Matt Nobles was among residents who spoke against a rezoning request that would allow a solar farm to be built on N.C. 903 near the intersection of Oakley Road.
Matt Nobles was among residents who spoke against a rezoning request that would allow a solar farm to be built on N.C. 903 near the intersection of Oakley Road.
The Pitt County Board of Commissioners voted 5-3 to reject a rezoning request that would have permitted a solar farm on N.C. 903 near Oakley Road following a debate over farmland losses, property rights and other concerns.
Commissioner Mary Perkins-Williams made the motion to reject the request, saying the solar farm representatives couldn’t guarantee the land would be suitable for farming at the end of the facility’s 25-year life span.
The site is located halfway between Greenville and Stokes on the northwestern corner of N.C. 903 and Oakley Road and the southern side of Sweet Gum Grove Church Road.
Stonewood Solar LLC, the applicant, sought to have the property, nearly 236 acres, rezoned from rural agricultural to rural agricultural (conditional district). Because part of the property is designated as open space/conservation property, only half the property would be developed as a solar farm.
Nearby resident Kevin Jones said he has several family members who live near a solar facility on Rams Horn Road. Within two months of the facility going live, capacitors on their air conditioners were badly damaged along with light fixtures, Jones said during a public hearing.
Jones said his research shows solar farms can create harmonic issues on the electric grid, which can cause issues with electrical devices. Jones said the commissioners should vote against it to protect homes in the area.
Other farmers worried about the loss of farm land, with a number of them citing the statistic that North Carolina is losing 100,000 acres of farmland annually to solar projects.
Matt Nobles, who lives in the area, spoke about the inequities in taxation involving solar facilities. He said solar facility owners pay 20 percent of taxes on the equipment while farmers and homeowners pay 100 percent.
Dr. Jignasa Patel and her family have owned the land for 25 years.
“I believe in personal property rights and the right to use my land in a beneficial manner,” Patel said. The solar project will provide a sustainable income that will allow her family to keep the property for future generations.
Only a portion of the land would be used for solar while the rest would remain untouched.
Unlike subdivisions, whose homeowners require county services such as schools and law enforcement, solar facilities require no resources.
“At present, I do not plan to continue farming the land. If the solar project does not materialize, I will look for other ways to maximize the use and value of this land,” said Patel.
Henry Bunn introduced himself as the person who has “farmed the land longer than she owned the land.”
Patel has a right to do what she wants to with the land, but locations like the property in question are being turned into industrial sites, parking lots and roof tops, said Bunn.
“The big thing it breaks down to is greed: Give me the most money I can get out of anything and damn the difference,” Bunn said. “They don’t care what’s coming down the road as long as they get the money in their pocket today.”
He has invested in keeping the land farmable and said he has walked every acre over 25 years. He doubts she’s walked on it at all.
“You cannot replace this kind of land anywhere in this county without a fight because all of it is taken,” Bunn said.
The commissioners asked the developers about how solar facilities work and their impact on farmland.
Commissioner Gary Weaver asked how the proposed solar farm could tie into Greenville Utilities Commission when it purchases electricity from Duke Energy.
Jay Nemeth with Headwater Energy, which develops solar facilities, said the facility would connect to GUC’s infrastructure and distribution system. GUC purchases from Duke, but it is locally produced electricity.
Weaver said solar farms are promoted as being a cheaper source of electricity, but electric rates continue to increase.
Nemeth said adding solar into electric production helps mitigate spikes in electric costs caused by spikes in traditional fuel costs.
He said the proposed farm could generate electricity for 23,000 houses.
The facility also would have batteries that would store electricity to be dispersed at later times.
“I feel like this country is so far behind how the rest of the world operates in solar,” Commissioner Chris Nunnally said. Currently, the United States treats solar farms as areas that only produce electricity. However, there are models that integrate agriculture in and around solar facilities, Nunnally said.
Nemeth said his firm is in discussions with a Washington, N.C., grower who wants to raise organic blueberries at the location.
Perkins-Williams asked how much land used by solar farms has been returned to farmland. Nemeth said solar farms have an average lifespan of 25 years. North Carolina didn’t see its first solar farms until 2012, so no farms have reached the end of their lifespan or leases.
Nunally made a motion to approve the rezoning request. It failed with a 3-5 vote with Nunnally, Ann Floyd Huggins and Mac Manning voting for the rezoning and Perkins-Williams, Weaver, Rochelle Brown, Benji Holloman and Mark Smith voting against rezoning.
Commissioner Melvin McLawhorn didn’t attend Monday’s meeting.
County Attorney Matt Gibson said the board needed to take a vote against the rezoning, including making a statement about why the request was being opposed.
An attorney representing Stonewood Solar asked if the commissioners could table the vote. Gibson said he wouldn’t advise tabling the motion but the board had that option.
Perkins-Williams made the motion, saying Nemeth did not show that solar farms can be successfully returned to productive farmland.
Gibson said it appeared Perkins-Williams was saying that the request is consistent with the county’s land use plan but is an unreasonable use due to the factor she stated.
When Perkins-Williams said Gibson’s explanation was what she wanted to say, he asked her to state why it wasn’t reasonable so it didn’t appear he was putting words in her mouth. Perkins-Williams restated that Nemeth couldn’t guarantee the land would be good for farming.
Gibson recommended that in the meeting minutes, the motion state that the rezoning request was consistent with the county’s land use plan but was unreasonable due to the lack of care for the farmland.
Nunnally said he’s doubtful there is legal basis to deny the rezoning request.
Perkins-Williams, Brown, Holloman, Smith and Weaver voted to deny the request; Nunnally, Huggins and Manning voted against denying the request.
Ginger Livingston can be contacted at glivingston@apgenc.com and 252-329-9570.
Your browser is out of date and potentially vulnerable to security risks.
We recommend switching to one of the following browsers:
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Account processing issue – the email address may already exist
Sign up with
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Invalid password or account does not exist
Sign in with
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Secure transaction. Secure transaction. Cancel anytime.
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
A receipt was sent to your email.
