Middlesex supervisors deadlock on KDC Solar appeal, special exception and siting agreement for 20 MW project

Middlesex County supervisors on June 10 failed to approve three motions tied to a proposed 20‑megawatt utility‑scale solar facility on the Crittendon family farm in Deltaville, leaving the Planning Commission’s unanimous denial in place. The board voted on (1) an appeal contesting the Planning Commission’s finding that the project was not in substantial accord with the Middlesex County Comprehensive Plan; (2) the special exception needed under the county zoning ordinance for a utility‑scale solar facility; and (3) the siting agreement that would have specified one‑time and recurring community payments. Each motion ended in a tied roll call and therefore failed.

The Planning Commission had unanimously (8–0) determined on April 10 that KDC Solar Deltaville’s application was not in substantial accord with the county comprehensive plan, citing, according to the planning record and public testimony, the project’s proximity to established residential development and concerns about screening, runoff and long‑term impacts. County planning staff reversed that view in its report and recommended approval of the special exception and a finding of substantial accord; the applicant and its consultants also urged supervisors to approve the project.

At the board meeting, KDC Solar’s attorney, Tim Trant, described the proposal as a roughly 20‑megawatt single‑axis tracking facility on about 77 acres within two parcels (tax parcels 40‑5 and 40‑6) and said the company had revised its plans after public comment to add a 6‑foot berm, expanded evergreen plantings and increased setbacks, including a 350‑foot setback from North End Road. The applicant also offered a siting agreement with one‑time and annual payments to the county and local emergency services: Trant cited a $1,500,000 one‑time contribution to the county general fund, $75,000 one‑time to the fire department, $75,000 one‑time to the rescue squad, and a $100,000 annual payment to the general fund (figures provided by the applicant during the hearing). Trant said those siting agreement payments and projected tax changes would together produce a roughly $5.9 million economic impact over 30 years.

County staff and the applicant also addressed stormwater, a key public concern. The applicant’s civil engineer, Jonathan Jackson of Bowman Consulting, explained regulatory requirements under Virginia DEQ and the Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook, saying the site plan must show both water quality and quantity controls and that the “energy balance” method requires a 20% improvement in runoff at individual discharge points ("an improvement factor of 20% is required"). Jackson said the perimeter berms, landscaping and full post‑construction stabilization would be implemented before panel installation and that DEQ‑required erosion‑and‑sediment controls and a stormwater pollution‑prevention plan would govern construction inspections.

Public comment was extensive and overwhelmingly opposed. Dozens of residents described the area as a long‑established residential and agricultural corridor, raised concerns about property values, runoff into Sturgeon Creek and the Rappahannock River, the adequacy and timing of promised buffers, traffic and heavy construction on narrow local roads, fire risk at solar sites, and the costs and logistics of decommissioning panels. Representative remarks included: “I am opposed to the proposed industrial solar facility project on North End Road” (Maggie Carlson, Deltaville). Civil engineer and resident Rick Bowman asked during public comment: “Who will pay to dispose of the panels?” and highlighted panel recycling and landfill concerns raised by multiple speakers.

Board action: the three distinct votes failed by tied roll calls. The board did not adopt the staff recommendation and therefore did not grant the special exception or the siting agreement at this meeting; the Planning Commission’s denial therefore stands as the prevailing recommendation pending any further applicant action.

What the board said and next steps: during deliberations supervisors referenced the county’s long‑term fiscal needs, the history of agricultural use on the property and competing community concerns. Several supervisors emphasized the difficulty of weighing immediate fiscal offers against perceived long‑term impacts to rural character and to residential neighborhoods. The applicant may choose to revise the application, resubmit, or pursue other legal or administrative steps; the board did not take further binding direction to staff at the meeting about follow‑up tasks.

Because no motion carried, no new approvals, conditions or enforcement timelines were adopted; any future action will require a new agenda item or a successful appeal and new votes by the board.

Ending: The public record for this application now includes the Planning Commission denial (April 10), the county staff recommendation and the full transcript of the June 10 Board of Supervisors meeting. The matter remains unresolved; supervisors concluded the meeting without approving the project or the siting agreement.