Nottoway supervisors approve amended solar rules after lengthy public hearing; planning commission had opposed changes
Loading...
Summary
After a multi-hour public hearing with developers, landowners and opponents, the Nottoway County Board of Supervisors voted to adopt changes to the county's solar ordinance as advertised, removing one developer supervision requirement but leaving setbacks and a new 170-megawatt county cap largely in place.
The Nottoway County Board of Supervisors on Thursday voted to adopt amendments to the county's solar energy ordinance as advertised, excluding a late addition that would have required developer projects to be supervised by Dominion Energy.
The ordinance revision drew a packed public hearing and more than two hours of testimony from developers, landowners and opponents before the board voted to approve the advertised changes. Board members recorded the final roll call after debate; the chair announced the motion passed with six votes in favor and one recorded opposition.
The changes in the advertised draft remove an earlier 50-acre/5-megawatt cap and instead set a county-wide ceiling of 170 megawatts in the ordinance language, and revise definitions and operational requirements for solar projects. At the planning commission meeting earlier this month, members voted 8-0 to recommend denial of the proposed changes and to retain the more restrictive existing ordinance.
Why it matters: Supervisors and speakers framed the vote around balancing property rights and county revenue needs. Several developers and advocacy groups told the board reduced restrictions would attract projects and tax revenue the county could use for capital needs, while many residents urged preserving larger setbacks and the county's rural character.
Most of the pro-solar testimony came from developers and project representatives who said small distribution projects would produce local tax revenue and require limited land disturbance. Paul Cousins, project manager for CEP Solar, said his Sunnyside Solar project near Crewe could produce about 3 megawatts and generate immediate tax revenue if permitted to move forward under the ordinance changes. Esther Rekelman, senior project developer at Hexagon Energy, described a 3-megawatt Burkeville project that would occupy about 19 acres inside a 121-acre parcel and said the company had no "good neighbor agreements" for its Virginia projects.
Opponents urged retaining the stricter rules the planning commission had recommended. Several residents insisted larger setbacks and the earlier acreage limits better protect rural character. One resident asked for clearer, simple math tying megawatts to acres; county staff said estimates vary by topography and equipment but gave a working figure used in the discussion of roughly 1 megawatt per 10 acres in typical conditions and said the county chose megawatts as a measurable unit.
Board discussion focused on two tensions: (1) residents who want strict controls and minimal visual change to rural areas; and (2) supervisors who said the county needs new revenue sources to fund courthouse work, emergency communications and other costly projects.
The board also removed, by separate agreement, a proposed requirement in section 4.19.10(7) that a developer permit be supervised by Dominion Energy; county staff said Dominion confirmed it does not have the staffing capacity to provide that supervision and the line was stricken from the final adoption.
What the ordinance does and next steps: The adopted version keeps flexibility for the board (and planning commission) to require additional buffering or to change setbacks for a given site based on topography and parcel dimensions. Several companies and speakers urged the board to allow more flexibility for small distribution-scale projects (generally 5 megawatts or less) so they could be sited on smaller parcels.
Board members and staff noted that if further substantive changes are proposed after adoption, some of those changes would require returning the ordinance to the planning commission for review under state code. The supervisors asked staff to circulate the final adopted text and to confirm with the county attorney which edits require additional public hearings.
Ending: The board's vote concludes a years-long local debate over solar development and sets the county's rules for applicants going forward. Developers and opponents alike said they will review the adopted language and may return with projects or with requests for variances based on site-specific conditions.
