Planning commission recommends approval of 3.8 MW Prince Edward Solar 2 with added conditions

The Prince Edward County Planning Commission on Thursday voted unanimously to recommend approval of a special-use permit for Prince Edward Solar 2, a proposed 3.8‑megawatt shared-solar facility on a 77.53‑acre parcel (tax map 043‑8‑36B), with additional conditions addressing visual screening, construction traffic and site logistics.

Planning staff introduced the application and told the commission it must determine whether the project is substantially in accord with the county's 2045 comprehensive plan under Virginia Code ' 15.2‑2232 before forwarding a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Staff noted there are 45 draft conditions and called attention to a comp‑plan best‑management practice that recommends a 150‑foot buffer from residences and historic resources; the county's zoning setback is 75 feet.

The applicant's representative described the project as a 3.8 MW AC shared/"community" solar installation with single‑axis (north–south) arrays, perimeter fencing and plans for stormwater management. He emphasized decommissioning provisions and financial assurance: "we have a formula that's based on pilings, racking, acreage" to calculate the decommissioning cost and he said the intent is to return the land to agricultural use after the project's life. On subscriber savings he said, "I save 10% on mine," explaining the shared‑solar model can deliver modest reductions in customers' electric bills.

Nearby residents raised concerns during the public comment period. Craig Moore, who said his house sits directly south of the site, said he opposed the project and told commissioners he fears visual impacts, construction traffic and potential contamination of his well if panels are broken. "I don't want the solar farm," Moore said, noting repeated construction vehicles, a vehicle collision on his property and on‑site workers sleeping in vehicles as examples of local impacts that need addressing.

The landowner for the proposed site, identified as Mr. Elder, spoke in favor of the project, saying it would provide income and tax stability for his family.

In response to public concerns, the applicant and planning staff agreed to add or strengthen conditions. Commitments and proposed conditions discussed at the meeting included:

- Increasing landscaping and screening to meet comp‑plan guidance where feasible and avoiding species that lose lower limbs (the commission discouraged loblolly pine as a sole buffer species); - Asymmetric setbacks in the draft site design (applicant suggested retaining 75‑foot setback along the north parcel boundary while increasing south, east and west setbacks to 150 feet); - Required, county‑approved directional signage to reduce driver confusion between nearby construction sites; - Explicit delivery and construction timing limits to business hours (proposed 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.) and requirements to show a designated laydown/turnaround yard on the site plan; and - Annual soil testing and revaluation of the decommissioning financial assurance every five years (staff said the conditions are tighter than earlier projects and that soil testing intervals were shortened to annual).

After discussion, a commissioner moved that the project be found substantially in accord with the comprehensive plan and that the commission recommend approval of the special‑use permit "with the stipulated conditions and the proper conditions" (the motion text was made on the record). The motion passed on a roll‑call vote: Mr. Copelan — yes; Mr. Page — yes; Mr. Fuller — yes; Mr. Gilliam — yes; Mr. Hart — yes; Mr. Hogan — yes; Mr. Perry — yes; Mr. Pangman — yes (8–0).

The planning commission's action is a recommendation to the county Board of Supervisors; staff said the revised conditions will be drafted and shared with the applicant ahead of that hearing. The commission also noted enforcement of off‑hours behavior (for example, workers sleeping in vehicles) is a separate civil/enforcement matter the county will address if incidents occur.

Authorities and site references discussed at the hearing included Va. Code ' 15.2‑2232, the 2045 Prince Edward County comprehensive plan, the county's A‑1 agricultural zoning, and draft site conditions prepared by staff. The commission also asked staff to ensure conditions addressing signage, delivery routing and the laydown yard are explicit in the permit record sent to the Board of Supervisors.

Next steps: staff will incorporate the additional conditions (buffers, signage, delivery timing and laydown/turnaround details) into the permit conditions and forward the application and the commission's recommendation to the Prince Edward County Board of Supervisors for final action.