.jpg)
The fate of a 3.0 megawatts solar array proposed for 21 acres of a 141-acre farm near Natural Bridge Station won’t be determined until after the first of the year.
Most of the speakers who addressed the Rockbridge County Board of Supervisors Monday on USS Hilltop Solar LLC’s proposed solar array expressed opposition to the plans. The supervisors then opted to continue the public hearing until Jan. 8 to give them additional time to get answers to various questions that were raised about the project.
The Planning Commission on Oct. 11 voted 3-1 to recommend the supervisors not issue a special exception permit for the solar array proposed for Douglas E. Braford’s farm on the west side of the intersection of Lloyd Tolley (Va. 773) and Gilmores Mill (Va. 708) roads.
“I ask you to trust the Planning Commission,” said Judy Clark in urging the supervisors to reject the solar project. Clark, who lives near another proposed solar array planned near Raphine, said she has worries about environmental and viewshed impacts of the solar projects.
Jeannette Jeffer, who has a farm directly across the James River from the proposed solar array site on the Braford farm, said she thought the project would have negative effects on local tourism. She described as “very ugly” the solar array under construction in Fairfield on the Alexander farm.
“As a landowner of the scenic stretch of the James River that will be affected by the project, I’m concerned that this project will destroy the natural beauty of this particularly popular area,” wrote Jeffer in a recent letter to the supervisors. “My late husband and I put 297 acres directly across the river from the proposed site in a conservation easement specifically to preserve this area.”
Lee Merrill said he’s “generally supportive” of the county’s “eventual approval” of the solar array after the applicant has addressed the concerns that have been raised. He noted that there is a need for solar energy. He suggested that the supervisors increase the estimated costs for decommissioning of the project by about 10 percent to assure that the future costs are covered.
In a letter to the supervisors and in comments he made at Monday’s meeting, Dan Csaplar, project coordinator, questioned whether the Planning Commission had established a basis for its recommended denial of the permit. He pointed out that the county’s attorney, Vickie Huffman, said the action to deny or approve the permit has to be based on existing regulations – not what might be in a future ordinance.
Csaplar cited studies that have been undertaken that show solar arrays don’t have a negative effect on neighboring property values. He said the solar panels used in these projects have undergone toxicity tests and were found to not be hazardous. The proposed site, he said, is not located on prime farmland. Hay production and cattle grazing would continue on the farm after the solar project is in place, he said.
Supervisor Jay Lewis told Csaplar he found the comments in his letter “demeaning.” Lewis expressed frustration with not having had enough time to review materials associated with the project, including a document verifying that an engineer had signed off on the decommissioning plan that he received earlier on Monday.
Supervisors Leslie Ayers and Dan Lyons said they too needed additional time to review plans and get answers to questions raised. A motion was adopted to continue the public hearing until the supervisors’ regular meeting on Jan. 8.
