Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Prince George supervisors signal intent to cap large-scale solar acreage; staff directed to prepare plan and zoning amendments
Summary
After a presentation on the county's existing solar policy and five approved projects, supervisors agreed in principle to cap additional large-scale solar acreage near current levels and to pursue comprehensive-plan and zoning ordinance changes; supervisors asked staff to consider battery energy storage in any update.
Prince George County supervisors signaled April 8 that they want to cap additional large-scale solar development near the county’s current approved acreage and to pursue amendments to the county comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to implement that cap.
Planning staffer Michael (Jeff) Baldwin presented the county’s current solar policy, which the board adopted in 2020 and embedded in the comprehensive plan in 2022. Baldwin told the board the policy sets an upper limit of roughly 4,603.5 acres countywide (2.74% of county area) and identifies heavy industrial zoned parcels (M-3) as the preferred location, with other rural zones allowing projects by special exception.
Why it matters: Several supervisors said they want to limit future large-scale solar projects to avoid further conversion of county land and to retain the ability to control siting. Several board members also asked staff to include battery energy storage systems in any update to avoid a later policy gap.
What the board asked staff to do: Board members provided informal direction to staff to prepare: - a resolution to initiate a comprehensive-plan amendment to modify the solar-energy policy (staff suggested bringing the resolution to the board on April 22), and - a zoning-ordinance amendment to remove large-scale solar as a special-exception use in several districts and restrict it to M-3 or to make M-3 a special-exception use per the board’s preferences; staff proposed a possible Planning Commission review on May 20 and a Board public hearing in June for the comprehensive-plan change.
Timeline presented by staff: Baldwin proposed taking a conference-of-plan amendment to the Planning Commission on May 20 and the Board of Supervisors for a public hearing on June 10; zoning ordinance changes would follow on a slower schedule and could be completed between June and October, depending on the work required.
Battery storage: Supervisors agreed the county should evaluate battery energy storage systems as part of the zoning and policy update. Baldwin said battery storage is treated as a separate land use in the current zoning ordinance and would need its own review.
Board consensus: Multiple supervisors (Cox, Webb, Pugh, and others) expressed support for capping additional acreage and for returning to the board with the formal resolutions and proposed ordinance language. No final ordinance or plan amendment was adopted April 8; supervisors directed staff to prepare formal amendments for future public hearings.
Ending: Baldwin said staff will draft the proposed resolutions and ordinance amendments for formal consideration and public hearing, and the county will carry battery energy storage into the scope of the review.
