At least one Isle of Wight supervisor says he isn’t sold on approving what would be the county’s 10th and largest solar farm, though the five-member board postponed voting on the project.
Sycamore Cross Solar LLC, named for its proposed Sycamore Cross Drive location 12 miles west of Smithfield at the westernmost edge of the Isle of Wight-Surry county line, would occupy more than 2,000 acres across both counties.
Sycamore Cross A, which would span 14 parcels totaling 1,795 acres on Mill Swamp Road, would generate 214 megawatts. Sycamore Cross B, which would span two parcels totaling 240 acres, would generate an additional 6 megawatts and tie into an existing substation serving the 2021-approved Cavalier solar farm 2½ miles away, both of which share the same developer, Arlington-based AES Corp. Surry’s 125-acre share of the Sycamore Cross project would generate an additional 19 megawatts, for a total of 240.
Isle of Wight County’s Planning Commission, in May, recommended denial of AES’ requested conditional use permit on a 6-2 vote, though the final decision rests with the supervisors.
Supervisor William McCarty, who participated in the meeting virtually, made the motion to table the matter, and it was approved unanimously. A mix of support and opposition was voiced at a public hearing before the vote.
Of the 11 area residents who spoke, six said they opposed the project. The other five said they supported it.
Brian Carroll, a member of the Planning Commission who maintains his opposition to the project, described Sycamore Cross at the hearing as an “industrial-sized” operation “sprawling for miles in the name of green energy.”
“Here we go again; when we just thought we were done with all this with Cavalier Solar, they’re coming in again,” said Chris Howell, a Surry County resident who also said he opposes the project.
Billy Joe Holleman, one of the landowners who’s agreed to lease to AES, said his family has lived on the same farm since 1661.
“After 340 years, I should have the privilege to say what I want to see on my land,” he said, urging support for the project that he and his son, Joe, say will provide them the needed revenue to maintain their historic home.
“It sure is great to see some innovation in this county instead of seeing more houses, neighborhoods and apartments going up,” said Nathaniel Smith, who also urged support for Sycamore Cross.
Vice Chairman Don Rosie, who represents the area of the county where the majority of Sycamore Cross would be located, said it’s the board’s job to strike a balance between landowner rights and the public interest when considering requests for permits.
“We’re dealing with personal rights all the time, and landowner rights and use, so that’s why we have a Planning Commission, that’s why we have a 10-, 20-year plan for development and growth,” Rosie said, adding “we want to maintain that rural character.”
Rosie specifically took issue with the project, combined with previously approved solar farms, exceeding a 2% cap on the cumulative prime farmland in the county devoted to solar, which supervisors enacted last year. According to a report by county staff, if Sycamore Cross A and B were each approved, they’d collectively increase the prime farmland acreage devoted to solar to 2.6%, though because the permit application was submitted ahead of last year’s ordinance, it’s grandfathered from being subject to the limit.
“When you put this with what’s grandfathered, potentially coming up and what could come up, it puts us well over our 2%,” Rosie said.
“I start to wonder at what time does the state take over this and says as a locality you no longer make these decisions,” said Board Chairman Joel Acree, referencing a tabled bill from the General Assembly’s 2024 session that had proposed nullifying locality-imposed bans and acreage limits on solar farms.
“I believe that is not far away, quite honestly, but to the most important point, my job here tonight is to represent my constituents,” Acree said.
Acree then questioned AES representatives about the authenticity of a flood of emails he received from constituents supposedly supporting the project. Though worded and signed differently, he said, each came from two email addresses: sycamorecrosssolar@gmail.com and civicinput@newmode.org.
“I have some concerns when it seems as if it’s crafted such that I would think that my individual constituent took time out of their busy day to start an email directed to their elected official, and if that’s exactly what they did I appreciate their time, but if there’s a program that does this, I find it deceitful,” Acree said.
Tamara Slade, stakeholder relations manager for AES, said the emails were indeed from supportive area residents and resulted from door-to-door visits by AES personnel, who carry tablets to assist residents with writing to their supervisors.
“Some folks don’t have email addresses,” Slade said.
Most Popular
Comments / 0