Landowners and developer outline 5 MW Inverness solar proposal ahead of 2232 appeal and public hearing

Sean Haney, the landowner and applicant for the Inverness Solar Project, told the Nottoway County Board of Supervisors at their Sept. 11 work session that he and his development partners want to build a roughly 5-megawatt solar installation on a portion of his historic farm and have appealed the planning commission's denial of the project's 2232 review.

"Our goal is to build a solar project in the region in Nottoway County," Haney said. He described the project as designed to avoid above‑ground transmission poles by running the collection lines underground to a nearby Dominion Energy substation and said the system would not include on‑site energy storage.

The project, as presented, would sit on a fenced footprint Haney said would be 20 acres or less of panels inside a farm of roughly 300 acres; Haney described the full installed value of the site as "about a $10,000,000 asset." He told the board the panels and site layout are being sited to minimize visibility from adjacent roads and houses and that the applicant intends to add vegetative buffers and wildlife‑friendly fencing that permits small animals while screening views.

Haney and a developer representative said the application and several requested exceptions were recommended by the planning staff but ultimately denied by the planning commission; the applicant has filed an administrative appeal under the state review process the board identified as a "2232" review. County staff confirmed a public hearing on the appeal and the 2232 review was advertised for a date one week after the work session (Sept. 18, 2025) and that the board must decide whether to accept the appeal before considering the underlying application.

At the meeting Haney described two constraints that influenced the project design: a conservation easement held by the National Trust for Historic Preservation that restricts certain uses on parts of the property, and local setback rules in the county ordinance that can be reduced under a site‑specific waiver. Haney said the historic trust did not categorically ban all solar use but flagged site elements it would not permit, such as certain types of above‑ground energy storage and new poles across the historic parcel. "There's nothing in the easement that says that we cannot have a solar project," he said, but added that some typical utility features would not be allowed.

Board members and staff repeatedly clarified procedure. County staff explained that if the board accepts the appeal of the planning commission decision the appeal keeps the application alive and the board may then vote on approvals, setbacks or conditions at a later meeting. A board member summarized the two-step sequence: accept or deny the appeal first; if the appeal is accepted the board can then vote for or against the 2232 review and associated exceptions.

Speakers and others in the room asked technical and neighborhood questions. Haney and his team said they plan to use newer, higher‑efficiency bifacial panels so the array can fit in a smaller footprint than older technology, and said the panels would be laid out to follow the hilltop to maximize output. He estimated the installed project would be five megawatts and noted projects larger than five megawatts are treated differently under state and utility rules; he also said the panels can be repowered later if the utility owner chooses to upgrade equipment.

On taxes and revenue, Haney gave two illustrations: he described the project as a $10 million improved asset and said the developers used revenue estimates that equate to roughly $2,500 per acre on the 40‑acre site they compared; he and a county speaker also referenced other Virginia projects whose assessed increases ranged much lower on an annual per‑acre basis. County staff and the applicant noted that solar equipment itself has state protections and tax treatments (speakers said Virginia statutes enacted earlier in the 2010s limit local taxation of certain solar equipment), and that any local revenue impact would depend on state law and the specific valuation method applied.

Neighbors and other residents who had attended earlier public meetings were described as divided: some near the site signed support forms in the application packet, others said they preferred no solar near their homes and asked the board to follow setback standards in the ordinance. Haney said several immediate neighbors had agreed to the layout and that one nearby house is currently vacant; he also said the applicants held prior public meetings and had met with Dominion Energy about the substation connection.

No board vote was taken during the work session. County staff confirmed the appeal and 2232 materials will appear in the board packet before the advertised public hearing. The board said it will hear public comment at the scheduled hearing and then decide whether to accept the planning commission appeal and whether to approve or deny the 2232 review and any requested setback exceptions or conditions.

The board set no final decision at the work session; the record shows the next formal opportunity for action will be the public hearing and subsequent board deliberation scheduled in the board packet.