Get email alerts on the Solar Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Patrick County approves solar energy facilities ordinance after heated public hearing
Summary
After an extended public hearing with divergent testimony about environmental testing and legal vulnerability, the Patrick County Board of Supervisors voted to approve a commercial solar energy facilities ordinance described by proponents as a "working document."
Get email alerts on the Solar Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Patrick County Board of Supervisors voted to approve a commercial solar energy facilities ordinance after hearing several hours of public comment and debate.
Residents and local experts warned the draft ordinance lacked the technical specificity needed for enforceable environmental testing and protections. Norma Bozemeyer, a Smith River District resident and long‑time environmental monitor, told the board the draft "doesn't do that" and described it as "totally unenforceable as written," arguing the ordinance must specify contaminant limits, sampling methods and schedules rather than a list of chemicals. Kurt Bosenmeyer told the board he feared the document relied on "unvetted AI generated verbiage" and said the county was setting itself up for legal challenges.
Supporters and a clean‑energy developer countered that modern crystalline‑silicon panels used in many projects pose minimal contamination risk and that financial assurances such as performance bonds can protect the county. Andy Welch of Rick Energy said the panels his company installs are "made of silicon, glass and aluminum" and "are not toxic" and asked the board to consider whether the county has the staff and budget to take on regulatory oversight that belongs to state or federal agencies.
Supervisor [motion maker] moved to approve the ordinance "as a working document" so the county would have a regulatory starting point; the motion was seconded and, after discussion about potential legal vulnerabilities, the board recorded votes and approved the ordinance. The board's motion and recorded vote showed one supervisor opposed and the remaining supervisors in favor.
The ordinance text and related planning‑commission materials will remain subject to further revision; supporters described it as a starting point for future edits and legal review. Chairman Overby and other supervisors indicated the planning commission and county staff would continue to refine technical details in response to public feedback.
AI generated
The text on this page is AI generated. Summaries, highlights, analysis, and video transcripts are all produced from the original source material.
AI can make mistakes, so if you spot one, and we will fix it for everyone.
Note: the source content is unaltered by us. Any content source we link to, be it a video, an audio recording, or a document, is presented exactly as its publisher released it. That publisher is usually a government body, sometimes an individual official or another organisation.
