Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Solar Energy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board narrowly votes to refer CPV County Line Solar amendment back to Planning Commission (5-2)

Charlotte County Board of Supervisors · March 1, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Charlotte County Board found CPV County Line Solar’s amendment in compliance but, after debate over acreage and setbacks, voted 5-2 to send the application back to the Planning Commission for further consideration; Supervisors Davis and Carwile voted no.

The Charlotte County Board of Supervisors on Aug. 13, 2025 voted 5-2 to find CPV County Line Solar’s proposed amendment in compliance and to refer the application back to the Planning Commission for further consideration.

Vice-Chair Hazel Bowman Smith told the Board the amendment seeks to add about 91 acres to the County Line Solar project to address new Virginia Department of Environmental Quality requirements and to accommodate additional sediment-control ponds. She said roughly 30–36 acres were lost from the original application because of agreements on larger setbacks.

Supervisor Noah Davis asked whether two homes at the end of Jenkins Road would be affected; the Board was told the project includes a 400-foot buffer between the solar installation and each affected residence. Vice-Chair Smith also said the project became stronger after CPV briefly left and later re-entered the queue, accounting for some of the acreage changes.

After discussion, Vice-Chair Smith moved to find the project in compliance and refer the amendment back to the Planning Commission; Supervisor Derek Toombs seconded. The motion passed 5-2, with Supervisors Noah Davis and Henry Carwile voting no. The referral sends the amended application to the Planning Commission for review of site-specific details and conditions identified by staff and the Board.

The Board’s action does not itself approve construction; it signals the need for further Planning Commission consideration of the revised site plan and DEQ-driven changes.