Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors urge county action over noise, dust and erosion at Axton solar farm
Summary
Multiple residents told the Henry County Board of Supervisors that operations at the Axton (Energix) utility‑scale solar farm have created persistent inverter noise, dust, erosion and traffic problems; speakers asked the county to enforce permit conditions, require independent noise and environmental testing, and coordinate with DEQ and law enforcement.
Neighbors of the Axton solar farm urged Henry County supervisors to take stronger enforcement action after years of what they described as ongoing operational impacts from the facility.
Roger Briscoe, whose property borders the southeast fence line, described repeated nighttime inverter noise that he said continued until about 9:30 p.m. "The sound was never brought up by the county...I'm asking for help," Briscoe said and left a petition with 22 signatures. Alyssa Cummings, speaking from Centerville Road, told the board the "electric humming is absolutely awful" and asked the county to require independent third‑party noise testing and to refer environmental concerns to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.
Barry Moxley, who said he has lived beside the facility for two years, told the board he opposes further utility‑scale solar development in Henry County because of what he described as noise, industrial traffic, dust and erosion. "The noise is real…we were presented on paper as clean, quiet, low‑impact infrastructure. The reality is different," Moxley said. He asked the board to direct the county attorney to research enforceable operational noise protections, including potential criminal enforcement mechanisms for excessive industrial noise.
Speakers said DEQ has levied penalties against the developer at other sites and alleged incomplete remediation at the Axton project; one speaker asked the county to refer stormwater and erosion concerns to DEQ for inspection and enforcement. A real‑estate agent who spoke on behalf of a neighbor submitted a comparative market analysis estimating a substantial drop in property value following the project's construction.
County staff recorded the complaints and did not announce immediate enforcement action at the meeting. Supervisors did not vote on new regulatory changes at the session but were asked to consider options including enforcement of permit conditions, independent testing, and ordinance changes to strengthen buffers, setbacks and landscaping requirements for future projects.
