Louisa County updates solar siting rules; board removes funding breakdown memo and directs funds to county fund balance

The Louisa County Board of Supervisors on Feb. 18 adopted amendments to Chapter 86 of the county’s Land Development Regulations addressing siting agreements for utility‑scale solar generation facilities, after editing the proposed memorandum on how siting‑agreement revenues might be used.

County staff presented amendments intended to clarify applicability (explicitly referencing utility‑scale solar generation facilities, defined in discussion as projects above a local threshold) and provide a framework for siting agreements that would require project operators to contribute to county mitigation funds. The staff memo included an illustrative allocation example listing potential uses for funds — housing programs, agricultural land protection through purchase of development rights (PDRs), stream restoration, and harmful algal bloom mitigation at Lake Anna — with suggested percentage splits. Staff estimated remaining capacity under the county’s solar cap and offered technical estimates of acres per megawatt used in modeling.

The public hearing drew multiple speakers representing developers, a solar‑policy nonprofit and county residents. Developer Telly Manos urged caution on timing provisions and recommended a five‑year window rather than a shorter administrative timeline, citing lengthy interconnection queue times and the time needed for engineering and regulatory reviews. Skyler Zunk of Energy Rite — a Virginia‑based energy nonprofit — argued against the proposed financial terms, saying the draft payment level greatly exceeded typical project revenues and warned the ordinance could deter development and set a statewide precedent. A Culpeper resident and others described local experiences with erosion and other impacts at nearby projects, arguing for stricter controls.

Board members debated multiple topics: whether to keep the illustrative funding memorandum in the ordinance package, the appropriate time window for a siting agreement to remain valid, whether the county should consider purchase of development rights as a possible use of funds, and concerns that overly prescriptive local rules could draw state action. Several supervisors said they opposed embedding a detailed allocation schedule into the ordinance without more public discussion and analysis. The board amended the draft to: (1) replace the phrase “solar siting agreements” with “utility‑scale solar generation facilities” in the ordinance text to clarify applicability; (2) remove the illustrative memorandum of allocation from the ordinance packet and instead require that any funds realized from siting agreements be deposited to a county fund balance to be spent by future board action; and (3) extend the project commencement/operational timeline to five years (from the draft four years) before a siting agreement would lapse.

After further discussion and a public comment period that included technical and policy critiques, the board voted to adopt the ordinance as amended; the motion passed unanimously. Several supervisors said the removed memorandum and the PDR concept warrant broader, standalone public engagement before the county commits to specific allocation approaches. Staff said that if the county receives siting‑agreement funds, the Board of Supervisors would control future allocations and could return to the matter with a public process.