Southampton County planning commission discusses data centers, asks staff to continue studying infrastructure and zoning

The Southampton County Planning Commission discussed the potential for data center development in the county and directed staff to continue researching infrastructure capacity and zoning options before proposing policy changes.

Secretary Randolph presented materials from a 2023–24 Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) study and a staff PowerPoint, saying the packet summarized “the impacts of data center development in Virginia,” and that Southampton’s current zoning already lists “data processing centers” as a permitted use in M-1 industrial districts of 30 acres or more.

The commission’s conversation centered on three practical constraints: power, water and local zoning. Commissioners noted that large modern data centers can demand substantial electricity and water and that upgrades to high-voltage transmission lines or new generation capacity can be costly and take many years to implement. “The electricity has to come from somewhere,” Secretary Randolph said, noting that significant grid upgrades or right-of-way work could push timelines for major campuses beyond five years.

Members also raised environmental and community concerns. One commissioner summarized a report passage stating that infrastructure investments tied to data centers can increase consumer bills and cited a figure of a $75–$100 monthly increase in average electric bills; Secretary Randolph acknowledged those costs are part of the broader infrastructure burden. Commissioners discussed cooling strategies, possible discharge of warmed water, and the potential need for retention ponds or recirculation systems.

Commissioners weighed the county’s land supply and noted county-owned property on Rose Valley Road (Beale Farm) that staff has been making shovel-ready with a roughly $200,000 state grant for environmental assessments. Some members said Southampton is more likely to attract small- to medium-sized facilities, given current transmission capacity and water availability, while larger multi-campus projects would require rezoning, major utility investment and lengthy lead times.

The panel compared regional examples. Members cited Mecklenburg County and Surry County experiences, including a Surry project that faced developer bankruptcy and prolonged permitting, as cautionary examples for promises of rapid economic payoff. Commissioners emphasized the need to evaluate projected tax revenue against infrastructure and maintenance costs, and to be wary that construction jobs often decline after the build-out phase.

On zoning options, Secretary Randolph recommended the commission consider threshold-based approaches—allowing industrial projects under a certain acreage to proceed with standard site development requirements while subjecting larger projects to conditional review, proffers or additional standards to protect nearby residential areas.

Without proposing immediate ordinance changes or taking formal votes on new rules, the commission asked staff to continue monitoring adjacent localities, track General Assembly activity related to data-center taxation and incentives, and return with additional findings in coming months. Chair noted the conversation was at an early stage and framed the next step as study and information-gathering rather than regulation.

Separately, the commission approved the prior meeting minutes with a clerical correction changing a listing from "Bridal" to "Randolph" by voice vote. The meeting adjourned with the commission set to reconvene at 7:00 p.m. on the scheduled date next month.