Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Datacenter topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Charles City residents urge supervisors to reject Diode data center rezoning, citing health, water and noise concerns
Summary
Residents pressed the Charles City County Board of Supervisors to vote no on a proposed rezoning for a large Diode data center, raising questions about diesel generator emissions, unspecified water use, low-frequency noise, wetlands loss and inadequate community engagement; several speakers asked the board to delay any final vote and hold a workshop.
Dozens of Charles City County residents urged the Board of Supervisors on July 22 to reject a proposed rezoning that would allow a large Diode data center complex on land currently designated residential and agricultural.
Georgia Pulliam, who opened public comment, told the board she and a petition of more than 200 residents oppose the rezoning and warned the facility would bring "24/7 operations, heavy truck traffic, or industrial noise" to a rural neighborhood. "Please, for all of us, vote no on the Diode rezoning," she said.
Speakers across the public-comment period echoed concerns about air quality, noise, water and community fit. Pat Davis cited diesel-exhaust pollutants and said construction and ongoing generator use raise long-term health risks, while Matt Piercy described expected construction-decibel levels and how setbacks would affect nearby homes. Brandy Moreno and others referenced studies and asserted potential links between industrial emissions, EMFs and chronic health effects.
Several commenters criticized what they described as incomplete or vague developer disclosures. Elizabeth Costello said Diode's website lists few completed projects and questioned whether the county would realize the promised tax revenue, noting that some federal or government-supported tenants can be tax-exempt. Jared Klein and others criticized a technical witness’s inability to provide specific decibel ranges, water-use volumes or a clear count of planned buildings — gaps they said make it difficult for the board to assess impacts.
Environmental concerns featured prominently. Tracy Floyd and others described wetlands and steep slopes at the site, warning that paving, piping and grading could increase runoff and harm downstream ecosystems. Tracy Floyd noted that non-tidal wetlands provide flood-storage functions and said mitigation cannot fully replace those values.
Several residents urged procedural caution: Brooke Piercy asked the board to wait for an updated comprehensive plan before approving large-scale industrial zoning, and others requested a dedicated workshop that would include developer representatives, citizen groups and planning staff to allow technical exchange.
Board members did not take a final vote on the rezoning at the July 22 meeting. Multiple speakers called for more specific proffers, clearer commitments on generators, substations and water sourcing, and a formal public workshop to answer outstanding technical questions.
What’s next: Supervisors directed staff to provide follow-up information and several board members requested a workshop within the next two to three months; no rezoning decision was recorded at this meeting.
