Planning Commission recommends denial of solar farm – Lynchburg News and Advance

The Wild Rose project is planned by Savion , which is based in Kansas City, Missouri, and owned by Shell.

According to the presentation, this project would generate up to 90 megawatts and be able to power 14,000 homes.

The farm is proposed on a property in Gladstone and has around a 40-year lifespan.

The presentation explained that Savion would start construction in 2026 and it would be functional in 2027. The applicant projected that this would bring 250 jobs to the county during construction.

After the Wild Rose presentation, the commission heard comments from the community during a public hearing on the solar request.

Nelson resident Chad Ryan voiced concerns about the timeframe of the solar project and if the benefits outweigh the impact it could have.

“Thirty-five to 40 years seems like an extremely long amount of time to sign off on a project when these companies haven’t been installing this stuff for 100 years,” Ryan said. “We don’t know the impacts of the environment.”

Another speaker, of Lovingston, voiced concerns over “abuse” of the soil water conservation district.

The Lovingston resident urged the planning commission to reach out to neighboring counties to ask them about the negative effects of the solar farms they approved. He also passed out photos to the commission to show what he described as erosion happening at these sites and urged the commission and board of supervisors to deny the request.

After the hearing, commission members asked Wild Rose representatives questions about the project.

Robin Hauschner, Central District commissioner representative, asked about land clearing and the initial development of the solar plants.

Hauschner mentioned the settlement with the Columbia River Restoration Fund where there was degradation of the local environment and stormwater runoff flooding the Columbia River.

Jeannine Johnson, development manager at Savion, responded to Hauschner’s question/development manager for Savion, said the company can’t comment publicly on the settlement.

“What I will say is that Virginia has very strict stormwater and erosion control measures and even more so for solar development. Any area under the panels are considered impervious, which is similar to putting concrete on the ground so everything under the panels is going to be seated and regrown,” Johnson said.

Hauschner also asked about maintenance on the panels.

“This says there will be cuttings two to three times a year with exception for access for maintenance. That substantially impacts the ability of the native vegetation,” Hauschner said.

Erich Miarka, director of development at Savion, said the project would have minimal maintenance and small things needing fixing.

“Over the life of the project, we’re talking about ground surface activity, it’s just cutting the grass. We don’t want it to be so tall that it starts to get above the lower edge of the solar panels,” Miarka said.

Michael Harman, West District commissioner, asked if the solar panels were recyclable and how it would affect the grid.

“Can they be recycled or do they end up in the county dump?” Harman asked.

Johnson said the panels can be recycled.

“We made a commitment to use panels that have passed the [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] toxicity characteristic leaching protocol,” Johnson said.

According to the EPA website, toxicity characteristic leaching protocol is used to see whether something has hazardous components in its waste.

Charles Amante, East District commissioner, asked if the panels would still be recyclable in 40 years.

Miarka answered that copper and aluminum would always be sought after.

Ernie Reed, Central District supervisor and Nelson County Board of Supervisors liaison, said that he was unsure of his feelings toward the project yet but he would get a chance to look at it again when it came to the board.

“I appreciate all the effort that you put forth. You have a really solid proposal in a lot of ways. But, we’re all dealing with the fact that 30, 40, 50 years down the road, we have no idea what’s going to transpire,” Reed said.

Hauschner said that he felt that this project did not meet the planning commission directives. Amante agreed with that point.

“I think it completely changes the character of the land,” Amante said.

Amante made the first motion that the project was not in ordinance with the county comprehensive plan. The vote was 4-1with Reed opposed.

A second motion from Amante recommended denial of the solar project to the board of supervisors. The vote was unanimous at 5-0 to recommend denial.

Philippa Proulx, North District representative was absent from the vote.

Wild Rose Solar Project will be discussed at the Aug. 18 board of supervisors meeting. More information can be found on the project on its website at https://www.wildrosesolarproject.com/.