Limited Time Offer. Become a Founder Member Now!

Supervisors debate written waivers, adjacency language for Rocky Ford solar; chairman files conflict disclosure

October 10, 2025 | Nottoway County, Virginia


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Supervisors debate written waivers, adjacency language for Rocky Ford solar; chairman files conflict disclosure
Nottoway County supervisors on Oct. 9 debated whether applicants for a proposed Rocky Ford solar facility should be required to submit written waivers from adjacent landowners and considered clarifying when a public road makes parcels “adjacent” under the county's planned ordinance.

The discussion came as Chairman Wayne J. Collins filed a public declaration disclosing that his employer, Citizens Bank and Trust, holds deeds of trust on several parcels included in the Rocky Ford application. Collins read the disclosure into the record and said the statute allowing participation for transactions affecting a group of three or more landowners applied. "I will be able to participate in the transaction fairly, objectively, and in furtherance of the public interest," Collins said during his reading.

The board debated practical consequences of allowing verbal waivers. One supervisor urged the county's planning staff and planning commission to require a written waiver with applications, saying verbal assurances provide "no evidence" and that neighbors should sign off in writing so future disputes are avoided. Other board members asked whether a state highway separating parcels should be treated as making properties non-adjacent; several supervisors favored adding explicit language to the ordinance clarifying that a state highway does not automatically render parcels non-adjacent for setback and notification purposes.

County staff said certified letters had been sent to notify affected property owners. Supervisors also discussed the visual impacts of different buffer standards; staff noted that a 300-foot setback with no vegetative buffer has different visual outcomes than a 75-foot setback paired with a strong buffer.

At the end of the public discussion the board voted to go into a closed session to consult with legal counsel and to discuss terms of a potential siting agreement for the solar project. The motion to adjourn into closed session cited Virginia Code or consultation with legal counsel and or discussion of the award of a public contract related to a solar siting agreement. The record shows the board took that action.

The Rocky Ford solar application and the board's eventual ordinance language remain under consideration. The board did not adopt final ordinance language at the meeting; supervisors asked staff and the planning commission to prepare language that would: (1) require written waivers as part of an application when an applicant seeks reduced setbacks adjacent to non-family-owned parcels, and (2) explicitly address whether a public highway changes adjacency status for notice and setback calculations.

A closed session was scheduled to allow legal counsel and staff to discuss negotiation strategy for a possible siting agreement.

Next steps: planning staff will draft clarifying ordinance language and return to the board and planning commission; the board will also continue closed-session work on the siting contract.

View full meeting

This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.

View full meeting

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Virginia articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI