Board approves withdrawal from AFD and special-use permit for 3 MW Hedera solar project on Ivy Hill Road

The James City County Board of Supervisors voted Wednesday to allow a 3-megawatt solar facility and to withdraw 60.6 acres of the project site from the Mill Creek Agricultural and Forestal District (AFD).

Staff presented a combined package of applications for Hexagon Energy’s Hedera project at 101 and 121 Ivy Hill Road: a withdrawal of a portion of the AFD and a special-use permit (SUP) to operate a 3 MW solar array. Planning staff recommended approval of the SUP but recommended denial of the AFD withdrawal under the county’s policy governing withdrawals from AFDs; the AFD Advisory Committee also voted unanimously to recommend denial. The Planning Commission recommended approval of both the withdrawal and the SUP by a 6–1 vote.

The applicant, Esther Rekelman, senior project developer with Hexagon Energy, told the board the project would place about 16.5 acres of panels inside a larger 101.36-acre parcel and that less than 30 acres would require clearing for panels, stormwater basins and internal roads. Rekelman said the facility is expected to operate for about 40 years, connect to Dominion distribution lines to serve the local area and that the company intends to apply for Dominion’s shared solar program so that a portion of the project’s capacity could be allocated to low-income local customers. She said Hexagon and the landowners have agreed to the 26 conditions in the staff report and that the company will seed native and pollinator-friendly grasses beneath panels and preserve or supplement existing vegetative screening.

Board discussion focused on two recurring themes: adherence to the county’s AFD withdrawal criteria and visual and environmental impacts. Several supervisors noted the property has a history of timbering and that portions of the parcel were cleared in 2022. Board members asked the applicant about the extent of mature timber on the cleared acreage and whether soils designated by the USDA as prime agricultural would be impacted; Rekelman said about 9.9 acres of USDA-designated prime soils would be affected but that soil testing showed low organic matter and limited suitability for traditional agriculture given wetlands and historic timber management.

Neighbors and others offered mixed views during public hearing testimony. Donald Hazelwood, who owns property on nearby Hill Lane, supported the project, praising the proposed buffers and calling the array “hidden.” Chris Henderson, a resident, raised questions about siting near prime agricultural soils, runoff and whether federal subsidies would be necessary for project economics. Ahmed Khalil, an attorney representing landowner Ellen Lightman, read a statement from Lightman describing the family’s long ownership and support for a solar option that would help preserve family ownership of the land.

On the AFD withdrawal, the board approved the motion to withdraw 60.6 acres (roll call: McLennan—aye; Hippel—no; Eisenhower—aye; Null—aye). The board then approved the SUP for the Hedera Solar Facility (101/121 Ivy Hill Road) by roll call: Larson—aye; Null—aye; Hippel—no; McLennan—aye; Eisenhower—aye. Both approvals were subject to the conditions in the staff report. The applicant and staff said decommissioning bonds will be posted and updated over the project life and that state and county stormwater, wetlands and endangered species reviews remain required before construction.

Why it matters: If built, the Hedera project would add local distributed generation and could offer an option for residents who cannot install rooftop solar to receive discounted credits through a shared-solar program. Opponents cited preservation of agricultural land, proximity to nearby houses and long-term visual effects. The withdrawal from the AFD ends protections for the withdrawn acreage and was the point of greatest policy disagreement among advisory bodies.

What’s next: The developer and county will continue permitting and state and utility interconnection reviews; the project remains contingent on satisfying those requirements. The SUP and withdrawal resolutions will be finalized in county records and the applicant will move to site-plan and permit review if conditions are met.