Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Energy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends denial of 15.68 MW Old Myrtle Solar after neighbor objections
Summary
The Planning Commission voted 5‑2 on June 16 to recommend denial of CUP-2026-00011 (Old Myrtle Solar), a proposed 15.68 MW solar facility sited on roughly 63.9 acres of panel area within a 343‑acre property, after residents raised concerns about road access, noise, fire risk and wildlife impacts.
On June 16 the Suffolk City Planning Commission recommended denial, by a vote of 5‑2, of Conditional Use Permit CUP-2026-00011 for a utility‑scale solar project known as Old Myrtle Solar.
Staff planner Caitlyn described the application as a distribution‑scale facility with 15.68 megawatts of capacity and roughly 63.9 acres of fenced array within a 343‑acre property near Old Myrtle Road. Caitlyn said the proposal includes multiple inverter/transformer pads, fewer disturbed acres than the total ownership, and buffers of preserved mature vegetation; she also noted state law changes effective July 1 would not apply because this application was submitted before that date. Staff recommended forwarding the application to City Council with conditions including a required noise study, a phase‑one archaeological/cemetery study, truck‑routing conditions for construction, undergrounding of electrical infrastructure beyond the point of interconnection, and other mitigation measures.
Applicant representatives Tyson UT and Paul Cousins said the project would interconnect to local distribution lines, provide revenue sharing with the city and support local power needs without tapping high‑voltage transmission lines. “Old Myrtle Solar will allow Susan to continue operating Perry Minnow Farm for years to come,” Paul Cousins said, describing the landowner’s goal of preserving family land while generating income.
Opponents focused on road capacity, emergency response and noise. “This narrow road hasn't had any city attention,” Tony Bower said, urging the commission to consider potential heavy construction traffic and long‑term effects on the local right‑of‑way. Other residents raised concerns about possible increases in noise from inverters and transformers, wildfire risk, and impacts to local wetlands and wildlife corridors.
A motion to deny passed; the commission’s recommendation will be transmitted to City Council for a final decision on July 15.
Context: Staff emphasized buffering, setbacks and a conditionally required noise study to ensure compliance with city standards; opponents said existing road and emergency-service capacity, and potential noise and environmental risks, merited denial.
Next steps: Planning staff will prepare the record and forward materials to City Council.
