Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nottoway supervisors pause on Ampliform solar siting agreement after dispute over 1,200-foot setbacks
Summary
After hours of public comment and legal review, the Board of Supervisors paused final action on Ampliform’s proposed 100 MW solar siting agreement amid disagreement over setback language and payment-amount typos; attorneys said the draft would be corrected and returned for further review.
The Nottoway County Board of Supervisors paused consideration of a proposed siting agreement for a 100 MW solar project after members and counsel identified draft errors and a dispute over residential setbacks.
Attorney Mike Lockaby told the Board the siting agreement and a related Performance Agreement proposed an $8 million front‑loaded payment structure tied to project milestones — including "$80,000 per MW" in upfront payments — that, if realized, could reduce courthouse debt service. Multiple residents spoke both for and against the project during the public comment period.
Board discussion focused on a line in the draft that could have allowed setbacks of "less than 1200'" from residences; the Board clarified its intent that setbacks be "no less than 1200 feet from a habitable dwelling." Chairman William J. Collins also disclosed a potential conflict of interest tied to his employer holding deeds of trust on parcels in the application and said his participation was permitted under the Virginia Code.
Vice Chairman George G. Toth moved to accept the siting agreement with reservations to correct typographical errors and clarify the setbacks; a roll call vote was begun but the Board recessed for further review and the matter was left for revision and later return to the Board. The meeting record shows both opponents and supporters spoke (several named residents listed), and Board members emphasized that reducing MWs to meet a greater setback would also reduce projected revenues.
Next procedural steps noted by staff and counsel included correcting payment‑amount typos in the draft and circulating a revised Performance Agreement to Supervisors; the Board did not record a final approval before recessing.
