Fluvanna planning commission backs requiring special-use permits for data centers

Fluvanna County’s planning commission voted unanimously on Nov. 18 to recommend that the board of supervisors amend the county code to require special-use permits for data centers in industrial districts.

The planning commission’s motion, made during a public hearing on ZTA 25-10, would change several sections of the zoning ordinance and update the county’s definition of “data center” to read in part as a facility used primarily for the management, processing, storage and transmission of digital data and to note supporting infrastructure such as generators, water cooling and utility substations. Planning staff told commissioners the draft text moves data centers from a by-right use to one requiring board-level review in both I-1 and I-2 districts.

The move follows a board-approved moratorium on new data-center applications that began Sept. 17 and a resolution of intent filed Oct. 1. During public comment residents and technical speakers urged caution. Sasha Morgan, a Fluvanna resident with technical training, said a special-use permit is a “great start” but urged the county to go further, advocating a technology district and tighter definitions: “Data centers are water heavy. They are electricity heavy. They are everything that makes a bad neighbor,” she said. Other speakers warned data centers consume large amounts of water, add noise and generate limited local jobs.

Commissioners discussed parallel tools to manage placement and impacts. Several members asked legal staff whether a technology overlay district — a geographic zone that would concentrate heavy technology uses — could be created in addition to the text amendment. Planning staff said the commission could recommend the overlay and that it typically would take six to nine months to implement; they noted that applicants who already hold vested rights from approved site plans would not be affected retroactively.

The commission also discussed supplemental regulations such as minimum setbacks from residences and rivers modeled after other local ordinances and agreed those could reduce litigation risk compared with an outright ban. After that discussion, Commissioner Morgan moved to recommend approval; the motion passed on a voice vote announced as 5–0.

Next steps: The planning commission’s favorable recommendation will be forwarded to the board of supervisors for a formal public hearing and final action. The board may adopt additional conditions or supplemental regulations as part of its review.