Planning board backs 236-acre Stonewood Solar conditional rezoning, with conditions and state decommissioning bond

The Pitt County Planning Board recommended approval Wednesday of a conditional zoning district for the Stonewood Solar project, a roughly 236-acre parcel proposed for a 10-megawatt solar facility with battery storage.

Planning staff said the project would avoid floodplain and wetland areas, meet the county’s setback and screening requirements (including doubling a 50-foot setback to 100 feet adjacent to Oakley Road near residences), and must provide a soil erosion and sedimentation control plan, stormwater review, detailed site plans, evidence of interconnection and a decommissioning plan with cost estimate. Staff recommended conditions requiring use of existing vegetation for screening where possible and additional planted buffers where necessary.

Project representatives said the fenced solar facility would occupy about 150 acres of the parcel, leave wooded and wetland sections in their natural state, and interconnect to Greenville Utilities to avoid new transmission lines. Jay Nemeth of Headwater Energy described the facility as "intentionally designed at a smaller scale" and said battery storage would increase the value of the resource by enabling some daytime-generated energy to be available during morning peaks. He estimated the project would create about 45 construction jobs and provide an estimated ~$45,000 per year in additional property-tax revenue to the county (project representative’s estimate).

An appraiser for the project (Rich Kirkland) presented a review of national and state studies and said his analysis did not detect measurable negative impacts to nearby property values where adequate landscaping is provided, though he acknowledged differing results in academic studies and cautioned about some methodologies.

Local farmers and residents expressed opposition, saying the parcel contains productive farmland and warning that conversion to solar panels could reduce the area’s long-term agricultural capacity and harm farm livelihoods. "If we keep taking good agriculture land and turn it into anything other than what it is, eventually the farmers are gonna have nothing but the bottom land," farmer Michael Whitehurst said. Another resident cited a Virginia Tech study he said shows negative impacts on residential values in a three-mile radius; the appraiser and applicant disputed that study’s applicability and pointed to other studies with mixed or negligible impacts.

Board members asked whether a performance bond for decommissioning would be required. Staff said the county does not require a surety bond but that state requirements would apply and a decommissioning bond must be submitted to the state before operation. Members also asked whether adjacent owners had been notified; the developer’s attorney said letters were sent to adjoining property owners but the landowner was unable to attend the meeting.

Commissioner (S4) moved to accept staff’s full recommendation, a motion was seconded (S9), and the board approved the recommendation by voice/hand vote. The recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for a March 16 public hearing.