Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission continues Solar Facility Study discussion; raises farmland, buffer and battery storage concerns
Summary
At the Nov. 2 meeting commissioners continued the Solar Facility Study, listing priorities including preventing solar on recently clear‑cut land, protecting prime farmland, requiring buffers and considering whether to regulate battery storage; staff flagged additional technical info needed on Oral Oaks Solar.
LUNENBURG COUNTY, Va. — The Lunenburg County Planning Commission continued its Solar Facility Study Nov. 2, identifying a set of policy priorities and asking commissioners to submit specific concerns for the Solar Facility Committee to consider.
Chairman James Tharpe led a discussion that produced a list of items commissioners want reviewed or added to the county’s approach to solar development. The list included acreage thresholds modeled on other counties, a proposed prohibition on projects on parcels clear‑cut or replanted within the last five years, stronger buffers, protections for prime farmland and statewide‑important soils, tree‑cutting and air quality impacts, and clarification of whether the "project area" should be measured inside fenced project boundaries or include all acreage controlled by the applicant. Commissioners also expressed a preference for siting projects out of public view, on contiguous parcels rather than scattered parcels, and incorporating pollinator‑friendly planting programs.
Commissioners asked the Solar Facility Committee to consider whether to increase spacing or distance requirements between projects and to draft ordinance language addressing battery storage, acknowledging that current practice does not permit battery storage in projects. Assistant County Attorney Drew DiStanislao reported that staff had received the Staff Report for the Oral Oaks Solar project but needs additional information on how the applicant proposes to meet the 10–15% sloping described in its application.
The commission did not make code changes at the meeting; members were asked to put their suggested priorities and revisions in writing for the next Planning Commission meeting so the Solar Facility Committee could incorporate them into draft language for future review.
