Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board Hears Public Support and Staff Recommendation for 140‑MW Terra Solar Conditional‑use Permit
Summary
At a December public hearing, staff and the applicant presented a proposed 140‑megawatt Terra Solar project by Novi Energy for northern Charlotte County. Planning staff recommended approval with conditions; multiple speakers—landowners, local contractors and business groups—spoke in favor. No final board vote is recorded in the transcript.
The Charlotte County Board of Supervisors paused its regular meeting for a public hearing on a conditional‑use permit for a proposed 140‑megawatt utility‑scale project presented by Novi Energy and identified in staff materials as Terra/Taro/Tero Solar.
Curtis Rogers of the Berkeley Group, presenting the staff report, said the proposal covers 36 parcels totaling roughly 2,117 acres with a conceptual fenced footprint of about 889 acres (roughly 42 percent). Rogers said the Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions by a 7–3 vote and that staff’s recommendation mirrors that approval but includes three condition changes the board will consider. The application includes a request to exceed the county’s five‑mile density metric; staff noted Section 10‑23‑6 of the zoning ordinance authorizes the board to approve denser development when appropriate.
Novi Energy’s project engineer, Ethan Hess, described setbacks and mitigation measures designed to reduce visible and ecological impacts. He said the project meets or exceeds the Charlotte County Solar Ordinance minimums (75‑foot property setback, 125‑foot setback from county roads and a 400‑foot setback from residential dwellings), and that the project includes a 500‑foot setback from Taro/Terra Road. Hess said the team coordinated with the Southside Soil & Water Conservation District and VDOT on dam and entrance setbacks and that a 200‑foot buffer from dam reservoir elevations would be maintained.
Environmental consultant Chris Mason (Environmental Resources Management) said the project will pursue a Virginia DEQ construction stormwater permit, implement riparian buffers and other best management practices, and complete environmental surveys in 2026 including a Phase I environmental site assessment, wetland delineations and threatened and endangered species studies. Mason said an initial desktop assessment flagged potential presence of federal and state listed species (bats, some aquatic species and certain birds) and that no critical habitats were identified by IPaC.
Novi Energy founder and CEO Anand Gangadharan highlighted local economic participation and compensation packages: he said the county would receive $200,000 per year for five years beginning July 1, 2026; a $1,000,000 payment at the start of construction; and a $40,000 per‑megawatt payment at commercial operation (the applicant presented these figures as producing $5,600,000 associated with the commercial operation payments and a combined total of about $16,300,000 in county revenue across the identified fees and revenue share components). Gangadharan also said more than half of the participating landowners are minority landowners and estimated more than $30,000,000 in payments to landowners in phase one (figures provided by the applicant).
During the public comment period the board entered 15 letters of support into the record and heard comments from residents, landowners and business representatives—nearly all in favor. Sandra Towne, a founder of the South Central Virginia Business Alliance, told the board permitted solar projects will provide the county’s 2026 budget "over $3,400,000 — nearly 20% of the budget," and urged opponents to propose concrete alternatives. Lane Gunn, a contractor, described roughly $20,000,000 in revenue his company derived from solar work and said local contractors should be prioritized. Several adjacent and participating landowners said leasing offers a way to keep family land in the family and generate county revenue for schools, fire and rescue, and other services.
What was not in the transcript: there is no recorded final vote or board decision on the conditional‑use permit at this meeting. Staff and the applicant presented project plans, proposed conditions and mitigation commitments and the public record included multiple speakers and written letters supporting the application. The transcript shows the board will continue deliberation after receiving the staff report, applicant presentation, environmental and legal summaries, and public comment.
Next steps: the conditional‑use permit remains before the board for action; the transcript does not record a motion or vote to approve, deny, or defer the application during this session.
