Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Siting Regulations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Caroline County staff to align local solar rules with state law, consider ag‑preservation fee for commercial projects on farmland
Summary
Commissioners reviewed draft amendments to solar siting rules, including how to treat accessory rooftop solar, net metering, a 1‑megawatt threshold, setbacks, screening and a compensatory preservation contribution for solar sited on prime farmland. Staff will refine the zoning table, fee timing and buffer language before introduction.
Caroline County commissioners and staff on Aug. 19 reviewed proposed changes to the county’s solar regulations, focusing on how state law (including a recent net‑metering provision) affects local siting, setbacks, vegetative buffers and a proposed compensatory contribution for projects on agricultural land.
Planning staff said the draft would preserve accessory (residential) solar while aligning larger projects with state definitions and standards. The board discussed a proposed requirement that commercial solar projects placed on USDA‑classified prime or statewide‑important farmland make a compensatory contribution to the county’s agricultural‑preservation fund.
Why it matters
The draft distinguishes accessory rooftop systems, ground‑mounted farm systems used for net metering, and larger commercial or community solar arrays. Staff and commissioners discussed three sizing thresholds — under 1 megawatt, 1–5 megawatts, and larger projects — because state rules referenced in the draft apply different siting and review requirements at different capacities.
What commissioners and staff debated
- Thresholds and setbacks: Planning staff said projects 1 megawatt and above would be subject to minimum state siting standards; under 1 megawatt accessory systems would generally remain subject to existing local zoning setbacks (typically 40 feet front, 10 feet sides/rear in rural districts). Staff recommended carving project sizes out in the county’s table of uses so reviewers can apply rules by megawatt class.
- Compensatory preservation contribution: Commissioners discussed directing a per‑project preservation payment into the county’s agricultural‑preservation fund rather than sending all collected funds to the state program. Planning staff described two buckets of funds tied to development and transfers and said the county currently forwards funds to a state preservation program (referred to in the discussion as the county contribution to the state program). One commissioner said he wants any county‑collected contribution used for farmland preservation in Caroline County.
- Buffers and screening: The draft relies on state buffer language but staff recommended using the maximum buffer allowed where practical and tightening rules so screening cannot be satisfied by vegetation on neighboring properties alone. Commissioners asked staff to clarify whether existing wooded vegetation on an adjacent parcel can satisfy the requirement and suggested preferring on‑site screening.
- Battery energy storage: Staff and commissioners noted confusion about recent code changes and whether state legislation addresses battery energy‑storage safety. One staff speaker summarized that they had not found binding changes in recent legislation that alter local safety provisions: “There has not been anything that has that has been changed... there is... nothing in this bill That addressed battery energy, storage, safety. No.”
- Timing and fees: The draft would require compensatory payments when a building permit for a solar project is approved; staff said collection would follow permit issuance and be deposited in a county fund. Commissioners discussed whether the county should hold funds until the state program resumes or stand up a local program that directs funds to county priorities.
Next steps
Staff will revise the draft to: add separate table‑of‑uses entries by megawatt size, confirm which zoning districts and septic/forest tiers will allow larger projects, clarify buffer/screening language (favoring on‑site screening), and specify when and how compensatory preservation contributions are collected and held. The board directed staff to return the revised ordinance for first introduction as soon as possible.
