Pitt County commissioners deny Stonewood Solar rezoning after residents raise farmland, property and equipment concerns

The Pitt County Board of Commissioners voted 5–3 on Monday to deny a conditional rezoning request from Stonewood Solar, LLC to build a 10-megawatt solar facility and battery storage on Parcel 58349 in Carolina Township.

The applicant, Stonewood Solar, proposed rezoning about 235.89 acres (all or a portion of Parcel 58349, owned by OM, LLC) from Rural Agricultural (RA) to Rural Agricultural Conditional District (RA(CD)). Jonas Hill, Pitt County planning director, told the board the Planning Board recommended approval 5–4 and planning staff recommended approval with conditions including expanded setbacks along Oakley Road, a 10-foot vegetative buffer, a 50-foot riparian buffer where streams are present, erosion and stormwater controls, and limits on equipment and setbacks in the zoning ordinance.

During the public hearing, neighbors and local farmers expressed opposition. James Whitehurst, who identified himself as a fifth‑generation farmer, urged the board to keep land available for future farming, saying the term “solar farm” masks long-term loss of productive soil. Kevin Jones said residents near other area solar projects have experienced electrical equipment damage; he stated, “they all had their capacitors in their air conditioners burn up due to the solar farm,” and raised concerns about harmonic issues on the grid. Matt Nobles, speaking for Nobles Logging and Nobles Farms, said the project would remove cultivated acres and that local farmers pay a higher share of property tax than the project would. Debbie Bunn said her operations would lose about 17% of cultivated acres if the rezoning were approved.

Proponents and technical witnesses contested those points. Jay Neimeth of Headwater Energy said the project would bring local tax revenue, estimating “over $37,000 in new property tax revenue in its first year” and projecting more than $600,000 over time, and described the project as producing local electricity that would help stabilize prices. Jennifer Lester, a professional engineer with Kimley‑Horn & Associates, described the panels as light, non‑shattering and reviewed erosion and stormwater controls and buffer plans. Appraiser Nick Kirkland presented a property‑value impact study and said tax assessors typically make adjustments as appropriate.

Commissioners questioned proponents and opponents about interconnection, impacts on nearby homes and whether agricultural activities could be integrated with the project. In response to Commissioner Chris W. Nunnally, Mr. Neimeth said the project includes battery storage and that study work is planned for possible agricultural demonstrations such as blueberries between panels.

Two final board actions were recorded: a 3–5 vote against a motion to adopt a staff/consistency motion (motion failed), and later a 5–3 vote in which the board found the request “not reasonable and not in the public interest” citing detriments to neighbors and surrounding farmland; that second motion carried, effectively denying the rezoning. Vote records are reflected in the board transcript.

What’s next: the board’s motion included findings that the rezoning would be a detriment to neighboring farmland and inconsistent with the surrounding open‑space and agricultural character. The transcript records required site plan, buffer and permitting obligations only in the event of approval; because the rezoning was denied, those conditions do not take effect. The applicant or property owner could pursue other approvals or a modified application or appeal the decision according to county procedures.

The hearing included numerous technical exhibits and a decommissioning plan submitted with the application; the file remains part of the public record at the Pitt County Planning Department.