Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chesterfield officials review tighter rules for solar farms, including bonding, screening and battery siting
Summary
At a worksession, officials reviewed proposed changes to Chesterfield County�s solar‑farm ordinance: requiring removal of buried wiring, raising decommissioning bonds from 125% to 200% with third‑party cost verification, stronger screening and setbacks, internal‑road standards for emergency access, and new notification and FAA review requirements. Staff will work with PD COG to draft ordinance text for council review.
Chesterfield County officials spent most of a worksession reviewing proposed changes to local rules for large solar installations, focusing on decommissioning, screening, battery storage and public outreach.
Speaker 2, who led the presentation of draft language, told the group that some installers currently cut underground electrical wire and leave it buried at the end of a project. "My proposal is that we require them to remove all wire," he said, adding the requirement should be secured with a financial assurance. He said the county currently requires a performance bond at 125% of estimated decommissioning costs and proposed raising that to 200% and requiring a third‑party engineer to verify costs and take soil samples to confirm restoration.
The draft also tightens visual screening and buffers where solar farms adjoin residences, schools, churches and county roads. "I want it to cut off visibility at the time of completion of the solar farm," Speaker 2 said, explaining the county needs plantings or opaque fencing that are effective immediately rather than years later. Another participant warned that plantings can take many years to mature. "The solar farm will be obsolete before you get enough mature vegetation to do anything," Speaker 4 said.
Staff proposed increasing setbacks from the property line from 100 feet to 200 feet in sensitive adjacencies, and setting internal road‑standards intended to ensure emergency access: private roads inside fences would be named and mapped in the county GIS, have assigned addresses, and include 60‑foot travelways of all‑weather material with 100‑foot cul‑de‑sacs or turning radii for fire apparatus.
The group discussed battery storage, which the current ordinance does not address. Speaker 2 said the county should add explicit siting and permitting requirements for batteries and said they should be housed in buildings rather than simply placed on the ground. "Right now, they can set them on the ground," he said, noting environmental risks and federal requirements. Other participants said some procurement or utility processes may expect batteries in project proposals, creating a tradeoff between emergency‑response and long‑term procurement goals.
Speaker 2 also proposed stronger notification and outreach requirements: solar companies should notify adjacent property owners (residents, schools and churches) before permits are issued, hold Q&A meetings between the company and nearby property owners, and pay for legal advertising. He recommended requiring FAA review letters for projects in or near airport districts and said he had contacted aviation officials for guidance on glare and safety.
The worksession did not adopt an ordinance. Instead, members asked Speaker 2 to work with PD COG to translate the group�s recommendations into formal language and a concise summary of changes that will be presented to the full council. A followup session was scheduled after the council meeting on Dec. 10 to review the PD COG draft and gather public input ahead of any formal three‑reading process.
Next steps: staff will work with PD COG to prepare ordinance text and a changes summary for council consideration; the council will handle formal readings and public hearings under the county�s ordinance process.
