Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Google Datacenter topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press supervisors for answers on Google data center, citing water, noise and NDAs; board sends food‑truck ordinance back to staff for rework
Summary
A long string of public commenters urged the Board to halt or reconsider Google data center arrangements, raising questions about nondisclosure agreements, long‑term water use, tonal noise, and transparency. The board did not take final action on the data center but sent a proposed mobile food‑vendor ordinance back to staff to simplify requirements and consider lighter rules in agricultural areas.
Dozens of residents filled the public comment period to press the Board of Supervisors for more information and to express opposition to a proposed Google data center at Greenfield.
Speakers raised recurring themes: contracts or nondisclosure agreements signed by some officials (asserted by residents), a lack of publicly available studies on water consumption and the long‑term impact on local wells and reservoirs, potential long‑wavelength "tonal" noise from substations or cooling equipment, and concerns about property values and community character. "You have signed an agreement that gives the development companies basic control of the media releases," said Melissa Smith, calling for greater transparency. Other residents pointed to cases in other jurisdictions where water pressure or well levels were affected near large data facilities.
Representatives of business groups made a counterpoint. Jackie Sobieski, executive director of the Botetourt Chamber of Commerce, read a chamber statement supporting the project, citing expected tax revenue and construction activity.
The board did not vote on the data center at the meeting. Separately, planning staff presented a mobile food‑vendor (food‑truck) text amendment and held a public hearing. Several supervisors and members of the public said the draft was overly prescriptive for small operators and questioned how it would apply in the county's A1 (agricultural) zoning. After public comment, the board directed staff to return to the planning commission and draft a streamlined version that would be less restrictive in rural areas and explore the option of permission‑by‑right in appropriate locations.
Quotes from the meeting illustrated the tone of the day: student speaker Jaden Austin told supervisors, "I'm asking from the bottom of my heart, don't take away the money from these things that have driven people to come to Botetourt County," while resident Katherine Haddam said, "Google is a monster company. ... Please stop." Planning staff said the mobile‑vendor text is meant to give staff and the public clear standards; the board asked staff to pursue a simpler, less burdensome approach for A1 areas before returning with a new draft.
Next steps: staff will rework the mobile‑vendor ordinance with the planning commission and return with a simplified proposal; the Google project remains under review via other processes, and residents requested an evening public meeting dedicated to the data‑center topic.
