.jpg)
In a 4-to-1 vote last week, the Rockbridge County Board of Supervisors denied a special exception permit that would have allowed a 5-megawatt solar array to be built on agriculture-zoned land near Raphine.
The project, proposed by Volcano LLC, would have been placed on 65 acres of Sylvia Moore’s 150-acre farm south of Moores Trail, between U.S. 11 and Interstate 81.
An earlier version of this proposal was brought before the Planning Commission in October. Following a public hearing in which many citizens voiced concerns, the Commission voted to recommend the Board of Supervisors deny the special exception permit request.
Between then and the March 11 Board of Supervisors meeting, Volcano Energy made modifications to its proposal to try to assuage some of the citizen concerns, as Alexandria Walling, assistant vice president of development with Inovateus Solar, the company responsible for development and construction of the project, told the Board.
Among those changes was a decrease to the size of the solar farm itself, from 65 to 53 acres.
“The approximate project area has been tightened since we spoke in front of the Planning Commission due to feedback that we received from the community,” said Walling.
She said the project would use as little of the property as possible, avoiding the wooded section of the property and areas marked as “prime farmland.”
“This setup allows us to only utilize the area currently in hay production. The remainder of the property, which we have spoken [about] with the manager of the ownership, is intended to stay in agricultural uses,” she said.
The revised proposal also included plans to plant trees to provide a visual buffer around the area, to limit how much of the property would be graded, and to change from barbed wire to square knot fencing.
Around two dozen citizens, including the owners of several nearby properties, spoke during the public hearing, all opposing the proposal.
One of the adjacent property owners, Calvard Fitzgerald, spoke about the project’s potential to lower property values.
“My family owns an adjoining piece of property beside it. And I’m all for saving our farmland, but I’m worried about the devaluing of land, this being as a neighbor,” he said. “I really believe in letting people do what they want with their land, but they will devalue or destruct something around it.”
This concern was mirrored by other citizens, including Hilton Harrison, who owns property on Grant Road. “I bought my property 21 years ago, and, when I walk out my back door, that’s the first thing I’m going to see,” Harrison told the Board. “Now, there are solar panels behind my back door, they’re basically in my backyard—would you like this in your backyard?”
Other citizens, such as Susan Showalter, spoke about the proposed project’s potential contribution to decreasing farmland throughout the county. “My family, we own farms in all five districts, and we farm a lot of rented land in all five districts. I’m totally against this,” she said. “It makes me sick, to see how much farmland is left in this county, and sooner or later, you all are going to wake up and realize that you’re hungry. We’ve got to protect the farmland.”
“I’m 65 years old, and it makes me really upset to ride by and say, I used to have cows here, I used to bale hay here. Farmland is leaving this county. We’ve got to do something to protect it,” said Showalter.
Heidi Woodward suggested that solar panels be put in other locations. “I am against putting solar arrays on farmland, I feel like there are definitely more appropriate places, like new hotels and fast food restaurants, that would be better suited for this,” Woodward told the board.
“We can’t lose any more farmland and over the last couple years, it’s, as they’ve said, it’s sickening, to see the amount of land that’s been taken out,” she said.
A similar suggestion was made by Luke Grant, who farms in the area. “I don’t have anything against solar panels, but it’s a disgrace to our culture to sit there and call them solar farms. Because it’s not a farm. They can put these things on buildings, and everywhere else,” he said. “If you want to put that on your house—cool, I get that. But when [you] start taking up acres, that’s going to hurt somebody in the future.”
Richard Brant urged the board to factor the public’s opposition into their decision. “You can’t keep taking the land away from farmland and expect them to keep feeding people. If you’re going to do the will of the people, which you all are supposed to do, this is dead in the water,” he said. “I haven’t found anybody that wants this.”
Several of the supervisors cited the public’s concerns in their reasons for voting against the special exception permit.
“I’ve always felt that, being elected, that I was to serve the people. I work for them. There’s been at least 24 people that have spoken here tonight. I don’t think I’ve heard a one speak in favor of it,” said Bob Day. “You can’t tell me that this won’t affect property values; therefore, I’m against it.”
Supervisor David McDaniel agreed. “Typically I try to champion property owner rights and their ability to do whatever they want to on their property, if everyone’s paying taxes,” he said. “However, having looked at this project and listened to the concerns over the project, it’s my opinion that this project adversely impacts the character of the neighborhood, the roads, the traffic and the abutting properties, so I’m not sure why we would approve it.”
Dan Lyons thanked the public for coming and sharing their concerns, but said that the task of preserving farmlands couldn’t fall only to the supervisors. “I want to thank everyone for coming out tonight. It’s always good to have a meeting with other people here, rather than just ourselves,” he said. “I listened to everything that was said tonight, and the only thing I disagree with is that we are eliminating farmlands.”
“We all have to take responsibility for that,” he continued. “We as a community have to make sure we figure out a way to ensure that these people are not being forced into using their farmlands for other purposes.”
The one vote in support of the permit was from Leslie Ayers, who explained that she felt the solar farm would be less detrimental than other potential developments. “It’s not about farming, or this project, to me. It’s about this project, or something else,” she said. “I understand the scary aspect of having it, but for me, I’d take this to 20, 40 houses, any day of the week.”
“There are many development things coming down the pipeline, and, again, we can’t make people farm, we can’t keep people in farming, we can just encourage that,” said Ayers. “And this is the only use of farmland, that, 30 years from now, when the project’s finished, you at least have the option of farming again.”
