Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies Swift Creek (Cleanera) solar special-use permit after testimony and public comment
Summary
Edgecombe commissioners denied a second level-3 solar special-use permit (Swift Creek Solar) during the same meeting. Cleanera, the project owner, presented technical experts and a community outreach summary; opponents raised preservation, agricultural and water-quality concerns.
The Edgecombe County Board of Commissioners voted Monday to deny a special-use permit for Swift Creek Solar LLC, a proposed level-3 solar energy project sited near 7 Bridges Road, Morning Star Church Road and Marriott Road.
Planning staff told the board the Swift Creek application covered approximately 951 acres within the county’s jurisdiction and is zoned rural residential (AR-30). The applicant’s representatives said portions of the project are proposed as conservation and agricultural future land uses and noted a proposed layout that preserves wetlands and inserts vegetative buffering.
Tom Terrell again represented the applicant and placed a compilation of materials in the record similar to those provided earlier that evening for another project. Cleanera representatives — who said the company typically builds, owns and operates projects — presented a short slide summary and emphasized a commitment to continued community engagement. Company counsel said Cleanera has a long track record and intends to own and operate the facility rather than quickly sell it.
Company witnesses included Tommy Cleveland (health and safety expert), John Barefoot (Kimley-Horn, civil/engineering expert) and appraiser Allen Duffy (Sutton Shively/Kirkland appraisals team). Cleveland testified he had prepared a site-specific health and safety assessment and stated, “it is my professional opinion that this project would not materially endanger public health or safety.” Barefoot described the project’s stormwater and erosion-control approach and said an Edgecombe County stormwater permit review was in process; he said state erosion-control permitting would follow prior to construction. Appraiser Allen Duffy testified that his market-impact review found no empirical evidence that property values would be substantially injured when appropriate setbacks and vegetative buffers are applied.
Residents spoke against the project in large numbers. Common concerns raised included the conversion of woodland and crop acreage to solar arrays, potential loss of agricultural economic activity (several speakers supplied calculations for lost sweet-potato and peanut production and related local economic impacts), the adequacy of vegetative buffers over time, edge-runoff and wetland impacts, and worries about long-term stewardship and decommissioning if ownership changed. Several speakers asked the board to delay final action pending completion of the county’s ordinance review or to require stronger decommissioning security and enforcement mechanisms.
After reviewing the evidence and public comment the board moved through the UDO special-use criteria. Multiple commissioners referenced the county comprehensive plan’s goals for agriculture, conservation and economic development in denying the application. The board voted to deny the special-use permit for Swift Creek Solar; staff said a formal order would be prepared for the board’s January meeting.
Cleanera representatives said they would continue to engage with nearby landowners and pursue regulatory approvals where appropriate, and noted that utilities such as Duke Energy have requested battery storage on many new projects (Cleanera said any batteries would be located in adjacent Wilson County at utility direction).
