Surry County supervisors voted Feb. 13 to reject the county’s share of the Sycamore Cross solar farm, which was to span more than 2,000 acres across the westernmost edge of the Isle of Wight-Surry county line.

The vote overturns a 5-4 December decision by Surry’s Planning Commission to recommend approval of a conditional use permit and siting agreement the project’s Arlington-based developer, AES Clean Energy, had requested. Surry’s share would have placed solar panels on roughly 125 fenced acres on six parcels the supervisors had approved in 2021 to serve the adjacent 1,750-acre Cavalier solar farm, another AES project that spans both counties and began operating last fall.

Isle of Wight County supervisors approved their 90% share of Sycamore Cross last year.

Carsley District Supervisor Breyon Pierce made separate motions to deny the contitional use permit and siting agreement, both of which passed unanimously.

Pierce said that while AES had “made a strong push to try to correct” the issues that had arisen during the construction process for Cavalier, he remained concerned about possible damage to the roads from the hauling of solar equipment.

Pierce said he felt there were “some things that could be tweaked” about the project, though he and the other supervisors remained silent when Board of Supervisors Chairman Robert Elliott asked, at the suggestion of County Attorney Lola Perkins, whether any supervisor wished to revote to instead table the matter to allow AES to make changes.

A public hearing on the project had drawn 12 speakers, more in opposition than support.

Dianne Cheek, a member of the county’s Planning Commission who’d been among the four to vote against the body’s endorsement of the project in December, said she remained concerned about stormwater runoff and the noise generated by solar inverters.

Billy Holloman, a participating landowner in the AES project, urged the supervisors to respect “landowner rights.”

“My family has been here in Isle of Wight County and the land the solar is supposed to be built on since 1684,” Holloman said. “We’ve been here a long time, 384 years, we still farm that land, we live on that land all these years. My mother’s family’s from here in Surry County as well as her family that were farmers,  so Im not one of these folks coming in from the outside, I’m here to stay. … But farming has changed over the years. In recent years we’ve seen that a small farmer, in my case only renting 100 acres of land, the farmer farming it can only pay so much for the rent however that is not enough to cover the upkeep of the farm, the house that was built in 1830 needs a lot of work.”

Thaddeus Lane, who identified himself as a fourth-generation Surry farmer, said he was “not against solar farming” but questioned “will there ever be a cutoff when we say Surry County has enough solar farms.”

Surry supervisors, who have approved three solar farms to date, had earlier that evening voted to enact a 10,695-acre, or 7%, cap on the countywide developable acreage devoted to solar. Community Development and Planning Director Horace Wade estimated in October that these existing facilities account for roughly 6% of the acreage cap.

AES had estimated Surry’s portion would have brought the county $4.1 million over the project’s 35-year lifespan ,including $1.6 million in upfront payments. Isle of Wight’s larger share is expected to bring it $15.3 million over 35 years, including $3.8 million in upfront payments prior to the start of commercial operation.

A provision of AES’s siting agreement with Isle of Wight had specified the county would receive its upfront payments regardless of whether Surry approved its share of the project. AES declined to comment on next steps for the project resulting from Surry’s vote.