The Dinwiddie County Planning Commission on Oct. 8 recommended that the Board of Supervisors deny a rezoning request for a proposed 20-megawatt solar facility on part of an 890-acre parcel and also recommended denial of the project’s conditional use permit.

County planning staff introduced rezoning case P‑25‑12 and said the applicant seeks to change roughly 308 acres from A‑2 (Agricultural General) to SED (Solar Energy District) to host a utility-scale photovoltaic facility. The applicant is DW Lou Jones LLC, an Ampliform subsidiary; Ampliform representatives described the project as a 20-megawatt facility with a 35-year operational life and said it would use about 245–308 acres of a single 890-acre parcel identified as tax map 55‑31.

The project team told the commission the facility would include fenced arrays, wildlife corridors, a 75-foot setback from the project boundary with an additional 25-foot vegetative buffer on the road frontage, and a decommissioning plan with financial security. Panel arrays would be fenced (6 feet topped with 1 foot of barbed wire) only around the arrays; panels themselves were described as roughly 10 feet tall with a conditional use permit maximum of 18 feet noted in staff conditions. The applicant said the panels do not contain cadmium and that a local Richmond recycler has capacity to process end‑of‑life panels.

Why it mattered: commissioners and many residents said the project raised questions about rural character, property values, visibility from Lou Jones Road, wildlife and potential impacts to downstream waterways. Dozens of residents spoke during a long public hearing, urging denial or stricter conditions; several urged the commission to require larger visual buffers and independent environmental review.

Supporting details and debate: planning staff summarized materials the applicant submitted: an economic study estimating about 12 direct construction jobs and three indirect jobs, roughly $892,000 in local wages and benefits during construction, and three revenue‑scenario estimates for county receipts over 35 years (applicant estimates ranged from about $2.2 million to $3.3 million cumulative under different ownership/tax scenarios, with one calculation of about $25,100 over 35 years noted in the staff packet that related to a specific local tax scenario). The applicant also reported a June 26, 2025 community meeting with seven attendees and a single written letter of support from a neighbor, Neil Farrell.

Residents and some commissioners questioned outreach, noting many neighbors said they had not been contacted directly. Speakers raised concerns about wetlands and a possible record of a suspected American pigtoe mussel downstream; the applicant and a consulting speaker said the recorded observation was about a mile downstream and not within the immediate disturbance area and that groundwater monitoring was proposed as a condition of approval. The applicant also said the facility would not include battery storage and described plans for training with local emergency responders.

Conditions and staff recommendations: staff provided a draft set of conditional use permit conditions that included: tying the permit to the submitted site plan and to any successor owners; requiring final studies (wetlands/stream delineation, Army Corps pre‑jurisdictional determinations, threatened and endangered species assessments, Phase I archaeological survey), site civil plans (grading, erosion and sediment control, stormwater), landscape plans with a 10‑year maintenance bond, a construction traffic management plan to be approved by VDOT, groundwater monitoring, annual compliance reviews, decommissioning plans with financial security and an annual or periodic revaluation mechanism for decommissioning costs.

Commission action and outcome: after public comment and commissioner discussion, Commissioner Hayes moved to recommend denial of rezoning case P‑25‑12; the motion passed with four members voting aye. The commission then considered conditional use permit C‑25‑6 and added two conditions requested during debate: (1) the county may require an independent third‑party environmental review of the applicant’s studies paid for by the applicant, and (2) the county must be notified and given the opportunity to review any change of project ownership (successors or assigns must comply with conditions). The commission voted to recommend denial of the CUP with those two added conditions.

What the recommendation means next: the Planning Commission’s votes were advisory; the Board of Supervisors will review the rezoning and conditional use permit at a future meeting and make the final decision.

Community next steps and open items: speakers and several commissioners asked for larger vegetative buffers along Lou Jones Road — some asked for 300–500 feet rather than the 75‑foot setback plus 25‑foot buffer shown — and for independent confirmation of the environmental survey results related to the mussel report and wetlands. The commission’s recommended denial and the requested independent review are likely to be part of the record the Board of Supervisors sees.