Charlotte County Planning Commission rejects CPV County Line Solar amendment

CHARLOTTE COUNTY — The Charlotte County Planning Commission voted July 24, 2025 to find a proposed amendment to the CPV County Line Solar conditional use permit not substantially in accord with the county’s comprehensive plan, effectively denying the developer’s request to expand fenced acreage for the project.

The action followed a public hearing in which Competitive Power Ventures representative Marlon dos Santos presented the company’s rationale for adding Parcel 9-A-31 (91 acres) owned by Blue Rock Resources, LLC, and described claimed economic benefits. Residents and community groups offered mixed testimony: some argued the project would bring jobs and local spending, while others warned of farmland loss, property-value declines and environmental risks.

“Solar development created heat islands causing health concerns and raising electricity costs,” said Delores “Dee” Neumann of Cullen during public comment. Sandra Towne, speaking for the South Central Virginia Business Alliance, countered that data show solar would provide “$25 Million - $50 Million to local workers and businesses.”

Opponents raised several technical and environmental concerns. Daniel Dixon of Friends of Charlotte said CPV was already using “more than 800 acres of prime farmland” and urged denial. Jonathan Trent-Carlson cited a Virginia Tech study he said showed a 5% reduction in adjacent home values and asked whether owners would be compensated. Jean Cox said she feared impacts to her organic vegetable farm and potential contamination from construction or operation.

Commissioners focused on regulatory and mapping questions. Deputy County Administrator Monica Elder summarized staff findings and options for both the county’s 2232 comprehensive plan compliance review and the conditional use permit amendment. Commissioner Belinda Strom asked why DEQ stormwater-management rules adopted in March 2022 were not addressed earlier in the project’s planning. Marlon dos Santos replied that projects holding PJM queue positions before December 2024 were initially not subject to the newer DEQ requirements; because CPV withdrew from its original queue position and must re-enter the queue, the project now falls under the updated regulations. The applicant also said that if CPV had kept its original queue position a $120 million bond associated with transmission-line upgrades would have been required.

The parties disputed how much additional fenced acreage the amendment would add. The staff report noted an increase of 36.9 fenced acres; the applicant said the concept plans, extra voluntary setbacks and survey corrections yielded an actual increase closer to about 50 acres and that the project’s fenced acreage would increase from 786.2 to 823.1 acres. “The amendment would increase fenced acreage to 823.1 acres,” the applicant told the Commission.

Commissioner Miller Adams questioned whether land used for solar can be fully restored to productive farmland, citing academic papers on reclamation costs and long-term impacts. Adams and others also raised topography concerns and whether the developer had adequately planned for stormwater and slope avoidance before the original application.

The Commission considered two motions. Curtis Morton moved to find the amendment substantially in accord with the comprehensive plan on grounds that the parcel was zoned General Agricultural, the acreage addition was limited, the location was more than six miles from the nearest town boundary, and minimal county services would be required; that motion failed on a roll call vote (Yes: Curtis Morton, Kerwin Kunath; No: David Watkins Jr., Miller Adams, Belinda Strom, Mike Price, Richard Vaughan, Chairman James Benn; Abstain: Andrew Carwile).

A second motion, by Commissioner Belinda Strom, stated the amendment was not substantially in accord because it did not preserve agriculture and forestry enterprises, did not ensure balanced county land use, did not create a significant number of permanent jobs, and presented impacts that could not be mitigated by reasonable conditions. That motion carried on a roll call vote (Yes: Belinda Strom, Miller Adams, David Watkins Jr., Mike Price, Richard Vaughan, Chairman James Benn; No: Kerwin Kunath, Curtis Morton; Abstain: Andrew Carwile).

Following the hearing, the Commission returned to regular business. The Board of Zoning Appeals advised notice was set for Aug. 5 on a variance request by Kevin Maher for a 1,500-square-foot accessory dwelling (the zoning limit in the General Agricultural district is 1,200 square feet); the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of that variance. Deputy Administrator Monica Elder also provided updates on approved solar projects and pending applications and introduced County Administrator Landon Green.

The Commission’s decision does not itself modify permits; it finds the amendment inconsistent with the county’s comprehensive plan, which is a required consideration in the 2232 consistency review. The applicant may pursue additional administrative or procedural steps, including re-queueing with PJM and addressing the DEQ stormwater requirements now applicable to the project.

— Reporting by the Charlotte County Planning Commission meeting on July 24, 2025. The commission is expected to forward its recommendation and the hearing record to applicable county review processes as required by local procedure.