Residents flood council with opposition to Etheridge Lakes data center; council denies rezoning/continuance

(Note: This article summarizes a long public hearing and council actions.)

Scores of residents from neighborhoods near Centerville Turnpike and Etheridge Manor filled council chambers on June 17 to oppose a conditional rezoning (PLNREZ2025-002) that would allow a roughly 22.6-acre data center at Etheridge Lakes. The planning commission had recommended denial, and the applicant requested a continuance to Aug. 19; council ultimately voted to deny the rezoning request.

John Padgett, speaking for the applicant, told council he wanted “a little more time to sharpen the data,” expand outreach and refine technical studies before a final council hearing. He said the proposal is “a new type of land use for Chesapeake” and asked for additional time to respond to technical questions and public concerns.

Residents and neighborhood leaders, including multiple speakers from Laurel Ridge Lane, Etheridge Lakes, Grantham Lane and Old Coach Road, urged council to deny both a continuance and the rezoning. Concerns repeated during the public-comment period included: low-frequency noise and vibration from large-scale cooling systems and backup generators and the associated health effects (including cited risks to children, people with sensory disorders and pregnant women); water use and potential water-supply and wastewater impacts; strain on the regional power grid and resulting rate effects; potential declines in property values; and questions about the applicant’s ownership, financing and prior legal matters mentioned by some speakers. Several speakers asked that the city learn lessons from Northern Virginia, where residents and some local governments now say data-center concentrations have caused neighborhood impacts.

Council Member Whitaker announced a disqualification from deliberation because of a professional relationship with an applicant. Council then considered a motion to deny a continuance (moved by Council Member King, seconded by Council Member Ward) and later a motion to deny the rezoning application outright; the motion to deny was adopted by council. The transcript records the council outcome as a denial vote adopted by a seven-member majority; Whitaker had recused himself before the item was considered.

Planning Director McNamara had noted that staff found the rezoning consistent with certain comprehensive-plan objectives and had recommended an approval with proffers for a separate data-center application earlier in the meeting, but for this Etheridge Lakes proposal the planning commission recommended denial and the public comment record was heavily opposed.

Ending: With the council’s denial, the rezoning will not proceed; the applicant may pursue other sites or additional studies and could seek to refile, but the June 17 action closes this application. Council did not adopt any conditions or mitigations for the site at the June 17 meeting; the transcript records that the applicant requested extra time but the council majority declined to continue and instead denied the rezoning.