Supervisors weigh limited-revenue solar lease for closed Gloucester County landfill

Standing in for an absent staff member, a county official asked the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors on April 15 whether the board wanted staff to pursue a conditional use permit (CUP) and request-for-proposal (RFP) for a solar installation on a closed county landfill.

The official said the landfill site is about 50 acres and that a commercially sized solar array on the capped area would likely use 20 to 50 acres depending on slopes and setbacks. Under county zoning rules for the SC‑1 district, the countywide cap for utility-scale solar in the SC‑1 zone is 882 acres (the board’s two‑percent cap), and currently about 101 acres in SC‑1 are already used — meaning the proposed use would be within the county cap. Projected lease revenue was estimated at roughly $20,000 to $40,000 per year.

The official asked the board for a preliminary signal before staff spends substantial time on a CUP application: "If the board is interested, what we're looking for is a head nod, go forward with the work," he said. The proposed leasing approach would be a long-term lease (presenters said the typical structure would be a 25‑year lease), not an immediate sale.

County Attorney Mister Wilmot and other staff described legal and operational considerations. Wilmot said other localities have built solar on closed landfills and advised shifting as much liability as possible to a lessee: "I would try to put in provisions of the lease agreement, putting the onus of responsibility of all liabilities on the lessee," he said. Staff said the landfill's five‑year post‑closure monitoring period had concluded and that methane monitoring was no longer required at present; they also said solar systems proposed would be non‑penetrating and that lessees would be expected to fence and secure the site.

Supervisors were divided. Some members expressed concern that the estimated annual revenue ($20,000–$40,000) was small relative to the staff time required to process a CUP, and that using county‑owned property for solar would consume part of the county’s 2% solar cap. One supervisor said the board should reexamine the cap before committing county property to utility‑scale solar. Another urged caution because long‑term leases can leave lingering county obligations and potential environmental liabilities. Several supervisors suggested watching outcomes from other counties (Middlesex County was mentioned) that are currently proceeding with landfill solar RFPs and reporting back.

No motion to initiate a CUP or to advertise a procurement was passed. The board did not direct staff to begin the CUP process at this meeting and instead asked staff to continue gathering information and report back; one supervisor suggested waiting to see how similar projects in nearby counties fare before authorizing further work.

Planning and zoning steps, public hearings and a CUP review before the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors would be required before any lease or installation could proceed.