Developers present King George Technology Center; neighbors and supervisors press on generators, water and access

Green Energy Ventures and local landowners presented the King George Technology Center proposal to the Board of Supervisors on Oct. 7, outlining a multi‑phase campus of data center buildings, visual buffers and cash proffers. The developer said the project would include berms and dense evergreen planting, stormwater and cistern systems, expanded road turn lanes and a series of monetary commitments intended to support workforce training, parks and public safety.

Roger Vasiliades, a Green Energy Ventures partner, summarized site changes made after public review: reduced building count (from 22 to 13), a larger setback from Route 3, higher berms and an enhanced planting palette. He said the applicant is offering proffers that include an $8.65 million package of direct county contributions plus a proposed $5 million contribution earmarked to help fund water and sewer infrastructure when those services are available. "We are implementing best stormwater management practices by utilizing stormwater and controlling runoff, minimizing environmental impacts," Vasiliades told the board.

The presentation prompted questions from supervisors and extended public comment from nearby residents. Several speakers said they were concerned about air emissions and noise from backup generation. Vasiliades said the project team intends to specify tier‑4 generators and that the applicant is also studying on‑site natural‑gas turbine options as a temporary bridge until a grid connection is built. When asked about groundwater impacts and shallow private wells in the area, the developers said they would add mitigation language and that, "if any of our activity or wells impact any of our neighboring wells, we will, take care of, replacing and bringing those wells back," according to the project engineer.

Neighbors at the meeting reported a lack of notice and urged the board to require better disclosure about the identity of end users and the number and type of generators. Marcel Diverberg, a next‑door property owner, told the board the county ordinance favors preserving agriculture and rural character and said the ordinance language supports rejecting incompatible industrial uses. "So it's pretty clear in the ordinance. It even says they should not be allowed," Diverberg said.

Economic consultants hired by the applicant estimate the project would create thousands of temporary construction jobs and more than a thousand permanent operations jobs at full build out; a third‑party analysis cited in the applicant’s materials projects annual local revenues in the tens of millions at scale. The developers emphasized they would pay prepaid availability fees to help fund future water and sewer; the board asked staff to coordinate on the county water‑supply plan before making infrastructure commitments.

No formal zoning action on the data‑center application was recorded at the Oct. 7 meeting. Supervisors requested additional details and expressed concern about unresolved questions including generator type and emissions, water sourcing and repair/remedy commitments for any impacted private wells, and the schedule for transportation improvements.

Provenance: Developer presentation began at 03:41:46 (Roger Vasiliades) and public comments and board questioning continued through the evening; transcript excerpts document the developer’s listing of proffers and nearby residents’ objections about noise and wells.