Planning commission finds CPV County Line Solar project substantially in accord with Charlotte County comprehensive plan

CHARLOTTE COUNTY — The Charlotte County Planning Commission voted Sept. 21 to find that CPV County Line Solar LLC’s proposed 150-megawatt photovoltaic facility (CPV County Line Solar 2232) is substantially in accord with the Charlotte County Comprehensive Plan.

Vice-Chairman Cornell Goldman presided after Chairman Andrew Carwile recused himself because he had a recorded interest in the project. Eugene Wells moved the finding and Kerwin Kunath seconded. The motion carried, with Miller Adams and David Watkins voting no and the remaining commissioners voting yes.

The commission’s motion listed five reasons it considered the project substantially in accord: the parcels are zoned General Agricultural; the project site lies more than six miles from the nearest town boundary; the facility would produce alternative, clean energy; it would require minimal county services to operate; and the application avoids impacts to the county’s natural, historic and agricultural resources.

Third-party reviewer Michael Zehner of The Berkley Group presented a staff report on the application and summarized the comprehensive-plan citations relevant to the commission’s role. Staff said commissioners could defer their recommendation and request an extension from the Board of Supervisors to allow time for adoption of an updated comprehensive plan, but the commission concluded the pending plan revision would not materially change the commission’s findings.

Public comment at the meeting included both opposition and support. Resident Judyth Bernaldo told commissioners the project “is not in accord with the County’s Comprehensive Plan,” arguing the county’s stated focus on agriculture would be undermined and that the project would not preserve agricultural land. Dee Neumann, who said she lives about 200 yards from the proposed site, asked “who would benefit,” raised concerns about property values and potential harms, and urged commissioners to consider local impacts. By contrast, landowner Nancy Carwile described the challenges of farming and said solar offered an opportunity for her family’s farm.

Commissioners also debated density rules and whether the county should impose a cap on solar development. Several public commenters urged a cap; others and some commissioners said a cap could preclude economic opportunity while the timing of other projects remained uncertain. Earlier in the meeting, citizens had urged the commission to perform due diligence on solar projects and to weigh environmental and water-use impacts.

After the motion passed the commission moved on to other business. The record of the commission’s action will be part of the conditional use permit review process.