Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

CEP Solar had hoped to get both of their latest solar projects approved in Prince Edward County. But in March, the county’s planning commission only recommended one for approval, pointing out issues in the county’s current way of handling solar while rejecting the second. Instead of asking supervisors to consider just one or bringing a once-rejected project to the board, CEP officials decided to pull both and work on a redesign. 

“The planning commission had made a recommendation on one for approval and one for denial,” said Prince Edward County Administrator Doug Stanley. “Based on that, (CEP) wanted to go back and take a look at both applications. They made the request and typically we honor the request of the company to postpone.” 

As a result, they were removed from the agenda for the board of supervisors’ Tuesday, April 8 meeting. That doesn’t mean the projects completely go away. Instead, now we wait and see. Specifically, the request by CEP was to put things on hold for at least a month. In a letter to county staff, CEP co-founder Tyson Utt requested the hearing and possible vote be deferred “to the board’s May 13 meeting or as soon thereafter as the board may be able to hold the hearings.” 

Utt wrote that he was requesting more time so that CEP could “improve the conditions for these projects to directly address concerns that were raised by (the) planning commission. On Green Bay in particular, we are modifying the site plan and adding new conditions to directly address concerns about project visibility and to mitigate risks associated with stormwater management.” 

That ties in with why the planning commission recommended denial for the Green Bay site, which we’ll go over in a minute. First we need to talk about an appeal. 

A request for appeal 

In his March 27 letter, Utt doesn’t just request that the hearing be pushed back. He also wants the board of supervisors to basically override the decision made by the planning commission. As mentioned, the planning commission recommended denial of the second of the two projects, the proposed Green Bay solar site. 

One of the arguments, however, doesn’t really involve the projects at all. Instead, it’s about how Prince Edward County deals with solar overall. The current comprehensive plan doesn’t mention it. There’s nothing in it to say how to deal with a project, where solar should or shouldn’t go. 

The revised version, currently being worked on, is expected to touch on it. But until that version is approved by county supervisors, some planning commission members feel like it’s a bit premature, bringing all of these solar projects up for discussion. 

The issue is that the planning commission, before recommending a project, has to rule and say they find the project to be in substantial accord with the county ordinances and comprehensive plan. How can you do that, some commission members argued, since the current plan doesn’t address solar at all? And yes, commission member Rhett Weiss said in the group’s March meeting, they have been dealing with solar for several years, but that doesn’t mean the county can’t slow down and wait for the revised plan to be finished. 

“If we’ve had the cart before the horse, do we keep it that way or turn it around?” Weiss said. 

Utt argued that the planning commission had found that previous solar projects were “in accord” with the comprehensive plan. You don’t have to recommend denial for projects, he wrote, “just because the county’s comprehensive plan does not address solar facilities.” 

Looking at the solar projects

So what do we know about the two solar projects? The first of the two is Oak Lane Solar Farm, which would currently be built on 194.8 acres, with 61 acres of solar panels. It’s located on Route 360, near the intersection with Route 628. It’s roughly 11 miles southeast of Farmville and a half mile from the Lunenburg County line. It would be a 5 megawatt solar energy facility. There would currently be 134 acres set aside for buffers, wildlife corridors and setbacks. 

Tyson Utt, the co-founder of CEP Solar, said in the March planning commission meeting that the company saw from other hearings a lack of visibility from Route 360 was important to residents, so they reduced the amount of space dedicated to panels. In other words, residents didn’t want to see the panels from the road. He also promised that the panels would only operate during the day on both sites, so there would be no noise generated at night. 

Road damage has been another concern of residents with other projects. Utt told the commission that Oak Lane would have two entrances. The first would be a construction entrance along Route 360. The second, along Holly Lane, would be for non-construction purposes, like operations and potential emergency use. 

The second project, Green Bay Solar Farm, would currently be on 67.8 acres, just off Route 360 near its intersection with Cheatham Road. Just like Oak Lane, it’s on land that’s primarily timber and pasture. 

But unlike the first one, the Green Bay project was flagged due to questions about potential development. Would it bring development to an area currently zoned for agriculture? And more than that, this property is not exactly flat. So what kind of damage might be done to the environment, people questioned, as trees get cut down and the land is reworked to make it fit the project? And what kind of damage could that cause to other properties nearby? With a number of questions surrounding this project, the planning commission unanimously voted to recommend denial. 

What happens next? 

Now we wait to see what changes CEP Solar makes to both projects. Then we see when the next public hearing is set for.