Planning Commission denies Green Bay solar special‑use permit, citing lack of substantial accord with current plan

The Prince Edward County Planning Commission recommended denial of the Green Bay Solar Farm special‑use permit, finding that the proposed 5‑megawatt project is not substantially in accord with the county’s existing comprehensive plan. Commissioners cited concerns about site selection, downstream watershed impacts and the timing of comprehensive‑plan revision; the commission’s vote was recorded as a denial and the record will be transmitted as part of the public record.

The Green Bay application, submitted by CEP Solar, proposes a 5 MW facility sited on two parcels near the intersection of Route 360 (Patrick Henry Highway) and Cheatham Road (Route 694). Staff summarized the project as approximately 67.8 acres of parcel area with a buildable area of about 58 acres; the applicant said the preliminary design anticipates roughly 39 acres of panels and 29 acres of setbacks, buffers and wildlife corridors. The applicant emphasized berms along Route 360, vegetative buffers and pollinator seed mixes as visual and environmental mitigation.

Why it matters: the Planning Commission’s determination that the project is not in substantial accord means the commission recommended denial; the applicant may appeal the decision or take the matter to the Board of Supervisors. Commissioners noted the county’s comprehensive plan does not yet address solar explicitly and said that until the plan is updated they were reluctant to find substantial accord for this site selection.

Applicant presentation and technical points: CEP Solar reiterated that the facility would tie into existing distribution lines without a substation and that it expects to follow DEQ and VDOT requirements for erosion control and entrance design. The applicant said there is no record in early database reviews of threatened or endangered species or of known cultural resources on the parcels, and said the project is planned to be constructed in 2027 with an operational life modeled at up to 40 years.

Public comment and concerns: neighbors and conservation speakers stressed hydrological connections between the proposed site and nearby state forest land, ponds and spring‑fed creeks. Several speakers said the site contains steep slopes and ravines and warned that grading and disturbance could increase runoff into downstream ponds and state forest waters. Tabitha Zanna, a frequent commenter at local hearings, argued that “conservation land belongs with the trees and not solar facilities,” and raised the reserve and downstream values of the state forest and watershed.

Commission discussion and finding: commissioners debated the statutory test for “substantial accord” with the existing comprehensive plan. Commissioner Wise moved that the Green Bay proposal is not substantially in accord and that the commission recommend denial; the motion carried. The commission recorded its vote in favor of denial and stated that the application would not be recommended to move forward under the current plan. The planning staff will transmit the hearing record and the commission’s recommendation per process.

Next steps: the applicant may revise the proposal, appeal the planning commission decision to the Board of Supervisors or proceed with further studies; county staff noted the comprehensive plan revision is ongoing and suggested that when complete it will provide clearer guidance for siting of renewable projects. If the applicant seeks Board review, the staff record and the commission recommendation will accompany that submittal.