Private brokers tell Goochland EDA power access, overlay zoning and water will decide data‑center prospects

Andy Ball, a principal broker with Sugar Oak Realty, and Alan Sharon of Sugar Growth Realty presented to the Goochland County Economic Development Authority on June 18 about how data‑center developers select sites and what local officials can do to attract projects.

The presentation focused on three constraints: available transmission capacity, long‑haul fiber access and zoning certainty. "The number one thing that's going on right now is the search for power," Alan Sharon said, describing what he and his developer clients call an urgent nationwide rush for sites with existing electrical infrastructure. Andy Ball added that developers favor sites where transmission lines and substations already exist because building new long‑haul transmission can take years.

Why it matters: presenters said counties that can show utility capacity and clear land‑use rules are more likely to receive offers from well‑capitalized developers. "If we had a magic wand ... identify the transmission, identify the fiber, and then create a TOD and say, here are sites. You will get offers," Sharon told the board.

Presenters outlined the utility‑study process and its cost and timing. They said a developer‑requested power study can deliver a multi‑year capacity estimate but can take several months to a year; in high‑demand markets officials cited in the presentation, application or study costs can reach six or seven figures. Ball warned that while a verbal, preliminary capacity indication can be obtained more quickly from a utility, a firm class‑3 style study tied to a developer’s load timeline is generally the developer’s responsibility.

Board members raised resident‑impact concerns including traffic, lighting and long‑term land reuse. The presenters said traffic from operating data centers is typically low and that facilities are usually blended into the landscape with buffers and security measures. On water use, they said developers increasingly favor air‑cooled or closed‑loop systems and that daily water use for a single 200,000‑square‑foot building is not comparable to the multi‑million‑gallon daily figures sometimes cited by critics.

Economic tradeoffs were part of the discussion. Presenters acknowledged that while data centers do not always generate large numbers of local, long‑term jobs, they can bring substantial property tax revenue if a project proceeds. Sharon cited examples of significant tax receipts in other localities and urged Goochland to weigh the revenue upside and the political consequences of siting heavy‑infrastructure projects.

Next steps suggested to the EDA included: identify stretches of transmission and fiber with open capacity; approach utilities for preliminary capacity information; consider establishing a technology overlay or similar zoning tool to reduce land‑use uncertainty; and prepare to discuss incentives, water provision and community buffering if a specific site advances to developer discussions.

The presentation was followed by an extended question‑and‑answer period with board members and staff. The data‑center discussion concluded before the meeting moved on to other business.