed revisions to the county’s solar ordinance. Those efforts are expected to provide more specific guidance on where utility-scale solar facilities may be appropriate, how agricultural land should be protected, and what standards future applicants will be expected to meet.

Whether those revisions ultimately make future projects easier or more difficult to approve remains to be seen.

What appears certain is that the unanimous denial of OneEnergy’s proposal did not end Botetourt County’s conversation about utility-scale solar. Instead, it marked the beginning of a broader discussion over how the county balances renewable energy, private property rights, environmental stewardship, farmland preservation, and long-term planning as it charts its future.