Pittsylvania County’s Board of Supervisors voted unanimously on Jan. 15 to rezone roughly 3,500 acres at the Berry Hill/Southern Virginia Megasite (Case R‑26‑008) from M‑2 heavy industrial to a new MSVMS (Southern Virginia Megasite) district, following a long joint meeting with the county planning commission and more than two hours of public comment for and against the change.

The vote implements a county‑initiated amendment to Chapter 35 of the Pittsylvania County zoning ordinance that creates a tailored zoning district limited to the megasite. Supporters said the new district matches prior site investments and gives the locality flexibility to market and host large, campus‑style industrial projects. Opponents said the change was rushed, reduces public oversight, and could permit high‑impact uses without adequate safeguards.

“The proposed new zoning district called MSVMS allows nearly any industry with essentially no restrictions,” said Jeff Love of the Stanton River District during public comment, adding the short public notice and timeline undermined trust. “The board is quickly attempting to force substantial changes so that they can do whatever they want to do, wherever they want to do it.”

County economic development director Matt Rowe told the joint bodies the rezoning is limited to the megasite parcels, is supported by existing infrastructure investments and by the Danville‑Pittsylvania Regional Industrial Facility Authority (RIFA). Rowe said the site is served by municipal water with significant existing capacity, has force‑main wastewater conveyance, multiple gas lines, a dedicated Appalachian Power transmission line and Class I rail frontage. He cited more than $217 million in investments to prepare the site and noted Microporous’ 2024 announcement as an active tenant.

“Any wastewater produced from industry on the site is transported by a force main to an existing wastewater plant that has significant wastewater volume capacity,” Rowe said as he described utilities and permitting requirements. He also noted that federal and state environmental regulations and permitting remain applicable to future projects.

Citizens and advocacy groups pressed multiple concerns. Katie Whitehead of the Dan River Basin Association asked the board to delay action and provide more time and opportunities for meaningful public input; she read a letter from Tiffany Hayworth (executive director) requesting a postponement. Sonia Smith, representing the Pittsylvania County NAACP Environmental and Climate Justice Committee, cited a research estimate presented during public comment that a large gas plant could affect up to 17,000 county residents and urged that environmental justice communities be protected.

Other speakers urged the board to require special‑use permits for data centers and power plants, to tighten water‑use and noise provisions, and to ensure stronger proffers or operational oversight. Supporters, including members of the local industrial development authority and contractors who have worked on the site, argued the ordinance adds protections over current M‑2 zoning (larger setbacks, buffers and noise limits for certain uses) and said proactive zoning is necessary to attract transformational projects.

The planning commission first considered the text amendment and recommended approval to the Board of Supervisors. The planning commission recorded a favorable recommendation (motion passed 6‑0 on the text amendment) and later moved to approve the rezoning recommendation for the specified parcels (motion passed 5‑0 at the planning commission hearing on the case).

On the Board of Supervisors’ floor, supervisors questioned how much of the 3,500 acres is developable. County staff said roughly 1,800–1,900 acres are developable once constraints such as rail, gas lines, topography and floodplains are accounted for. Supervisors also noted that certain environmental reports have been completed but described some as proprietary to RIFA and therefore not fully public.

Supervisor Vic Ingram made the motion to approve Case R‑26‑008 to rezone the identified parcels from M‑2 to MSVMS to permit heavy industry and power generation; Supervisor Dudley seconded. The clerk called the roll and all present supervisors voted yes. The board adopted the rezoning ordinance unanimously.

What the ordinance does and does not do: The MSVMS district applies only to the parcel IDs specified in Case R‑26‑008 and, according to staff, does not change the fact that some types of private or utility power plants were already permitted in existing M‑2 zoning in some form. Rowe and other staff emphasized that zoning will not supersede state or federal environmental laws and that future projects will require applicable permitting (erosion/sediment control, wetlands, air quality, water withdrawal permits where applicable). Several public commenters and some supervisors, however, said the county should require additional local review—such as special use permitting—for high‑impact facilities to preserve local oversight and opportunities for public input.

The board did not specify an effective date or implementation milestones during the meeting; no new local performance agreements or purchase and sale contracts for projects other than Microporous were announced at the hearing. Several speakers asked for clearer public outreach and follow‑up community engagement as next steps.

The decision followed extensive, at times emotional public testimony on both sides of the issue that highlighted the central tension for the county: balancing long‑term economic development and revenue needs with community concerns about environmental impacts, water use, noise and local oversight.

Planning and zoning staff and the Industrial Development Authority were asked to transmit legal exhibits and maps to finalize descriptions of the rezoned parcels per the resolution presented by the authority. The planning commission’s and board’s supporting materials were included in the board packet; some environmental documents referenced were described by staff as proprietary and not publicly disseminated at the hearing.

The board thanked citizens and the planning commission for their attendance and testimony; the meeting record shows the item closed following the unanimous vote.