Residents urge board to pause NextEra’s Woodside substation review as commissioners affirm substantial accord

Dozens of residents from the Stonewall magisterial district told the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on Oct. 8 they oppose NextEra Energy Transmission's proposed Woodside transmission substation and asked the board to pause further action or extend review so neighbors can get more information and explore legal options.

The concerns centered on health, property values and local land‑use priorities. Speakers said the project would place transmission infrastructure and a substation within tens of feet of existing homes and would permanently change the rural landscape near Jolene Drive and Ridgeway Estates.

The discussion followed a recap from Supervisor Leroux that the Planning Commission, at its Oct. 1 meeting, voted 8–3 that the county review (2232 submission number 01‑25) was "in substantial accord" with the county comprehensive plan. Leroux told the board the site under review is a roughly 72‑acre parcel with about 35.6 acres expected to be disturbed and is located near Interstate 81 north of Winchester in the Stonewall district.

Why it matters: Residents said the substation would undermine long‑term plans for the county's west‑side gateway, threaten home equity and raise health questions about electromagnetic fields (EMFs). Planning staff and outside counsel told the board the legal standard before the board is whether the Planning Commission's finding of substantial accord should stand; the board may overrule the commission only by a majority vote and within uncertain statutory timing.

What residents told the board

- "This is the gateway to shutting my farm down," said David Dixon, identifying himself from the Stemwell district, describing farming impacts and asking the board to "extend the deadline for 60 days" so county counsel can determine whether a case can be made to block the project.

- "A 500‑kV transmission substation 40 feet from existing homes does not meet this criteria," said Tricia Giorzi, who said the Clearbrook area is zoned agricultural and residential and that the substation would degrade the welfare and property values of nearby homeowners.

- Several residents who live on Jolene Drive said the substation site would be within roughly 40–100 feet of back yards. "The proposed substation would be located less than 100 feet from my back door," said Shannon Robine; her husband Shane Robine told the board the site would sit "40 feet from my yard." Multiple speakers said the community was not notified directly by NextEra and that the project appears intended to serve regional transmission needs rather than local consumers.

Board and staff response

The board did not take a formal vote to overturn the Planning Commission. Instead members directed staff to take two steps: request that NextEra hold an informational meeting for nearby residents, and return legal guidance on the board's timeline and options for overruling the Planning Commission. Planning staff told the board private developers are not required by state law to notify adjoining property owners; the county sent statutory adjoiner notices for the Planning Commission hearing. Staff offered to ask NextEra for an informational meeting and to press the company for buffering and other site‑plan mitigation if the project proceeds to the engineered site‑plan stage.

County staff and outside counsel advised the board about timing and legal procedure. Staff noted the state code provision commonly referred to as "2232" governs substantial‑accord review; outside counsel suggested 30 days is a typical window used in similar land‑use contexts for taking action after a land‑use decision. The board asked county attorneys to confirm what timeline would apply here and whether a longer period (some residents requested 60 days) is permissible.

Process and next steps

Planning staff said that if NextEra proceeds, the next formal step would be an engineered site plan subject to county ordinances and review by multiple agencies, including VDOT, the fire marshal, health department and public works. Staff said those site‑plan reviews could take two to three months and that the county will apply buffering and setback requirements in the code; staff also said they do not plan to grant leniency on code setbacks unless NextEra provides buffering that exceeds the ordinance.

Multiple speakers asked for compensation or other relief if property values were demonstrably reduced by the project; a supervisor said that question would be a separate legal matter and advised against negotiations during the ongoing review because legal challenges could follow regardless of the board's position.

What the Planning Commission decided

Supervisor Leroux reported the Planning Commission found the 2232 submission in substantial accord with the comprehensive plan by an 8–3 vote on Oct. 1. That administrative finding — not a site‑plan approval — is the action the board can review.

Arguments and evidence cited by residents

Residents raised several points and numbers during public comment: that the facility could occupy roughly 30–36 acres as represented by speakers, that the parcel is shown in county materials as eligible for light industrial uses through 2035 but that a large transmission substation is not consistent with residents' expectations for agritourism or light industrial development, and that the proposed structures and towers would far exceed the current rural tree line and would be visually dominant.

Several speakers said they are prepared to pursue legal action if the board does not extend review or take other protective steps.

Closing note

Board members said they were listening to residents and that staff would follow up. The board did not overturn the Planning Commission's finding at the Oct. 8 meeting; staff will request an informational meeting from NextEra and will return to the board with legal guidance on the time window for potential board action and on procedural next steps if the project advances to site plan review.