Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Energy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Charlotte County planners require buffers for solar projects, debate countywide solar cap
Summary
At a Nov. 16 work session, the Charlotte County Planning Commission agreed to tighten solar-energy policy language to require buffers and screening for projects near residences and historic resources and discussed a proposed tiered cap on solar development; staff and CRC reported minor plan edits after an Oct. 19 public hearing and updated housing plumbing data was incorporated into the draft.
The Charlotte County Planning Commission on Nov. 16 agreed to strengthen proposed solar-energy policy language and discussed whether to include a countywide cap on solar development as part of its comprehensive plan update.
Chairman Andrew Carwile called the work session to order and asked Monica Elder, assistant county administrator, to outline why the county is revising its comprehensive plan and how solar development considerations will be incorporated. Elder provided a brief presentation on the update process and the role of solar in the plan.
Todd Fortune of the Commonwealth Regional Council reported that staff and the CRC "made some minor corrections and updates" in response to issues raised at the Oct. 19 public hearing and that an updated draft is now available on the county website. Fortune also said the 2021 American Community Survey five-year estimates "showed a decrease in the number of housing units in Charlotte County that are lacking indoor plumbing," and that the revised data was added to the draft.
Lauren Jones of the Commonwealth Regional Council reviewed recommendations in Chapter 5, Section D: Solar Energy, and asked commissioners whether permissive language should be changed to mandatory language. "By consensus, commissioners agreed to change Item D. Solar Energy, Recommendation #1 to read, 'Appropriate buffers and screening shall be incorporated to address project proximity to residences, historic and cultural resources,'" Jones reported. Commissioners did not direct additional edits to that section.
The commission then discussed whether the comprehensive plan should incorporate a solar-cap policy. Commissioners reviewed a County Administrator memorandum dated Aug. 17 that recommended a tiered approach: establish a cap based on the county's land area and allocate specific portions of available development acreage across three project-size categories. Commissioners debated whether a cap is necessary, whether a tiered structure is appropriate, and noted landowners' interest in pursuing additional solar projects. No formal motion or vote was recorded at the work session.
Commissioners also discussed the process for folding the agreed changes into the comprehensive plan text and the timeline for producing the next draft. The work session adjourned without further formal action.
The Planning Commission's staff and the Commonwealth Regional Council will incorporate the agreed language change and the minor edits from the Oct. 19 public hearing into the plan draft for future review.
