Isle of Wight County supervisors’ 3-2 approval on Sept. 19 of the county’s 11th and largest solar farm marked the third time this year that the board has overturned a vote by its Planning Commission.

Commissioner Brian Carroll isn’t having it.

“The Board of Supervisors used incredible hypocrisy and double standards in the recent solar projects,” Carroll said at the conclusion of the commission’s Sept. 24 meeting. “I am extremely disappointed in the board and the way they handled them.”

Carroll was among the majority of commissioners who’d voted 6-2 in May to recommend denial of Arlington-based AES Clean Energy’s now-approved conditional use permit for Sycamore Cross, a 240-megawatt solar farm that would span more than 2,200 acres across the westernmost edge of the Isle of Wight-Surry county border. Surry has yet to approve its share of the project. Carroll, at the time, characterized the project as “industrial solar” and “miles and miles of solar panels.”

A month earlier, the supervisors voted 3-1 to approve a 3-megawatt solar farm on 28 acres bordering Orbit Road, overturning a 7-2 July decision by the Planning Commission to urge denial of a permit to Elk Development LLC, a subsidiary of Denver-based Pivot Energy.

In May, the supervisors voted 3-2 to approve mixed-use zoning for Sweetgrass, a proposed 615-home development with up to 73,000 square feet of commercial space fronting Benns Church Boulevard. The vote overturned a 6-2 December decision by the Planning Commission to recommend denial of Ryan Homes parent NVR’s rezoning application to construct 390 age-restricted, detached homes, 225 unrestricted townhouses, 55,000 square feet of office space and an 18,000-square-foot shopping center at the 250-acre Yeoman Farm by the Sherwin Williams store just outside Smithfield.

Carroll drew a distinction between the board’s handling of Sycamore Cross versus Moonlight, a 44-megawatt, 523-acre solar farm supervisors voted to reject in June.

Four months after the Planning Commission’s unanimous November vote urging denial of a permit to Moonlight’s Jacksonville, Florida-based developer, Palladium Energy, Palladium proposed a slate of changes, prompting the supervisors to send the application back to the Planning Commission in March for another public hearing and vote.

AES “also made several revisions to the project” following its May 28 hearing and vote at the Planning Commission level, Carroll said, but “rather than the board doing its due diligence and sending that back to this body” the supervisors “chose … to vote on that project and move it forward.”

A report county staff had provided to the Planning Commission in May had characterized the narrow, rural roads AES planned to use as its construction route as “not well suited to construction traffic.” 

By Sept. 11, county staff had amended – and AES had agreed to – conditions of approval that now require a detailed description of what types of vehicles and activities are subject to the company’s transportation plan, and an escalating scale of monetary penalties for transportation plan violations.

Supervisor William McCarty, who joined with Supervisors Rudolph Jefferson and Renee Rountree in supporting Sycamore Cross, asserted that supervisors must look at projects through a “different lens” than the Planning Commission. He cited the nearly $1 million impact Keurig Dr Pepper’s announced December closure of its roasting plant in the county’s Shirley T. Holland Intermodal Park will have on the county’s budget, and the $3.8 million Sycamore Cross siting agreement’s ability to make up for the loss, among his reasons for supporting the project. AES has agreed to pay the $3.8 million prior to the anticipated 2026 start of Sycamore’s commercial operation. Sycamore is projected to generate an additional $7.2 million in machinery and tools taxes and $4.3 million in real estate taxes for a total of $15.3 million over its 35-year lifespan.

“I would suggest he looked at them through mule blinders,” Carroll said, referencing McCarty’s remark. “I think it was incredibly unfair, and I will maintain this whether it’s solar or any other project: I think it’s incredibly unfair for an applicant to have the opportunity to change a project, make amendments to an application, between the time we vote on it … and then the board vote on that without giving due diligence to the citizens to have an opportunity to respond to it and I’m frankly disappointed in the board.”

“While I respect Mr. Carroll’s opinion, I stand by my reference to viewing matters through a ‘different lens,’ as the Board of Supervisors must consider multiple factors when evaluating a project that a Planning Commission would not,” McCarty told The Smithfield Times, responding to Carroll’s criticism.

I want to acknowledge that the Planning Commission conducts thorough deliberations, and their work is valued,” McCarty said. “It is not uncommon for the Planning Commission, staff, and the Board of Supervisors to have differing perspectives on various projects, which I also respect. … Lastly, one of the many key reasons citizens elected me is to ensure the fiscal soundness of our county. It is our responsibility to manage taxpayer funds wisely, especially in light of the increasing costs associated with public schools and safety, as well as the decline of commercial users in our industrial park in recent weeks. Therefore, I will continue to maintain my focus on protecting our county’s tax base and preventing undue tax burdens on our citizens.”