Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Courthouse Solar topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Charlotte County planning commission advances Courthouse Solar 2232 review, schedules Oct. 27 public hearing

Charlotte County Planning Commission · March 1, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Charlotte County Planning Commission found the proposed Courthouse Solar project substantially in accord with the comprehensive plan during a Sept. 22 meeting, approved a 2232 review and set a conditional-use public hearing for Oct. 27 amid public safety and environmental concerns from nearby residents.

The Charlotte County Planning Commission on Sept. 22 approved a 2232 comprehensive-plan compliance finding for the proposed Courthouse Solar facility and scheduled a conditional-use public hearing for Oct. 27 at 7:00 p.m.

Chairman Deborah Haskins opened the meeting, and after public comment and a staff report the commission voted to find the developer’s 2232 submission substantially in accord with the county comprehensive plan. Kerwin Kunath moved to approve the 2232 review; George Sandridge seconded, and the motion carried with all members present voting yes.

The decision followed an extended public-comment period in which nearby residents and landowners gave mixed testimony. Lynn Royster, owner of the adjacent Shady Oaks mobile home park, told commissioners that “approximately fifteen children” walk Shady Oaks Road to catch the school bus and urged the commission to address construction traffic, staging visibility and provide additional buffer between the park and the project. Several letters read into the record raised concerns about impacts to Roanoke Creek, wetlands, wildlife and the town’s scenery; other letters and speakers, including landowners whose property is part of the project, framed the solar installation as an economic opportunity for farmers.

Denise Nelson of The Berkley Group, LLC presented the third-party 2232 review and outlined relevant comprehensive-plan citations and Department of Conservation and Recreation map findings. Commissioners debated site protections and conditions: Andrew Carwile recommended treating battery-storage facilities as a separate use in the zoning ordinance, requiring PJM queue numbers with applications, establishing rules for removal and storage of damaged panels, prohibiting panels in floodplains, and creating a 600-foot corridor along Roanoke Creek. Kay Pierantoni raised concerns about decommissioning guarantees and transportation impacts on secondary roads. Staff said the conditional-use process includes additional steps and that a preliminary third-party report would address next steps.

Commissioner Cornell Goldman moved to schedule the conditional-use public hearing for Oct. 27 at 7:00 p.m.; Andrew Carwile seconded and the motion carried with all members present voting yes.

Staff also presented information on the Virginia Department of Conservation’s Pollinator-Smart Program, which promotes native pollinator-friendly groundcover and includes a certification and compliance pathway for utility-scale solar sites. Developer representatives from NOVI Energy and Solunesco were present and said they would respond to questions as the review proceeds.

The meeting concluded after routine motions; the commission adjourned following a unanimous procedural vote.

Next steps: the county will proceed with the conditional-use permit process, including the public hearing on Oct. 27 and further staff and third-party review. The record contains requests from residents for additional buffering, traffic mitigation around Shady Oaks Road, clarifications on battery storage and runoff control, and specific conditions commissioners proposed that could be applied if the conditional use is approved.