Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge board to pause '0.1' data center, calling it a disguised gas-fired power plant
Summary
Public commenters told the Charles City Board the proposed '0.1' data center includes turbine yards, gas turbines and diesel generators, and urged the board to pause approvals until zoning, water and emissions impacts are reviewed. County staff said no site plan is approved and the county has no position.
Several residents urged the Charles City Board of Supervisors to pause action on a proposed ‘‘0.1’’ data center campus, saying the development appears to be an industrial energy complex rather than a conventional data center.
Pat Davis told the board that the site plan depicts two "turbine yards" and—citing his review of materials—said the full project would include dozens of gas-powered turbines, diesel backup generators and a new well drawing from the local aquifer. "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig," Davis said, arguing the project’s scale and equipment make it a heavy industrial use that should not be treated as a by-right data center.
Tracy Floyd, who said she reviewed federal and state permits for the project, told the board that the documents repeatedly refer to the facility as a power plant and urged supervisors to consider special-use permitting and other legal options. "This body needs to pause the approval process until they can evaluate the impacts of a project of this scale," Floyd said.
County Administrator Rogers said the project presenter was not present and clarified the county’s posture: "The site plan is available for inspection. There is no update regarding the county's position on this project. There is not an approved site plan." Rogers also advised residents that a site plan is not yet approved and that staff has not issued a formal recommendation.
Several speakers raised local infrastructure concerns—road access, noise, groundwater impacts and precedent-setting zoning outcomes—asking the board to treat the proposal as more than a conventional technology campus. The board did not take formal action on the project during the meeting; Rogers said staff would provide additional materials and hold a community meeting on the reassessment and project updates at a future date.
