Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Boxwood Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning panel recommends denying Boxwood Solar conditional‑use permit after large public turnout
Summary
After hours of public comment and technical questioning, Halifax County’s Planning Commission recommended denial of CEP Solar’s 69‑megawatt Boxwood Solar conditional‑use permit on June 16, 2026, even as it approved the developer’s siting agreement. The applicant and supporters cited jobs and revenue; dozens of nearby residents raised concerns about roads, safety, wetlands and long‑term land impacts.
The Halifax County Planning Commission voted 5–1 on June 16 to recommend that the Board of Supervisors deny a Conditional Use Permit for CEP Solar’s proposed Boxwood Solar project, a planned utility‑scale solar facility up to 69 megawatts sited on multiple parcels in the Nathalie/Chisholm Trail area.
The motion to recommend denial followed more than two hours of testimony and a staff presentation that described the project’s footprint, compliance with the County’s Solar Ordinance and third‑party reviews. Zoning Administrator Detrick Easley told the joint meeting the application had been reviewed and the county’s packet included a third‑party review and required performance guarantees. "The application met the County Ordinance, including setbacks and density requirements," Easley said during his overview (Detrick Easley).
Supporters and company representatives said the project would bring construction work, ongoing operations spending and tax revenue. CEP Solar’s senior project manager, Rob Propst, described setbacks, vegetative buffers and plans for wildlife corridors and decommissioning bonds, and said the company had committed to community outreach. "The project meets the Comprehensive Plan and, in some ways, goes above and beyond the County’s requirements," Propst said during his presentation.
But most of the dozens of residents who spoke urged denial. Opponents from Hodges Street, Liberty and nearby communities raised repeated concerns about heavy construction traffic, damage to rural roads, potential runoff into wetlands and ponds, impacts on hunting and farming, and the concentration of multiple solar projects in the same rural area. "When all the trees are cut down, all the animals are dead, all the waters are poisoned, and all the air is unsafe to breathe, only then will people discover that they cannot eat money," resident Stacy Long said during public comment (Stacy Long).
Planning Commissioner Andy Hughes, who represents part of the affected area and said he knew many speakers personally, framed his motion in the context of residents’ testimony. After deliberation the Commission recorded a roll call: Hughes, Pearce, Watts, Wimbish and Smith‑Mangum voted to recommend denial; Chair Dwayne Griles voted no. The recommendation now goes to the Board of Supervisors for its separate public meeting and final decision.
The record from the joint meeting includes both the Planning Commission’s negative recommendation on the CUP and a separate action approving a Siting Agreement for the same project; those outcomes mean the Board will consider both the permit and the payment agreement when it votes.
What’s next: The Board of Supervisors will receive the Planning Commission’s recommendation and the full administrative record, then determine whether to grant, condition, or deny the CUP at a future Board meeting. If the Board approves the permit, the Siting Agreement establishes how voluntary payments and the county’s per‑megawatt payment would be collected and disbursed.
