Charlotte County hears mixed reaction to proposed 800‑MW Randolph Solar project; consultant recommends against approval

Chairman Gary D. Walker opened a special called meeting of the Charlotte County Board of Supervisors on June 1, 2022, for a public hearing on the Randolph Solar project, an application to site a large-scale solar facility in Charlotte County.

Francis Hodsoll, identified in the record as CEO of Solunesco, told the board the proposal envisions an 800‑megawatt solar farm with about 3,000 acres of equipment and 4,500 acres fenced. "Randolph Solar would be an 800‑megawatt solar farm with 3,000 acres of equipment and 4,500 acres fenced in," Hodsoll said. He also told supervisors the company expects to compensate landowners and that most land in the project boundary would remain without panels.

Adam Thompson of Dominion said Dominion intends to acquire the project from Solunesco and described company commitments on operations and safety: a plan for panel end‑of‑life handling (recycling or placement in specialized landfills), responsibility for roadway impacts during construction, regular meetings and training with local emergency services, and outreach events for local contractors. Thompson said Dominion would require a third party, funded by Dominion, to help with permitting and inspections and that company staff would work with fire departments on access plans.

Michael Zehner of The Berkeley Group presented the county staff report and recommended the board not approve the project. Zehner told the board that, in his review, the proposal does not comply with Charlotte County’s Comprehensive Plan, would not deliver permanent local jobs at the scale promised, and raises issues that would require additional county staff and oversight. Zehner offered written conditions the board could add if it chose to approve the project, including adjustments to acreage and density limits and an administrative extension for the conditional use permit (CUP).

The meeting included an extended public comment period. The clerk recorded individual speakers by name; public comments were mixed. The chairman later reported that mailed submissions included sixty‑seven in support and thirteen against the project. Among the in‑person comments recorded, multiple residents spoke in favor and several spoke in opposition.

Supervisors pressed company and consultant representatives on specific concerns. Supervisor Tony Reeves asked about fire risk, how emergency responders would access fenced areas, and who would manage forests; company representatives said those topics are addressed in proposed conditions and in planned coordination with local fire departments. Supervisor Hazel Bowman Smith questioned language reserving the option to place panels on lands under conservation easement; Hodsoll and Thompson pointed to a written condition stating no panels would be installed on conservation easements, a statement Zehner verified. Smith also asked about the size and placement of sediment and stormwater ponds; Shawn Lowe of Dominion said pond sizes vary by design and the company seeks to minimize footprint, acknowledging ponds could be inside fenced areas.

Supervisor Walter T. Bailey asked who would maintain fences and whether there is a public map of panel locations; Hodsoll said some flexibility is built into site plans and that Solunesco’s map is available on the company website, and that construction would limit disturbance to roughly 500 acres at a time. Supervisor Robert L. Shook Jr. asked why acreage figures had changed during the project’s development; Hodsoll said the plan had evolved and that roughly 6,000 acres would remain untouched while about 4,500 acres could be disturbed plus buffers. Supervisor Garland H. Hamlett Jr. asked Dominion’s attorney John Puvac about the potential impact of HB 206; Puvac said nothing pending this year would affect the project and Thompson said Dominion was not concerned. Board members also discussed decommissioning options; Thompson said options include out‑of‑state landfill facilities at present, and added there are not yet dedicated Virginia landfill options for panel disposal.

The Berkeley Group’s staff report included additional recommended conditions, such as raising acreage figures used in certain conditions, setting a density cap within a five‑mile radius, and authorizing a one‑time CUP extension under limited circumstances. The consultant’s central recommendation to the board was not to approve the project as presented because of conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan and concerns about long‑term staffing and oversight needs.

No final vote on the Randolph Solar siting agreement was taken at the June 1 meeting. County Administrator Daniel Witt advised the board that, to comply with advertising laws and to allow time for financial review, the board should hold a Special Called Meeting and suggested July 5 as the earliest feasible date; Witt also recommended a closed session with the county attorney, Solunesco and Dominion to review legal and financial matters. The board directed the administrator to schedule a public hearing on the siting agreement and a closed meeting. With no further business the board adjourned.

Numbers reported by project representatives drew questions from supervisors and consultants. For example, Hodsoll said the company would provide "$20 million up front with $5 million every year to total $600 million over 50 years." That arithmetic does not align with a simple multiplication (20 + 5×50 = $270 million); the statement is recorded as the company’s claim in the meeting record and was not reconciled during the session.

The board’s next procedural steps are to hold the Special Called Meeting and any closed‑door review recommended by the county attorney before taking any formal action on the Randolph Solar siting agreement.