3.A) An ordinance to amend Chapter 25 Zoning. Division A. In General. Article VI.B. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. Section 25-68.5. Uses permitted by special use permit.
Given the evidence of climate change that will drastically impact my grandchildren, we as a society and community need to provide zoning that encourages small and large scale solar installations, which this amendment does not do.
I would like to comment on all the solar changes as a package. I can understand the desire to limit solar development in urban and community development areas. I think that there are most probably some sites in those areas that would be good fit for solar, but I don't feel like that is the major problem with the proposed changes. As a life long farmer in Crimora, I think the proposed changes in general ag are a great disservice to the farmers of Augusta County. The current ordnance seems like a good fit. In my opinion they fall into "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" category. The 25 acre requirement and the two mile requirement are both rediculous. Many farmers, myself included., want to lease land for solar in many cases having a huge positive economic impact or both this generation and future generations of the family. Many, again myself included, want to continue to use the site for agriculture production. Known as dual use to agrivoltaivcs,
These changes are a kick in the face to the farming communtiy of Augusta County. I just don't se any logical reason for such draconian goverment regulation.
If you can't reject this these changes completely. I feel strongly that two additions need to be made. First, anyone with a lease signed before the new rules go into effect should be grandfathered in and have their projects evaluated under the existing ordinance. Secondly any new project that commits to agrivoltaics should be evaluated the under the old rules.
Given the evidence of climate change that will drastically impact my grandchildren, we as a society and community need to provide zoning that encourages small and large scale solar installations, which this amendment does not do.
I would like to comment on all the solar changes as a package. I can understand the desire to limit solar development in urban and community development areas. I think that there are most probably some sites in those areas that would be good fit for solar, but I don't feel like that is the major problem with the proposed changes. As a life long farmer in Crimora, I think the proposed changes in general ag are a great disservice to the farmers of Augusta County. The current ordnance seems like a good fit. In my opinion they fall into "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" category. The 25 acre requirement and the two mile requirement are both rediculous. Many farmers, myself included., want to lease land for solar in many cases having a huge positive economic impact or both this generation and future generations of the family. Many, again myself included, want to continue to use the site for agriculture production. Known as dual use to agrivoltaivcs,
These changes are a kick in the face to the farming communtiy of Augusta County. I just don't se any logical reason for such draconian goverment regulation.
If you can't reject this these changes completely. I feel strongly that two additions need to be made. First, anyone with a lease signed before the new rules go into effect should be grandfathered in and have their projects evaluated under the existing ordinance. Secondly any new project that commits to agrivoltaics should be evaluated the under the old rules.