Person County approves Piedmont Electric substation expansion with conditions
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The Person County Board approved a special-use permit allowing Piedmont Electric to expand an existing substation at 1037 Bowen Road, subject to county permits, an operation-and-maintenance agreement, and a stormwater easement for county inspection.
The Person County Board of County Commissioners voted Jan. 5 to approve a special-use permit allowing Piedmont Electric Membership Corporation to expand an existing electrical substation on an 8.25-acre parcel at 1037 Bowen Road.
Planning staff presented the application and site plan, noting a 20-foot undisturbed buffer to neighboring properties, a proposed pervious pavement stormwater control measure and a proposed stormwater easement to be granted to the county for inspection and maintenance. Staff recommended approval conditioned on the applicant securing all required county permits and executing an operation-and-maintenance agreement and easement prior to final approval.
A resident who said his property lies roughly 260 yards from the substation, Alex Tilly, asked the board to consider broader impacts from the transmission lines that will originate at the expanded substation and noted he believed notices did not cover the project's full transmission footprint. Piedmont Electric CEO Jordan Ervick told commissioners the transmission line "will be connected to the substation that does power other things in the area," and that the transmission work was not part of the special-use permit process.
The board found the application met the ordinance's required findings, moved to approve with staff-recommended conditions and approved the permit by voice vote. Conditions recorded in the staff presentation include: obtaining all required county permits before operation, providing an operation-and-maintenance agreement, granting a stormwater easement to the county for inspection and maintenance, and meeting erosion-control and stormwater requirements for the Falls watershed.
The hearing was conducted as a quasi-judicial proceeding; the county attorney advised the board that the applicant bears the burden of proof to present competent substantial evidence in the record. The board did not identify additional conditions beyond those recommended by staff. No appeal timeline or further procedural steps were stated during the meeting.