Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nottoway board adopts new solar ordinance after lengthy public hearing; vote 4–1
Summary
After an extended public hearing with dozens of speakers for and against, the Nottoway County Board of Supervisors approved a new solar ordinance—covering setbacks, buffers and permitting rules—by a 4–1 roll-call vote. The decision also opened separate deliberations on fee schedules and revenue sharing.
The Nottoway County Board of Supervisors voted 4–1 on Dec. 19 to adopt the county's proposed solar ordinance, after a public hearing that drew developers, landowners and residents.
The ordinance adopted the broad structure presented by planning staff: a 50-acre (or 5-megawatt) threshold for certain rules, an 800-foot setback from public rights-of-way, a 1,500-foot buffer from habitable dwellings (with a limited family-adjacent waiver to 500 feet), and a 250-foot buffer measured from perennial streams. Planning staff also outlined a proposed special-exception application fee and a revenue-share mechanism allowed under Virginia Code' section 58.1-2636.
Supporters at the public hearing said properly sited solar could provide new, recurring tax revenue and a steady income stream for landowners. Paul Cousins, a project manager with CEP Solar, urged the board to adopt standards that allow regulated investment, saying the proposed setbacks would make small projects unviable and drive investment to neighboring counties.
Opponents warned the ordinance as drafted would functionally ban many small-scale projects and raised long-term concerns about decommissioning and landscape impacts. One speaker, William Berry of Blackstone, urged the board to require clear decommissioning and reclamation language so sites are returned to agricultural use decades later.
Board discussion focused on finding a balance between protecting rural character and preserving landowner property rights. The final roll-call was recorded as: Ingram — Yes; Collins — Yes; Toth — Nay; Norton — Yes; Chair — Yes.
The board also committed to follow-up work sessions to consider fee levels and possible textual amendments to setbacks and caps. Several related items'planning and zoning fees, building permit fees, and a revenue-share provision'were held as separate hearings during the same meeting and proceeded on different timelines.
