Botetourt County planners table Roanoke Road 5 MW solar permits amid runoff and decommissioning concerns

The Botetourt County Planning Commission on March 9, 2026, heard a presentation on a proposed 5-megawatt community-scale solar facility on a 53.4-acre parcel on Roanoke Road and voted to table both the required commission permit and the special-exception permit to June to allow for additional technical studies and clarified permit conditions.

Planner Matthew Lindsay said the project, submitted as Roanoke Road Solar 1, would occupy roughly 25–30 of the 53.4 acres and use about 12,234 solar panels no taller than 20 feet. The developer, New Leaf Energy, proposed a 7-foot security fence, a 150-foot setback from property lines, native and pollinator-friendly plantings, and a decommissioning bond to cover removal when the facility reaches the end of its useful life. Lindsay said required environmental and cultural-resource inventories identified a handful of historic farmsteads within a half-mile and three wildlife species of concern that were not considered critical.

Jessie Robinson, senior project developer for New Leaf Energy, told the Commission the proposal would participate in Appalachian Power Company’s Shared Solar Program so nearby APCO customers could subscribe for utility bill credits. Robinson said panels would include anti-glare coatings, the project would be monitored remotely, and decommissioning was expected at the end of a roughly 40-year operating life. Engineering consultant Bill Lane said construction would take about six to eight months with limited long-term traffic and one to two permanent maintenance positions.

Commissioners pressed staff and the applicants on several technical points. County Attorney Mike Lockaby and staff described the county’s bonding and enforcement framework: decommissioning cost estimates must be updated (ordinance default every five years), the county may draw on the surety if the system is abandoned or not operating for a specified period, and the zoning administrator must be notified of ownership changes. Commissioners asked for confirmation that geotechnical and hydrogeologic issues—specifically karst topography and nearby springs—would be addressed in site design and erosion-and-sediment control plans ahead of any building permit.

Many residents spoke during the public comment period. Two speakers endorsed the project for energy savings and maintaining rural character, while a majority of commenters objected. Opponents raised concerns about runoff and sinkholes on karst limestone, possible heavy-metal contamination from aging panels, long-term visibility and loss of agricultural land, and the adequacy of local enforcement. One commenter described the proposed voluntary cash payment from the developer to the county as appearing improper; the applicants and staff said any monetary payment would be handled as a proposed condition to be negotiated with the county administrator and county attorney.

Following public comment and additional technical discussion, Chair Dr. Elizabeth Leffel said she viewed the site as visually buffered and preferable to a potential residential subdivision in terms of land preservation, but she listed outstanding items the Commission should see before a building permit would issue: a formal hydrogeologic (or geotechnical) survey addressing karst and springs; an updated glint-and-glare analysis tied to the exact panels to be used and documentation on the expected longevity of anti-glare coatings; a formal decommissioning agreement and financial surety with inflation adjustments and a schedule for re-evaluation; a clarified Emergency Operations/response plan to be reviewed and accepted by county Fire and EMS; and clear language about any proposed revenue-sharing or county payments.

Dr. Leffel moved to table the Commission Permit; that motion was amended to set the next Commission review for the June Planning Commission meeting and passed in roll-call votes (initial tabling approved unanimously; the amended June scheduling passed 4–1 with Mr. Lucas voting nay). The motion to table the Special Exception Permit was approved by the same 4–1 roll-call vote. The Commission’s action returns the matter to staff and the applicant to provide the additional studies and proposed permit conditions requested by the Commission.

The Planning Commission will next meet April 13 for a field review and again in June to take up the tabled solar permits. The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to hear the request March 24, 2026, per the legal notice, but any Board action would depend on whether the applicant pursues the application before that date or after the Commission’s June review.