By: Caitlin Flanagan, Policy Analyst

On November 18, 2025, the North Carolina Clean Energy Technology Center (NCCETC) hosted the first of several model ordinance stakeholder engagement sessions following the late October 2025 kickoff. As a part of the Carolinas Development Assistance & Siting Hub (DASH) effort to educate local decision makers on large-scale renewable energy siting and permitting in the Carolinas, NCCETC is working to develop solar and storage model ordinances: resources that local officials may reference when crafting their own communities’ large-scale renewable energy development. 

To continue the effort of gathering balanced input in the development of the model ordinances, NCCETC convened a group of representatives from sectors including renewable energy development, clean energy advocacy across the political spectrum, local government and planning, state government, and agriculture. Session #1 focused on garnering feedback around model ordinance elements (or “categories”) related to large or “utility-scale” solar. To bring attendees from different backgrounds up to a shared understanding of how solar interacts with local planning and zoning laws, NCCETC invited Adam Lovelady, a professor and expert in land use law and community planning at the University of North Carolina School of Government, to present. Professor Lovelady covered zoning ordinances, regulating land uses, and development regulations, and the process of permitting solar in areas where it is not allowed by-right (i.e., the land use is allowed on the property if it meets the basic standards) through special use permits and conditional zoning. Additionally, he gave an overview of zoning for solar uses, covering requirements like location, development standards, safety and operations, and decommissioning. For a deeper dive on permitting, you can read Professor Lovelady’s blog here. 

Image: Professor Adam Lovelady Presenting to Stakeholders

After an engaging Q&A with Professor Lovelady, NCCETC Policy Analyst Cleo Carter moved the session into an overview of the solar ordinance categories to be updated and a synthesis of how these categories currently appear in utility-scale solar energy ordinances across the Carolinas. The major categories covered were: 

• Technology Definition: How policy and regulation define utility scale solar
• Setbacks: How far back from different landmarks (such as dwellings, streams and roads) utility-scale solar needs to be
• Fencing: The fencing types, heights, and other requirements
• Screening/Buffering: Measures to obscure a project from plain view, such as vegetation that must surround solar developments
• Height Restrictions: How tall solar installations are allowed to be 
• Visual Restrictions: Regulations on potential visual impacts like glare
• Noise Restrictions: Regulations on potential noise impacts 
• Planning/Applications: Timelines for application approval, zoning recommendations, conditional use permits, and special use permits 
• Community Engagement: Meetings and other interaction with the host community/nearby landowners ahead of development

Image: NCCETC Policy Analyst Cleo Carter presenting Research on Ordinance Categories to Stakeholders

Then it was time to hear from our stakeholders! In small groups arranged with the hope of putting diverse perspectives together, stakeholders had the chance to discuss amongst themselves in “breakouts” and then share their ideas with the larger group for several rounds delineated by model ordinance topic. Some major themes and novel ideas from each share out, moderated by NCCETC Director Steve Kalland, included: 

For Technology Definition: 

• Stakeholders considered technology definitions delineated by megawatts (MW) versus acreage. Several agreed that technology will continue to develop and change (i.e. solar may become more efficient and less acreage will be required per MW) and that size definition based on acreage may be the more adaptable option. 
• Novel comments covered potential carve outs for behind-the-meter solar, acknowledging floating solar as a potential use, and paired uses of bringing load (i.e. solar) with load demand (i.e. a data center).

For Setbacks: 

• Defining the purpose of a setback is important during ordinance development. Is the purpose of the setback responding to public perception concerns? For issues like groundwater or agriculture?
• The context of a setback is important. If there is already vegetation on a property, there may not be a need for an additional setback. Likewise, a larger setback may be more appropriate for adjoining uses such as a dwelling, while a smaller setback may be appropriate for adjoining uses such as a road.
• Having setback waivers is important for cases where landowners do not want a setback.
• Developers favor having clear, defined setbacks.

For Screening/Buffers/Fencing: 

• Some stakeholders preferred the idea of developing an ordinance based on the outcome of opacity and suggested the idea of staggered buffer rows. 
• Some stakeholders preferred a concrete buffering requirement, while others saw the merit of requirements differing by localities and context.
• How strong/opaque existing buffers are should be considered when determining how stringent setbacks need to be.
• Site context, such as existing trees/timber potentially negating the need for an additional buffer, should be considered.
• There are potential challenges with buffer maintenance as developments change hands. Both developers and local government representatives emphasized the importance of ensuring well-maintained buffers.
• Some stakeholders expressed a preference for native buffers. 
• Some stakeholders preferred that barbed wire not be required in fencing provisions due to it being unsightly or associated with industrial uses.
• Stakeholders discussed wildlife permeable fencing (though a strong positive or negative opinion did not prevail) and electrical code fencing.

For Height/Visual/Noise Restrictions:

• Developers did not get many complaints about noise during operation. More commonly, noise complaints came during the construction process, which is regulated by general county ordinances rather than solar ordinances. 
• Stakeholders had disparate opinions on if noise restrictions are necessary, if they should include decibel limits, and where on the site they should be measured from. 
• Stakeholders discussed ideal height restriction limits that would still allow for agrivoltaics. 
• Several stakeholders supported a potential exemption of interconnection/transformers from height restrictions. 
• Developers commented that there is little need for visual restrictions, since any “reputable” panel manufacturers use anti-glare coatings.

For Community Engagement/Permit Type: 

• Developers preferred by-right zoning as most favorable, then special use permits (due to the quasi-judicial hearing where evidence can be presented), then conditional use permits as least favorable.
• There were different suggestions for community meetings and notice timelines, including an example of requiring a community meeting 10 days before a planning board meeting.

After covering a lot of ground and soliciting valuable input on ordinance categories, the first session came to a close. NCCETC’s model ordinance development is an ongoing process, with future sessions engaging stakeholders on storage, land use, ordinance appendices, and draft model ordinance feedback to come. In the meantime, interested parties are encouraged to reference the Carolinas DASH website for a repository of fact-based resources on renewable energy development and to request free technical assistance. If you have comments that you would like to share to inform the model ordinance development process, please contact DSIRE-Admin@ncsu.edu.