Planning commission recommends denial of Caledon Solar special-exception permit after easement and environmental concerns

The King George County Planning Commission voted to forward an unfavorable recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on the proposed Caledon Solar project (application Z-2024-00240), a 22-megawatt utility-scale solar facility proposed on a large (approximately 1,431-acre) parcel north of Caledon Road.

County staff presented the special-exception application and said the applicant requested two exceptions from standard county rules: a temporary extension of the two-year permit-activation window to five years and a modest height exception for a weather station. Staff recommended conditions including a Phase I archaeological study and described required setbacks and stormwater and wetland review that would occur at site-plan stage.

Terraform Power (presenting as Caledon Solar) and its contractor described a plan that would site panels on about 122 acres within a roughly 216-acre special-exception area. The applicant’s representative, Tyler McGilvary, said the project would create roughly $11.3 million in economic benefit over the project life and more than $3 million in direct county revenue, and that a first-year payment of about $580,000 was part of the proposed siting agreement. Terraform said panels would be sited to avoid wetlands, include a 100-foot vegetative buffer and maintain a wildlife corridor; the design also doubles the county’s minimum panel setback for nearest residences.

Public comment was sharply divided. Supporters, including a local neighbor and a nonprofit that favors locally led energy development, emphasized property rights and potential tax benefits. Several conservation organizations — including Chesapeake Conservancy and the Piedmont Environmental Council, joined by the Land Trust Alliance signatories — urged rejection, saying the parcel is protected by a publicly funded open-space easement and asserting that the easement holder (the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation) and a federal funding letter state the easement does not allow commercial solar on the property as proposed. Those speakers cited Code of Virginia provisions on diversion or conversion of easement land (referencing Code of Virginia §10.1-1704) and asked the commission to require the statutory diversion/conversion process if the proposal were to proceed.

The applicant and its vice president of development, Jeff Suttle, said they engaged DCR in advance and provided a letter from the Secretary of Natural Resources and other materials; the applicant described the relevant portion of the parcel as an open-space easement exclusion area where certain energy uses, including solar, were considered permissible under the easement’s terms and the DCR-management guidance. Commissioners repeatedly asked staff and the applicant for the precise DCR documentation and the specific pages in the application packet that show those approvals.

Commissioner questioning covered noise from inverters and other equipment (applicant said inverters are internal to the site and peak at roughly 60–65 decibels at the equipment), wildfire and fire-safety risks, third-party environmental impact reports (Verdantas was named), stormwater basins and the amount and type of ground disturbance (including concrete footings and decommissioning impacts), impacts to eagle habitat and the nearby Caledon State Park, and how this decision would affect future conservation easement protections.

After extended deliberation — with several commissioners praising the applicant’s efforts but expressing concern about precedent and potential legal and environmental risks — the commission voted 4–1 to forward an unfavorable recommendation citing incompatibility with policies to preserve agricultural, forestal and other environmentally significant lands. The denial recommendation is advisory; any final determination will be made by the Board of Supervisors.