Brunswick County board approves amendment tightening safety requirements for utility‑scale solar

At its January meeting, the Brunswick County Board of Supervisors approved Ordinance Amendment Case No. 24‑020, which amends Article 23 (Solar Facilities) of the county zoning ordinance to require cooperative‑scale and utility‑scale solar facilities to comply with environmental protection and safety standards referenced in the Code of Virginia, including Va. Code § 15.2‑2286(a)(13).

The change follows a public hearing in which residents urged stronger disclosure and monitoring requirements for large solar projects. The county's planning staff presented the proposal and noted the Planning Commission had reviewed the item and recommended approval. Resident Anne Moore spoke in opposition during the Board's hearing, citing concerns about panel composition, chemical coatings, fire safety and groundwater risks. "The health of our citizens should be of utmost importance," Moore said, and she asked the county to require safety data sheets, third‑party groundwater monitoring with baseline testing, bans on cadmium‑telluride panels and assurances that PFAS substances are not present in panel components as installed.

Moore also urged the board to require Class A fire‑rated panels and to reference applicable electrical grounding standards. She referenced wording she read from a developer website and said the county should require developers to disclose panel materials and any post‑manufacture treatments.

After the public comment period closed, Supervisor Dr. Seward moved to approve Ordinance Amendment Case No. 24‑020; the motion was seconded by Mr. Tyler and carried on a voice vote. The chair announced, "Ayes have it. Motion carries."

Why it matters: the amendment updates the county's zoning standards for ground‑mounted solar farms. Residents and some commissioners have repeatedly raised questions about environmental safeguards, local monitoring, and public disclosure for large solar projects that are being proposed or reviewed across the county.

Discussion vs. decision: the public hearing drew substantive technical concerns from residents; however, the Board's action was to approve the ordinance amendment as presented. The approval directs that future cooperative and utility‑scale facilities be reviewed under the updated ordinance language; any site‑specific permitting and operational conditions (for example, required monitoring programs or bans on specific panel chemistries) would be addressed during later permit reviews and are not established by this vote.

Next steps: the board approved scheduling and implementation of the ordinance amendment as part of the county code. Related conditional‑use permit applications and future site plans for individual projects will be reviewed under the amended Article 23 and may require additional, project‑specific conditions.