Nottoway County approves Rocky Ford 100 MW siting agreement after heated public hearing, 3–2

The Nottoway County Board of Supervisors voted 3–2 on April 9 to adopt a siting agreement for the proposed Rocky Ford 100-megawatt solar project presented by Ampelform and NW Rocky Ford LLC, following a lengthy public hearing that drew both supporters and opponents.

The vote followed more than three hours of public comment and board discussion. Supervisor Boatwright made the motion to adopt the siting agreement; the measure passed on a roll-call vote with Supervisors Roark, Toth and Chairman Collins voting yes and Supervisors Dickie Ingram and Daphne Norton voting no.

The hearing drew diverging testimony from residents and landowners. Beverly Ames of Blackstone urged the board to approve the project for its potential to create jobs, spur education and generate revenue, saying industrial solar can “be a boon to rural counties” by providing tax payments and business activity. by contrast, resident Sonny Abbott criticized figures supplied in a FOIA response, citing a quoted revenue-share rebate of $9,157,849.50 and a net present value of $2,432,410.55 and calling the legal responses and assumptions “not sufficiently detailed” for approval in their current form.

Adjacency and resource concerns were prominent. Connie Reynolds Shine Hurt, representing Makaija Vineyard and Winery LLC, asked the board to deny or amend the 100 MW special-exception application because of the project’s scale and potential effects on private wells. She cited recent deep wells on nearby properties and requested indemnity for adjacent landowners “if we lose our water,” argued for setbacks of 250–500 feet (and suggested a half-mile buffer), and requested vegetative screening. Woodson Earby and other commenters urged honoring the county’s 1,200-foot habitable-dwelling setback or, at minimum, a 500-foot compromise.

Ampelform representatives responded at the hearing. Miss Rodriguez of Ampelform told the board that operational solar arrays in Virginia typically use “little to no water” and that rainfall often suffices to keep panels clean; she added that robotic cleaning technology is reducing any remaining water needs. Ampelform’s Tiran Nyam acknowledged mapping discrepancies in conceptual exhibits and said those issues would be reconciled during the special-exception and site-plan stages, when parcel and setback details are surveyed and subject to additional public review.

County counsel also weighed in on a proposed waiver approach. The county attorney cautioned against relying on private waivers to alter setback requirements, citing Virginia case law that assigns zoning decisions to the board rather than adjacent landowners. Staff and the developer discussed reserving megawatts for a project while it is under development; the board accepted language clarifying that reserved capacity should align with the project’s final nameplate capacity at commercial operation.

Supervisors framed their votes around competing priorities: landowner rights, neighbor protections, fiscal needs for county projects and accuracy of technical and fiscal data. Supervisor Ingram said he voted no because many neighbors in his district oppose the project and because the proposal is “so spread out” it affects a large number of residents; Supervisor Norton also voted no, citing citizen concerns and unanswered questions about groundwater and the grant terms. Supporters argued the agreement preserves the county’s upfront payment ($8 million was discussed in board materials) and revenue potential while further technical detail will be established at the site-plan stage.

The board approved the siting agreement but deferred the related performance agreement (the document that would specify financial terms and in-lieu collections) to the next meeting to allow supervisors time to review the detailed financial language. Staff said the performance agreement and the $1,400-per-megawatt in-lieu figure, and other implementation details, would be added to next week’s board packet for a separate vote.

What happens next: approval of the siting agreement allows the developer to continue the rezoning/special-exception and site-plan steps, but the special-exception permit and the site plan require additional public hearings and more precise surveying of adjacent parcels and setbacks before final construction approvals.