Residents press Wythe County supervisors for fuller review of proposed data center; land-use draft sent back to Planning Commission

Dozens of residents pressed the Wythe County Board of Supervisors on May 26 over a proposed data center in Progress Park, urging fuller environmental review, clearer wastewater and wildlife analyses, and stronger local safeguards.

Stacy Beamer, who addressed the Board during Citizens’ Time, said she did not intend to attack supervisors personally but asked them to ‘‘help keep our county rural and beautiful for the sake of my grandchildren and yours’’ and called for more local study of potential harms from the project. ‘‘I never voiced, suggested, or implied that you would make a decision for this county that would negatively impact your grandchildren,’’ Beamer said.

Other speakers raised related concerns. Sarah Bates asked the county to publish a unified comprehensive plan that includes Native and Black cultural resources and to provide an environmental assessment; she questioned wastewater estimates for the project’s closed-loop cooling. Denise Davis warned of ‘‘air pollution, noise pollution, possible water pollution’’ and asked what tangible community benefits — beyond promised revenue — would accompany the project. Engineer and resident Andrew Russell characterized what gets built as a ‘‘permanent extraction entity’’ and said he has not seen company representatives in six months.

Not all public commenters opposed the project. Cindy McIlrath, speaking during Citizens’ Time, defended locating the facility in an industrial park and urged citizens to focus on state-level policy changes that affect local authority under Virginia’s Dillon Rule.

Several speakers raised privacy and surveillance concerns tied to other technologies, with Joe Upcavage alleging that automated license-plate systems and other camera networks risk long-term misuse of personally identifying information; his comments were framed as a citizen allegation and were not supported by a Board response during the meeting.

Responding to public input, the Board discussed next steps for county land-use policy. Deputy County Administrator Matthew C. Hankins said staff has held three public input sessions on the draft land use classification ordinance and could route suggested edits through the Planning Commission. Chair James D. "Jamie" Smith and other supervisors supported that approach.

Supervisor Stacy A. Terry moved, and Vice Chair J.W. "Dicky" Morgan seconded, to refer the draft land use classification ordinance back to the Planning Commission for revision based on public feedback and to schedule a joint meeting to review updates; the motion passed unanimously.

What happens next: The Planning Commission is expected to consider public suggestions and produce recommended changes before returning the ordinance to the Board, which may then set a public hearing and consider adoption. Several speakers asked for further environmental study, clearer wastewater modeling for closed-loop cooling, and explicit treatment of cultural-resource inventories in a consolidated comprehensive plan.

Why it matters: The county is debating how to balance economic incentives and tax revenue offered by large infrastructure projects with environmental stewardship, cultural-resource protections and long-term land-use planning. Residents emphasized that zoning or a land-use ordinance would create formal public hearings before industrial projects are permitted in rural areas.

The Board did not take a final vote on the data center itself at the May 26 meeting.