Charlotte County planning commission defers recommendation on 800‑MW Randolph Solar project after public comment

The Charlotte County Planning Commission on April 19, 2022, voted to defer a recommendation on Randolph Virginia Solar LLC’s application for an 800‑megawatt conditional‑use permit, saying commissioners needed more information on site design, stormwater management and decommissioning guarantees before advising the Board of Supervisors.

SolUnesco president Francis Hodsoll led the applicant’s presentation and introduced legal and technical team members. The applicant described acreage, setbacks and proposed permit conditions and asserted the project’s scale was driven by connection to a 500 kV transmission line, which the team said made an 800 MW facility economically viable. Todd Flowers of Dominion Energy said the project represented an opportunity for jobs, tax revenue and additional local clean energy generation.

Michael Zehner of the Berkley Group, the county’s third‑party reviewer, told commissioners that the project’s proposed density exceeded the zoning ordinance’s 3% density standard but could be approved by the Board of Supervisors if conditions sufficiently mitigated impacts. Zehner also noted a new Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) stormwater requirement that applies to projects obtaining interconnection approval after 2024 and recommended deferral to secure further information about the development phase, construction ingress/egress, and clarifications to the concept plan.

Public testimony ran more than two dozen speakers and dozens of written submissions. Supporters such as Doug Garnett, Kaley Moon and others emphasized local economic benefits, job creation and opportunities for family farms. Opponents including Kathy Liston, Nancy Carol Tucker and members of Citizens for Responsible Solar urged delay or denial, citing concerns about panel disposal/recycling, long‑term monitoring, erosion and potential fire risk — several speakers referenced the Essex Solar facility fire as precedent.

Commissioners discussed several technical and policy points. They asked the applicant to provide an ALTA survey to confirm parcel boundaries and to clarify whether acreage or density was the controlling measurement. Staff and the applicant said acreage (which excludes buffers) gives a more accurate site size but noted that density limits in the ordinance remain the legal standard. Commissioners questioned the need for the project’s 800 MW scale; the applicant tied that sizing to the planned transmission connection.

On permit conditions, commissioners unanimously agreed by consensus to remove applicant language in Condition #24 that would have allowed an investment‑grade credit rating as an acceptable form of the decommissioning guarantee; staff warned that accepting that form could supersede the County’s existing requirements and leave the County to seek legal remedies to enforce decommissioning. The Commission also revised the applicant’s Condition #4 (which had allowed acreage increases of up to 20% without additional approvals). By consensus commissioners set a 10% allowance for acreage increases without further approval and required Board of Supervisors approval for increases above 10% up to a 25% ceiling. Commissioners asked that Condition #19 be amended to include a defined schedule for screening maintenance, and they directed staff to work with the applicant to clarify concept‑plan notes about conservation easements, cultural areas and excluded areas based on state input and field studies.

Commissioners also pressed the applicant about stormwater management. James Benn asked whether the applicant intended to purchase stormwater credits; Francis Hodsoll said there were no plans to purchase credits and that DEQ’s forthcoming stormwater determinations could require more forested buffers or larger sediment ponds.

After discussion, Commissioner David Watkins moved to defer issuance of a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors until the Planning Commission’s next regular meeting; Clark Poindexter seconded. The motion passed with one no vote (Commissioner Kerwin Kunath), one abstention due to conflict of interest (Commissioner W.V. Nichols), and the remaining members present voting yes. (Vote tally: yes 9, no 1, abstain 1.)

The meeting record notes that Commissioners also discussed costs for third‑party inspections and that administrator Dan Witt said inspection costs would be part of permitting fees rather than charged against the applicant’s siting‑agreement funds. With no further business, the commission adjourned.

The Planning Commission must submit its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors by May 13, 2022; the commission deferred in order to gather additional surveys, design detail, clarified permit language and responses to regulatory questions raised during public comment.