Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utility Solar One Energy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board, planning commission deny One Energy utility‑scale solar proposal over farmland, decommissioning and visibility concerns
Summary
One Energy's proposed 20.7‑acre utility‑scale solar project (9.5 acres of panels, agrovotaics, pollinator habitat) was denied after the planning commission and board raised erosion risk, long‑term decommissioning adequacy, and visual/land‑use conflicts with county policy.
The planning commission and the Board of Supervisors denied a proposed One Energy Renewables utility‑scale solar project during a joint hearing that drew residents, environmental consultants and company representatives.
One Energy sought a commission permit and a special‑exception permit for a 20.7‑acre site on Kataba Road, proposing roughly 3,800 panels within a 9.5‑acre array footprint and an "agrivoltaics" plan that would seed pollinator habitat and house sheep grazing under the arrays. The company said the design would preserve perimeter vegetation, meet state glare and environmental review requirements, and be backed by a decommissioning bond covering removal of equipment after the project's life.
Residents and agricultural advocates urged denial. Farmer Tom Williamson, who provided peer literature, argued the site contains highly erodible soils and warned of long‑term degradation: "The rain from solar panels when it comes off, it comes off in sheets... it creates major erosion issues that would go into Tinker Creek." Others questioned the long‑term adequacy of financial assurances if contamination or deep soil damage emerged decades later.
Company representatives defended the proposal, noting statewide agrivoltaics guidance, plans for pollinator mixes, and industry standard decommissioning assurance mechanisms. Legal counsel explained that decommissioning instruments (escrow/letters of credit) are designed to protect the county if an owner abandons a site.
After prolonged questioning about visibility from the Appalachian Trail corridor, stormwater and decommissioning bond sufficiency, the planning commission voted to recommend denial; the board then denied both the commission permit and the special exception.
Ending: The denial preserves current land‑use limitations for prime and highly erodible farmland in the county while the county continues a parallel review of solar text amendments and the comprehensive plan.
