Planning commission recommends new setbacks for utility-scale solar after buffer debate

The Charlotte County Planning Commission voted March 23 to recommend a new set of setbacks for utility-scale solar projects, settling on a formula that differentiates road-facing edges, general property edges and residential structures.

The commission’s final recommendation calls for a 125-foot setback along public roads, a 75-foot setback for the rest of the property excluding residences, and a 400-foot setback from residential structures or 75 feet from the property line of residential structures, whichever is greater. The motion as amended also grants the Board of Supervisors the authority to increase or decrease setbacks as conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permits; commissioners voted to carry the amended motion with all members present voting yes.

Why it matters: commissioners framed the vote as an attempt to balance protection for neighboring landowners with the viability of solar projects on small parcels. Supporters said wider separations are necessary to protect homes and property values; opponents cautioned that overly large buffers or setbacks could make smaller projects infeasible. The commission also agreed to wait for technical guidance on vegetative screening from the Virginia Cooperative Extension before finalizing buffer species and density rules.

Discussion and votes: debate opened with staff presenting a comparison of other localities’ ordinances and a note from a SolUnesco review that only a few localities required buffers greater than 50 feet. Commissioner David Watkins argued a 150-foot setback was the minimum necessary to protect adjacent landowners; Commissioner Kerwin Kunath proposed the differentiated approach ultimately adopted. James Benn moved the amendment that added Board of Supervisors discretion for setbacks and staff clarification authority; that amended motion was seconded and carried unanimously by members present.

Public input and enforcement: earlier in the meeting a citizen’s written comments, read aloud by Board representative Kay Pierantoni, urged “careful consideration for the interests of small landowners when reviewing solar applications and recommended larger setbacks and thorough review of project entrance and central construction site locations.” A neighbor, P.K. Pettus, spoke in favor of a 150-foot setback and urged commissioners to visit the Twitty’s Creek Solar site to evaluate visual and neighborhood impacts. Staff explained that buffer requirements are enforced initially through site inspections and later in response to complaints; commissioners discussed the possibility of annual arborist inspections but did not adopt a specific inspection program.

Next steps: commissioners tabled further ordinance amendments until their next regular meeting and asked staff to incorporate forthcoming guidance from Jason Fisher, Senior District Extension Agent (Virginia Cooperative Extension), on species selection and screening density. The Planning Commission also directed staff to provide final clarifying language for the setback amendment before sending the recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.

The commission approved the agenda and minutes earlier in the session, scheduled a special called meeting after an April 12 joint public hearing on a local venue application, and then adjourned.