Local group urges 1% cap on solar projects as Charlotte County reviews comprehensive plan
Loading...
Summary
At the Nov. 15 Charlotte County Board meeting, Friends of Charlotte urged a 1% countywide cap on utility-scale solar and other limits (25-acre max, two-mile separation, industrial-only storage), while the Planning Commission was reported to be recommending a solar cap in its comprehensive plan action.
At the Nov. 15 Charlotte County Board of Supervisors meeting, Daniel Dixon, speaking for the group Friends of Charlotte, asked the board to amend the county's Comprehensive Plan to prioritize agriculture, silviculture and historic preservation and to limit utility-scale solar development.
Dixon presented a suite of requests he said the group supported: restrict plan updates to those required by the Virginia Code with other changes placed in an appendix, require clear display of any edits, cap solar density at 1% of the county (allowing 1.565% to cover projects the county has already obligated itself to), limit future projects to 25 acres or less and at least two miles apart, allow energy storage only on industrially zoned parcels under Industrial Development Authority oversight, and rebalance the Planning Commission to ensure equal representation from all seven districts.
Supervisor Hazel Bowman Smith had told the board earlier in the meeting that the Planning Commission was expected to act that week on the Comprehensive Plan and would recommend a cap on solar projects. During public comment, PK Pettus raised concerns about erosion control, loss of trees, soil compaction and the unknown long-term disposal pathway for solar panels. Frances Hodsoll disputed rumors about pay disparities on a local project and presented financial figures he attributed to Randolph Solar's commitments, saying the company would pay $20 million to the county prior to operation and more than $300 million over the life of the project (figures presented by the speaker).
The comments did not produce an immediate change to county policy at the Nov. 15 meeting; the remarks were entered as public comment and into the record for board and staff consideration. The Planning Commission's forthcoming recommendation and any formal Comprehensive Plan amendments will be the next steps for officials to act on the issue.