Mecklenburg planning commission denies Finney Wood solar proposal citing ecological and river‑corridor concerns
Loading...
Summary
The Mecklenburg County Planning Commission voted to deny a Dominion Energy proposal to site a roughly 98 MW photovoltaic project on about 997 acres, citing ecological cores and proximity to waterways identified in state natural‑land assessments and the Scenic River corridor.
The Mecklenburg County Planning Commission on Aug. 1 voted to deny an application for the Finney Wood utility‑scale solar project after a public hearing in which developers, local business advocates and multiple neighbors spoke.
The commission’s resolution, adopted after a staff‑prepared report and public comment, said portions of the project site lie in areas the Virginia Natural Landscape Assessment identifies as having “high and moderate ecological cores” and that parts of the property are within the Virginia natural land network. The resolution noted the site’s proximity to Finney Wood Creek and the South Meherrin River, which the commission said could be affected if contamination or sediment left the site.
Why it matters: The denial halts a project the developer said would add local generation to meet Dominion Energy’s growing peak demand and that the developer estimated would produce up to 98 MW (AC), generate county revenue and create construction contracts and wages for local businesses.
Dominion Energy representatives described the proposal as a 997‑acre site with a current limits‑of‑disturbance (LOD) of about 497 acres, interconnection to an existing 230 kV line, construction beginning in 2028 and commercial operation in 2030. A company spokesperson said the project would preserve more than 500 acres in current condition for 35 years, include wildlife corridors and 100‑foot wetland buffers, and comply with Virginia Department of Environmental Quality post‑construction stormwater standards.
“Finney Wood is essential to keeping the lights on,” a Dominion Energy representative said during the hearing, adding that solar is the “fastest and cheapest way to meet these needs.” The representative also described a series of mitigation proffers including a VDOT‑approved traffic management plan, limits on heavy truck deliveries during school bus times, quarterly road repair commitments, phased land disturbance with E&S controls and submission of a decommissioning and emergency response plan.
Developers offered an economic case: a presentation to the commission projected about $7.5 million in cumulative county revenue over the project’s operational life and $1 million in state and local tax revenue tied to construction activity, and said the project would support local vendor opportunities through the South Central Virginia Business Alliance and workforce development via the SHINE program at South Central Virginia Community College.
Local business allies urged approval. Sam LaTanne, representing the South Central Virginia Business Alliance, said the project “means real jobs, real contracts, and real opportunity for men and working families” and estimated about $30 million in contracts and wages tied to the site.
Neighbors and environmental groups opposed the project, citing past erosion, sediment and stormwater violations at other regional solar projects and expressing concern about visual impacts and river health. Judy Brothers, president of Friends of the Meherrin River Group, presented a petition with more than 100 signatures opposing the project and read an email from a neighbor that said, “We do not want it in our neighborhood.” Brandon Estes, a resident who referenced recent DEQ consent orders, said regulators’ past enforcement did not reassure him: “They’re just gonna continue paying the fines,” he said.
The commission’s resolution also cited a Virginia General Assembly designation that protects parts of the Meherrin River corridor under state scenic‑river provisions and referenced a Virginia Department of Conservation and Natural Resources assessment noting the site’s forested buffers and sense of remoteness.
Formal action and vote: A motion to deny the application on the staff‑prepared resolution passed 7–1 with one absence. Commission members recorded as voting yes were Watson, Wakeley, Webster, Harrington, Simmons, Rainey and Warren; Crocker voted no; Hayes was absent.
What’s next: The denial was an outcome of the planning commission; the applicant may pursue appeals or revise the proposal and resubmit. During the hearing, the developer said it was prepared to work on additional buffering and alternative screening measures if the county requested them.
