Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Davis Hill Development’s Daisy Lane solar special‑exception deferred for more information
Summary
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on a Davis Hill Development proposal for a medium‑scale solar facility on Daisy Lane and took no final action, instead deferring the application to the next meeting to allow the applicant to answer outstanding technical questions from staff and residents.
King George County planning commissioners opened a public hearing on Resolution PC‑03‑25, application Z‑2024‑00219, a special‑exception request from Davis Hill Development for a medium‑scale solar facility on a roughly 83‑acre parcel at 8209 Daisy Lane. The developer said the array would occupy roughly 12–14 acres in the middle of the larger parcel, would be heavily screened by existing trees and would enroll in pollinator‑friendly practices through the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation program.
Davis Hill presenter Will Thurman said the firm develops, owns and operates community solar projects and that the Daisy Lane array would be 2.7 megawatts AC, generate enough electricity to power an estimated 679 households annually and reserve about 30% of capacity for low‑ and moderate‑income subscribers. Thurman said, “We are in the project through the life cycle,” to emphasize the company’s long‑term operational commitment.
Residents asked about wetlands buffers, visual impacts, use of sheep for vegetation management and the lease term. The applicant said the array avoids nearby wetlands by more than 200 feet and that sheep grazing was being considered but would likely occur only after the vegetative ground cover is established; mechanical mowers would be used initially. The applicant also said project leases were structured with an initial 25‑year term and two 10‑year extensions (up to 45 years) and that a decommissioning plan and bond would be required.
After public comment and questions from commissioners, the planning commission voted to defer action and requested that the applicant provide a concise, written response to outstanding technical questions — including stormwater, grid interconnection details and road‑use agreements — ahead of the next meeting. The motion to defer carried unanimously.
Because the commission deferred, no final permit or binding conditions were adopted; the applicant will return with additional information at the next scheduled meeting.
