Developers outline two-scale Rocky Ford solar plan; county staff, residents raise water‑quality and setback questions

At a work session on Aug. 14, 2017, developers seeking to build the Rocky Ford solar project described two site plans — a 50‑megawatt layout and an expanded 100‑megawatt scenario — and asked the Nottoway County Board of Supervisors for guidance on setbacks, permitting and public‑hearing steps.

Developers said the larger configuration is possible if the county would permit reduced setbacks from 300 feet (the ordinance baseline) to 75 feet in some locations. Their presentation included two cluster maps: a northern cluster connected by easements to a southern cluster that crosses multiple landowners. The developers said the 75‑foot setback scenario allows more efficient land use and would nearly double the acres under fence compared with the 300‑foot layout.

Nut graf: why this matters

Board members and staff said they welcomed the project’s economic potential but asked detailed technical and process questions. County officials and engineers pressed developers for wetland delineations, the number and size of stormwater basins, whether additional landowners will need to be included and how interconnection timing affects the project schedule. Developers said an interconnection deposit is due in mid‑October and that the interconnection application filed was for 50 MW; they said they could file an additional interconnection application if the board signals support for 100 MW.

Environmental and water‑supply concerns

Multiple board members, and at least one member of the public, asked how site runoff and erosion control would protect Crystal (Lehigh/Lazaretta) Creek and the town of Crewe’s water supply. A civil engineer retained by the developer described sediment‑control measures used in other heavily developed watersheds — increasing basin sizes, using “super silt fence” near environmental features and polymer applications to stabilize denuded soils — and said those measures would be applied on this project.

Permitting and approvals

Planning staff said the project will go through the planning‑commission review (22‑32 review for public utilities) and then public hearings. Staff described two routes for reduced setbacks: (a) a special‑exception/text‑amendment process requiring public hearings, or (b) a site‑agreement (signing‑agreement) approach that would document setback reductions and other project controls and be adopted after a public hearing process. County planning staff recommended using a signing agreement to set reduced setbacks and conditions inside that agreement rather than through repeated separate special‑exception hearings.

Design, operations and community benefits

Developers said final panel and fence footprints would be set after wetlands delineation. They discussed security fencing, typical panel‑to‑fence clearances, and the potential to incorporate agricultural uses (sheep grazing) under panels as part of an operations and maintenance plan. They said larger storm basins under the 75‑foot configuration would consume more land and that landowners would be compensated for such encumbrances. The developers also noted a proposed electric substation and said they had preliminary studies indicating “headroom” for a 100‑MW configuration.

Next steps

County staff and the developer agreed to move the application to the planning commission for initial review and to keep the board in the packet. The developer said the timing of wetlands work and additional land acquisition could affect the county’s October application timeline; staff said PPEA‑governed deadlines (for other county projects) can limit flexibility. No final decision on setbacks was made at the work session.