Louisa County planning commission forwards timeline requirement from proposed solar ordinance, says other provisions lack sufficient information

The Louisa County Planning Commission on Tuesday voted to forward the proposed project-timeline provision from Ordinance 2024-14, a package of land-use changes for solar siting agreements, to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of approval while reserving judgment on three other major provisions because commissioners said they lacked background and analytic support.

Commissioners said the county and the committee that drafted the policy had provided insufficient documentation about how key dollar figures and percentages were derived, making it impossible for the commission to provide an informed recommendation on items addressing per-megawatt contributions, the proposed affordable-housing allocation and a per-parcel adjacent-owner payment.

The ordinance package originated with a board-appointed committee and proposes minimum requirements for solar siting agreements. Planning staff told the commission the public hearing was held in December and that the committee supplied citing agreements from eight other localities and a memo, but the commission said that material did not include the calculations or policy rationale underlying several numbers in the draft ordinance.

"I don't know where that number came from," Commissioner Goodwin said of the proposed 1.1% capacity-type contribution, adding that commissioners had not been given a basis to analyze it. "We don't know how to provide feedback to that." Commissioner Brooks and others also pressed for justification for the proposed per-megawatt and per-parcel payments and for clarity about how 25% of site-agreement funds earmarked for affordable housing would be allocated. Commissioner Brooks said comparable locality examples he reviewed showed large variation in per-megawatt figures and questioned the county's proposed level.

Supervisor Barlow, the board's representative at the meeting, told the commission the Board of Supervisors had not yet fully discussed the committee's numbers and that the ordinance was forwarded to the planning commission for review and comment. "If you want to send it back to the board with Mr. Kersey's motion, that's perfectly fine," Barlow said, adding the item was likely to receive more debate at the board level.

After discussion, the commission adopted a motion (moved and seconded) to send item 3 of the ordinance package (the project-timeline requirement) to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of approval and to include a statement that the commission did not have sufficient information to properly comment on items 1, 2 and 4. The motion passed on roll call.

Commissioners called for additional review steps, including the idea of a joint working group of planning commissioners and supervisors to develop clearer calculations, to review the committee's basis for proposed dollar amounts and percentages, and to return to both bodies with common, documented rationales. Several commissioners said they would not vote to endorse items they could not justify.

Staff signaled that it is already drafting further ordinance amendments and will provide additional materials; staff also confirmed the eight citing agreements the commission requested had been forwarded to the commission earlier but were large and were not included in the packet. Commission members asked that future packets include the original application package when it is deemed complete so commissioners can begin review earlier.

The commission's action forwards only the project-timeline provision to the board with a recommendation; it did not adopt the proposed compensation or affordable-housing provisions. The board will next receive the commission's recommendation and any accompanying comments.

The commission's discussion occurred during the unfinished-business portion of the agenda after the public-address period and prior public hearing on other items. Staff said the committee's memo and citations were provided to the commission on January 2 but did not include the detailed calculations commissioners requested.

The commission did not set new dollar figures or percentages; it asked the board and staff to provide the committee's supporting analysis and to consider a joint working group for further review.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to forward item 3 (project-timeline requirement) of Ordinance 2024-14 to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of approval, and to state the commission does not have sufficient information to comment on items 1, 2 and 4: passed (roll call; recorded votes include Commissioner Goodwin: No; Commissioner Kersey: Yes; motion carried).