Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Stonewood Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board narrowly backs 10‑MW Stonewood Solar project on 236 acres, 5–4
Summary
After extended public comment and expert testimony, the Pitt County Planning Board voted 5–4 to recommend rezoning roughly 235.89 acres to allow a 10‑megawatt solar facility; conditions include expanded setbacks, vegetative screening, stormwater and erosion controls, and a decommissioning plan.
The Pitt County Planning Board voted 5–4 Feb. 18 to recommend rezoning 235.89 acres (Parcel 58349) from Rural Agricultural to Rural Agricultural (Conditional District) to allow construction of a 10‑megawatt solar energy facility proposed by Stonewood Solar, LLC.
Assistant Director Eric Gooby summarized staff’s finding that the proposal is consistent with the Envision Pitt County 2045 plan’s Agricultural and Open Space/Conservation designations and noted planned measures to preserve wooded and wetland areas, expand setbacks (including a proposed 100‑foot setback along Oakley Road), and require vegetative buffering. Gooby and staff recommended approval subject to site‑plan review, landscape buffering, erosion and sedimentation controls, compliance with the county’s stormwater ordinance, and a 50‑foot riparian buffer on stream features unless otherwise documented.
Applicant representatives told the board the project would occupy roughly 150 acres of the 236‑acre site, connect to Greenville Utilities’ existing system (avoiding creation of new transmission lines), include a decommissioning plan, and is estimated to create about 45 construction jobs. Jay Nemeth of Headwater Energy said the project is "low‑impact, reversible" and would add an estimated $45,000 per year to the county tax base from improvements. Appraiser Rich Kirkland presented research he said shows "no detectable impact on home values when reasonable landscaping screens and proper distances are in place." Opponents, including fifth‑generation farmer Michael Whitehurst and Matt Nobles of Noble's Farms, argued the site is productive farmland, expressed concerns about long‑term soil impacts and lost agricultural production, and questioned the relative public benefit compared with farming.
Board members asked whether a county performance bond is required for decommissioning; staff said the state requires a financial guarantee before operation but the county does not require a separate performance bond. After extended questioning about setbacks, property values, tax treatment and long‑term farmland impacts, the board voted 5 in favor and 4 opposed to recommend approval; the recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of Commissioners for final action.
