Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Progress Park topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fluid Stack presents Solus Arcs plan at Progress Park; board approves estoppel statement
Summary
Fluid Stack representatives described closed-loop cooling, local hiring plans and infrastructure commitments for the Solus Arcs project at Progress Park. County staff said the site currently complies with Progress Park covenants and the board approved an estoppel statement; a site plan is still required before permits.
Get email alerts on the Progress Park topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fluid Stack told the Wythe County Board of Supervisors on June 9 that its recently acquired Solus Arcs project at Progress Park will use modern closed-loop cooling and comply with county covenants, and the board approved an administrative estoppel statement affirming current covenant compliance.
Kate Franco, speaking for Fluid Stack, said the company closed on the Progress Park parcel "within the last week or two" and described data centers as the "physical home of the internet." Franco explained that the firm intends to document all commitments in contracts and permits, pay for necessary utility upgrades, and publish project details on a project website as the site plan and permitting process proceed. On water use, she said a closed-loop system "uses less water than a traditional evaporative cooling method," adding that average daily use could be "approximately equal to that of seven or so average homes." Franco also said the company expects to hire locally and estimated "2 to 500 or so employees on that campus on a daily basis" as the campus builds out.
County staff and legal counsel reviewed the Progress Park covenants at length, listing permitted and prohibited uses, site-plan requirements (materials, screening, parking, lighting and stormwater controls) and noise limits (language in the covenants referenced a 65 dB standard at 500 feet). Staff said the Solus Arcs parcel is presently in compliance with the covenants and noted that a site plan addressing the covenants must be submitted and approved before building permits are issued.
The board considered and approved an estoppel statement — a routine administrative document confirming there are no present covenant violations — after staff and counsel recommended approval. A motion to approve the estoppel was made, seconded and adopted by roll call. County staff emphasized that the estoppel does not substitute for site-plan review and that the company must submit detailed plans addressing lighting, screening, transformers, landscape, and noise before construction can proceed.
Residents in the audience repeatedly asked that commitments be made public and legally binding; staff responded that permitting, contracts and audits will enforce standards and that the site plan will be reviewed publicly. Board members said they expect continued engagement with the company and with residents as the project advances.

