Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents question land sales, data center and legal waivers after recent transactions in Charles City County
Summary
Residents raised environmental and equity concerns about land sales and a proposed sewage treatment plant near a school, criticized the recently approved data center for lack of shared data, and questioned a waiver allowing the county lawyer to represent both the county and private parties in an 87‑acre venture.
Several residents used the public‑comment periods at the Charles City County Board of Supervisors meeting to challenge recent land transactions and development approvals and to ask whether the county followed best practices for legal representation.
Randy O’Neil asked why acreage next to a school was foreclosed and sold for what he described as less than market value and pressed why the county planned an industrial sewage treatment plant close to a school campus, saying the proposal could create odors and health concerns for students. "Why are you planning on putting an industrial sewage treatment plant on this campus of the school?" he asked.
Chuck Billingsley raised concerns about a recently approved data center, saying the county approved the project without presenting the community with a business plan or data showing the project’s costs and benefits. He asked about job details, taxes to be collected and environmental impacts including water use and disposal.
Antoinette Jackson criticized a waiver that would allow the county’s lawyer to represent both the county and the Howard brothers in an 87‑acre venture, calling it a conflict and asking why the county did not engage separate counsel.
Board members did not change any prior approvals at the meeting; the administrator said the county will consider including performance covenants on future property deeds (a measure used previously at Roxbury Industrial Center) and will bring further language back to the board in December for action. The public’s requests for more documentation and for separate legal representation were not resolved at the meeting.
