OFCH  IRGINIP  Charlotte County Planning Commission 250 LeGrande Avenue, Suite A Charlotte Court House, VA 23923 Thursday, September 19, 2024  7:30 PM  7:30 pm Regular Meeting Call to Order Invocation Approve Agenda  Consider Approval of. July Minutes  Recess for Joint Public Hearing - Zoning Amendment Application - Battery Energy Storage  Systems  Call Public Hearing to Order Staff Report Applicant Comments Public Comments  Commissioner Questions/Comments  Adjourn Public Hearing & Reconvene Regular Meeting Consider Battery Energy Storage Zoning Amendment Application  General Public Comment Period Board Request for Lot Size Review:  Minimum Lot Size for Family Subdivisions in the General Agricultural District  Minimum Lot Size in the Village Center District Minimum Lot Size in the General Residential District  Staff Report Commissioners' Time Adjourn    Charlotte County Planning Commission July 18, ,2024,7:00 pm Charlotte County Administration Office  Present: Miller. Adams Patrick Andrews James Benn Hazel Bowman Smith* W.V. Nichols Mike Price  Absent: Andrew Carwile Kerwin Kunath David Watkins, Jr. Eugene Wells  Belinda Strom Richard Vaughan  *Board ofSupervisors Alternate epreenluabe-onvating Staffin Attendance: Dan Witt, County Administrator  Monica Elder, Assistant County Administrator  Vice-Chairman Benn called the meeting to order, and Mike Price gave the invocation. Motion was made by Mike Price to approve the agenda as presented. Patrick. Andrews seconded the motion, and the motion carried with all members present voting yes. Patrick. Andrews made the motion to approve the) June meeting minutes as presented. Richard Vaughan seconded the motion; motion carried with all members present voting yes. Joint Public Hearing Quarter Horse. Solar Conditional Use Permit Amendment, Application Vice-Chairman Benn recessed the meeting and called to order a joint public hearing for Quarter Horse Solar, formerly known as Moody Creek, a 125-megawatt utility-scale solar facility located on property owned by Devin Logging Company, identified as Tax Parcels #81- A-141 thru 20, 87-A-1, and 87-A-14 on Route 47, Crafton's Gate Highway, immediately adjacent to the Charlotte/Meckenburg County line. Supervisor Hazel Bowman Smith called the Board's public hearing to order. Staff presented project details, criteria tol be considered, proposed conditions, and action options for both the 2232 comprehensive plan compliance review and the conditional use permit amendment. Staffthen reviewed a proposed change to Condition #5 designed to clarify the permit process for adding battery energy storage. Meaghan O'Brien, representative for Dominion, provided a presentation on the proposed amendment, addressing the permit expiration date, wildlife corridors, project setbacks and buffers, cemeteries, stream-crossings, entrances, stormwater management, and associated  economic benefits.  The following individuals then presented public comments:    Speaker Noah Toombs Red Oak Lane Gunn  Address Wylliesburg  Summary of Comments  Supports -Provides job opportunities and incentives for young people to stay in the county Supports Provides work forl local businesses and financial benefits to the county Requested addition of performance-based conditions to protect residents and agricultural/rural land Supports - Reduction in project: size; stated Dominion has met all conditions and he recognizes solar energy as an exported commodity with local financial benefits Supports - Landowners' rights; Financial opportunity is greater than that from farming; Will benefit the county and taxpayers and provides job opportunities Supports Solar is using smaller space due to improved technology; Jobs with local projects can lead to other Opposed - Has trust issues with Dominion related to panel disposal; Stated solar will be obsolete due to inefficiency and the focus will be on fossil fuels again.  Daniel Dixon Madisonville  Cornell Goldman  Cullen  Curtis Morton Randolph Cesar Navarro Waddell Lane  Halifax County for Kiewit Saxe  Project Manager opportunities for residents and businesses  George Toombs  Written comments were then read as follows:  Speaker Robert Robbie" Tate Jennifer Lacks  Address Red Oak Red Oak  Summary  Tune & Linda Devin Wylliesburg Support Opportunities for renewable energy,  environmental stewardship, and economic growth Supports Already approved as Moody Creek; Provides economic opportunities for local businesses and Supports Approved as Moody Creek; Promise of no adverse effects on the community; Economic opportunity for businesses and revenue for the County  revenue for the county  Belinda Strom inquired about amending Condition #7 to incorporate Department ofWildlife Resource's guidance on fence heights; Vice-Chairman Benn advised that amendments should With there being no further comment, Supervisor Smith adjourned the Board's hearing and Vice-Chairman Benn adjourned the Planning Commission publichearing and reconvened their  be procedurally handled during discussion on a motion/action.  regular meeting.  Quarter Horse Solar 2232 Review stated the following:  Patrick. Andrews made the motion to adopt Option 1 as provided in the staffr report, which    Imove that the proposed Quarter Horse Solar 125-magawatt solar energy generation facility as described in the conditional use permit amendment application, is substantially in accord with the Charlotte County Comprehensive Plan or parts thereof 1. The project parcels are zoned General Agricultural which may permit the 2. The location is more than 61 miles from the nearest town boundary. 3. The project components are notl located or designed to bei in such proximity to residences or historic, cultural, recreational, and environmentally sensitive areas and resources to result ini negative impacts to their use, value, or 4. The facility will require minimal county services to operate. 5. Thej proposed projectinvolves: a small part coft the total ag/forestry land in the The secretary oft the Planning Commission is directed to communicate the Planning  for the following reasons:  proposed use.  importance. County.  Commission's findings to the Board of Supervisors.  Mike Price seconded the motion and the motion carried 6-1 with ai roll call vote as follows: Patrick. Andrews-Yes; Mike Price-Yes; Miller Adams-No; Belinda Strom-Yes; Richard Vaughan-  Yes; W.V. Nichols-Yes; James Benn-Yes.  Quarter Horse Solar Conditional Use Permit. Amendment, Application Patrick Andrews made the motion to adopt Option 1 as provided in the staff report, incorporating staff's revised Condition #5, which states, "The project, as presented does not include battery energy. storage. systems; ifsuch. systems are allowed in the county, anyfuture proposed inclusion ofsuch system as part ofthis project shall require the Applicant to adhere to all permitting requirements for battery energy. storage: systems as provided in the Zoning  Ordinance." Option 1 stated the following:  Imove to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that Quarter Horse Solar's Conditional Use Permit Amendment for aj proposed 125-megawatt solar energy generation facility, as presented, be approved with conditions, to ensure consistency 1. While the proposed use now exceeds the maximum density allowed under Section 10-23-5 oft the County's Zoning Ordinance, the Board of Supervisors should authorize and increase in this instance, deeming such increase appropriate; and 2. The proposed use is consistent with the comprehensive plan, compatible with other existing, planned or proposed uses, and is not detrimental to the publicwelfare; 3. While thej proposed use impacts surrounding properties, proposed conditions  with the following findings:  and  mitigate such impacts.  Belinda Strom moved to amend the motion to include a revision to Condition #7, specifying fencing shall meet Department ofWildlife Resources guidance for fencing height at the time of    construction. Richard Vaughan seconded the motion to amend, and the motion to amend Mike Price seconded the main motion as amended, and the motion carried 6-1 with a roll call vote as follows: Patrick. Andrews-Yes; Mike Price-Yes; Miller Adams-No; Belinda Strom-Yes;  carried with all members present voting, yes.  Richard Vaughan-Yes; W.V. Nichols-Yes; James Benn-Yes. General Agriculture. District Lot. Size Reduction &. Setback Review  Vice-Chairman Benn recessed the meeting and called to order a public hearing on general agricultural district lot size & setback requirements. Staff provided a presentation addressing regional lot size requirements, mitigation actions used by adjacent localities, population density and population projections, input from local officials and the county attorney,a  comparison ofa allowable uses in the region, and alternative solutions. The following individuals then presented public comments:  Speaker Cornell Goldman George Toombs  Address Cullen Saxe  Summary  Supports Reduction No harm would result; Reduces cost for buyers and uses less agricultural land Stated county actions were. hypocritical, and people were notl being treated equally  Written comments were then read as follows:  Speaker James Bowman Kendall Whirley  Address Red Oak Red Oak  Summary tax revenue  Supports Reduction - Would increases building and Supports Reduction - Larger lot sizes require more money than some can afford Supports Reduction - Would make land more affordable; 3 acres is too large Supports Reduction Requirement doesn'tc compare tos surrounding counties; Would improve are not able to do SO currently Supports Reduction - Would provide new tax revenue; promotes growth; and would be competitive with surrounding counties allow elderly to downsize, would help retain allow elderly to downsize, would help retain  Samantha Richardson Randolph  Jackie Smith Thelma Bradley Bill Devin Linda Devin Tune Devin Jessica Clowdis  Red Oak  affordability  Wylliesburg Supports Reduction Elderly who want to downsize  Saxe  Wylliesburg Supports Reduction Bettera affordability, would Wylliesburg Supports Reduction - Better affordability, would Saxe/Drakes Supports Reduction - Would create population  population population more affordable  Branch  growth, increase tax revenue, and make building lots    Debbie Duffer  Saxe  Supports Reduction -) Larger lot size requirement affects her farmland. A reduction would make land more affordable, allow elderly to downsize, and  produce more tax revenue  Belinda Strom reiterated that one acre building lots can be more expensive than three acre building lots. She reviewed recently advertised land prices in Prince Edward County, stating the argument regarding affordability isn't viable. She also noted that while people stated lot size reductions will provide taxi revenue, costs to the county, such as school-related costs, also Mike Price suggested decreasing the lot size to two acres and adding a density restriction. He noted the new housing in Prince Edward County near the Charlotte County border was built bya a developer, and while developers would benefit from the smaller lot size, they may not Vice-Chairman Benn expressed concern regardingestablishing language for a density  need to be considered.  pass savings on to buyers.  requirement that was clear and effective.  Patrick. Andrews stated that existing lots less than three acres are buildable ifthey meet other requirements, and the county has a' 90% success rate on well/septic systems according to VDH. Hei noted the County previously had issues with two acre. lots and discussed increasing thel lot size to five acres before agreeing on the three-acre requirement, sO a reduction was not Supervisor Smith noted that while there were: more than 3,000 vacant lots under three acres, some are likely associated with adjacent developed property such as the acre ofland she owns Staffe explained that while the vacant lot figures were provided at the Planning Commission's request, obtaining a true figure is not possible because some included lots will be used in conjunction with other parcels as Supervisor Smith mentioned, and others are not buildable based on requirements. In addition, staff noted properties showing anyi improvement value were excluded even though that value may be associated with a shed or an existing  justified.  adjacent to her property, and these would not be available as buildable lots.  well/septic system and those lots may be buildable.  There being no further comment, the public hearing was adjourned and the regular meeting Patrick Andrews made the motion to refer the matter back to the Board of Supervisors with information reviewed, recommending no changes to the General Agriculture lot size and setbacks. Miller Adams seconded the motion, and the motion carried with all: members  reconvened.  present voting. yes.  General Public Comment Period  Citizen Kathy Liston stated Lavender Solar's boundary survey and maps are incorrect because the 2000 survey ignored deeds and established a boundary favorable to landowner Andrew    Elder, Jr., which was used in the new ALTA survey. Ms. Liston stated Mt. Lyle Church was not aware their property is needed for project access and the developer would have needed an easement from Mt. Lyle had they not signed a boundary line agreement. Ms. Liston discussed recent solar access easement payments, and stated the developer and landowner took George Toombs, citizen, stated the County had previously allowed a parcel in a solar project when the two owners did not agree on participating ini the project. He stated people are not being treated equally when it comes tol landowners' rights. He then stated het thought the meeting was a joint meeting and had come to ask for the resignation of Board of Supervisor  advantage of Mt. Lyle Church.  Chairman Gary Walker.  Lavender. Solar Conditional Use Permit  Darla Orr Odom with the Berkley Group, the county's third-party reviewer, presented an updated report on Lavender Solar, reviewing issues from the June meeting, recommended conditions, and final recommendations. She reported that Andrew Elder, Jr. and Mt. Lyle Church had recorded a boundary agreement, with neither one disputing. She then addressed access from Thomas Jefferson Highway, recommending a one-way traffic flow during construction and reviewing updated recommended conditions. Additional changes to the recommended conditions were presented, with the Berkley Group noting that while the applicant requested permission to install fencing that spanned the stream, staff was not Brennan McKone with Lavender Solar, LLC addressed the Commission, stating he had worked with Mt. Lyle Church and was committed to providing cemetery access. Mr. McKone requested consideration of Condition #12 and noted Mt. Lyle Church was satisfied with the 75' setback and 25' vegetation buffer for the cemetery. Mr. McKone also reviewed their proposed financial payment of $25,000 per megawatt in Condition #48, since the project is not eligible fora Belinda Strom made the motion to adopt Option 2 as presented in the Berkley Group  recommending changes to Condition #2 to allow the stream crossing.  siting agreement due to project size. Memorandum, which stated the following:  Imove to recommend to the Board of Supervisor's that Lavender Solar, LLC's Conditional Use Permit fora a proposed 5-megawatt solar energy generation facility, as presented, be denied; among other concerns, the Planning Commission find the 1. While the use is authorized in the district with a conditional use permit, the proposed use exceeds the maximum density allowed under Section 10-23-5 oft the County's Zoning Ordinance; an increase of density is not warranted, and will result in negative impacts to the surrounding area and the welfare oft the public; 2. The project does not ensure the optimal and balanced use of Charlotte County's 3. Based on the location and design, impacts of the proposed use on the Mt. Lyle  following:  land and natural resources; and  Cemetery cannot be appropriately mitigated.    Ms. Strom also noted the majority of citizens in the district where the projecti is proposed have voiced their concerns about solar and their input needs tol be considered. Richard Vaughan seconded the motion, and the motion carried 5-2 with a roll call vote as follows: Belinda Strom-Yes; Richard Vaughan-Yes; Patrick Andrews-Yes; W.V. Nichols-No; Mike Price-Yes; Miller. Adams-Yes; James Benn-No  Staff Report  Staff had provided a written report. Staff noted a revised zoning amendment application for battery energy storage was expected from East Point Energy and staff proposed restarting the 100-day review process due to the amendment. Staff stated East Point supported restarting thej process and a public hearing was tentatively scheduled for September. Staffthen reported revised site plans for Courthouse Solar were expected and reported the Board would hold hearings on the applications for Samuel Hostetlera and Tobias Hertzler on August 14th, The next Planning Commission meeting was scheduled for August15, 2024at7:30 p.m.  Commissioners Time  Adjourn  Mike Price made the motion to adjourn. Patrick. Andrews seconded the motion, and the motion  carried with all members present votingyes.    OF  Charlotte County, Virginia Planning Commission Report  IRGINIP  Meeting Date: September 19, 2024 Subject Title: Battery Energy Storage Systems  STAFF REPORT  Applicant: East Point Energy Request Details:  The applicant requests a zoning text amendment to add "Battery Energy Storage The applicant requests the use be permitted by-right ini the General Industrial and Intensive Agricultural Districts and permitted with a conditional use permit in the Additionally, the applicant has provided draft regulations including development  Systems" to the zoning ordinance as an allowable use.  General Agricultural District.  requirements and definitions for consideration.  General Information About Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS):  BESS are electrochemical devices that collect energy from the power grid, renewable sources, or a power plant and then discharge that energy when needed to provide While BESS are often paired with solar or other renewable energy sources, they can be used to store energy from traditional power generation facilities and may be placed BESS consists of banks of batteries that are usually housed in special storage containers with complex monitoring systems. As explained by Dominion representatives at the Commission's recent Dry Bridge BESS site visit, the 20-megawatt Dry Bridge facility The 20-megawatt Dry Bridge facility is currently the largest operational facility in Virginia. However, there are currently multiple applications in Virginia for projects in BESS projects ini the 50-to-100-megawatt range usually occupy between 5-10 acres of land, but size depends upon system layout, setback, and buffer requirements. Av variety of battery technologies are available, with lithium-ion batteries being the most  electricity or other grid services.  anywhere along the transmission line.  includes 109,000 batteries in 21 containers.  the 50-t0-125-megawatt range, and projects can be larger.  common currently used.  Parcel Information:  While zoning text amendment applications require parcel identification, it is important to note the proposed amendment is currently under review rather than a specific project. Ifthe amendment is approved, the applicant and others wishing to apply for the use could then submit detailed project applications forzoning/conditional use permit review.    Parcel: 91-A-12  Location: 168 Kennedy Rd, Chase City, VA, 23924 Applicable Zoning Ordinance References:  Owners: Garnett Gregory Neal & Carolyn Kennedy Neal (East Point Energy Acting as Agent) 286/0nngamendment. (Includes regulations for the application and review process.) $2-8-11. Uses not provided for. Only those uses specifically listed in each zoning district are permitted or permissible in that district. A person may submit an application to amend the zoning ordinance to add one or more uses to the use list, in accord with the  procedures set forth in Sec. 2-8-6. Applicable Comprehensive Plan References:  Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) are addressed in Item E, Section 5 Special Policy Areas, of the Charlotte County Comprehensive Plan. The section provides information regarding the Recommendation - The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. should evaluate the potential benefits and impacts associated with battery. storage and consider developing policies for battery energy storage facilities. Should the County choose to allow battery storage facilities, its should. set clear guidelines for facility development, maintenance, and decommissioning. In addition, an associated, policy should be incorporated into the County's comprehensive plan." " The General Agricultural District, General Industrial, and Intensive Agricultural Districts make up approximately 96.2% of total county land area with General Agricultural accounting for 96%, General Industrial accounting for .2%. No land is currently zoned as Intensive Agricultural. However, proximity to transmission lines is necessary for BESS and significantly reduces the land  use and growth of BESS and includes the following recommendation:  Properties Impacted:  area suitable for BESS projects. Application Timeline:  Deemed Complete by Staff: April 29, 2024 Board Referral to the Planning Commission: May 8, 2024  Introduced to the Planning Commission: May 16, 2024 (initial 100-day review process began) Revised Application Submitted: July 23, 2024 (100-day review period restarted) Deadline for Commission's Recommendation: October 31, 2024  Staff Analysis:  A. Benefits and Challenges  Staff recognizes there are both benefits and challenges associated with BESS as a land use. Both must be considered by the Commission and the Board of Supervisors when evaluating this application. Decision makers must assume multiple applications for BESS will be received if the use is allowed, and project sizes, sites, technology, and design will  differ substantially among projects.    Noted Benefits:  Economic benefits for project landowners Local revenue from siting agreements Cost savings for utility providers Improves resiliency of electrical grid Helps stabilize the grid during disruptions Supports state renewable energy goals  Noted Challenges:  Variation in Projects and Sites Limited Historical Data Available Associated Fire Risks  Variety of Technologies, / Potential for New Technologies Need for Experienced Developers, Installers, & Inspectors Need for On-going Monitoring & Maintenance Community Impacts and Concerns  Large Volume of Energy Related Projects Approved in Charlotte County  B. Land Use Considerations:  To evaluate land use considerations, staff reviewed a variety of reports on BESS as well as local zoning/BESS ordinances for several Virginia localities with detailed BESS regulations, including the Counties of Pittsylvania (draft), Sussex, Prince George, and Amelia. Other ordinances were examined as well; however, regulations tended to closely align with those of other localities that were reviewed. Key findings on specific a. Siting Requirements - Ifa adding BESS as an allowable use, Commissioners must identify appropriate districts for the use, whether the use: should be permitted by- right or with a conditional use permit, and if sites should be limited. None of the ordinances reviewed allowed utility-scale BESS as a by-right use in any zoning district. The use was primarily limited to agricultural and industrial districts. Sussex Countyalso including specific site criteria, allowing utility-scale BESS as either an accessory to utility-scale solar, energy generation facilities, or substations or asa b. Setbacks - Setback distances vary significantly among localities but tend to be 150' or less with slightly higher setbacks provided for off-site residential structures E Buffering and. Screening - To protect viewsheds and adjacent properties, buffering and screening must be considered. Buffer areas outside of the fence line that must be kept free of combustible materials are often required as al barrier in case ofa fire. A wide range of screening methods and combinations of methods are used  BESS land use considerations are as follows:  primary use on parcels adjacent to those uses.  (when addressed).  including walls, vegetative buffers, berms, and topography.    d. Fencing - Secure fencing is required due to the nature of the use. Fencing requirements tend to be similar to those used for solar. e. Noise - Noise requirements were not included in many of the ordinances, but a maximum threshold should be considered as with solar. f. Fire Risks - Fire risks are a key concern of battery energy storage systems that must be considered. Reports reviewed stress the importance of system design, installation, and monitoring as well as planning, training, and coordination with local fire personnel. While a "leti it burn" approach is often used when fires occur, hazardous gases, protection of adjacent properties, potential for explosion, and contaminated run-off from water used to contain the fire are of concern. Ordinances typically include numerous regulations associated with fire risks. Commonly used regulations included the following: applicable codes, required battery management system features (ventilation, cooling, alarms, monitoring, & suppression systems), fire detection and shutdown capabilities, inspections/testing, emergency access, signage, emergency plans, incident response plans, emergency personnel training and retraining, drainage for water runoff, and coordination with local fire personnel. Other regulations that were not commonly used in the ordinances reviews but that should be considered include the provision of emergency lighting, scheduled emergency drills, procedures for after-incident g. Decommissioning - Decommissioning regulations and financial surety are needed to ensure battery energy storage facilities are removed at the end oft their useful life. Decommissioning regulations for battery energy storage tend to be similar to those used for solar. One ordinance reviewed also required the provision of an emergency decommissioning plan in case of fire or other emergency, such as h. Installer Qualifications - With the rapid growth of the battery energy storage industry since 2020, the nature of the equipment involved, variety of technologies in use, and associated fire risks, the experience and expertise levels of developers and installers is a serious concern. Several localities require the provision of qualifications for installers and integrators as well as information on fires and other  cleanup, and access to a water source.  significant damage by a weather event.  hazards at facilities where they have worked.  Next Steps:  Ifthere is an interest in adding battery energy storage systems as an allowable use, staff needs direction regarding specific districts, permit requirements, regulatory While the applicant has provided draft regulations for consideration, staff is oft the opinion that developing regulations independently would be ini the county's best  preferences, and comprehensive plan guidelines.  interests if approval is being considered.    An amendment to the comprehensive plan should also be considered whether Ifregulations andoracomprehensive plan amendment are drafted, another public hearing is needed to provide for public input. With a recommendation due October 315t, there may not be sufficient time to accomplish this prior to the deadline. If necessary, the Planning Commission could provide an initial recommendation to the Board that incorporates the need to develop regulations and/ori the comprehensive plan amendment and then conduct a joint public hearing with the Board once draft  recommending approval or denial.  documents are available. Planning Commission Action:  The Planning Commission has the option to approve or deny the application or may defer action until a later meeting. When making a recommendation for approval or denial, reasons supporting that recommendation should be provided. Such reasons may include some oft the  benefits or challenges listed on the second page ofthis report.  StaffReview Record  Exhibits Application  Applicant's Recommended Regulations Applicant's Presentation    P EAST POINT ENERGY AN EQUINOR COMPANY  Charlotte County Board of Supervisors 250 LeGrande. Ave Charlotte Couse House, VA: 23923 County Supervisors,  East Point Energy ("East Point") is currently developing al battery energy storage project - "Camelot Energy Center" -a at 252 Camelot Ln, ini the Southeast portion of Charlotte County. Thep project will connect to existingt transmission lines thati intersect the parcel, is expected to bet thes size of only 20 acres, and will bes set offf from ther road, screened behind existing vegetation. These and other mitigation measures will bet takent to ensure our project aligns witht the county's comprehensive plan andt to ensure minimal toz zero viewshed impacts to surrounding properties. Additionally, our project will deliver many benefits tot the Charlotte County, including tens of millions of dollars of taxable infrastructure, transmission line and electricity. grid deferrals, electricity grid resilience during extreme weather events, East Pointi is a Charlottesvile-based energy storage project developer, owner, and operator. Wei focus ons standalone, front-of-the-meter. energy storage systems. Wel have ane extensive track record developing projects across the state of Virginia, including thet first stand-alone project in the state, as East Point's development process begins with community engagement ande ends with partnership. Our goal is to meet local needs while addressing resident concerns. Wel look forward to bringing our experience and resourcest to Charlotte County; through working with the supervisors, residents, and county staff, we are confident we can bring ap project to lifet that benefits the county and aligns with our Wel kindly request a meeting, presentation, and/or discussion with the Board of Supervisors to propose an ordinance adjustment to allowt for Battery Energy Storage use in Charlotte County.  and potentially lower electricityrates for residents.  well ast the largest-Dry Bridge Energy Center-l located in Chesterfield.  sharede energyf future.  Best Regards,  Hadlock Benjamin Project Developer bhadlock@eastpointenergy.com 434)326-0042  B  310 4th Street NE, 3rd Floor I Charlottesville, VA22902 (434) 465-6210 li moereastpohntenergycom eastpointenergy.com    MGINI  Charlotte County, Virginia  APPLICATION FOR ZONINGTEXT AMENDMENT  PO Box 608  Phone: 434-542-5117 Fax: 434-542-5248  Charlotte Court House, VA 23923  Application Date: 4/16/2024  Applicant Name: East Point Energy  Phone: 434-326-0042  Mailing Address: 310 4ths st NE, 3rd Floor, Charlottesville, VA 22902  Email Address: Dhadlock@eastpo.ntenergy.com  Application must be made by the Charlotte County. Planning Commission, the Charlotte County Board of Supervisors, or a Charlotte County Landowner, contract purchaser with the owner's written consent, or the Landowner Name: Garnett Gregory Neal & Carolyn Kennedy Neal Phone: 434-210-0936  owner's agent.  Mailing Address: 252 Camelot Ln, Chase City, VA, 23924  Property Location: 168 Kennedy Rd, Chase City, VA, 23924 Tax Map #:  91-A-12  Zoning Ordinance Section Proposed to be Amended (Sec. # and Title): We ask that Battery Energy Storage is an allowable use, permitted by-right in General Industrial and Intensive Agricultural District zoning, and permitted with a conditional use permit in General Agricutulral District zoning. Reasonable development requirements and Battery Energy Storage definitions  are attached to this application. Existing Text (ifapplicable): N/A  Proposed Revisions/Additions: (attach additional pages as necessary): Please see attached PDF    APPLICANT SIGNATURES  As the Applicant, Ihereby certify that this application is complete and accurate to thel best oft my knowledge, and I freely consent to its filing. Iauthorize Charlotte County officials and other authorized government agents on official business to enter the property as necessary toj process  this application. Signature: Printed Name: Signature: Printed Name:  B  Benjamin Hadlock Date:  4/16/2024 Date:  LANDOWNER SIGNATURES As the Owner  or Owner's Power of Attorney  Ihereby certify that this application  isc complete and accurate to thel best ofr my knowledge, and Ifreely consent to its filing. I authorize Charlotte County officials and other authorized government agents on official business  to enter thej property as necessary to process this application.  Signature: Cardlyn Kennedy Neak Printed Name: Carolyn Kennedy Neal Signature: GceitgreNak Printed Name: Garnett Gregory Neal  Date: 24/04/17 Date: 24/04/18 Date:  Signature: Printed Name:  *If there are more than three owners, please contact the County to request an additional  signature page. All owners must sign the application.    **As Recommended by Applicant - East Point Energy**  DRAFT-Chartotte County Battery Energy Storage Facility Ordinance  Section 10-24 Battery Energy Storage Facility  Energy Storage Facility: Energy storage equipment or technology that is capable of absorbing energy, storing such energy for a period of time, and redelivering energy after it  has been stored.  (A) Energy Storage, Utility Scale: One or more devices, assembled together, capable of storing energy in order to supply electrical energy at a future time, greater than (B)E Energy Storage, Site-Specific: One or more devices, assembled together, capable of storing energy in order to supply electrical energy at at future time, less than or equal to 600kWh in nameplate capacity. Storage devices are an accessory use located ont the property providing the energy generation source. This does not include energy storage facilities or devices associated with Solar Facility, Utility (C)Setbacks: AI Battery Energy Storage facility's battery enclosure shall be setbacka minimum of 501 ft. from all property lines and 1001 ft. from all neighboring and (D) Size Constraints: The total disturbed area (fenced area) of a project shall be no (E)Configuration: AlL Battery Energy Storage Facilities shall be configured sO that battery cells will bei interconnected to form modules, and modules into units that are placed in ar non-enterable enclosure with al Battery Management System ("BMS"). The BMS shall manage the cooling, ventilation, andi fire alarm and fire (F) Operation: Battery Energy Storage Facilities shall be constructed, maintained, and operated in accordance with applicable codes and standards, including but not limited to applicable fire, electrical, and building codes adopted by the County; National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 855, Standard for the Installation of Stationary Energy Storage Systems, 2023 Edition and subsequent additions; Underwriters Laboratories (UL) 9540A Ed. 4-2019, Standard for Test Method for Evaluating Thermal Runway Fire Propagation in Battery Energy Storage Systems and (G)Screening and/or landscaping shall be utilized to minimize the visual impact of (1)Allscreening: and landscaping should utilize species native to region. Dark-sky compatible lighting shall be utilized by the facility.  600kWh in nameplate capacity.  Scale.  existing inhabited residential structures.  larger than 30 acres.  monitoring systems.  subsequent editions. the facilities:    **As Recommended by Applicant t- East Point Energy**  Iffencing ist to be installed (instead of a wall), black powder coated fencing (1)Buffert the facility from the surrounding areas by siting toward thei interior (2) Take advantage of existingto topography, structures, and vegetationto (I)E Emergency. Access: Access to the property fori fire, rescue, and emergency  should be considered.  (H)Location: The siting of Battery Energy Storage Facilities should:  of the lot.  provide extra screening.  services shall meet International Fire Code Chapter 5.  (J)S Safety Operation Standards: detection builti in.  (1) Each Battery Management System shall have 24/7 automated fire (2) The Battery Management System shall monitor battery operations to keep them within manufacturer prescribed operating conditions. (3) Batteries shall be tested utilizing UL9540A before being installed int the (4) Battery installations shall follow the guidelines and standards of NFPA (5) There shall be a 20f ft. mowed or gravel buffer between vegetative screening and security fencing, constituting a "non-combustible zone." (6) Projects shall meet all DEQ stormwater contamination requirements. (K)Warning Signage: NFPA 855 signage requirements shall be utilized along signage with emergency contact information placed at the facility entrance. (L)Security Fencing: The facilities shall be enclosed by security fencingi including: (1)All security fencing shall be a minimum of 6ft. in height, and; (2) AlL security fencing shall be constructed sO as to substantially lessen the  Battery Energy Storage Facility.  855.  likelihood of entry by unauthorized individuals.  (MDecommissioning Plan: Site plan applications for Battery Energy Storage Facilities shall include a generic Decommissioning Plan to be implemented upon abandonment and/ori in conjunction with removal of the facility. All1 full Decommissioning Plans shall be reviewed by a County 3rd party paidi for byt the developer priort toi the issuance of al Building Permit and shall include the following:  (1)The anticipated life of the project;  (2)Ar narrative description of the activities to be accomplished, including who will perform that activity and at what point in time, for complete physical removal of all components of the battery energy storage facility; (3)Ap plan for emergency decommissioning in the case of al battery failure;  (4) An estimated deconstruction schedule;    **As Recommended by Applicant t- East Point Energy**  (5)Adescription of mediation procedures fort the release of hazardous materials or other emergency events during the decommissioning process; (6)Ar review of any soil contamination found on site as part of the project's due diligence, for example results from an Environmental Site Assessment (7) The estimated decommissioning cost in current dollars; and (8) The estimated cost of decommissioning shall be guaranteed by bond, letter of credit, company guarantee, or other security approved byt the  survey;  County, and:  () The necessary decommissioning agreement shall be actualized before any building permit isi issued to allow construction of the (ii)! Ifb bonded, the agreement shall prohibit the release of the bond without the written consent oft the County. The County shall consent tot the release of thel bond upon the owner's compliance with the approved Decommission Plan. The County may approve the partial release of the bond as portions of the approved Decommission Plan (ii) The dollar amount of the bond shall bet thei full amount of the (iv) Starting at year 10, the owner or occupant shall recalculate the estimated cost of decommissioning every 5 years and update the agreement. If the recalculated estimated cost of decommissioning exceeds the original estimated cost of decommissioning by 10% and ist bonded, then the owner or occupant shall deposit additional funds into the bond to meet the new cost estimate. If the recalculated estimated cost of decommissioning is less than 90% of the original estimated cost of decommissioning, then the County may approve reducing the amount of the bond to the recalculated estimate of ()Decommisioning: shall include removal of all battery energy storage system components, structures, equipment, security barriers, and transmission lines from the site. With the approval of the AHI, structures and improvements such as roads and concrete pads can be repurposed after (N) Emergency Plan: Site plan applications for battery energy storage facilities shall include a generic Emergency Plan that, at minimum, contains the points below. A full Emergency Plan will be required prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.  battery energy storage facility.  are performed.  estimated decommissioning cost.  decommissioning cost.  decommissioning.    **As Recommended by Applicant t- East Point Energy**  (1)F Procedures for safe shutdown, de-energizing, or solation of equipment and systems under emergency conditions to reduce the risk of fire, electric shock, release of hazardous materials, and personali injuries, and for safe (2)F Procedures fori inspection andi testing of associated alarms, interlocks, (3) Procedures tol bet followed in response to notifications from the Battery Energy Storage Management System, when provided, that could signify potentially dangerous conditions, including shutting down equipment, summoning service and repair personnel, and providing agreed upon notification to fire department personnel for potentially hazardous (4)E Emergency procedures to bet followed in case of fire, release of liquids or vapors, damage to critical moving parts, or other potentially dangerous conditions. Procedures cani include sounding the alarm, notifying thei fire department, evacuating personnel, deenergrangequpment, and controlling (5) Procedures and schedules for conducting drills of these procedures and for training local first responders ont the contents oft the plan and appropriate response procedures. This should include a yearly retraining of the  start-up following cessation of emergency conditions.  and controls.  conditions int the event of a system failure.  and extinguishing thet fire.  Emergency Plan.    9/13/2024  6 EAST POINT ENERGY AN EQUINDR COMPANY  Energy Storage Ordinance Update  Charlotte County  1  Table of Contents Whati is Energy Storage? Community Engagement Visuall Impact Environmental. Protection Fire Safety Overview Questions  - 2  1    9/13/2024  Whati is Grid-Scale. Storage? Rechargeable batteriest thats store energy from thee electric grida and dispatch when it'sr mostr needed Proven technology usedi inc cellp phones, laptops, and EVs "Swiss Army Knife" fort the electricity grid  3  Benefits  Local Economy Stabilizesthe Grid  Emissions Pollution  Peakl Reduction Demand Lower Energy  Costs  FastR Response Transmission/ Electrics Service Frequency Distribution Reliability Regulation System Deferral  Quietand Minimal Impactto Socials  A 4  2    9/13/2024  Storage VS. Solar Exponentially smaller land impact 10MW-1Acre Largest projecti in the USI has 50- acre: site footprint Significantly more economic benefit impact per acre  5  East Point's Community Engagement Process Held in- person meetings with concerned citizens Responded toc citizens who had questions overt thep phone Met with1 15+1 members oft the Charlotte County Volunteer Fire Department, provided and overview offi fire-safety best practices, and answered questions East Point updated the ordinance based on conversations witho community members and submitted changes to Charlotte County Staff  Result  6  3    9/13/2024  Reducing Visual Impact Proposeda 30- acre size constraint onp project footprint Increased setbacks toar minimum of 100ft from residential structures Addedi native: species, dark-sky compatible! lighting, andl black powder coated fencingr requirements  7  Protecting the Environment Addedap pre- development soil contamination due diligence requirement Required: a developer- funded 3rd party decommissioningi plan Required all projectsa adhere to DEQ stormwater contamination requirements  8  4    9/13/2024  Implementing Fire Safety Best Practices 24/7Monitoring Codes NFPA855 National Electrical Code 241 IFCInternationall Fire Code Local First Responder Partnership Proven &" Tested Technologies/Designs  9  Questions  10  5    Charlotte County, Virginia Planning Commission-Staff Report  IRGINI  Meeting Date: September 19, 2024  Subject: Minimum Lot Size Requirements for the Village Center District, General Residential  District, and Family Subdivisions int the General Agricultural District  Subject Highlights  Following discussion at their August 14th meeting regarding lot sizes, the Board of Supervisors recommended referral of several lot size requirements toi the Planning Commission for review. The Board unanimously adopted a resolution on September 11, 2024 (Attachment A), referring  the following issues to the Planning Commission:  1. Minimum Lot Size for Family Subdivisions in the General Agricultural District  2. Minimum Lot Size for the Village Center District 3. Minimum Lot Size for the General Residential District  1. Minimum Lot Size for Family Subdivisions in the General Agricultural District Supervisors Smith, Davis, and Bailey spoke int favor of establishing a lower minimum lot size for family subdivision lots ini thé General Agricultural District at the August 14th Board meeting. None of the Board spoke in opposition. The Planning Commission previously discussed this option when reviewing General Agricultural District lot sizes and the County Attorney has confirmed a family subdivision exception could be established through the Subdivision Ordinance $2-6-1 currently addresses family subdivisions and is provided as Attachment B. All other criteria ini the Family Subdivision regulations would continue to  subdivision ordinance.  apply to the proposed family lot size exception. 2. Minimum Lot Size for the Village Center District  At the August 14th Board meeting, Chairman Walker expressed concerns that the Village Center District's one-acre minimum lot size requirement was insufficient for lots lacking public utilities and could create issues for landowners when drain fields failed. He recommended the Board refer the issue to the Planning Commission. Current regulations  are provided in Attachment C.    3. Minimum Lot Size for the General Residential District  At the August 14th Board meeting, Chairman Walker and Supervisor Davis recommended the Board also refer the 1.5-acre minimum lot size for the General Residential District to the Commission for review in conjunction with family subdivision and Village Center lot sizes, recommending the Commission discuss establishing some consistency while taking into consideration the availability of public utilities to some General Residential parcels.  County General Residential Customers Currently Served by Town Utilities  Town Provider Charlotte Court House Drakes Branch Keysville Phenix  Water Only 3 5 18 16 42  Sewer Only N/A 0 1 N/A 1  Both Water & Sewer N/A 0 12 N/A 12  Totals  Planning Commission Review Timeline: Review begins September 19, 2024  The Commission has 100 days, or until December 28th, to provide a recommendation Staff is seeking input from the Commission regarding minimum lot size requirements Staff recommends considering setbacks and frontage requirements in conjunction with any recommended lot size changes to ensure a balanced and consistent approach Once staff receives direction from the Commission, staff will work with legal counsel to  Staff Recommendations/Next Steps:  prepare draft language for any proposed changes Apublic hearing is required prior to finalizing a recommendation  Staff Review Record Attachment A- Board Resolution  Attachment B -Current Family Subdivision Language  Attachment C-C Current Zoning Language for Village Center and General Residential Lot Sizes    ARESOLUTION REFERRING  LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR FAMILY SUBDIVISIONS, TOTHE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW  THE VILLAGE CENTER DISTRICT, AND THE GENERAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT  WHEREAS, at their August 14th Board meeting, the Charlotte County Board Supervisors expressed support for amending the Charlotte County Subdivision Ordinance to incorporate a smaller minimum lot size requirement for family subdivisions located in the General  Agricultural District; and  WHEREAS, at the same meeting, Board members expressed concerns that the Village Center District's current minimum lot size of one-acre is insufficient to support private well and septic systems if/when system failures occur and also recommended evaluation of the General Residential District's one-and-a-hal-acre minimum lot size requirement; and WHEREAS, Virginia Code 5 15.2-2253 and S 15.2-2285 require the governing body to refer proposed amendments to the planning commission for recommendation prior to amending the NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Charlotte County Board of Supervisors hereby refers minimum lot size requirements for family subdivisions in the General Agricultural District and minimum lot size requirements in the Village Center and General Residential Districts to BE ITF FURTHER RESOLVED that the Charlotte County Board of Supervisors recommends the Planning Commission consider establishing consistent lot sizes for these three potential amendments, taking the availability of public water and/or sewer to some General Residential  subdivision ordinance and zoning ordinance respectively;  the Planning Commission for review.  lots into consideration.  Adopted this 11th day of September, 2024.  BY: GANyD W-ke Gary Walker, Chairman Charlotte County Board of Supervisors  ATTEST:  B0Ader Daniel N. Witt, Clerk    ATTACHMENTB  Family Subdivision References Charlotte County Subdivision Ordinance  Sec. 2-6-1. Family divisions.  a. Asingle division of a lot or parcel for the purpose of sale or gift to a member of the "immediate family of the property owner". Only one (1)such division is to be allowed per family member, and shall not be for the purpose of circumventing this subsection. For the purposes oft this subsection a member oft the immediate family is defined as any person who isar natural or legally defined offspring, stepchild, spouse, grandchild, grandparent, sister or brother or parent oft the owner. Such a division shall be called a "family division". The applicant shall submit three (3) copies of said family division plat to the county for review and approval. Within 60 days of official submission, the plat shall be approved or disapproved by the subdivision agent. The applicant shall be responsible for recording the plat in the land records of the circuit court within six (6) months of approval or it will become invalid. The family division plat shall clearly show the following information: 1) Every plat which is intended for recording shall be prepared by a certified professional engineer or land surveyor, who shall endorse upon each such plat a certificate signed by him or her setting forth the source of title of the owner(s) of the land(s) involved in the family division and the place of record oft the last  instrument/s) in the chain of title;  2) Date of plat; 3) Scale; 4) North arrow; 5) Adjoining property owners;  6) Bearings and distances of all lines surveyed as part oft the family division;  7) Name and signature of owner(s) notarized; 8) Acreage of conveyed property;  9) The acreage and frontage width of the remainder or a statement certifying the surveyor's knowledge that the remainder of the property meets the minimum  acreage and frontage width requirements; 10) Tax map section and parcel number; 11) Plat clearly labeled FAMILY DIVISION by the surveyor; 12) Name(s) oft family member grantee; lot fronts on a state maintained road; 14) Signature block for county official;  13)Sufficient dedicated easement and right-of-way to meet VDOT: standards when a  15) All family subdivisions not fronting on a public road shall provide for the conveyance of a right-of-way atl least 20 feet in width.    ATTACHMENTB  b. Af family division is permitted for a sale or gift to a member oft the immediate family of the property owner, subject only to the expressrequirements contained int the Code of Virginia, 1) No previous transfer from the same source tract under this provision has been 2) The grantee is at least 18 years of age and able to hold title to real estate under 3) The property owner must place a restrictive covenant on the subdivided property that would prohibit the transfer of the property toanonmember of the immediate family for a period offive (5)years. Upon application, the subdivision agent may reduce or provide exceptions to thet five-year retention period when changed circumstancess 50 require, including but not limited to, foreclosure, death, judicial sale, condemnation, bankruptcy or permanent relocation by the owner out-of-state. Additionally, the subdivision agent may approve the transfer of property between eligible family members within the five-year retention period. Any such relief granted by the administrator shall be int the form of an instrument that the applicant shall record 4) All proposed plats for family subdivision shall include an affidavit which shall be signed by the grantor and grantee under oath and penalty of perjury that identifies the subdivision as being for the purposes of conveyance to a qualifying family member and identifies the receiving family members and their relationship to the 5) In the event the subdivision agent determines that ai family division has been used to circumvent the Subdivision Ordinance, he shall initiate the vacation of all or part of the plat or plats of the original lot or parcel to the extent necessary to correct the  and the following provisions:  granted to the grantee in the county;  Virginia law;  against the parcel in the land records of the circuit court; and  grantor.  violation.  The approved family subdivision plat shall be recorded in the land record of the circuit court  within six (6) months.  Sec. 4-5-7. Minimum widths. The minimum right-of-way width of proposed public streets, measured from  lot line to lot line, shall be 501 feet. For family subdivisions, all lots of less than five (5) acres shall have reasonable private right-of-way ofr not less than 10 feet or more than 20 feet providing ingress and egress to a dedicated recorded public street ort thoroughtare.  Sec. 5-1. Definitions  Family, immediate. Any person who is a natural or legally defined offspring, stepchild, spouse,  sibling, grandchild, grandparent, or parent of a property owner.  Family. subdivision. A single division of al lot or parcel of land for the purpose of sale or gift toa  member of the immediate family of the property owner.    ATTACHMENTC  Zoning District Lot Requirements - Charlotte County Zoning Ordinance  ARTICLE III. GENERAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT  Sec.3-1.  Intent.  The General Agricultural District is intended to provide for a wide range of uses compatible with the rural environment and the preservation of the agricultural economy, while prohibiting or limiting uses that might be objectionable or harmful to rural residents, and retaining the county's  natural assets and quality of life.  Sec.3-2.  Arear regulations.  The minimum lot area for permitted uses shall bet three acres.  Sec. 3-3.  Frontage regulations.  The minimum loti frontage shall be 2751 feet at the setback linet for lots fronting on an existing state road and 200f feeta att the setbackliner for lots fronting on ar newly constructed stater road. Forl lots noti fronting on a state road and served only by a private road, private driveway or access easement, nofrontage requirement shall apply, providedt that said lots shall not have a depth ofr moret thanthree  and one-half (3.5) times their width.  Sec.3-4.  Setback regulations.  All structures shall be at least 601 feeti from any State maintained road right-of-wayor 125feet or more from the center line of any State maintained road, whichever is greater. All structures shall be 75 feet or more from the centerline of any privately maintained road in an approved residential  subdivision. Sec. 3-5. 3-5-1.  Yard regulations.  Side. Ther minimum side yard for each principal structure shall be at least! 50feet, and  the total width of the twor required side yards shall be at least 100feet. Accessory structures shall be located at least 10 feet from the property line. AlL structures shall be at least 100 feet from the  boundary of any General Residential or Village Center zoning district.  3-5-2.  Rear. Each principal structure shall have a rear yard of at least 70 feet. Accessory  structures shall have a rear yard of at least 10feet.  Sec.3-6.  Heightregulations.  The maximum hesmotayonagreutunl structure shall note exceed 50feet.    ATTACHMENTC  ARTICLE IV. GENERAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT  Sec. 4-1.  Intent.  The General Residential District is intended to provide for flexible residential, public, and semipublic land uses while safeguarding against such uses as might be objectionable in a  residential neighborhood.  Sec. 4-2.  Area regulations.  The minimum lot area within the General Residential District shall be one and one-half (1.5) acres, subject to the ability to provide adequate well and septic to all dwelling units on the  lot. Sec. 4-3. 4-3-1. 4-3-2. 4-3-3. Sec. 4-4.  Setback regulations.  Front setback (minimum); 35 feet from any street right-of-way which is 50 feetor greater in width, or sixty (60) feet from the centerline of any street right-of-way  Side setback (minimum): ten (10) feet. Rearsetback (minimum): twenty-five (25)feet.  Frontage regulations.  The minimum lot width at the setback line shall be fifty (50) feet.  Sec. 4-5.  Height regulations.  Height (maximum): thirty-five (35) feet, and up to forty-five (45) feet by conditional use permit.  Sec. 4-6.  Permitted and conditional uses.  As set forth ini the Use Matrix in Article 9.    ATTACHMENTC  ARTICLE VI. VILLAGE CENTER DISTRICT  Sec. 6-1.  Intent.  The Village Center District is intended to encourage cluster development of residential, commercial, and public uses to create a sense of place and convenient access to community services and shopping, and to create a sense of community identity. Walkability, a mix of uses,  and street connectivity are all promoted within this zoning district.  Sec. 6-2.  Area regulations.  The minimum lot area within the Village Center Districts shall be one (1) acre.  Sec. 6-3. 6-3-1. 6-3-2. toaresidential use) 6-3-3. 6-3-4.  Setback regulations.  Frontsetback (minimum): twenty-five (25) feet  Side setback (minimum); ten (10) feet (25 feet minimum required when adjacent Rear setback (minimum): ten (10) feet (twenty-five (25) feet minimum required For areas with existing development, the minimum front setback may be  when adjacent to a residential use)  determined by taking an average of the front setbacks for existing primary structures within five hundred (500) feet of the property and on the same street at the time ofapplication submittalto  the County. Sec. 6-4.  Frontage regulations.  The minimum lot width at the setback line shall be fifty (50) feet.  Sec. 6-5.  Height regulations.  Height (maximum): 45 feet, and up to 65 feet allowed by conditional use permit.  Sec. 6-6.  Permitted and conditional uses.  As set forth in the Use Matrix in Article 9.    Charlotte County, Virginia Planning Commission Report  RGINI  Meeting Date: September 19, 2024  General Staff Report  1. Solar Update:  CPV County Line Solar- CPV's County Line Solar has filed an application with the State Corporation Commission for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for their solar generating facility, transmission lines, and associated facilities in Charlotte County. Thisi is  the next step in the development oft the project.  Charlotte Solar 1- Gibson Project- No updates for this project. Charlotte Solar 2-A Austin Goldman Project- No updates for this project. Tall Pines Solar No updates on this project. Tentative timeline remains as follows:  Project bid (Contractor): Q32024 Anticipated CPCN approval: Q2 2026 Start ofconstruction: Q3 2026 COD: Q4 2028  Lavender Solar - The Board voted to deny the CUP application for Lavender Solar on August 14th. The applicant had 30 days from August 14thto file a petition challenging the Board's Courthouse Solar- Staff has received the amended site plans for this project and Summit Engineering is reviewing the plans for compliance with the conditional use permit (CUP) conditions and best practices. The project should begin construction in either Q4 of2024 or Q1 Randolph Solar - Staff met with Dominion Energy on August 215t and received a status update on this project. Dominion plans to build the project in three phases. They continue to consider the 20,000+ acres under contract/control and are refining the project design to identify the Quarter Horse Solar (Previously Moody Creek) - The Boad unanimously approved the Quarter Horse Solar siting agreement and CUP amendment with recommended conditions at their August 14th meeting. The siting agreement and project approval letter have since been executed by all parties. The tentative development schedule is as follows:  decision.  of 2025.  best location for the panels.    Project bid Contractor):032025 Anticipated CPCN approval: Q2 2027 Start of Construction: Q3 2027 Commercial Operation Date: Q4 2029  2. Other Solar Project Applications  Staff have received multiple other inquiries regarding solar projects. While several new applications are expected in the next few months, no additional applications have been  received at this time. 3. Other CUP Applications  Tobias Hertzler's CUP for a retail store on Vincent Store Road and Samuel Hostetler's CUP for awood processing operation on Thomas Jefferson Highway were both unanimously approved  at the Board of Supervisors' August 14th meeting. 4. General Agricultural District Lot Sizes  The Planning Commission's recommendation on minimum lot sizes in the General Agricultural District and associated review materials were provided to the Board at their August 14th meeting. The Board shared feedback on other lot size concerns, which are included in the  packet.  5. Training Opportunities  VCU's Land Use Education Program has posted their 2025 Certified Planning Commissioner Training Program schedule. They will be offering sessions in Richmond and a virtual session as well. If you are interested in participating in this opportunity, please let staffknow. The  schedule is available at htps/euravcuedulenduseeducation)