Edgecombe County holds public hearing on solar ordinance review; board affirms moratorium and denies two prior permit applications

Edgecombe County commissioners convened a public hearing on Monday, Feb. 3, 2025, to gather input on potential changes to the county's solar energy systems ordinance and to consider administrative orders tied to special-use permit applications filed before a nine-month moratorium. The hearing, held in the Jonathan Felton Commissioners Room in Tarboro, included multiple public commenters who urged the board to continue the moratorium and to prioritize farmland protection.

The board opened the hearing by reading the published notice that the moratorium was adopted to allow time for review of the county's solar regulations. County staff told the board they plan to convene stakeholder meetings in March and April, work toward drafting recommended ordinance changes for the board's June meeting, and then hold a second public hearing in July so the public can comment on any proposed amendments. As County staff phrased the timeline, "Our ultimate goal is to, if there are any changes to be made, to bring those, to you at your June meeting for consideration and then to call a second public hearing, in July, to give the public the opportunity to comment on any recommended changes." (Evans)

Public commenters repeatedly voiced concern that solar developers are targeting Edgecombe County because local farmland is comparatively inexpensive and that long-term leases and early lease terminations can leave landowners and the county with cleanup responsibilities. Patrick Robinette, who identified himself as a cattle rancher and a principal owner of Green Star Group LLC, urged the board to include the two pending permits in the moratorium, saying the county "must not commit the land representing these permits." Robinette also questioned economic benefits, citing lease lengths and the risk of early lease terminations.

Amy Robinette, identified as a lifelong Edgecombe County resident and agricultural advocate, said she was "not against solar energy" but urged the board to keep the moratorium until the county develops a community-driven plan that protects landowners and heirs-property owners from predatory acquisition practices. Kathy Stallings and other residents described similar concerns about landowner protections, corporate ownership changes, and soil reclamation after solar removal.

County staff and commissioners addressed decommissioning requirements and financial assurances. A staff member explained that the county's ordinance currently requires, with a special-use permit application, "that there either be a bond in place to decommission or they have to show that there's sufficient salvage value in what will be left there to pay the cost of decommissioning it." The board and staff discussed whether amended zoning orders could make a decommissioning bond a mandatory condition in the future.

Separately, the board approved administrative orders denying two special-use permit applications that had been filed before the moratorium took effect. The board approved an order to deny the application from Bridal Brightleaf Solar and an order to deny the Swift Creek Solar application; both orders were adopted by voice vote. County staff also said a third pre-moratorium project is pending while the developer decides whether to proceed.

The board invited participants from both sides of the issue to stakeholder meetings so staff can compile recommendations. Commissioners emphasized they will not adopt changes without further review and public comment. The county's stated next steps are stakeholder meetings in March and April, staff and consultant review and drafting of proposed ordinance text, a board review in June, and a follow-up public hearing in July on any formal amendments.

The meeting record shows no change to the moratorium itself during the hearing; commissioners described the event as an opportunity to collect public input and commission technical review before any ordinance changes are proposed.

Votes at a glance - Order to deny: Bridal Brightleaf Solar ' Motion and second recorded; adopted by voice vote. Outcome: denied (order approved). - Order to deny: Swift Creek Solar ' Motion and second recorded; adopted by voice vote. Outcome: denied (order approved).

Ending: The county continues the stakeholder review process and plans to return proposed ordinance language to the board for consideration later in 2025. If the board forwards any ordinance changes, it will hold an additional public hearing before adopting amendments.