Powhatan planning commission recommends denial of proposed Sowers data‑center rezoning, CUP

Lehi Webb, Powhatan County planning director, told the commission that the applicants seek to rezone 61.8 acres (tax map 43‑62) to Light Industrial I to join a previously approved, larger unified campus and to allow data‑center uses now and other light industrial uses after 18 months. Webb said the concept envisions a multi‑building campus totaling roughly 2,000,000 square feet, sited on an assemblage of parcels that together could reach about 181 acres and located adjacent to Dominion Energy transmission corridors.

Why it matters: Commissioners and residents said the scale of the project could require substantial off‑site utility and road upgrades that have not yet been resolved by developer proffers. Webb told the panel Dominion has issued a planning‑level will‑serve letter but has not issued a letter of authorization (LOA) that would reserve capacity; staff emphasized that final infrastructure commitments and any capacity reservation only happen at detailed design and LOA stages.

Key staff findings and applicant statements: Webb summarized traffic, utility and noise analyses. He said analysts estimate the campus could represent roughly 3–400 megawatts of new load (a figure that has appeared in developer materials), and that Dominion’s currently documented data‑center load in the region is about 3.8 gigawatts. Webb said wastewater and pump‑station upgrades are likely: staff cited an Oak Bridge (transcribed as "Oak Bridal") pump‑station cost estimate of about $7,000,000 and a wastewater‑treatment expansion estimate near $12,000,000. Webb also read proffer language that would require the developer to provide utility infrastructure upgrades “at their expense” if needed to maintain system performance prior to site plan approval, but staff noted no proffered dollar or trigger mechanism to guarantee proportional contributions has been provided to date.

Applicant attorney Jeff Geiger said the developer has engaged Dominion early and is “in the queue for power” and asked the commission to recommend approval so Powhatan could capture the economic opportunity identified in the comprehensive plan. Geiger said increasing the project to an additional 500,000 square feet (to 2,000,000 total) would increase the county’s tax base and that the applicant expects to pay full real‑estate taxes; he also said Dominion requires applicant security for substation equipment, which the applicant is prepared to provide.

Public comment: Nearby residents urged stronger proffers and protections. Carl Schwendeman, a resident, asked the county and developers to require sidewalks or a 10‑foot trail along Route 60 as part of related development, citing the county’s recently adopted trail master plan. Lorraine Jones, who said she lives adjacent to the site, raised safety concerns about the proposed RCUT (restricted crossing U‑turn) design and argued the project’s large infrastructure needs should be paid in proportion by the developer rather than by county taxpayers. Richard Pelletier asked whether the county would grant a real‑estate tax “discount”; staff and the applicant clarified that Virginia’s tax treatment can allow a lower tax rate on data‑center machinery and tools, but there is no county real‑estate tax exemption for the buildings or land.

Commission concerns: Commissioners emphasized three recurring issues: (1) utilities — the absence of a clear, enforceable proffer specifying payment triggers and amounts for off‑site sewer and pump‑station upgrades; (2) buffering and visual impacts — staff had requested a 200‑foot buffer/setback along the Chesterfield County line (the applicant referenced a 100‑foot buffer similar to a neighboring Chesterfield project); and (3) access and traffic — VDOT review of RCUT and right‑turn storage lengths is ongoing, and commissioners asked for a construction phasing plan addressing heavy construction traffic.

Formal actions and vote: The commission voted on two separate motions. First, the commission voted to deny the planning commission resolution recommending approval of Case 25‑11‑REZ‑C (rezoning 61.8 acres to Light Industrial I). The motion to deny passed on roll call, 5–0 (District 1 Commissioner Hall: Aye; District 2 Commissioner Bolen: Aye; District 3 Commissioner Winnall: Aye; District 4 Commissioner Hughes: Aye; District 5 Commissioner Hatcher: Aye). Second, the commission voted to deny Case 25‑12‑CUP (the conditional use permit to allow structures/substation components to exceed the height limit) by roll call, 5–0.

What the decisions do and do not do: The planning commission’s votes were recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. A denial by the planning commission forwards a recommendation of denial to the Board; the Board will make the final decision on rezoning and CUP. Staff noted that some technical improvements (RCUT design, construction phasing, utility design) are nearing completion with VDOT and utility engineers but that the lack of a proffered, enforceable funding mechanism for off‑site sewer/substation upgrades and the absence of a Dominion LOA were primary reasons commissioners recommended denial.

Outstanding clarifications and next steps: Staff recommended the county and applicant coordinate on detailed language specifying payment triggers and responsibilities for off‑site utility extensions; commissioners requested additional buffering language along the Chesterfield line and asked that material commitments (for sidewalks/trails, road proffers or proportional utility contributions) be resolved before the Board of Supervisors hearing. The applicant said it will continue discussions with staff and Dominion; the Board of Supervisors will receive the file and recommendation at a future meeting.

Ending: The commission’s recommendation to deny does not prohibit the applicant from pursuing revisions; it moves the matter to the Board of Supervisors with the planning commission’s stated concerns on record.