Edgecombe commissioners deny Bridal/Brightleaf solar special-use permit after hours-long hearing

The Edgecombe County Board of Commissioners denied a special-use permit Monday for a proposed level-3 solar energy facility commonly referred to in testimony as Bridal or Brightleaf Solar.

The applicant sought approval for a project that the company said would occupy about 703 acres in the county with a maximum array area of about 468 acres (the project team said it planned to use roughly 400 of those acres). Brightleaf Solar told the board the facility would be about 80 megawatts — “enough for about 13,000 homes,” according to Tom Delafield, chief operating officer of Renewable Energy Services, which identified itself as the project owner and developer.

The company presented several technical experts and studies in support of the application. Consulting engineer Tom Delafield described a site plan showing wetlands preserved on roughly 250 acres of the project footprint, voluntary increased vegetative buffers (expanded from a 10-foot baseline to roughly 25 feet with 6-foot evergreens at planting), and a decommissioning plan. Delafield said the project would produce approximately $1.9 million in net new taxes to Edgecombe County and estimated about 150 construction jobs during an 18- to 24-month build period.

Tom Terrell, attorney for the applicant, told the commissioners that the hearing was “an evidentiary hearing…about evidence. They're not about opinions,” and placed several technical reports and sealed analyses in the record.

Company experts who testified included Tommy Cleveland, who described a site-specific health and safety assessment and concluded, “my professional opinion is that the project would not endanger public health or safety.” Civil engineer Jennifer Lester of Kimley-Horn testified that the submitted stormwater and erosion-control plans “meet or exceed the requirements set forth in the Edgecombe County ordinance.” Appraiser Ty Sutton (Sutton Shively/Kirkland appraisals) presented a market-impact analysis concluding that, in his opinion, the proposed setbacks and buffers would prevent substantial injury to adjoining property values.

Opponents and neighboring landowners spoke at length during public comment. Residents raised concerns about forestry clearing, loss of agricultural production, potential effects on property values, stormwater runoff and wetlands, wildlife habitat, long-term enforcement of buffer plantings, and the presence of battery storage (the applicant said any batteries would be in Wilson County at Duke Energy's discretion). Several residents urged the board to delay or deny the permit and referenced an ongoing county moratorium review of Level-3 solar rules.

Landowners who consented to leases for the project also addressed the board, saying they had sought legal counsel, reviewed decommissioning terms and believed the contract protections and state rules were sufficient to protect the landowner interests.

After hearing testimony, the board considered the special-use criteria in the county ordinance and voted to deny the permit. The motion to deny carried and the board directed staff to prepare a formal order for the record.

The project team had asked for a five-year vesting period and said the project had been submitted to Duke Energy's 2024 solar request for proposals; company representatives said finalists might be announced in early 2025 and that construction could begin as early as 2028 if selected and permitted.

The denial does not prevent the applicant from seeking judicial review or reapplying; the board’s decision, and any formal order, will be part of the administrative record.