Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Zoning Amendments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Charlotte County hears concerns as it considers easing limits on utility-scale solar siting and density
Summary
Officials proposed amendments to allow the Board to approve utility-scale solar projects that exceed the current 3% density within a five‑mile radius and to permit projects closer than one mile to town boundaries when deemed appropriate. A resident flagged the Randolph Project and urged retaining the 3% limit or sending the change to the ballot.
Charlotte County officials presented two related proposed zoning-text amendments May 28, 2020, that would change how utility-scale solar energy systems are regulated in the county.
The first proposed change (Sec. 10‑23‑5, Density) would retain the default 3% cap on land area within any five‑mile radius approved for utility‑scale solar projects but would allow the Board of Supervisors to authorize a higher density as part of a Conditional Use Permit when the Board determines an exception is in the county’s best interest. The draft defines project area to include the entire fenced area and required landscaped buffer zone and authorizes the Board to establish the maximum density permitted for a specific project.
The second proposal (Sec. 10‑23‑4, Location) would keep a presumptive one‑mile minimum distance from an existing town boundary for Utility Scale Solar Energy Systems but allow the Board, as part of a Conditional Use Permit, to approve a project closer than one mile and to set the permitted distance from an existing town boundary when appropriate.
During public comment, citizen Stuart Topp expressed concern about the effect of relaxing the density limit on the county's natural character and property values. The transcript states Mr. Topp said the Randolph Project would increase density from 3% to 7% and questioned the project's design and its economic benefit to the county. He urged the Board to keep the 3% density limit in place or to consider placing the proposed change on the November general election ballot.
No additional public comment is recorded. The public comment period was closed and the joint hearing adjourned; the transcript does not record a Board vote on either amendment at that meeting.
