Nottoway supervisors allow Inverness Solar appeal to proceed and later approve 5 MW special exception with conditions

The Nottoway County Board of Supervisors voted to allow an appeal from applicants Sean and Catherine Haney to move forward on a proposed 5-megawatt solar array on property they own at 884 Inverness Road, and later approved a special-exception permit for the project with multiple conditions.

The appeal vote followed a lengthy public hearing that included testimony from Planning Commission members, neighbors and the Haneys. Planning staff and the applicant sparred over whether the project “substantially complies” with the county comprehensive plan, a standard under the Code of Virginia. County planning staff adviser Greg (planning staff) summarized that standard during the hearing: “Substantial compliance with the comprehensive plan.”

The matter first came before supervisors as an appeal of an August Planning Commission recommendation to deny the project. Planning Commission members had voted 8–0 with one abstention to recommend denial. Brian Thomas, a Planning Commission member who addressed the board during the appeal hearing, read sections of the Nottoway County comprehensive plan and a conservation easement deed recorded against the Haneys’ property and argued those instruments supported the commission’s denial. Thomas quoted the deed’s stated purpose as intended “to assure that the architectural, historic, natural, cultural, and associated open space features of the property will be retained and maintained forever substantially in its current condition.” He and other opponents said the proposed panel fields—roughly 40 acres in one corner of the Haneys’ 316-acre property—would change the visibility of the historic manor from Lewiston Plank Road.

Applicant Sean Haney said the portion of his property proposed for panels represents roughly 12% of the parcel, that farming activities would continue, and that the project design includes underground electrical service and plantings intended to preserve views. “The primary reason of why we’ve adopted this idea is to turn 40 acres into an area of pollinator friendly crops,” Haney told the board.

After public comment, the board voted to accept the appeal and allow the application to proceed to the second-part public hearing. The appeal motion passed on a recorded voice vote; the board acknowledged the Planning Commission’s earlier 8–0–1 recommendation but concluded the appeal process should move forward for the board’s review.

At the subsequent public hearing on setbacks and the special-exception permit, county staff described the application as a request for a 5-megawatt solar farm on approximately 40 acres with multiple setback reductions: from the standard 300-foot public-right-of-way setback to 150 feet along Inverness Road, a reduction from 300 feet to 100 feet along Lewiston Plank Road with a planted landscaping screening strip, and a reduction from the usual 1,200-foot separation from non-family habitable dwellings to 375 feet along the project’s southern boundary. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions including security fencing, construction and stormwater plans, VDOT review of the construction management plan, a preliminary erosion and sediment control plan and a stormwater plan, stream-buffer protections, topsoil preservation for decommissioning, and an immediate decommissioning-bond requirement (staff said the bond language in materials had conflicting timing and that the county expected the bond to begin immediately).

Board members heard repeated concerns about whether waivers in the county solar ordinance were being used properly and whether adjacent landowners’ rights had been respected. Opponents, including some adjacent property owners and Planning Commission representatives, emphasized the conservation easement and scenic frontage on Lewiston Plank Road. Supporters, including some local economic-development voices, said the ordinance allows waivers for smaller projects and stressed potential revenue and the county’s discretion to attach conditions.

After debate and an amendment process, the board approved the special-exception permit for the 5-megawatt, ~40-acre site with the conditions read by staff, and with language discussed during the earlier appeal hearing about the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the applicant’s communications with that organization included in the board’s directions for follow-up. The final recorded outcome for the special-exception vote was approval with four votes in favor and one abstention. The board’s approval included the staff conditions listed at the hearing (security fencing, VDOT construction-permit requirements, erosion and stormwater approvals before land disturbance, stream buffers, topsoil management for decommissioning, and an immediate decommissioning-bond requirement). The board also discussed and directed follow-up related to the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s review of the deeded conservation easement as part of subsequent permitting steps.

What this means: the Haneys’ application will proceed to the remaining permitting steps the county controls, subject to the conditions imposed by the supervisors and to any approvals or restrictions that may come from the National Trust for Historic Preservation under the deeded conservation easement. The board and staff repeatedly emphasized that subsequent site plans, construction management plans and any required state approvals would be needed before ground disturbance or construction could occur.

Votes and next steps: the board accepted the applicant’s appeal of the Planning Commission denial (allowing the county review to proceed) and later approved the special exception for the 5-megawatt solar facility with the staff conditions described above. Staff and the applicant will continue to coordinate required plans (erosion control, stormwater, construction management) and follow up with the National Trust for Historic Preservation where the deeded easement requires its involvement.

Speakers quoted or paraphrased in this story appear in the transcript and were identified during public hearings. The board’s final approvals do not themselves authorize construction; they allow the application to advance to later permitting and implementation steps required by county ordinance, state code and the conditions the board imposed.