To:

Augusta County Board of Supervisors

Cc: Tim Fitzgerald, County Administrator; John Wilkinson, Community Development Program Director;
Leslie Tate, Community Development Staff; Jim Benkahla, County Attorney
From: Tom Anderson, Community Energy Solar
Date: March 18, 2019
Re: Response to Community Development Staff Report and Public Comments on the Augusta Solar Project

Dear Supervisors,
To assist your review of the Augusta Solar project during the March 20, 2019, Work Session, this
memorandum documents our response to certain issues raised in the Community Development Staff Report and
expressed by the public at the February 27, 2019, Public Hearing.
We have included as an attachment to this memo a presentation to assist the discussion of setbacks and
buffering organized by site to correspond with the Community Development Staff presentation.

Public Hearing Comment Responses

Economic Viability of Solar Power
A few residents expressed concerns related to the economic viability of solar power in Virginia: solar project
performance, tax incentives, business model considerations, and impacts on ratepayer electricity costs. We want
to assure the Board that the project is viable from both an energy generation and economic model perspective.
Community Energy Solar (CES) has developed more than 700 Megawatts (MW) of currently operating solar
projects, most of which are east of the Mississippi River, including the first two operating solar projects of this
scale in Virginia. This project is based on the same technical due diligence and financial analysis of those other
successful projects.

The Commonwealth of Virginia recently passed legislation stating that 5,000 MW of solar power located in the
state is “in the public interest,” and there are a number of different energy sales strategies used to achieve
these goals. In this case, we want to make clear to the Board and assure the public that the power from this
project will be sold directly to a single corporate buyer through the regional transmission system’s wholesale
market and will not impact electricity rates for consumers in Augusta County.

Property Values
CES is familiar with the concerns of neighboring homeowners related to property value impacts of nearby solar
farms. We acknowledge those concerns and want to assure the Board and the public that we have never
received a complaint of a negative impact on property sales related to any of the 32 projects we have developed
over the past ten years now operating in 12 states.

University of Texas Property Value Study
A University of Texas at Austin academic research study was referenced twice at the public hearing. We are
familiar with this study. The Study polled assessors in a number of states for their opinions on the potential
impact of a solar project. More than half of these assessors said they had never assessed a home near a solar
project. Of those who had, only one had actually adjusted the value. Also, the report observed that impact on


property values, if any, are expected to be greatest at 100 feet from the array, shorter than the setbacks
proposed by Augusta Solar.

Further, the report comments on the value of buffering in neutralizing impacts on property values. For example,
the authors felt “[t]he presence of trees or hedges around the array, the introduction of new local services, and
reduced traffic flow were considered to have positive property value impacts.” In addition, “One respondent
cited ‘reasonable setback/buffers and screening’ as neutralizing any potential property value impacts.” (An
Exploration of Property-Value Impacts Near Utility-Scale Solar Installations; LBJ School of Public Affairs, The
University of Teas at Austin. Pages 19 and 22.)

We agree with these findings and the recommendations for Best Management Practices, and we believe the
setbacks and buffers proposed for the Augusta Solar project are consistent with the authors’ recommendations.

Review of Actual Sales Data Shows No Impact on Property Values
CES commissioned two separate studies of empirical data to objectively evaluate property value impacts that we
have shared with the Board and neighbors. The studies were performed by Richard C. Kirkland, Jr., MAI, and
CohnReznick, the eleventh largest public accounting firm in the United States. The CohnReznick real estate team
includes Patricia L. McGarr, MAI, CRE, FRICS and Andrew R. Lines, MAI. Ms. McGarr, Mr. Lines, and Mr. Kirkland
are experienced and credentialed real estate appraisers.

Both studies use Matched Pair or Paired Data Analysis to analyze actual sales data adjacent to and nearby
operating solar projects. Kirkland analyzed home sales and land sales adjoining 22 solar projects across 8 states
(including 10 in NC, 3 in MD). CohnReznick evaluated home sales adjoining 7 solar projects in 5 states and
compared to 70 sales of homes in control areas not adjoining solar farms. Both reports found no impact on
property values.

We will provide copies to Community Development for use in their final report to the Board. We will also have
additional copies available for the Board.

Toxicity Concerns
The Augusta Solar project will be using crystalline silicon solar module technology for the project, not cadmium-
based solar technology. Crystalline silicon solar photovoltaic technology has been deployed for decades on
farms and other open space land, on homes, in backyards, on schools, businesses, hospitals and parking lots in
the US and worldwide. It has been field proven to be safe and reliable.

During the ordinance process, Community Development Program Staff reached out to the Virginia Department
of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for feedback on questions of potential contamination related to solar
installation. DEQ oversees environmental contamination issues generally, and reviews solar projects for
environmental safety concerns as part of the Permit By Rule process. (Augusta Solar will be required to file for
and receive the VA Permit by Rule before beginning construction, which includes a review of environmental
hazards, threatened and endangered species, stormwater and sediment runoff concerns, archeological sites).



In the draft solar ordinance last March, Community Development Staff included this note:

"STAFF NOTE: After the Planning Commission meeting, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
sent an email responding to the above mentioned request. The Permit by Rule (PBR), which is DEQ’s
primary authorization for large-scale solar energy projects does not require any groundwater or soil
monitoring, so DEQ did not determine that such monitoring would be necessary as a general rule for
these projects. Per DEQ, there does not appear to be any general threat to the groundwater or soil from
these types of projects. However, DEQ is always available to follow up on any site-specific concerns that
may come up. Additionally, DEQ stated that in addition to the PBR requirement, some projects would
also require construction stormwater permit coverage and/or VWP permit coverage for any work in
wetlands or streams (3/14/2018)."

In addition, during the ordinance process, the Board was provided for review a white paper on the topic
produced by NC State that addresses health and safety of solar projects, including solar module technology. This
white paper and a related news article on it were also provided as part of our Special Use Permit application.

Concerns raised during the public hearing related to the safety of cadmium-based solar modules are not
relevant to Augusta Solar. The Augusta Solar project will be using crystalline silicon solar technology; not
cadmium photovoltaic technology here and the project has agreed as a condition of the permit not to use
cadmium photovoltaic solar modules.

Planning staff has inquired as to the use of a chemical called GenX in solar panels. CES is not aware of any solar
modules that use GenX in the manufacturing of solar panels. We have corresponded with three crystalline
silicon solar photovoltaic panel manufacturers who have confirmed that GenX is not used in the manufacturing
of solar panels.

Augusta Solar Project Setbacks and Buffering
In all areas with residential neighbors, Community Energy discussed setback and buffer plans with all
neighboring property owners willing to meet with us. We attempted to reach all direct neighbors using multiple
lines of communication – letters, phone calls, and door knocks. During our analysis, setbacks and associated
buffering – specifically planting heights - were considered in the context of individual area topography, and
following consultation with the neighboring property owners.

In advance of the Public Hearing, Community Energy provided the Board with a document titled Residential
Setbacks and Buffering Overview. In that document we highlighted the buffering plans for all areas of the
project adjacent or near residential properties. The presentation included with this submittal provides
additional information illustrating our considerations during this process. We hope the Board finds this helpful
in understanding how we designed the various residential setback-buffering combinations for each project area.

It is also worth noting, however, many industrial, mixed-use or residential developments, not to mention
numerous other agricultural land uses, most of which are uses by right, could take place on these properties and
which would introduce a variety of significant impacts with even shorter setbacks, and in many cases, no


buffering. As such, we believe our project - with our proposed setback, buffering and low-height (8ft tall) - will
have significantly less of an impact when compared with other potential uses.

Finally, we are compelled to highlight that the intent of the Board with respect to setbacks and buffers was
made clear during the discussion when the ordinance was passed. As documented in the minutes, with more
detail in the meeting recording, the setbacks in the ordinance are considered to be a maximum distance, will be
looked at on a case-by-case basis, and will be largely dependent on buffering. The Board was clear that lesser
setbacks could be approved, based on site-specific details. The Augusta Solar buffering plan is extremely robust
in both planting height, width, and buffer content. The solar project is low-lying and will create no noise, night-
light, odor, traffic or other nuisance that distance mitigates. We believe these setbacks and buffers will
sufficiently mitigate nearby view-shed impacts.

Construction Sediment and Erosion Control and long-term Stormwater Management Planning
Several commenters discussed stormwater and sediment runoff concerns, particularly during construction, but
maintaining protection of the South River also during the life of the project. As part of the construction
permitting process, the project is required to comply with the Virginia Stormwater Management Program
(VSMP). Erosion and sediment control measures will be developed in accordance with the Virginia Erosion
Control Handbook and will be maintained and monitored during and following construction until such a time as
the grass surface cover has established. In executing on this requirement, we have agreed in the permit
conditions to fund a full time certified inspector.

Finally, during the completion of the Site Plan approval process, the project will submit for County approval a
Stormwater Management Plan, including a description of the natural grass and pollinator surface cover to be
deployed around and under the solar panels at the end of construction. This surface cover will significantly
reduce surface runoff when compared to current crop farming practices on many of the project areas.

Community Development Staff Report

Below are responses to comments made in the Staff report on general project-wide topics.

References to Future Potential Zoning Designations under the Comprehensive Plan
A recurring theme throughout Staff’s report is that parcels subject to the Special Use Permit application are
designated in the Comprehensive Plan as being needed by the County for future economic development
opportunities. In fact, every parcel in every site is highlighted by Staff as having a different future potential
zoning classification that is designed to promote economic development in the area in ways that would utilize
available wastewater treatment capacity at the Stuarts Draft Wastewater Treatment Plant (SD-WWTP).

The landowners have expressed the sincere desire to maintain ownership of these parcels and see the solar
project as a way to diversify their land use options allowing them to achieve that goal of long-term ownership.
All parcels in the proposed project are currently zoned Agricultural, making them eligible to host solar panels
under the Solar Ordinance. Further, any of the potential future uses identified in the Comprehensive Plan would
require re-zoning.


We highlight for your consideration that the Comprehensive Plan clearly states that current zoning is what
drives land use decisions, not future potential zoning.
• “It is important to understand that the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan are not land
use regulations. These policies are not requirements for future development in the Policy Planning
Areas. It is the current Zoning Ordinance that determines the type and nature of development
within the Policy Planning Areas and any other zoned portion of the county. (Comprehensive Plan
2007 - 2027, Vol. 2, page 281)
• In addition, the Comprehensive Plan anticipates that not all property within the Planning Policy
Areas will be rezoned for future use under that Planning Policy designation.
• "It is also recognized that not every parcel of land in the Urban Service Area will be sold for
development within the next 20 years and not every parcel, due to site specific considerations,
is appropriate for development at the densities proposed.” (Comprehensive Plan 2014/15
Update, Page 8-9)
• Finally, the Comprehensive Plan very clearly acknowledges landowners rights:
• “In regulating development, ensure that the overall, long-term common good is kept in balance
with the freedom and rights of the individual landowner.” Land Use and Development Section
of “Goals, Objectives and Policies" Goal Number 4 states; (Page 51) (2014/2015 Update)/ (Page
79) (2007/2009)

As illustrated in our presentation at the Public Hearing, completion of the Augusta Solar project does not limit
economic development opportunities for the area. Even with the Augusta Solar project, we estimate there to be
750 acres of parcels designated as Future Potential Industrial in the Stuarts Draft area, most of which are located
closer to the existing sewer infrastructure than all but a couple of the solar project parcels. As we showed in our
presentation at the Public Hearing, even with the solar project in place, we were able to identify 13 industrial
locations ranging in size from several acres to more than 150 acres (more if some contiguous parcels were to be
combined). This analysis includes several locations in the area that could host a Shamrock Dairy type operation
with immediate access to existing SD-WWTP sewer lines.

Mitigating Conditions
Community Energy agrees generally with the mitigating conditions presented in the Staff report and covered in
the draft conditions of approval, with the following clarifications and points for requested discussion.

Site Access
Where possible, we have utilized existing farm access roads for accessing the various project areas. All access
roads will be reviewed and approved by VDOT as part of the construction planning and permitting process.
To the extent that VDOT might require us to move a location, we propose such modifications, if any, would be
able to be approved by Community Development as part of the Site Plan approval process; subject of course to
prior VDOT approval.

Surface Cover Vegetation

Surface cover vegetation is one of the most important components of the project area. A properly installed and
maintained cover will provide significant protection against stormwater and sediment runoff – improving


current conditions on most of the project parcels (especially those currently used for single-crop production) –
helping improve stream, river and wetland quality adjacent the project. The surface cover will also provide
beneficial habitat for ground dwelling animals and nesting birds. Finally, these important plantings offer an
opportunity to significantly increase pollinator species volume in the area, which will have beneficial impacts on
local crop productivity.

We are committed to working with Community Development and the local USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service to select an appropriate cover mix for both inside and outside the project fence. We
request that you confirm the language included in the draft conditions addressing this important issue.

Night Time Lighting

The existence, or not, of nighttime lighting of the project area was the subject of considerable discussion during
the application review period. We want to confirm there will be no nighttime lighting within solar project area.

Fencing
We recognize that the ordinance requires a 6 ft tall chain link fence with barbed wire and we have proposed this
throughout the project. However, as we discussed during the ordinance development process there are many
instances that chain link fencing is not necessary or preferred. In the case of Augusta Solar, we have received a
number of requests from both project landowners and neighbors to utilize farm style fencing because it would
be a more suitable fit for the rural landscape. We included a design description of this fencing in our Concept
Site Plan package.

We request the Board reconsider the ability to use this fencing on a site-by-site basis and generally throughout
the project.

Decommissioning
Augusta Solar has provided a draft Decommissioning Plan that is a guide to execute on the ordinance
requirements for the removal, hauling, disposal, and overall land restoration. The Decommissioning Plan
contains the requirement to obtain an independent engineer’s cost estimate (before construction and every 5
years during operations) and the posting of financial surety.

One issue related to the draft permit conditions that has been discussed with Community Development and the
County Attorney is the Community Development Program’s concern with including the value of commodity
scrap material such as steel, aluminum and copper, as well as any residual market value of the solar modules at
the time of decommissioning. We believe it is reasonable to include an independently determined value for
these items because the valuation will be reestablished every five years based on market conditions.

As an example of the potential value of scrap material to the decommissioning process, we contacted a local
scrap metal buyer, Rose Time Scrap & Metal recycling out of Staunton, VA. Rose Time, Inc., has been
performing on-site and off-site demolition and materials recycling and disposal in the region since 2006. Rose
Time’s analysis found that given the volume and types of materials used in the solar project, and assuming
current pricing, they “believe that the project may be decommissioned at no cost to [the county]”. We have
attached the letter from Rose Time’s President John Hedges.


We request the Board allow the value of scrap materials to be included in the determination of the required
decommissioning security as outlined in our proposed decommissioning plan. We recognize that market values
of commodities may go up or down, but we firmly believe these changes will be reasonably considered during
each 5-year review.

Rose Time Scrap Metal & Recycling Letter