Charlotte County planning commission defers 2232 review of Courthouse Solar after residents raise environmental concerns

The Charlotte County Planning Commission on Aug. 25 voted to defer its 2232 review of the proposed Courthouse Solar utility-scale project after residents and commissioners raised environmental and visual-impact concerns.

The motion to defer was made by Commissioner David Watkins and seconded by Kenny Howard; the motion carried with George Sandridge and Commissioner Cornell Goldman voting no and the remaining members present voting yes. Staff had presented a summary of the 2232 materials, including a third-party review prepared by The Berkley Group, LLC.

Why it matters: A 2232 review is a local land-use review required under county procedure for certain utility-scale projects; staff told the commission there is a 60-day review requirement. Public commenters and written statements read into the record urged delay to allow further study of risks to wildlife, plants and the Roanoke Creek watershed and to give the public more time and information to evaluate the proposal.

Residents and commenters sought protections and more study. Staff read written comments from Robert Wood and Brenda Fenwick asking the county to "protect the County’s beauty and wildlife" by not approving the solar farm; Edward and Janet Early requested a delay for additional study of potential impacts on wildlife, plants and the Roanoke Creek watershed; P.K. Pettus asked that action be delayed until early 2021 to allow identification of negative impacts and potential mitigation and for the county to provide more information about solar development and the use of proffers.

At the meeting, citizen Stuart Topp said his group gathered signatures seeking a November referendum to let voters decide whether utility-scale solar should be allowed in the county but that a judge had declined to place the measure on the ballot; Topp also raised health and environmental concerns about solar panels. Commissioners and members of the public discussed the potential role of battery storage with solar and the siting of panels on agricultural land.

Commissioners requested additional materials and a site-review option. During discussion commissioners asked staff to provide larger-format DCR maps and indicated interest in visiting an operational facility with similar buffers and screening to evaluate visual mitigation measures. Francis Hodsoll of SolUnesco offered to provide information and examples of projects with comparable buffers and development guidelines.

Next steps: After further discussion Andrew Carwile moved — and Cornell Goldman seconded — that the commission take the 2232 up at its next scheduled meeting; that motion carried with all members present voting yes. The commission did not adopt any substantive conditions or approvals at the Aug. 25 meeting and will revisit the 2232 review at its next regular meeting.

The meeting also recorded several administrative items, including staff work on cemetery lot sizes and the scheduling of a special called meeting on Sept. 8 to consider two conditional-use permit applications.