Pittsylvania planning commission recommends denial of Valleco LLC rezoning for data centers and natural‑gas power plant

The Pittsylvania County Planning Commission voted 7–0 on Jan. 7 to recommend that the Board of Supervisors deny Valleco LLC’s application to rezone roughly 750 acres for a data‑center campus and on‑site natural‑gas power plant.

The application sought to reclassify 13 parcels (originally described as about 763.16 acres before one parcel was removed) from agricultural or residential zoning to M‑2 heavy industrial to allow data centers and a private natural‑gas power station on a campus along Chalklevel and Transco roads in the Banister election district. Valleyco’s attorney, Steven Gould, and members of the company’s development and engineering team presented the project and a set of proffers to the commission; staff indicated it had not completed review of the final proffers submitted shortly before the hearing.

The proposed project, as presented by Valleco LLC, would include clustered data‑center buildings and an on‑site power station that the applicant described in stages: an initial, mobile‑turbine phase sized at about 300 megawatts, then a later build‑out the applicant described as up to 35,100 megawatts. Valleco’s team showed a campus layout with two development clusters (six buildings on the western cluster and six larger pads with an adjacent power station on the eastern cluster) and engineers also discussed a broader site layout and utilities routes during their presentation. Valleco said it planned to construct pad‑ready sites and to own and operate the power station while selling or leasing data‑center pads to end users.

Commissioners and staff raised multiple unresolved technical and process questions during the hearing, including: where the project would obtain the large volumes of water the applicant said could be needed, how waste water would be handled, the condition and timing of proffers submitted the day before, traffic routing and the need for a VDOT review of possible pipeline and utility routes. Engineer Fred Shanks said the team had identified two possible potable‑water options—an initial 700,000 gallons per day connection from Chatham and a potential 2,000,000 gallons per day supply from Hurt that would require infrastructure upgrades paid by the developer—and said wastewater tie‑in options were under study.

Valleco proposed a set of voluntary commitments—proffers—intended to address setbacks, landscaping, noise and emergency services. Among the items described by the applicant were a minimum 150‑foot setback from adjacent property lines, 200 feet from bordering residences, a 100‑foot landscaped buffer, posting of decommissioning surety for the power station and a commitment to fund a new fire station and initial first‑responder staffing costs until the project reaches a revenue threshold. The applicant also said it would construct and then convey local infrastructure improvements (water/sewer extensions) to the affected localities at its cost.

More than four hours of public comments followed the developer’s presentation. Dozens of residents, landowners, farmers, clergy and local officials urged denial, citing potential impacts to wells and streamflows, concerns about long‑term land conversion, noise and light from turbines and data‑center operations, property values, and the effect on churches, cemeteries and rural character. The town of Chatham submitted a formal resolution opposing the rezoning and asking that industrial development be avoided on prime farmland; the town representative noted the town had not been approached by Valleco staff about selling water but had supplied public information on permitted capacities.

Commissioners said they had not had adequate time to assess the final proffers and other documentation that the applicant filed shortly before the meeting. Commissioner Colette Henderson moved to recommend denial to the Board of Supervisors; the motion was seconded by Commissioner V. Oakes and passed 7–0.

The commission’s recommendation will go to the Board of Supervisors, which will make the final decision. The applicant and its team said they would continue technical work on utilities, environmental studies and interconnection timelines with the grid operator and requested an opportunity to present updated proffers and engineering at future hearings.

Votes at the meeting: the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of Valleco LLC’s rezoning application (motion by Commissioner Colette Henderson; second by Commissioner V. Oakes). The commission also recorded other case votes earlier in the evening (see separate votes roundup).

Why it matters: the project, as presented, would be a substantial industrial conversion in a largely agricultural area and includes a private power‑generation component that raises regulatory, environmental and infrastructure questions that county staff and residents said were not yet fully resolved. The Board of Supervisors will review the commission’s recommendation at a future meeting.

Ending: The planning commission’s formal recommendation to deny moves the question to the Board of Supervisors. If the supervisors accept the denial, the rezoning effort will end; if they disagree, the board would need to weigh the proffers, technical studies and public testimony before taking its final vote.