King George Board defers decision after hours of public comment on Gibson Solar project

The King George County Board of Supervisors opened a public hearing on April 2 on a special-exception permit for Gibson Solar LLC and OpenRoad Renewables to build a 134-megawatt solar energy facility on about 890 acres in the Shiloh District, then voted to defer a final decision until June.

Supporters and opponents packed the boardroom for more than four hours of comment. OpenRoad representatives described the project as a utility-scale facility designed to remain zoned agricultural, include a sheep-grazing operation beneath panels, and place hundreds of acres under deed restrictions they described as permanent conservation. "Gibson Solar is a 134-megawatt solar project," project presenter Ryan Gilchrist told the board, adding the company intends to use terrain-following racking, avoid wetlands, and record deed restrictions on purchased parcels.

The project team said roughly 1,300 acres would be purchased and restricted to agricultural/forestry uses and roughly 890 acres would host arrays and grazing. OpenRoad emphasized mitigation measures in a conditional permit package that includes setbacks, a five-year landscaping surety and requirements for decommissioning surety and stormwater controls; the draft conditions are included in Ordinance O-425 in the board packet.

Opponents — including many nearby residents and dozens who submitted written signatures — said the scale, fragmentation across 48 parcels, and potential impacts on creeks, wildlife corridors, historic resources and rural character outweighed the project's benefits. Public commenters raised concerns about erosion and sediment control, herbicide use, wildlife impacts, road upgrades, lighting and safety, the durability of landscape bonding, and the enforceability of proposed deed restrictions when parcels are leased rather than purchased.

OpenRoad and its co-founder Mike Volpe answered detailed technical and contractual questions. The company said it would place a decommissioning surety before construction and was willing to work with the county on additional conditions and a siting agreement that could include voluntary payments to the county. The project team also presented a grazing plan and said grazing would be the primary method of vegetation control within five years of commercial operation. Contracted grazer Chelsea Trainer described plans to rotate sheep across paddocks and said the arrangement would help create an agricultural revenue stream for a younger farmer.

Board members pressed about outreach, enforcement and long-term commitments. Planning staff noted the Planning Commission had forwarded the application with a 5–4 favorable recommendation and that the zoning code allows utility-scale solar by special exception in A-1 and A-2 districts subject to the performance standards and the draft conditions. County and state permitting agencies (DEQ and DCR) were identified as part of environmental reviews; the Tri-County Soil & Water Conservation District submitted a formal policy statement for the record urging caution on erosion controls for utility-scale arrays.

After hearing more than an hour of public comment, and receiving follow-up questions from supervisors about conservation guarantees, road upgrades and repair, emergency-response training funding, stormwater monitoring and long-term monitoring of soil health, the board voted to defer action. The board also deferred consideration of the project's draft siting (signing) agreement to the June meeting so staff, the applicant and neighbors could continue outreach and supply additional technical detail.

The applicant offered to hold additional informal community meetings and to provide more detailed cost and bonding information for landscaping, decommissioning and emergency-response support if the board requested it. Planning staff said that any final permit, if approved, would carry binding conditions and that the board could alter or add conditions before adoption.

The board will take up the special-exception permit and the related siting agreement at a future public meeting in June; staff and the applicant were directed to continue outreach and provide additional written technical material on stormwater, soils testing, fencing/lighting and deed restrictions.

Why this matters: The project is among the largest proposed solar facilities in the county to date and raises trade-offs between long-term conservation claims, new local revenue streams, and the concerns of surrounding residents, especially where projects cross many small ownership parcels.

Next steps: The applicant will supply additional technical information and host further community outreach. The board will re-open the public hearing in June and consider any revised conditions or a siting agreement before voting.