Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Planning commission declines countywide solar-density cap, recommends annual review
Loading...
Summary
Commissioners discussed a proposed countywide solar-density cap Sept. 21. Three commissioners supported a cap; the majority opposed including a countywide cap and instead recommended adding a requirement for an annual review of solar policy.
The Charlotte County Planning Commission debated whether to include a countywide solar‑density cap in the comprehensive plan and, after discussion, recommended omitting a countywide cap while adding language calling for an annual review of solar policy.
In response to a recommendation from County Administrator Dan Witt at an earlier meeting, the Commission considered whether the comprehensive plan should set a maximum share of county land available for solar. Commissioner Cornell Goldman proposed a tiered approach using 5% of total land area as the baseline instead of 4%, reserving 3.5% for projects of 100 megawatts and above, 0.75% for projects greater than 5 MW but less than 100 MW, and 0.75% for projects of 5 MW or less.
Supervisor Hazel Bowman Smith questioned whether any cap was necessary and noted the Board of Supervisors had asked the Commission to review solar policy in its August 2022 resolution. Commissioners discussed whether the acreage calculation should use total land area or exclude areas where solar is prohibited; Chairman Andrew Carwile said he preferred using total land area for consistency so exclusions that change over time would not alter the baseline.
When CRC staff asked Commissioners to indicate support for a countywide cap, Commissioners James Benn, David Watkins Jr., and Miller Adams indicated they were in favor by show of hands; the other Commissioners present indicated they were not supportive. With a majority opposed, the Commission agreed to omit a countywide solar cap from the comprehensive plan and recommended adding explicit language requiring an annual review of the solar policy to evaluate whether limitations are necessary. Staff noted the plan already referenced periodic review but did not specify a timeline.
The Commission did not adopt an ordinance; the group recorded its recommendation for the draft plan language and asked CRC staff to include the annual review language in the next draft. The work session then adjourned.