Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Energy Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Person County rejects proposal to permit very large solar farms after lengthy hearing
Summary
After a three‑hour public hearing with more than two dozen speakers, the Person County Board of Commissioners voted down a proposed text amendment (TA‑07‑25) that would have created a conditional‑rezoning pathway for solar projects over 100 acres. Commissioners cited concerns about farmland, cumulative impacts, and community process.
Vice‑chair moved to adopt TA‑07‑25, a proposed text amendment that would add a new "level four" category to the Person County Solar Energy System Ordinance and allow conditional‑district rezoning for projects larger than 100 acres.
The amendment’s proponents — including applicant representatives from Cypress Creek Renewables and landowners who said the change would preserve family farms — described the change as a policy fix to state market realities and to allow large independent power projects to be considered by the county. Harrison Cole of Cypress Creek said larger projects respond to grid needs and state procurement rules and that a typical 80‑megawatt utility project would require roughly 350 acres of panels and could produce an estimated $7 million in tax revenue over its lifetime.
Opponents, among them forestry‑industry representatives and members of county advisory boards, urged keeping the existing 100‑acre cap. Speakers raised concerns about loss of working forests and prime farmland, erosion and stormwater impacts, habitat fragmentation, decommissioning costs, and the potential for a patchwork of large sites along transmission corridors.
The planning director and the applicant’s counsel emphasized that approval of a text amendment would not authorize any specific project; rather, the change would create a procedure (a conditional district rezoning) under which each proposed level‑four site would return to the planning board and the commissioners for separate public hearings and binding site‑specific conditions, including 150‑foot vegetative buffers, 200‑foot setbacks, site plans, and a required submission to the local fire marshal. The applicant’s team also described local outreach and proposed measures such as decommissioning bonds and the potential for agricultural co‑use (sheep grazing).
During deliberations commissioners weighed landowner rights and potential economic benefits against concerns raised by nearby residents and industry stakeholders. Commissioners discussed possible ordinance edits — for example, stricter restoration language and mandatory performance bonds — and whether conditional rezoning would be sufficient to protect the county’s rural character.
The board took a recorded voice vote on the motion to adopt TA‑07‑25. The motion failed on a 2–3 vote, leaving the existing ordinance in place. The board did not adopt the amendment; any future large‑project path would require a new policy vote.
Next steps: Because the amendment failed, no procedural change was adopted. Any applicant wishing to pursue a large project may still submit individual applications under existing rules but would not have a level‑four conditional rezoning path unless the board approves a future text amendment.
