In the minutes: Halifax meeting, Flock camera (Nov 17)

Halifax County
Board of Supervisors
Planning Commission
Joint Meeting
1'752

ljalifu

VIRGINIA

County Administration Building
1050 Mary Bethune Street
Halifax, Virginia

November 17, 2026
6:30 p.m.

AGENDA
Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meeting
County Administration Building
Board of Supervisors Meeting Room
1050 Mary Bethune Street
Halifax, VA 24558
Tuesday, November 17, 2026 / 6:30 PM
A.

CALL TO ORDER
Board of Supervisors Call to Order - Chair Roller
Planning Commission Call to Order - Chair Griles
Invocation - Planning Commissioner Hughes
Pledge of Allegiance - Board of Supervisors Chair Roller

B.

ATTENDANCE
Board of Supervisors Attendance Roll Call
Planning Commission Attendance Roll Call

C.

ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Board of Supervisors Adoption of Agenda
Planning Commission Adoption of Agenda

D.

BUSINESS ITEMS
1.

Legal status plan of Virginia Code § 15.2-2232 review for RC DEVCO
(ARM GROUP, LLC) (3130 Bellevue Road) (ED#5) (operation of a
4.99-megawatt (MW) community/shared solar energy facility.

pages 6-9

a. Zoning Administrator Overview
b. Planning Commission - Discussion and Recommendation

E.

PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Conditional Use Permit Application : ED # 5:
Applicant:
RC DEVCO (ARM GROUP, LLC)
PRN:
13797
Location :
3130 Bellevue Road
Property Owners: Ronnie and Joyce Green
Proposed Use:
Construction and operation of a 4.99-megawatt (MW)
community/shared solar energy facility .
a. Zoning Administrator Overview
b. Appl icant Presentation
c. Board of Supervisors Open Public Hearing

pages 11-46

Planning Commission Open Public Hearing
d. Public Comment
e. Planning Commission Close Public Hearing
Board of Supervisors Close Public Hearing

F.

MINUTES CORRECTION/APPROVAL - PLANNING COMMISSION
1. October 20, 2026 Planning Commission/Board of Supervisors Joint Meeting

G.

PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION
1. Conditional Use Permit Application : ED # 5:
Applicant:
RC DEVCO (ARM GROUP, LLC)
PRN :
13797
3130 Bellevue Road
Location :
Property Owners: Ronnie and Joyce Green
Construction and operation of a 4.99-megawatt (MW)
Proposed Use:
community/shared solar energy facility.

H.

PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURN

I.

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION
1.

J.

pages 48-71

Government Resolution - Wells Fargo Letter of Credit

pages 11-46

pages 73-75

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADJOURN

NEXT MEETING(S)
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting
Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission Joint Meeting

December 7, 2026 (6:30 p.m.)
December 15, 2026 (6:30 p.m.)

HALIFAX COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Standards of Conduct

Recognizing that persons holding a position of public trust are under constant observation by the media and
interested County residents , and recognizing that maintaining the integrity and dignity of the public office is essential
for maintaining high levels of public confidence in our institutions of government, every member of the Halifax
County Board of Supervisors should adhere to the following Standards of Conduct.
1. Avoid during public meetings and during the performance of public duties the-use of abusive,
threatening or intimidating language or gestures directed at colleagues, citizens, or personnel.
2. Pay all taxes due to the County, state, or national government.
3. Avoid a private lifestyle that casts public doubt upon the integrity and competence of the County
government.
4. Make a conscientious effort to be well prepared for each meeting .
5. Recognizing the dignity of each individual, the Board shall attempt to avoid offering public criticism of
colleagues or County employees .
6. Work to create a positive environment in public meeting where citizens will feel comfortable in their
roles as observers or participants.
7. Maintain an attitude of courtesy and consideration toward all colleagues and staff during all
discussions and deliberations.
8. Be tolerant. Allow citizens, employees, or colleagues sufficient opportunity to present their views.
9. Be respectful and attentive. Avoid comments, body language or distracting activity that conveys a
message of disrespect for the presentations from citizens, personnel, or colleagues . Be concise.
10. Avoid the practice of taking more time to address an issue before the body than is necessary and
essential for an adequate consideration of those matters being discussed.
Board members should always remember, "There is no right way to do the wrong thing."

HALIFAX COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONDUCT OF THE PUBLIC
The efficient and dignified conduct of public business is an ultimate concern of the Board. Accordingly, it is the policy of the
Board that its meetings be conducted with the highest degree of order and decorum. The Board's integrity and dignity will be
established and maintained at all times during the conduct of public business, and the Board will permit no behavior which is not
in keeping with this policy. Prohibited conduct at meetings shall include:
1.
2.
3.

Campaigning for public office, soliciting of funds, or promoting private business ventures.
Using profanity, vulgar language or gestures.
Language or actions which insult or demean any person or group of persons or which, when directed at a public official or
employee is not related to his official duties.
4. Disruptive behavior.
5. Making non-germane or frivolous statements.
6. Discussions of a sectarian or partisan nature.
7. Smoking or eating in the Board Room .
8. Addressing question or statements to anyone other than the Chairman (Questions shall be presented to the Chairman, who
will, at their discretion, solicit a response from the appropriate board or staff member.)
9. Standing in the back or side isles of the Board Room as long as there are sufficient seats available (except for law
enforcement personnel).
10. Persons in attendance at the meeting addressing the Board while members of the Board are considering any motion,
resolution or ordinance preliminary to a vote on the same, except at the discretion of the Chairman.
11. Any persons addressing comments or questions to someone other than the Chairman .
12. Wearing hats, caps or other types of headgear.
13. Applause is permitted only during presentations, awards, proclamations and special recognition periods.
The Board of Supervisors welcomes and encourages citizen participation in its meetings. To insure fair and timely participation,
the following procedures are observed by the Board:
1.
2.

All presenters are asked to state their name
Each speaker on a general matter, whether an individual or a representative for an organization, is limited to three (3)
minutes.
3. Speaker's comments are limited to a presentation on his or her point of view only - questions of clarification may be
entertained only by the board members;
4. All comments are to be directed to the board;
5. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members or between board members and the speaker is not
permitted;
6. Courtesy between the speaker and audience is expected at all times;
7. Speakers are requested to leave any written statement and/ or comments with the clerk to the board;
8. Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group are required to file with the clerk written authorization from the
group allowing the individual to represent that group;
9. By applying to speak as a representative for an organization, the individual confirms they are recognized as an official
representative of that organization; and
10. Presentation to the board by groups should:
a. Obtain prior approval from the chairman of the board;
b. Submit all written materials and data no later than ten days prior to the meeting in time to be included in the
board's agenda packet distributed a week before each regular monthly meeting;
c. Limit presentations to fifteen minutes; and
d. File with the clerk written authorization from the group allowing the individual to represent that group.
11 . A digital , color-coded timer will be displayed in full view of the Board, the speaker, and individuals seated in the gallery.
When two minutes have expired, the timer display will turn yellow indicating the speaker has one minute to conclude
his/her comments . At the end of that one-minute period (completion of the full three-minute period), the timer will
display 0:00 in red, indicating the speaker must relinquish the podium to the next speaker. Staff will notify the Chairman
that the speaker's time has expired. Speakers continuing after the time allotted shall be ruled out of order by the
Chairman.
The Chairman shall preserve order and decorum at all meetings. The Chairman may order the expulsion of any person for
violation of these rules, disruptive behavior, or any words or action which incite violence or disorder, subject to appeal to the
Board. Any person so expelled shall not be readmitted for the remainder of the meeting from which he was expelled. Any
person who has been so expelled and who at a later meeting again engages in words or actions justifying expulsion may be
barred from attendance at future meetings of the Board for a specified and reasonable period of time not to exceed six months or
upon a still subsequent expulsion , a period not to exceed one year either by the Chairman , subject to appeal to the Board, or by
motion passed by the Board .

BUSINESS ITEMS

PS

-

HALIF

OUNTY

AGENDA BRIEFING
Staff Members:
Meeting Date:

November 17, 2026
Detrick Easley

Item#

D-1

Ordinance#

Department:

Subject:

Planning & Zoning
Legal status of plan § 15. 2-2232 review
Wolftrap Solar, Parcel;13797
4.9MWac Facility

Background:

Virginia Code § 15.2-2232 requires the local Planning Commission and governing body to
determine whether the general location, character, and extent of a proposed public utility facility
or other covered public facility are substantially in accordance with the County's adopted
Comprehensive Plan.
RC DEVCO, LLC, on behalf of Wolftrap Solar/Agrisolar, has submitted an application for a
Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate a 4.9 MWac solar energy facility (the "Project")
on one parcel located in Board of Supervisors District 5.
The subject property is identified as Halifax County Parcel Identification Number 13 797,
contains approximately 42.88 acres, and is owned by Ronnie and Joyce Green.

Existing Land Use
The subject parcel currently consists of managed timberland, agricultural hay production areas,
and open fields.
The Applicant proposes to maintain agricultural viability through site restoration requirements
and agrivoltaic practices, including sheep grazing within the solar facility.

P6

Future Land Use
The Halifax County 2017-2037 Comprehensive Plan identifies the subject property for
continued agricultural use.

Comprehensive Plan and Surrounding Land Use
The Halifax County Comprehensive Plan recognizes and encourages the development of
renewable energy resources when appropriately located and designed to minimize impacts on
surrounding properties and the County's rural character.
The Comprehensive Plan includes policies that:
•

•
•
•

Promote appropriately located renewable energy facilities, including solar and wind
energy generation and battery storage, in a manner consistent with the Commonwealth
Energy Policy and the other provisions of the Halifax County Comprehensive Plan.
Encourage appropriately sited electric generation and transmission facilities, as well as
pipeline infrastructure.
Promote the protection of rural scenic roads and byways through appropriate land
development practices.
Encourage the preservation of existing vegetation and natural screening to minimize
visibility from roadways, residences, lakes, streams, and rivers.

The surrounding properties are zoned R-1 Residential. Accordingly, appropriate setbacks,
vegetative screening, and other site-specific conditions should be considered to minimize
potential impacts on adjacent residential properties.

P7

Staff Considerations
The proposed Wolftrap Solar facility represents a renewable energy development within an area
designated for agricultural use by the Comprehensive Plan.
The Applicant's proposed agrivoltaic practices, including sheep grazing, are intended to maintain
an agricultural component of the property while allowing for renewable energy production.
The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors must consider the general location,
character, and extent of the proposed facility in determining whether the Project is substantially
in accordance with the adopted Halifax County Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Virginia Code §
15.2-2232.

Recommended Motions
First Motion -

I move, pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-2232(A), that the Halifax County Planning
Commission find that the general location, character, and extent of the proposed Wolftrap Solar
facility, located on Parcel Identification Number 13797 in Board of Supervisors District 5, are
substantially in accordance with the adopted Halifax County Comprehensive Plan.
Second Motion - Communication of Finding

I move, pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-2232(B), that the Planning Commission direct the
Zoning Administrator to communicate its findings regarding the proposed Wolftrap Solar facility
to the Halifax County Board of Supervisors for consideration.
Motion to Deny - Virginia Code § 15.2-2232(A)

I move, pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-2232(A), that the Halifax County Planning
Commission find that the general location, character, and extent of the proposed Wolftrap Solar
facility, located on Parcel Identification Number 13797 in District 5, are not substantially in
accordance with the adopted Halifax County Comprehensive Plan.
This recommendation is based on concerns regarding the compatibility of the proposed solar
facility with the surrounding land uses and the residential character of the area. The subject
property is surrounded by properties zoned R-1 Residential. The proposed development may
create land-use compatibility concerns and potential impacts on neighboring residential
properties.
The Planning Commission finds that the proposed location does not adequately demonstrate
compatibility with the surrounding residential development and the Comprehensive Plan's goals
of protecting rural character and promoting appropriately located development.

PS

Second Motion - Communication of Finding

I move, pursuant to Virginia Code§ 15.2-2232(B), that the Zoning Administrator be directed to
communicate the Planning Commission's finding of noncompliance with the Halifax County
Board of Supervisors.

P9

-

PUBLIC HEARINGS

HALI

OUNTY
Staff Report
Staff Members:

Meeting Date:

November 17, 2026
Detrick Easley

Item#

E-1

Ordinance#

Article VII

Department:

Planning & Zoning

Subject:

Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Review:
Wolftrap Solar, 4.9MWac Facility

BACKGROUND
RC DEVCO, LLC, on behalf ofWolftrap Solar/Agrisolar, has submitted an application for a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct and operate a solar energy facility (the "Project") on
one parcel located in Board of Supervisors District 5. The subject property is identified as Parcel
Record Number 13797 and contains approximately 42.88 acres.
The proposed facility will have a generating capacity ofup to 4.9 megawatts alternating current
(MWac) and will connect to an existing 34.5-kilovolt distribution circuit located within the
Project area. No battery energy storage system (BESS) is currently proposed as part of this
Project.
STAFF COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS
Staff and the Berkley Group have reviewed and evaluated the application against the applicable
review criteria and additional considerations established by the County's Solar Facilities
Ordinance. The review considers whether the proposed Project adequately protects County view
sheds and natural resources, safeguards the health, safety, and welfare of the community, and
otherwise advances the purpose and intent of the Solar Facilities Article.

Pll

The following summarizes the findings and considerations associated with the proposed
development:

1. Site Topography and Surrounding Area
Staff/Berkley Group finds that the proposed facility has been designed to generally follow the
existing topography, minimizing the need for substantial grading and land disturbance.
The proposed layout incorporates existing wooded areas, vegetative screening, and storm water
management measures intended to reduce visual and environmental impacts. Subject to
implementation of these measures and applicable conditions, the site's topography is considered
suitable for the proposed use.

2. Proximity to and Impact on Urban and Residential Areas
Staff/Berkley Group finds that the proposed use is expected to have minimal impacts and will
provide an alternative source of clean energy, although the electricity generated may not be
delivered directly to Halifax County residents. The Project is also expected to provide positive
economic benefits to the local economy and business community, particularly during the
construction phase.
The proposed location is outside identified industrial growth corridors. However, the
Comprehensive Plan amendment addressing renewable energy recognizes rural areas with
available transmission infrastructure as potential locations for appropriately sited solar facilities.
Potential impacts associated with the Project are intended to be addressed and mitigated through
Best Management Practices and applicable conditions established through the Conditional Use
Permit and Siting Agreement between the County and the Applicant.

Staff Consideration: The surrounding properties are zoned R-1 Residential. The proximity of
the proposed facility to residentially zoned properties warrants careful consideration of land-use
compatibility, setbacks, vegetative screening, and potential impacts on neighboring property
owners.

3. Historical, Cultural, and Archaeological Resources
The Project underwent a cultural resources desktop database review using the Virginia
Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) Virginia Cultural Resource Information System (VCRIS).
Within the half-mile review area, no known architectural resources were identified. No resources
within the review area are considered eligible or potentially eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the Virginia Landmarks Register (VLR).
Any additional coordination or review required by the Virginia Department of Historic
Resources shall be completed prior to construction.

P12

4. Proximity to Other Energy Facilities and Utility Infrastructure
Staff/Berkley Group finds that the proposed solar facility would support the implementation of
the Comprehensive Plan by expanding the County's renewable energy infrastructure.
The Project would contribute to the County's utility network and provide an additional source of
energy generation. Potential impacts to the natural environment are expected to be evaluated and
addressed through applicable permit requirements and project conditions.

5. Scenic Resources, Waterways, and Natural Resources
With respect to proximity to, visibility from, and potential impacts on areas of scenic
significance, including scenic byways, vistas, and blue ways, a review of the Virginia
Department of Conservation and Recreation's (DCR) Natural Heritage Data Explorer identified
waterways within the Project site or within two miles of the property.
Identified wetlands rank HIGH under the Watershed Impact Model. These ratings indicate that
land-disturbance activities within the Project area have an elevated potential to affect
downstream aquatic resources.
The Applicant proposes to minimize impacts to wetlands and surface waters and comply with
applicable setbacks from water resources. The Applicant has also indicated that storm water
management and water-quality compliance will be addressed through coordination with the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
Upon decommissioning, the Applicant will be required to restore the soil and vegetation to
conditions that are equal to or better than the existing conditions, consistent with applicable
requirements.

6. Public Rights-of-Way and Roadway Visibility
Staff/Berkley Group finds that the proposed 75-foot perimeter buffer, utilizing existing mature
pine forest and woodlands, is intended to sufficiently screen the facility from public rights-ofway, highways, secondary roads, streets, and scenic byways.
Additionally, the Applicant proposes that new screening trees be at least 6.5 feet tall at the time
of installation and maintained throughout the life of the Project.
New plantings are required to be installed prior to land-disturbance activities and verified during
the permitting process.

7. Recreational Areas and Public Amenities
Staff/Berkley Group finds that the Project site is screened on three sides by existing woodlands.
The remaining open areas are proposed to receive additional vegetative plantings to minimize
potential impacts on neighboring properties and recreational areas.

PJ3

The proposed setbacks and screening measures are intended to minimize visual and land-use
impacts on nearby recreational resources and neighboring properties.

8. Proximity to Airports
There is one airport facility located approximately 1.02 miles from the Project site.
An FAA Obstruction Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis (OE/AAA) pre-screening review was
conducted for the proposed solar array using the FAA Pre-Screening Tool (Version 2025May.7).
The evaluation considered the proposed structure heights and site elevations and concluded that
the Project does not trigger FAA notice requirements.

9. Wildlife, Pollinator Habitats, and Corridors
Staff/Berkley Group finds that the Project is not expected to adversely affect identified sensitive
species. The proposed inclusion of wildlife corridors and pollinator-friendly areas is intended to
reduce potential adverse impacts on local wildlife.
The site layout incorporates natural wildlife corridors in conjunction with existing drainage
swales and wetlands.

10. Comprehensive Plan Planning Areas
Staff/Berkley Group finds that the proposed Project is not located within any identified urban
planning area or community planning area designated in the Halifax County Comprehensive
Plan.

11. Size and Scale of the Proposed Facility
Staff/Berkley Group finds that the proposed 4.9 MWac facility, occupying approximately 16
acres of the 42.88-acre parcel, is generally compatible with the rural character and existing
development pattern of the surrounding area.
The proposed development footprint allows for setbacks, vegetative buffering, and preservation
of undeveloped portions of the property, thereby reducing potential impacts on neighboring uses.
Subject to compliance with applicable development standards and conditions, Staff/Berkley
Group considers the size and scale of the proposed facility appropriate for the site.

12. Available Technology and Mitigation Measures
Staff/Berkley Group finds that the proposed single-axis tracking system, anti-reflective panel
technology, and vegetative screening are intended to minimize potential glare and visual impacts
on surrounding properties and public rights-of-way.

P14

The Applicant has submitted a Glint and Glare Study indicating that harmful glare impacts are
not anticipated based on existing vegetation and site topography.
Subject to implementation of the proposed mitigation measures and applicable conditions, the
facility is expected to adequately address potential glare and related visual impacts.

13. Compliance with Sections 53-157 and 53-158
Staff/Berkley Group finds that the Applicant has satisfied the applicable requirements of
Sections 53-157 and 53-158 of the Halifax County Code.

14. Preservation and Protection of Prime Farmland
Approximately 14.8% of the Project site is identified as Prime Farmland, which the Applicant
indicates is non-contiguous.
Halifax County has experienced substantial solar development in recent years, with
approximately 5,500 acres developed for solar energy facilities since 2020. This level of
development underscores the importance of considering cumulative impacts on the County's
agricultural resources.
The Applicant proposes to minimize grading and soil disturbance, maintain agricultural activity
through sheep grazing within the fenced solar array, and restore the property following
decommissioning. A Livestock Management Plan has been submitted to support the proposed
agrivoltaic use.
Staff/Berkley Group finds that these measures are intended to reduce impacts on prime farmland
and preserve opportunities for future agricultural use.
However, the amount of prime farmland affected, its non-contiguous character, and the proposed
mitigation measures remain important considerations for the Board of Supervisors in
determining whether the Project appropriately balances renewable energy development with the
preservation of the County's agricultural resources.
SUGGESTED MOTIONS
Following consideration of the application, staff comments, Berkley Group's review, public
comments, and the applicable provisions of the Halifax County Code and Comprehensive Plan,
the Board of Supervisors may consider one of the following motions:

MOTION 1 -APPROVAL
I move that the Halifax County Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Pennit
application submitted by RC DEVCO, LLC, on behalf of Wolftrap Solar/Agrisolar, for the
construction and operation of a 4.9 MWac solar energy facility on approximately 16 acres of the
42.88-acre property identified as Parcel Record Number 13797 with the 38 site conditions

PIS

MOTION 2 - DENIAL
I move that the Halifax County Planning Commission deny the Conditional Use Permit
application submitted by RC DEVCO, LLC, on behalf ofWolftrap Solar/Agrisolar, for the
proposed 4.9 MWac solar energy facility on Parcel Record Number 13797.
The Board finds that the proposed location raises significant land-use compatibility concerns due
to the surrounding residential character of the area and the adjoining properties zoned R-1
Residential.
The Board further finds that the proposed development may adversely affect the established rural
and residential character of the surrounding area and raises concerns regarding the protection of
neighboring property owners, agricultural resources, and the long-term land-use objectives of

MOTION 3 - DEFERRAL I DELAY
I move that the Halifax County Planning Commission defer consideration of the Conditional Use
Permit application submitted by RC DEVCO, LLC, on behalf ofWolftrap Solar/Agrisolar, for
the proposed 4.9 MWac solar energy facility on Parcel Record Number 13 797, located in Board
of Supervisors District 5.
The Board requests additional review and clarification regarding the proposed facility's
compatibility with surrounding R-1 Residential properties, potential impacts on neighboring
property owners, vegetative screening and buffering, and the preservation of prime agricultural
soils.

Pl6

HALIFAX COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1050 Mary Bethune Street
P. 0 . BOX699
HALIFAX, VIRGINIA 24558
Telephone: (434) 476-3300
Fax: (434) 476-3384
E-mail: [email protected]

DATE FILED: _ _ __ __ _ _ _ __

ELECTION DISTRICT# ED 5

COUNTY OF HALIFAX, VIRGINIA
LAND USE APPLICATION
_ _

X

Rezoning

Conditional Use Permit

_ _

Planned Unit Development

1.

Applicant: RC DEVCO (John Taylor)

2.

Address & Telephone: _ P-'h-'o'-'-n-'e_: _7...;
8_1.-..;6_1...;.
9_-4_2_6_9_ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
1281 North Ocean Dr. Suite 152
Singer Island, FL 33404

3.

Current Zoning Classification:

A-1

Proposed Zoning Classification:
4.

Proposed Use:

5.

County Code Section:

6.

Location:

Community Solar Energy Facility

Ordinance No. 2024-33 / A rticle V.11.

Str eet Address: 31 30 Bellevue RD, Halifax, VA
ST. RTE. 729
---------------- Nearest Intersection: US. RTE. 360 & ST. RTE. 729

Road Number:

Distance and Direction from Intersection: _ _ _ _ _ __ __
0.4 miles south

Side of Road (North, South, East or West): _s _o_ut_h_ __ _ __ _

Pl7

7.

Size of Parcel:

42.88 acres
------------------------

8.

Size of Proposed Use Area: _.1. .,6. . , 0. . . .,.a_cr.. ,e. ,.s__________________

9.

Property Owner (If different from #1): GREEN RONNIE E & JOYCE C
Property Owner Address: 1008 JOHN RANDOLPH BLVD
SOUTH BOSTON VA 24592

10.

Deed Book: 490

-------------

Page#...a3=5=8_ __

ParceI Record Number (PRN):_1_3_7_9_7_ _ __
11.

Water Supply (Type): ....N
...../__
A_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Sewage Disposal (Type): _N_/_A_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Approved by Health Department: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Approved by Municipality: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

I certify that the information contained in and submitted with this Application is true and
accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Date

Signature of Applicant

Date

Signature of Property Owner

revised 12.2021
P18

ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS

Mailing Address:

DANIEL, LILLIAN O'NEAL CRABTREE

1183 DANIELS TRAIL
HALIFAX, VA 24558

. REDDY, DAVID MICHAEL &
SUSAN DANIEL-REDDY

3170 JAMES D HAGOOD
HALIFAX, VA 24558

DANIEL, LILLIAN C.

1183 DANIELS TRAIL
HALIFAX, VA 24558

JONES BUILDING SYSTEMS AND
SALES INC.

12141 JAMES D. HAGOOD HWY
HALIFAX, VA 24558

SOUTHSIDE REALTY
INVESTMENTS LLC

PO BOX 1620
DUBLIN, VA 24084

YATES, RYANT

3132 BELLEVUE ROAD. /
HAUFAX, VA 24558
V

TUCK, NORMAN LEE & IDA

3086 BELLEVUE ROAD /
HALIFAX, VA 24558

CHARLES ANDERSON LLC

POBOX28
✓
SOUTH BOSTON, VA 24592

SMITH, WAYNE K OR NANCY
LOUISE SMITH

1166 SALISHAN DR
HAUFAX, VA 24558

NEW KENT INVESTMENT GROUP INC

POBOX7284
✓
HAMPTON, VA 23666

RILEY, BRUCE A.

3068 BELLEVUE ROAD _ /
HAUFAX, VA 24558

/

31ol -S-e ll~w< ~
l~f.\1,.C"',£; Ytl , ~~

31 JS 13-c/Jew.~ ~ c.(
J+q[,·w

P19

Ve. ? ~558

Po Bo\C if"

I' l.,., ,_I nJl." <"11: ,,o

tr n ,!J,'J 9-2) 6)

ARM Project 0250 I 0818.03

August 2025

1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW
RC DEVCO LLC proposes the development ofWolftrap Agrisolar, a 4.9 MWAC dual-use,
farming and ground- mounted solar energy facility located at 3130 Bellevue Road in Halifax
County, Virginia. The project will be constructed on approximately 16 acres of usable area
within a 42.88 acre parcel that is currently zoned A-1 Agricultural and consists of agricultural
fields, undeveloped woods, and a residential property. The Point of Interconnection will be
onsite to an existing 34.5kv circuit providing reliable solar-generated power to the local
distribution grid. The project is located on parcel #13797 and is adjacent to and West of US
Route 360.
The project development company, RC DEVCO LLC, is in partnership with CEP Renewables
(CEP), a market leader in solar development in the mid-Atlantic. CEP Renewables, the intended
owner and operator of the facility, has over 1,000 MW under development with over $250M in
capital deployed in solar projects in the last three years. With offices spanning North America,
Europe and Asia, CEP is a creditworthy and solvent partner for the local community.
This project supports Virginia's clean energy goals of the Dominion Shared Solar program. This
program enables Halifax County Residents to subscribe to the system, allowing them a discount
of up to 20% on their Dominion Energy electric utility bills for up to a 30-year period. Further,
the project provides for multiple economic benefits for the community, including grants,
additional tax revenue and profit sharing, totaling an incremental value of over $1 M in benefits.
Wolftrap Agrisolar will not result in negative environmental attributes to the community and will
routinely conduct testing to ensure this commitment is adhered to. Additionally, the project fully
complies with the requirements set forth in the Halifax County Zoning Ordinance. The design of
the project will minimize major grading onsite so that the system will follow the contour of the
current topography. The project will promote farming onsite through a local tenant farmer who
will cultivate sheep onsite and produce local lamb meat for sale in the county. Both part-time
and full-time jobs will be made available to the community as a result of the project while a
mentorship program will be put into place prior to construction for local county residents who
want to engage with a skilled workforce.
The proposed project is consistent with the Halifax County's Comprehensive Plan, specifically
by adhering to no negative environmental impacts, by helping to build out local infrastructure
(both by necessary energy generation as well as updating the utility grid), and by mentoring
constituents for future skilled employment opportunities. The project is forecast to be placed in
service in 2027 and will require roughly six months of construction. After the useful life of the
project, the land usage will be returned to its current predevelopment conditions.

A

R

M

G

r

u

0

P20

p

L

L

C

ARM Project 0250108 I 8.03

2

August2025

2.0 SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
Surrounding parcels are primarily rural in character, with a mix of agricultural use, wooded land,
and low-density residential development. The project site has been carefully selected, with three
sides screened by existing woodlands and remaining open space to have plantings for screening
to minimize visual impacts on neighboring properties.
A telecommunications tower and its associated facilities are located on the site and will remain
operational throughout the life of the solar project.
The proposed shared solar density within a 5-mile radius around Wolftrap Agrisolar includes
proposed sites Wolftrap, Banister I, and Banister 2 along with an existing site (Robin Hood
Road). The density of these sites is 0.2041% of the 5-mile radius area which complies with the
maximum allowable density specified within §SEC. 53-158 (j). A density map reflecting these
calculations is included at Appendix E.

3.0 HISTORICAL & CULTURAL RESOURCES
A review of public historic property databases indicates that there are no known historical
structures or cultural resources within or immediately adjacent to the project boundary. Please
see the Virginia Cultural Resources Information System (VCRIS) map dated July I 0, 2025, at
Appendix L. Any required coordination with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources will
be completed prior to construction.

4.0 PRIME FARMLAND
While the site may include areas designated as prime farmland, the solar development will
maintain the soil structure with minimal compaction and grading and will be fully reversible at
the end of the project lifecycle. Following decommissioning, the site will be restored to preconstruction conditions for potential agricultural use.

5.0 SITE DESIGN
The solar array will consist of photovoltaic panels mounted on a single-axis tracking system to
maximize energy yield. Associated infrastructure includes inverters, transformers, underground
electrical conduit, and access drives. All electrical components will comply with applicable
National Electrical Code and utility interconnection requirements.

A

R

M

G

r

u

0

P2l

p

L

L

C

ARM Project 025010818.03

August 2025

3

The proposed facility will have a rated capacity of 4.9 MWAC and will transfer electricity
directly to the local distribution grid at the proposed point of interconnection (POI) on U.S.
Route 360. The arrays will be connected to the grid at the POI through local overhead
distribution lines. The expected panel components include approximately 9,360 modules
mounted on tracker systems rows (subject to change pending detailed electrical design). The
tracker system allows for the panels to tilt throughout the day based on the alignment of the sun
for maximum electrical output. The panels will be employed with antiglare technology, antireflective coatings, and other available mitigation techniques to meet or exceed industry
standards in accordance with the Halifax County Zoning Ordinance. There will be
approximately three ground mounted transformers and equipment pads that will transfer the
power to medium voltage (MV) underground lines. These lines will feed to the pole mounted
meter, riser, recloser, and disconnect, before being transferred through aerial MV lines to the
point of interconnection.
The proposed layout incorporates existing topography and natural features such as existing
wooded areas to minimize grading and compaction.

6.0 SETBACKS
The proposed project will maintain a 150-foot setback from an public rights-of-way and main
buildings on adjoining parcels and at least a 150-foot setback from adjacent property lines, as
required by the zoning ordinance to all panels and electrical equipment. The proposed panels
and equipment are also located over 300-feet away from residential structures on adjacent
properties. Details can be seen on the Conceptual Site Plan at Appendix D.

7.0 GLINT AND GLARE STUDY
Based on the Glint and Glare Study, performed by ARM Group, LLC dated August 8, 2025,
(Appendix M), the glint and glare from the proposed project is not considered to be harmful due
to the existing vegetation surrounding the project and topography.

8.0 WETLANDS
A wetland delineation was performed by ARM Group, LLC on July 21, 2025. The delineated
wetlands are reflected on the current Conceptual Site Plan at Appendix D. The proposed solar
layout and design avoids the delineated wetlands.

A

R

M

G

r

u

0

P22

p

L

L

C

ARM Project 025010818.03

August 2025

4

9.0 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
A desktop analysis was conducted for threatened and endangered species. Per IPaC, the analysis
concludes there are no areas of critical concern. The desktop analysis is included at Appendix K.

10.0 WILDLIFE CORRIDORS
The site layout incorporates natural wildlife corridors in conjunction with existing drainage
swales and wetlands. These corridors maintain habitat connectivity by preserving undisturbed
vegetated areas adjacent to aquatic resources and ensuring unimpeded access for wildlife to and
from these habitats. The configuration of fencing, grading, and infrastructure placement
minimizes disruption to natural movement patterns and supports ecological function.

11.0 FAA NOTIFICATION
According to the FAA Pre-screening tool version 2025-May.7, notice to the FAA is not required
(Appendix J).

12.0,LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING
A vegetated 75' buffer sufficient to mitigate the visual impact of the facility is proposed to
screen the facility from adjacent residences and roadways in accordance with county
requirements. The buffer shall consist of existing vegetation and where necessary, landscape
plantings. Plantings will include Burford Hollies(l/ex cornuta 'Burfordii), pollinator friendly and
wildlife-friendly native plants, shrubs, trees, grasses, forbs and wildflowers. Trees will be at
least 6 ½ feet tall at installation and will be maintained throughout the life of the project by the
lessee. New plantings will be installed prior to any land disturbance activities and shall be
verified during the permitting process.

13.0 FENCING
A seven-foot perimeter security fence with barbed wire will be installed around the entire solar
array in accordance with National Electric Safety Code and utility requirements. All fencing will
be black vinyl with green privacy slats. The fencing shall be maintained throughout the life of
the project.

A

R

M

G

r

u

0

P23

p

L

L

C

5

ARM Project 0250108 I 8.03

August 2025

14.0 SITE ACCESS
During construction, access to the site will be via the maintenance road to the existing
telecommunications tower on the site off Bellevue Road, State Route 729. After commissioning,
access to the project will be provided via a proposed entrance from U.S. Route 360. The final
access drive will be constructed using approved gravel base material and will be maintained in
accordance with the facility's approved site plan. Emergency vehicle access and turnaround
requirements have been incorporated into the design.
ARM has coordinated with the local VDOT Residency Office to confirm site distance
compliance at the proposed U.S. 360 entrance (see Appendix F).

15.0 GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
The project has been designed to minimize compaction, grading, and soil disturbance. Final
grading and storm water measures will comply with the approved Construction Plan.
Appropriate temporary and permanent erosion controls will be installed, inspected, and
maintained per county and state regulations.
Based upon storm water runoff calculations performed by ARM, appropriately sized areas of the
site have been reserved for storm water runoff management basins. An example detail of the
proposed storm water management basin(s) is included within the Notes and Details Sheet C-3 of
the Conceptual Site Plan drawings at Appendix D. The final basin design will be submitted to
Halifax County and the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for technical review of the
storm water runoff calculations.

16.0 WATER TESTING
In accordance with County's solar ordinance requirements, the Wolftrap Agrisolar site will
include a groundwater inspection well as shown on the Conceptual Site Plan (Appendix D) to
monitor the water quality within the project for contaminants listed in the safe drinking water
regulations compiled by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

17.0 LIGHTINGANDNOISE
The facility will not include permanent outdoor lighting. Temporary lighting may be used
during construction, limited to the minimum necessary for safety and security. Noise levels

A

R

M

G

r

u

0

P24

p

L

L

C

ARM Project 025010818.03

6

August 2025

during operation will be minimal and limited to inverter fans and transformers, consistent with
ambient rural conditions.

18.0 DECOMMISSIONING
At the end of the project life, the Wolftrap Agrisolar Project will be decommissioned in
accordance with Halifax County Code §53-157(d), 53-160, related provisions, and the attached
plan. The anticipated operational life of the Wolftrap Agrisolar facility is approximately thirty
(30) years. Decommissioning will be initiated either when the facility reaches the end of its
useful life or when it is deemed abandoned pursuant to §53-160 of the Halifax County Code. At
that time, the applicant will remove all facility components from the site, including solar
modules, racking, and tracking systems; inverters, transformers, and other electrical equipment;
fencing, foundations, and other above- and below-ground structures; access roads not required
for other permitted uses of the property; and all underground cables to a minimum depth of
thirty-six (36) inches below grade. All removal activities will be conducted in a manner that
minimizes disturbance to surrounding areas, and disturbed soils will be graded and stabiJized in
accordance with Virginia Erosion & Sediment Control regulations.
The current estimated cost of decommissioning plus a 25% contingency, excluding any credit for
salvage value, is $1,297,674. This estimate was prepared using industry-accepted cost models for
dismantling, removal, transportation, and disposal, and includes all labor, equipment
mobilization, component dismantling, disposal/recycling, site restoration, and revegetation. The
decommissioning cost estimate will be updated upon request by the Zoning Administrator.
Prior to operation, the applicant will post security in the amount of the approved
decommissioning cost estimate in the form of a performance surety bond payable to Halifax
County, as required by §53-157 (d)(2). This security will remain valid until an decommissioning
obligations have been met and may be adjusted to reflect updated cost estimates. The security
will be provided to the County prior to any construction activity, and obtaining and maintaining
this security will be a condition of the Conditional Use Permit. In addition, in accordance with
§53-157(e), the applicant will post a Site Plan Performance Bond in the amount of $100,000 per
megawatt of capacity, totaling $490,000 for a 4.9 MW AC facility. This bond will be provided
prior to any land-disturbance activities and will be released upon written determination by the
Zoning Administrator that the facility has been developed in substantial conformity with the
approved site plan, the County Code, and applicable screening conditions.
In accordance with §53-157(f), the applicant will maintain liability insurance in an amount
deemed adequate to cover all operations at the Wolftrap Agrisolar facility. Proof of such
coverage will be provided to the County prior to the issuance of a building permit, and the policy

A

R

M

G

r

u

0

P25

p

L

L

C

ARM Project 0250 I 0818.03

7

August2025

will remain in effect for the life of the facility. Maintaining this insurance will be a mandatory
condition of the Conditional Use Permit.

19.0 CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE
Construction is expected to begin following receipt of all necessary permits and approvals. The
estimated timeline from site mobilization to commercial operation is approximately six months,
depending on weather conditions and equipment availability. Construction is projected to begin
June I 5, 2026, with final inspections and closure to occur by December 15, 2026. A detailed
construction timeline is included within Appendix N.

A

R

M

G

r

u

0

P26

p

L

L

C

J_

' I

I

1~~ J~ inB~ r• n
~ UU
IIi ~
r•
~~
0

0

0

••

~

ffi ;

~

•

1-+--1--+-H--1-++-++.i-+--+-+++-H ~
~

Sheet

C-1 --

S11E SKETCH PLAN
WOLFTRAPSOLARPROJECT
RCDEVCOU.C

ARM

-

AIR
PJP

07/30/lCW
_.. 25010!18.0l

1"•100'

ARM Group LLC
E11IUJecn and Sdeatkt,
-.annvvup.oc.t

3130 BELLEVUE RD

HALIFAX COUNTY, VIRG[NlA

·--=-·- --•·------------

P27

HALIFAX COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
PLANNING AND ZONING OFFICE
1050 Mary Bethune St.
P.O. Box699
HALIFAX, VIRGINIA 24558-0699
PHONE: (434) 476-3300
FAX: (434) 476-3384
[email protected]

Detrick Easley
Zoning Administrator

November 2, 2026
Dear Adjoining Property Owner:
This letter serves as formal notification that ARM GROUP LLC Solar (Wolf Trap Agrisolar) has
submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct and operate a 4.99megawatt (MW) solar energy facility in Halifax County, Virginia.
The proposed project is located on Bellevue Road, west of U.S. Route 360, and is identified as
Parcel Record Number (PRN) 13797. The property consists of approximately 42.88 acres, of
which approximately 16 acres are proposed to be utilized for the solar energy facility.
Enclosed for your review is a site plan illustrating the approximate project location and proposed
solar panel layout.
A Joint Public Hearing on this application will be held by the Halifax County Planning
Commission and the Halifax County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, November 17, 2026, at
6:30 p.m. The enclosed Public Hearing Notice provides additional information regarding the
applicant, property location, proposed land use, and hearing details.
As an adjoining property owner, you are encouraged to review the proposed application and
participate in the public hearing process. Should you wish to provide comments regarding the
application, you may speak during the public hearing. Written comments may also be submitted
in advance by letter, email, or fax, and comments may be provided by telephone. Please note that
speakers at public hearings are subject to established time limits.
Following the public hearing, the Halifax County Planning Commission will consider the
application and provide a recommendation to the Halifax County Board of Supervisors. The Board
of Supervisors will make the final determination on the Conditional Use Permit after reviewing
the application, considering public comments, and evaluating the Planning Commission's
recommendation.
Should you have any questions regarding the proposed project or the public hearing process, please
do not hesitate to contact my office.

P28

Sincerely,

Detrick Easley
Zoning Administrato
Halifax County, Vir ·nia

P29

PUBLIC NOTICE
HALIFAX COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Halifax County Planning Commission and Halifax County
Board of Supervisors will hold a joint public hearing on Tuesday, November 17, 2026, at 6:30 p.m.
in the Board of Supervisors Meeting Room, Halifax County Administration Building, I 050 Mary
Bethune Street, HaJifax, Virginia, to receive public comments and consider the following
application:
Conditional Use Permit Application - Election District #5
Applicant: RC DEVCO (ARM GROUP, LLC)
Parcel Record Number (PRN): 13797
Property Location: 3130 Bellevue Road, Halifax County, Virginia
Property Owners: Ronnie and Joyce Green
Proposed Use: Construction and operation of a 4.99-megawatt (MW) community/shared solar
energy facility.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The public is invited and encouraged to attend the joint public hearing and provide comments
regarding the proposed application. Individuals wishing to speak may do so during the public
hearing, subject to established public hearing procedures and time limits.

WRITTEN COMMENTS
Written comments may be submitted by letter, fax, or email to the Halifax County Planning and
Zoning Office and will be distributed to members of the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors. Comments received by Monday, November 9, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. will be included in
the meeting packets. Comments received after that deadline will be provided to members at the
beginning of the joint public hearing.
Halifax County Planning and Zoning Office
I 050 Mary Bethune Street
P.O. Box 699
Halifax, Virginia 24558-0699
Phone: (434) 476-3300 I Fax: (434) 476-3384
Email: [email protected]. us

P30

Detrick Easley
Zoning Administr ator

HALIFAX COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
PLANNING AND ZONING OFFICE
1050 Mary Bethune St.
P. 0. Box 699
HALIFAX, VIRGINIA 24558-0699
PHONE: (434) 476-3300
FAX: (434) 476-3384
[email protected]. us
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
WOLFTRAP AGRISOLAR
(RC DEVCO LLC)
PARCEL 13797
4.99 MW SOLAR FACILITY
3130 BELLEVUE ROAD
SITE CONDITIONS

The Halifax County Board of Supervisors approves the Conditional Use Permit for Wolftrap
Solar Project submitted by RC DEV CO, maintain, and operate a 4.9Jm~att (AC) solar energy
facility (the "Facility") on parcel 13797 (the "Site") subject to the following conditions:
1. The Conditional Use Permit shall be issued to RC DEVCO to construct, maintain, and operate

the Facility as a Community Shared Solar facility. These conditions shall apply to any person
or entity that owns or operates the Facility at the Site pursuant to this Permit. RC DEVCO
and/or the current facility owner and operator shall provide the Zoning Administrator with
advance written notice of any proposed change in the owner or operator of the Facility.
2. The Facility, which includes without limitation the project area, panels, buildings, accessory
structures, entrances, fencing, vegetative buffers, screening, areas for pollinator-friendly grasses,
and rated capacity, shall be sited, developed, constructed, installed, operated, and maintained in
RC DEVCO, except to the extent such plan or narrative is inconsistent with the Ordinance or
any condition in this Conditional Use Permit. "Substantial conformity" shall be detennined by
the Zoning Administrator.
3. RC DEVCO or any other owner or operator of the Facility, shall comply with all requirements
of Chapter 53, Article V.II., ofthe Halifax County Code ("Solar Energy Facilities Ordinance" or
"Ordinance") that apply to Community Shared Solar energy facilities . Without limiting the
foregoing, the Facility shall comply with all provisions contained in Section 53-158 of the
Ordinance regarding the location, appearance, and operational requirements of community
shared solar facilities. Future Ordinance amendments will apply to this Facility, provided such
amendments do not impair any vested rights under Virginia Code§ 15.2-2307 or require changes
to the design, layout, vegetative buffers or landscaping of the project site as shown or described on
the schematic site plan and project narrative.

P31

4. The owner, operator, and facility shall, at all times, comply with all applicable federal,
state, and local laws, rules, regulations, codes, ordinances, and other requirements. The
owner, operator, and Facility shall obtain and, as necessary, maintain all applicable federal,
state, and local permits.
5. The Facility owner and operator shall provide additional information regarding the Facility's
permitting, construction, and operations when requested by county officials and shall respond
to additional inquiries by county officials concerning the Facility. During construction and
following provision of reasonable notice by county officials, the Facility owner shall allow
designated county officials to have access to the Facility for inspections and to ensure
compliance with this Conditional Use Permit and the Ordinance. Once the Facility has
commenced commercial operation, entry onto site for inspections to ensure compliance with
this Conditional Use Permit and the Ordinance shall be granted upon provision of twenty-four
(24) hours advance notice.
6. Any proposed expansion of the Facility beyond the levels approved herein, change of activities
conducted at the Facility from those permitted herein, or additional facilities or activities
beyond those permitted herein shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review. If
the Zoning Administrator deems such proposed changes to be material modifications, they will
be subject to Permit amendment procedures, including Public Hearings.
7. All entrances to the site shall be constructed and maintained as authorized and approved by the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
8. Security fencing around the Facility shall be maintained until the Facility has been
decommissioned and removed. It shall be the responsibility of the Facility owner and/or
operator to repair fencing promptly upon learning of any disrepair.
9. RC DEV CO shall install chain-link fencing on the interior of the buffer not less than six feet
in height and equipped with anticlimbing device. Green privacy slats shall be installed in all
fencing where there is no existing vegetation, in all areas where new planting is installed, and
along all areas that has a visible view along from any public roadway.
10. Pre-existing vegetation in the Site area designated for buffering shall be preserved unless
otherwise expressly stated in the schematic site plan and project narrative. Except to remedy
a potentially unsafe condition, remove an invasive species, or perform any other vegetative
maintenance approved by the Zoning Administrator which will not reduce the effectiveness of
vegetative screening, all vegetation in the area designated for buffering (whether pre-existing
or planted during project development) used for screening of the Facility shall remain in place
and undisturbed until the Facility has been decommissioned and removed.
11. If any trees are planted in the 75 feet vegetative buffer, they shall include 4 rows of staggered
trees at least (6 1/2) six and half feet tall at time of planting and expected to grow to a
minimum of ten (10) feet within (3) years. If any trees are planted in the remainder of the
vegetative buffer, those trees shall be planted in native pine species consistent with standard

P32

forestry practices.
12. If any new trees are required, then those new tree planted in the vegetative buffer shall be
planted prior to any land disturbance activities or at least 6 months prior to any construction.
If new trees are required, then RC DEVCO Virginia shall provide the Zoning Administrator
a detailed plan of planting. If required, this plan shall include, date of planting, specification
types, locations, and mature growth rate chart.
13. The vegetative buffer shall be maintained in good condition until the facility has been
decommissioned and removed.
14. Lighting shall be limited to the minimum reasonably necessary for security purposes and shall
be designed, installed, and operated so as to minimize off-site effects as much as reasonably
practicable.
15. Adequate space for parking shall be provided on-site to accommodate all employees and
visitors. It shall be the responsibility of the owner and operator to ensure employees and visitors
park only on-site and not on highway right-of-way or on adjacent parcels unless written
consent is provided by the owner or owners thereof
16. The owner and/or operator is responsible for maintaining the appearance of the site in good
condition, including picking up litter from the Site as needed on at least a bi-monthly schedule.
17. The owner and operator shall obtain and maintain an adequate amount of liability insurance to
cover operations of the Facility until the Facility has been decommissioned and removed.
Nothing herein shall prevent the owner and operator from obtaining additional liability
insurance as they deem appropriate.
18. RC DEVCO has submitted a decommissioning plan procedure and decommissioning cost
estimate, which is incorporated into these Conditions. The Facility owner and operator shall
disassemble and dispose of the Facility and restore the Site to the condition before Facility was
constructed on the Site in accordance with the decommissioning plan procedure, unless the
Ordinance contains stricter requirements, in which case the stricter requirements of the
Ordinance shall control. The Facility owner and/or permit holder shall be jointly and severally
responsible for decommissioning the Facility in accordance with the decommissioning plan
procedure and Sections 53-157(d) and 53-160 of the Ordinance. RC DEVCO shall provide an
updated decommissioning cost estimate with submission of final site plan. The initial
decommissioning security required pursuant to Section 53-157(d) of the Ordinance shall equal
not less than $1,297,674.00 which is 100% of the estimated total cost to disassemble and
dispose of the Facility and restore the Site. No reduction in the amount of the security will be
made on account of the claimed salvage value of the Facility or the materials used in the
Facility. This security shall be in place prior to obtaining building permits or engaging in any
land disturbance activity and shall remain in effect until decommissioning has been completed.
The decommissioning security must at all times, be in a form and of substance acceptable to
the County in its discretion. The failure by the Facility owner and/or operator to decommission
the facility in accordance with this condition, the decommissioning plan procedure, and the

P33

Ordinance shall constitute a zoning violation and may be enforced as such. The security may
be called on by the county to remedy the zoning violation and to pay any and all costs related
to decommissioning the Facility, including administrative and enforcement costs. The
decommissioning plan and decommissioning cost estimate shall be updated upon the request
of the Zoning Administrator, which shall be no less frequently than once every ten years and
no more frequently than once every five years. Each decommissioning plan and cost estimate
shall: (i) be sealed by a Professional Engineer; (ii) meet the requirements of Sections 53157(d) and 53-160 of the Ordinance; (iii) be in form and substance acceptable to the
Zoning Administrator; and (iv) require, among other things, that all salvageable materials
be removed and sold or disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and
local regulations. The amount of the required security may be adjusted based on the
updated decommissioning cost estimate, but it shall not be less than 100% of the total
estimated decommissioning cost. The initial and any updated decommissioning plan must
be recorded in the Clerk's Office for the Circuit Court of Halifax County.
19. In order to ensure compliance with the conditions of this Conditional Use Permit, prior to the
beginning ofland disturbance activities, RC DEVCO shall provide a Site Plan Security in the
form of a performance bond or other security acceptable to the Zoning Administrator. The Site
Plan Security is intended to guarantee development of the project in substantial conformity
with the site plan. The amount of the security shall be not less than $400,900.00 ($100,000 per
megawatt). The Site Plan Security must at all times be in a form of a substance acceptable to
the County in its discretion. This security shall be released once the Facility has been developed
in substantial conformity with the site plan and screening related conditions of the Conditional
Use Permit. Owner RC DEVCO may petition the Zoning Administrator for partial release of
the security upon demonstrating substantial performance at various stages of construction
completion.
20. RC DEVCO shall provide an erosion and sediment control plan approved by the Soil and
Water Conservation District. The Facility owner and operator shall construct, maintain,
and operate the Facility in compliance with the approved erosion and sediment control
plan.
21. RC DEVCO shall provide a storm water management plan approved by the Department of
Environmental Quality. The Facility owner and operator shall construct, maintain, and
operate the Facility in compliance with the approved storm water management plan.
22. RC DEV CO shall drill three test wells on the Site at locations set forth on the final site plan to
monitor the water quality within the project for contaminants listed in the primary drinking
water regulations ("Contaminants") as compiled by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
a. Monitoring wells shall be installed to the first encountered groundwater beneath the
Facility in accordance with applicable Virginia DEQ guidance and regulations.
Monitoring wells shall be installed prior to the delivery of solar panels to the project
site for storage or installation. The owner or operator will inform the Zoning
Administrator of the installation of the monitoring wells and provide the Zoning
Administrator with an opportunity to inspect the well prior to the delivery of solar

P34

panels to the project site for storage or installation. Monitoring wells shall be tested
prior to commencing construction to establish a baseline.
b.

Following baseline testing of monitoring wells and prior to commencing
construction, RC DEVCO shall make reasonable attempts to work with property
owners within 2,000 feet of the Site to test the current conditions of the drinking
water for those properties to create a baseline for future testing as may be required,
provided that this condition is not applicable if an adjacent property owner declines
to allow RC DEV CO to perform a test on their property. A letter must be submitted
to the Zoning Administrator to document the refusal of water testing.

c. This condition shall be at the sole expense of RC DEVCO and no portion of any
cost incurred shall be borne by Halifax County. RC DEVCO shall test annually for
the first five (5) years after commercial operation, (and every three (3) years
thereafter). The scope and/or frequency of the testing shall be increased at the
discretion of the Zoning Administrator if there is reason to believe that the Facility
has introduced contaminants into the ground water to unsafe levels (based on EPA
primary drinking water regulations). The Zoning Administrator also may require
RC DEV CO to initiate more frequent testing in the event of a natural disaster which
has damaged the Facility or its equipment.
d. Should test results indicate increased levels of contaminants attributable to the
Facility, RC DEVCO shall offer to test all previously tested private wells within
2,000 feet of the boundaries of the Site.
e. Should test results indicate unsafe levels of contaminants attributable to the
Facility, RC DEVCO shall be responsible for submitting a written plan to the
Zoning Administrator to take necessary actions in order to provide safe and
adequate drinking water to any adjacent property owners affected by the Facility.
23. Soil testing shall be conducted on Site as follows:
a. Testing shall be conducted in no less than three (3) locations on the Site, at least
one being in close proximity to solar panels of each different type or manufacturer.
b. Testing shall be conducted prior to the issuance of a land disturbance permit and
every five (5) years thereafter. Testing also shall be conducted immediately prior
to decommissioning and immediately following the completion of
decommissioning.
c. Samples shall be analyzed for type, acidity, and nutrient levels, including nitrogen,
phosphorous, potassium, magnesium, sulfur, zinc, and calcium. Samples also shall
be analyzed for heavy metals and other toxins in accordance with test parameters
established by DEQ.
d. Testing shall be performed by a service provider retained by RC DEVCO but

P3S

approved by the County.
e. A test report for each testing event, including an executive summary, shall be
provided to the Zoning Administrator within ten (I 0) days of the completion of
such report.
f.

This condition shall be at the sole expense of RC DEV CO and no portion of any
cost incurred shall be borne by Halifax County.

24. RC DEVCO shall provide a detailed site plan that identifies all areas within the Project area
and setback where land will be disturbed, the location of vegetative buffers (whether
utilizing existing or installed vegetation), and identifies areas of proposed pollinatorfriendly grasses as shown on the Landscape and Screening Plan. The Facility owner and
operator shall construct, maintain, and operate the Facility in compliance with the
approved detailed site plan.
25. RC DEV CO shall provide a construction plan, including a proposed construction schedule,
anticipated start date, and hours of operation. The construction plan shall require, among
other things, that construction activities, including but not limited to grading, clearing of
land, and pile driving, shall be limited to hours between sunrise and sunset, Monday to
Saturday, during construction. Activities allowed on Sundays include: onsite planning,
walking and riding the site by passenger vehicle (not heavy construction trucks or
equipment), office work, and other items that do not produce large quantities of traffic on
the surrounding roads or loud construction noises within the site. The Facility owner and
operator shall construct, maintain, and operate the Facility in compliance with the
approved construction plan.
26. Dust containment and mitigation measures shall be utilized in connection with the Project at
all times to minimize and contain dust to the greatest extent possible so that it does not become
a nuisance to nearby residents.
27. Prior to commencing construction, the owner/operator must submit a pre-construction
evaluation of the condition of the roads along the delivery routes to the Zoning Administrator
and VDOT review and acceptance. Upon completion of construction, the owner/operator must
submit a post-construction evaluation of the condition of the roads along the delivery routes to
the Zoning Administrator and VDOT for review. The post-construction evaluation shall
include a plan for repairing any damage caused to the public roads along the delivery route
directly attributable to the Project. The owner/operator shall be responsible for causing such
repairs to be completed and shall be responsible for coordination of the repairs with VDOT.
All roadway repairs along the delivery routes shall be made at owner/operator expense.
The roadway conditions evidenced in the pre-construction evaluation shall be the baseline
expectation of roadway conditions to be maintained during the construction and operation of
the Project at the owner/operator's sole expense.
A delivery route plan shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review prior to any

P36

deliveries to the Site. This plan shall indicate directional signage to be installed along the
delivery routes servicing the Project in order to effectively direct delivery vehicles. along the
designated routes.
28. RC DEV CO shall provide a report by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources Virginia
Cultural Resource Information System identifying historical, architectural, archeological, or
other cultural resources on or near the proposed Facility.
29. Adequate wildlife corridors shall be implemented at the Site. Final approval will be granted by
the Zoning Administrator.
30. RC DEVCO before commercial operation, shall facilitate a meeting with Fire Department
representatives and emergency service departments personnel who are first responders to the
Project. The meeting shall consist of a tour of the Facility, emergency contact numbers for the
Facility, grid switch cut-offs, and any other relevant information that is critical to the safety of
emergency personnel. The owner and/or operator must provide training to the members of the
nearest volunteer fire department concerning techniques for responding to fires at a solar
facility. The training must include proper firefighting procedures and relevant material
handling procedures.
31 . Written certification from a qualified expert acceptable to the Zoning Administrator that all the
Facility's panels incorporate and utilize anti-glare technology, anti-reflective coatings, and
other" available mitigation techniques and reduce glint and glare to levels that meet or exceed
industry standards. The Facility owner and operator shall use the technologies, coatings and
techniques identified in the written certification, or superior technologies, coatings and
techniques, for the life of the Facility. The owner and/or operator must submit an MSDS sheet
to the Zoning Administrator and it must be approved by the Zoning Administrator before the
issuance of building permit. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, the use of any of the
following materials is expressly prohibited: cadmium telluride, cadmium, tellurium, GEN X,
field-applied Teflon coating, or any other materials prohibited by federal or state agencies or
laws.
32. All panels shall be on fixed racking or single stacked with a single axis solar tracker. Double
stacked and dual axis solar trackers are not permitted.
33. This permit .shall become null and void if Facility construction is not commenced within five
(5) years of approval of this Conditional Use Permit.
34. No burning at the site shall be allowed.
35. RC DEVCO, and if different than RC DEVCO, the Facility owner and/or operator, shall
provide the substantial cash payments set forth in this condition for substantial public
improvements, the need for which is not generated solely by the granting of this permit, so
long as such conditions are reasonably related to the solar facility that is the subject of this
permit. RC DEVCO and the county acknowledge and agree that the county may identify in
future budget years qualifying substantial public improvements that will be funded by these

P37

substantial cash payments to be provided by RC DEVCO, the Facility owner, and/or operator.
The substantial cash payments set forth in this condition are in addition to the revenue share
payment under Section 53-162 of the Halifax County Code and real estate taxes that RC
DEV CO, Facility owner, and/or operator must pay on the Site and the Facility. The substantial
cash payments incorporated into this condition are the following:
A. $50,000 will be due within 30 days of the issuance of this Conditional Use Permit.
B. $10,000 will be due upon each anniversary of the issuance of this Conditional Use
Permit until the earlier of an Erosion & Sediment Control permit is acquired for the
facility.
C. $50,000 will be due prior to the issuance of an Erosion and Sediment Control Permit
for the facility or CUP expiration.
D. An additional payment that brings the cumulative cash payments made under this
development condition to $190,000 will be due on or before the date that is 90 days
following the commencement of commercial operation of the solar facility.
RC DEVCO, the Facility owner, and/or operator shall provide written notice to the Zoning
Administrator within ten (10) business days of when the Facility commences commercial
operation. The payment by, the Facility owner, and/or operator of all substantial cash payments
shall be a condition of this Conditional Use Permit. RC DEVCO, the Facility owner, and/or
operator shall be jointly and severally responsible for the payment of all substantial cash
payments required by this condition.
36. Prior to commercial operation a meeting shall be held with RC DEV CO and County Officials
to verify compliance with the final site plan, conditions of the conditional use permit, and other
state and local regulations.
37. Ifrequested by the Zoning Administrator, a representative from RC DEVCO shall attend the
Halifax County Board of Supervisor meeting to provide report of construction, including but
not limited to construction schedule, Erosion Control stabilization, tree planting, and any
complaints. Such requests and attendance shall be limited to two (2) times in any 12-month
period, shall require 15 days' noticeDo to RC DEVCO, and will only be required during the
period of initial construction of the project.
38. This Permit is non-transferable, except and unless (a) the Permittee provides written notice
regarding the transfer, (b) the proposed new Permittee provides a signed statement agreeing to
comply :with all terms and Conditions imposed on RC DEVCO, the Facility owner or the
operator under the original Permit, (c) the proposed new Permittee provides substitute
decommissioning security in the amount specified herein, and (d) the proposed new Permittee
pays all applicable County fees. Prior to any such transfer, the transferor must pay to the
County a transfer fee of$750.00 to cover the County's expenses associated with the processing
and review of the proposed transfer. If the new Permittee desires to amend the original permit
conditions, amendments must ·be sent to the Zoning Administrator for review. If the Zoning
Administrator deems such proposed changes to be material modifications, they will be subject
to county permit amendment procedures, including public hearings.

P38

Failure of RC DEVCO, owner or operator to fully conform to all terms and conditions of this
Permit may result in revocation of this Conditional Use Permit.
Defined terms used in these conditions shall have the meanings assigned to them in the
Ordinance.

P39

HALIFAX COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
PLANNING AND ZONING OFFICE
1030 Mary Bethune St., Suite LL 1
P.O.Box699
HALIFAX, VIRGINIA 24558-0699
PHONE: (434) 476-3300
FAX: (434) 476-3384
[email protected]

Detrick Easley
Zoning Administrator

RC DEVCO (John Taylor)
1281 North Ocean Drive, Suite 152
Singer Island, FL 33404

RE: Conditional Use Permit Application - 4.99 MW Solar Facility
Property: 3130 Bellevue Road
Joint Public Hearing- November 17, 2026
Dear Mr. Taylor:
The Halifax County Planning Commission and the Halifax County Board of Supervisors will
hold a Joint Public Hearing on Tuesday, November 17, 2026, at 6:30 p.m. to consider your
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application for the proposed 4.99 MW Solar Facility.
The Joint Public Hearing will be held in the Board of Supervisors Meeting Room at the Halifax
County Administration Building, located at 1050 Mary Bethune Street, Halifax, Virginia.
As part of the Conditional Use Permit review process, it is my practice to prepare a list of
Potential Conditions for consideration by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
during their respective deliberations. Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of
the application, or should the Board of Supervisors ultimately approve the Conditional Use
Permit, these Potential Conditions may serve as the basis for any final conditions imposed by the
Board.
Enclosed is a copy of the proposed Potential Conditions for your review. I encourage you to
carefully review each condition prior to the Joint Public Hearing.
Please understand that the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors may accept, reject,
modify, or add to any of the Potential Conditions as part of their consideration of the application
and determination of whether the Conditional Use Permit should be approved.
You will be provided ten (10) minutes at the beginning of the public hearing to present your
application before public comments are received.
Should you have any questions regarding the Potential Conditions or wish to discuss them prior
to the Joint Public Hearing, please do not hesitate to contact me.

P40

Sincerely,

Detrick Easley
Zoning Administrator
Halifax County, Virginia
Enclosure: Potential Conditions

P41

RCDEVCO LLC
1287 E. Blue Heron Blvd, Suite 159
Singer Island, FL 33404

November 5, 2026
Attn: Detrick Easley, Zoning Administrator
Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Planning and Zoning Office
1050 Mary Bethune St.
P.O. Box 699
Halifax, Virginia 24558-0699

RE: Formal Request for Modification of Site Condition Item 35 (Substantial Cash
Payments)-Wolftrap Agrisolar CUP (Parcel 13797)
Dear Mr. Easley and Members of the Board of Supervisors,
On behalf of RC DEVCO LLC (the "Permittee"), we appreciate the continued
collaboration with Halifax County to successfully build, operate, and maintain the 4.99
megawatt (AC) Wolftrap Community Shared Solar facility. While the Permittee remains
fully committed to supporting Halifax County's long-term capital improvement initiatives,
we are writing to formally request a structural modification and cost alignment for the
development conditions mandated under Item 35 of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
conditions.
Specifically, we request that the County reduce the total cumulative payment from
$190,000 to $50,000 and align the timing of this payment with standard industry
practices across the Commonwealth by moving the milestone to ninety (90) days postCommercial Operation Date (COD). This adjustment aligns the project with regional
financial benchmarks for small-scale community assets while protecting vital preconstruction liquidity and preserving the unique economic model required to pass
energy savings directly to local residents.
Our request is supported by the following regulatory frameworks, structural financial
realities, and community benefit profiles unique to this project classification:

1. Severe Impact on Lower Structural IRRs of Distributed Generation
Unlike 80 MW or 100 MW utility-scale installations, small-scale distributed generation
and community solar projects (S5 MW) suffer from a lack of economies of scale. These
smaller assets face significantly higher per-megawatt engineering, procurement,
construction (EPC), and utility interconnection costs. Consequently, community solar
assets inherently operate on much tighter financial margins and have a structurally
lower Internal Rate of Return (IRR) than utility-scale developments.

P42

The current fee structure under Item 35 imposes an effective rate of $38,076 per MW
on the Wolftrap project and constitutes roughly 13% of the total project CAPEX .
Imposing a premium, utility-scale cost burden onto a lower-lRR asset renders the .
project financially unviable and halts development equity from being deployed in the
County.

2. Disproportionate Financial Burden Relative to Statutory
Exemptions
Under Va. Code§ 15.2-2316.7, solar energy facilities with a rated capacity of 5
megawatts (MW) or less are explicitly exempt from mandatory Siting Agreements
and their corresponding capital mitigation payouts. The General Assembly enacted this
exemption precisely to _
shield lower-margin, small-scale assets from cost-prohibitive
local fee structures.
To ensure a fair and balanced contribution to the County, we propose a revised total
payment of $50,000, which equates to approximately $10,000 per MWac. This baseline
ensures the County receives a substantial funding injection for its capital improvement
plan without destroying the underlying economics of a sub-5 MW facility.

3. Community Benefits are Realized Directly by Local Subscribers
It is vital to distinguish the public benefit model of community solar from that of utilityscale power plants. Utility-scale projects sell their power directly to the wholesale grid,
providing no localized utility bill relief to nearby residents. Conversely, the primary socioeconomic value of the Wolftrap project is realized directly by local Halifax County
residents who subscribe to the facility and receive guaranteed 10-20% discounts
from their Dominion electricity bill for 25 years. This equates to a potential
savings of $6 Million for your local constituents. (see calculation below).
Wolftrap Community Solar Consumer Benefits:

•
•
•
•
•
•

Average Halifax Dominion residential bill: $149/month
Average bill credit: 15% (I 0-20% program range)
Estimated household savings: $268/year
Estimated 25-year savings: $9,164/home (2.5% inflation)
Annual Wolftrap production: 7.95 million kWh (:::::663 homes)
Potential Halifax community savings: $6.00 Million over 25 years

4. Mitigation of Pre-Construction "Sunk Capital" Risk
Item 35 currently demands a front-loaded payment schedule ($50,000 within 30 days of
CUP approval and $50,000 prior to E&S permit issuance) alongside an annual $10,000
"holding fee" penalty. This structure forces the project to expose non-recoverable capital
to project delivery risks-such as utility interconnection delays/risks and state-level DEQ
stormwater reviews, procurement, or financing risks-long before a final Notice to
Proceed (NTP) is reached . If an external bottleneck delays or kills the project's

P43

economics, this equity is permanently lost. Further, the payment of fees AFTER project
start of works allows the cash payments to the County to be debt financed and to be
included into the project CAPEX.

Proposed Modification to Item 35
To preserve the economic viability of this asset while guaranteeing a clear path to
deployment, we respectfully propose amending Item 35 as follows:
• $190,000.00 Cumulati¥e Cash Payment (Strike and reduce to a total of
$50,000.00)
• $50,000 due within 30 days of CUP issuance (Strike in its entirety)
• $10,000 annual anni¥ersary fee (Strike in its entirety)
• $50,000 due prior to E&S Permit issuance (Strike in its entirety)
• Alternative Structure: The Permittee shall provide a single, total capital
contribution payment of $50,000.00 to Halifax County. This payment shall be due
and payable in full within ninety (90) days following the date on which the Facility
formally commences start of works.
This modification aligns the project with regional cost expectations, State law, protects
critical consumer savings, and guarantees Halifax County a clear cash infusion once the
asset starts construction.
We welcome the opportunity to discuss this proposed framework with you and the
Board . Thank you for your leadership, time, and consideration.
Sincerely,

John Taylor
Managing Member, RC DEVCO LLC

P44

PUBLIC NOTICE
HALIFAX COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Halifax County Planning Commission and Halifax County
Board of Supervisors will hold a joint public hearing on Tuesday, November 17, 2026, at 6:30 p.m.
in the Board of Supervisors Meeting Room, Halifax County Administration Building, 1050 Mary
Bethune Street, Halifax, Virginia, to receive public comments and consider the following
application:
Conditional Use Permit Application - Election District #5
Applicant: RC DEVCO (ARM GROUP, LLC)
Parcel Record Number (PRN): 13797
Property Location: 3130 Bellevue Road, Halifax County, Virginia
Property Owners: Ronnie and Joyce Green
Proposed Use: Construction and operation of a 4.99-megawatt (MW) community/shared solar
energy facility.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The public is invited and encouraged to attend the joint public hearing and provide comments
regarding the proposed application. Individuals wishing to speak may do so during the public
hearing, subject to established public hearing procedures and time limits.
WRITTEN COMMENTS
Written comments may be submitted by letter, fax, or email to the Halifax County Planning and
Zoning Office and will be distributed to members of the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors. Comments received by Monday, November 9, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. will be included in
the meeting packets. Comments received after that deadline will be provided to members at the
beginning of the joint public hearing.
Halifax County Planning and Zoning Office
1050 Mary Bethune Street
P.O. Box 699
Halifax, Virginia 24558-0699
Phone: (434) 476-3300 / Fax: (434) 476-3384
Email: [email protected]

P45

Nancy Kamp
From:

Sent:
To:

Subject:

Detrick Easley
Monday, November 9, 2026 8:42 AM
Nancy Kamp
FW: Wolftrap Solar Project

From: Jason Ross [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, November 9, 2026 8:40 AM
To: Detrick Easley <[email protected]>
Subject: Wolftrap Solar Project

Good morning,
I am writing to express my support of the Wolftrap Solar Project. As a lifelong resident of Halifax County, I
have seen many changes in my lifetime. From new construction to renovations, the reason for many of the
changes have been tied to economical growth or cost-saving measures when described by those in favor of the
projects.
With that in mind, I believe that the same logic can be applied to the Wolftrap Solar Project. Energy costs are
steadily on the rise. In 2026 the average Dominion Energy customer saw an increase of $11.24 with another
increase of $2.3 7 expected in 2027. As if rate hikes were not bad enough, it remains to be seen the how the
potential merger with NextEra will impact customers. Applying common sense reasoning to the merger leads
one to believe that Dominion being acquired by the "largest electric and energy infrastructure company in North
America" will lead to additional rate hikes. The Wolftrap Solar Project would result in energy bill discounts
which would benefit customers in this area.
In an economy where skyrocketing prices have become the norm, saving money is more important than ever.
Customers across our county who qualify for the discounts would be able to put that money back into the local
economy. It is for the reasons listed that I support the Wolftrap Solar Project.
Respectfully submitted,
Jason B. Ross

1
P46

MINUTES

P47

HALIFAX COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
HALIFAX COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Joint Meeting
County Administration Building
Board of Supervisors Meeting Room
1050 Mary Bethune Street
Halifax, VA 24558
October 20, 2026 I 6:30 PM

A.

CALL TO ORDER

Chair Roller called the Board of Supervisors meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Chair Griles called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Chair Griles gave the invocation.
Chair Roller led the Pledge of Allegiance

B.

ATTENDANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ATTENDANCE

Board of Supervisors members attending were: Mr. P. Riddle, ED1; Mr. L. Roller, ED2; Mr. D. J. Oakes,
ED3; Mr. D. Witt, ED4; Mr. R. Smart, EDS; Mr. M. Thompson, ED6; Mr. K. McDowell, ED?; Mr. W.B.
Claiborne, ED8; and Mr. W. Smith, Tie Breaker.

Staff members attending were: Mr. Ron Brade, County Administrator; Mr. Detrick Easley, Planning/Zoning
Administrator; Mrs. Stacey Cook, Executive Assistant; Ms. Nancy Spencer, Strategic Programs Coordinator;
and Mrs. Nancy Kamp, Planning Clerk.
News reporter attending was : Ms. Emily Barber, The Gazette-Virginian
Security was provided by: Halifax County Sheriffs Department
Board of Supervisors conducted Roll Call and determined a quorum was present.

PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE

Planning Commission members attending were: Mr. D. Griles, ED2; Mr. B. Pearce, ED3; Mr. J. Jennings,
ED4; Mr. R. Watts, EDS; Mr. C. Wimbish, ED? and Ms. G. Smith-Mangum, ED8.
Planning Commission members absent: Mr. A. Hughes, ED1; Mr. N. Link, ED6

Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meeting - October 20, 2026
P48

Staff members attending were: Mr. Ron Brade, County Administrator; Mr. Detrick Easley, Planning/Zoning
Administrator; Mrs. Stacey Cook, Executive Assistant; Ms. Nancy Spencer, Strategic Programs Coordinator,
and Mrs. Nancy Kamp, Planning Clerk
News reporter attending was: Ms. Emily Barber, The Gazette-Virginian
Security was provided by: Halifax County Sheriffs Department
Planning Commission conducted Roll Call and determined a quorum was present.

C.

ADOPTION OF AGENDA
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPTION OF AGENDA

Motion made by Supervisor Oakes, seconded by Supervisor Claiborne, to approve the Agenda as presented.
VOTE

Motion passed 8-0 by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. P. Riddle, Mr. L. Roller, Mr. D. J. Oakes, Mr. D. Witt, Mr. R. Smart, Mr. M. Thompson, Mr. K.
McDowell, and Mr. W.B. Claiborne
Nays:
No one
Abstained:
No one
Absent During Vote:
No one
Absent During Meeting: No one

PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTION OF AGENDA

Motion made by Planning Commissioner Pearce, seconded by Planning Commissioner Smith-Mangum, to
approve the Agenda.
VOTE

Motion passed 6-0 by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. D. Griles, Mr. B. Pearce, Mr. J. Jennings, Mr. R. Watts, Mr. C. Wimbish, and Ms. G. Smith-Mangum
Nays:
No one
Abstained:
No one
Absent During Vote:
Mr. A. Hughes; Mr. N. Link
Absent During Meeting: Mr. A. Hughes; Mr. N. Link

D.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

Mr. Detrick Easley informed Chair Roller that Ms. Tori Haynes from the Berkley Group was on Zoom, but
technical difficulties were preventing her from joining the meeting. He asked whether they could proceed to
the Noise Ordinance. Chair Roller agreed .

1.

SOLAR ENERGY FACILTIES ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS

Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meeting - October 20, 2026

P49

Proposed Ordinance No. 2026-44 would amend and reenact applicable provisions of Chapter 53,
Zoning, Article VII , Solar Energy Facilities, of the Halifax County Code to address changes in Virginia
law affecting local policies and regulations governing the siting and development of solar energy
facilities .
The proposed ordinance amendment is further described as follows:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 53, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF
HALIFAX, VIRGINIA, 2006, BY AMENDING AND REENACTING APPLICABLE PROVISIONS
GOVERNING SOLAR ENERGY FACILITIES TO COMPLY WITH VIRGINIA LAW AND TO UPDATE
THE COUNTY'S POLICIES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE SITING AND DEVELOPMENT
OF SOLAR ENERGY FACILITIES.

a. Zoning Administrator Overview

Mr. Detrick Easley asked Chair Griles whether the meeting should return to the solar matter because the
Berkley Group was not yet online . He explained that, in July of this year, the State enacted a new House bill
reducing restrictions on solar development. Halifax County has one of the most restrictive solar ordinances
in Virginia, but the State now requires localities that allow solar development to relax certain density, setback,
and buffering requirements to align with State regulations. He emphasized that the proposed amendment
was driven by State requirements, not by the Planning Commission or the Board, and addressed whether
the County was required to make the changes.
Mr. Easley stated that the Board could choose to retain the existing ordinance. However, if an applicant
submitted a proposal meeting State criteria but not Halifax County's more restrictive requirements, the
County could deny the project and face litigation. He noted that the proposed ordinance reduced setbacks,
buffering, and density requirements , and that the redlined provisions in the meeting packet reflected the
State guidelines.
Mr. Easley summarized that the amendments were intended to comply with State regulations. He stated that
efforts had been made during the previous year to remove local authority over solar siting, although those
efforts had not passed at the State level. He characterized the current reductions as an initial step toward
limiting local authority and offered to answer questions from the Planning Commission or the Board.
Supervisor McDowell asked Mr. Easley to explain the restrictions.
Mr. Detrick Easley stated that the Berkley Group had planned to provide the explanation, but he offered to
review the entire ordinance beginning on page 12.
Supervisor McDowell asked what setback and buffering requirements were being changed and why.
Mr. Detrick Easley stated that the County's current setback was 150 feet from any State highway and
property line, while the new State regulations required 100 feet. He stated that the County's existing setback
from the nearest portion of the outer wall of an existing community building or dwelling was 200 feet. He also
stated that the highway setback would be reduced from 150 feet to 75 feet, which was the distance required
when the County first adopted its ordinance.
Supervisor Witt noted that Item 2 required 100 feet from the outside edge of the roadbed .
Mr. Detrick Easley asked whether Supervisor Witt was referring to Item 2 on page 18.
Supervisor Witt clarified that he was referring to Item 2 of Section 53-158.

Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meeting - October 20, 2026

PSO

Mr. Detrick Easley agreed and confirmed that the requirement had been reduced from 150 feet to the State
standard of 100 feet.
Supervisor Witt confirmed that the previous requirement had been 150 feet.
Mr. Detrick Easley stated that projects not greater than 25 megawatts would require a 50-foot setback from
the edge, while projects greater than 25 megawatts would require a 100-foot setback.
Supervisor Witt asked what the current requirement was.
Mr. Detrick Easley stated that the current requirement was 150 feet.
Supervisor McDowell asked Mr. Easley to explain Item 4 of Section 53-158 .
Mr. Detrick Easley stated that Item 4 required a 75-foot setback measured from the nearest shared property
line of a nonparticipating property. He explained that, when a solar project adjoined a nonparticipating
property, the project had to remain 75 feet from that property line.
Supervisor Witt asked what the current County ordinance required.
Mr. Detrick Easley stated that the current requirement was 150 feet.
Supervisor McDowell asked about the proposed buffer requirements.
Mr. Detrick Easley referred to Subsection C at the bottom of page 18 and stated that the proposed
requirements called for plantings 3 feet in height at installation and a 50-foot-wide buffer. He noted that the
current County buffer was 100 feet wide, so the proposal would reduce it by half.
Supervisor McDowell asked about the planting height.
Mr. Detrick Easley stated that the required height at planting was 3 feet.
Supervisor McDowell asked whether the County had previously changed the requirement to 8 feet.
Mr: Detrick Easley confirmed that it had.
Supervisor McDowell Stated that the proposed change would reduce developers' costs.
Mr. Detrick Easley Stated that the State requirements generally reduced the County's existing standards by
half.
Vice Chair Jennings stated that the County currently required four staggered rows of vegetation, while the
proposed State requirements appeared to provide for only one row with plantings no more than 3 feet tall at
installation.
Supervisor Witt stated that the proposed regulations were very weak for localities.
Vice Chair Smart asked whether the County could retain four rows of vegetation within the 50-foot buffer.
Mr. Detrick Easley stated that the County could choose to retain any of its existing requirements.
Mr. Detrick Easley added that the County could retain its ordinance as written but would risk litigation and
appeal.
Supervisor Witt stated that, despite the County's stringent regulations, Halifax remained one of Virginia's
most productive localities for solar development. He questioned whether the regulations were actually
Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meeting - October 20, 2026

PSI

limiting development and observed that the State had adopted a more permissive position. He asked how
the County should proceed .
Supervisor McDowell asked whether the State requirements had passed.
Mr. Detrick Easley stated that the regulations had passed the House.
Planning Commissioner Watts stated that the outcome was uncertain if the County made no changes.
Supervisor Witt agreed.
Planning Commissioner Watts stated that he anticipated litigation and believed the County would likely lose.
Mr. Detrick Easley explained that a developer could submit an application meeting State requirements for
setbacks, buffering, decommissioning, and other standards . Staff would find the application noncompliant
with the County ordinance, and the two Boards could deny it on that basis. The developer could then appeal
in court and argue that the County's ordinance was more restrictive than State law, requiring the County to
incur legal costs defending its position .
Planning Commissioner Watts asked what penalty could result from noncompliance with State law.
Mr. Detrick Easley stated that a judge would determine the consequences.
Chair Roller noted that Section 53-159 on page 22 included substantial additional considerations, criteria,
and conditions intended to communicate the County's expectations to solar companies. These included
groundwater monitoring, noise, coordination with emergency services, site topography, visibility, and
impacts on urban residential areas . He stated that the ordinance continued to contain significant protections.
Supervisor McDowell stated that the County had adopted its setbacks because of the number of solar
projects. He asked whether retaining the existing setbacks and reviewing each project individually would
allow the County to deny a Conditional Use Permit when a site was unsuitable for solar development.
Mr. Detrick Easley stated that this was the County's current practice.
Supervisor McDowell clarified that he was proposing that the County retain its existing ordinance and
continue deciding Conditional Use Permits individually. He questioned why the ordinance should be changed
when the County could determine whether an individual site was suitable and decide whether to defend a
denial.
Mr. Detrick Easley asked Ms. Tori Haynes whether she could hear the Board members.
Ms. Tori Haynes confirmed that she could hear and asked whether the question concerned setbacks.
Mr. Detrick Easley clarified that the Board wanted to know the potential consequences if it chose not to
comply with the new State laws and regulations and instead retained the existing County ordinance.
Ms. Tori Haynes explained that the State now prescribed setback requirements, including allowable ranges
and methods of measurement. For example, the State specified how distances were to be measured from
the nearest point of an outer wall to external dwellings. If the County declined to adopt those standards and
denied a project based on stricter setbacks, the decision would have to be reported to the State Corporation
Commission . The County would then need to justify its decision and explain why it had not followed the State
standards. Because the requirements were new, she was uncertain how the State would respond .
Ms. Haynes stated that additional State enforcement language might exist and suggested that the County
Attorney could provide further guidance. She stated that her understanding was that localities could no
longer select their own setbacks or methods of measurement.
Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meeting - October 20, 2026
P52

Supervisor Witt asked whether the County could defend its position in court by demonstrating through
photographs, experience, and other evidence that the State regulations were inadequate.
Mr. Detrick Easley restated the question for Ms. Haynes, asking about the County's position if it chose to
litigate because a project site was unsuitable.
Ms. Tori Haynes stated that a developer could challenge Halifax County if a local decision did not comply
with mandatory State-code requirements. She was uncertain about the merits of such a case or relevant
precedent and suggested that County counsel could better assess the strength of the County's position .
Because the State law was new, she was unaware of any challenges to date but anticipated that a locality
declining to follow the prescribed setbacks could eventually be challenged. She added that a project-specific
reason for not applying the setbacks might affect the legal analysis .
Ms. Haynes stated that a project-specific rationale might be more defensible, depending on the County
Attorney's assessment. However, she cautioned that declining to address the setbacks established in State
law would create legal risk.
Supervisor Claiborne asked whether the State code required strict compliance or was optional.
Ms. Tori Haynes stated that her interpretation was that the prescribed setback ranges were mandatory.
Supervisor Claiborne asked whether that meant strict compliance was required.
Ms. Tori Haynes stated that she was not an attorney and did not want to define strict compliance. She
suggested that County counsel could provide better guidance. From a planning and ordinanceimplementation perspective, however, she interpreted the provision as mandatory rather than optional.
Supervisor Claiborne stated that this was the issue he wanted clarified.
Ms. Tori Haynes confirmed that this was the Berkley Group's interpretation.
Supervisor McDowell asked whether the County Attorney could clarify the issue.
Supervisor Witt stated that plantings 3 feet in height within a 50-foot buffer were inadequate.
Supervisor Riddle agreed and described the requirement as unreasonable.
Supervisor Witt reiterated that the requirement was inadequate based on what the County had observed.
Mr. Detrick Easley asked Supervisor Witt which page he was reviewing .
Supervisor Witt referred to Subsection C at the bottom of page 18 concerning buffering and vegetative
screening . He stated that plantings 3 feet in height within a 50-foot-wide buffer would not provide adequate
screening .
Supervisor McDowell stated that the County's prior problems involved planting height and uneven growth,
with some trees merely present but not providing effective screening.
Supervisor Riddle stated that the requirement was very inadequate.
Mr. Detrick Easley clarified that the trees were not required to be 50 feet apart; rather, 50 feet referred to the
width of the buffer.
Supervisor Witt noted that the proposal did not specify the number, spacing, or density of trees.
Supervisor Riddle agreed that spacing and density were not addressed .
Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meeting - October 20, 2026
P53

Vice Chair Smart asked whether the County could retain three or four rows of trees without violating State
requirements.
Mr. Detrick Easley stated that, based on Ms. Haynes's comments, the County should obtain legal advice
regarding the risk of not following the State regulations.
Vice Chair Smart stated that retaining three rows rather than one would not necessarily conflict with the
stated requirement, which only specified the planting height.
Supervisor Claiborne clarified that the 3 foot requirement applied at planting and did not prevent the
vegetation from eventually reaching 30 feet.
Vice Chair Smart stated that multiple rows could potentially be required within the 50-foot buffer without
violating the State standard.
Mr. Detrick Easley reminded the members that projects remained subject to a Conditional Use Permit,
allowing the County to impose and enforce additional conditions that could be more stringent than the State's
recommendations .
Supervisor McDowell stated that clarification was needed and questioned why the County should change its
existing policy if it could legally retain it.
Supervisor Riddle agreed .
Supervisor McDowell reiterated that this was his question.
Supervisor Riddle supported reviewing projects on a case-by-case basis .
Supervisor McDowell stated that case-by-case review had been the County's original approach and asked
why it could not be retained.
Supervisor Witt cautioned that the County would likely face a challenge from an applicant complying with
State law.
Supervisor Riddle stated that the County should allow such a challenge to proceed .
Supervisor Claiborne reminded the members that Ms. Haynes had interpreted the 3-foot planting
requirement as mandatory. He stated that this could invite a challenge, although the requirement governed
height at planting rather than mature height. He also noted the County's prior concerns that 3-foot plantings
did not grow quickly enough and observed that the State changes appeared intended to reduce costs .
Supervisor McDowell stated that a review of the Alton site would demonstrate why the County had adopted
its current regulations.
Supervisor Witt asked whether the County's experience and regulatory history could support its position.
Supervisor Claiborne stated that the County could make that argument, but legal counsel needed to
determine whether the State statute required strict compliance and superseded the County's existing
ordinance.
Supervisor Witt again asked whether strict compliance was required .
Supervisor Riddle noted that Ms. Haynes had been unable to answer that legal question definitively.
Supervisor Claiborne stated that her interpretation was that c.ompliance was required .

Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meeting - October 20, 2026

PS4

Supervisor Riddle recommended obtaining clarification from the County Attorney.
Supervisor McDowell agreed that clarification was necessary.
Supervisor Thompson asked how much additional solar development the County was required to
accommodate.
Mr. Detrick Easley stated that the County was not required to approve additional solar development. He
explained that the ordinance established a maximum density for solar development and that, once the
County reached that limit, no additional solar development would be allowed.
Vice Chair Smart noted that the new State requirement allowed up to 4%.
Mr. Detrick Easley confirmed that statement.
Chair Roller stated that the new State requirement prevented the County from restricting solar development
until it reached 4%.
Mr. Detrick Easley stated that this was the State regulation but noted that the discussion appeared to favor
noncompliance with the State requirement.
Supervisor McDowell asked what percentage the County had reached .
Mr. Detrick Easley stated that 1 .09% had been constructed, excluding projects in the queue.
Chair Roller asked whether that figure represented approved projects.
Mr. Detrick Easley confirmed that the figure appeared on the spreadsheet, then clarified the distinction
between total project acreage and acreage under panels. He stated that total acreage represented 1.9% ,
while acreage under panels represented 1.09%.
Planning Commissioner Wimbish asked whether there was a deadline for adopting the changes, stating that
additional information appeared necessary.
Mr. Detrick Easley asked Ms. Tori Haynes whether there was a deadline for incorporating the new State
regulations into the County ordinance.
Ms. Tori Haynes stated that, according to her understanding, the State statutes took effect on July 1, 2026,
and would apply to new applications submitted after July 1st.
Supervisor Witt stated that the County had anticipated the State action but was uncertain what options
remained.
Supervisor McDowell reiterated that clarification was needed.
Supervisor Claiborne stated that the key question was whether the State statute superseded the local
ordinance because it came from a higher level of government.
Supervisor Witt asked whether the County could argue that its ordinance was grandfathered because it
predated the State requirements.
Mr. Detrick Easley stated that applications already in the queue before July 1 would be grandfathered under
the County's current ordinance.
Vice Chair Smart stated that, if the County denied a project and the decision was challenged, the outcome
would rest with the court, and the County would incur legal expenses.
Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meeting - October 20, 2026

PSS

Chair Roller stated that the matter could reach a higher court.
Vice Chair Jennings stated that similar disputes could occur throughout Virginia and could continue for an
extended period .
Chair Roller asked whether the State Corporation Commission could override a County denial after the
County reported its decision.
Mr. Detrick Easley stated that, when the County denied a project, it had to provide specific reasons and
submit them to the SCC. He stated that the developer could appeal the governing body's decision but was
uncertain what occurred after that appeal process.
Vice Chair Smart asked whether the SCC could approve a project over the County's objection.
Mr. Detrick Easley asked Ms.Tori Haynes whether the SCC could override the Board's decision.
Vice Chair Smart clarified that he was asking whether the SCC could do so without court action .
Ms. Tori Haynes stated that she was uncertain. After reviewing the State-code language, she found no clear
explanation of potential consequences or SCC authority. She again recommended consulting County
counsel because the provisions were new and had not yet been tested when localities declined to implement
them. Her initial understanding was that reporting to the SCC was primarily intended for data collection
regarding denials, comprehensive-plan policies, and related matters. She added that ordinary zoning appeal
procedures would remain available, including an appeal to circuit court following denial of a Conditional Use
Permit or other zoning approval.
Mr. Ron Brade addressed Chair Roller and Chair Griles and suggested tabling the matter until a future
meeting when the County Attorney and consultant could both participate. He noted that technical difficulties
at the beginning of the meeting might have prevented the Berkley consultant from hearing the full discussion.
Given the legal questions raised, he believed postponement was appropriate and stated that there did not
appear to be an urgent need to resolve the matter immediately, unless Mr. Easley advised otherwise. He
recommended postponing the matter until the next joint meeting.
Planning Commissioner Wimbish stated that he had asked about a deadline because the members did not
appear to have enough information and should not act prematurely.
Chair Roller asked Mr. Easley to confirm that applications already in the queue would remain subject to the
County's existing setbacks.
Mr. Detrick Easley stated that this was his understanding for applications submitted before July 1.
Chair Roller stated that the proposed changes would therefore apply to future applications entering the
queue.
Supervisor Claiborne agreed with Mr. Brade and stated that the County should obtain guidance from its
attorney.
Chair Roller agreed .
Vice Chair Smart asked whether the Board or the Planning Commission needed to take action to postpone
the matter.
Chair Roller stated that the Board would take that action.
Mr. Detrick Easley recommended that Chair Griles continue the advertised Public Hearing, receive citizen
comments, and table the decision afterward.
Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meetinp - October 20, 2026

P56

Chair Roller agreed that this was a good approach .

b.

Board of Supervisors Open Public Hearing
Planning Commission Open Public Hearing

Board of Supervisors Chair Roller opened the Public Hearing on behalf of the Board of Supervisors.
Planning Commission Chair Griles opened the Public Hearing on behalf of the Planning Commission.

c.

Public Comment

George Toombs
George Toombs stated that he lived in Saxe, Virginia, and was from Charlotte County. He said that he had
followed solar debates in Charlotte, Prince Edward, Lunenburg, and Mecklenburg counties and had grown
frustrated with the recurring discussions. He expressed concern that the Berkley Group appeared to be
steering local decisions in favor of the solar industry across several counties. He compared concerns about
potential litigation over solar regulations with local decisions to install Flock cameras, stating that officials
had not appeared similarly concerned about litigation in that context. He also referenced regulations and
mandates discussed during COVID, questioned whether claimed mandates were always genuine, and
emphasized that local officials had been elected by citizens rather than by the State, the Berkley Group, or
counsel. He criticized the repeated use of hypothetical litigation and fear as justification for accepting policies
that residents might oppose. Referring to the biblical account of the twelve spies, he encouraged the
governing bodies to resist intimidation, retain the protections already in place, and defend the County's
position if challenged.
Mr. Detra Carr
Mr. Detra Carr addressed Chair Griles, Chair Roller, and the members . He commended the County for
strengthening its solar ordinance and noted that other counties had looked to Halifax County as a model. He
reiterated his view that each site and Conditional Use Permit should be evaluated individually because some
locations were more suitable than others . He suggested treating the State requirements as minimum
standards, if required, while seeking voluntary agreements from solar companies for larger setbacks when
site conditions warranted them . He noted that the County had expanded its conditions from approximately
twenty to more than forty, making proposed sites more attractive and compatible with neighboring properties .
Mr. Carr emphasized the need to understand the law and avoid unnecessary litigation, while acknowledging
that some disputes might still be challenged. He encouraged Halifax County to continue setting a strong
example, challenge unsuitable proposals when necessary, and work collaboratively toward appropriate
solutions.
Betty Furman
Betty Furman stated that she lived in Alton, Virginia, and owned land and had family living less than 2,000
feet from the Alton facility. She urged the governing bodies not to abandon the ordinances developed in
response to residents' requests over the previous three, four, and five years for stronger buffers, setbacks,
and related protections . She stated that reversing those protections would disregard the public's concerns
and the work undertaken to address them . She asked the members to retain the ordinances already in place
and thanked them for considering her comments.
Mr. Brian Brown
Mr. Brian Brown stated that he was from 1502 Irish Street in South Boston . He commended the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors for making Halifax County one of Virginia's most proactive localities
regarding solar ordinances. He also praised staff for listening to the public and developing regulations that
allowed the industry to grow while protecting residents. He characterized the proposed changes as
unintended consequences of legislative decisions and supported the governing bodies' efforts to obtain legal
Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meeting - October 20, 2026

P57

guidance from the County Attorney. He thanked the members for their work and encouraged them to
continue their efforts regarding the solar industry.

The following letters containing questions and concerns regarding the Solar Energy Facilities Ordinance
Amendments was received from Art Carter, Amelia Clements, and Kacee Crews. These were distributed to
the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commissioners prior to the meeting.
-1 undustand the exemption for religlous facilitits and their emanating sounds. Most occur well within 1he defiMd
daytime hours and fyplc.ally mid-mornint;. I do think you should 1pecifiully add,eu the Muslim can to Pr.-yer. 1r 11'1 an
amplified broadcast, h may likely ht Hrly enough that It ~ be consldf!red problernatlc by some neighbors.
lhf' fi,st d;,lly c:all is about 30 minutes berore sunri se and t'ndS whh the 1un1~.

---•01iginalMess.1ge-··
From: [email protected] lmailto:c:aner.ic~e~ll.orsJ
Sent: Sunday, Octobtr 18, 2026 7:42 PM

To: Detrick £asley<dje@)co.ha1iluva.us>; Ron Bra de <[email protected]>
Subject Commenu Jnd Concerns Rtgardfng the Propo~d Ordoaoce Changes

Artlele v.11. soi,.-. Energy F.icilities

Sec. Sl·lS4 Oetinifioni
-1 think everyoM will be ~a~ed 10 see the Ult! reduced hom S meeawans 10 1 mepwan.

Gentlemen:
Thank you for your help in giving me copies of the curren, ordnances and the proposed ordnancrs th al will be diu\O~

Tuesd,.,. ,venlns. I'm sorry that my schedule ~s prevenied me from sending my comments and concerns sooner. I un
see that the mislons and upd;nes fo1 thl' mon J)art clarify 1he o rdnancts. With that ~kl. I do have a few recommended
thanges .ind polnu that I btll"'1e need amplificatiOn or darlfic.arion to ensu~ enfom?abi1ity.

Appendtlt A: Addtndum 10 the Comp,ehensive Pian
. With regard to altern,tive energy facilitlu, the ·large suie• solar facility could be e~pricitly defined to avoid confusion
andquestionfor1h eruder.
. Mi;or transmi~lon corridors in " Elfcrion OiWlcl

r Is wbjet1 to ruture change with 1ny red istricting. Why not describe

the phyllcalarea?
. Requlrmg the tolal a,ea of a 10Lar ncm1y be no more than 65% of the p,oje(I acrea,e is not necesurily 1uurance 11\JI
s.ensirtve s.oflswill nol be compromised. l1's a 1oodgo.1I, bul 1"101 definitive,
. Avoiding slr1ns a pro~ct near p;,rks and the named rivers Is very appropriate. The troublini fKtor is that "nur· Is 111defined and everyone's concept of ..near• 1hose bodies un be ind llktly will be different. lhere should be ;,n abs.olutl!

Sec. 53·157
(a). How can the applicant, fac,lity owner, site owner and ope,ator n ot be known7 I un't Imagine the county
entertaining anonymous submissions for permitting.
{c}. what se,nsit!ve and financ"I inrormation m»y ht redacted from 1n 1pplicatiori7 Thlsgou bade to {a} 1bo11e . u ~ the
11rry seoecy th.11 b,..eds questions, .ssumptions, a,u,lel y and ange,.
(f). The amount of li>blllty lnsu,anc, 1hould M specific. flusonabte b subject to pe,tenal interpre11tion. In any cut-, at
lent $1 minion b not a,n unreuonablt amount 1oday.
{JI -What is '"nut'" and too ·near"7
Sec. 53•158
(1) • Persooalty I would like to see gre,1e, se1b1t.b , ind I Jus~ everyone else wculd too.
(h), (il and {k} • Do not d elete. Dtlerion tuve:s 1hln1.s unspecified .
{I) 1nd {m} - Oo no1 dele1e soil and wa ter iestlng. lhe iesu arc lnexp ensiw and should be conducted annually, and
frequently In 1he evtnt of panel d;,rmige or a pant-I f11e. It-sting b m uch leu ei,:peniive that remed iaTlon .
Sec. ~3-159 Additional COnstderarioni

minimum dislance requlrf'd.

Chapt er J7;
St-c 17-42 bc:ent..-e Noise Prohiblte-d
. Sunday daytime hours 1te 1:00pm 10 JO;OOpm. Sunday Nighttime hours are 10:00pm 10 6:00am the lollowlnc morning.
Thal srcms to WaW: 1he hours ol 6:CIOam 101:00pm ut'laddrused .
. Speclhc 6SdSA al'ld ao dBA volume levels sttm 1i:ipropriate. As I'm sure you will imasine, rtcognition and entorc,ment
w ill be challenging. Will e-.•ery deputyaind police officer have .1n approved ml!ler In his crutse:r7
Plainly audible c.1n be more or less that 6SdBA. I can hear VIR from across th e Dan River from mt home, appro~im1tely
three miles iway. Will tht 80 dBA limit apply to VIR?
St-c. 17-43SpeclficP,ohibirions
• I' m not sure wessivt dog b..rking i.hould hllV!! been delettd.

Im) (6). Tht re mova.l or damagf"d p1nels par1g,aph should incorp0r;,1e requi, ement 10 ~ "best practi<t'" as those
prutku will develop ;,nd change of 1he Ille or the project. As above. dama1e to;, panel ,houtd 1rigge, immrdiate soil
1nd w,tertestlni protocols. Pkking up t he d amaged m;,terial m ay not be sufficient.
{m} {8) The- county should always be allowf"d access to 1hr f1c!Hty.
ll'J II the diicrerion or the ownrr/operalor as It's wrinVI .
Sec 53-160 Dtcomminioning
• As written. dccon1mbsionin& prima1ily describe, t he rcmo11al of a,11 the equipment . [qua1ty impon1nt at
detommission!n& Is soll and water testing. Allowine 1he owner/operator to simply remove all the e,quipmenl mav leatt
behind major luues. Solar panels degrade over tim t . TI'l<:y not only lose efficiency, b ut 1hc panels may slowtv leach
hHvy mcu,11 into th(-, 5,0;1 and water. The ovmer/ope1a1or should be financially responsible for au P<nt decommissioning
rtmedi11ion.
AJ I uld bt-fore, I'm S<my I couldn"t send lh~ wone,. I hope there is sufficient time for your ,evlew, and IO
cornmunic.tl'ion to the Pl;,nning CommissiOn a,nd Soard or Supervise~ .

. Under vthicle.s the r1me limit of trn coru.tcunvt: ... {I uiume you mea,n mtnutl!i. It's mlssini.)
- Is tht! South Roston Speedway ,mimpted? 1couldn't fiiure out wha1 ea1egory ll's in. rt'i. likt VIR .

Bn1,qards,
An Carter

From: kactt C<ews (maiho:[email protected])
Sent: Monday, OCtobtr 19, 202611:56AM

To: Drlrlck Easley <dje@co,halrl;ix.v,1.up
5ubjrct: JW: SIJpporl for capping lart:e scale sol111 dtvelopment In Halifu County

J SA&., 111lrl that you wm: !ht pl.mning 8:. zonint tldmir.istrJlor fo1 1h r county. 1"A anti:d to fun1:11rd my nu.iii that
I :.cnl 1t1 my rcpri:scnltll i\'C ~ th.it you would be aware as well .

Thanh
Kaccc:Cs-cws
•····-· Original m~tc •····r-rom : K 11ctt Crew~ <~~o.:cc<_~'\]1l'i11I ! ••m'

Date: I 0/19126 I I:llO AM {GMT-05:00)
1"o: l·t!! (l1,mJ..!;.tl i~4, v ;1 u~

~uhJN.'I : Supixm for c.:i11pi11~ laric scale !oolor dcvclupmt'nl in Ilolifo:o. \ounl)'

UC¥ Mr. Riddle.
I om wri1ing lo you o., B1r~:dcm orDi~tu,1 1. li\ingoffOildrcy Road. to c~, m) strong support for
plodn(! 11 c.ip on Jargc-~~·n1l• solar dt.'\'cfopmcnl in Hali fa.,; County.

Wh1k 11lh.'fT1.!.ti,·c cncr~y i~import.mt, our c.c.1unly',; :ipicuhurol l;md~. na1u.-al muun:~"), covironmcnlul
w.i!tn-hcd~. Md rur~I characlcr must be proltt"tcd from CXCC!."\i,·<' indu~rial sol:,.r <'Onccniration. I om in fo,·or of
eituhli~ing rcalDnahk hm11, such a,,: the prop()sed 2~ f cap on the rounty's 101111 land uca and rcstric1 iu11~
wi1l;i11 a 5-niilc radiu\. to i-ri for,u:m! cur c\lmmunil))S fururc 11nJ prt')tf\·t- our "'-'Clrl. iTl1_: farms and f ~ h
Thank you for yout time. k.,nk'fship, and dL'llic.tlion to b:iUlncm~ W')t\1h with mt pmlcction of o.ir rural
hrri111rc- in Halifax \ouniy.
Sincad)".
Kal,·cCrcws
Holifox Cuunly Re.idem, Di,tricl I

Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meetinci - nctober 20, 2026

PSS

I bc-Jic,.·e reiidenti. deserve• clc:.ir o.pl=.ilion o f how these d«hion.~ sc-rvc the: public: intcrdt, 001 simply lh1.:
imtn::-ls of <IIC'fSY d1wclnpen.

From: Amelia Cltmtnts lm;si110:;smcti1m1yrnl989~1lmail.comJ
Stnt:Tuesday, Octobtr20, 2026 2:24 PM
To: Board of Supervisors Dis1rlct S<[email protected],s,
Ct: Detrick Eisley <[email protected],s>
Subject: Pubht Comm('n:: Propostd Solar Ordin,nct arid Comprtht!-nsivr Plan Am,ndmtnts

I respe-ctfully request answers to lhc following questions:
I. Why is the ooun1y propos ing a 4¼ limit withi n a five-mile radius "'hen lhe cxiSl!ng lerge-scalc sol•r
d~,ui1y limit is 3%? W11a1 evidence or lrl.lllysil' s upport:r this incn:asc?
2. Ch~ the propok'CI 2% counl)'\O'ide liniit include cxi~ling f1cilitics. oppro,·cd but unbuill projoedJo. and
pcndins applications? I low ,,ill bo1h pt."l"oerit.agc limi1s be c.alculatcd 111ld enforced?
) . H~ the l,)l)Unly cvnlu111cd the c11m ul111ivc cfTocli< flf C:ll"isting 11nd prof>O.scd $Olar fiici l irics fin fann l3J"IU,
fote1101J area~, ncis}lboring prflfl"."l"1Y '-"llh1c~. (ln1in11ge, ,,,ildlik. rw.11 view:\, and 1he ch.aractc:r ofc,ur
enmmunirics?
4. \\11.it sric:cific public bencfitsjus1if)' incr.:asing 1hc 1llow11t,lc c..,n.:cn1rt11lnn of)'()hu facili li~? 11111 1hc
couni:y enmpMod th e ~recu:d t:u, revenue .ml uthcr t.,:nnomk bc:ncfils with thc long•tcnn CQ.'<IS 1111d
INS of p roductive •~c:ulnmll llil\d7
~- "Which CJ1iS1 ing locol p rot«1lon, muS1 be ch•n~ lo comply wilh Virginia h,w, and which pro1c:c1ion~
con lla.lifax County reta.in or s lrcnsthcn?
6 . Whul h1ppcns when lhc proposcJ t.'OWl l}.,..idc or five -mile de11si1y limil Is rc.aehcd? Will 1ddi1h:,n1I
projt."\:b be: dC!licd, ar will c:<ccptions be avail11blc? If c:xccption."i arc ()0$."fihlc, "'·h11 sundards "; n
G"V1."ffl Cho:u: decisions?
7. Will the county pu b li¥h ■ 1idc•hy-~idc compnrisnn o f 1he ci.iAing ordin&l\Ce 11nd pmpnscd 11rncndmt.'llL"i,
11,lcmg wilh lhe acraigc cio}culntion, Ind auppo11i11g 1111lysi1, before l3kin,& firnil anion?

Dru Mr. Smart and Plannin~ and Zoning Department,

I am ~ubmiuin8 lhc stiached cnim;pondcncc regArding 1he proposed solar devtl~pmenl an~cndm~1s a.~ a_puhlic
comm ml Plca.sc: confirm rcccipl and od\'ise whclha this lener can be included 1n lhc om1.-ial pub he he.inns
record and distributed to lhc Board ofSupcni.sors and Planning Commissiun (or consideration.

On Tue, Ocl 20, 2026 at 2:21 PM Amelia Clcmcnls <!1Jlclianmm l989@i;n1~> vm.>1e:
Dc.irMr. Smart,
I am \\litini to express m) ronci.:m~ rcyerding the propos«I 1Unc-ndmcu1s lo 1!1tlifa.'-: (;aunty's Comprchts1.si\'t
Plan and Sol3r F.ncrgy Facili1ics Ordinance, specifically lhc proposerl changes lo the flllow~blc conccnln1hon

orllll')!C•Scalc ~ lar dC\·clopmc-nl.
After rcvicv,ing the proposed Comptclicnsivt Plan addendum, I mn ~nccmed ahoul the pmis:ion that would
Jimil large-scale !ltllar facilili~ lu no mort lhan 2¾ of the county's Iota! land 111cn ond 4% of lhc land artti
withinafivc-milctadiu$.

I rcc.o,i:11i1..: tha t energy dc-vd opme nl i!' :in il'suc- lhc eounty muJi 1ddtns. M}' concCTJl h lh111 1he da.;~iun.,
b(-ins mndc 1od;iy could h•,·c l1~1in1:1, eon,cqucm:c-s for llnlifo,c County's fnrmland . rural chnnn:tcr. .11.nd futu n:
scnC'fliltiuru.
rJc.;n.c do nol intCTpret compli,ncc wi1h sUllc lnw ■ s .1 ,~ason In adopt c:han!ts 1h11 go hq•fJnd \li1lat i~ lq,.alJy
1cquircd \\-ilhout o clear, docum~i,1t."llju~tific.liun. Ovr co1nmuni1ydcurvct. tr111tspare11cy, meaninp,fu1
u(cguards, and ■ dc.c:ision-mnki111,: proa..,,~ lhnl r,IDCl.-S lhe Jong-tcm, lnrne-sl~ nf re;iida11.~ a long$lde C,COtlOmk
considerations.
I rCSJ'l'Ccifull)· rCljuei\l tlml you cuntirm n:ccipt of this c.orrc.-.po11dc:-ncc and p1ovidc • 'l'-Tittcn response 10 the
qucsl iuns outlined above.

1bc cwn1y·s existing Kgulation.\ h:wc t1.SC<l 1t 3% limit \loi thin ti fi ve-mile nidius for l1rge-scalesolur fnr:iliTies.
The proposed ◄o/• fi gwc raise: an importanl qucs1ion: Why is the C(J~ly ~n-~i.dcring aJlowinc an C\"cn greattt
oonCC11tralion of sol:ir dcvelupmen1 in m:as Ihat may olrt:id)' be CJ1pentncmg 11s cffcct5?

Addi1ion111\y, I ask 1ha1 ynu shan: this li.'1tcr wi1h lhr;, ulh cr mcmben. ufthc Hu.lifa.A Cuunty Do.in.I of
Supen.-i:wr.. and 1hc Plnnnin& •nd 7.n11ins Ocp.1r11ncn1 ~n tluu my concem, and <tUc::itilln, can be cnn~idcrc:d II~
pi,rt of rM revitw ,lflhc propt•scd amcndmcnu.

I undcnland lhal Virginia Jaw has changed and that Halifax County musl wurc its rcgulalions comply wilh
stale rcquimncnb. lfnwcvcr, compliance \\ilh state law should not mean abnndoning the rcsponsibi liry t_o
prolecl our community's lont•lcrm in1crcsts . l would like 10 undmta.nd which changes IK actually roqu1rcd by
siote Jay,· and which rcprt$Clll policy choices the county is mak ing independently.

TI1anJ.. you for )"our 1imc .and 11ttcn1ion to this mancr.

Please: lei me know whc-tlu.-r thi ~ letu:r can be includ~d in lh~ official puhlic hc.arina record and whether 11ny
1ddi1iona\ steps on: r i ~· t c> ensure iii~ form all y cnr1~iclrn:d.

I m par1icular}y concerm:d abou1 the finllllci al inunti\·cs involved. U1ili.1~-s~lc solar de\·tlnpmml cnn.
provide subs1nn!ial financinl bendits to developers and p.aymcnls 10 partm patmg l11ndownm. Munwh1h:,
neighboring residrnts, fanncrs.. and the broedcr comm uni I)' m ey bear some of 1hc Jong•term C.Ol\~tqucnccs of
convct1ing agricullural 11ml forcscod l11nd to indus1rial-,c.,,k energy use.

Tiumk you fo, )'(1ur time "nd ronsidcra1ion.
_sinccn:1>·:.. _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
/\.!MlgOr,wn:1

d.

Planning Commission Close Public Hearing
Board of Supervisors Close Public Hearing

Chair Griles stated that, seeing no one approach the microphone, the Planning Commission would close
the Public Hearing.
Chair Roller closed the Board of Supervisors Public Hearing.

Before proceeding to the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Detrick Easley asked Chair Roller to allow
Commonwealth Attorney Tracy Martin an opportunity to comment briefly on the Noise Ordinance. He noted
that she had arrived late because she had choir practice that evening.

2.

UPDATE TO THE HALIFAX COUNTY 2017-2037 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - ALTERNATIVE
ENERGY FACILTIES
The proposed update to the Halifax County 2017-2037 Comprehensive Plan would establish policies
concerning the siting, review, and development of alternative energy facil ities within Halifax County.
The proposed Alternative Energy Facilities policies shall govern and inform the review of applications ,
land use decisions, and staff and Planning Commission recommendations related to alternative energy
facilities. Where any provision of the proposed policy conflicts with or is inconsistent with a goal, policy,
land use designation, or other statement contained elsewhere in the Comprehensive Plan, the proposed
policy shall control and supersede the conflicting provision to the extent of the conflict.

Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meeting - October 20, 2026

P59

a.

Zoning Administrator Overview

Mr. Detrick Easley addressed the Chair regarding another Comprehensive Plan amendment related to solar
development. He stated that he would not provide extensive detail because the matter would likely be
postponed for additional legal input. However, he directed the members' attention to a proposal in the
Comprehensive Plan to designate District Two, near the Clover Power Plant, as an energy hub. He explained
that the County's principal energy infrastructure, including transmission lines and the Clover Power Plant,
was located in the Clover District and noted the possibility that the Clover Power Plant could close. He stated
that much of the County's renewable energy development would likely occur in District Two. Referring to
page 39, he explained that the proposed energy hub surrounding the power plant would not be subject to
the same density and siting restrictions applied in other districts. The designation was intended to encourage
energy development near the County's existing infrastructure, primarily in District Two around the power
plant.
Supervisor Witt asked whether the proposed energy hub designation primarily addressed density and left
the other regulations unchanged.
Mr. Detrick Easley confirmed that it did.
Planning Commissioner Watts asked whether it was customary for a Comprehensive Plan to single out one
district in that manner.
Mr. Detrick Easley stated that it was appropriate because Comprehensive Plans identify specific land-use
areas for growth, and infrastructure generally directs that growth. He explained that the County's main
transmission lines and power plant were located in District Two, making that district the likely location for
substantial renewable energy development. He noted that District Two, Chair Roller's district, already
contained the largest amount of solar development in the County because of its three-phase service and
transmission lines.
Chair Roller stated that interest in energy storage was another factor supporting the proposal. He noted that
substantial land was available near the power plant for energy-storage development and that this opportunity
had helped drive consideration of the energy hub designation.
Mr. Detrick Easley told Chair Griles that he did not believe a vote was necessary that evening . He
recommended receiving citizen comments, obtaining legal guidance, and returning the matter to the Board
for consideration .

b. Board of Supervisors Open Public Hearing
Planning Commission Open Public Hearing

Board of Supervisors Chair Roller opened the Public Hearing on behalf of the Board of Supervisors.
Planning Commission Chair Griles opened the Public Hearing on behalf of the Planning Commission.

c.

Public Comment

Chair Roller invited anyone wishing to speak to come forward .

Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meeting - October 20, 2026

P60

Mr. Brian Brown
Mr. Brian Brown, of 1502 Irish Street in South Boston, thanked the Chair for allowing him to speak. He
strongly recommended and supported the proposed change to the County's Comprehensive Plan. He noted
that the Clover Power Plant was permitted through 2040 and that, under the Governor's new statewide
power plan for the following year, all fossil-fuel-based power plants were scheduled to close by December
31, 2045. He stated that the County therefore needed to consider how the 877-megawatt facility would be
replaced in the future. He described the proposed change as a constructive way to begin addressing that
issue and expressed appreciation for the efforts of the Planning Commission and staff.
Mr. George Toombs
Mr. George Toombs, of Saxe, Virginia, stated that he had studied energy issues for years and did not forget
earlier positions taken by Dominion and other electric power companies. He recalled that, 15 to 20 years
earlier, those companies had produced videos and advertisements criticizing solar and wind energy and
ranking available energy sources by efficiency. He stated that solar energy later became favored when
government funding was available. Mr. Toombs said that he believed landowners had the right to use their
own property as they wished, but not with taxpayer money. He stated that, if a landowner privately financed
a solar enterprise and assumed the investment risk, the County should not restrict how much of the land
could be used, which he characterized as the American way. He contrasted that approach with government
redistribution, which he characterized as communism, and illustrated his point with an example in which a
child was paid ten dollars for cleaning a bathroom before seven dollars was taken and given to a child who
had not helped. He stated that this lesson would discourage support for socialist or communist policies. Mr.
Toombs also referred to rumors that the Clover Power Plant would not close and that another plant would
be built. He questioned the popularity of the Governor and other government officials from both political
parties, expressed concern about a "uniparty," and suggested that a foreign government might be influencing
events. He associated these concerns with COVID, the expansion of solar energy, Flock cameras, data
centers, and battery storage. He further expressed concern about the disappearance of beef cattle, cow
pastures, independent food producers, and other food sources. He questioned the value of replacing
agricultural uses with pine trees or solar panels and stated that carbon-credit easements had consumed
substantial agricultural land. He urged the governing bodies to evaluate the combined effects of solar
development, data centers, carbon-credit easements, and the loss of agricultural land, stating that many
interconnected issues were involved.

The following letters containing questions and concerns regarding the Solar Energy Facilities Ordinance
Amendments was received from Art Carter, Amelia Clements, and Kacee Crews. These were distributed to
the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commissioners prior to the meeting.

Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meeting - October 20, 2026
P61

- I unders~nd 1ht ••emptlon for retieious ~cllities .ind thtir em.in1ting sounw . Mose occvr wtltwithin Im' dehne-d
daytime hours and 1ypially mid•moming. I do lhink yov should specific.ally addreu the Musl,m tall to Pr~r. If ifs an
t1mplifted broa dcasc. it may liktly be early enough 1hat It mt1y be considered problerTUtic by s.ome ~ighbors
The first dally all ls about 30 minutes before sunrise and e nds with the sunrise .

- OriginalMtssagt-· ·
From: [email protected] lmailto:[email protected]
Sent: Sl.,nday, Octobtr 18, 2026 7:42 PM
• To: Detrick hsley<[email protected].;ilifax.w.us>; Ron 81ade <[email protected]>
Subjeu: Commtn1S and Concerns Rtprding tht' Propow-d Ordn.ince ChangH

Artlclt- Y.11. SOlare Energy Facilities
~c. S3-154Dehni1ions

Genliernen:

• 1 think.e-veryon.e willbP pleaw-d 10 s.ee !he sire ,educed from 5 me1.iwansto 1 meg.iw.in.

Thank you for your help In giving me copies ol lhl! cur1ent ordnances and the proposed ordnances lhil v,ill be discusstd
Tuesday ew:ning. I'm sorry that my s.chedull! hu prew nttd mt from sending my comments and corH:rrns sooner. I an
see th1t the ~ n s and updalt'S lor the mou ~n clirify tht ordNnces. With !hilt Aid, I do havt a few recommended
cNnges and polnls 1h.it I belil!vt nHd ampliflution or dulNuflon 10 ensu•e enforuo1bility.
Append,x A: Addendum 10 the: Comprthe nSNe Pl;m
. With rtga rd to altem;itin ene:rgy l,cilitirs, the •liirge sole" ie>lar f,cilily could be explicitly defined to 1void confusion
andquenionforthereadcr.
. Majortnnsmtulon corridori In "Elecrton Oisuict 2· 1s subjeC1 to future chinge wit h any redistricting. Why not describf
the phys!calarea7
- Requ iring the to1i1.iru of ii solilr fullity be no more lhiln 6S%ol lhe p,ojeC1 ac~age is not neces.silrilyassufilnce thilt
~nsirive soih will l"\Ot be compromn.td. It's ii good go.ii, but not dehn irtvt.
- Avoiding llting ii pro)ttt ne.ir p.irb and the n.imed rivers Is ve.ry appropriate. The uoubling f.ictor is thal ·nu ,· is 111defoed and everyone's concept of "ne.ir· thos-e bodies can bt and llletywill bt different. There should be 1n .ibsolutc
minimum dirtance rt:Quired.

Ch.ipterl7;
Ste 17-42 Exc.eulve Noise Prohibited
_Sunday daytime hm, 15 art 1:00pm to 10:00pm. Sunday NlShttime hours art 10:00pm to 6:00am the lotlowlng morning
Thill Sttms to leaw the hours of 6:00am 101:00pm unaddrened.
. Specifk 6SdBA and 80 dBA volume levels 1ttm .ippropriatc. As I'm sure you will lm1gine, rtCOgnltion ind enforcement
will be challenging. Will tttty deputy i nd police officer h1vt an appro\/td mmr ln his <1ulser?
Plilinly audible an be more or less thJt 6Sd6A. Ion hear VIA from acron tht Dan River from rrr., home, appro11lm1tely
three mlles aw1y. wm the 80 d8A limit 1pply 10 VI A?
Sec. 17-43 Spedfic Prohibitions
- I'm not sure excessivt dog barlllng should hive bt~n deleted.

Sec. 53 -157
(ii) - How can the applic;mt, lacilityownt1, s.ite ow~r and operator not be k.nown7 I un·t Imagine 1he county
t-nten11n1ns anonymous t.ubmluions 1or permitting.
{c) . Whill sensitive and financial Information may be redacted from an a ppllc:atlon7 This goes bad to f.i) above. It is the
vtry ucrKy that brffds questlons, auump1lons, aru1le1y .ind angr,.
ff)• The amoun1 of liability Insurance should be specific. Reason.ible Is subject to person.ii Interpretation. In any c.;ne. at
least Sl mllllon is not .in unrusonable amount todily.
{jl • Wh;u Is ,.near· and 100 · near·i
Sec..!,3-l58

{a) . Personalty I would like to see grH1er se1b1cb, and I suspMt everyone er~ would too.
(h). {I) and {k) - Do not df'lf'tt . Df'letion luves things unspecified.
Ill and (ml - Do not delete s0tl and w.ite, tesrlng. The tests are lnexpen,ive .ind should be conducted a11nu1lly. and
frequently in 1he ev,n1 of ~nel damage 01 ii pine! fire-. Tutfns is m1K.h ll"ss n.penslve 1h11 remediation.
Sec . 53•159 Additional Consldf'filtions
• These seem almost like: a "nice to have~ if il's convenienl.
Im) (61 • Tl'tr rf'moval of dam1ged parw:I!, p11r•g•.iph )hould lnco1pora1e ,equirement to use •best practice ~ H those
practices wiU d ~lop a nd change or the life. of 1he pro)ea . As .ibove. dama1e to I panel should uiuer Immediate soil
and wa1er testln& protocols. Pkkine up thr d1m1ged maieria:1 may not be sufficient.
(m) (8)Thf' county should alvnys be allowed 1cceu to the f1,cllity.
It's at the dlscrerion of th l" ownc-r/oprra1or as it's wrlnen.
Sec 53·160 Oecomminioning
-As wrin r. n, decommluioning p1im11ily des.crlbt) t~ removal of all the equipment . Equally ln1pona nt 11
deconimiulonin& Is soil a nd water te.sting. Allowlnt: the owner/operator to 1imply remove atl the equipme111 may leavebehind major Issues. Solar paneh df'g,radr over timf'. They not only losf' efhdency, bu1 the panels may sJowly leach
huvy mrtilb into th• soil and water. The owner/operator ihould be tin■ nd•lly ,esponsib1e for aU pon decommiuioning
remediation.
As I ,aid beft>rf'. I'm so•ry I c.ould11't s.end lhil sooner. I hope then: IJ. sufficient time for your rf!View, and to
communic.■ tio n to the Pl.inninc CommissJon and Board of Supervisors.

. Under vthkles 1he time limit of ttn consecutive ... (I assume you met1n minutes. It's miss ins-)
- Is tht South Boston Speedway exempted? I couldn't figure ovt wht1t caltgory ifs in. Ifs like VIA.

But regards,
Af'1C1rter

from: Kaut Crews (mailto:Uc,~~hotmiil comJ
Sent: Mond,y, Octobtr 19, J026 11 :56 AM
To: Oetrlck fasley <djc@(o.h~llfauuis>
SubJrn: rw: support for c1pplng l1tge k'...llt sol1r developmen1 In H,11rn County

H,Mr. wi<y.
I v.11~ 1i,1d that you wttt"lhc plmning & :wnmJ, administr.ilor (or 1htcoun1y. I v. u11cd 10 forward my Cffl.ilil tha:1
I scnl to my rcprc:scnt11 i,·c &o lhat you ,,ould be awurc as well .

ThMlld..
Ka:-tt \rc1,..-,,
-·--- Original meuagc •---

Frum: K11ett Crews <~ ~CJ.~t.,i!.tlt1~:: .u11,1>
DOie: JOl1912611 :00AM (GMT-OS:OOJ
To: 1·-!IJ.~1.l'O .hnlifax .~J.1. l'(
~uhjce1: Supror1 fo, capping lar!!c ~It- $11lai dc,·clopmcnt in Ilnlifox C.ounly

1.>c::irMr. Riddle.
I 11m writing 10 you a.s a tC'loidi:nt of Distn.::1 I. li,ing off Olild1cy Rood. to cxprn~ m) stroog SUj)pOr1 for
plncinJ: o cop on largt:•SCUk p;i:1lo r dt:.-..·clopmc r11 in Halifu County.
\\'hill: uJtMU1tivc rncr,:y ir. important our c,1un1y'li ogricullurnl l:l!ldi-_ natu~l l"C!>tlUfc~-:,;, cuvironmcnlul
,r.-.a!crshoo.(, and rural cl111racttr mru1 be pro lec.lcd from cx~si\-c indu~trial solar concm1r~1icrn. I am in fuwr
e<1t.o.hliY!ing reasonable limit~. such 11.; the prvpo~ P-• cttp on lht' county's lot:il land aia .uKl rcst ricii11n:w1thin a 5-milc radius. tl• S.Jfct,wrrl our cC'lmmunitts futwc and pm,ene our worlins: f.inn, and forots .

or

ThN11 l you for yo ur 1imc. km.lc1~hip, aml dc<l1colion to bali:incin~ gru\\1h 1,1.-i1h the pwlt\.'l ilin of nar nm1l
herilNgc in llolifax Count)'.

KacccC'n.·ws

Hal ifo:i. County Residl·nt Oi,tri.:t I

Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meetinp - October 20, 2026

P62

I belit\'1!: rc,-sidcnu de1>trvc a c:k;irc::,,,p)an:i.tion o rl,ow U,oc: dec ision.~ serve the: publk in1eres1 , ool 1,imply 1he
inlCTe:<tli of euergy dcvelopt"l'S,

from: Amelia Clemen1s {maitto:[email protected]}
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2026 2:24 PM
To: Board of Su~rvi'°rs OiSlrkt .S <[email protected]
Cc Detrick Ealley <[email protected]>
SUbject: Pvblir Comment: Propowd Solar Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan Amendments

I rC$pc,ctfull y request .nswc;:n to lhc followin1t l1UC:Stions:
I . Why is 1'1c county prnposi n,g a 4% limit within • five-mile radius v.hcn 1hc: e:,,,isiing lorsc-sc.wlc solar
density Jim;1 is 3%? Wh;it cvidcoc,c or an.\ys is support$ this focrc:il$C?
2. Docs 1he proroscd 2% eountywide lin1i1 include nisting f11dli1ja_ 11ppnwcd but 1&11buih projcc:b, and
pcndin~ applica1ions? I low w ill bolh pcrocnt.11.t::e limits be ailcul111ed nnd a,forc:c:d?
) . Ha~ the: o.JUnl}' evolu11tc:d lhc: cum,illllive dfc:ct,i of oislinit ond pmpn.~ snlar fnc:ilitiC/11 on faonllU\d,
forc-s1c:d • rc:o11., nc:: i~1boring prnpctiy value,;. drainai;c. ,,.:ildlifc, l"Wlll vic:wl'i, and lhc c:harKtcr of o ur
c:ommufU1ic:11?
4. What ~p«ilic: public: bcndi1,1 ju,1if)· incrc:Min8 the: 11low11hk conccn1rntion of~lar focili1ics? If:,, ~ the
county c,-n mp111cd the cxpc:c:tcd lu revenue: am.I ulhc:r cc:onomil. ~dils with lhc: lon£•1c.,in ooM:i a11d
Jcus nf productive agri c:ultunil land?
~. Which cxis1in1:1 loeol prot«11on!l mUS1 be chiU!g1..'tl 111 comp],· with Vir.jfini11 law, und which proteelions
Clln H1111fax County rct11in or $.lr=J:lthi:n?
6 . Whal h lJ'J't'M when the proposal co1&11tywidc nr fi\.-C•milc dcn$ily limil i, reachod? Will addili<>n1J
p roja.:t>C be denied, or will exceptions be 1,·oil11blc':i If cxccp1iorui 11re f'O'-\iblc, what .!1:md4rds will
1;ovcm 1ho,ic decisions·,
7. Will the counl y publish a 1ide-by-sidc c:ompuison of the ci.isl ing ordinan<:c and prnpoMld amc:ndmcnl.~.
a Ion~ wilh lhc: ocraigc calculnlions nnd 1uppm1i11,E: 11111lyai$, before lokins final action?

Dru Mr. Smon and Plannin{! and Zoning Dcpanmtnl,

I 1msubmiuing the e1tachcd corra.-pondcncc regarding 1hc proposed sol.u dcvtl~pmcnt am.cndm~ls u •.public
comment Plai.se coofinn rcccipl and advise whctha lhis letter can be includt.d m 1hc officilJ pub he hc.1nng
record •nd distributed to 1hc Board of Supervisors and PlaMing Commilsfon for consideration.

On Tue. Ocl 20, 202611 2:21 PM Amelia Clcmcnu <i11ncli1mmml989@,gma.i!£2m> wrote:
Oc:ir Mr. Smart.
I am \.\Tiling to u:pttSS my conccnl.\ n.tarding th~proposed amtndmcm~ In llalifa-.: County 's Comprchen.si\·e
Plan l1Jld Solar F.l!Cfl,'Y f acilities Ordinance, sp(cifically the proposed changes to the ellflw:lblc conccnlrahon
ofl11rxc-sc.alcsola,dc,·cloprncnt.
After rcvic:wiag 1hc proposal Comprcliensive Plan addcndwn, I mn amccmcd ahout the prO\ision Iha! would

limit large-scale solar facililies lu no more dum 2%ofthe county'i total hmd llrtil and 4~. ofthc land orc.i
wi1hin1fivc-milcradius.

rlcasc do not iiue,prct tlDmpli11ncc wiU, slalc h1w a~ • fdlsor, In 11dupl C'hall[t.t'!, ti~ go heyond wh:11 is lega.11)
required Y<ilhout :i d.:ar, ducumc.'tltWjustifi..:a1 tion. Ovr comm11ni1y dden'd uansparcncy, me&11lngful
a.afc:guards, and I dccisitm-making procc.>ss thu1 plocc.-s the: long-term intC"Jet.ts or rc:,ridc:nis a lons~idc,- C'COnomic
eomidc raliom•.
I rc:,;pc.!c::lful!y rc::o.i ucst lhu1 y<>u eunfi nn n:cciJll oft.his COrrdpondcncc IUld pro,•ide • \\Tiltcn response: lo the
que>rliu!U outlined tobovc.

The ..:ounty's c-xisling rcgula1ion.s howe used a 3'1• fonil wilhin a five-mile rDdiw: forlargc-S01le soler foeililits
The proposed 4% figure rai!.C5- an importanl ljUtslion: Why is the C(lun1y con.,idcrins a11o"ing an even greater
conccntra1ion of solar dcvclupmcn1 in areas 1h11t may nltcild)' be "pc:rienci11g ils crTcc:ls?
J undastand thal Virginia l•w h~s eh:111g~ and th111 Halifax County mUll ensu,c ii~ rcgul11ions ~~~ly "ilb
stale rcquircmcnls. Ilowe\'t'f, compli1UJcc with sca1e l11w should no1 mean abnndonm~ the rtsJ)Clns1b1hty 1.0
r11oh!cl our ccmmunity's long-lcrm intcrcsl5 . I ·would like lo undmh1.nd which cl1angcs arc actually required by
, sw1c 11111· and which represent policy choices the county is making indcpc:ndenlly.
1 am J)lllficularly concerned 11bou1 the financial incentives involved. Utili.1~-~lc solar dc\·thipmcnl can.
provide substantial financifll benefits to developers and payments 10 pame1paung londowtlffl. Meanwhile,
neighboring midents. fanncrs., and the broader community may be:ir some of the long•tmn con.~cquences of
converting agricultun1I and forcs icd land to inchistriaJ.scalc energy use.

d.

I rc.:.oguil',c 1ha1 cn1..-rgy develnrm ..-nc is :m iuuc lhc: c,ounly mu ~ nrldn:,.a. M}' c,onc,cm is th111 the: dcd~ioru
bcinr, mode today could haH: 11.)linl! conxqucnccs fnr ll11lirllll Coun1y':,; rannlo.nd. rural chMUCICT, and fo111rc
t;mc:nitiom.

Addido 1111!1) , I n:<k th i.r you share this lcnc:rwilh lhc other mc:mbc:n of1hc, H;,1.lirto.,,, Coun1y Board of
Svpc,Yi:,on and the l'l n11ni11g • nd 7..nnins. Dcpan,ncnl ,n lh nl my 1.-oncc:m:oi and qu e1 ti1,m, \:an be: ..:tm.~idcred Cl~
pxn of the rc:vicv.· ()(the propns.xl amendments.
Pka::ic let me knt,w whcihcr lhi, Inter t:lln be included in lhc nffici;il puhlic hearing rccnl'd :,,nd whe1bc:r any
• dd i1ionol >lcpl on: n L ~ 10 ensure ii is formally c:on~idff'l:d.
Th:nd: you for )'l>Ut lime and a11en1ion IU lhis ~tier.

Sin1.:crcly,

-----------·-··--·--------

Planning Commission Close Public Hearing
Board of Supervisors Close Public Hearing

Chair Griles stated that, seeing no one approach the microphone, the Planning Commission would close the
Public Hearing.
Chair Roller closed the Board of Supervisors Public Hearing.

3.

NOISE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT

Proposed Ordinance No. 2026-39 would amend and reenact Chapter 17, Environment, Article Ill, Noise,
of the Halifax County Code.
The proposed ordinance amendment is further described as follows :
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17, ENVIRONMENT, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF
HALIFAX, VIRGINIA, 2006, BY AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTION 17-41, NOISE, TO
ESTABLISH DAYTIME AND NIGHTTIME HOURS AND MAXIMUM PERMISSABLE SOUND LEVELS,
MEASURED IN DECIBLES, AND TO PROVIDE FOR RELATED NOISE REGULATIONS.

a.

Zoning Administrator Overview

Mr. Detrick Easley addressed Chair Griles, Chair Roller, the Planning Commission, and the Board regarding
an amendment to the current Chapter 17 noise ordinance. He stated that he had asked Commonwealth
Attorney Tracy Martin to attend, but she was not present. He explained that the amendment had been
initiated by the Sheriff and the Commonwealth Attorney because the existing noise ordinance was
Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meetinp - October 20, 2026

P63

unenforceable. Although deputies had issued citations in response to noise complaints, the ordinance did
not contain sufficient enforcement provisions for a judge to uphold the violations. With assistance from a
judge and the Commonwealth Attorney, the Ordinance Committee developed the proposed ordinance for
consideration. Mr. Easley stated that the proposed ordinance included enforcement provisions, decibel
limits, and the use of calibrated decibel meters by deputies responding to complaints.
Referring to page 48 of the meeting packet, Mr. Easley explained that the proposed ordinance established
daytime and nighttime hours with different permissible noise levels. The daytime limit was 80 decibels, and
the nighttime limit was 65 decibels. The ordinance also specified penalties and misdemeanor classifications
to provide judges with authority to enforce violations. He noted that the ordinance included several
exemptions, including lawful hunting and commercial shooting ranges operating under Conditional Use
Permits. He stated that representatives from South Boston Speedway and VIR might request exemptions
for those facilities.
Mr. Easley stated that he agreed with exempting the established racing facilities . VIR operated under a
Conditional Use Permit, while South Boston Speedway had been grandfathered for many years. He noted
that the meeting packet contained the proposed ordinance amendments. He further stated that Judge
Puckett had reviewed and approved the ordinance as enforceable. Enforcement would be handled primarily
by Sheriffs deputies using appropriate meters, rather than by County staff. The County had purchased a
calibrated meter and conducted test readings , which were used to establish the proposed limits.
Mr. Easley acknowledged that the proposed limits might require future adjustment but stated that the daytime
and nighttime decibel levels provided a starting point. He offered to answer questions from the Planning
Commission or the Board before the Public Hearing proceeded .
Chair Roller asked whether the Supervisors had any questions.
Supervisor Witt asked how many decibels a barking dog produced .
Mr. Detrick Easley asked Chair Roller to respond, noting that Chair Roller had tested sound levels from dogs
on his property.
Chair Roller stated that he had measured a kennel of dogs from approximately thirty yards away and
recorded a reading of about 80 decibels. He explained that sound readings decreased with distance and fell
into the 60-decibel range from a few hundred yards away. He also tested a running generator, a lawn mower,
and similar equipment. Although the readings were high near the source, the decibel levels decreased
quickly with distance.
Supervisor Claiborne asked whether testing had been conducted on automobiles and loud music.
Mr. Detrick Easley stated that Chair Roller had tested a boom box.
Chair Roller stated that he had tested a boom box. Although it was not a large unit, he was surprised that its
decibel level was not especially high . He noted that the readings decreased with distance, even though the
words remained audible.
Mr. Detrick Easley clarified that meter readings would be taken at the property line rather than at the source
of the noise. He explained that, when responding to a complaint, the reading would be measured from the
complainant's property line.
Supervisor Claiborne asked whether the ordinance would also apply to automobiles.
Mr. Detrick Easley confirmed that it would apply to loud automobile noise, including excessive engine
revving , and reiterated that readings would be taken from the property line.

Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meetin!l - October 20, 2026
P64

Supervisor Claiborne stated that he understood the enforcement approach and asked whether a specific
sound level had been established for automobiles.
Mr. Detrick Easley stated that the limits of 65 and 80 decibels would apply across the board .
Supervisor Claiborne acknowledged the response.
Chair Roller noted that the ordinance also addressed noise that was plainly audible. He stated that, from an
enforcement standpoint, the plainly audible standard could be used initially, with decibel readings taken to
confirm a violation if the issue was not resolved and charges were pursued in court. He then asked whether
the Board of Supervisors had any additional questions.
Chair Griles asked whether any Planning Commissioners had questions.

b. Board of Supervisors Open Public Hearing
Planning Commission Open Public Hearing

Board of Supervisors Chair Roller opened the Public Hearing on behalf of the Board of Supervisors.
Planning Commission Chair Griles opened the Public Hearing on behalf of the Planning Commission .

c.

Public Comment

Chair Roller invited anyone wishing to speak to come forward .

Ms. Connie Nyholm
Ms. Connie Nyholm stated that she was from VIR in Alton, Virginia. She thanked Mr. Easley for his work and
for considering VI R's concerns regarding decibel limits for long-established racetracks. She requested that
established racetracks be added as a clear and simple exemption to the ordinance and thanked the
members for their consideration.
Mr. Brandon Brown
Mr. Brandon Brown introduced himself as the General Manager of South Boston Speedway and echoed Ms.
Nyholm's comments. He respectfully requested that South Boston Speedway remain exempt from the Noise
Ordinance and be specifically identified as an exempt business because of its historical landmark status,
tourism impact, tax impact, and benefits to the community. He stated that South Boston Speedway would
oppose the ordinance if the facility were excluded from the exemption and thanked the members for their
consideration .
Mr. Leon Brade
Mr. Leon Brade asked whether churches and church bells were also exempt from the ordinance. Chair Roller
stated that they were. Mr. Detrick Easley stated that he believed they were exempt and, after reviewing the
language, confirmed that Item 12 of the ordinance exempted religious services.

The following letter containing questions and concerns regarding the Noise Ordinance Amendment was
received from Mr. Art Carter and distributed to the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commissioners prior
to the meeting.

Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meeting - October 20, 2026

P6S

• I unde,st.and !he eumptlon for re~aiO us tacllitics ii nd 1heir e~nating sounds. Mos1 occur wtll wi thir, the definNI
daytime hours and typically mid -morning. 1do think you should specific.alty add1Ms the Muslim call to Prayer. 11h 's ;m
1mplihe:d bro• d~tt. It m 1y likely be e1rly er,ough I hat lt may be considered problematic by same neighbors
The til"$t dally all Is aboul 30 minu1ts before sun rise: and ends wlrh lhe sunri~.

--Original Message--From: urterat@em all.org [mailto:[email protected]

Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2026 7:42 PM
To: De trick Casley <[email protected]; Ron Snide <[email protected]
Subjeu: Commenu and Conurru Rtgardlng the Propoud o,dmnce Cha n&ts

Artlclt' V.11. Solar«- [ne,sy fa cilit'IH

Grntlemen:

S-ec. 53 -1S4 Oerlnitions
• 11hlnk e-ff"ryOrlt' will bf' pleas-ed to see the size reduced f rom S me£awans 10 l m e-gawiln.

T~nk you for your hdp in giving m, copies of 1ht cum:n1 ordnances and the propos~ ordnancts thal 'Ifill be discusst'd
Tuesday eftnlng. I'm wrry thal my schedule ~s prevented me from ~nding my commenls , nd concerns sooner. I un
Stt that the revisions al\d updates tor the most p,art clanfy thr ordnanc6. With that said, I do ha"tt a few rtcommended

changes and poln!S t hat I believe need ampfirication or cb1iflc,rton to ensure enfoJCeabltity.
Ap pendix A: Addendum to tht Comp,ehtnWe Plan

. With regard 10 altc rNtiYe fnt!tgy faci1itiu. the • targf' sute· solar facility could be explicitly defined to avoid confusion

and qutsrion for th t rta der.
. Major uansmW.lon corridors in ~£1tction District

r tS subjeC110 futurt ch11nge with any redistritting. Why not describe

thc physlc:a1aru7
- Rtqulring tht 1o1a1 are.a or ;a iola r facili1y be no more th;in 6S%of lht projec:t aue1gc is no1 necHS-arilyaswr.ancc lhat
sensitivt roils wilt nol bt compromised. 11',agood g~I, but no1 dttini~.
. Avoiding siting a project near parks and the n.amed 1ivtrs Is very appropriate. The troubling factor is that · nu,- is iUdehned and everyone's concept of ~nur· those- bod!Mun be and liktly will be different. Thtrt should be an absolute
minim um distance requirtd.

Chapter 17:
Sec 17_.2 bc:esiivt Noise Prohibited
. Sunday daytime hou,s arc 1:00pm lo 10:00pm. Sunday Nishttime hours arc 10:00pm to 6:00am the foltowins mo,ning
Thal SC"Cms to }eave !he Murs of 6:~m lo 1:00pm un1ddruse-d.
. Spccitic 6SdBA and 80d8A volume levels sttm appropri.lte. AJ. I'm su•e you will imasint , reco1:nltlon and enforc.rM:nt
will be chillenging. Will ~ry deputy ind police officer have anappro~d mtter in his crul.ser?
PIJinly audible can be more or lts.s th1l 6SdBA. lean hearVIR lrom ,cross the Dan RM r ltom my home, appro,dmiittly
three mllts away. Will the 80 dBA limit apply to VIR?
SE-c. 17 ◄ 3 Speclfu. Prohibitions
- I'm no1 sure el!ceuivt dog bairkfn&should hive been delttcd.

Sec. S3 -l S7
(ii) . How c.an th e 1pplic.ant, facil ity owne,, sue Owner ilnd opera1or not be known? t un'1 Imagine 1he county
enterta ining anonymous submissions for p trmlttlng.
(c) • Whill s-ensi~ and financial lnfor~ tion may be red1c1ed from 1n 1ppllc.at\"on? This goes bad to ta) above. 11 Ii the
very ~cre-cy thal breeds queittons, auumpllons. anx.lely and anger.
(f) • The amount of liability lnsur;ance should be specific. Reuona ble Is subje-<1 10 personil t interpretanor,. Ir, ar,y cut, a1
least Sl mltllon b not il'1 unreason.able amoun1 today.
01 • W hat Is ~nea,~ and too •near ?
4

Sec.S3-158
(a} • Personalty I would like t o ~e grea1er 5e tbatk,, and I W)pett everyone els-e would 100.
(h), (i) and (k} • Do not delete. Deletion IHvH 1hin,s vn,pecifled.
(I) arid (m) . Do nol dele1e soil al\d wa l er tHtlfl!I. The tests art lnuper,1ive and should be cor,duc1ed ar,r,u1Hy, aod
frequently in the event of piinel diimage or a paoer fire. Testtng is much less npenl.lw 1ha1 ,emediat'lon .
Sec . 53-159 Addit'lonal Considerations
• The5e seem almost like a •nic«- to ti.;n,e,• if ifs convenirr,L
{ml f6 ) - Th e removal of d-amJged par,e ls parag,aph should lncorpo,aie rrqui1e~n1 10 use · bt'n p rutice" as those
practius will diNt,lop and chanae or the life olthe project. As above, d amage to• pant / should trigger lmmediatt soil
arid w.ate, tenln1 prolotob. Pickin1 up the diimagNI material may not be .sufficltnt.
(ml {B)The county should always bt allowed acten to the facility.
It 's at the dlstterion or the owner/operator H It's w rinen .
S-ec 53-160 Otcommi1,1,ioning
• As .._.,ittcn, detommlnioning primarily describes 1he remoVill of aU lhe equipment. Equally lmpor1.ant at

deconimiSslonln& b soil and wat r r tutini:;. Allow In,: t he owne-r/ope-ralor to ,imply remove aU the equipmenl may lea vr
behind m ajor luuts. Solar pa nth dl!'grade OYer tlmt . They not onl-., lote efficien cy, but t he panels may slowlv leach
heavy metals Into 1he- 5,0i( and Willer. The owner/opera tor should be tir,anc.ially rtsponsi ble for all po$! decomminioning
remediation.
As Ii-aid before. I' m ~rry I couldn't Sof"nd this ,oontr. I hope 1here is suffi6ent time fo, your review, and 10
communication to t he Pt.1nnln& Commission and Board ofSup,ervlso~ .

. Under vehicles th e time limlt of ten consecutive ... (I ,ssumc you mean mlnultS. It's missing.)
· IS the South Boi.1on Speedway excmpttd7 I couldn't fig urr out what category it's in. Ifs like V1R.

!est regards,
Art Caner

d. Planning Commission Close Public Hearing
Board of Supervisors Close Public Hearing
Chair Griles stated that, seeing no one approach the microphone, the Planning Commission would close the
Public Hearing.
Chair Roller closed the Board of Supervisors Public Hearing.

Commonwealth's Attorney Tracy Martin thanked Mr. Easley and addressed the Chairs and members. She
stated that she had attended at Mr. Easley's request to provide background for the discussion and to answer
any specific questions. She explained that the Board had formed a committee to review and potentially revise
the local Noise Ordinance in coordination with County counsel because the existing ordinance, Section 1741 et al., was unconstitutionally vague and unenforceable. She stated that this was her legal opinion and
also the position expressed by the local General District Court judge, consistent with a Virginia Beach case
that was more than 15 years old. As a result, communities experiencing significant, repeated, and chronic
noise complaints could not effectively pursue enforcement through the courts under the current ordinance .
Ms. Martin supported the revision effort. Although she did not offer opinions on the policy choices contained
in the draft, which she stated were decisions for the governing bodies, she had participated in some
committee meetings and agreed with County counsel that the current draft resolved the unconstitutional
vagueness present in the existing Noise Ordinance.
Mr. Detrick Easley thanked Ms. Martin. He stated that the Public Hearing had already occurred but that, after
seeing her arrive, he wanted to provide her an opportunity to speak. He thanked her for attending.
Commonwealth's Attorney Tracy Martin thanked Mr. Easley.

E.

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADJOURN

Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meeting - October 20, 2026

P66

Motion made by Supervisor Riddle, seconded by Vice Chair Smart, to adjourn the Planning
Comm ission/Board of Supervisors Joint meeting.
VOTE

Motion passed 8-0 by the following vote:
Ayes : Mr. P. Riddle, Mr. L. Roller, Mr. D. J. Oakes, Mr. D. Witt, Mr. R. Smart, Mr. M. Thompson, Mr. K.
McDowell, and Mr. W.B. Claiborne
Nays:
No one
Abstained :
No one
Absent During Vote:
No one
Absent During Meeting: No one

The Board of Supervisors adjourned at 7:34 p.m.

F.

MINUTES CORRECTION/APPROVAL - PLANNING COMMISSION

1. September 15, 2026 Planning Commission/Board of Supervisors Joint Meeting

Motion made by Planning Commissioner Wimbish, seconded by Planning Commissioner Smith-Mangum, to
approve the September 15, 2026 Planning Commission/Board of Supervisors Joint Meeting minutes.
VOTE

Motion passed 6-0 by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. D. Griles, Mr. B. Pearce, Mr. J. Jennings, Mr. R. Watts, Mr. C. Wimbish, and Ms. G. Smith-Mangum
Nays:
No one
Abstained:
No one
Absent During Vote:
Mr. A. Hughes, Mr. N. Link
Absent During Meeting: Mr. A. Hughes, Mr. N. Link

G.

PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION

1.

SOLAR ENERGY FACILTIES ORDINANCE AMENDMENT

Proposed Ordinance No. 2026-44 would amend and reenact applicable provisions of Chapter 53,
Zoning, Article VII, Solar Energy Facilities, of the Halifax County Code to address changes in Virginia
law affecting local policies and regulations governing the siting and development of solar energy
facilities .
The proposed ordinance amendment is further described as follows :
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 53, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF
HALIFAX, VIRGINIA, 2006, BY AMENDING AND REENACTING APPLICABLE PROVISIONS
GOVERNING SOLAR ENERGY FACILITIES TO COMPLY WITH VIRGINIA LAW AND TO UPDATE
THE COUNTY'S POLICIES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE SITING AND DEVELOPMENT
OF SOLAR ENERGY FACILITIES.
Chair Griles opened the Planning Commission's discussion of the Solar Facilities Ordinance Amendment.
Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meetin!l - October 20, 2026
P67

Vice Chair Jennings acknowledged that the general consensus had been to defer the matter. However,
regardless of the additional information received, he believed the State was severely hindering the County's
efforts regarding setbacks and other solar regulations. He noted that, as a member of the Board of
Supervisors had stated, the County had done a good job and had approved many Conditional Use Permits
for solar companies. He objected to the State requiring the County to approve more projects while removing
local regulatory protections. He stated that the State law was vague and omitted many provisions, leaving
solar companies substantial discretion. Vice Chair Jennings stated that he would not vote in favor of the
proposed amendments and was prepared to make a motion to deny them, although he would leave that
decision to the other members that evening. He expressed no interest in deferring the matter or postponing
it further, disapproved of the State's actions, and hoped the situation would change at the State level in the
near future. He stated that he wanted the County to retain its existing regulations.
Chair Griles asked Vice Chair Jennings whether he was making a motion to deny the proposed amendments .
Vice Chair Jennings stated that he first wanted to hear whether anyone else wished to discuss the matter
before he made a motion . He added that another member could make a motion and that, if the majority
wanted to defer the matter, that decision rested with them . He reiterated his position.
Chair Griles asked whether anyone else wished to speak or offer further discussion.
Planning Commissioner Pearce stated that it appeared a motion had been made and said that he seconded
the motion.
Chair Griles clarified that Vice Chair Jennings had not yet made a motion and had only opened the matter
for discussion. He stated that all members should have an opportunity to speak before another member or
Vice Chair Jennings made a motion .
Vice Chair Jennings stated that he had printed the State law and read its final provision : "The provisions of
this act shall apply to any ground mounted solar facility with generating capacity of one megawatt or more,
which an application for local approvals filed on or after July 1st, 2026, and any such project shall not be
governed by any local ordinances inconsistent with this act." He stated that this language supported Ms.
Haynes's interpretation that the State requirements were mandatory rather than recommendations. He
objected to the State directing the County's approach and characterized the action as a significant overreach .

Motion made by Vice Chair Jennings, seconded by Planning Commissioner Pearce, to recommend to the
Board of Supervisors to deny the proposed amendments to the solar energy facilities ordinance due to the
regulations that the State is going to remove from our local ordinances.

ROLL CALL VOTE:
Commissioner Andy Hughes
Chair Dwayne Griles
Commissioner Pearce
Vice Chair Jay Jennings
Commissioner Rodney Watts
Commissioner Nelson Link
Commissioner Carlyle Wimbish
Commissioner Gwendolyn Smith-Mangum

Absent
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Absent
Yes
Yes

Motion passed 6-0.

2.

UPDATE TO THE HALIFAX COUNTY 2017-2037 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN -ALTERNATIVE
ENERGY FACILTIES

Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meetinp - October 20, 2026
P68

The proposed update to the Halifax County 2017-2037 Comprehensive Plan would establish policies
concerning the siting, review, and development of alternative energy facilities within Halifax County.
The proposed Alternative Energy Facilities policies shall govern and inform the review of applications,
land use decisions, and staff and Planning Commission recommendations related to alternative energy
facilities . Where any provision of the proposed policy conflicts with or is inconsistent with a goal, policy,
land use designation, or other statement contained elsewhere in the Comprehensive Plan, the proposed
policy shall control and supersede the conflicting provision to the extent of the conflict.

Chair Griles opened the Planning Commission's discussion of the Update to the Halifax County 2017-2037
Comprehensive Plan - Alternative Energy Facilities.

Motion made by Vice Chair Jennings, seconded by Planning Commissioner Watts, to recommend to the
Board of Supervisors to defer action on the proposed Alternative Energy Facilities Addendum to the Halifax
County 2017-2037 Comprehensive Plan until next Planning Commission meeting on November 17, 2026 to
allow additional time to review.

ROLL CALL VOTE:
Commissioner Andy Hughes
Chair Dwayne Griles
Commissioner Pearce
Vice Chair Jay Jennings
Commissioner Rodney Watts
Commissioner Nelson Link
Commissioner Carlyle Wimbish
Commissioner Gwendolyn Smith-Mangum

Absent
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Absent
Yes
Yes

Motion passed 6-0.

3.

NOISE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
Proposed Ordinance No. 2026-39 would amend and reenact Chapter 17, Environment, Article Ill, Noise,
of the Halifax County Code.
The proposed ordinance amendment is further described as follows:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17, ENVIRONMENT, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF
HALIFAX, VIRGINIA, 2006, BY AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTION 17-41, NOISE, TO
ESTABLISH DAYTIME AND NIGHTTIME HOURS AND MAXIMUM PERMISSABLE SOUND LEVELS,
MEASURED IN DECIBLES, AND TO PROVIDE FOR RELATED NOISE REGULATIONS .

Chair Griles opened the Planning Commission's discussion of the Noise Ordinance Amendment. He directed
the members to page 56 of the meeting packet, which listed the exemptions to the Noise Ordinance, and
stated that two requests had been received for additional exemptions.

Planning Commissioner Watts asked whether the exemptions were subject to any time restrictions.
Mr. Detrick Easley explained that VIR operated under a Conditional Use Permit that established its racing
schedule and required compliance with the CUP conditions. The proposed exemption would apply only to
the Noise Ordinance's decibel limits and meter-reading requirements. He stated that VIR's time restrictions
Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meeting - October 20, 2026
P69

were governed by its CUP. South Boston Speedway was grandfathered and, to his understanding, was not
currently subject to time restrictions during races. He asked Mr. Brandon Brown to confirm .
Mr. Brandon Brown confirmed that South Boston Speedway was not subject to time restrictions. He stated
that the Speedway imposed its own limitations and tried to be a good neighbor when schedules needed to
be altered.
Vice Chair Jennings discussed whether the exemption should identify VIR and South Boston Speedway by
name or apply generally to racetracks and raceways. He noted that Ms. Nyholm had also mentioned Riprap
Motorcycle Park but stated that he was unfamiliar with it.
Mr. Detrick Easley stated that he had advised Ms. Nyholm to omit Riprap Motorcycle Park because he had
never heard of it.
Vice Chair Jennings stated that he had not heard of it either.
Mr. Detrick Easley stated that some Board members remembered the facility from years earlier, but he did
not believe it was currently operating . He advised against adding a facility that was not in existence.
Vice Chair Jennings asked whether the exemptions should specifically name South Boston Speedway and
VIR.
Mr. Detrick Easley stated that the members would need to make that decision.
Chair Griles asked whether any future facility would be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit and could
be addressed through that process.
Mr. Detrick Easley confirmed that it could.
Vice Chair Jennings suggested adding one exemption for approved racetracks rather than creating a
separate exemption for each facility.
Chair Griles asked whether Mr. Easley supported that approach.
Mr. Detrick Easley asked for time to consider the proposal and clarified whether Vice Chair Jennings was
suggesting an exemption for any approved racetrack.
Vice Chair Jennings clarified that an approved racetrack would be one operating under a Conditional Use
Permit.
Mr. Detrick Easley stated that approval would be granted by the Board through a Conditional Use Permit
and agreed that the proposed language could be acceptable.
Mr. Detrick Easley added that the members should choose the language they considered sufficient.
Chair Griles asked whether anyone had additional comments about how the exemption should be written.
Mr. Brandon Brown, General Manager of South Boston Speedway, stated that the phrase "approved
racetracks" could leave the Speedway vulnerable to losing approved status in the future. He requested clear
language specifically identifying South Boston Speedway and VIR as approved and grandfathered facilities .
Planning Commissioner Watts asked whether "existing venues" would describe facilities operating before
that day.
Mr. Brandon Brown stated that "existing racetracks" would be clearer than "approved racetracks."

Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meetinp - October 20, 2026

P70

Mr. Detrick Easley stated that the original request was to specifically exempt VIR and South Boston
Speedway as existing racetracks.
Mr. Brandon Brown confirmed that this language would be acceptable.
Mr. Ron Brade suggested honoring the request by naming the two institutions, which had been part of the
community for decades, unless there was a compelling reason not to do so. He stated that naming them
would recognize their longstanding partnership and collaboration with the community.
Chair Griles suggested that a Planning Commissioner make a motion to list VIR as Exemption 16 and South
Boston Speedway as Exemption 17, stating that this approach might satisfy everyone.

Motion made by Vice Chair Jennings, seconded by Planning Commissioner Wimbish, to recommend to the
Board of Supervisors to approve the proposed Ordinance No. 2026-39, amending chapter 17, Article Ill
Noise, of the Halifax County Code as presented with 15 Exemptions, Section 17-44, with the addition of
Exemption 16, Virginia International Raceway, and Exemption 17, South Boston Speedway.

ROLL CALL VOTE:
Commissioner Andy Hughes
Chair Dwayne Griles
Commissioner Pearce
Vice Chair Jay Jennings
Commissioner Rodney Watts
Commissioner Nelson Link
Commissioner Carlyle Wimbish
Commissioner Gwendolyn Smith-Mangum

Absent
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Absent
Yes
Yes

Motion passed 6-0.

H.

PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURN
Motion made by Planning Commissioner Wimbish, seconded by Planning Commissioner Smith-Mangum, to
adjourn the Planning Commission meeting.

VOTE
Motion passed 6-0 by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. D. Griles, Mr. B. Pearce, Mr. J. Jennings, Mr. R. Watts, Mr. C. Wimbish, and Ms. G. Smith-Mangum
Nays:
No one
Abstained:
No one
Absent During Vote:
Mr. A. Hughes, Mr. N. Link
Absent During Meeting: Mr. A. Hughes, Mr. N. Link

The Planning Commission adjourned at 7:52 p.m .

Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meelin!J - October 20, 2026
P71

-

BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS
ACTION

P72

Verron "Ron" M. Brade
County Administrator
[email protected]

HALlFAXCOUNn'

LARRY D. ROLLER - ED #2
CHAIR

BOARD OF SUP£R\fJisORS

R. L. "ROBBIE" SMART - ED #5
VICE CHAIR

M. A. "PETE" RIDDLE - ED #1

1050 Mary Bethune Street
P. 0. Box699
Halifax, VA 24558:0699
(434) 476-3300
Fax:(434) 476-3384
www.halifaxcountyva.gov

D. JEFFREY OAKES - ED #3
DENNIS G. WITT -ED #4
MONTE THOMPSON- ED #6
KEITH A. MCDOWELL - ED #7
W. BRYANT CLAIBORNE-ED #8
WAYNE SMITH - TIEBREAKER

RESOLUTION NUMBER 2026-48

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY OF HALIFAX (1)
AUTHORIZING THE CONTRACTING OF TRADE FINANCE
SERVICES FROM WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION; (2) APPROVING THE FORM, CONSENTING TO
THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF, AND AUTHORIZING
EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF THE TRADE FINANCE
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF HALIFAX,
VIRGINIA, AND WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION; (3) AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY OF
HALIFAX, VIRGINIA'S PLEDGE OF COLLATERAL TO SECURE
ITS OBLIGATIONS
UNDER THE TRADE FINANCE
AGREMENTS; AND (4) RATIFYING ALL ACTIONS TAKEN TO
DATE WITH RESPECT TO THE TRADE FINANCE
AGREEMENTS.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the County of Halifax, Virginia (the "County''), acting through its
County of Halifax (the "Governing Body"), has heretofore ordered the receipt of bids from
qualified financial institutions for trade finance services, including but not limited to, the
issuance and confirmation by Bank of commercial and standby letters of credit, trade finance
loans, and other banking services (the "Trade Finance Services") to the County pursuant to
[Insert Statute/Ordinance ;
WHEREAS, the County selected the proposal of Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association (the "Bank") as the best bid for the Trade Finance Services; and
WHEREAS, drafts of the Security Agreement: Business Assets - Letter of Credit
Obligations dated November 4, 2026 (collectively, as such agreements may be amended or
replaced from time to time, and including any notices, or disclosures provided by the Bank,
the "Trade Finance Agreements") have been placed on file with the Governing Body and
presented at the meeting at which this Resolution was adopted; and
WHEREAS, by this Resolution the Governing Body will consent to the tenns and
conditions of the Trade Finance Agreements and will authorize, to the extent applicable, the
P73

execution and delivery of the Trade Finance Agreements, m substantially the form so
presented to the Governing Body.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GOVERNING BODY, as
follows:
Section 1. The County Administrator (or his designee) is authorized to take all acts
and to do all things on behalf of the County to contract with the Bank for the Trade Finance
Services, and is authorized to take all acts and to do all things on behalf of the County
relating to the Trade Finance Agreements, including, without limitation, executing such other
applications, instruments, agreements and documents as the Bank may require relating to the
Trad Finance Services or Trade Finance Agreements, and operating, managing, controlling,
transacting on, and otherwise using, to the fullest extent permitted thereunder, the services
and accounts with the Bank.
Section 2. That a draft of the Trade Finance Agreements, in substantially the form on
file with the Governing Body, is approved and the County Administrator of the County of
Halifax is authorized and directed to · consent to and, to the extent applicable, execute and
deliver the Trade Finance Agreements with such other or additional terms and provisions as
the County Administrator determines are necessary or appropriate.
Section 3. The County Administrator(or his designee) is authorized to encumber,
pledge, convey, grant, assign or otherwise transfer all or any part of the County's personal
property for the purpose of securing (x) the payment of any of the obligations, contracts,
instruments and other evidences of indebtedness authorized hereby, and (y) the County's
obligations (1) to reimburse or pay Bank for Trade Finance Services and to pay interest
thereon, and (2) to pay fees associated with any Trade Finance Services, and to execute and
deliver to Bank such pledge agreements, security agreements and/or other related documents
as Bank shall require.
Section 4. All actions taken by the County Administrator and any person
representing the County Administrator with respect to the Trade Finance Services and Trade
Finance Agreements, and the procedures pertaining thereto, are hereby ratified and affirmed.
This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption and execution.
Section 5. The authority hereby conferred herein shall continue in full force and
effect until the Bank shall have received notice in writing, certified by an authorized officer
of the County, of the revocation hereof by a resolution duly adopted by the Governing Body.
[Remainder ofpage left blank intentionally.]

P74

PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the County of Halifax on this 17th day of
November, 2026.

County of Halifax

By: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Name: Mr. Larry Roller, Chair
Title: Chair, Halifax County Board of Supervisors

ATTEST
By: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Name: Verron "Ron" Brade
Title: Clerk, Board of Supervisors

P75