Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge moratorium on data centers and demand transparency during zoning rewrite
Summary
At length during public comment, residents pressed supervisors for greater transparency and urged a moratorium on data centers, citing concerns about electricity and water impacts; speakers also criticized the county’s zoning rewrite process and school performance.
During a long public-comment period on May 19 many Franklin County residents urged the Board of Supervisors to slow down the zoning rewrite and to consider a moratorium on data-center projects while the community assesses potential water and electricity impacts.
Several speakers referenced recent proposals for large data centers in neighboring localities and cited the Virginia Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) reports that highlight substantial regional energy and water demands from modern data campuses. Residents said that large data centers can drive increased electric demand and — depending on cooling technology — large water usage that could stress regional surface and groundwater systems.
Multiple residents called for more rigorous, site‑specific analyses of hydrologic and electric-generation impacts before any rezoning or tax incentives are offered. Speakers expressed skepticism of developer assurances that utility service agreements will shield nearby customers from price or resource impacts; several requested that the county consider a temporary moratorium while officials gather independent studies.
Public comment also included broader concerns about county governance and transparency, with several speakers urging clearer communication, more accessible public engagement and full release of requested documents. Other commenters raised issues about school performance, trash at county dump sites, short-term rentals and modifications to lot-split rules.
Board members acknowledged the breadth of community concern. Some supervisors encouraged continued public engagement; the board earlier paused parts of the zoning rewrite and the planning commission signaled a willingness to revisit portions of the draft ordinance.
No formal policy change (moratorium) was enacted at the May 19 meeting; residents asked the board to treat the input as a reason to slow and improve the process and to require more independent technical analysis before permitting large utility‑intensive projects.
