Charlotte County Planning Commission weighs limits and protections as it drafts solar policy

The Charlotte County Planning Commission convened a work session on February 2 to review solar policy options and take public comment as it prepares updates to the county’s comprehensive plan.

Chairman Andrew Carwile opened the meeting and disclosed he has a property interest in Charlotte County that is optioned to be included in a potential solar project; Commissioner Kerwin Kunath also disclosed an interest in a potential solar project. Michael Zehner and Lindsay Edwards of The Berkley Group presented an overview on solar development, environmental and economic considerations, current county policy, and a menu of questions for Commission guidance.

During public comment, citizen Austin Goldman urged the Commission to remove the county’s pause on solar development, asked that more minority and small landowners be included in projects and recommended "setting aside 500 to 1000 acres" for smaller‑scale development. Citizen Alex Van Kovn testified in opposition, citing concerns about land destruction, loss of habitat, lower local wages and reliance on out‑of‑town construction workers, as well as temperature and fire risks and cadmium in panels. Citizen Bill Devin said he supported solar for the tax revenue it can provide but cautioned that Charlotte County’s circumstances differ from counties cited in the consultants’ examples.

Lane Gunn, speaking for the South Central Virginia Business Alliance, urged minimizing regulations and said the alliance is working to encourage use of local contractors. Jeff Chang of Urban Grid, a solar developer, offered developer perspective, noting that "running generation‑tie lines is challenging" and that undergrounding lines can be technically possible but often not economically feasible, which can influence project siting.

The Berkley Group presented a list of specific policy questions for commissioners to consider, including whether to limit the maximum area or capacity of individual projects, whether to define and regulate community solar differently from utility‑scale solar, whether to set maximum countywide combined acreage for utility‑scale projects, whether minimum distances should be required between facilities, how close facilities may be to transmission lines and towns, and whether to prohibit development on prime agricultural soils or recently farmed land.

Commissioners who spoke said economics and available capacity will naturally limit some project size and overall countywide development. Several expressed concern that strict requirements to site projects near main transmission lines could disadvantage smaller projects that instead connect to three‑phase distribution lines. Commissioners also discussed fluctuations in timber and agricultural markets when weighing the tradeoffs between solar and traditional land uses. Several commissioners said they were interested in reserving acreage for community solar projects; no commissioner raised a request for specific new protections for historic sites, though Chairman Carwile suggested town water supplies might warrant consideration.

Citizen P.K. Pettus recommended the Commission review the solar mitigation report associated with HB206. Todd Fortune of the CRC spoke to the role of the comprehensive plan in guiding land‑use policy and regulations. County Administrator Dan Witt asked commissioners to determine "how much solar is enough" for the county.

The Berkley Group said it will provide meeting materials and draft policy language for consideration and the Commission scheduled a follow‑up work session. No formal motions or votes were taken at the session, which was then adjourned.