This week in county government; Supes adopt new voting districts, shorten retention period for family subdivision parcels; BOS roundup; PC to consider rules that limit utility-scale solar development
Engage Louisa is a community newsletter aimed at keeping folks informed about Louisa County government. It’s free, non-partisan, and powered by volunteers. We believe our community is stronger and our government serves us better when we increase transparency, accessibility, and engagement.
This week in county government: public meetings, April 11-April 16
Monday, April 11
Louisa County Electoral Board, Executive Board Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., 10 am. (agenda) The public is invited to attend in person or call in at 540-967-4565.
Wednesday, April 13
James River Water Authority, Fluvanna County Public Library, 214 Commons Blvd., Palmyra, 9 am. (public notice) At publication time, an agenda was not publicly available.
Neighborhood Meeting, hosted by the Louisa County Community Development Department and Larry G. Han, Jianjun Tang, and Evergreen Farm at Rocky Creek, LLC, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 4 pm. (public notice)
The Community Development department will host a neighborhood meeting regarding Larry G. Han, Jianjun Tang, and Evergreen Farm at Rocky Creek, LLC’s request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a special occasion facility and cottages in the Agricultural General (A-2) zoning district. The property is located at 1658 Evergreen Road (tmp 53-116, 53-117) in the Patrick Henry Voting District. A public hearing is scheduled for the Louisa County Planning Commission’s May 12 meeting.
Thursday, April 14
Louisa County Industrial Development Authority, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 8:30 am. (public notice) At publication time, an agenda was not publicly available.
Louisa County Planning Commission, long-range planning work session, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., 6 pm. (agenda packet, livestream)
Planners will hold a work session focused on draft amendments to the county’s ordinance governing utility-scale solar development.
Louisa County Planning Commission, Public Meeting Room, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., 7 pm. (agenda packet, livestream)
The commission’s agenda includes a public hearing on proposed amendments to the county’s ordinance governing utility-scale solar development and a discussion of draft rules for the establishment and operation of short-term rentals. See below for more information.
Additional information about Louisa County’s upcoming public meetings is available here.
Interested in taking your talents to one of the county’s numerous boards and commissions? Find out more here, including which boards have vacancies and how to apply.
Supervisors adopt new voting districts
The Louisa County Board of Supervisors adopted new lines for the county’s seven voting districts Monday night as part of the decennial redistricting process. Localities are required to adopt new districts every 10 years using data from the latest census. (meeting materials, video)
Supervisors approved the new map 6-1 with Cuckoo District Supervisor Willie Gentry voting in opposition. Gentry didn’t provide a reason for his vote other than to say that he didn’t agree with his district’s lines so he couldn’t support the proposal.
When the map was first presented at the board’s February 14 meeting, Gentry expressed concern about his district, which includes most of the eastern end of Lake Anna and stretches south past Cuckoo. He requested that county staff and the board’s redistricting committee, comprised of Patrick Henry District Supervisor Fitzgerald Barnes and Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams, reconfigure the map by moving more populous areas around the lake to neighboring districts. He said that would allow him to retain more residents at his district’s southern end.
The committee agreed to consider tweaks to the map but the board didn’t discuss redistricting again in open session until Monday’s public hearing.
Supervisors didn’t adopt the county’s voting precincts and polling places Monday night as originally planned. On the advice of County Attorney Helen Phillips, the board opted to hold a second public hearing for the precinct map at its April 18 meeting. Phillips said that Monday’s public hearing was properly advertised but a map detailing proposed precincts and polling places was not made publicly available until earlier that day.
Phillips provided a brief overview of the local redistricting process, explaining that the county’s voting districts must be drawn using census tract boundaries and are required to be compact and contiguous with lines that align with observable geographic features like roads and creeks. The seven districts must contain populations that are “substantially the same,” meaning they can’t deviate more than +/- five percent from the ideal district population. Each district must also comply with the Voting Right Act of 1965, which protects the rights of minority communities.
Louisa County has 37,596 residents, according to the 2020 census, so each district has an ideal population of roughly 5,371. The proposed districts range in population from 5,600 residents in Green Springs to 5,116 residents in Jackson.
Because of significant population growth on the county’s western end, the new map pushes several districts westward and shrinks the Green Springs District, where the population grew about 23 percent over the last decade. More than 800 residents were moved from Green Springs to neighboring districts.
The Patrick Henry District, for example, takes in part of the Green Spring District around Zion Crossroads including the Stonegate Apartments along Route 15. The Louisa District takes a chunk off the northern end of the former Green Springs District near the Town of Gordonsville. The Louisa District also grabs a slice of the former Patrick Henry District around Route 33 near Trevilians Elementary School.
The map consolidates nearly all of Lake Anna into the Mineral and Cuckoo Districts. Under the previous map, the Mineral, Louisa, Jackson, and Cuckoo districts include slices of the lake. The Jackson District still touches an edge of the lake but appears to include few lake voters.
The Mineral District sweeps across part of the county’s northwestern border and includes western branches of the lake that previously resided in the Louisa District. The Cuckoo District encompasses most of the far eastern reaches of the lake, which were formerly part of the Jackson District.
Under the new map, the Mountain Road District stretches from Gum Springs west past Yanceyville. The Yanceyville area was previously in the Mineral District.
Phillips shared a draft map of the county’s proposed voting precincts and polling places, set for adoption at the next meeting. She explained that precincts must include between 100 and 5,000 registered voters and that polling locations must be accessible public places that either lie within their precinct’s boundaries or no more than a mile outside of their precinct. Virginia law requires that precincts are wholly contained in state legislative and congressional districts, a provision that prompted county officials to wait for the state to draw its maps before beginning the local redistricting process.
Maps approved by the Virginia Supreme Court in late December place the entire county in the 5th Congressional District but split it between two new state Senate and House of Delegates districts. The maps move the former Green Springs District and the southern part of the Patrick Henry District into the 11th Senate District and 55th House District while placing the rest of the county in the 10th Senate District and 59th House District.
The move has complicated local map-drawing. The new Louisa District, for example, includes a slice of the former Green Springs District near Gordonsville. Because the former Green Springs District is in different state legislative districts, the portion drawn into the Louisa District is required to constitute its own precinct. The proposed precinct map includes three precincts in the Louisa District. Under the previous map, the Louisa District included two precincts.
The state legislative districts split the former and current Patrick Henry District along the South Anna River, meaning the southern portion of the district must comprise one precinct while the northern portion makes up another. Under the previous map, the district was already split into two precincts but some voters who remain in the Patrick Henry District will move from the Patrick Henry 1 precinct to the Patrick Henry 2 precinct to comply with state law.
The draft map cuts the number of precincts in the county from 15 to 14, consolidating both the Mineral and Jackson Districts into one precinct each. If the proposed map is adopted, Mineral District voters who live in the county’s northwest corner will have to travel some 25 minutes to Louisa Middle School, the proposed polling place, if they opt to cast a ballot on Election Day.
The proposal also sites two precincts at one polling place, sending voters in both the Green Springs 2 and Louisa 3 precincts to Living Grace Church along Route 15. The church lies within the proposed Green Springs 2 precinct but less than a mile from Louisa 3’s proposed boundary.
Check out Louisa County’s redistricting resource page here. It includes a draft precinct map and the adopted voting district map.
Board shortens retention period for family subdivision parcels
Supervisors voted 6-1 Monday night to shorten the retention period for land conveyed under the county’s family subdivision rules. The move allows residents who receive a parcel from an immediate family member under the family division ordinance to sell the parcel after five years instead of the 10-year holding period previously required. The new retention period takes effect immediately but only applies to future family divisions.
“To me, this is a limited government move,” Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams said just before voting to shorten the retention period.
Adams originally requested that county officials consider whether a 10-year retention period was appropriate after a constituent expressed concerns about the requirement.
Mineral District resident Jack Matthews pushed for a shortened period at both the Planning Commission’s public hearing in March and Monday night’s hearing. He said that it was unfair that Louisa County has a longer retention period than many of its peers.
“I believe we do need a retention period to keep developers from circumventing the system. But it seems prudent that five years is sufficient,” Matthews said, noting that most surrounding localities have retention periods of five years or less.
A former member of the Planning Commission, Matthews urged the board to follow the commission’s recommendation to shorten the period. Planners voted 4-3 to recommend a five-year retention period after their public hearing. Several planners were moved by a letter from a resident concerned that his aging parents would be locked into a parcel transferred to them under family division rules even if they faced medical hardship.
State code requires that localities provide reasonable provisions for the creation of family subdivisions. According to Louisa County’s land development regulations, landowners are permitted to subdivide properties in the agricultural (A-1), agricultural (A-2), residential limited (R-1), or residential general (R-2) zoning districts into two or more parts for the purpose of sale or gift to a member of their immediate family. The ordinance is designed to make it easier for family members to build homes on family-owned land.
Family divisions aren’t required to adhere to the same road frontage requirements as other divisions and transferring a parcel to a family member doesn’t require a road maintenance agreement, according to Deputy Zoning Administrator Linda Buckler, though parcels do require a platted right of way. In addition, family divisions don’t count against the total number of lots allowed on a particular parcel. Per state law, an individual is only permitted to receive one family subdivision parcel per locality during their lifetime.
Localities aren’t required to have a retention period for property divided under family division rules and Louisa’s period has shifted over time. Regardless of the retention period, a parcel’s sale is permitted if it’s subject to “an involuntary transfer such as foreclosure, death, divorce, judicial sale, condemnation or bankruptcy,” per county code.
Supervisors set the retention period at one year in 1990, raised it to five years in 1997, and to 10 years in 2010. Buckler said at a previous meeting that the county raised the requirement to five years to combat circumvention as property owners divided parcels under the more generous family divisions rules then sold them after one year. She said that she could find little information in meeting minutes as to why the retention period shifted to 10 years
Adams said that he believes a retention period is necessary, but he doesn’t want the county to impose an onerous regulation.
“I do think there should be some regulation on it and I think five years is reasonable based on what we’ve heard,” he said.
Louisa District Supervisor Eric Purcell said he supports reducing the retention period, arguing that the crux of the issue is control.
“It all becomes a question of control and how much control the county government wants, how much control a family may want. But you can’t get too far in the weeds on that stuff because every situation is different. It seems to me that our policy should be consistent with our peers,” he said.
Mountain Road District Supervisor Tommy Barlow, a surveyor by trade, said that he doesn’t have a problem shortening the retention period but that many of his clients who choose to transfer parcels under family divisions rules would prefer a longer period. Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams said there are other ways to ensure land stays in a family outside of county regulations.
Green Springs District Supervisor Rachel Jones was the only board member to vote against the change.
BOS roundup: Supes move forward with New Bridge Fire and Rescue Station at current site, talk tax relief, budget, and more
More news from the Board of Supervisors’ April 4 meeting:
Supervisors approve construction contract, supplemental appropriation for New Bridge Fire and Rescue Station: Supervisors voted unanimously Monday night to move forward with construction of the New Bridge Fire and Rescue Station at 1856 New Bridge Road (Route 208), a county-owned parcel selected in 2020. But the station will come at a much higher price than originally anticipated.
The board accepted a contract from BlueScope Construction to build the facility for just over $2 million with another $349,000 required for well and septic design, well construction, alternative drain field construction, and other expenses. The almost $2.4 million total nearly triples the $900,000 earmarked for the project in FY 2021. The facility was first envisioned as a rescue station then expanded to include fire service.
The board authorized a $916,466 supplemental appropriation, drawn from the county’s general fund, to cover the additional cost. Supervisors previously appropriated $800,000 for the project during the FY21 budget process and an additional $600,000 late last year after receiving a $1.2 million construction quote that didn’t include site work. The Foundation for Lake Anna Emergency Services, a citizens’ advocacy group, raised another $100,000 for the facility’s construction, which it donated to the county.
County officials attributed the facility’s lofty price tag, in part, to inflation. Much of Monday night’s appropriation is expected to cover site work. At a March 7 budget work session, County Administrator Christian Goodwin said that the sloping 2.4-acre parcel would require a considerable amount of fill work, driving up the cost.
To save money, the board considered swapping land with Stillwater Equity Partners, developers of the nearby Cutalong community. Stillwater had offered a flatter parcel along Kentucky Springs Road, part of a 45-acre tract the developer owns adjacent to the Lake Anna Food Lion. Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon said Monday that Stillwater since rescinded the land swap offer.
Coon said that the board had only until April 9 to accept BlueScope’s contract, which the county received through Sourcewell, an entity that provides a streamlined, cooperative procurement process.
BlueScope specializes in pre-engineered steel buildings and will act as the general contractor, providing a Butler Building System for the site. Loudin Building Systems, a Louisa-based company, will serve as the primary subcontractor. BlueScope expects to complete the facility by May 2023.
While the board voted unanimously to approve the contract and move forward at the current site, Cuckoo District Supervisor Willie Gentry expressed frustration with the project’s budget.
“I’m still concerned that we started off with an $800,000 project and now it’s gone to $2.4 (million). I just have a problem with that. But I’m also in support of the project because I think it’s very well needed,” he said, adding that the chosen site “probably wasn’t as good as we thought it was.”
Supervisors to consider raising tax relief threshold: After recently revamping a program that offers real estate tax relief to some elderly and permanently disabled residents, supervisors will hold a public hearing at their May 2 meeting to consider more changes.
Currently, the program provides real estate tax relief to permanently disabled residents and residents 65 years old and over whose income falls at or below $40,000 a year and whose net worth, excluding their home and 10 acres, falls at or below $200,000.
Supervisors broadened the program last year, raising the net worth cap from $100,000 to $200,000, doubling from $1,000 to $2,000 the amount of tax relief allowed, and adjusting the sliding scale that determines how much relief residents qualify for.
The new proposal would raise the income cap from $40,000 to $50,000 and again tweak the sliding scale (see the proposed matrix below).
“The whole purpose of this is to try and broaden that relief a little bit so we went from $40,000 to $50,000, which should encompass some more people,” Mountain Road District Supervisor Tommy Barlow said. Barlow and Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams served in a working group that crafted the proposal.
Williams said it’s difficult to precisely determine how much the plan would cost the county, but he and Barlow estimate that it could have a $500,000 impact. He said that if the board adopts the changes after a May 2 public hearing, the deadline to apply for relief could be extended to June 1.
Supervisors have faced criticism from some residents for advertising a level real estate tax rate even as assessments rose more than 12 percent. The board decided to explore changes to the relief program at their March 21 meeting following a public hearing on real estate tax assessments.
Residents weigh in on FY23 budget: Supervisors held their second public hearing of the FY23 budget cycle, providing residents a chance to weigh in on the county’s proposed $146.1 million budget. The board will formally adopt a budget, covering daily operations and capital spending, at its April 18 meeting.
Finance Director Wanda Colvin provided a formal budget presentation at the March 21 meeting and updated the board on several small changes Monday night. She cautioned that the county is still awaiting a final state budget, which could impact local numbers. (Click here to read Engage Louisa’s coverage of March 21 budget presentation).
Just as they did during a public hearing focused on a potential real estate tax increase due to rising assessments, supervisors heard from a handful of residents who urged them to lower the tax rate. The county advertised a level rate of 72 cents per $100 of assessed value but assessments increased 12.2 percent, excluding new construction and improvements, translating into a tax hike for many residents.
Mineral District Supervisor and Board Chair Duane Adams said just prior to opening the hearing that the county is considering a lean budget focused on providing core services. He pointed out that about 70 percent of the budget, roughly $100 million, goes to public education and public safety. He noted that supervisors pushed back millions of dollars in capital spending and that the nearly $11 million in capital projects slated for FY23 cover critical needs like fire and EMS equipment and broadband infrastructure.
“There is not, in my opinion, fat in this budget,” Adams said, adding “what I would suggest when folks want to come up and talk about the budget, give us ideas of where we cut it whether it’s school teachers or mental health counselors at the schools or the additional six positions that the sheriff wanted—the three deputies and three dispatchers—or it’s the nine firefighters we just hired.”
Four community members weighed in, three in person and one via email, and most sounded a similar theme. They said that government, like residents, must learn to live within its means and that local leaders should extend tax relief as prices for gas and groceries rise.
“If the board does nothing and leaves the tax rate the same, imposing a 12 percent increase in taxes on the citizens, how many of the citizens will be able to pay their taxes? How many will eventually lose their homes or property? How many will forego necessities such as prescription medications?” Cuckoo District resident Rebeca Wood said in an email to the board.
Green Springs District resident Will Shaw said that he was “pleasantly surprised” to hear Adams request that residents share ideas on where to cut, but he hadn’t come to the meeting prepared to offer specific suggestions. He said it’s the board’s job to make tough decisions.
“All of us, with our homes, our families, and our income, have to learn to live within our budget and we elect you all to make hard decisions. One of those decisions should be how to live within our means,” Shaw said.
Gerald Harlow, another Green Springs District resident, did take Adams up on his call for suggested cuts. He urged the board to axe $3 million in funding for Firefly Fiber Broadband’s initiative to bring universal high-speed internet access to the county.
“You asked for a cut in the budget? I’ll give you one right now, $3 million for Firefly. Firefly’s a for-profit company owned by Central Virginia Electric Co-op. Cut the $3 million out. Don’t give taxpayer monies to a for-profit company whose taking in millions upon millions from the federal government,” he said.
Supervisors will settle on a final real estate tax rate when they adopt the budget on April 18. Budget appropriation is set for May 2 and Fiscal Year 2023 kicks off July 1.
Supervisors okay up to $500k tax rebate for Crossing Pointe: The board unanimously agreed to double from $250,000 to up to $500,000 a tax rebate it’s providing to Crossing Pointe Development, LLC, GET Captive, LLC, and GW & FW Holdings, LLC, developers of Crossing Pointe, a mixed-use community slated for construction at Zion Crossroads. The Planned Unit Development, approved in 2019, is expected to include 138,000 square feet of commercial space and 321 residential units.
In exchange for the initial $250,000 rebate, the developers agreed to build a regional wastewater pump station to serve both Crossing Pointe and other parcels then transfer its ownership to the Louisa County Water Authority.
Wade told the board Monday night that the cost to construct the station has increased from $650,000 to $1.3 million in recent months, prompting the request for a more generous rebate. He attributed the station’s lofty price tag to “material pricing, construction inflation, and things of that nature.”
Wade said that, if the county opted not to sweeten the rebate, the developers could construct a private pump station, leaving the county on the hook to construct its own in the future.
The tax rebate applies only to net new revenue generated from the project, not taxes currently paid, and the developers won’t see any benefit until the pump station is commissioned and under LCWA’s ownership. The developers have five years from that point to cash in on the rebate. The developers agreed to complete construction and acquire necessary permits for the station within 18 months of the amended agreement’s execution.
Board refers draft solar regulations, proposed rules governing short-term rentals to Planning Commission: Supervisors unanimously referred to the Planning Commission for its recommendation draft amendments to county code covering utility-scale solar development and the establishment and operation of short-term rentals. Both large-scale solar facilities and STRs have gained a significant foothold in the county in recent years, prompting concern from some residents.
The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing and work session focused on the proposed solar amendments Thursday night. (See below for a preview).
Commissioners will also begin a discussion on proposed STR rules. Click here to check out Louisa County’s explainer of the proposed regulations. Read Engage Louisa’s previous coverage of the draft STR rules here.
Both sets of proposed amendments require a public hearing in front of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors and supervisors’ approval.
Planning Commission to consider rules that limit utility-scale solar development
The Louisa County Planning Commission will consider regulations Thursday night that could reshape the future of utility-scale solar development, capping the acreage available for large-scale solar generation and setting a floor for the size of future projects.
Planners will hold a 6 pm work session and a 7 pm public hearing on draft amendments to the county’s solar ordinance, which the Board of Supervisors adopted last year as part of a larger rewrite of the zoning code. The hearing comes as county officials weigh the economic benefit of large-scale solar generation and residents’ concerns about negative impacts from the facilities.
Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams and Patrick Henry District Supervisor Fitzgerald Barnes presented recommendations in late December that laid the groundwork for the proposed regulations. Barnes and Adams, whose districts have seen a flurry of interest from solar developers, spent several months researching development guidelines via meetings with stakeholders and a review of ordinances and policies adopted by other localities.
Barnes’ district is home to Dominion’s 88 MW Belcher Solar Facility off Waldrop Church Road where hundreds of acres of pine forest was cleared to make way for solar panels. Runoff from the sprawling 1,300-acre site has led to muddied waterways, severe erosion, and other damage to neighboring farms, which Adams has called “catastrophic.” Residents have also complained about traffic, noise, and dust during the year-long construction process. The last three solar facilities approved by the county are slated for construction in Adams’ district.
Embracing solar generation
Since the General Assembly passed the Virginia Clean Economy Act in 2020, rural central Virginia has emerged as a hotbed for utility-scale solar development. The landmark legislation revamped the commonwealth’s energy production policies and boosted an already flourishing solar industry. It mandated that the state’s largest electric providers, Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power, draw all their power from carbon-free sources by 2045 and 2050, respectively, and declared the deployment of more than 16,000 MW of solar and onshore wind capacity in the public interest.
The General Assembly passed a package of accompanying legislation that incentivized localities to embrace large-scale solar sites, restructuring the way the facilities are taxed and allowing local government to receive certain cash proffers and other benefits from the projects. The tax structure offers carrots to both solar developers and local governments, extending machinery and tools tax breaks but stepping them down over time while also offering localities a revenue sharing option.
With its friendly topography, abundant sunshine, and proximity to high-voltage transmission lines, Louisa County has attracted the attention of many utility-scale solar developers who’ve found landowners eager to trade their profits from fast-growing pine trees for more lucrative deals leasing their land for solar panels. They also found county officials who were interested in tax revenue from a land use that requires few services.
The Louisa County Board of Supervisors has approved seven utility-scale solar sites to date, five since VCEA passed. Over their 35-year lifespan, the projects will contribute millions of dollars to county coffers. When all seven projects are constructed, they’ll encompass more than 5,000 acres, much of which was once used for timber production.
The last project to receive a Conditional Use Permit from the county, Energix’s 118 MW Two Oaks site and accompanying 50 MW battery storage facility, is set for construction on 1234 acres at the Cooke Industrial Rail Park. Much of the wooded property is owned by the Louisa County Industrial Development Authority, which will receive $700 an acre annually for land used for energy production over the life of the solar array. Louisa County Economic Development Director Andy Wade said that he anticipates the authority will use revenue from the facility to enhance economic development projects in other parts of the county.
Louisa County is expected to receive over $15 million from the Two Oaks facility over 35 years via machinery and tools taxes and increased real estate tax revenue, according to the developer. Energix also proffered $20,000 toward fiber broadband deployment and agreed to purchase $515,000 in equipment for Louisa’s Fire and EMS department including a 3,000-gallon tanker truck. That proffer aims to ensure that first responders are prepared in case of fire within the battery storage system, the first approved in the county.
While utility-scale solar development is a critical component in Virginia’s plan to de-carbonize the grid, the demand for vast tracts of land in rural areas has sparked tensions and concern. In Louisa, some residents say that the facilities threaten the county’s rural character as they replace woodlands and farmland with industrial-scale energy production. They worry about the projects’ impact on natural resources, wildlife, and the community’s agricultural and timber-based economy. And they wonder how the land will be reclaimed and solar panels disposed of when developers leave.
A few years into the solar boom, Louisa County officials, like many of their peers across rural Virginia, are rethinking their approach to large-scale solar development. They’re exploring what sort of limits they should set and how they can maximize economic benefits while minimizing undesirable impacts.
Draft rules seek to protect rural land, maximize economic benefits
From the outset, the county’s draft regulations make their intent clear: “to preserve and protect the county’s rural ambiance and its agricultural and forestal lands.” But they also focus on economic rewards.
The proposed amendments limit the amount of land that can be used for utility-scale solar generation to three percent of the county’s total acreage, or 9,800 acres. At the same time, they prohibit the approval of solar facilities that generate less than 151 MW of power.
During supervisors’ brief discussion of the draft Monday night, Adams said that, since the county already has some 5,000 acres committed to utility-scale solar production, implementing a cap on acreage and a floor for megawatt production would likely mean only three more facilities could be built. On average, solar facilities require between five and 10 acres to produce 1 MW of power.
“This would basically allow three more projects in the county then shut it down,” Adams said.
Adams explained in December that he and Barnes chose the 151 MW floor for two reasons: to slow the proliferation of smaller-scale sites and to maximize tax revenue from any future projects. Per state law, utility-scale solar facilities subject to a locality’s machinery and tools tax initially receive an 80 percent tax abatement if they produce 150 MW of power or less. Facilities that produce more than 150 MW receive no tax break.
The draft amendments would also impose restrictions on where utility scale-solar facilities could be built, limiting their construction to within one mile of existing high-voltage distribution or transmission lines’ right of way and barring them in residential and some industrial zoning in growth area overlay districts. Projects sited over a mile from high-voltage lines could be considered on a case-by-case basis.
In response to residents’ concerns about the view shed around solar projects, the revised ordinance beefs up buffering requirements. It mandates a 300-foot opaque vegetative buffer, doubling the current 150-foot requirement, and stipulates that any supplemental tree plantings reach at least 20 feet in height within 10 years of installation, among other provisions.
In the wake of significant damage from runoff at the Belcher facility, where hundreds of acres were quickly cleared during site preparation, the amendments implement specific erosion and sediment control measures, which supervisors have already incorporated in CUPs for several recent projects.
“Right now, in the industry today, when you say ‘Belcher’ a lot of people frown. We went in and tried to fix a lot of that,” Barnes said in December.
The draft regulations require that developers implement a phased approach to site preparation and construction with no more than 100 acres cleared at a time, mandate that sediment control features receive county approval on a phase-by-phase basis, and prohibit stormwater holding ponds in vegetative buffers.
Developers must obtain a written report from either an independent engineer or the zoning administrator determining soil stabilization for each phase of construction. Once this determination is made, another phase of land disturbance can begin.
The proposed amendments compel developers to pay a third-party engineer to check on construction weekly and ensure that it’s proceeding in accordance with the terms of the Conditional Use Permit. They also requires developers to submit a bond to ensure compliance.
The draft rules also address battery storage facilities, which hold energy for distribution on the grid during peak demand. The regulations require that applicants specify where a proposed storage system would be located on their site and address both the threat of battery storage fires and the fiscal impact on county services for fighting fires.
The county’s current solar ordinance already requires developers to submit decommissioning plans. The amendments include a provision that prohibits developers from disposing of solar panels in Louisa County’s landfill.
In addition, the draft rules require developers to include documentation demonstrating that they control the property under consideration for a CUP and that they’ve filed an application with PJM, the entity that oversees the electric grid in numerous eastern states, for interconnection to the grid.
Thursday night’s public hearing is just the first step toward beefing up solar regulations. The draft amendments also require a public hearing in front of the Board of Supervisors and the board’s approval.
Click here for contact information for the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.
Find agendas and minutes from previous Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission meetings as well as archived recordings here.
Click here for contact information for the Louisa County School Board.
Click here for minutes and agendas for School Board meetings.
Click here to access past editions of Engage Louisa.