Two proposed solar site agreements split board 3-3; motions fail after neighbors raise buffer, drainage concerns

The Henry County Board of Supervisors deadlocked on Aug. 26 over siting agreements for two solar projects in the Ridgeway district, voting 3-3 on motions to approve each agreement; under county practice, a tie vote caused both motions to fail.

County staff said Firebird Solar LLC proposed installment payments totaling $75,000 if the site is fully developed; the agreement was advertised in the local newspaper as required by state law. Developer representatives said their company had obtained land-use approvals and expected to develop the site but that some construction details — including access and interconnection locations — had been the subject of private negotiations with property owners and a local church.

Ed Sweitzer, a developer representative with Catalyze, said his firm is a fully integrated renewable-energy company and that the project team had secured necessary engineering approvals. "We currently have 225 megawatts of projects in operation in seven states," he said during the public hearing and noted the team had obtained stormwater approval from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.

Three neighbors who live adjacent to or near the proposed sites told the board they had not received neighborhood notice in forms they expected and raised concerns about buffers, tree clearing, winter visibility and drainage. Sam Brannigan, a landowner directly adjacent to the project area, said the developer had previously left a 90-foot buffer but that tree clearing three years earlier had left the house line visible in winter; he asked the company and the county to ensure "substantial" screening so his family would not face a direct view of the solar array.

Paul Nicholson, another long-term resident, said he is downstream of the proposed site and said past heavy rains had caused flooding near the church and neighborhood. He urged the board to consider drainage and water impacts when reviewing any permit or siting agreement.

County staff confirmed that the County advertised the siting agreements in the newspaper (the code does not require posting signs for siting agreements) and that the planning/zoning approvals and the siting agreements are separate processes. A county staff member explained that private agreements between developers and property owners or churches about interconnection paths are possible but are not part of the county’s siting-agreement packet.

Supervisor Pruitt moved to approve the Firebird siting agreement; the motion resulted in a 3-3 tie and failed. The board then held a separate public hearing on a second siting agreement for Thunderbird Solar LLC; the developer reiterated that DEQ stormwater approval had been granted for that project as well. Supervisor Pruitt moved to approve the Thunderbird siting agreement; that motion also resulted in a 3-3 tie and failed.

Because neither siting agreement passed, developers may need to return with revised agreements, additional mitigation measures or pursue other administrative steps; county staff said applicants retain the right to pursue approved land-use permits but the siting agreements — which can set local payment schedules and other conditions — require board approval to take effect.

The board did not take further action on either agreement during the meeting; staff noted that the Code of Virginia governs advertising and availability requirements for siting agreements and that siting agreements are separate from zoning special-use permits.