The Patrick County Planning Commission approved an amendment to the comprehensive plan’s policies on solar facilities at its meeting on Tuesday, March 18.
According to the amendment, the Patrick County Board of Supervisors finds that the current solar policies in the county’s comprehensive plan do not align with its position that utility-scale solar is an incompatible land use.
The amendment states that while Patrick County does not currently have any utility-scale solar facilities subject to Virginia Code § 15.2-2232, recent interest and proposed projects have prompted county officials to reconsider the appropriateness of this land use.
“Utility-scale solar facilities can have a significant impact on the landscape, wetlands, soil, viewsheds, and other natural and cultural resources located within the county and are generally incompatible with the rural character and land uses traditionally found within the county. Further, such facilities do not directly contribute to the local economy or provide jobs for the community over the long term,” the amendment states.
Based on these impacts, land use incompatibility, and negligible benefits, the amendment states that utility-scale solar facilities are not considered an appropriate land use in the county and “should therefore be prohibited, with the location, character, and extent of proposed facilities being deemed not substantially in accord with this comprehensive plan.”
This policy does not apply to solar facilities other than utility-scale projects, such as accessory solar installations associated with agricultural, residential, commercial, or industrial uses, where generated electricity is primarily used on-site or net-metered to offset on-site electricity consumption.
Commission member Michael Tatum expressed concerns that the amendment does not address two previously approved utility-scale solar projects.
The Board of Supervisors approved a solar siting agreement with Fairystone Solar LLC, a subsidiary of Energix Renewables, in March 2024. The project, planned for Commerce Street in Stuart, was canceled in August 2024 due to interconnection issues but could be revived in the future.
Another proposal for a solar farm in Woolwine by Moscato LLC, also a subsidiary of Energix, was approved by the Planning Commission in February 2024 but has not yet been considered by the Board of Supervisors.
“We got to deal with those, and it’s not dealt with in this resolution,” Tatum said.
Michael Zehner, director of planning and community development programs for Berkley Group LLC, said the amendment cannot be applied retroactively.
“They’ve already gone through your process, they’ve received the approvals. It’s a conversation for the county attorney—I believe you couldn’t retroactively apply a policy or procedure or regulations that’s already been through a process,” he said.
Attending via Zoom, Zehner said the comprehensive plan amendment allows the commission to review—and presumably reject—future applications.
“But with these folks that are grandfathered in, it’s a contradiction. We contradict our own policy by grandfathering these guys in,” Tatum said.
Zehner responded that this situation is common.
Tatum warned that legal challenges could arise on both sides.
“No, sir. I don’t believe so because you can always amend your policy and amend your regulations, and there’s projects that have vested permits and approvals before you do that. As long as you’re not proceeding to take away their rights to what they have, then I don’t see what the liability is,” Zehner said.
If the projects were lawfully approved with no expiration date on their approvals, Zehner said they could proceed regardless of changes to the comprehensive plan.
While the commission cannot alter the two previously approved projects, commission member Ed Pool suggested that the Board of Supervisors or the county administrator notify the solar company that it has a 30- or 60-day deadline to inform the county whether it intends to proceed with the project. If the company fails to respond or declines to continue, the county could cancel the project.
“That can end up in a smidge of a legal argument, but so be it. Because what you’re (Tatum) wanting to do is what I want to do—shut the door on those things,” Pool said, adding that a formal written notice of withdrawal is necessary.
Tatum asked whether the Board of Supervisors has the authority to reach out and demand a response from the solar company.
Zehner recommended consulting the county attorney for legal guidance on how to proceed.
The amendment now moves to the Patrick County Board of Supervisors for approval.
The Planning Commission also discussed a proposed utility-scale solar facility ordinance, which would establish procedures for evaluating solar projects as public use facilities. The ordinance would guide the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in assessing applications when applicable.
When reviewing the draft ordinance, Pool noted the absence of provisions on penalties, financial requirements, long-term liabilities, bonding, or insurance for utility-scale solar companies.
“Why is that?” he asked Zehner.
Since the county does not have zoning regulations, Zehner said certain requirements cannot be mandated in the ordinance.
“This document, this ordinance, cannot necessarily be a regulatory document, so my expectation and recommendation would be that all of those items would be expected and required of any siting agreement negotiation,” he said.
Zehner explained that since the comprehensive plan already states that no project would be acceptable, there is an assumption that no application would reach the negotiation stage. However, if a project were to be approved—or if the Board of Supervisors overturned a commission denial—then those financial and regulatory concerns could be addressed in the siting agreement negotiations.
Tatum agreed with Pool, saying the ordinance should make clear “the penalty for being stupid.”
Zehner suggested that if the ordinance is adopted, the county should develop guidance or an FAQ outlining expectations for siting agreements rather than including regulatory language in the ordinance itself.
“That it not be included within the ordinance because it can be regulatory in nature since it’s not a zoning ordinance, but there be guidance adopted—a policy adopted—for the supervisors when they’re negotiating a siting agreement as to what items need to be addressed within that,” he said.
Pool emphasized that financial commitments should be addressed upfront before any county resources are expended.
“Definitely, the financial commitments need to be put in place. It needs to be known upfront, they certainly need to be known before any resources of the county are expended. A five-renewable bond’s a nonstarter—that’s an escape valve, you should know that. The only way to pull the long-term liability to the frontside is to confirm an irrevocable letter of credit. Anything less than that just does not fly,” he said.
Zehner reiterated that the only way the county can impose such requirements is through the siting agreement.
“You have no other ability to impose those as conditions on a project but through the siting agreement, which is all subject to negotiation. The county has to agree to it, the applicant has to agree to it, and there may be some deal breakers for the county that result in an inability to enter into a siting agreement, and then the project doesn’t go forward. But unfortunately, that’s the nature of this situation because you don’t have the regulatory authority,” he said.
