HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal PC Minutes 12122023ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - December 12, 2023
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
Final Minutes December 12, 2023
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, December 12,
2023, at 6:00 p.m.
Members attending were: Fred Missel, Vice-Chair; Julian Bivins; Karen Firehock; Nathan Moore;
Lonnie Murray.
Members absent: Corey Clayborne, Chair; Luis Carrazana.
Other officials present were: Kevin McDermott, Deputy Director Planning; Rebecca Ragsdale;
Andy Herrick, County Attorney’s Office; Carolyn Shaffer, Clerk to the Planning Commission.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum
Ms. Shaffer called the roll.
Mr. Missel established a quorum.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public
There were none.
Consent Agenda
There were no items scheduled on the Consent Agenda.
Public Hearings
SP202300012 Kenridge Landscaping Amendment
Planning Manager Rebecca Ragsdale said that she would be presenting information regarding a
special use permit amendment that pertained to only one specific condition. She said that she
would provide some background information and then discuss the details of the condition
amendment. She said that this was related to the Kenridge project, a residential development
situated between Boxwood Estate and White Gables, across from Birdwood on 250 West. She
said that this area of the County, where White Gables, Kenridge, and Boxwood are located, was
zoned commercial. She said that the general area included Birdwood and further down, Boar's
Head. She noted that the bright green areas along the property perimeter were subject to this
special use permit amendment, which focused solely on landscaping.
Ms. Ragsdale said that the applicant had provided an updated concept plan, available in the
Commission packet, detailing general buffer areas, depth, and species information. She explained
that this special use permit aimed to make the landscape more workable and flexible based on
experience since its original approval several years ago. She said that the proposal focused on
the perimeter landscaping condition, which had been reworded to be consistent with modern
language, easier to administer, and concentrated on the location and width of buffers rather than
specific species. She said that the revised condition considered the characteristics of the buffers
and screening, such as whether it was a single row or a double staggered row in certain locations.
She said that this revision was based on the applicant's detailed experience and report, which
highlighted the need for flexibility in maintaining healthy buffers while ensuring proper screening.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - December 12, 2023
2
Ms. Ragsdale said that the updated condition did not remove any major elements but provided a
more adaptable approach that benefited both the applicant and administration. She said that staff
supported this landscaping amendment due to its narrowly focused special use permit condition.
She said that there was no community meeting held, but they received inquiries from adjacent
property owners regarding maintenance responsibilities. She said that this amendment
established requirements for landscape changes, which would be subject to a site plan
amendment under the zoning that runs with the land. She said that the private agreements
between White Gables adjacent property owners would not be affected.
Mr. Bivins said that in the previous document, it stated that they would have a sprinkler system.
He said that however, in this document, it mentioned there would be no sprinkler system. He said
that he was also seeking clarification from the applicant regarding how these plants would survive
without a sprinkler system or if they would not have one and who would be responsible for
maintaining that. He asked whether they had received any input from those residing in Boxwood
Estate on the eastern side, which appeared to have numerous vacant areas or dead plantings
based on the images shared.
Ms. Ragsdale said that they received communication from them before submission, and they
were included in the abutting owner notification process. She said that no concerns had been
expressed.
Mr. Bivins asked if there were no concerns from people in the west.
Ms. Ragsdale said that was correct.
Mr. Missel asked if there were any further questions from the Commission. Seeing none, he
opened the public hearing and asked the applicant if they had a presentation.
Scott Collins stated that he was representing the Kenridge Homeowners Association for this
special use permit application. He said that they had attempted to outline the history of this project
and provide all relevant information in their narrative. He said that this process has been
somewhat simple for him as it was one of the first projects he worked on when he started working
in Albemarle County back in 2005 and 2006, allowing him to witness the entire evolution of
Kenridge. He said that he remembered many elements from that time and what was going on
when the project was approved. He said that originally, the buffer landscaping plan was developed
by a local architect and landscape architect, Charles Stick. He said that he did an excellent job in
conceptualizing how the buffering should be implemented.
Mr. Collins said that as the special use permit process progressed, it became apparent that
Kenridge would be an infill development surrounded by several established neighborhoods. He
said that the project faced significant concerns during its construction phase. He said that as the
special use permit was being reviewed and approved, the buffer tree plantings expanded, and
their spacing became more compact. He said that the project had an intense construction
buffering system that proved effective for nearly 15 to 20 years. He said that this buffering helped
screen the project from nearby neighborhoods during the construction process.
Mr. Collins said that however, as time passed, a transition occurred from construction to viability,
revealing issues with the approved design. He said that the spacing was too tight, and the
specified tree species were not well-suited for the site's topography, leading to disease, root
problems, and the loss of many trees due to weather and storms. He said that this caused a
significant degradation of the existing buffer.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - December 12, 2023
3
Mr. Collins said that instead of returning to plant some replanting, which would not be the correct
approach, they had attempted to examine this project and determine what should actually be
done. He said that they proposed going back to the original buffer exhibit that was prepared at
the beginning of this project in 2005 and attempt to conform to it if someone wished to change
the landscaping on their property or replace it, and that was their primary focus tonight.
Mr. Collins said that another notable aspect of this neighborhood, which differed from recent
projects they may have seen frequently, was the absence of any common open space. He said
that there was not much common open space in the area. He said that all their lots run up to the
property lines, which meant that landscaping buffering occurred on individual lots. He said that
many people might argue that if the landscaping was on someone's personal property, they
owned it and were responsible for maintaining, but in fact, with Homeowners Associations there
were covenants, restrictions, and guidelines in place.
Mr. Collins said that landscaping was a significant aspect of these rules in Kenridge. He said that
residents could not plant anything they desired; they must have their plans reviewed and
approved by the HOA. He said that the HOA was attempting to present a viable landscape plan
approved by the Planning Commission and ultimately the Board of Supervisors that could be
implemented in a way that worked and gave residents some flexibility regarding the existing
terrain, which varied from lot to lot. He said that the HOA oversees the landscaping itself; it was
ultimately controlled by the HOA and would be implemented accordingly.
Mr. Collins said that over a period of four or five months, they had reviewed various plans and
concepts with the neighborhood through the HOA Board and Homeowners Association meetings
to ensure that residents were supportive and understood the implications. He said that if they did
not wish to implement these changes, they could maintain their current situation if the Leland
Cypress buffer still existed on their property, and if it did not, they must conform to the new plan.
He said that as for irrigation, they were considering species native to Virginia to minimize the need
for such systems.
Mr. Collins explained that irrigation was primarily set up for construction purposes, ensuring that
the 10- to 12-foot-high Leland cypresses planted at the beginning of the construction would
survive and grow. He said that that was the main reason for installing the underground sprinkler
system, which had not been active for approximately 12 years, since the construction stopped.
Mr. Collins said that because of this, the removal of the underground sprinkler system was
necessary. He added that the HOA Board had communicated with both White Gables and
Boxwood Estates neighbors regarding this matter. He said that they would continue to maintain
constant communication with them as they worked through the process and implemented the
changes.
Mr. Murray said that he noticed in the provided list of evergreens, there were no native species
listed, other than magnolia, which he assumed referred to southern magnolia. He said that his
suggestion would be to also include red cedar, white cedar, and magnolia virginiana for
appropriate sites.
Mr. Collins said absolutely.
Mr. Missel asked if there were any further questions from the Commission for the applicant.
Seeing none, he opened the public comment for the public hearing.
Paul Sullivan said that he was a resident of Kenridge and the president of the HOA. He thanked
the Planning Commission for their attention and consideration of their proposal. He said that he
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - December 12, 2023
4
had been living in Kenridge since 2009 and cherished their community. He said that it was a small
neighborhood, and he emphasized that property owners were invested in its appearance. He said
that the area had a dense backdrop with White Gables on one side and Boxwood on the other
side, and of course Route 250.
Mr. Sullivan said that the initial plan was developed when the zoning was commercial, and the
building was not working. He said that they hired Mr. Collins and collaborated with him to create
a more suitable solution. He said that it was worth mentioning that some lots in their community
had varying topography, with significant differences in sun exposure. He noted that a majority of
the trees, approximately 80%, were on private property.
Mr. Sullivan said that to make any changes or additions in accordance with the County's special
use permit, they must be approved by their Homeowners Association review board. He said that
as the governing body of Kenridge, they approved it and the residents had to follow it. He said
that this community effort had been beneficial for their relationships with neighbors, as many
things had changed over the past few years. He said that he appreciated the Planning
Commission’s help they had given to them.
Cindy Hewitt stated that she and her husband owned Boxwood Estate next to Kenridge. She said
that it was a wonderful community. She said that unfortunately for herself, the original Charles
Stick plan called for a continuous evergreen hedge of Leland cypresses on both sides of Kenridge.
She said that it did not specify how far apart they should be planted or how many trees were
needed, nor their size. She said that over the past two years, 66 of these large trees had been
removed. She said that some were leaning, some were diseased, but she was certain that not all
66 were in such poor condition. She said that she understood the desire to change and
acknowledged that there were different hillsides and topographies, with some receiving more
sunlight than others.
Ms. Hewitt said that her primary concern was the trees being replanted, as they had collaborated
with Kenridge and provided what they believed were reasonable compromises for making
changes. She said that they managed to come up with some compromises, such as fewer trees,
farther apart, and not as tall. She said that her concern was about the fact that they would be
evergreen trees. She said that the original plan did call for deciduous trees in front of the Leyland
cypress, which were never planted; however, the original plan did include this detail. She said
that her concern was that the trees they were going to plant would not be sufficient.
Ms. Hewitt said that what she believed they were calling for was eight- to 10-foot trees in the plan.
She said that this was acceptable, but some of those already replanted in sections 57 and 58
were emerald-green arborvitae, which did not grow more than 12 feet tall or four feet wide, and
currently they were about five feet tall. She said that she believed that this did not meet the
agreement's requirements. She said that if they increased the spacing and decreased the size of
the tree, they must consider the species to still provide screening.
Doug Brooks stated that he was the managing agent for White Gables Condominium Unit Owners
Association. He said that they were a neighboring development on the eastern boundary of
Kenridge referred to as Buffer Area 3 in the application. He said that the nature of their
condominium consisted of 30 units, half of which faced the rear of their buildings, immediately
adjacent to the property on which Kenridge was located. He said that the buffer area in question
served as a front yard for these homes within their community. He said that they had an existing
agreement signed by the developers of both neighborhoods that ran with the land, whereby
Kenridge HOA was responsible for maintaining plant screening between their properties.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - December 12, 2023
5
Mr. Brooks said that the current boards of Kenridge and White Gable were not around when the
original agreement was signed nor when the developer of Kenridge planted this line of Leyland
cypresses along this shady, narrow area. He said that this planting essentially doomed the trees
to becoming too tall, too crowded, fragile, and mostly unattractive. He said that regarding this
application, White Gables supported and applauded Kenridge for incorporating very sound and
acceptable plans and alternative plantings to replace the Leylands. He said that they truly
appreciated the concepts and looked forward to collaborating with Mr. Sullivan and Kenridge to
align their respective planning projects.
Mr. Brooks said that as previously mentioned via email, their sole concern was regarding the
language in the application before gaining a clearer understanding from Commission staff, and
he thanked Ms. Ragsdale. He said that the wording in the narrative, as they read it, appeared
more focused on the applicant providing a detailed description of the design rather than
establishing a legal foundation that could lead to various issues with other agreements and so
forth. He said that they now felt confident in their improved comprehension of the narrative's
meaning.
Mr. Brooks said that in conclusion, he wanted to thank the staff and Commission for their patience
and assistance during their review of the application. He said that he also wanted to thank
Kenridge for proposing an outstanding design, as Scott Collins was a highly skilled engineer who
had delivered exceptional work. He said that they fully embraced all these aspects. He said that
in closing, they wished to reiterate their understanding for the record, which was that the narrative
accompanying the application did not establish any responsibilities or anything that could impact
their existing recorded agreement.
Mr. Missel asked the applicant to present any responses to public comment and closing remarks.
Mr. Collins said that he would clarify one point regarding the landscaping along the Boxwood
property line. He said that the reinstallation was completed prior to their involvement in this
process. He said that it was initiated by the homeowners as an understanding that the existing
trees had been taken down or had died, and they needed to replace them. He said that they were
engaged to organize everyone involved and bring the project back on track. He said that their
intention was to plant eight- to 10-foot trees along the property line, as specified in the plans, with
a focus on evergreen plantings for their durability and suitability in that area.
Mr. Bivins said that he was in favor of the initiative and hoped that the property to the west could
work closely with Kenridge to ensure that their development plans met the necessary criteria. He
said that these plans should not only replace what was there previously but also provide adequate
buffer zones as initially planned in the early to mid-2000s. He reiterated that he was supportive of
the application.
Ms. Firehock said that she wanted to commend the applicant for actually taking control of the
situation and attempting to create a cohesive plan. She apologized that it stated in the narrative
that somehow it was transformed into being only Leyland Cyprus. She said that she would like,
for the benefit of the public, to read a note from the United States Extension Service about Leyland
cypress. She said that they were often added as landscape screens in development projects
because they were considered relatively pest-free. She said that however, due to their relatively
shallow root system and being planted too close together in poorly drained soils, they were prone
to root rot and severe damaging canker diseases, particularly during periods of prolonged
drought, such as the one they were currently experiencing.
Ms. Firehock said that she did not subscribe to the idea of it ever being the sole type of vegetation
for screening and was strongly in favor of incorporating hardwoods and various species. She said
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - December 12, 2023
6
that certainly, native plants were great, and she trusted them to provide the right kind of consulting.
She said that in general, she hoped they would not see future proposals that only included Leyland
cypress, as it was not a good choice for long-term use. She said that they often died, and they
could not police all landscape buffers effectively. She said that consequently, they may fail without
their knowledge. She said that with this in mind, she was supportive of the proposal, which was
straightforward and well-presented.
Ms. Firehock motioned to recommend approval of SP202300012 Kenridge Landscaping
Amendment for the reasons stated in the staff report. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). (Mr.
Carrazana and Mr. Clayborne were absent).
CCP202300003 Secretarys Sand Solar Facility
Rebecca Ragsdale stated that she would be leading the presentation on this item, which was
slightly different from the previous. She said that Bill Fritz, Development Process Manager, was
also present, working on the solar considerations of amendments to their ordinance related to
solar energy systems. She said that she would provide some background on how they arrived at
this type of application for a solar facility, as it differed from what they had seen before. She said
that typically, they had reviewed them all in one with the special use permit. She said that since
2017, they had had solar energy systems as a use category by special use permit in rural areas,
recognizing that the facilities required a certain land area. She said that this classification, like all
special use permits, was used to consider potential suitability but may not be appropriate for every
location.
Ms. Ragsdale said that over the years, four such projects had been approved using this special
use permit process. She said that this was the fifth project under consideration, with the first step
being compliance with the comprehensive plan review. She said that since September 2022, the
Board had initiated a study for possible ordinance amendments. She said that as she mentioned,
Mr. Fritz had primarily worked on that. She said that there had been a work session in February,
and then the Board in June had a work session where they had been looking at best practices
and recommendations from the consultant. She said that out of that process emerged the need
to consider reviewing the compliance with the comprehensive plan as a first step in considering
these projects.
Ms. Ragsdale said that provided on the slide was a summary of the four projects that had been
approved through the special use permit process. She said that the summary included an analysis
of the compliance with the comprehensive plan review, which was required by state code for these
types of uses. She said that the subject property encompassed approximately 33 acres out of a
366-acre site; other projects had ranged from 15 to 660 acres. She said that they had a little bit
of experience, but it had ranged in terms of size, scale, and location.
Ms. Ragsdale said that typically, the comprehensive plan discussion occurred concurrently with
the special use permit factors, which included a detailed analysis of substantial detriment to
abutting property owners, character of the district, area, historic district, harmony, and potential
impacts on general health, safety, and welfare. She said that however, in this case, they were
taking a two-step approach that did not preclude analyzing other factors if necessary, but their
primary focus was on the 2232 review, as required by their state code for public uses and certain
utilities. She said that this review assessed whether the general location, character, and extent of
the proposed facility aligned substantially with the comprehensive plan.
Ms. Ragsdale said that applications of this type usually involved public facilities that were
permitted in all districts, so there was no subsequent step involving a public hearing or community
meeting process. She said that in this particular type of review, they sent notices to the abutting
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - December 12, 2023
7
owner and advertised it in the legal ad in the paper, as they typically did for a public hearing. She
said that they had not been advised to do otherwise because the next step would be the special
use permit process where community meetings were required, and staff did not require the
applicant to conduct one. She said that they would discuss the public outreach they had done to
date, which included a meeting last week. She said that although the special use permit was very
specific and included all plan details, this presentation was a more generalized review.
Ms. Ragsdale said that moving on to the specifics of the request, it involved a 366-acre parcel
located near Esmond at the corner of Alberene and Secretarys Sand Road. She said that the
parcel included both wooded areas and previously timbered areas where pine trees had been
reestablished. She said that the solar facility would be located in the Southern Albemarle Rural
Historic District, with properties primarily to the east contributing to the district and was also
situated within the Green Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District. She said that the next slide
was an aerial view, which showed the general area where the solar facility would be located, with
the rest of the property remaining in its current state or for agricultural uses.
Ms. Ragsdale said that the applicant had a detailed proposal, so she would focus on the criteria
for review that evening, the basics of the proposal, and staff review. She said that there would be
a fenced area, approximately 26 acres in size. She said that the total project area, including
necessary stormwater facilities, covered about 85 acres. She said that this area was previously
forested but contained progressing pine trees. She said that the narrative suggested potentially
allowing grazing within the fenced area, while the remainder of the property was used for rural
area purposes. She said that she had mentioned earlier that the remaining area was designated
for rural area uses.
Ms. Ragsdale said that the preliminary maximum height of the solar panels would be 12 feet;
however, this measurement may change once they delved into the specifics of the special use
permit. She said that currently, they had begun examining buffers and screening, with some
information on the concept plan indicating setbacks over 200 feet in certain cases and the
consideration of vegetative buffers in relation to existing landscaping. She said that at present,
they did not possess a detailed planting plan, which would be included in the special use permit,
but screening was an expectation.
Ms. Ragsdale said that this type of facility did not receive specific priority within the rural areas
section of the comprehensive plan; therefore, when reviewing against these fundamental
principles, they ensured that such facilities did not negatively impact surrounding properties or
contradict their goals related to agriculture, conservation, preservation uses, biodiversity, and
protection of streams and prime agricultural soils. She said that in the past, the area was forested
but it was not an initially concerning location for not being able to return to agriculture. She said
that given its size and scale, it could probably be screened, but a visibility analysis with the special
use permit was necessary.
Ms. Ragsdale said that the comprehensive plan included goals related to clean energy, efficient
resource usage, and promoting solar power specifically. She said that analyzing the
comprehensive plan alone, staff noted that solar facilities, including this one, did not seem
inconsistent with conservation and agricultural objectives. She said that staff cautioned that they
must be careful in considering decommissioning, noise concerns, and potential impacts on
abutting properties and rural character with the special use permit. She said that their focus had
been solely on that specific aspect, and they recognized that some of this in nature they were not
used to seeing with these proposals, in terms of what would be analyzed at this level, but what
would be conducted if the proposal progressed to subsequent stages.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - December 12, 2023
8
Ms. Ragsdale said that in their report, they recommended making a finding that it was substantially
in agreement. She said that it was noted that all concerns raised, and necessary analyses would
be addressed through the special use permit process, and they recognized that some of those
things typically seen with this request. She said that in this area, it would of course include review
by the Agricultural and Forestal District since the area fell within its jurisdiction, and they wanted
to make sure that was noted. She said that a finding of consistency or substantial accord with the
comprehensive plan did not imply approval of the special use permit; rather, it was one aspect of
the review process.
Ms. Ragsdale said that they must consider all other aspects and follow the usual special use
permit procedure. She said that conducting a preliminary examination offered some advantages,
such as identifying sensitive areas or concerns related to the rural area. She said that early
advertisement allowed the public to express their concerns and have them documented. She said
that the applicant provided supplementary information, which would be part of their presentation
addressing public concerns and outreach plans beyond the minimum requirements.
Mr. Moore said that regarding staff’s findings, he would like to know when the land was last
timbered and what it was being used for now.
Ms. Ragsdale said that the applicant could supply the information about when the land was last
timbered, but it was noted by staff that pine trees had been reestablished in those areas.
Mr. Murray said that the solar project was functionally a light industrial use occurring on a property
that was also zoned for agricultural use. He asked which use was used to determine which County
ordinances applied on the property.
Ms. Ragsdale said that the industrial sections of the ordinance would not apply in this case. She
explained that it was a use that was not subject to those industrial zoning district regulations. She
said that the special use permit would establish what specifically applied to the solar energy
facility, and then the rural area zoning district would regulate the remainder of the site. She said
that the solar special use permit was more restrictive than the underlying rural area zoning district.
Mr. Murray said that since there would be sheep present, at the same time it said the proposed
100-foot buffer zones from streams was being implemented in forested areas. He asked if the
sheep would be fenced out of those forested areas. He asked if this was indicated in their policies.
Ms. Ragsdale said that fencing was on their list of factors to evaluate during the more detailed
special use permit review process. She said they would assess the compatibility of the two uses,
as well as other aspects relevant to rural area special use permits proposing additional more
intensive uses.
Mr. Murray said that there were several undocumented streams present that were not included in
the County's Geographic Information System records but were evidently visible on the map. He
said that he assumed that these streams would be updated.
Ms. Firehock said that she had a process question for the staff. She asked if they could explain
the reasoning behind proposing the finding in accordance with the comprehensive plan to be
presented separately from the site plan within the SUP application. She asked if staff could explain
the rationale behind this approach and why it was considered beneficial.
Ms. Ragsdale said that it was a recommendation that emerged from the study and a recent
examination of optimal management strategies throughout the state.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - December 12, 2023
9
Ms. Firehock asked if Ms. Ragsdale was referring to solar facilities.
Ms. Ragsdale said yes. She said that the Commission could find it in accord or not, and the
applicant had indicated that they would be willing to defer or take more time for the review, but
they would likely address that in their presentation. She said that it allowed for a first look at it in
terms of the things they looked for in the comprehensive plan, so if they were to discover a
significant concern that could not be addressed, or newly encountered factors that may affect the
previous finding. She said that these were site-specific circumstances.
Ms. Firehock asked if there would be consideration for solar farms in rural areas during the
development of their new comprehensive plan. She said that this would provide additional
guidance moving forward. She noted that the current plan was outdated and did not address this
issue effectively. She said that the objective of promoting conservation and efficient use of energy
resources aligned with the staff report's findings, but she wanted to know if they would have more
to go on in the future comprehensive plan.
Kevin McDermott, Deputy Director of Planning, said that he was also working on the
comprehensive plan update. He said that they expected to have quite a bit more direction in the
comprehensive plan about where and how these facilities might be situated throughout the rural
area. He said that one of their goals was to update the comprehensive plan to address things like
their climate action planning process that had already been approved, as well as the one currently
underway. He said they anticipated that the tenets considered through those planning processes
would be incorporated into the comprehensive plan update and hopefully lead to more informed
decision-making.
Ms. Firehock said that in the revised comprehensive plan, she hoped that more information would
be provided regarding solar panel installations in rural areas. She said that upon revisiting the
climate plan during her review of this application, it became apparent that the topic of solar panels
in rural regions was not thoroughly addressed.
Mr. McDermott said absolutely.
Mr. Bivins said that it was his understanding that there were no setbacks for livestock, so they
could enter into the streams. He asked if there was an ability to do that.
Ms. Ragsdale said that a special use permit they had a few months ago had an additional
development right authorization, allowing more residential development in a watershed area. She
said that there were some additional regulations recommended to mitigate those impacts,
including fencing and best management practices, as well as the imposition of stream buffer
management regulations that would not otherwise apply to maintaining the buffer in a natural
state and replantings. She said that it was too soon to determine exactly what would be
recommended or seen in the special use permit process, but it was not inappropriate for them to
consider this matter further.
Mr. Bivins said that typically, in agricultural areas, they did not get involved in deciding where the
livestock roamed.
Ms. Ragsdale said that was correct.
Mr. Bivins said that it was unclear to him whether the property being discussed was within the
Green Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District and whether it was in one of the two
conservation easement parcels.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - December 12, 2023
10
Ms. Ragsdale said that the parcel was not on a conservation easement. She said that there was
a mapping error in that their GIS did not show this parcel as being in the Agricultural and Forestal
District, but it was in fact in the Agricultural and Forestal District. She said that the applicant’s
narrative was correct. She said that this would require an additional level of review by the
Agricultural and Forestal District Committee.
Mr. Bivins asked if it was not in a conservation but was in the Green Mountain Agricultural District.
Ms. Ragsdale said that was correct.
Mr. Bivins asked what happened if the Commission found the proposal to not be in accordance
with the comprehensive plan and did not recommend approval of the project.
Mr. Herrick said that the applicant had a right of appeal to the Board of Supervisors; however, the
project could not proceed unless and until it received a finding from either this Commission or the
Board of Supervisors confirming its compliance with the comprehensive plan.
Mr. Missel said that he had a couple of comments regarding guidance for procedure moving
forward. He said that first, he knew that it was misleading to some to see in the staff report that
the acreage of the subject property was 366.6 acres. He said that they received public input that
was concerned with that size and scale, and he clarified that it was a 33-acre parcel that would
be impacted by the solar project.
Mr. Missel said that he would highlight a few things from the staff report, one of which was the
Commission’s action was only related to the consistency of the proposal with the comprehensive
plan and was not an action or recommendation on whether the facility should be constructed. He
said that solar energy facilities were permitted only by special use permit in the RA district. He
said that they had three options for action, which were in substantial accord, not in substantial
accord, and the third was that the applicant may choose to defer if they chose to do so. He said
that he would suggest to the Commission and others that they kept that lens as they reviewed
this proposal, and to not evaluate site plan details that they did not yet have information on.
Mr. Missel opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant had a presentation.
Jesse Robinson stated that she was the project developer at New Leaf Energy. She mentioned
that Quentin Wood, the project engineer, was also present. She said that they were present to
discuss the comprehensive plan review of a proposed solar project with a capacity of 4.5
megawatts located on Secretarys Sand Road, as Ms. Ragsdale had stated earlier. She said that
she would provide some background information about their company. She said that New Leaf
Energy, originally formed as Borrego in 1980 by three brothers, had developed approximately one
gigawatt of solar projects across the United States, including California, New York,
Massachusetts, Illinois, and Virginia. She said that they were primarily focused on operation and
maintenance, construction, and development.
Ms. Robinson said that their development arm split off and was now called New Leaf Energy, so
the same team with the same experience in development remained. She said that the picture
displayed on the slide demonstrated how the system would look. She said that it followed an east-
to-west path, mimicking the sun's movement, while being elevated off the ground. She said that
the project was located on an area of the parcel that had been timbered since the 1960s. She
said that the images on the slide depicted the current state of the site during summer with
vegetation present. She said that the far left photo illustrated where the proposed access road
would be, utilizing an existing road previously used for timbering purposes.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - December 12, 2023
11
Ms. Robinson said that approximately five years ago, the property was cleared and replanted with
loblolly pines that were currently on the site. She said that the far right photograph illustrated the
property's condition. She said that this location was previously utilized as a landing area for a
timber company. She explained that there were several reasons why they selected this site. She
said that firstly, the Van Clief family wished to supplement their income by implementing a solar
project while continuing to use the land for cattle grazing and hay production.
Ms. Robinson said that secondly, smaller projects like this one could be connected to the
distribution lines that ran alongside roads and led to substations. She stated that the necessary
infrastructure was situated off Secretary Sand Road, allowing them to connect there for the
project. She said that they did not need to rezone to apply for a special use permit. She said that
additionally, the area of this project had not been classified as old-growth forest; it had been
timbered extensively and contained loblolly pine trees. She said that furthermore, they would not
be affecting any wetlands or streams. She noted that the solar installation was also more than
200 feet away from the road.
Mr. Quentin Wood said that the project site had a capacity of 4.5 megawatts. He said that it was
a single-axis tracker, oriented north to south, with panels rotating in an east-west direction
following the sun. He said that the solar panels and equipment were contained within a 33-acre
fenced area. He said that he would address the sheep grazing question raised as well. He said
that they planned to reserve 37 acres for landscaping purposes. He said that approximately 15
acres would be utilized for stormwater management and access to the facility. He said that the
landscaping buffer typically ranged from 135 to 200 feet, with a 100-foot section primarily along
Epps Creek, which fell in line with the resource protection area. He said that as part of the site
plan review process, they aimed to enhance the landscape buffer by incorporating more low-
growth shrubs, trees, and conifers due to the presence of mature trees in that area.
Mr. Wood said that objective one would focus on the comprehensive plan, specifically supporting
a strong agricultural and forestry economy. He said that this would help landowners diversify their
income, allowing them to maintain their estates without extensive development. He said that the
project would pursue sheep grazing within the fenced facility, covering 33 acres that were part of
the landscaped area. He explained that this was similar to a conservation easement in the
Agricultural and Forestal District, as it would protect the landscaped area from further
deforestation and promote natural re-establishment. He said that at the end of the project's life,
the site would be decommissioned, revegetated with native vegetation, and returned to the
landowner for their next steps.
Mr. Wood said that the second objective in the comprehensive plan focused on preserving natural
resources. He said that as noted previously, the site was timbered. He said that the company
conducted wetland and stream delineations as part of their initial due diligence, identifying both
wetland streams and resource protection areas. He said that they positioned their project
conceptually to avoid impacts to those areas. He said that in addition to the delineation, they
completed a T&E report focusing on species of concern, including threatened and endangered
species within the project area and associated buffers.
Mr. Wood said that the report identified bats and other species common to the region. He said
that they would select an appropriate time of year to coordinate with relevant agencies for clearing.
He said that for the site plan, land disturbance, and stormwater permitting, they would work with
DEQ and the County to design suitable best management practices (BMPs), downgrading the
facility to address any stormwater resulting from panels and transitioning the landscape from
forested to meadow conditions.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - December 12, 2023
12
Mr. Wood said that objective three focused on the County's historic and archaeological resources.
He said that they had an initial walkthrough conducted by a third-party vendor who did not
anticipate finding artifacts in the logging area due to previous logging activities. He said that the
assessment did not discover any architectural structures that would contribute to the historic
district within the site. He said that during the site plan process and SUP process, they would
continue with more in-depth archaeological and architectural studies. He said that the fourth
objective focused on rural and historic view sheds. He said that as mentioned, they had enhanced
the landscape buffer and setback for this project. He said that they were also collaborating with
neighbors to provide additional visual simulations of what the project would look like from
neighboring properties and public streets as part of their SUP application.
Mr. Wood said that the fifth objective emphasized supporting the crossroads community, which
involved upgrading the distribution line and substation to enhance the reliability of electric lines
within the area. He said that the sixth objective aimed to distinguish between rural areas and
developed areas. He said that they planned to utilize the existing natural vegetation surrounding
the site in order to achieve this distinction. He said that the development would not involve
extensive construction, such as large parking lots or massive signs. He said that the entrance
would resemble a residential property, with periodic traffic flow that would not require daily
supervision. He said that additionally, they planned to remove excess gravel from previous
logging activities and replace it with native species for revegetation.
Mr. Wood said that objective seven emphasized that no extensive development was planned
within the area. He said that upon completion, the site would be decommissioned and returned to
the landowner for agricultural use or any other suitable purpose. He said that objective eight of
the comprehensive plan focused on Area B, where their project was not located. He said that the
project was situated in the Agricultural and Forestal District. He said that to address this, they had
aimed to minimize impervious surfaces, focusing on the access road and concrete pad.
Mr. Wood said that DEQ required that they consider those panels to be impervious, however,
their elevation allowed for native vegetation growth beneath them. He said that this design helped
with stormwater management, implementing best practices for collecting and downgrading
stormwater runoff to maintain water quality. He added that they were looking to implement a multi-
use approach, which involved using sheep on site within the fenced area.
Mr. Wood stated that this would help with ongoing maintenance and promote agricultural use
within the area as well. He said that they planned to preserve the 37 acres during the life cycle of
the project, similar to a conservation easement or an Agricultural and Forestal District. He said
that this would limit the ability of someone to clear-cut the area for timber or other purposes. He
said that instead, it would focus on maintenance to ensure that they had a buffer set in place.
Mr. Wood said that regarding the construction time for this project, the Agricultural and Forestal
District may not be within the appropriate window. He said that the next couple of slides would
present conceptual plans for landscaping that they hoped the Commission would find in
substantial accord. He said that there was a conceptual landscape plan for the 37-acre reserved
area. He said that the orange lines on the map indicated the land that they planned to timber,
while the areas outside of those lines would be left untouched.
Mr. Wood said that an oblique aerial view showed their facility layout in relation to Secretarys
Sand Road and the Van Cliefs’ residence. He noted that there was an existing previously timbered
track abutting their project to the north. He said that their transformer or inverter facility was
approximately 600 feet away from the property. He said that they ensured access to the site would
not be a straight shot back through the area for added privacy and screening.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - December 12, 2023
13
Mr. Bivins asked if the panels would move or not move.
Mr. Wood said that the panels would move in a general east-to-west direction to follow the sun’s
movement. He stated that the orientation of the panels when constructed was in a north-south
direction in order to allow them to tilt in the east-west direction.
Mr. Bivins asked if there was a chance of the sheep getting caught in the moving panels.
Mr. Wood said that the panels were lifted 48 inches off of the ground, so it was unlikely.
Mr. Murray said that the discussion of traffic had primarily focused on predicting the volume once
the infrastructure had been built, but he would like to know what the traffic volume would be during
construction.
Mr. Wood said that during construction, they would receive various loads such as gravel
deliveries, panel deliveries, foundational posts, electrical wires, and other materials. He said that
to manage these deliveries efficiently, they typically would create a transportation plan that
outlined the routes in and out of the facility. He said that coordinating with the County and school
districts could help schedule deliveries outside of bus routes, avoiding any conflicts.
Mr. Murray asked if Secretarys Sand Road was a gravel road.
Mr. Wood said that no, the road was asphalt.
Mr. Moore asked if there was an estimate for how many households could potentially be supplied
with electricity from the proposed 4.5-megawatt generating capacity.
Ms. Robinson replied that the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) estimated that
approximately 100 homes could be powered by each megawatt, so it would equate to
approximately 4,500 homes.
Mr. Moore said that in terms of the current existing uses, he thought that was part of what this
hinged on in relation to its conformity with the comprehensive plan. He asked how functional or
not it currently was as a timbering business using the trees that were presently there.
Ms. Robinson said that the landowner could likely provide a more accurate explanation, but based
on what she had been informed, the area had been timbered since the 1960s. She said that it
was recently harvested approximately five years ago and replanted. She said that if the project
did not proceed, they would most likely continue with their current practices.
Mr. Missel asked if they usually had a long-term maintenance plan associated with the project
after the arrays were installed and sheep were grazing.
Mr. Wood said that the operation and maintenance of the landscaping would be addressed as
part of their site plan process in collaboration with the County. He said that this would involve
periodic pruning, when necessary, replacement of vegetation that may have died off, control of
invasive species, and planting more native plants. He said that regarding the operation and
maintenance, it was common practice to subcontract that locally.
Mr. Missel said that there was mention of future upgrades to the distribution lines. He asked if
more detail could be provided, especially regarding potential off-site impacts.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - December 12, 2023
14
Ms. Robinson said that APCO was studying the project and would determine what was necessary
for interconnecting with the substation and increasing power supply reliability. She said that the
circuit's voltage capacity was assessed, and in some cases, an upgrade was required to enhance
the line's overall dependability for those along the circuit.
Mr. Missel asked where the power generated from the facility would be distributed to.
Ms. Robinson said that when considering the local grid, it was challenging to determine where
exactly the energy came from. She said that it was similar to pouring a bucket of water into a
pond; it was difficult to pinpoint the exact source. She said that individuals along the circuit may
be drawing power from it. She said that they aimed for this project to be part of the shared solar
program, enabling subscribers to save money on their energy bills.
Mr. Bivins asked if the project required its own substation on the property.
Ms. Robinson said that they would not require a substation. She said that due to the size, it would
connect directly to the distribution grid.
Mr. Bivins asked who would own the assets that may or may not be on the land at the end of the
project’s lifetime.
Ms. Robinson said that New Leaf primarily focused on developing projects, after which they
worked with a small group of buyers to own and build these projects long-term. She said that their
objective was to ensure that they proposed conditions that captured feedback from the community
or County, as these would be tied to the permit, which would then transfer over to the owner. She
said that similarly, any terms included in the lease agreement with the landowner would also
directly transfer to the owner.
Mr. Missel opened the public comment for the public hearing.
Alan Van Clief thanked the Planning Commission and staff for their thoughtful consideration of
this project, as well as their neighbors for their engagement. He said that his family had resided
in this area for five generations, and he could personally account for nearly 70 years of South
Albemarle history. He said that they took great pleasure in their rural lifestyle on their farm and
wished to continue this for themselves, their children, and their grandchildren. He said that when
they relocated full-time to the farm, it required work and attention, which still remained a priority.
He said that they had planted hundreds of fruit and nut trees, as well as native species, while also
encouraging existing native plants.
Mr. Van Clief said that they had collaborated with stream experts, created buffers, and improved
stream quality. He said that they had established meadows. He said that their children teased
them, saying that they retired to engage in back-breaking farm labor. He said that last year, they
had established a growing cattle herd and began raising chickens and maintaining their own hive
of bees. He said that their goal was to maintain and enhance their land while preserving it for
future generations. He noted that the solar project was located on a timbered tract and not in an
old-growth forest.
Mr. Van Clief said that the solar project on the timber tract would generate clean energy and
provide them with an income stream that would enable them to continue farming using best
practices to preserve the land. He said that the buffers around the project would not be harvested
like trees in a timber tract, and the pollinator species growing there would be beneficial as well.
He said that he would be proud to have this project in his backyard.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - December 12, 2023
15
Nick Duke said that he would like to invite all of them to come drive around Southern Albemarle
between Scottsville and North Garden. He said that they should please come and visit the Esmont
area because it was quite beautiful. He said that he resided at 6265 Alberene Road in the village
of Esmont. He said that he wished to state his opposition to the near -industrial solar installation
proposed by Sindra and Alan Van Clief and New Leaf Energy along Secretary Sand Road in
Esmont. He said they had heard the planning staff report summary by Ms. Ragsdale, where she
concluded that she had no concerns about this project. He said that his numerous concerns were
outlined in the email he sent each of them last Sunday.
Mr. Duke said that in his humble opinion, the location, character, and extent of this proposed
facility were not in accord with the County's comprehensive plan. He said that the Van Clief
property was located within the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District, where the diverse
natural, scenic, and historic cultural assets of this area had been well documented. He said that
the significance of this rural landscape could not be overstated in this location. He said that the
proposed facility would consume 85 acres of forested land, with 33 acres being bulldozed and
surrounded by a seven-foot barbed wire fence dedicated to 11,592 solar panels.
Mr. Duke said that regardless of how skillfully it might be situated, designed, buffered, screened
with setbacks, or eventually decommissioned, he submitted that a solar factory of this nature,
which New Leaf Energy had slyly labeled small-scale, in this residential, forested, and agricultural
corner of Albemarle County would negatively impact the landscape, property values, wildlife
habitat, and the character of Esmont. He said that he and his neighbors had had several meetings
with New Leaf, during which they had seen their sugar-coated presentation containing highly
suspicious and misleading claims.
Mr. Duke said that over the last several days, they had outlined many of these claims for the
Commission in greater detail. He said that he submitted that it was an inappropriate application
trying to jump on the sustainability bandwagon for purely economic and financial reasons, with
absolutely no benefits to the Esmont community whatsoever. He said that despite what their staff
had stated, this proposed site could never be returned to agricultural or forested use. He urged
the Commission to not to allow this project to go any further, or else this precious and scenic
historic land would be lost forever.
Anna Betzenstein said that she was a registered landscape architect in the state of Virginia,
practicing in Albemarle County. She said that she resided near Secretary Sands, close to the
facility. She said that she would like to express her support for solar energy and green initiatives
but was deeply concerned about this particular facility. She said that it was situated in an area
that was neither light industrial nor rural, posing a threat to Albemarle County's rural lands. She
urged the Planning Commission to defer any decisions until the solar regulation, or solar
ordinance, had been drafted, approved, and implemented.
Ms. Betzenstein said that she had recently reviewed their comprehensive plan and biodiversity
action plan. She said that although it was not part of her initial plans during the weeks before
Christmas, she found these documents informative. She said that it was outlined that their
objectives and goals were to support local businesses and industry. She said that this proposed
facility, however, represented an outside company taking advantage of financial incentives at their
expense.
Ms. Betzenstein said that they should protect and enhance natural resources. She said that the
facility would have over a mile of chain-link fencing, seven feet high to the ground, with barbed
wire or razor wire at the top. She said that she did not believe that such meas ures could be
considered as protecting wildlife corridors. She said that additionally, it would feature 9.25
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - December 12, 2023
16
Walmart roof equivalents for runoff management. She emphasized the importance of considering
the stormwater implications and the presence of 15 acres of stormwater detention ponds.
Ms. Betzenstein said that she would like to emphasize the importance of creating ordinances
based on the biodiversity action plan, aimed at protecting natural resources. She said that she
wanted to remind the Commission that open space, officially defined as open space, should not
be disturbed, or impacted by human activity. She said that the pine plantation was six to seven
years in, so the trees were approximately 12 feet in height. She said that the proposal to scrap
the pine plantation and replace it with 33 acres of impervious solar panels was truly concerning.
She asked the Commission to give this matter careful consideration.
Jesse Behar stated that he was a resident of Esmont, located approximately half a mile to the
north of the site. He noted that in the country, this distance may seem significant but was just a
hop and a skip away. He said that the proposed project appeared to be in conflict with the rural
area designation of the region and contradicted some goals and objectives outlined in both the
comprehensive plan and the climate action plan. He said that both plans explicitly aimed to
preserve valleys, creeks, watersheds, forested land, forestry, and agriculture. He said that the site
of the proposed project was situated within a valley at the rim of that valley, adjacent to some
historically significant properties.
Mr. Behar mentioned that there was a creek running through the bottom of the valley that fed into
the Hardware River, which he believed was an important watershed. He added that the site would
likely involve the removal of several millions of cubic feet of soil. He said that it was more disruptive
than the current forestry taking place there. He said that this would make it more difficult to reclaim
that soil and return it to its original condition. He said that the area had a rich history, with the
presence of the Coles family, and numerous homes from the 18th and 19th centuries existed on
the opposite side of the valley.
Mr. Behar said that the viewshed for those living down there was probably the key resource. He
said that they did not move to Esmont to look at a concrete, steel, and glass structure of light
industrial scale. He said that in their case, the adjacent property was forested. He said that it
currently had eight- to 12-foot trees and could observe them from their second-story bedroom the
Van Clief residence. He said that he believed that they would have no difficulty viewing this solar
plantation from that location.
Mr. Behar said that they were loblolly pines, which did not offer any lower coverage. He said that
the underlying coverage consisted of deciduous trees that were absent for a significant portion of
the year, approximately six months out of 12. He said that he found it intriguing that New Leaf, in
attempting to clear the site, claimed it was loblollies but, when demonstrating that it would not
obstruct views, asserted that there were hardwoods present. He said that they could clearly see
all the way to the west from Secretarys Sand Road to the State Mill property, which was located
behind the Van Clief residence.
Peter Bertone stated that he resided at 5888 Green Mountain Road in Esmont. He said that his
property was on a ridge to the east of the subject property and overlooked the proposed site. He
said that he objected to the proposed solar facility. He said that the proposed site fell within one
of the most scenic areas of Albemarle County, characterized by beautiful valleys nestled between
parallel ridges. He said that from this area of the County, one could look 10 miles to the north, or
past Wintergreen 30 miles to the south, or to the Allegheny Mountains, more than 50 miles away.
Mr. Bertone said that in addition to being one of the most scenic areas in the County, it was also
one of the most historic. He said that within a mile, there were many historic properties, and within
two miles, even more. He said that he submitted to the Planning Com mission that when
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - December 12, 2023
17
considering solar facilities in rural historic areas, they must truly consider three things: the scenic
impact, the environmental impact, and the cultural-historic impact. He said that unfortunately, this
proposed site failed all three criteria. He said that he was not against solar energy; he, like others
there, was an environmentalist and a proponent of solar power.
Mr. Bertone said that, however, the specific location of the site, as well as its topography and that
of the surrounding countryside, contributed to its failure. He said that the site sat on an eastward-
facing slope with varying elevations, ranging from 530 feet at Epps Creek to 650 feet at Secretarys
Sand. He said that the solar facility would be situated between elevations of 550 and 630 feet. He
said that due to this significant elevation difference, it was impossible to screen the site's impact
on the westward view. He said that from a distance of 10 miles or more, the site would be easily
visible.
Mr. Bertone said that when conducting an unconstrained viewshed analysis, which meant not
limiting it to a half-mile or one-mile radius but extending it further, they would find that this site
was visible from thousands of acres within the County, including some of its most important
historic sites. He said that he had a conversation with Rex Linville from the Piedmont
Environmental Council about this matter, and he wanted to share his insights with them. He said
that he placed his farm under a conservation easement while walking along Green Mountain Road
with Mr. Linville.
Mr. Bertone said that Mr. Linville told him personally that they needed to protect this viewshed.
He said that he had worked with the Piedmont Environmental Council and established a no-build
zone adjacent to the site that is now being proposed. He said that it brought him great pleasure
when people stopped along Green Mountain Road, dismounted their bikes, walked onto his
property, and captured photographs of the viewshed, or when professional photographers paused
at five o'clock to witness the sunset over the mountains and take pictures. He said that he hoped
that the Commission would be as sensitive to these scenic issues as Mr. Linville and PEC were
10 years ago.
Jerome Beasley stated that he and his wife had lived for 30 years in Covesville, diagonally across
from the proposed solar facility, overlooking one of the largest rural landscapes in the County,
which spanned more than eight mountain ranges. He said that bald eagles, red-tailed hawks, red-
headed woodpeckers, red-bellied woodpeckers, snowy owls, bats, monarch butterflies, bears,
bobcats, coyotes, and various other animals roamed down from the mountains through the
wondrous valley that they had. He said that geese, among his favorites to watch, landed on the
pond surrounding this parcel and flew over it, while crossing the sky and passing above the
historic homes of Tallwood, built in 1803, Coleswood, built in 1901, and the granddaddy of them
all, Enniscorthy, built sometime in 1700s.
Mr. Beasley said that the 33-acre site featured 11,592 solar panels, utility poles, transformers,
inverters, and concrete pads with electric lines running throughout the subsurface. He said that
when picturing this landscape transformation, it should be recognized that no matter how many
wildflowers were scattered or livestock grazed for a few months, it could not undo the disruption
to the wildlife and birds that inhabited the area and hide the iron curtain from the viewshed of the
homes east and west of this facility. He said that this was likely the most valuable connected rural
landscape in the County, making it unique and special.
Mr. Beasley explained that this is what made their County unique and special, and this was why
they purchased Coleswood 30 years ago. He said that they did not buy Coleswood for the house,
but they bought the landscape because it was precious. He said that if someone ever visited that
location, they would notice that on June 21, the sun aligned directly in front of their property, which
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - December 12, 2023
18
was breathtaking. He mentioned that people often parked their vehicles to walk, hike, and ride
horses along the peaceful bridges of Green Mountain and the valleys below.
Mr. Beasley said that the neighboring properties held cultural, historical, architectural, and
significant value. He said that there were several hundred-acre conservation easement lands
surrounding the property. He said that while the solar concept may be suitable for other locations,
he believed it was not appropriate for this environmentally, historically, and scenic landscape. He
said that it was the Commission’s duty to help them preserve and protect this site.
Paula Beasley stated that she resided on Green Mountain, overlooking the proposed solar facility.
She said that the current comprehensive plan for the rural area aimed to preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic, and scenic resources. She said that this
statement underscored the importance of these resources. She noted that residents in 1996,
2015, and now continued to emphasize that this of prime importance.
Ms. Beasley said that the plan did not mention if it conflicted with another objective of the County.
She said that they did not have to protect it, but it was possible to honor both objectives without
constructing a solar facility in this area. She urged them to be mindful of what they gave up, as it
could never be recovered. She explained that they moved to Southern Albemarle not primarily for
the house but for the land. She emphasized that this was not NIMBY; it was about something far
greater than any one of them.
Ms. Beasley said that the proposed facility was situated in the heart of the largest interconnected
rural landscape in the state, which was also one of the largest in the country with national
significance, as reflected in its listing on the National Register of Historic Places and the Virginia
Landmark Registry. She said that notably, significantly, and uniquely, it met all four criteria of
significance: ethnic, migratory, African American assets, and persons. She mentioned that
prominent individuals, such as Ed Coles, the abolitionist who freed his slave and gifted them land,
resided in this area.
Ms. Beasley noted that three of Coles' homes were within a half mile, with five less than a mile
from this parcel. She said that architecturally, Tallwood was considered the finest example of
federal architecture in the state, and multiple sandstone quarry workers in other homes on
Secretary Sand Road. She said that however, the solar company disregarded these historical and
cultural aspects. She pointed out that it failed to acknowledge the significance of the location and
focused solely on parcels close to transmission lines, selling the project to the highest bidder
without considering the area's rich history.
Ms. Beasley said that this utility solar project would fragment the landscape, as it did not qualify
as agricultural or forestal land with less than one-tenth of the land dedicated to a few wildflowers
or grazers. She said that it disregarded the impact on this pristine landscape, prioritizing financial
gain over preservation. She said that for them in Albemarle, it meant losing what was precious
and unique to their area. She said that once destroyed and fragmented, these landscapes could
not be restored, according to VPI research.
Ms. Beasley said that within a half-century lease duration, the damage might become irreversible.
She said that the responsibility of preserving their nation's precious rural landscapes lay with the
Commission, as outlined in the comprehensive plan. She urged them to thoughtfully and carefully
consider the unique, vast, unfragmented nationally significant rural landscape, the vistas at the
foot of more than eight mountain ranges, and the distinct blue hue of the Blue Ridge Mountains,
as described by Teddy Roosevelt.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - December 12, 2023
19
Paula Beasley stated that she resided on Green Mountain, overlooking the proposed solar facility.
She said that the current comprehensive plan for the rural area aimed to preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic, and scenic resources. She said that this
statement underscored the importance of these resources. She noted that residents in 1996,
2015, and now continued to emphasize that this of prime importance. She said that the plan did
not mention if it conflicted with another objective of the County. She said that they did not have to
protect it, but it was possible to honor both objectives without constructing a solar facility in this
area.
Ms. Beasley urged the Commission to be mindful of what they gave up, as it could never be
recovered. She explained that they moved to Southern Albemarle not primarily for the house but
for the land. She emphasized that this was not NIMBY; it was about something far greater than
any one of them. She said that the proposed facility was situated in the heart of the largest
interconnected rural landscape in the state, which was also one of the largest in the country with
national significance, as reflected in its listing on the National Register of Historic Places and the
Virginia Landmark Registry. She said that notably, significantly, and uniquely, it met all four criteria
of significance: ethnic, migratory, African American assets, and persons.
Ms. Beasley stated that prominent individuals, such as Ed Coles, the abolitionist who freed his
slave and gifted them land, resided in this area. She noted that three of Coles' homes were within
a half mile, with five less than a mile from this parcel. She said that architecturally, Tallwood was
considered the finest example of federal architecture in the state, and multiple sandstone quarry
workers in other homes on Secretary Sand Road. She said that however, that the solar company
disregarded these historical and cultural aspects.
Ms. Beasley pointed out that it failed to acknowledge the significance of the location and focused
solely on parcels close to transmission lines, selling the project to the highest bidder without
considering the area's rich history. She said that this utility solar project would fragment the
landscape, as it did not qualify as agricultural or forestal land with less than one-tenth of the land
dedicated to a few wildflowers or grazers. She said that it disregarded the impact on this pristine
landscape, prioritizing financial gain over preservation. She said that for them in Albemarle, it
meant losing what was precious and unique to their area.
Ms. Beasley said that once destroyed and fragmented, these landscapes could not be restored,
according to VPI research. She said that within a half-century lease duration, the damage might
become irreversible. She said that the responsibility of preserving their nation's precious rural
landscapes lay with the Commission, as outlined in the comprehensive plan. She urged them to
thoughtfully and carefully consider the unique, vast, unfragmented nationally significant rural
landscape, the vistas at the foot of more than eight mountain ranges, and the distinct blue hue of
the Blue Ridge Mountains, as described by Teddy Roosevelt.
Rob McGinnis said that he was representing the Piedmont Environmental Council. He said that
he was present to address the apparent conflicts between the County's climate action policy goals
for zero-carbon energy generation and no net loss of forest and reforestation. He said that this
was directly related to the question of whether the Secretarys Sand solar project was in substantial
accord with the County's comprehensive plan. He said that the County had a goal of achieving
60% grid electricity produced by zero-carbon generation by 2030, but also had a goal of reducing
annual forest conversion to other land uses to no more than 578 acres per year by 2030.
Mr. McGinnis said that the total acres of forest removal for all approved solar facility projects,
some of which were under construction and others not, including the acreage of all managed
forests proposed to be removed for the Secretarys Sand project and the upcoming Buck Island
project, amounted to nearly 900 acres. He said that the County had estimated that forests and
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - December 12, 2023
20
trees throughout the rural and urban areas of the County, including managed forests, removed
approximately 946,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere every year between
2008 and 2016.
Mr. McGinnis said that the County should implement a strong policy for solar facilities to be sited
in such a way as to avoid loss of forests, including managed forests. He said that such a policy
would contribute significantly to supporting the County's climate action policy regarding carbon
sequestration through forest protection and retention. He said that if forest loss could not be
avoided, the County should require robust and meaningful mitigation measures through
conservation easement programs. He said that due to the absence of formal solar facility policies
in the current comprehensive plan, the County should consider halting reviews of solar projects
until the solar energy facility ordinance was approved by the Board of Supervisors.
Debbie Roberts said that she had recently moved from Virginia Beach to Green Creek Lane, just
down the street from this intersection. She explained that the primary reason for their move was
the open space, as they had some grandchildren. She said that she wanted to emphasize that
she loved this area for the way they cared about their people, animals, and the environment. She
said that Virginia Beach did not have the same level of community care. She said that her parents
lived in North Carolina and that they had solar panels everywhere throughout the state. She said
that when driving by it could be seen that many of them were broken, and they leaked substances
into the groundwater.
Ms. Roberts said that the company representative could claim that it would not contaminate the
groundwater, however, they had lived on a street where carcinogenic substances entered their
groundwater and caused illness to everyone else on their street, except for them. She said that
their mortgage company was aware of the presence of carcinogens in their well water, so they
mandated that they undergo a water test. She said that they had to install a reverse osmosis
system in their water supply to remove all the carcinogens. She said that they managed to filter
out all the carcinogens from their water, but almost everyone on their street passed away,
including her parents and grandmother, who all succumbed to cancers due to the contaminants.
Ms. Roberts implored the Commission to consider the well-being of the people residing in this
area. She said that there were children and adults living there. She said that she often observed
families, their grandparents, picking up their kids from school buses. She said that the proposal
was not a good match. She said that beyond aesthetics, this was a health concern. She said that
on another note, they could not control sheep, which would jump when startled and could break
the glass and cause problems. She said that deer and bears had also caused damage to property.
She said that these factors presented significant challenges that went beyond aesthetics, but she
would encourage the Commissioners to visit the area to enjoy its beauty.
Mr. Missel asked if there were any speakers signed up online who wished to speak.
Ms. Shaffer replied that there were none.
Mr. Missel asked the applicant to provide a response to public comment and any closing remarks.
Mr. Wood said that they appreciated all the comments received tonight. He said that Ms. Robinson
would likely cover their efforts in community outreach to address some of the questions and
concerns raised. He said that they were currently working on improving screening and visibility
as part of their previous community meeting with residents. He said that they aimed to conduct
additional visual simulations not only from roads but also from the property itself. He said that
additionally, they had a sign-up sheet for taking photos of their properties and incorporating them
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - December 12, 2023
21
into their model to simulate how it would look from their perspective. He said that they planned to
continue this practice if they proceeded with a comprehensive plan in the SUP process.
Mr. Wood said that in terms of the historical view shed and related matters, as he mentioned
earlier, they carried out some preliminary due diligence with a third-party vendor, who visited the
site, walked it, and assessed what they considered an architectural structure, which included
anything older than 45 years. He said that it was their opinion, which was also included in the
report provided to the residents, that they did not anticipate any adverse effects on the historic
aspect of both the immediate area and the surrounding historic district from this project. He said
that additionally, during the siting of this project, they considered the critical slopes. He said that
the site was located outside of those critical slope areas. He said that it also was positioned
beyond the delineated streams, wetlands, and resource protection zones.
Mr. Wood said that they took into consideration the preservation of natural resources in and
around the area while working with DEQ to provide adequate stormwater control. He said that
unlike equestrian farms, which typically involved larger areas of mowed grass and manicured
landscapes with minimal stormwater control for pollutant runoffs, they must account for those
additional nitrogen and phosphorus loads during the conversion from forested to meadow areas.
He said that this required incorporating these factors into their stormwater design alongside rate
and water quality, which were often overlooked as part of agricultural activities, which could lead
to erosion in local streams.
Ms. Robinson said that they had conducted the initial meetings and conversations with neighbors
regarding the project, excluding the official community meeting organized by the County. She said
that they were open to imposing conditions on the project and obtaining feedback on the
vegetative screening for the site in order to address neighbor concerns. She said that the design
could be adapted during the SUP process to tackle these issues, which primarily revolved around
visibility.
Ms. Robinson said that the simulations should assist them in determining where homes may or
may not be able to see the project and what additional measures could be taken to screen it. She
concluded that staff had found the project compliant with the comprehensive plan, and they
intended to present it further before the County and neighbors during the SUP process if they
proceeded.
Mr. Missel closed the public hearing and the matter rested with the Commission.
Mr. Moore said that he appreciated everyone sharing their thoughts on the matter at hand. He
acknowledged the proposal from staff, developers, landowners, and nearby residents. He said
that there was a lot of passion in the room. He said that he was thinking about how these rural
areas had a very long history of forestry, timbering, agriculture, and harnessing solar energy to
benefit and sustain Albemarle County residents. He said that solar panels were seen as a different
but compatible aspect of harvesting the sun's energy for the betterment of life in the County. He
said that the main concern was whether this could be integrated into the comprehensive plan,
and he felt that the answer was yes.
Mr. Moore said that although there were conditions that needed consideration, other aspects of
the review would also come into play. He said that he understood the concerns about visibility
and scenic value were noted. He said that he believed that his aesthetic sensibilities may be
different from some people’s, but nonetheless, it would be part of the future review. He said that
for the time being, they must also consider protecting and preserving.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - December 12, 2023
22
Mr. Moore said that there were different interpretations of what "protect" and "preserve" meant.
He asked if it was to keep something unchanged or to use the land for human needs. He said that
if they could reasonably hope that soils would remain farmable in the future and waters would not
be severely damaged, which they could learn from other installations, then it seemed consistent
with the comprehensive plan to potentially install such facilities, provided they underwent
necessary permits and special reviews before implementation.
Mr. Murray said that a significant flaw in the current comprehensive plan was that they were
treating the entire rural area as if it were uniform. He said that this became evident when another
solar project came before them, which had widespread support. He said that in contrast, this room
was clearly not supportive of the proposal. He said that it seemed that not all areas should be
treated the same, and in their new comprehensive plan, they should map out these differences to
determine where solar projects are suitable or not. He said that it was difficult to make a
determination about whether this project aligns with their future comprehensive plan.
Mr. Murray said that if they had the new plan in hand, they could make a clearer decision based
on its guidelines. He said that he was concerned that this property was located in the Agricultural
and Forestal District, but they had not heard from the Agricultural and Forestal District Committee
yet. He said that that committee’s input was essential before he could fully support the project.
He said that conducting a viewshed analysis and considering the perspectives of neighbors would
be beneficial in making an informed decision.
Mr. Murray noted that there were some positive features of this, such as the inclusion of native
plants, the consideration of pollinator habitat, and the buffering of streams. He said that he hoped
that all those things would become part of their overall standards for solar when they were passed.
He said that the lack of current policies regarding solar projects was problematic, and he hoped
that they did not have another come through without a policy in place.
Ms. Firehock said that she wanted to address a general comment regarding the possibility of
agriculture being reintroduced as a future use. She said that the formation of soils, particularly
topsoil, takes several decades. She said that when grading was done for a solar site, these soils
were removed. She said that in general, she did not support the notion that they could simply
restore the land to agricultural use by removing the panels. She said that she voted in favor of the
other site briefly displayed on the screen, which was 660 acres in size, significantly larger than
this one. She said that she also had visited that site. She said that each location must be
considered within its specific context. She said that she had also walked the land at the site they
were discussing tonight.
Ms. Firehock said that the 660-acre site she voted yes for had severely degraded soils and
significant erosion gullies. She said that although it was forested and later returned to timber
production, it was not well-maintained. She said that she believed restoring the soil and converting
it into a solar site would better stabilize that site. She noted that each site was unique and
contextual. She said that in the Samuel Miller District, she had voted for a smaller site similar to
this one, located in a forestry area that had been extensively timbered but was also secluded.
She said that on that site, she could not see neighbors, and there were fewer objections compared
to this location.
Ms. Firehock said that she did not have enough information to judge the other chapters or sections
of the comprehensive plan regarding whether this site aligned with their current plan. She said
that while she understood that the staff report mentioned promoting conservation and efficient
use of energy resources as well as acknowledging the County's climate plan and desire for
renewable energy, she could not fully evaluate the impact on scenic, natural, and historic
resources without a fully developed concept plan before her.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - December 12, 2023
23
Ms. Firehock said that she understood that the applicant had plans to undertake certain actions,
but she did not want to speak for them. She said that something akin to a viewshed analysis,
more detailed about what could and could not be seen, or to fully flesh out how much screening
should be put and where, unfortunately was not information they had available that night. She
said that she was unable to determine whether the proposed site aligned with their comprehensive
plan due to potential conflicts with other sections until she received additional data for evaluation.
Ms. Firehock said that she would like to clarify for the audience's benefit that it was not unusual
for a section of the comprehensive plan to contradict a proposal in one aspect while supporting it
in another, so they frequently encountered such situations. She said that in this particular case,
she believed that the scenic and historic context was crucial regarding the Southern Albemarle
Rural Historic District. She said that as a resident of Howardsville, located at the southwestern tip
of Albemarle County, she was familiar with the area and regularly traveled through Esmont. She
said that she had taken pictures in the area occasionally because the sunset was amazing.
Ms. Firehock said that she was unable to make a decision on this matter that night. She said that
she could not determine whether it aligned or did not align with the guidelines. She said that
consequently, she would prefer a postponement until they had a complete application to review.
She said that she understood that they were adhering to best practices in Virginia. She said that
it was mentioned that determining if it conformed to the comprehensive plan and knowing whether
it was a potential go or no-go before the applicant proceeded with further work was beneficial.
Ms. Firehock said that someone in Virginia decided that was an appropriate policy, but she
disagreed. She said that each site was distinct, and this site was particularly unique. She said
that there were numerous perspectives from which to view it, so even if this were to return as a
site plan, she would hope that some of the neighbors might invite her over so she could observe
from their porch and comprehend its appearance. She said that at present, she was unable to
make that assessment. She said that therefore, she would have to abstain or find it not in accord
because she could not evaluate the other elements.
Mr. Bivins asked if Ms. Ragsdale could display one of their first two slides featuring a list of
projects they had considered over the past three or four years. He said that these were some of
the projects under review or approved. He said that they all agreed that Albemarle County was
beautiful, and he would find it extremely challenging to determine which project was more
beautiful or less beautiful. He said that therefore, the beauty and historic significance, which he
would also discuss, had not influenced his decision-making process.
Mr. Bivins said that most of the houses they were discussing were plantations, and while their
historical nature was appropriate and helpful for Southern Albemarle, it was not what would lead
him to say yes, no, or maybe. He said that the deciding factor would be if saying yes on this
project meant that they had made a mistake in their previous four decisions. He said that the
reason he believed they made mistakes in the other four cases was due to the involvement of
passionate individuals in each instance, except for the one on Dick Woods Road, at the Ivy landfill
site.
Mr. Bivins said that his point was that he was unable to differentiate between these projects in
terms of location because he did not have a complete project or SUP in front of him at this
moment. He said that what he possessed was the ability to discern if this location could
accommodate the project. He said that to clarify, he had spent a significant amount of time in
Esmont over the past 30 years. He said that he had visited the town and its surrounding areas,
such as Partridge near Yancey Mills, and Esmont Manor, which had changed ownership multiple
times, as many people in the area are aware. He said that he was aware of the beauty of that
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - December 12, 2023
24
area but also recognized the charm of other locations. He said that the Milton area was quite
picturesque as it bordered the Rivanna River. He expressed his desire to see the entire project
presented before them.
Mr. Bivins said that he wanted the applicant to listen to the attendees tonight and respond
accordingly, ensuring that the proposal offered a comprehensive review process and provided
opportunities for Commissioners to visit properties, as was done in Woodridge, inviting everyone
to explore the land together. He said it was difficult for him to say no because he did not see a
significant difference between any of these options, otherwise he would have said no to many of
them due to the passion expressed for each one.
Mr. Bivins said that he would support the fact that this project could be located there. He said that
he was not saying that if they brought the project forward that he would vote in favor of it because
he still needed more information. He said that he hoped that he would be given the opportunity to
stand on the land and see the views of the area.
Mr. Missel asked for clarification that Mr. Bivins would be in support of the proposal as written in
the staff report.
Mr. Bivins said that in terms of determining compliance with the comprehensive plan, he did not
find anything that made him want to say no, because they did not bifurcate the process for any of
the other solar projects that they had previously approved. He said that he did not have enough
information at present. He said that it influenced them but was not a dictum.
Mr. Missel said that some members of the public had asked the Commission to consider delaying
solar projects until they had a solar ordinance drafted, revised, and implemented. He asked if Mr.
Fritz if could provide an estimated timeline for when the solar ordinance would be in place.
Mr. Fritz said that it was important to note that the work he was currently involved in, which was
the development of an ordinance addressing solar energy, would not significantly impact the issue
before the Commission today. He said that this was because their task was to determine its
consistency with the comprehensive plan, while his work focused on the zoning ordinance. He
said that Mr. McDermott discussed a separate project involving the comprehensive plan, which
would provide additional information within the comprehensive plan.
Mr. Fritz said that the special use permit process could help address many of their concerns about
visibility, such as whether it changed the character of the district or not. He said that through the
zoning ordinance, they could develop better methods to assess changes in the character of the
district and ensure consistency with the purpose and intent of the district. He said that those were
the primary focus of the review process, and that would change, but it would not change the
compatibility with the comprehensive plan.
Mr. Bivins asked Mr. Herrick if they could pause the project without there being an ordinance.
Mr. Herrick said that this project was different from those they had previously discussed as they
would have been in the rezoning phase or the special use permit phase. He noted that Mr. Fritz
highlighted that the objective for tonight was to assess its compliance with the comprehensive
plan. He said that for better or for worse, they were left with the comprehensive plan that they had
in front of them. He said that there had been discussion about deferral; however, under state law,
failure of the Commission to act within 60 days of submission, unless extended by the governing
body, shall be deemed approval. He said that while deferral was being considered, he
recommended that it be requested by the applicant and not initiated by the Commission due to
the 60-day time limit under state law.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - December 12, 2023
25
Mr. Missel said that earlier, Mr. Murray had suggested a County-wide, proactive approach for
identifying strategic locations for these facilities. He asked where this would be located within the
comprehensive plan or zoning ordinance.
Mr. Fritz said that it could be included in both. He said that in the manner that they had listened
to the Commission and the Board of Supervisors in crafting the criteria for reviewing a special use
permit, they could say things like wireless or solar facilities should not be located in areas
exhibiting characteristic X; instead, they should be located in areas exhibiting characteristic Y. He
said that that could be included in the zoning ordinance as criteria to determine whether it was
consistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. He said that similar language could be
used in the comprehensive plan. He confirmed that it was one area where they could choose
either option.
Mr. Missel said that it would be an important item to have in both.
Mr. Fritz said that the plan was to have that review criteria established so that they could evaluate
and measure performance.
Mr. Bivins said that he would caution them as they considered this matter since they were not
entirely comfortable determining where the expansion in the development community and land
mass should occur due to speculations. He suggested that if they were to apply similar principles
to cellular towers and solar fields, they would be setting up a speculation that they were
uncomfortable with when discussing increasing the density of the development area.
Mr. Missel said that was an excellent point. He said that he believed that they could learn from
other communities that had successfully addressed similar concerns and how they may have
handled those types of sensitivity analyses. He said that he appreciated their perspective on this
challenging situation, as he also felt aligned with many of the comments received from the
community. He said that it was essential to consider that both sides presented their arguments
and concerns. He said that the applicant emphasized their ability to handle the issue positively as
they worked with staff, and the community raised opposing viewpoints. He said that among the
issues that arose, viewsheds were one of them.
Mr. Missel said that regarding the visibility analysis, he appreciated the comment about
considering factors beyond the boundaries of the site. He said that it was essential to think about
the big picture in terms of what was visible. He said that grading impacts had been mentioned,
with bulldozers running all over the site, pushing dirt around, but the real level of impacts from
grading remained uncertain. He said that the focus had primarily been on historic sensitivities,
which aligned more with what Mr. Bivins had said, but it did remain an issue. He said that despite
this, he believed that the size and scale of the project were small enough not to significantly impact
historic resources.
Mr. Missel said that water management, water quality, stormwater management, hazardous
materials, safety, leaching, landscape plans, buffers, noise, local ownership, agricultural and
forestal district concerns had been raised as matters to be addressed. He said that they had not
seen an opportunity for public interaction with the applicant to provide ways to mitigate these
issues. He said that he acknowledged the need for them to reach a point where they could be
more proactive when faced with issues like this. He said that they were not there yet and were
still in the process of learning and adapting.
Mr. Missel said that his inclination was toward aligning himself with those who desired more
information before making decisions. He said that whether this information came through a special
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - December 12, 2023
26
use permit or another method during the ongoing process was irrelevant to him. He said he was
uncertain about how the applicant would prefer to proceed in this matter, but his recommendation
would be for them to consider deferring their application.
Mr. Herrick said that the applicant would need to request the deferral in order to avoid the 60-day
timeline.
Mr. Missel said that if that option was not chosen by the applicant, he would likely find the proposal
to be not in compliance with the comprehensive plan because he did not have enough information.
Ms. Firehock said that if she had to base her decision on the staff's findings in accordance with
the comprehensive plan because it supported their energy objectives, then essentially all solar
facilities throughout Albemarle County should be found in accordance. She said that while that
was the logical conclusion from that statement, it was not the case in her opinion. She said that
consequently, they had to take into account the context of each individual site.
Ms. Firehock said that she also would publicly state from the dais that she would never support a
solar facility that eliminated mature hardwood forest because the purpose was to aid carbon
sequestration, which a forest accomplished far more effectively than an array of solar panels. She
said that the proposal had certain advantages, as it was already a disturbed forestry site, the soil
had already been significantly disrupted. She said that it was not as severe as that 660-acre site
and appeared relatively better in comparison. She noted that she did not collect any soil samples
today, so she was unable to provide expert insight on that matter.
Ms. Firehock said that she wanted to emphasize that she was not discussing rural and scenic
character as a means of defending plantation landscapes as her preferred aesthetic. She said
that she was making no judgment about what constituted an appropriate rural landscape tonight.
She said that she did know that people moved to this particular area of the County because they
expected a certain agrarian view, and she did too. She said that she would be disappointed if she
had to stare at a multitude of solar panels. She said that context was crucial.
Ms. Firehock said that she had only voted on two sites and approved both of them, so she was
not against solar in rural areas. She said that in both cases, there were compelling reasons why
she felt that was an appropriate use, and they did not change the character of the landscape. She
said that she was unsure if this site met those criteria yet. She said that she could see that there
was some good screening on the site, but she did not have enough information to make a decision
tonight. She said that if voting on whether it was in accord or not, she would have to say no.
Mr. Missel said that the difference between this proposal and the previous ones were that the
subject proposal was a bifurcated process.
Ms. Firehock said that yes, it was not the same as the last votes they had had.
Mr. Bivins said that they had to make the same determination with each vote.
Ms. Firehock noted that they had had more information before making those decisions.
Mr. Bivins agreed that they had had more information.
Mr. Moore said that he understood with the sentiment that there may be insufficient information
to proceed with the project. He said that this was his first time going through a solar proposal and
two-step process, but his understanding of this process was whether they wanted to consider this
site at all in order to conduct the analyses and gather information that they could then look at. He
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - December 12, 2023
27
said that they had other solar facilities, and he felt that the question tonight pertained to whether
solar facilities were possible at this particular site in the County. He said that in his opinion, it
seemed like it was worth finding out about the viewsheds and mitigation plans that could be
considered.
Mr. Missel said that he did not disagree with Mr. Moore’s statement. He said that if deferral were
not an option, he did not have enough information to agree that the project should proceed. He
said that he understood Mr. Moore’s perspective.
Mr. Murray said that the two-step process would make more sense if the new comprehensive plan
identified areas where solar was suitable or not, based on objective criteria. He said that then the
comprehensive plan’s rubric made more sense because those criteria could be used to make
more informed decisions.
Mr. Bivins said that regarding the historic significance, it was not a new conversation on the
Commission about why he was not passionate about preserving a viewshed for Monticello. He
said that if they were going to argue why they desired something simply because it was a house
constructed after or had endured during the Civil War, that was not sufficient. He said that having
resided in places that were hundreds of years old, even as old as the 1300s, this held more
significance for him.
Mr. Bivins said that a house that merely survived the Civil War did not fill him with enthusiasm.
He said that however, if they informed him that they discovered, for example, there was a fantastic
community that existed there, he may feel differently. He said that if they would be impacting
quality row, which referred to a group of individuals who worked diligently on the quarry that was
there, and if they were preserving their homes, which were also part of Esmont, as it was the
commercial area of the whole thing, he may reconsider. He said that discussing a house now
used as a wedding venue made it difficult for him to understand how this affected the addition of
power to their power grid. He reiterated that a wedding venue was not sufficient for him.
Mr. Missel said that he fully supported solar power in rural areas. He said that with proper
mitigation measures, this particular site might be a good site for solar energy. He said that if the
County said that they would be very restrictive for reasons that were more subjective, that might
be the case, but he would likely lean toward supporting such projects if they were accompanied
by appropriate buffers and other necessary precautions. He said that with the goal to pursue
renewable energy, they should look favorably on these types of projects, assuming the
information was there to understand it.
Mr. Bivins said that they should prioritize quantitative data over qualitative information when
evaluating renewable energy projects.
Ms. Firehock said that she understood that a feeling or aesthetic of a landscape was highly
subjective. She said that however, a viewshed analysis could provide an objective measurement.
She explained that by using geographic information systems and spatial analyst tools, one could
determine from a specific point whether or not a particular view was visible. She said that this
method allowed for quantitative data on what could be seen from that location, rather than relying
solely on personal opinions.
Mr. Bivins said that he was supportive of that type of viewshed analysis. He said that he would
like that type of analysis to be implemented for the entire County’s site review process. He said
that they had discussed slopes and the difference between managed slopes and critical slopes,
which had been misconstrued in the past, so he would like for them to take initiative regarding
these kinds of projects across the entire County rather than specific viewsheds. He said that he
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - December 12, 2023
28
would like to see that same kind of passion about what they were protecting and how they
quantified the item they were trying to preserve.
Mr. Missel said that it would be a good tool for this site.
Ms. Ragsdale said that the applicant indicated that they would like to request a deferral. She said
that they would follow Mr. Herrick's direction regarding the proper procedure, should the
Commission wish to make a motion in this regard. She said that she had prepared this wording
on the slide, but he may prefer that they rephrase it to say "move to accept the applicant's deferral
request" if they wanted to provide them with an opportunity to address this matter on record.
Mr. Missel asked if the applicant would like to speak on the record.
Ms. Robinson said that she would like to request a deferral.
Ms. Firehock moved to defer this finding until the special use permit was under review. Mr. Bivins
seconded the motion, which passed unanimously (5-0). (Mr. Carrazana and Mr. Clayborne were
absent.)
Ms. Firehock said that she had heard an audience member ask how long the deferral was for,
which would be for however long the applicant took to complete the special use permit application,
be reviewed by staff, and presented before the Planning Commission for a public hearing. She
said that an exact timeline was unknown, but it would likely be a few months.
Committee Reports
Mr. Moore said that the Rio CAC held a meeting last week, primarily discussing the feedback
received on the multimodal development and land use proposals associated with Project AC44.
He said that the majority of the meeting was dedicated to this topic, allowing participants to provide
their input and ask questions.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting: December 6, 2023
Mr. McDermott said that the primary focus of the December 6 meeting of the Board of Supervisors
was a work session on the budget with the schools. He said that in the evening, they held some
public hearings, two of which were related to land use matters. He said that the first one concerned
the addition to the Kinlock Ag Forestal District, which the Planning Commission had previously
reviewed. He said that this proposal was unanimously recommended for approval by the Board.
Mr. McDermott said that the second item concerned the revision and improvements of fees, and
this was also approved by the Board. He said that however, with the approval, it became
immediately applicable, but they were trying to keep it to begin at the beginning of the next fiscal
year. He said that they must return to the Board to ensure that it was correctly intended. He said
that there would be a follow-up for that, but it was approved by the Board.
AC44 Update
Mr. McDermott said that the AC44 project was ongoing, with the team visiting all CACs to discuss
land use issues. He mentioned that at the upcoming meeting on December 19, there would be a
work session to gather background information on the implementation of the land use and
multimodal plan. He said that during this meeting, the Commission could expect a comprehensive
update on the project's progress.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - December 12, 2023
29
Mr. Missel noted that materials were already posted online.
Mr. McDermott said that was correct.
New Business
Mr. Moore said that he personally used the MicroCat the other day. He said that it was great and
very enjoyable. He said that he had to drop his car off at the mechanic and did not want to walk
home, so he decided to take the MicroCat. He said that the experience was smooth and efficient,
similar to using Lyft or Uber, and it was completely free of charge. He said that the drivers and
fellow passengers were friendly and welcoming. He said that it was an awesome experience. He
said that he hoped the City would consider expanding this service. He said that he participated in
a social media exchange with others who were also interested in the program's potential arrival
in the City.
Mr. Missel said that he would like to get an update on the ridership data once it was available.
Mr. McDermott said that they had a meeting scheduled with the contractor next week, and once
they had an update on the ridership data, he would provide it to the Commission in a meeting or
via email.
Old Business
Mr. Bivins thanked everyone who helped make the recent joint work session with the Board of
Supervisors happen. He said that his emotions were mixed, and intellect was uncertain about
what would happen.
Mr. Missel said that he agreed that it was a great meeting. He said that he wondered what the
timeline was.
Mr. Bivins said that was his issue as well.
Mr. Missel said that he had heard that it may be potentially sometime next year, but the Planning
Commission would be hearing it in January.
Mr. McDermott said that they were potentially scheduling in the second meeting in January for
Ms. Dimock and Ms. Pethia to present their recommendations for developer incentives, and one
month after that, in February they would present those recommendations to the Board.
Mr. Missel said that he wondered how much the development community would be involved in
drafting those recommendations before they came to the Planning Commission.
Mr. McDermott said that he was unsure what the plan was, but he knew that they had been
involved in the process up until now and would continue to be involved.
Ms. Firehock said that she had received compliments from the development community regarding
the meeting, including appreciation of being engaged in that way. She said that she found it very
helpful to have them right there to respond, and she learned a lot.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - December 12, 2023
30
Items for follow-up
There were none.
Adjournment
At 8:32 p.m., the Commission adjourned to December 19, 2023, Albemarle County Planning
Commission meeting, 6:00 p.m., Lane Auditorium.
Kevin McDermott, Deputy Director Planning
(Recorded by Carolyn S. Shaffer, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards; transcribed
by Golden Transcription Services)
Approved by Planning
Commission
Date: 01/23/2024
Initials: CSS