Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utility Scale Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission asks Board to consider case-by-case relief for solar setback and density limits
Summary
After developers raised two potential projects, the Commission unanimously asked the Board of Supervisors to hold joint hearings on whether to allow case-by-case exceptions to the county's one-mile town setback and the 3% density cap for utility-scale solar.
The Charlotte County Planning Commission on April 28 requested joint public hearings with the Board of Supervisors to consider amending two parts of the county zoning ordinance that now limit utility‑scale solar: a one‑mile setback from town boundaries and a 3% density cap within any five‑mile radius.
Assistant County Administrator Monica Elder told commissioners the Board had asked the Commission to consider changing Section 10‑23‑4, which currently prohibits locating utility‑scale solar within one mile of a town boundary. Staff said NOVI Energy had discussed a potential project located approximately 0.59 miles from the Town of Charlotte Court House. County Attorney Russell Slayton advised that a variance would probably not provide the relief the applicant sought and recommended considering a zoning amendment instead. Board representative Kay Pierantoni said giving the Board discretion to consider a project's proximity to a town on a case‑by‑case basis would allow economic impacts to be weighed.
Separately, Ms. Elder reviewed Section 10‑23‑5, which limits utility‑scale solar to 3% density within any five‑mile radius. Staff told the Commission SolUnesco had discussed a Randolph Project that would amount to roughly 7% density. Staff again indicated a variance was unlikely to provide relief. Francis Hodsoll of SolUnesco briefly addressed the project size; Commissioner Clark Poindexter asked about financial benefits and County Administrator Dan Witt reviewed recent legislation concerning utility‑scale solar financial impacts.
Commissioners approved two motions asking the Board of Supervisors to hold joint public hearings: one to consider allowing the Board discretion on setbacks for projects within one mile of town boundaries, and one to retain a 3% baseline density while allowing the Board to consider higher density on a case‑by‑case basis. Both motions carried with all members present voting yes. Staff indicated no formal application for either project had been submitted at the time of the meeting.
Next steps: the Commission will forward its requests to the Board of Supervisors and the Board will set hearing dates to consider any ordinance amendments.
