Lunenburg supervisors delay decision on Red Brick Solar appeal after mixed public comment

Lunenburg County Board of Supervisors · March 1, 2026

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
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 Board of Supervisors delayed a decision on Red Brick Solar LLC’s appeal under Va. Code §15.2-2232 after presentations from the company, staff responses and competing public comments; the matter was continued to the June 10 meeting (six yes, one abstention).

The Lunenburg County Board of Supervisors on May 13 postponed a decision on an appeal by Red Brick Solar LLC after hearing presentations from the company, staff and residents both supporting and opposing the project.

County Attorney Frank Rennie told the board the appeal is limited to whether the Planning Commission’s finding — that the proposed solar facility and substation are not substantially in accord with the Lunenburg‑Kenbridge‑Victoria Joint Comprehensive Plan — should be overturned under Virginia Code §15.2‑2232. Attorney Jonathan Puvak, representing Red Brick Solar, and Francis Hodsell presented the company’s arguments for review; Administrator Tracy M. Gee read the county planning staff’s written response to points raised in the appeal.

Members of the public spoke on both sides. Supporters included Ray Martin, Bradley Foster and Makailah Lee, who expressed backing for the project’s goals; opponents including John Janson, Howard Henward and Judy Brothers raised concerns that the proposal conflicts with local planning goals and community interests. County Attorney Rennie told the board the volume of information presented warranted additional time for review.

After discussion, Supervisor Mike Bacon moved to delay a decision until the board’s June 10 meeting; the motion passed with six supervisors voting yes and Chairman Charles R. Slayton abstaining.

The board’s vote postpones a determination on plan consistency but does not decide the underlying conditional use permit application. The item will return to the board’s June meeting for further consideration.