Supervisors defer Fox Mill and Daffodil Fields solar CUPs to July after extended public testimony

Gloucester County supervisors on June 2 heard presentations and extensive public comment on two proposed utility-scale, distributed-generation solar projects — Fox Mill Solar and Daffodil Fields — then elected to defer final action until the board receives a siting/signing agreement in July.

Planning Director Ann Duci Ortiz told the board both proposals are for roughly 6-megawatt distributed-generation facilities that would place about 50–60 acres of ground-mounted, rotating arrays on larger timberland parcels along Ferries Mill Road. Ortiz said the planning commission reviewed both applications under the county’s Appendix J guidance, found them substantially in accord with the comprehensive plan, and recommended conditions to avoid wetlands, require a 75-foot buffer and third‑party erosion and sediment inspections, and mandate a decommissioning plan and surety.

Sean Hershberger of Hexagon Energy, the developer, told the board the projects connect to local distribution lines and would supply electricity to Gloucester County customers. He said the developer will provide a surety bond for decommissioning, updated every five years, and that panels pass federal leaching tests: “The solar panels pass both kinds…they pass the EPA’s toxic characteristics leaching procedure,” he said, noting that intact panels are tested and that the companies plan to avoid wetlands and steep slopes.

Residents and property owners urged both caution and restraint. Opponents raised concerns about view-shed impacts, wildlife displacement, stormwater and runoff into Beaver Dam Reservoir, the cumulative footprint of approved solar facilities, and long-term liability for decommissioning and contamination. One commenter said the county portal contained mismatched project links that impeded public review. Supporters and a clean‑energy nonprofit representative argued distributed solar provides steady tax revenue without increasing population density and can preserve open space relative to subdivision development.

Board members focused questioning on land‑use taxation and rollback tax exposure, whether the CUP applies to the full set of tax parcels or only the footprint of panel arrays, fire and emergency access (Gloucester Fire and Rescue requested wider entrances and were accommodated in revised plans), and enforcement through required contract inspectors. On decommissioning and property restoration, the applicant said the intent is to return land to its prior condition and to preserve the landowner’s ability to resume timbering.

Supervisor Dr. Lemming asked whether Hexagon would purchase parcels; Hershberger said the projects are long‑term leases, with an anticipated project lifespan of about 40 years. Several supervisors proposed adding an explicit condition prohibiting habitable structures or septic systems that would require a certificate of occupancy. After discussion the board agreed to defer final votes on both CUPs until the July meeting when the siting/signing agreement will be available; the board instructed staff to draft the added condition language.

Next steps: the board will consider the siting/signing agreement and the resolutions of approval or denial in July. No final zoning action was taken on the CUPs on June 2.