Pittsylvania supervisors face hours of public comment on Bellaco rezoning; applicantasked to withdraw and board denied that request

Pittsylvania County supervisors heard more than three hours of public comment Tuesday, April 15, on a rezoning petition that would allow a private natural-gas power plant and data centers on roughly 747.49 acres in the Banister (sometimes written in meeting materials as "Baynesville") election district.

The item on the agenda, Case R-25-001 from Bellaco LLC, drew hundreds to Chatham High School and generated sustained public opposition over noise, air and water impacts, historic and church property views, and the project—s potential effect on rural life. During the meeting the applicant asked to withdraw the rezoning request without penalty; the board voted 5 to 2 to deny that withdrawal request, and the chairman then moved to deny the rezoning application. The transcript provided with the meeting does not include a final recorded tally for the rezoning vote.

Why it matters: the rezoning would change parcels currently zoned R-1 (residential suburban subdivision) and A-1 (agricultural) to M-2 (industrial heavy), a classification that the county packet said would permit the proposed utility and data center uses. Opponents said the scale of the project and its emissions would imperil public health, farms, churches and small businesses; supporters argued the site offered water, power and other infrastructure advantages and would bring jobs and new tax revenue.

Applicant—s request and developer status

Attorney Steven Gould, speaking for the applicant, told the board Bellaco had spent months refining proffers including a decibel cap and road improvements and had been negotiating with potential partners and end users. Gould said the applicant asked that the rezoning be withdrawn without penalty so the company could continue talks, including an emerging joint-venture discussion with Hillwood, a Dallas-based developer. "We are asking for withdrawal without penalty so that if discussions with Hillwood are finalized, we can revisit this project within the next 12 months," Gould said.

Board action on the withdrawal request

Supervisor (full list and titles below) Dolan made a motion to deny Bellaco—s request to withdraw the rezoning application; Supervisor Ingram seconded. The motion to deny the withdrawal passed 5 to 2, according to the clerk—s announcement recorded in the meeting transcript.

Planning and legal background cited

The board—s public materials cite "Article 5, Division 6" of the Pittsylvania County zoning ordinance as the statutory basis for hearing map-change requests; the county packet also records that the planning commission recommended denial of the petition on Dec. 3, 2024, by a 7-0 vote. Speakers and attorneys referenced the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health analysis of potential emissions and the Southern Environmental Law Center (who appeared on behalf of local residents) submitted a summary of health-impact modeling to the board.

Public comment: opposition and support

Opponents filled the auditorium. Common themes included health concerns, noise and light impacts on churches and family properties, potential wildlife and habitat disruption, and distrust of the developer—s prior track record and transparency. Sherry Garner, who identified professional engineering and systems experience, told the board, "They want you to approve this rezoning, and they'll figure it out as they go along." Amy Davis, speaking for herself from Mill Creek Road, asked supervisors to "please vote no" and invoked the county—s comprehensive plan as a protection for rural farming communities.

Religious and civic organizations were represented: Pink Community Church delivered a formal resolution opposing the rezoning, citing concerns about air quality, water and emergency response. Several speakers said children in the area have asthma and expressed fear that emissions could worsen health outcomes.

Environmental and health claims cited by opponents included a presentation by attorney Greg Peeper of the Southern Environmental Law Center. Peeper said a Harvard analysis shows the proposed plant would emit on the order of hundreds of tons of fine particulate matter annually and that related health costs could reach tens of millions of dollars. "The Ballaco power plant would produce over 300 tons of PM 2.5 pollution every year," Peeper said; he added the analysis estimates increased health costs of about $31,000,000 per year in Virginia and neighboring North Carolina counties.

Supporters and technical points

Some speakers and residents said the site is suitable for a data center campus because it offers water, power, fiber and security. Robert Crawford, who said he manages data-center facilities, testified: "In my opinion, this site is an ideal site for a data center." Other speakers and local business advocates said the project could bring a water-treatment plant, fire hydrants, and economic activity.

Developer commitments and proffers

Gould said the applicant had prepared proffers he said would mitigate impacts, including a decibel limit of 52 dB for the whole project and commitments to upgrade Transco Road before construction. The applicant also told the board it had scaled the proposal down from an earlier concept and that some elements had been reworked since late 2024.

Board discussion and next steps

Chairman Tucker said he would move to deny the rezoning application citing the proposed layout, the height and profile of structures, expected emissions, limited job benefits and lack of clarity in proffers. The motion was seconded and the board cast recorded votes; the meeting transcript available for this article shows the motion was made and votes were cast but does not include a final recorded tally for the rezoning action. The board announced other routine business and adjourned; staff will incorporate the official minute and any final vote tallies into the formal record.

The issue remains a live local policy fight: residents and organized groups said they will continue to press supervisors and consult legal and public-health experts; the developer indicated it hopes to continue work with potential partners and to revisit the project if joint-venture talks progress.

Ending

The public hearing consumed much of the board—s April 15 agenda and highlighted long-standing tensions about growth, rural preservation and economic development in Pittsylvania County. The county clerk will publish the official minutes that document final votes and any additional motions or proffers recorded after the close of the transcript used for this article.