Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press board to delay solar zoning action as planning staff seeks more review
Summary
Residents filled the public-comment period to oppose large solar projects (Rocky Run, Zeus) citing water, fire and land-use concerns. Planning staff recommended Zeus Phase 2 be found substantially in accord with the comprehensive plan; the board voted to reschedule a separate solar ordinance public hearing to January 2025 after typographical errors in notices were identified.
The Brunswick County Board of Supervisors heard extended public comment and a planning update Wednesday evening as the county considers utility-scale solar proposals.
Planning staff opened the discussion by announcing a procedural change: notices for ordinance amendment case 24-020 contained typographical errors, and staff asked the board to move the public hearing to January 2025 to allow proper advertisement. The board approved a motion to reschedule the hearing.
Later in the meeting, Planning Director Morrison summarized a 2232 review of Zeus Energy LLC’s conditional-use proposal (CUP 24‑019), describing a proposed 200‑megawatt photovoltaic facility across multiple parcels. Staff and the Berkeley Group concluded the proposal is substantially in accord with the county comprehensive plan “subject to conditions,” and the planning commission voted unanimously to recommend the finding while reserving the right to revisit consistency if circumstances change. Morrison asked the board to plan a site visit and a joint public hearing with the Planning Commission.
Citizens used the required public-comment period to object repeatedly to two large projects identified by residents as “Rocky Run” and “Zeus.” Speakers cited multiple concerns: alleged errors in public notices that they said undermined trust (Ann Moore), large land-use footprints cited in public remarks (a resident claimed 300 MW would use more than 5,800 acres), potential groundwater impacts and well contamination, chemicals in panels (cadmium telluride and other materials), fire risk at panel and battery sites, nighttime or extended construction hours, heavy equipment on narrow rural roads, and negative effects on property values and rural character. Several speakers urged the board to slow the process and do more independent study.
Planning staff emphasized that the 2232 review is a consistency check with the comprehensive plan and that a CUP hearing and further review remain necessary. No final land‑use permits or CUP approvals were issued at the meeting.
What’s next: the public hearing for the ordinance amendment was formally rescheduled to January 2025; the planning director asked staff to schedule a site visit and a joint hearing on CUP 24‑019. Any formal approvals or CUP decisions will be made at subsequent advertised hearings.
Quotes recorded in the meeting reflect residents’ statements and staff recommendations. “I implore the board to educate yourselves instead of relying on staff’s recommendations,” Ann Moore said during public comment. Planning Director Morrison told the board the planning commission “reserves the right to revisit the question of the project’s consistency with the comprehensive plan.”
No final permit or development approvals were adopted at this session; the board’s actions were procedural (rescheduling and direction to proceed with joint hearings).
