Board denies Sycamore Cross conditional use permit after hours of testimony

The Surry County Board of Supervisors voted to deny a conditional use permit (CUP) for Sycamore Cross Solar, the Surry-portion of a larger 240-megawatt project proposed and developed by AES. The Surry portion of the project was described by the applicant as approximately 19 megawatts on roughly 125 fenced acres.

Greg Cresswell, senior development manager for AES, told the board the project would be owner-operated and provided what he described as community benefits and mitigation measures: an upfront site-payment package and voluntary annual payments the company summarized as totaling about $4.1 million in revenue, a proposed $250,000 community benefits fund, a $150,000 emergency services payment, decommissioning surety with a minimum $500,000 bond and a six-month decommissioning window.

Cresswell also detailed proposed mitigation including natural-vegetation screening, reduced construction hours, a construction traffic management plan with third-party enforcement, and a plan to use rotational sheep grazing inside arrays to maintain ground cover. "Sycamore Cross will provide $4,100,000 in revenue to the county," Cresswell said during his presentation.

Opponents focused on noise from inverters, traffic during construction, potential stormwater and groundwater impacts, setbacks and view-shed concerns. Several residents said existing projects had created ongoing problems and urged the board to deny the permit or require stronger, enforceable conditions. "Consider the horrible conditions that the citizens had to bear during construction of the Cavalier project," one speaker told supervisors.

During debate, board members raised questions about construction traffic, enforceability of conditions and whether penalties and road repairs proposed by the applicant would be completed as promised. After discussion, a motion to deny the CUP carried on roll call with recorded affirmative votes from the supervisors whose names were captured in the transcript.

County staff and AES attorneys noted that a denial ends this application in the county: to pursue the project further the applicant would need to restart the permitting process or the board would have to recess to reconsider. County legal counsel told the board that a motion to reconsider would need to be made by a member who voted in favor of the prevailing motion.

Project details presented to the board included a minimum inverter setback of 500 feet and a 750-foot setback from residential structures that AES proposed for this development; the developer said buffers in the Surry portion would exceed the standards in the county's 2018 ordinance.

Public testimony included both landowners who said lease payments were vital to preserving family farms and neighbors who described long-term nuisance and construction impacts from prior projects. The planning commission had recommended approval of the CUP by a 5-4 vote.

The board's denial of the CUP was a formal outcome recorded during the meeting. Staff clarified that the associated siting agreement and any negotiated conditions would be inconsistent with the denial and would not move forward absent reconsideration or a new application by the applicant.

The motion to deny was carried on roll call with recorded 'yes' votes from the supervisors named in the transcript; subsequent efforts to move for reconsideration failed for lack of a second. The denial effectively halts this specific permit application in Surry County unless the board later reopens the matter or the applicant resubmits.