Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Residents urge cautious approach as Charlotte County reviews solar projects; planning commission finds two projects compliant
Loading...
Summary
At a Dec. 11 meeting residents largely supported solar projects but asked for careful oversight and some urged a temporary cap; the Planning Commission found the Gibson Solar and Austin Goldman 5 Solar projects compliant with the Comprehensive Plan under §15.2-2232, a finding that drew at least one public dispute.
A wave of public comment at the Charlotte County Board of Supervisors’ Dec. 11 meeting favored solar development but asked for tighter local controls and careful review, while at least one resident disputed Planning Commission findings that two proposed projects comply with the county’s Comprehensive Plan.
Dozens of written comments and public speakers expressed support for solar projects and solar farming. Speakers and letter writers included Austin Goldman, George and Wanda Carrington, Alexis Owen, Ryan Romack, Bill Devin, Lane Gunn, J.A. Devin, Lisa Adams and others who urged the board to support solar development and declining to cap projects. Several speakers emphasized economic benefits and local energy development; others focused on managing environmental impacts and stormwater runoff.
During the public-comment period Daniel Bedford (representing Friends of Charlotte) discussed research on solar impacts, incentives and stormwater considerations. Larry Dorris asked the board to consider a temporary cap of 2.5% on solar until currently approved projects are fully operational. Frances Hodsoll criticized local “Stop the Solar Land Grab” signage as misleading and offered to discuss development concerns with residents.
Assistant County Administrator Monica Elder reported Planning Commission findings under Virginia Code §15.2-2232 that the Gibson Solar and Austin Goldman 5 Solar projects are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. At the Dec. 11 meeting, Daniel Dixon stated he believed those projects were not in compliance with §15.2-2232; the minutes record his objection but do not include a formal appeal or a board vote to overturn the commission’s finding.
No final approvals for the solar projects were recorded at the meeting; the board did set time for additional review of the Comprehensive Plan and agreed to revisit plan changes in January.
The transcript records a mix of support and concern from residents and letters read into the record; the board did not adopt a countywide cap on solar at this meeting.