Planning commission recommends amended solar setback and community-meeting rules after public hearing

Chairman Carwile opened a public hearing on proposed changes to Charlotte County's zoning ordinance relating to utility-scale solar on June 22, 2021, and commissioners voted to recommend the amended language to the Board of Supervisors.

The commission considered proposed edits to Section 10-23-6 (setbacks) and Section 10-23-17 (community meeting). The draft setback language included a 125-foot minimum from the center line of any state-maintained road abutting the property, a 75-foot minimum from other property lines (except internal project boundaries), and a 400-foot minimum from off-site residential structures unless the Board of Supervisors set different conditions through a Conditional Use Permit. The community-meeting requirement would obligate applicants, within 30 days of zoning-administrator completeness notice, to hold a public meeting with the planning commission and to notify adjacent owners and advertise the meeting seven to 14 days in advance.

Commissioner Kay Pierantoni raised a technical concern about using a road centerline to calculate front setbacks on divided four-lane roads such as Highway 360, recommending the county instead use the road right-of-way where practical. Citizen and landowner commenters were divided. Written comments from Edward and Janet Early asked officials to more fully evaluate citizen views and warned of potential loss of forestland, debris burning during clearing, soil and habitat impacts, effects on scenery and tourism, and construction-traffic safety.

Several property owners who would participate in the proposed Randolph Solar project urged approval. J.A. Devin said existing logging operations had not reduced property values and called the setbacks "adequate." Robbie Tate said the regulations were "sufficient" and predicted tax benefits for county landowners. Bill Devin said the setbacks were "reasonable" and that Randolph Solar could help fund schools and attract younger residents. Developer Francis Hodsoll, CEO of SolUnesco, said the company's database showed the proposed regulations were "equal to or greater than 70%" of ordinances in other jurisdictions and noted the Board could increase setback distances by condition.

Conservation concerns were raised by P.K. Pettus, who cited Nature Conservancy maps showing overlaps between potentially suitable solar acreage and conserved lands and asked, "How big is too big?" and "When is enough, enough?" Rodney Moon, whose road includes many nonparticipant homes, said adjacent landowners could bear impacts without receiving financial benefit.

After discussion, Commissioner Kerwin Kunath moved to recommend approval of the amendments; Kunath then moved an amendment to relocate the phrase allowing the Board to prescribe different setbacks via a Conditional Use Permit to the beginning of the setback provision for clarity. The amendment and the main motion carried with the commission voting to recommend the Board of Supervisors consider the amended setbacks and the community-meeting requirement.

Commissioner Kay Pierantoni said she would seek further legal advice about potential Conflict of Interest Act issues despite the County Attorney's opinion that the concerns did not require recusal.

The hearing drew both objections and support: several landowners and the project developer emphasized local economic and tax benefits, while others highlighted environmental and view-shed impacts. The planning commission's recommendation will go to the Board of Supervisors for final action.