Charlotte County denies Lavender Solar CUP after residents cite cemetery and density concerns

The Charlotte County Board of Supervisors voted 6–1 on Aug. 14 to deny a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the Lavender Solar project after an extended public hearing in which many residents objected to the proposal’s size, proximity to historic Mt. Lyle Cemetery and watershed impacts.

Assistant County Administrator Monica Elder summarized staff findings and site details. Developer representatives and consultants addressed the Board, describing site work, an interconnection agreement with Dominion, proposed sediment basins and a decommissioning plan that the developer said will be reviewed every five years. Ann Neil Cosby, legal counsel for the project, reviewed the standards of review, CUP criteria and zoning and comprehensive-plan considerations as they related to the Board’s consideration.

Multiple residents spoke during public comment. Opponents cited concerns that the project exceeds the county’s maximum density for solar facilities and said impacts to the Mt. Lyle Cemetery could not be adequately mitigated; supporters, including some landowners, expressed backing for the economic benefits. A petition and a map tracing existing and proposed solar projects in the area—previously submitted to the Planning Commission—were resubmitted for the Board’s consideration.

The Planning Commission had recommended denial at its July meeting, citing three principal reasons: (1) the proposed use exceeded the maximum density allowed under Section 10-23-5 of the County Zoning Ordinance, (2) the project did not ensure an optimal and balanced use of Charlotte County’s land and natural resources, and (3) based on the proposed location and design, impacts on Mt. Lyle Cemetery could not be appropriately mitigated. Supervisor Henry Carwile moved to deny the CUP based on the Planning Commission recommendation; Supervisor Hazel Bowman Smith voted against denial and made a substitute motion to approve that received no second. The denial motion carried 6–1.

Board members who supported denial referenced the ordinance’s density limits and local concerns about cemeteries and water runoff; supporters of the project emphasized planned erosion controls and community benefits the developer described. The transcript shows developer representatives saying they had agreed to decommissioning plans and proposing sediment basins to reduce erosion, but did not include verbatim quotes from those presentations.

The denial leaves the Lavender Solar CUP application closed without approval; no county-level permit was granted and the Planning Commission’s recommendation to deny was effectively upheld by the Board.

What’s next: The denial means the applicant may revise the proposal or pursue other options consistent with county zoning and state law. The Board record notes the Planning Commission’s findings and the Board’s vote; the county will follow its permitting and appeal processes for any further action.