Southampton County planners debate data-center rules, ask staff to research ordinances
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The Planning Commission spent most of its meeting scrutinizing data-center impacts — power, water, land use and decommissioning — and asked staff to survey other local ordinances and report back, with an eye toward drafting a local ordinance within months.
The Southampton County Planning Commission spent the bulk of its March meeting examining how the county should respond if large data centers seek to locate in the county, focusing on electricity and water impacts, siting constraints, and possible ordinance tools to protect farmland and residents.
Chair opened the discussion by saying the commission should ‘‘be on the offensive’’ and prepare rules rather than reacting to a surprise application. Several commissioners warned big data centers can demand transmission upgrades and other infrastructure that could raise resident utility bills unless mitigated. "Virginia Power is more than happy to put that in, but somebody's gonna pay for it," a committee member said during the discussion.
Why it matters: commissioners said data centers can bring property-tax revenue but typically do not provide large long-term employment, require big parcels (commissioners discussed 100‑acre+ sites), and may demand dedicated power infrastructure or water withdrawals. Members also raised long-term decommissioning risks, noting the difficulty and expense of removing large facilities and solar-style equipment if a company leaves.
What was proposed: members discussed zoning tools other localities have used — acreage caps or county-percentage limits (1% of county land was cited in the meeting), setbacks from roads or populated places, special screening and landscaping, impervious-area limits, and design controls such as required window coverage used by some ordinances. Staff also noted proffers/donations from applicants are voluntary under state law and cannot be mandated.
Next steps: the commission agreed to direct staff to research ordinances and related experiences in nearby localities (examples cited in discussion included Petersburg, Loudoun, Halifax, Rockingham and Suffolk) and to invite municipal or county officials (not developers’ salespeople) to speak about their ordinance approaches. Commissioners asked staff to return with findings and suggested that, if started promptly, a draft ordinance could be prepared within about three months. The commission recorded a consensus to remain proactive, identify "power-rich" candidate areas near substations or transmission rights-of-way, and to limit potential siting via acreage, setbacks and other zoning techniques.
Quotes: Chair said the county should not be surprised by applications and ‘‘I wanna be on the offensive.’’ A commissioner warned, "They didn't show you anything bad" at industry outreach visits and urged caution when reviewing developer materials.
What’s next: staff agreed to contact the named localities, gather sample ordinances and technical information (power capacity, water-permit issues, bonding/closeout practices) and present recommendations at the next monthly meeting. The commission discussed drafting an ordinance and returning a formal recommendation to the Board of Supervisors once research is complete.
Provenance: Commission discussion opened on the data center topic and review of packet materials (topic intro SEG 161) and continued through the staff assignment and direction to research other localities (discussion concluding SEG 2060–SEG 2310).