Planning panel backs Randolph Solar’s 800‑MW proposal; vote includes abstention
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The Charlotte County Planning Commission voted Sept. 28 to find Randolph Solar’s proposed 800‑megawatt facility substantially in accord with the comprehensive plan and to forward that finding to the Board of Supervisors. The roll‑call vote recorded one abstention and one dissenting vote amid public concern over project size, wetlands, buffers and potential eminent‑domain risk for transmission.
The Charlotte County Planning Commission voted Sept. 28 to find Randolph Virginia Solar LLC’s proposed utility‑scale solar project substantially in accord with the county comprehensive plan and directed staff to forward the finding to the Board of Supervisors.
Francis Hodsoll, a SolUnesco representative, presented project details and said the application showed up to about 6,800 acres of potential development area but that the company "only anticipated developing approximately 5,000 acres to attain 800 megawatts of output." He described fenced equipment areas and an approximately 10‑acre switchyard; most sediment ponds would be sited outside fence lines to reduce secured acreage.
County reviewer Darren Coffey urged commissioners to seek more specific development metrics in the comprehensive plan and to expect a more defined concept plan prior to conditional‑use review. During discussion, commissioners debated whether the size and scale of Randolph matched comprehensive‑plan goals and whether additional permit conditions and mitigation could address local concerns.
Commissioner Cornell Goldman moved to find the Randolph 800‑MW project substantially in accord with the comprehensive plan; Kerwin Kunath seconded. On roll call, Cornell Goldman, Kerwin Kunath, David Watkins II, Gladys Reid, Eugene Wells, Clark Poindexter, James Benn, Andrew Carwile and Kenny Howard voted aye; W.V. Nichols abstained; Deborah Haskins voted no. The motion passed and the commission directed the secretary to convey the finding to the Board of Supervisors.
Public comment preceding the vote included both strong support—landowners and businesses citing tax revenues, jobs and landowner choice—and organized opposition raising concerns over comprehensive‑plan consistency, wetland and stream impacts, buffers, scenic vistas and the potential for Dominion or other utilities to exercise eminent domain to build transmission infrastructure. Rebecca Daly specifically expressed support for staff findings of non‑compliance for Randolph and raised the eminent‑domain concern.
The commission’s 2232 determination does not itself grant conditional‑use permits, and members and reviewers emphasized that many technical mitigation measures (buffers, wetlands protections, decommissioning assurances) would be handled in subsequent permitting steps if the project proceeds.