Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Concerns topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Residents press county on nuclear safety, noise and property values at Goochland TOD town hall

Goochland County (staff presentation to public) · September 8, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

During a public Q&A, residents raised questions about small modular reactors, noise from 24/7 data centers, buffer distances, and potential impacts on property values; county staff said SMRs would be subject to federal and state oversight and outlined enforcement and noise‑monitoring plans but left several specifics open for future hearings.

A steady stream of residents at a Goochland County town hall pressed staff on health, safety and quality‑of‑life implications of the proposed Technology Overlay District (TOD), focusing on small modular reactors (SMRs), noise from data centers, buffers and potential effects on property values.

Several attendees asked whether SMRs could be sited inside the TOD and requested details about evacuation zones and safety protocols. County Administrator Jeremy Raley responded that SMRs are a proposal at this stage and that any such facility would be subject to state and federal permitting, including oversight by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and would require coordination with neighboring jurisdictions for emergency planning. "We would work very, very closely with our partners at the state and federal level to follow any sort of requirements," Raley said.

Noise was the most frequently raised concern. Residents told staff that constant, round‑the‑clock noise from data centers and backup generators can make outdoor living intolerable and questioned whether vegetative buffers are adequate. Deputy Administrator Sarah Worley acknowledged the limits of vegetation alone and described the revised noise strategy: daytime limits of 65 dB and nighttime limits of 60 dB measured anywhere within an adjacent residential property, required third‑party baseline and verification studies, engineering mitigation (sound walls, enclosures) and administrative enforcement mechanisms.

A number of residents urged larger setbacks and lower decibel limits (some advocated reductions to 50–55 dB), and asked why the county proposed by‑right allowances in some areas rather than conditional use permits. Raley and Worley framed the by‑right approach as a market‑competitive tool to attract investment while saying staff are working to calibrate protections such as setbacks, buffers and noise controls.

On enforcement, Raley said the county can pursue zoning enforcement and civil remedies and, if necessary, seek judicial remedies that could include work stoppage for noncompliant facilities. Worley added that the zoning administrator may require periodic sound studies and that post‑construction verification is required within three months of operation.

Residents also pressed staff on utilities and water supply. Staff said Dominion Energy did not attend the meeting and that utility matters are primarily between private developers and the utility, though county staff hopes Dominion will attend future hearings to address capacity and rates. On water, Raley said the county currently has a 5 million gallon‑per‑day agreement through the Tuckahoe Creek Service District and has contractual options to expand capacity up to 25 million gallons per day.

The county committed to continued public engagement — publishing a Frequently Asked Questions document, posting the presentation materials and transcript online, and holding the Planning Commission public hearing on Sept. 18, where residents will be allowed three‑minute comments at the podium.