Residents press supervisors to reject Diode Ventures data center rezoning, citing water, health and legacy concerns

Dozens of residents told the Charles City County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday that a proposed data center by Diode Ventures should not be rezoned into a residential area, warning of water-strain, environmental harm and a permanent change to the county’s rural character.

Speakers representing families ahead of the Planning Commission review urged the board to delay or oppose the rezoning and to require environmental studies before any zoning change. Georgia Pulliam, Ruth Washington and Alice Allen Stark described worries about local aquifers, air and light pollution, noise from backup generators, and emergency access. Several speakers said they believe Diode’s water and environmental studies should be done before rezoning.

“Vote no on this rezoning request,” Georgia Pulliam told the board, saying she was “speaking as someone whose entire life, family, home and future is tied to this land.” Ruth Washington, who lives on Old Union Road, described recurring industrial burning at a nearby tree-processing business and linked that experience to concerns about large industrial development in a residential area. Alice Allen Stark, who described her family as fourth- and fifth-generation residents, said the county “cannot sustain the environment” for a project of this scale.

Several commenters questioned the transparency of Diode’s application and the timing of environmental review. Pulliam said she believed the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) can and should be engaged before rezoning; she also asserted that DEQ studies can be done prior to approval. County staff advised the board that public comments would be forwarded to the County Community Development Office and the Planning Commission, which will take action before the board considers any rezoning.

Economic Development Authority members present clarified that a recent letter of support that appeared in Diode’s rezoning application represented the majority opinion of the EDA at that time; one EDA member on the dais said he personally opposed the letter but was outvoted.

Board staff urged that all comments be submitted to planning staff; County Administrator Warner offered to forward the public comments to planning staff and the Planning Commission. Planning Commission hearings on the matter are scheduled in May, and the board was asked to refer the public comments accordingly.

The meeting did not include a vote on rezoning; the board agreed to forward comments to the Planning Commission and to allow the commission to hold its hearings before any board action.