Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sycamore Cross topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Surry supervisors deny Sycamore Cross conditional‑use permit after lengthy public hearing
Summary
After hours of testimony from Surry and Isle of Wight residents and an AES presentation, the board voted to deny the Sycamore Cross conditional‑use permit and the related siting agreement. Opponents cited noise, visual impact and construction impacts; AES emphasized screening, traffic controls and a $4.1 million county revenue projection.
The Surry County Board of Supervisors denied the conditional‑use permit (CUP) for the Sycamore Cross Solar project and separately voted to deny the proposed siting agreement following a lengthy public hearing featuring both opponents and supporters.
Greg Cresswell, senior development manager for AES, described Sycamore Cross as a broad project of about 240 megawatts in total, with approximately 19 megawatts on 125 fenced acres in Surry County. He presented project commitments including proposed buffers and screening, traffic‑management measures, third‑party erosion and sediment inspection, a proposed decommissioning surety and a community‑benefits proposal. "Sycamore Cross Solar will provide $4,100,000 in revenue to the county," Cresswell said, describing proposed up‑front payments, an emergency‑services contribution and a suggested community benefits fund.
Residents who spoke against the project raised a range of concerns. Tara Pascarosa, identifying herself as an energy industry participant, called the proposed 300‑foot setback and four‑row evergreen buffer "cost prohibitive" and argued the county's calculation method for the cap would effectively prevent future projects. Other residents described persistent noise and construction problems from a prior nearby project and asked for stronger enforcement and higher penalties to ensure contractors comply with mitigation plans.
Supervisor Pierce moved to deny the CUP; the motion carried on a roll‑call vote as recorded in the meeting: Supervisor Pierce voted yes; Supervisor Calhoun voted yes; Supervisor Hardy voted yes; the chair indicated a yes vote. The board then voted to deny the siting agreement. County attorney Perkins and staff clarified on the record that the CUP denial terminates the existing application and that AES would have to restart the process if it seeks approval again unless the board later reconsiders.
Why it matters: AES argued the project would bring fiscal benefits and community contributions, while opponents said prior construction and operational issues were not fully resolved and that the county needed stronger protections for neighboring residents. The denial leaves the current Sycamore Cross application closed unless AES reapplies or the board reconsiders its decision.
