Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board adopts solar ordinance after hours of public comment, 4–1 vote
Summary
After a lengthy public hearing with developers and residents divided, the Nottoway County Board of Supervisors approved the ordinance section of a new solar code — including 50‑acre/5 MW thresholds and large setbacks — on a 4–1 roll-call vote. Supervisors agreed to revisit some fees and details in later sessions.
The Nottoway County Board of Supervisors voted 4–1 on Dec. 19 to adopt the ordinance section of a new solar energy code intended to regulate medium‑scale solar and battery-storage projects in the county.
County planner/attorney (S9) introduced four related items during the meeting — a draft ordinance, a site agreement, changes to planning and zoning fees and an amended building permit fee schedule — and read key provisions including a 50‑acre or 5‑megawatt threshold and large minimum setbacks. S9 also summarized an added surface‑water buffer of at least 250 feet along perennial streams and explained the revenue‑share language tied to Va. Code §58.1‑2636 that permits a locality to adopt a revenue share up to $1,400 per megawatt.
Supporters and opponents — including landowners, small developers and national‑region developers — filled the public hearing. Paul Cousins of CEP Solar (S19) told the board the ordinance’s proposed setbacks and other limits “would make our projects not viable in the county” and urged the board to align setback rules with neighboring localities to keep small landowners eligible for projects. William Berry (S16), a resident of Blackstone, warned the board to consider long‑term site reclamation and whether large solar farms will be restored at end‑of‑life.
Supervisor Collins (S4) moved to approve the ordinance section as presented. During discussion supervisors debated setback distances, a possible cap on county acreage, a 4% cap proposal offered by one speaker, and whether to adopt now and amend later or to postpone for more work sessions. The roll call was: Ingram Y, Collins Y, Toth N, Norton Y, Chair Y, producing a 4–1 approval.
The board approved the ordinance section while agreeing to continue work on related fee schedules and technical amendments in future public meetings. S9 advised that separate hearings had been held as required for each ordinance component and that legal and procedural steps remain for fee and permit schedules. The county clerk will post minutes and ordinance language and staff said they will schedule follow‑up work sessions and required advertisements for any proposed changes.
