Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Facility Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission narrows topics for county solar facility ordinance, requests member input
Summary
Commissioners reviewed multiple policy questions for a proposed solar facility ordinance — acreage thresholds, setbacks and buffers, protection of prime farmland, definitions of project area, distance between projects, pollinator programs and battery storage — and requested members submit priorities for follow‑up and Solar Facility Committee review.
The Lunenburg County Planning Commission spent a portion of its Nov. 2 meeting on Old Business reviewing policy questions for a Solar Facility Study intended to guide ordinance changes.
Chairman James Tharpe and commissioners discussed a list of topics staff and the Solar Facility Committee will consider, including appropriate acreage thresholds (with Rockingham and Stafford noted as examples); whether to prohibit solar on parcels that have been clear‑cut or replanted within the last five years; maintaining vegetative and visual buffers; protecting prime farmland and minimizing tree cutting; clarifying the definition of the project area (for example, area inside the fenced project vs. the total acreage under the developer’s control); preferring off‑road and less visible locations; encouraging contiguous project parcels rather than scattered arrays; encouraging participation in a Pollinator Smart Program; and evaluating distance standards between projects depending on project status (permitted but not constructed, constructed, or currently in application). Commissioners also flagged battery storage as an item that may require new ordinance language. The Commission asked members to submit written concerns, questions or suggested revisions ahead of the next meeting so the Solar Facility Committee could review priorities.
Assistant County Attorney Drew DiStanislao provided an update on Oral Oaks Solar, reporting that the staff report had been received but additional information was needed regarding site sloping and “how the developer will get to the ten percent (10%) to fifteen percent (15%) sloping” referenced in the application. The Commission set a tentative next meeting for Dec. 7, 2023, and adjourned.
No formal ordinance changes or votes were taken at the Nov. 2 meeting; the discussion was a policy direction and fact‑finding step in preparing recommended ordinance language for later consideration.
