Mecklenburg planners mull solar reforms after calling out deficiences

Deficiencies with local solar projects dominated the discussion at last week’s meeting of the Mecklenburg County Planning Commission, leading members to call for a review of the county’s solar permitting policies.

Although the commission took no action at the Jan. 23 meeting, planning board members questioned whether solar developers have lived up to their commitments with the operation of Mecklenburg’s two completed solar generation facilities, the Grasshopper and Bluestone solar projects near Chase City.

Mecklenburg County Zoning Administrator Robert Hendrick noted the role that solar facilities are said to have played in preventing rolling blackouts around the country during December’s severe winter weather. Also adding that he continues to receive inquiries from companies looking to develop new projects in the area.

In Mecklenburg, he added, there is reason to believe that existing solar facilities are not generating electricity at levels touted by their developers. That, plus an evident lack of adequate vegetative buffer to shield the Grasshopper project from public view as promised, prompted some commission members to ask if anything could be done to rectify the situation.

Hendricks shared photos of solar panels at the Bluestone facility on Spanish Grove Road. Photos taken around 10:20 a.m. should show all panels facing in a single direction tilted toward the sun, according to Hendrick. Instead, some panels are positioned horizontally, while others slant away from the sun. Even the panels aimed toward the sun are not all angled to the same degree, he said.

The panels are on a single axle tracking system that follows the trajectory of the sun as it moves from east to west during the day, maximizing the generation of electricity. It is obvious from the photos that is not happening, Hendrick explained.

“I am told it is a glitch in the software,” he said.

That comment drew a retort from planning commission member David Brankley, the Board of Supervisors’ representative on the panel. “That [lack of tracking] has been an issue for about a year,” he said.

The 50 MW Bluestone Solar facility, operated by Texas-based Engie North America, reportedly went online in June 2021. Hendrick did not say what, if anything, company officials are doing to resolve the problem.

Similar problems exist at the 80 MW Grasshopper facility operated by Dominion Power, although Hendrick said the problems there are not as significant. That facility became operational in September 2020.

Hendrick’s pictures of the Grasshopper site raised a second concern with members of the planning commission — the lack of adequate vegetative buffer to keep the site hidden from view.

Grasshopper Solar is located on just over 900 acres at the intersection of two major roadways, Highways 47 and 49, on the outskirts of Chase City. Under the terms of its special exception permit, that facility must be “significantly screened from the ground-level view of adjacent properties.” The buffer must consist of an evergreen and deciduous mix, as approved by county staff, except to the extent that existing vegetation or natural landforms on the site provide the required screening.

By contrast, Grasshopper Solar is plainly visible, with no pre-existing vegetative buffer and plantings that are too small to hide the facility. The shortcomings make it likely that the Grasshopper solar facility will remain in the public view throughout its 35-year existence, said Hendrick.

Hendrick said officials with Dominion Energy claim they are unable to purchase adequately sized trees to provide the amount of screening called for in the county’s zoning ordinance.

Asked by commission member Landon Hayes what recourse is available to correct the problem, Hendrick replied that the county could withdraw the special exception permit and require Dominion to dismantle the facility. Hendrick also assured the members of the commission that neither the Grasshopper nor Bluestone projects has received a final special exception permit. He continues to monitor both sites.

No action was taken by the planning commission following the discussion. Hendrick explained that he was providing this information as a precursor to future considerations of whether to limit development of additional solar sites around the county.

Currently just under one half of one percent of Mecklenburg County’s land mass (1,930.25 acres out of a total 400,340 acres) is dedicated to solar farms. That number climbs to more than one percent if two other projects that are currently seeking special exception permits are approved — the 97-megawatt Finneywood Solar on 1,061 acres, of which 493 acres would be under panels, and the 80-megawatt Seven Bridges Solar on 1263.9 acres, of which 499 acres would be under panels.

By comparison, Charlotte County has a density restriction of no more than three percent of the land within a five mile radius that can be given over to solar fields, but that restriction has been waived by the members of the Charlotte County Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.

The 22,000 acre Randolph Solar project in Charlotte County consumes more than six percent of the county’s total acreage, although only 5,000 acres — 1.6 percent of the county’s land mass — will be under panels.

Halifax County has a five percent density limit for projects within a five mile radius, and Brunswick County limits the number of acres dedicated to solar to 8,600 acres, or 2.6 percent of its total land capacity.

Planning commission chair Kyle Crump polled members to get a feel for their views on limiting solar development in Mecklenburg County. Hayes and Brankley suggested capping the number of acres available for solar developments at 2,500 acres, total, not necessarily the acreage under panels.

Hendrick explained that this limit would effectively preclude all future solar projects in Mecklenburg County and disallow the 7 Bridges and Finneywood projects.

Charlie Reamy suggested capping the number of acres under panels at 3,000. This would allow the developers of both 7 Bridges and Finneywood to make their case for a special exception permit without guaranteeing that the permit would be issued, according to Hendrick.

Ultimately, the commission decided to seek a legal opinion from Russell Slayton, the county attorney, on the best path forward.

In other business, members of the planning commission approved officers for the 2023 calendar year. They are Kyle Crump, chair, Mark Warner, vice chair, and Charlie Reamy, secretary.

The commission voted to amend the county’s zoning ordinance to restrict the time frame within which a utility scale solar developer can reapply for a comprehensive plan review. The new language reads, “Should the comprehensive plan review be denied by the planning commission or the board of supervisors, the applicant will not be able to re-apply for another review on the same parcels of land for twelve (12) months from the date of denial.”

Hendrick said that without this language, an applicant could file for another review the next day after being denied.