Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission holds public hearing on proposed Article 20 amendment to remove utility-scale solar; speakers urge county not to ban projects
Summary
Mecklenburg County planning commissioners held a public hearing on proposed amendments to Article 20 that would remove utility-scale solar as a permitted use, drawing industry speakers and local residents who urged retaining local review and grandfathering in-process applications.
Mecklenburg County planning commissioners held a public hearing on proposed amendments to Article 20 of the county zoning ordinance that would remove utility-scale solar facilities as a permitted use in any zoning district and change the special-exception-permit process.
The proposed amendment, initiated by a resolution adopted by the Mecklenburg County Board of Supervisors on 03/10/2025, would remove utility-scale solar from permitted uses. The planning commission explained applications for utility-scale solar submitted to the zoning office before 03/10/2025 would not be subject to the proposed amendment and would be allowed to proceed under the current ordinance provisions.
Public commenters included farmers, local agrivoltaics operators and representatives of clean-energy organizations who urged the commission not to remove utility-scale solar from the ordinance. Ryan Romack, who runs an agrivoltaic vegetation-management company and described hiring local labor and spending locally for equipment and supplies, said limiting solar would “suffocate local farm based businesses” and reduce economic benefits for rural communities. “This ordinance on solar development in Mecklenburg County would be a multimillion dollar mistake regarding our agricultural community,” Romack said.
Other commenters described broader energy needs. Laurie Huber urged the commission to “broaden our options” and warned Virginia imports electricity from out of state; she recommended against banning or capping solar. Blake Cox, a founder of a nonprofit called Energy Right, asked commissioners to continue evaluating projects “individually and on their merits” and warned that removing local solar opportunities might prompt state-level changes to local control.
Commissioners discussed procedural details, including whether approvals of comprehensive plans and special-exception permits already in process would be affected. A commissioner noted that if the change were limited to special-exception permits it could nullify progress on in-process applications, and suggested that approved comprehensive plans could allow affected applicants to continue. The transcript records a motion to approve “this application,” a second, and the chair announcing “motion carries.” The meeting transcript excerpt does not include a detailed roll-call tally or explicit wording of the final resolution in the portion provided.
Speakers urged careful local review rather than an outright ban. Several residents and the mayor of Chase City praised specific developers for community outreach and mitigation commitments, including conservation easements, setbacks from waterways and donations to local assistance programs. Commissioners and applicants discussed potential conditions such as conservation easements, revegetation plans, stormwater controls, and financial assurance for decommissioning.
The record in the provided transcript does not include the final written ordinance text or the minutes that would clarify the exact language acted on; commissioners advised interested parties to submit written comments to the zoning office.
