Charlotte County planning panel finds Lavender Solar substantially in accord with comprehensive plan

The Charlotte County Planning Commission voted 6–4 on May 16, 2024 to find Lavender Solar LLC’s proposed 5‑megawatt photovoltaic facility substantially in accord with the Charlotte County Comprehensive Plan, and directed the commission secretary to communicate that finding to the Board of Supervisors.

The vote followed an updated third‑party review by Micheal Zehner of the Berkley Group, who reviewed the applicant’s Amendment 3 materials, including a new survey, maps and a cultural resources study. Zehner told commissioners that active project components “are not located or designed to be in such proximity to the cemetery to result in negative impacts to its use, value, or importance individually or to the County,” while recommending that conditional‑use permit conditions address buffers, protection and cemetery access.

Commissioners pressed staff and the developer on cumulative solar density and screening. Commissioner Belinda Strom asked about the origin of the county’s 3% density rule; staff replied the regulation was adopted after the Board rejected a distance requirement and later amended to give the Board waiver authority. Alexandria Walling of project developer Inovateous said the developer had not addressed density because other projects have already exceeded the threshold in the past.

Zehner’s report noted a rubble pile and ruins of a home on the project parcels that do not qualify the site for state or national historic registers. The Berkley Group found screening met local requirements but said fencing type, Department of Wildlife Resources fencing recommendations and buffer provisions should be considered during the conditional‑use permit review. The report also found solar density within a five‑mile radius exceeded 3% because of nearby projects (Tall Pines, CPV County Line, Charlotte Solar 1 & 2 and others) and stated the project’s specific economic benefits were unclear.

Mike Price moved to adopt Option 1 of the staff report, arguing the parcels are zoned General Agricultural, the location is more than six miles from the nearest town boundary, the facility would generate alternative clean energy and would require minimal county services. Kerwin Kunath seconded. On a roll call the motion passed 6–4: Mike Price, Kerwin Kunath, Patrick Andrews, W.V. Nichols, James Benn and Chairman Andrew Carwile voted yes; Miller Adams, Belinda Strom, Richard Vaughan and David Watkins, Jr. voted no.

Public comment submitted in writing and read at the meeting opposed the project: Joseph Moore and Delores Moore, both of Tower Road, said they moved to the area for “its beauty and untouched land” and opposed solar on Tower Loop Road; Copeland Casati listed objections including proximity to a Prince Edward County project, cemetery impacts and procedural concerns.

The commission did not make a final land‑use permit decision at the session; instead its finding of substantial accord will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for further review as part of the county’s 2232 review process.