Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Solar topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Charlotte County Planning Commission defers Lavender Solar 2232 review over cemetery, boundary and historic concerns

Charlotte County Planning Commission · March 1, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Planning Commission voted Feb. 15 to defer the Lavender Solar 2232 review for up to 90 days, citing unresolved county-boundary questions, uncertainty about the project’s relationship to a cemetery and a need for a cultural resource study and property survey.

Andrew Carwile, chairman of the Charlotte County Planning Commission, presided over a Feb. 15 meeting at which the commission voted to defer consideration of the Lavender Solar 2232 review for up to 90 days under Va. Code § 15.2‑2232.

The motion to defer, made by Commissioner Patrick Andrews and seconded by Commissioner David Watkins, listed four reasons for the delay: unresolved questions about the county boundary relative to project parcels; uncertainty about the project’s relationship to a nearby cemetery and potential impacts; insufficient information about the cemetery’s historic and cultural value and the project’s effects on that resource; and newly raised information about potential structural remains on a project parcel that were not disclosed in the application materials. The motion carried with Commissioner Belinda Strom voting no and all other voting members present voting yes.

Linds Edwards of the Berkley Group, the commission’s third‑party reviewer, told commissioners that the applicant’s supplemental filing adequately addressed wetland and stream buffers but left outstanding issues. The Berkley Group recommended a deferral of up to 90 days so the applicant could complete a boundary survey and a cultural‑resource study to clarify the site’s relationship to the cemetery and to determine appropriate buffer distances.

During discussion, commissioners pressed whether the cultural‑resource study should be a desktop review or an on‑site survey. The Berkley Group said either approach was possible but emphasized that an on‑site survey by a qualified historic‑resource consultant would be necessary if there were questions about unmarked graves or the cemetery’s boundaries. Chairman Carwile also suggested consulting historic USDA and USGS maps to help resolve parcel and right‑of‑way questions.

Citizen Kathy Liston urged commissioners to defer action until a survey was available and said her personal recommendation was denial of the project. Daniel Dixon, a local landowner, told the commission there are three procedural pathways for a 2232 review and referred the commission to the county attorney for guidance.

Applicant representative Brennan McKone of Innovateus Energy, participating by Zoom, said Innovateus was completing a boundary survey and a cemetery delineation to establish buffers and to locate any graves that might lie outside recorded parcel lines.

The commission’s deferral directs staff to reschedule the application for the next available Planning Commission meeting once responsive information is submitted, but not later than 90 days from Feb. 15, 2024.