Fluvanna residents press for independent reviews, stronger noise and monitoring rules during Tenaska SUP review

Fluvanna County officials heard extensive public comment and technical reviews on Jan. 7 as the board and planning commission continued work on draft special-use permit conditions for Tenaska—(ex. —Expedition—), a proposed large gas-fired power facility.

Residents urged the board to delay final action until independent county-selected technical review is complete and the planning commission has finished its record. An unnamed resident told the board it was "not a finished permit" and warned: "Slow down now or pay for it later for years and potentially for decades." Several other speakers asked for public forums, transparency about county contracts, and audits of county records.

County staff read an initial package of 38 draft conditions that would limit uses on the plant parcel, require a 300-foot vegetative buffer, set noise targets (an L90 of 60 dBA at property lines and 50 dBA at dwellings), require off-site conservation of roughly 350 acres, and create a $5 million "good neighbor" fund and community advisory board. The conditions also include inspection rights, a stack-height waiver framework tied to state air regulations, and contributions for public safety needs including a fire station, burn building and sheriff's office support.

Kate Jones, deputy director of community development at the Berkeley Group, told the boards her preliminary review found several items that merit revision for clarity and enforceability. "We recommend that the zoning administrator or their designee be the entity to request entry and enforce SUP conditions, rather than the board," Jones said, arguing that enforcement powers should align with statutory authority. She also urged adding pre-operation and follow-up independent acoustical testing, ASTM/ANSI measurement practices, and objective, time-defined measurement windows to avoid ambiguous compliance claims.

Outside counsel contracted by the county, Sands Anderson, flagged legal questions about treating cash payments and certain tax provisions as SUP conditions and noted that several of the items read more like proffers offered in a rezoning rather than enforceable SUP conditions. County counsel and staff discussed alternatives: (a) use of restrictive covenants or other real-property instruments to secure commitments, or (b) pursuing voluntary proffers concurrently with rezoning if the applicant is willing.

Planning commissioners and supervisors debated practical details of proposed mitigation and monitoring. County staff said the traffic study was in draft but expected to be finalized in the coming days and highlighted that the Ruritan Lake Road/Route 53 intersection would operate at an unacceptable level of service (LOS F) under projected traffic without improvements.

The board took no final vote on the SUP conditions at the meeting. It extended the session to continue deliberations and directed staff to incorporate consultant and legal feedback into revised conditions for future meetings. Next procedural steps include finalizing the traffic study and circulating updated condition language to the planning commission and board prior to a decision.

The public record for the matter now includes the staff'read draft conditions and written legal and planning reviews; the county has said it will provide updated materials before subsequent hearings.