Charlotte County planners favor encouraging community solar, retain density guidance

CHARLOTTE COUNTY, Feb. 28, 2023 — The Charlotte County Planning Commission spent a work session reviewing questions from consultants about how to shape local solar policy and generally supported encouraging community-scale projects while preserving property rights and existing density controls.

Chairman Andrew Carwile opened the Feb. 28 work session and added a public comment period by consensus. Citizen Bill Devin urged commissioners to consider his solar option and warned that "new restrictions would prevent future solar development and result in the County's loss of associated revenues." Robbie Tate told the panel that current regulations were sufficient, and Citizen J.A. Devin urged the county to seize current demand for solar.

Todd Fortune of the Commonwealth Regional Council facilitated the discussion using policy questions provided by the Berkley Group. Commissioners said they favored encouraging community solar and, for the purpose of the session, described community projects as utility-scale installations of five megawatts or less. Commissioners recommended keeping the county's existing density requirements and retaining the current waiver that allows the Board of Supervisors to override density limits in particular cases.

Staff told commissioners that approved projects already exceed the maximum potential capacity identified in a 2018 Kimley-Horn solar capacity study by more than 20 percent and that planned infrastructure projects, including Dominion's Butler Farm Transmission Line, could materially increase transmission capacity in the future. County Administrator Daniel Witt recommended incorporating the current density regulation, including the waiver, into the comprehensive plan to provide guidance for future 2232 compliance reviews; several commissioners suggested reviewing the solar section of the comprehensive plan more frequently.

Commissioners discussed setbacks and buffers, with staff noting that some roads such as Highway 360 and identified growth corridors may be more suitable for commercial or industrial development and that additional setbacks along those corridors could preserve those options. Administrator Witt recommended plan language that would encourage appropriate setbacks and buffers to protect quality of life and visual character while allowing future commercial or industrial uses.

The panel also weighed whether to require minimum distances between facilities, to restrict development on forested lands, or to prohibit solar on prime agricultural soils. Several commissioners opposed distance-based spacing rules because of potential negative effects on smaller projects, and those speaking on the topics opposed policies that would limit development on forested or prime agricultural land, citing landowners' rights to determine uses of their property.

Staff cautioned that requiring projects be within a set distance of transmission lines might not support community-scale projects, since smaller installations typically connect to distribution lines rather than transmission lines. On incentives, commissioners recommended including a general statement encouraging multipurpose uses where feasible—such as agrivoltaics, shared solar, conservation easements, or public recreational benefits—without specifying or mandating particular incentives.

No motions or formal votes were taken during the work session. The Berkley Group will use the input collected at the session to draft a proposed solar policy for review at a future meeting.

The work session was adjourned.