Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After contested hearing and months of outreach, board denies Flower Solar rezoning
Summary
Following hours of testimony from residents, landowners and the applicant, the board voted 5–0 to deny rezoning of ~196 acres to the Solar Energy District for a proposed 20 MW Flower Solar project; Planning Commission had been tied 3–3.
The Dinwiddie County Board of Supervisors denied a request to rezone roughly 196 acres for a 20‑megawatt Flower Solar project at its Aug. 19 meeting after a lengthy public hearing featuring tens of speakers for and against the project.
Planning staff presented the proposal and site analysis, describing a project that would place panels behind the Norfolk Southern rail line, limit panel coverage to a portion of the leased area, and use vegetative buffers and a 75‑foot setback from perimeter property lines. Staff noted VDOT traffic recommendations and included decommissioning and groundwater testing plans among proposed conditions. The Planning Commission had split 3–3 on a recommendation, producing no affirmative recommendation to the board.
The developer’s counsel, Will Schumack (speaker 33), argued the project would provide local distributed generation, help grid resilience and produce economic benefits — including construction and ongoing revenue for the county. He said the facility would “serve up to 3,500 households and local businesses” and emphasized buffer planting to minimize visibility. Representatives from Actualize Solar (Neil Watlington and Vadim Avchin) provided technical and grid‑resiliency explanations.
Opponents cited concerns including groundwater and well contamination risk, road and construction impacts on long‑maintained private dirt roads, fire risk and property‑value effects. Multiple residents reported generations of family ownership of the land and questioned whether farmland should be converted. Several speakers also argued that distributed solar could not substitute for large baseload or peaker plants for sustained reliability.
After public comment and board discussion weighing constituent feedback, land-use planning policy and infrastructure arguments, a motion to disapprove the rezoning passed by roll call (5–0). County staff said the denial makes the follow‑up conditional use permit and siting agreement moot for this application.
