Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public hearing held on 39-acre, 4.8 MW solar special exception on Pomona Road; planning commission split
Summary
The board heard a public hearing on a five‑year special exception for a 39‑acre solar facility on Pomona Road (case 2503SC‑03). Applicants offered verbal proffers and a decommissioning bond but have not provided binding, written proffers; the planning commission vote was split.
The Westmoreland County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing April 14 on a special-exception application (case 2503SC‑03) seeking a five‑year permit for a mounted solar facility covering 39 acres of a 231.81‑acre parcel along Pomona Road and Longfield Road.
Staff described the proposal as a ground-mounted solar facility sized up to 4.8 megawatts, with power to be sold to Dominion Energy. The applicant designed the project area to avoid mapped wetlands and wetlands soils, staff said; soils in and around the project were presented as a mix of prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance and wet soils where drainage or hydrology is present.
County staff said the applicant verbally offered a payment proffer of $1,600 per megawatt (totaling $7,680 annually at 4.8 MW) and estimated the facility would raise annual tax revenue to roughly $9,877 from $549 for the unimproved parcel (a projected increase of $9,328 annually). Staff also noted the applicant estimated roughly 25 full-time construction jobs during the build phase. Staff cautioned proffer details in the application were not signed and provided as verbal commitments during review.
Planning commission members visiting the site split evenly on a recommendation; an initial motion to approve failed for lack of a second, and a later motion to deny produced a tied 2–2 vote with one commissioner absent. Staff said the application was considered consistent with the county comprehensive plan’s 2232 review but that the planning commission had no decisive recommendation.
During board discussion the county attorney asked whether the proffers and decommissioning bond had been submitted as binding conditions. Staff said the proffer amounts and a decommissioning bond had been discussed and appear in the applicant’s executive summary, but that no signed, binding proffer instrument or decommissioning bond language appears in the materials before the board. The attorney noted that if the board wishes to approve with binding commitments, those terms should be placed in either conditions or signed proffers that are recorded with the approval.
The hearing closed for staff and applicant presentations; the board made no final decision at the April meeting and will consider conditions or proffers in a future action if the applicant submits binding terms.
Ending: The board left the matter open for a later decision pending submission of signed proffers or conditions addressing decommissioning and other protections.
