Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves solar‑ordinance amendments but removes Dominion supervision requirement
Summary
After a lengthy public hearing split between developers and opponents, the Nottoway County Board of Supervisors approved advertised amendments to its solar ordinance while striking a provision that would have required Dominion to supervise permitted projects; board members debated setbacks and flexibility for small projects.
The Nottoway County Board of Supervisors voted April 17 to adopt advertised amendments to Article 4, Division 19 (solar energy facilities) while excluding a proposed clause that would have required Dominion to supervise developer‑issued permits.
Staff described the advertised changes as removing the old 50‑acre/5‑megawatt cap and replacing it with a countywide 170‑megawatt cap, eliminating the category “medium scale,” and tightening landscaping and setback language. Planning staff told the board the planning commission recommended denial (8–0) before the hearing. As staff summarized the advertised edits, they said the Dominion supervision requirement had to be stricken after Dominion said it lacks capacity to supervise sites.
The public hearing drew dozens of speakers representing developers, local business interests and residents. Developers and project managers said smaller distribution projects (about 3 MW) need exceptions to the proposed 300‑foot setbacks and argued the ordinance should allow case‑by‑case flexibility; one presenter said the change to megawatts “replace[d] it for a total of a 170 megawatts per for the whole county.” Resident speakers emphasized rural character and conservation concerns and urged retaining stricter limits. Board members debated whether rollback or further changes would require resubmission to the planning commission and whether the new language already provides topography‑based exceptions.
Chair and staff framed the vote as approval of the advertised language with a single deletion. The clerk conducted a roll call; the transcript records individual votes and records the motion as adopted after the roll call (see Votes & Actions at a Glancesection for the full roll call). The board also directed that any request to reduce setbacks be considered on a case‑by‑case basis under the ordinance’s site‑topography language.
The ordinance now moves into the county’s code as amended; the board did not adopt any additional, broader changes to setback distances during the meeting. Several supervisors said they expect future permit applications to be considered with the ordinance’s built‑in flexibility.
