Weigh in to prevent continued "by right" loss of rural land

Orange County has, aware or not, been enticing local and out-of-county developers to get rich and leave citizens to face increased taxes and the problems of suburbia.

They are doing this by using an old zoning ordinance called “by right.”

BY RIGHT CURRENTLY

Any land zoned agriculture can be divided into 2 acre lots and turned into a subdivision almost overnight. No rezoning process. No citizen input.

Originally “by right” was meant for a land poor farmer to cut off a few acres to sell when he needed money, i.e., to pay medical expenses. But that was before a developer could easily get rich, very rich.

Now developers populate our pastureland at an accelerated pace, abusing “by right” zoning. They are the greatest threat to keeping Orange rural. Every one of our neighboring counties had the foresight to prevent this accelerated development years ago by updating their “by right” zoning while continuing to protect their farmers.

Now the Planning Commission (PC) is working on ”by right” updates. The next PC meeting is August 15 (no agenda as of this writing; please check https://orangecova.portal.civicclerk.com/ for updates).

But they are hearing only from developers, greedy for profits, who are burning their ears off.  One developer actually called TWO Planning Commissioners in the middle of a PUBLIC meeting and told them to keep hands off.

The first draft language:

Editor's note: See this link for a county brief reviewing the state of by right in Orange County and overview of by right policies in neighboring counties: https://www.orangecountyva.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6553/ZTA-24-02---240502-ByRight-Brief---Final?bidId=

If you want to keep rural life –  with our pasture land, hunting, fishing, wildlife, country roads, low taxes -- the Planning Commission, and later, the Board of Supervisors MUST hear from you.

PLEASE START NOW CONTACTING ONE OR ALL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS AND ASKING THEM TO FIX THE BY RIGHT.    

This is just the beginning of the process and we need help from YOU to win.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS

District 1, Jason Cappelle, jcapelleorangecounty@gmail.com, 540-227-4589 (Commission Chair)

District 2: Brandon Van Hoven, bvanhoven@orangecountyva.gov, 540-229-2116

District 3, Jordan Marshall, jmarshall@orangecountyva.gov, 540-223-0617

District 4: Adam Bryington, abryington@yahoo.com, 540-661-7222 (Commission Vice Chair)

District 5: Frank DiPasquale, fdispasquale@orangecountyva.gov, 703-507-0485

What to do about utility scale solar in Orange County?

The county has wrestled with three solar proposals since late 2023 – one denied by the Board of Supervisors, one pulled by the applicant, and the third, Sunfish Solar, scheduled for the supervisors’ meeting on August 27. During this time, discussion has continued within the county government about how to handle non-rooftop, commercial/industrial solar project proposals. A recap:

• The Planning Commission drafted and voted to recommend to the Board of Supervisors an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that would outline considerations related to environmental, agricultural, historic, cultural and county resources when siting public utility facilities, including solar projects. Read the draft amendment here: https://orangecountyva.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6115/CPA-24-01-draft-2-16-24?bidId=
  

• The commission held a public hearing on the draft amendment and voted to recommend approval. However, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on the draft amendment, then tabled the amendment indefinitely.
  

• The Board of Supervisors then asked the Planning Commission to draft an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would effectively prohibit commercial and industrial-scale solar in all zoning districts and would also define accessory solar uses. The Planning Commission drafted the language, then voted 4-1 at their July 18 meeting to recommend denial of the proposed language to the Board.

Despite the PC’s recommendation of denial, the Board still could approve the language. If the Board does not approve the Zoning Ordinance amendment, the county is back at square one with no solar-related guidance in place. The Zoning Ordinance amendment (ZTA 24-01 “Solar uses”) has not yet been added to a Board agenda. Read the text of the amendment here: https://orangecova.portal.civicclerk.com/event/369/files/attachment/3680

The commissioners who voted to recommend denial of the Zoning Ordinance amendment seemed to have a few concerns:

1) an outright prohibition of utility scale solar could draw negative attention from green agenda lawmakers in Richmond, some of whom attempted to remove county control over the review  process during the last legislative session.

2) the contradiction of prohibiting solar while by-right use for residential development also consumes acres of farm land.

3) The prohibition as written would include community and shared solar.

During the July 18 meeting, the Planning Commission indicated that they are willing to continue to discuss options for managing the utility scale solar issue and that the topic will be part of their  August 15 meeting (no agenda as of this writing).

There is a third option for managing utility scale solar in the county: creation of a solar ordinance. This has been suggested by citizens during their public comments.

One supervisor previously expressed concern that a solar ordinance would not be enough, that it would basically allow solar developers to check the boxes and get their projects approved. True, there would be the potential for project approval, but that potential for approval exists now without any parameters in place.

Developing a solar ordinance would define what is and what is not allowed in Orange County. Even if a proposed project met the ordinance requirements, it would not be approved by-right, but would still have to be in compliance with the comprehensive plan and pass Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor review.

Orange County needs to define parameters for utility scale solar projects to guide siting, development, operations, and decommissioning. Without any guidelines in place, Orange County cannot effectively respond to citizens' concerns about utility scale solar and protect its environmental, agricultural, historic and cultural assets.

Selected county solar ordinances:

Visit https://www.citizensforresponsiblesolar.org/solar-ordinance to read approved ordinances for Madison and Culpeper counties.

Visit https://shenandoahalliance.org/project/page-county-solar-ordinance/

to read about Page County's road to finalizing a solar ordinance.

Next steps:

-Attend or watch online the Planning Commission’s August 15 meeting to follow their continuing discussion of solar.

-Weigh in with your opposition to Sunfish Solar via email, phone call or letter prior to the Board of Supervisors meeting on August 27, as well as during the meeting’s public comment period.

-When the Zoning Ordinance proposal ZTA-24-01 discussed above is placed on the Board’s agenda, email and/or attend the meeting with your comments.

Planning commissioners recommend denial

On June 20, the Planning Commission, with a unanimous vote, recommended denial of the Sunfish Solar project. The project will now go to the Board of Supervisors; the date has not yet been set.

.

The room was packed to the back wall. There was a strong turnout of Protect Orange VA supporters who attended and spoke against the application. The photo below was taken as people were still filling in the back part of the room.

The link to the meeting video is below; the Sunfish Solar portion of the meeting begins at 12:30.

https://orangecova.portal.civicclerk.com/event/385/media

Part of the commissioners' task during the meeting was to determine whether the project is in substantial accord with the Comprehensive Plan. Their recommendation to deny indicates the answer to that question is "no."

A look at substantial accord from our perspective:

This project putting 932 acres of land in lease to a solar developer and blocking out 434 acres of agricultural land under solar panels does support the vision of the Comprehensive Plan: to sustain the rural character of Orange County and enhance and improve quality of life for all its citizens.

The project will not sustain and enhance agricultural and forestal uses.

The project does not support the purpose of the A 2 future land use category: to protect a mix of agricultural activities, residential neighborhoods and small scale commercial uses.

The project includes a substation that can remain after decommissioning, calling into question whether this land will ever revert to agriculture.

This project is large scale industrial use and should not be placed on agricultural land.

Consider these reasons to oppose this project.

• A rural neighborhood would have to share space with industrial use: Hundreds of acres of panels and associated hardware will transform a rural neighborhood.

• Property values impact: A 2023 study by researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory showed that property values for properties neighboring utility scale solar plants begin to decline with the start of construction and continue to decline for years. This study pointed out statistically significant effects with project siting on agricultural land, in rural areas and near larger solar plants by area (ie, Sunfish Solar). No one should have to take the hit on their property value.

• The impact of construction traffic. Expected construction traffic on 522, True Blue Road and Old Office Road will cause upheaval & safety concerns in the area for well over a year. The developer did not complete a traffic analysis & construction plan at the outset; they want to defer the analysis to the site plan stage. However, early on in the application review, VDOT clearly suggested a traffic plan be developed for during construction. Traffic is a public safety concern that the developer should not be dragging their feet on, especially with a project construction entrance planned for busy 522.

• Setbacks insufficient. Setbacks for non-participating properties were initially set at 50 feet and were only extended to 100' when requested by the county during the early review. Setbacks should be increased further to protect property values. Would you want a utility scale solar plant sited 100" from your home or property line?

Note: 5 years ago this same developer offered a traffic analysis and 150’ setbacks for properties and state roads as part of their initial application for a solar project in Culpeper County. Why is Orange is being shortchanged?

• The application refers to the project supporting the "increasing energy needs of residents and businesses." What is increasing at a rapid pace in Virginia is energy use by data centers, NOT residential use.

• The developer hasn't said a firm no to battery storage. They replied, "currently not contemplating" during their webinar when asked about battery storage." That's not a firm "no." Use of batteries would add another industrial element to this project. The condition suggested by the county for Cunningham Springs Solar (project denied) should be applied here: Any energy storage device or facility shall require an amendment to this SUP.

• The developer also said during their webinar, “no planned expansion.” However, county citizens during their comments referred to outreach for transmission rights of way and the possibility of additional land under lease to this same developer. This second project could be as a large as 1500 acres, further contributing to the further industrialization of a region of Orange County rich in history, character and natural beauty.

To read the Sunfish Solar application materials, visit the project page: https://orangecountyva.gov/1112/SUP-23-10-Sunfish-Solar

.