Nottoway supervisors debate solar ordinance setbacks amid community concerns

The Nottoway County Board of Supervisors convened on April 17, 2025, to discuss critical updates to the county's solar ordinance, reflecting ongoing tensions between economic development and community concerns. The meeting highlighted the complexities surrounding solar energy projects, particularly regarding proposed setbacks and community engagement.

A significant portion of the discussion centered on the implications of "good neighbor agreements," which are confidential arrangements between solar developers and neighboring landowners. These agreements often include financial incentives for neighbors to refrain from opposing solar projects. While some board members expressed skepticism about the limited number of constituents supporting solar initiatives—only 25 out of 15,000 residents—others emphasized the potential economic benefits of solar energy, including increased tax revenues.

Paul Cousins, a project manager with Commonwealth Energy Partners, presented the Sunnyside Solar project, which aims to generate approximately 3 megawatts of energy. He argued that the proposed 300-foot setbacks from property lines would hinder small-scale projects, advocating for a more flexible approach that considers individual site characteristics. Similarly, Esther Rekelman from Hexagon Energy echoed these sentiments, stressing that the current setbacks could jeopardize her 3-megawatt project in Burkeville.

Dylan Taylor from Energy Right urged the board to balance property rights with the economic opportunities that solar investments could bring. He warned that overly restrictive setbacks might deter future solar projects, referencing neighboring counties that have faced similar challenges. The board's deliberations revealed a divide among members, with some prioritizing community concerns about land use and aesthetics, while others focused on the urgent need for revenue generation amid financial pressures.

As the meeting progressed, several supervisors acknowledged the necessity of solar projects for the county's financial health, despite personal reservations about their visual impact. The board ultimately agreed to consider amendments that would allow for case-by-case evaluations of solar projects, potentially easing restrictions on setbacks while maintaining community standards.

In conclusion, the Nottoway County Board of Supervisors is at a crossroads, balancing the need for economic development through solar energy with the concerns of local residents. The discussions from this meeting will likely shape the future of solar initiatives in the county, as stakeholders continue to navigate the complexities of land use, community engagement, and financial sustainability. The board is expected to revisit the ordinance in upcoming sessions, with the potential for further adjustments based on community feedback and project viability.