Granville County commissioners deny Duke Energy rezoning for 75‑MW solar farm, 4‑3

Granville County commissioners voted 4‑3 on Dec. 1 to deny a rezoning request by Duke Energy Progress LLC to allow a 75‑megawatt solar farm and 27‑megawatt battery energy storage system on three parcels off Satterwhite Road.

The proposal would have rezoned roughly 487 acres from Agricultural‑Residential (AR‑40) to an Agricultural Support Enterprises Conditional Zoning District (ASE‑CZ). The planning board had recommended denial by 4‑1, saying the application conflicted with the county’s 2018 comprehensive plan goal of preserving rural character and conserving agricultural resources.

Supporters, including landowner Norman Thorpe and Duke Energy representatives, told commissioners the site was largely timberland, not active row crop farmland, and that the project would bring economic benefits. “The energy generated will power 12,000 homes year after year from this project,” Norman Thorpe said during public comment. Company presenters and hired experts also emphasized larger setbacks, enhanced vegetative buffers and wildlife corridors, decommissioning commitments and reports they said showed no measurable effect on nearby property values.

Duke Energy’s lead developer, Colin Welch, told the board the company had expanded required setbacks to 150 feet, enlarged perimeter buffers to 35 feet in many places and reserved about one‑third of the site as undisturbed space. He said the company’s plan included a 75 MW photovoltaic array and a 27 MW battery system, with anticipated construction in late 2029 and operation beginning around late 2030 for an expected 35‑year operating life.

Opponents raised a broad set of concerns. Neighbors cited possible impacts to wetlands and Fox Creek runoff, fire and battery‑safety questions, long‑term enforceability of decommissioning plans, and potential harms to wildlife and human health. “Small animals, anything near that site has the potential of radiation from these… EMF’s,” said Diane Young during the public comment period, expressing health worries that other speakers echoed. Several residents also described on‑the‑ground incidents they said suggested developer activity had already affected private property.

Experts called by the applicant said their analyses supported the project. Appraiser Rich Kirkland summarized a matched‑pair analysis and concluded there was “no reasonable basis” to expect negative property‑value impacts where projects are screened and set back, and engineers and fire‑safety consultants described monitoring systems, containerized battery design and emergency planning aimed at minimizing risks.

During an extended Q&A, commissioners pressed the applicant on noise levels, wetland delineations and the scope of the rezoning. Duke Energy representatives said the Army Corps of Engineers had concurred with their wetland report and that the developable portion of the site was about 330 acres within the larger parcel chain; they also cited state DEQ stormwater rules and third‑party reviews as controls for site work and long‑term maintenance.

After the public hearing closed, Commissioner Jay moved to approve the rezoning and adopt a consistency statement; that motion failed on a voice vote. A second motion to deny the rezoning — accompanied by a formal consistency and reasonableness statement citing the comprehensive plan’s protections for agriculture and rural character — passed on a 4‑3 vote. The board adopted the denial and closed the matter during the meeting.

Votes at a glance - Rezoning request (Duke Energy Progress LLC) to rezone three parcels (approx. 487 acres) from AR‑40 to ASE‑CZ to build a 75 MW solar farm + 27 MW battery storage: Denied, 4‑3. Planning Board recommendation: Deny (4‑1).

What happens next The denial stops this rezoning application as presented. Duke Energy or any third party could seek to revise the application, appeal, or submit a new proposal; any future rezoning would require a new legislative hearing and fresh consideration under state law and the county’s ordinance. The board also noted pending state legislation (House Bill 729, referenced by members of the public) that could change tax or land‑use treatment for large utility solar projects, and some speakers urged the board to wait for state action before approving local rezonings.

Reporting notes The article relies on live testimony and presentations given at the Dec. 1 Granville County Board of Commissioners meeting, public comments by residents and technical summaries offered by Duke Energy and its consultants. Quotes are attributed to speakers who identified themselves during the hearing. Where the hearing used more than one road name for the site, project presenters consistently referred to Satterwhite Road; an early staff reference used a different phonetic spelling. The board’s formal consistency and reasonableness statements were read into the record during the motions.