Fluvanna supervisors overrule planning commission, approve Tanaska expansion in 4–1 vote

The Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors voted 4–1 on Wednesday to overrule a January recommendation by the county planning commission and find that Expedition Generation Holdings LLC’s proposed second gas-fired generating station is substantially in accord with the county’s comprehensive plan. The decision allows the permit process to proceed toward a special-use permit and associated state and federal reviews.

Supporters and company lawyers told the board the plant would be sited on roughly a 50-acre industrial footprint within a larger 425-acre parcel and would bring roughly $250 million in taxes over 30 years while preserving about 350 acres in conservation easement. Preston Lloyd, an attorney for the applicant, said the project ‘‘exceeds’’ the county’s zoning criteria and that the company had agreed to extensive conditions to limit impacts.

Opponents argued that the project conflicts with the comprehensive plan’s goals to protect rural character and water resources and urged supervisors to respect the planning commission’s earlier 3–1 denial. Joseph Solomon of the Southern Environmental Law Center told the board the application “overwhelmingly conflicts with the comprehensive plan” and urged denial on legal grounds.

The board’s deliberations focused on the statutory phrase ‘‘substantial accord’’ under Virginia Code §15.2‑2232. Supervisors said they struggled with the tension between two recurring plan goals — preserving rural character and diversifying the tax base — and whether the proposed project’s limited physical footprint but significant revenue role met the statutory standard. One supervisor summarized that substantial accord must be real and ‘‘substantial, not partial,’’ while another cited the project’s small footprint and offered that the proposal did not have to meet every plan goal to be in substantial accord.

The applicant’s full presentation and an expert report from Dr. Benjamin Roberts of Benchmark Risk Group were part of the record. Roberts testified that the epidemiological claims in an opposing report were based on an unapproved dispersion model and that preliminary modeling showed incremental particulate impacts well below national health standards.

After extended public comment and nearly four hours of board discussion, a motion to overrule the planning commission passed 4–1, recorded in the transcript as ‘‘Motion made by Mr. Hodgej; second by Mr. Sharon,’’ with the chair recording one dissenting vote. The board’s vote does not itself authorize construction; state permits and a special-use permit remain required.

The matter will next proceed under the county’s review of special‑use permit conditions and the state permitting process. The applicant must still obtain air and water permits from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and approval of any federal requirements. The board also recorded a package of community benefit commitments the applicant offered during negotiations, which supervisors said they would use to protect local services and public safety while the regulatory reviews continue.