Commissioners hear hours‑long Duke Energy rezoning hearing for proposed 75 MW Granville Solar Center; decision continued to Dec. 1

Duke Energy representatives presented a plan on Nov. 3 to rezone three parcels on Satterwhite Road from AR‑40 to an Agricultural Support Enterprises conditional district to allow construction of a 75‑megawatt solar farm, with a potential 27‑megawatt battery storage component.

In a packed hearing before the Granville County Board of Commissioners, Beth Townsend, Duke Energy’s government and community relations manager for Granville County, said the project — which Duke calls the Granville Solar Center — would “provide 75 megawatts of clean renewable energy and potentially 27 megawatts of energy storage.” The company proposes a 35‑foot vegetative buffer around the perimeter and a 150‑foot setback along Satterwhite Road, animal‑friendly fencing, and designated wildlife corridors to limit habitat fragmentation.

Planning Director Barry Baker told commissioners the Planning Board held a public hearing Aug. 21 and recommended denial of the rezoning by a 4–1 vote, saying the application is inconsistent with the county’s 2018 comprehensive plan goals to preserve rural character and conserve agricultural resources. County staff confirmed public notice requirements were met for the legislative hearing.

Supporters and opponents gave extended testimony. Landowner Norman Thorpe, who owns the parcels and spoke for his family, said the site has been in the family for more than 200 years and argued Duke’s plan includes conservation commitments and long‑term decommissioning obligations. “I can’t see a good reason to deny this project,” Thorpe said, noting planned conservation easements and lease provisions that require restoration at the end of the project’s life.

Speakers for Duke emphasized economic and technical analyses. Lead developer Colin Welch said the project is sited to minimize new transmission costs and asserted independent studies — including appraisals and engineering reviews the company cited — found no meaningful negative impacts to property values, public health or traffic. Duke’s presentation estimated the project would generate roughly $86,000–$121,000 annually in tax revenue (higher if storage is included) and more than $4.2 million over the expected 35‑year operating life.

Opponents argued the county should protect farmland and asked commissioners to deny a conditional zoning that would permit a commercial solar installation on large, contiguous tracts. Keith Sexton, who addressed soil and farming impacts, told the board, “This is not agricultural support,” and urged the county to prioritize rooftop and brownfield solar over conversion of rural land. Other residents warned of potential declines in property values, increased traffic and long emergency response times for battery fires given the area’s volunteer fire service.

Duke and its consultants addressed several technical concerns: Tommy Cleveland, the project’s health and safety expert, said modern battery systems are containerized with firewalls and require specialized emergency response planning; he estimated a worst‑case battery fire could smolder for a day or two and compared smoke to a house fire but said air monitoring in prior incidents measured low health risk to neighbors. Company representatives said wetlands and riparian areas shown on the site plan would be avoided and that 50‑foot buffers from water features were incorporated.

After several hours of testimony and commissioner questions on noise, wetlands, erosion control, wildlife, panel materials and battery safety, Commissioner May moved to continue the legislative hearing until the board’s Dec. 1 meeting so the absent Commissioner Jay (whose district includes the site) can participate; Commissioner Williford seconded the motion. County attorney’s office reminded the board that, under local ordinance, action is required within 45 work days of the hearing (a deadline the attorney identified as Jan. 14), and the board voted to continue the hearing and leave the public hearing open.

Next steps: The planning matter will return to a regular meeting on Dec. 1 with the public hearing remaining open; speakers who testified at this session may speak again. The Planning Board record, Duke’s application and the third‑party reports the company referenced will remain part of the public record.