Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hanover supervisors approve tighter solar siting rules, reduce maximum project size to 250 acres
Summary
After a lengthy debate over erosion control and local authority, the Hanover County Board of Supervisors approved amendments to its solar energy storage policy that shorten maximum project size from 1,000 to 250 acres, add stricter stormwater and environmental standards and set a per-megawatt payment schedule for battery energy storage.
Hanover County supervisors on Nov. 13 adopted changes to the county's solar energy storage policy that tighten siting and environmental requirements and reduce the largest allowable facility size.
The Community Development Committee had recommended the revisions after more than a year of use of the policy adopted in August 2023. Joanne Hunter, the county's senior director of community development, told the board the changes are intended to "establish a framework to provide guidance for siting recommendations" and to respond to erosion and stormwater-control problems observed in other localities.
Key changes include reducing the maximum utility-scale project size from 1,000 acres to 250 acres; discouraging siting of utility-scale facilities (5 megawatts and larger) within the suburban service area; limiting small utility projects (2–5 MW) in the suburban service area to no more than 25 acres; and strengthening requirements for erosion and sediment controls and environmental resource protections. The updated policy also creates a fiscal framework for battery energy storage systems, proposing a one-time per-megawatt payment of $7,810 plus applicable machinery-and-tools tax.
Supporters said the amendments improve buffers, setbacks and technical standards. "We do require a significant boundary, setbacks, vegetation, protection of our environmental features," Hunter said, arguing the policy has become a model in the state and should be updated to reflect emerging best practices.
Opponents warned the acreage cap and discouragement language could effectively bar larger projects and trigger state-level review instead of local land-use control. Supervisor Jeff Stoneman said reducing the cap "in essence says we don't want that kind of business in Hanover County," arguing the county needs reasonable options for farm owners and to avoid pushing projects to sites that are less appropriate. Supervisor Stoneman added that the county has prevailed when land-use denials were litigated in the past.
Supervisor Michael Herzberg, who sits on the Community Development Committee, echoed the need for stronger E&S standards but said the policy must preserve local decision-making. "Don't voluntarily give away your ability to represent your constituents," he said during debate.
After one hour of questions and discussion, the motion to adopt the amendments passed on a roll-call vote: Pritchard—No; Floyd—Aye; Davis—No; Hudson—Aye; Stoneman—Aye; Herzberg—Aye; Chair—Aye (5–2).
Next steps: the policy changes are a board-level directive; project reviews will proceed under the revised standards, and staff said the county will continue to monitor DEQ and peer-jurisdiction outcomes for erosion-control performance.
