King George supervisors deny Daisy Lane solar special exception after access dispute

The King George County Board of Supervisors voted 5-0 on Oct. 7 to deny a special-exception application for a proposed solar farm on Daisy Lane after extended debate over legal access to the site.

The issue centered on a century‑old farm road and competing claims to a right of way that the applicant, Davis Hill Development, said was insufficient for construction and emergency access. Will Thurman, representing the applicant, told the board the company had made formal offers to compensate adjacent landowners and proposed a condition tying the permit to legal access being obtained within four years. "We would not be able to move forward with the project without this legal easement," Thurman said during the presentation.

Supervisor Keith Collins moved to deny the special exception, citing the unresolved access problem. Several supervisors said they were unwilling to approve a land‑use permit before applicants obtained definitive legal access. Supervisor K. Sullins summarized the board’s concern about property rights: "I'm not against the solar project ... I'm against going across somebody's land without their permission," he said. Adjacent landowners told the board the proposed access would interfere with private property and could worsen traffic and environmental impacts.

The application included technical documents addressing decommissioning, stormwater and a $557,000 decommissioning bond estimate. Thurman said the developers would be willing to add an escalator clause to the decommissioning bond so the amount could be revisited periodically, and that a detailed site‑plan review would follow any land‑use approval. Board members said those commitments were insufficient when legal access remained unresolved.

After discussion the board voted to deny the special exception. The board’s motion was made publicly by Supervisor Keith Collins and carried on a roll call vote: Stroud — Aye; Bender — Aye; Collins — Aye; Sullins — Aye; Chair — Aye.

The denial means the applicant will not proceed to site‑plan review unless it first secures legal access or revises the proposal to address the board’s objection. The development remains eligible to return to the board in the future if the access issue is resolved.

Provenance: Presentation and discussion began with applicant remarks at 01:03:33 (Will Thurman) and concluded with the board vote recorded at 01:46:44; supporting transcript excerpts include Thurman’s confirmation of the $557,000 decommissioning estimate and multiple supervisors’ statements regarding the unresolved easement.