City of Suffolk council denies proposed 3-megawatt community solar project near Western Branch

The City of Suffolk Council voted 8-0 on July 15 to deny a conditional use permit for a proposed 3-megawatt solar energy facility on Old Myrtle Road after residents raised concerns about noise, stormwater runoff, traffic and impacts to nearby historic properties.

Proponents from New Leaf Energy said the project would participate in Dominion Energy’s shared-solar program and deliver savings for subscribers, and they described mitigation measures including expanded setbacks, new screening plantings and stormwater best-management practices. Jessie Robinson, who identified herself as a senior project developer with New Leaf Energy, said the company held two community meetings, revised its landscaping plan and submitted a noise study showing predicted sound levels near residences would remain low. "Even at the closest evaluated residence the modeled sound level was 30 decibels," Robinson said, adding that modeled increases were generally between 0.1 and 1.7 decibels — a change the presenter described as imperceptible to most listeners.

Opponents who live adjacent to the site described a different picture. Jimmy Smith, an adjacent property owner, said the rural neighborhood values "peace, quiet and tranquility" and urged council to reject the permit, citing what he called threats to wildlife, flood risks from increased runoff, and the potential for fire hazard. "We will have no days off listening to rotator motors following the sun," Smith said, calling the change disruptive to longtime residents. Several other neighbors said Old Myrtle Road cannot support heavy construction traffic and highlighted a 200-year-old cemetery and Western Branch Baptist Church close to the project access point.

City and applicant engineers addressed technical questions at the hearing. Shane Fushi, a professional engineer who said he reviewed stormwater measures for the project, told council the design includes four BMPs (best-management practices) that will detain and release runoff at rates lower than existing conditions. The applicant’s representative also said the inverter setbacks exceed ordinance requirements and that additional screening would be planted to limit visibility.

Council members repeatedly noted the depth of neighborhood opposition and the planning commission’s earlier recommendation to deny the application. Council member Wright moved for disapproval, Council member Johnson seconded, and the motion carried 8-0. A councilmember clarified that a "yes" vote on the motion meant a vote to deny the permit. No alternative mitigation or referral motion was adopted.

The denial leaves the property owner and project sponsor able to seek other permitting options or to revise the proposal and reapply; council discussion and the record note that the project as proposed did not find sufficient local support. The formal record of the vote was entered by the clerk immediately following the motion.