Gloucester supervisors approve siting agreements and CUPs for two 6‑MW solar projects amid strong local opposition

The Gloucester County Board of Supervisors on July 7 approved siting agreements and conditional‑use permits (CUPs) for two proposed utility‑scale solar facilities—Fox Mill Field LLC and Daffodil Fields LLC—after lengthy public hearings that drew both organized opposition and proponents who argued the projects preserve open space and provide local revenue.

Hexagon Energy’s representative, Sean Hershberger, told the board the Fox Mill proposal is a “6‑megawatt facility” configured as two 3‑MW interconnection positions and that the company will post decommissioning surety and renew it periodically to cover end‑of‑life costs. “Solar power is the most affordable source of energy that is available,” Hershberger said during the hearing, adding that the county’s siting agreement would include annual payments that match machinery‑and‑tools (M&T) tax receipts so the county receives stable revenue over the life of the project.

Why it matters: The board’s action clears key legal and fiscal steps that allow site preparation and permitting to move forward. Staff said the projects will pay rollback taxes for any land‑use exemptions and include bond or surety language to fund decommissioning; the siting agreements also prohibit on‑site data centers and battery storage as a condition of approval.

What supporters and opponents said: Supporters and nearby landowners who favor the projects argued distributed solar helps preserve large parcels from development and provides a predictable tax stream without substantially increasing county service demands. “These projects help preserve the existing open space through lease agreements and protect the view shed,” a community engagement representative for EnergyRite said during public comment.

Opponents pressed the board on multiple fronts: watershed and erosion risks on sloped parcels, visual impacts from panels and associated infrastructure, noise and potential low‑level hums from inverters, the long‑term recycling or disposal of panel materials, and uncertainty about future owners. Petworth resident Matt Haeckens urged denial, saying the site ‘‘slopes continuously toward the Beaver Dam Swamp watershed’’ and that ownership and future buyer obligations need clearer guarantees.

County response and conditions: County staff said both projects submitted the studies the ordinance requires (stormwater, environmental, traffic and site plans) and estimated rollback taxes for the parcels. Hershberger and staff said interconnection requests are in Dominion’s queue and reiterated that the county’s siting agreement requires a surety for decommissioning and expressly disallows data centers or battery storage as part of the approved terms.

Board action: After hearing testimony and extended Q&A, the supervisors polled and approved the Fox Mill siting agreement and later approved the Daffodil Fields siting agreement. The board then approved both CUPs on the regular agenda, with recorded dissent by at least one member on both CUP votes. The siting agreements are expressly contingent on CUP approval and on terms acceptable to the applicant, which staff and the applicant confirmed at the hearing.

Next steps: With the CUPs approved, applicants will proceed with final site plan reviews, interconnection milestones with Dominion, and the county will collect any required rollback taxes and enforce CUP conditions. The board and staff said they will monitor the decommissioning sureties and will require the financial assurances contained in the approved siting agreements.

Authority and sources: The hearings and agreements cited the county’s authority under chapter 22, title 15.1, article 7.3 of the Virginia code (as noted in the agenda packet) to enter siting agreements. Public testimony, staff presentations and applicant responses were all taken into the record at the July 7 meeting.

Ending: The projects now move into the permitting and interconnection phases of development; residents who testified at the hearing may request follow‑up information from planning staff and the county’s Commissioner of the Revenue on rollback tax calculations.