Board keeps 'public utility' definition unchanged, approves 3 MW Burkes Junction solar project

Nottoway County supervisors on Tuesday voted 5-0 to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation not to amend the county zoning definition of "public utilities" to explicitly add the word "solar," and separately approved a special-exception permit for a 3-megawatt Burkes Junction solar facility with conditions but excluding a Planning Commission-requested written-waiver requirement from adjacent landowners.

The Planning Commission earlier had voted unanimously to reject a text amendment that would have inserted the word solar into the county's public-utilities definition. At the board's public hearing, Brian Thomas, a member of the Planning Commission, told supervisors that "solar facilities and battery storage facilities are not public utilities by definition" and argued that the county's existing reference to electricity already covers generation without adding specific fuel types.

Greg Zote, county planning staff, told the board the commission's unanimous vote reflected that existing ordinance language "already alludes to being an energy generating source" and that the planning panel had recommended leaving the language as written. After questions from supervisors, the board voted to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation 5-0.

The board then considered a separate application for a 3-megawatt solar facility on roughly 30 acres south of Burkes Junction Road, submitted by NW Rocky Ford LLC and to be built by Hexagon Energy. Esther Rekleman, senior project developer for Hexagon Energy, described the site as "visually hidden" by topography and rail lines and said the company had performed door-to-door outreach and hosted a public meeting. She said the project proposes vegetative buffers and stormwater controls and is designed not to impact delineated wetlands.

Jared Burton, representing the applicant, told the board that state statute language used in the county's solar review process already refers to uses that are "substantially in accord" and that, in his view, a clarifying amendment was not required to allow the facility to move forward.

The Planning Commission had recommended approval of the Burkes Junction special exception by a 7-1 vote but attached a condition asking for written waivers from adjacent property owners where the applicant sought reduced setbacks. Planning staff and Hexagon representatives said the developer had mailed certified notices to adjacent property owners, had canvassed neighbors in person and had received no written objections; the developer asked the board to approve the project without requiring written waivers. The project includes proposed reduced setbacks of 400 feet from habitable dwellings and 150 feet from adjacent property lines, while maintaining 300 feet from public rights of way.

Supervisor Andrew Ingram moved to approve the Burkes Junction special-exception permit subject to staff and the developer's voluntary conditions and excluding the Planning Commission's waiver requirement; the motion passed 5-0.

What the board decided - Leave the county zoning definition of "public utilities" unchanged; accept the Planning Commission's recommendation (vote: 5-0). - Approve the Burkes Junction 3 MW special-exception solar project on approximately 30 acres with the project conditions presented by staff and Hexagon, and exclude the Planning Commission's written-waiver requirement (vote: 5-0).

Why it matters Supervisors said preserving the existing, broader definition of public utilities avoids listing generation types in the ordinance and reduces the need to update the code as technologies change. The Burkes Junction vote is the latest local approval in the county's evolving approach to utility-scale solar: the county is reviewing individual projects and balancing neighbor protections, environmental safeguards and landowner property rights.

What happens next The developer may proceed with required permits and site work under the approved special-exception conditions. Supervisors said they will revisit the county's solar-related ordinances and waiver language in a future work session to provide clearer procedures when many adjacent landowners are involved.

Sources: Planning staff presentation, Planning Commission record, public testimony, statements by the developer and planning staff.