Lancaster County planning commission tables proposed small‑scale solar code changes after public concern

The Lancaster County Planning Commission opened a public hearing in August 2025 on proposed revisions to the Lancaster County, Va., Land Development Code that would change the definition and regulation of small‑scale solar installations, then voted to table action until the county attorney can advise whether ground‑mounted systems can be required to seek a special exception.

The revisions in the packet remove the word “residential” from the code’s small‑scale solar language, clarify roof‑mounted rules and add specific limits for ground‑mounted systems. Planning staff said the proposed limits would cap ground‑mounted installations at 2,500 square feet of total land‑disturbance and restrict the maximum equipment height to 15 feet above finished grade, measured at the tallest point of fixed equipment. The draft also references applicable zoning‑district height limits and a 25‑foot setback from adjacent property lines for ground‑mounted systems.

The changes were presented by county planning staff Miss Hall, who told the commission the board of supervisors asked the planning commission to reevaluate the ordinance after concerns about an installed residential solar array. "Ground mounted solar scale installation shall not exceed 2,500 square feet of total land area disturbance in aggregate," Miss Hall read from the proposed language, and she explained the draft also requires compliance with district setbacks and a 15‑foot equipment height limit.

An online commenter during the public‑hearing portion urged the commission to require a special exception for any ground‑mounted installation so neighbors would be notified and have an opportunity to weigh in. "I think the idea of a special exception should be there," the commenter said, adding examples of prior unpermitted work on Route 3.

Commissioners discussed whether the county could legally impose a special‑exception requirement for ground‑mounted systems rather than allowing those that meet the numeric criteria to be permitted by right. Several commissioners said the 2,500‑square‑foot threshold, the 25‑foot setback and the new battery/utility‑line buffer were intended to protect neighbors; others said they preferred the additional notice a special‑exception process would provide.

The commission did not vote on the ordinance text. Instead, a commissioner moved to table action on the proposed amendments to Part 1 (definitions), Article 28‑3 (small‑scale solar) and Article 28‑4 until the county attorney could weigh in on whether the county may require special exceptions for ground‑mounted installations. The motion was seconded and the commission verbally approved the motion; the transcript records ayes and "Motion carries," but does not list an exact roll‑call tally.

The commission asked staff to consult County Attorney Jim Cornwell and state code guidance and to return the item to the next meeting as a consideration item (no additional public hearing required before that step, because the commission had opened and closed the advertised hearing). Any ordinance amendment adopted later would require a public hearing before the commission and board of supervisors.

The discussion also clarified that roof‑mounted panels would continue to be measured against district height limits and could not project beyond the roof line, while stand‑alone carports would be treated as ground‑mounted systems under the draft language.

Next steps: staff will ask the county attorney and research applicable state code questions about special exceptions and report back at the commission’s next meeting.