Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pitt County commissioners deny rezoning for 236-acre Stonewood Solar project after heated public hearing
Summary
After more than two hours of testimony from landowners, farmers and experts, the Pitt County Board of Commissioners voted to deny a conditional rezoning for a 235.89-acre solar facility proposed by Stonewood Solar LLC, citing concerns about farmland loss, long-term land use and community impacts.
The Pitt County Board of Commissioners voted to deny a request from Stonewood Solar LLC to rezone roughly 235.89 acres near NC 903 and Oakley Road to allow a solar facility, following a lengthy public hearing in which neighbors and farmers urged the board to protect agricultural land.
Planning staff described the application, noting required setbacks (50 feet from property lines, 150 feet from residences for inverters), underground electrical wiring and a decommissioning plan. Staff recommended approval and the Planning Board had unanimously recommended the conditional rezoning as consistent with the Pitt County 2045 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, with conditions including erosion control, use of existing vegetation for screening, and NCDOT driveway permits.
Opponents focused on farmland preservation, property values and local character. Farmer James Michael Whitehurst told the board he was “confident that those supporting the solar development are skilled in their respective fields. However, I also know that no amount of online research can match the knowledge gained over 3 decades of firsthand farming experience,” and said large projects reduce the county’s productive farmland. Nearby resident Jason Smith said panels “look like something from The Walking Dead” and criticized enforcement of screening requirements.
Other speakers raised technical and economic concerns. Kevin Jones said his neighbors had household electrical equipment failures he attributed to solar interconnection; the developer and utility expert disputed that causal link during questions. Appraiser Nick Kirkland presented a property-value impact study and said, in his professional judgment, the project “would not have a negative impact on adjoining or nearby property values.”
Representatives of the project, including Jay Niemith of Headwater Energy and landowner Dr. Dignasa Patel, emphasized local tax revenue and a temporary, reversible land use. Niemith said the project would yield “over $37,000 in new property tax revenue in its first year” and that modern facilities are “quiet, fenced, and built using standard electrical equipment.” Dr. Patel, the landowner, said leasing a portion of the parcel would allow her to keep the land in the family and argued the project would not place added demands on county services.
Commissioners questioned developers and technical witnesses about interconnection, local consumption of generated power and whether lands could realistically return to farming after the panels’ lifetime. The developer noted plans for a 10-megawatt facility within a 236-acre parcel, doubled setbacks along Oakley Road and a decommissioning plan registered with NCDEQ.
A motion to adopt the staff consistency statement and approve the rezoning initially failed. Later, a motion that the request was consistent with the land-use plan but was not reasonable passed — effectively denying the rezoning. The board recorded the denial; vote tallies were not read aloud in the transcript.
Next steps: opponents said they hope the board’s decision will slow conversion of prime farmland, while the developer emphasized remaining options for other sites or potential future proposals. The applicant may pursue other regulatory avenues or future proposals; the board provided no timetable for further related action at the meeting.
