Planning commission recommends disapproval of Columbia Road solar farm rezoning after public opposition

At its Sept. 4 meeting, the Columbia County Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend disapproval of a rezoning request (RZ25-0903) that would have rezoned two parcels off Columbia Road from Planned Unit Development to S-1 (special) to allow a utility-scale solar facility. Planning staff recommended denial, citing the county’s Vision 2035 future development plan and the site’s location on a major roadway.

Danielle, planning staff, told commissioners the site sits on a major road in a developing residential and commercial area and that “for most intents and purposes, [a] utility-scale solar facility like this is effectively an industrial use,” adding that industrial uses adjacent to residential typically require a 40-foot buffer; staff recommended disapproval but offered a recommended condition requiring wider buffers if the commission were inclined to approve.

Applicant representative Warren Kritko, identifying himself as representing Bijan Solar LLC, said the project team had increased the setback to 200 feet from Columbia Road and proposed planting and fencing to reduce visibility: “we're more than happy to comply with the staff report, recommendations.” Kritko also said Georgia Power has capacity at this location to accept the facility’s output.

Multiple neighbors and other residents urged denial during public comment. Mark Abels said he supported renewable energy in general but that the county must plan responsibly and cited concerns about maintenance, storm damage and cybersecurity risks; he told commissioners he had photos showing downed trees and blocked creek flow near his property. Brenda Heitman and other speakers cited studies and news reports they said indicate damaged panels can release hazardous materials, and expressed worry about runoff into nearby creeks and effects on Patriot’s Park. Other commenters raised concerns about visual impacts, electromagnetic fields and long-term decommissioning costs.

Planning staff noted the site is in the county’s neighborhood character area, which envisions low-density residential use, and that the parcel is adjacent to residential neighborhoods and a popular county park. Staff said the applicant had moved panels further back but nonetheless recommended disapproval. The commission voted to recommend denial; commissioners cited the site’s location on a main road, proximity to residential neighborhoods and unresolved concerns from public comment.

Discussion-only items included technical questions from commissioners and an offer from the applicant to meet buffering and screening conditions; no final county decision was made at the meeting. The commission’s recommendation will go to the Columbia County Board of Commissioners for final action on Sept. 16.