Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Washington County adopts recodified solar zoning ordinance with slope and decommissioning language
Summary
The Board of Supervisors voted 5-0 to recodify county zoning for solar energy projects to reflect recent state law and local edits, including new language on wetlands, fire suppression and slope limits recommended by local planners and residents.
The Washington County Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted an ordinance recodifying zoning rules for solar energy projects on June 11, updating county code sections to align with recent state law and local planning commission recommendations.
County Attorney Brandon Snodgrass told the board the recodification updates sections 60‑61240 through 60‑61270 and incorporates Virginia General Assembly changes on siting agreements, decommissioning plans, required surety bonds and options to assess taxes on generation. "Planning commission recommended ordinance 6‑0," he said, and staff circulated a short list of technical edits (wetlands and fire suppression language and a revised prime-farmland definition).
Local residents who previously worked in planning and soil consulting urged additional slope protections. Emma Wyatt, who identified herself as a former town planner and AICP-certified planner, proposed adding a slope standard to restrict projects on steep land and require site certification by a professional engineer. "Projects on slopes exceeding 15% shall not be allowed," Wyatt said, and asked that projects with natural slopes above 10% include slope protection measures and monitoring until vegetation is established.
Hunter Wyatt, a soil consultant, explained the erosion risk: "An inch of rain over an acre is 27,000 gallons of water," he said, arguing that compaction and channel flow under panels can cause gully erosion and add turbidity to nearby streams.
One commenter asked that administrative and legal costs for inspections and enforcement be borne by the developer and requested baseline well testing in a quarter-mile radius be required pre‑permit. Snodgrass said those suggestions were constructive but would require further drafting; he recommended handling some changes later as amendments if the board adopted the ordinance now.
Supervisor 14 moved to adopt the recodification and to incorporate the written slope language presented by the Wyatts; the motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous voice vote. Snodgrass said the county would offer guidance on future amendments and that the board could advertise changes if necessary.
The ordinance update will be incorporated into the county code and staff will advise on any later amendments or administrative additions.
The board moved on to other agenda items after the vote.
