Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge supervisors to defer Diode data-center rezoning; legal challenge expected
Summary
Dozens of residents pressed the Charles City County Board of Supervisors to defer or reject a rezoning request for a large Diode data‑center project, citing proximity to homes, wetlands concerns and gaps in public notice; the board deferred public hearings to June 24 after staff recommended re-advertising to avoid litigation.
The Charles City County Board of Supervisors on a motion deferred public hearings on a Diode data‑center rezoning until June 24, 2025, after staff and county counsel recommended re‑advertising notices to ensure statutory compliance and reduce the risk of litigation.
The public‑hearing deferral followed an extended public comment period in which residents described the Diode proposal as too large, too close to existing homes and inadequately vetted. “We need to be informed about data centers and that information needs to come from independent sources, not from DIODE,” said Doreen Billingsley, a resident who asked the board to reject Rezoning RZ012025C and remove “data centers” as a by‑right use on industrial property. She added that the county would not see increased tax revenue from the project for “5 plus years.”
Several nearby residents described direct local impacts. Clark Gwave, who said he lives across the street from the proposed site, urged the board to pursue a smaller, already‑zoned parcel in the Roxbury Industrial area instead of the Diode site. Jared Klein presented a petition he said had about 232 signatures opposing the project, and argued the rezoning would put heavy industrial uses “50 feet” from homes. Attorney Joe Sherman, speaking for a group of citizens, said his clients intend to challenge the rezoning if approved and criticized the breadth of the proposed residential rezoning into industrial use.
County counsel told the board the legal notice schedule for the public hearings had technical issues with publication dates in the local paper and the Richmond Times‑Dispatch; while staff said the RTD notice may meet minimum requirements, the county attorney and staff recommended re‑advertising in the Chronicle and deferring the hearings to avoid creating grounds for a legal challenge. The board then voted to defer items D through F to the June 24 meeting.
The deferral is procedural only; no rezoning decision was made. The board did not take up the substance of whether a Diode center should be approved; speakers repeatedly asked the board to consider alternatives, including using existing industrial land and ensuring independent environmental and infrastructure analyses.
The board’s action to defer was unanimous: Supervisor Patterson moved the deferral, the motion carried with aye votes recorded by supervisors Patterson, Hill and Chairman Atkins.
The board will rehear the matters June 24 after staff re‑advertise the hearings and provide updated materials to the public.
