Board defers decision on Roxbury Technology Park rezoning after lengthy public hearing

Charles City County supervisors on June 24 deferred a final vote on a rezoning application and two special-use permits for the Roxbury Technology Park — a proposed hyperscale data-center campus — after a several-hour public hearing and detailed presentations from county staff and the applicant.

The project developer sought rezoning and two special-use permits to allow a data-center campus on roughly 515 acres near Roxbury. County planning staff recommended approval with proffers; the planning commission had forwarded the case to the Board of Supervisors with a majority recommendation (planning commission vote on the rezoning reported as 4–1, and votes on the two special-use permits reported as 5–0–1, per the staff presentation). The board voted to defer the matter to its Aug. 26, 2025 meeting to allow more time for information and negotiation. Supervisor Mark Hill made the motion to defer; Supervisors Ryan Patterson and Chair Byron Atkins voted Aye.

Why it matters: the proposal would place a large industrial use adjacent to established residential neighborhoods and wetlands that drain to the Chickahominy and James rivers. Residents and local groups argued the site is the wrong location for a hyperscale facility, citing potential long-term noise, light, traffic and water impacts as well as the age of parts of the county’s comprehensive plan. Supporters said the project could bring substantial tax revenue and jobs.

What staff and the applicant told the board Gary Mitchell, the county planner, reviewed the county’s land‑use maps and staff concerns, and summarized proffers negotiated with the applicant. Mitchell said the property is partly shown as industrial on older plans and staff concluded reasonable people can disagree but recommended approval with the submitted proffers. He told the board that the applicant had increased some setbacks and agreed to other limits the county staff sought.

Preston Lloyd, the applicant’s attorney, said the application had been revised after multiple community meetings and planning‑commission review. He told the board the project has been redesigned to include larger buffers in several locations, commitments on noise mitigation and restrictions on hours of construction and that the developer would not draw cooling water from the aquifer. Lloyd described potential benefits cited by his market advisers: he said a project of this scale could create during construction an estimated 800–1,200 jobs and that development at this scale could produce roughly 83 permanent jobs per $1 billion of investment; he also cited a Virginia Economic Development Partnership estimate, provided by the applicant, that a project of this type could generate up to about $258 million in tax revenue for a jurisdiction over 20 years. Lloyd emphasized that many technical details — including the precise number of buildings and final water supply arrangements — are determined later in the site‑planning and tenant selection phases.

What the proffers would do (applicant summary) - Increase certain building setbacks from 100 feet to 200 feet at locations shown on the submitted generalized development plan. - Prohibit drawing groundwater from the aquifer to supply cooling; the applicant said surface‑water options (purchasing water from Henrico or New Kent, or withdrawals from the James or Chickahominy rivers) would be pursued if the project moves forward. - Require a shared‑use path along CC Road as part of the frontage improvements. - Require acoustical screening or other mitigation for any exterior noise‑emitting equipment within 300 feet of an existing single‑family dwelling. - Limit certain construction hours, prohibit construction on holidays and restrict Sunday construction beyond limited hours. - Make the generalized development plan and the listed proffers binding conditions if the board approves the rezoning.

Concerns from residents and outside groups More than two dozen residents and representatives spoke during the public hearing; the large majority opposed the rezoning as proposed. Speakers named the developer (Diode, described by residents as a hyperscale data‑center developer) and raised consistent concerns: - Water: multiple residents and speakers said it is unclear where the project’s substantial cooling water would come from and warned of impacts on private wells and nearby streams. - Noise and light: residents described a fear of steady operational noise from cooling equipment and backup‑generator use, and worry about permanent bright lighting and its effect on rural character and wildlife. The applicant proffered 300‑foot treatment/screening for exterior equipment and a post‑approval sound study to identify further mitigation. - Traffic and construction: speakers said extended construction could mean years of heavy truck traffic on narrow county roads and safety risks. - Land‑use and plan consistency: opponents argued the county’s comprehensive plan and the community’s residential growth make this location unsuitable; they urged the board to update the plan before allowing a major industrial use adjacent to neighborhoods.

Examples of public testimony (selected, verbatim and attributed) - “This development would forever change the landscape of our county,” said Georgia Pulliam, a lifelong resident. “This is simply the wrong place for a data center.” - “We do not know enough about data centers and their impact to our county to jump headlong into this proposed mega site,” said Doreen Billingsley, who also urged formation of a financial advisory committee and immediate steps to control county spending.

Technical and regulatory context Applicant consultants said the site contains delineated wetlands and stream corridors; the applicant provided a jurisdictional‑determination map from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and said Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act resource‑protection areas (RPAs) and Clean Water Act permitting (Section 404) obligations would govern any crossings or impacts. County staff and the applicant said those environmental designations limit buildable area and informed how the generalized development plan was drawn.

Board action After public comment and the applicant’s technical presentations, Supervisor Hill moved to defer the rezoning and the two special‑use permits to allow the county and applicant more time to collect and review information and continue outreach. The motion passed on a voice vote: Hill Aye; Patterson Aye; Chair Byron Atkins Aye. The chair scheduled the item to return to the board for consideration on Aug. 26, 2025.

What remains unresolved The applicant repeatedly said final water‑supply, power and the exact number and configuration of buildings depend on later tenant decisions and additional engineering; staff and residents flagged those as central outstanding questions. The board’s deferral gives both sides additional time to provide technical detail and to negotiate further proffers or conditions.

Ending note The board’s decision to defer keeps the application active but pauses a final land‑use determination while technical, environmental and community concerns are further investigated.