Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Solar Energy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning commission hears AES presentation on Sycamore Cross solar project

Surry County Planning Commission · November 25, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

AES presented the Sycamore Cross conditional use permit proposing roughly 19 MW in Surry County on about 125 fenced acres as part of a 240 MW project; AES said the project would generate $4.1 million in county revenue and include community benefits and mitigation measures.

AES Senior Development Manager Greg Cresswell told the Surry County Planning Commission that Sycamore Cross is part of a 240-megawatt solar facility and that the portion proposed in Surry County represents about 19 megawatts on roughly 125 fenced acres of an approximately 806-acre footprint.

"Sycamore Cross is a 240 megawatt solar facility. It's located in Surry County and Isle Of Wight. Within Surry, the project is approximately 19 megawatts on 125 fenced acres," Cresswell said. He described three array focus areas along Mill Swamp Road, Mullet Drive and Beachland Road, and said the arrays would use existing vegetation for screening.

Cresswell outlined proposed financial benefits to the county: an upfront siting-payment package totaling $1,600,000, voluntary annual payments that would add roughly $1,200,000 over the project's life, and the required machinery and tools and real-estate tax revenue, which together AES estimated would total $4,100,000 to Surry County.

On mitigation, AES proposed a community benefits fund administered by the county, a construction traffic management plan with a centralized staging area and escorted heavy-haul routes, a site liaison, reduced construction hours (including no Sunday work), soil and water testing, vegetation screening and rotational sheep grazing to maintain agricultural character.

The commission did not vote on the CUP at this meeting; commissioners instead sought additional details and planned site visits before making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.