Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Progress Park Site Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wythe County approves Progress Park data center site plan and fencing; residents press for more transparency
Summary
The Board of Supervisors voted to authorize fencing and approve the Lot 35 site plan for a FluidStack (Archipelago Compute LLC) data center at Progress Park after staff review and developer presentation; residents asked for more noise, water and job-distribution details and reiterated calls for countywide zoning.
The Wythe County Board of Supervisors voted July 28 to authorize fencing and approve the site plan for a proposed data center at Lot 35 in Progress Park, following a staff review and a presentation by the developer's project manager.
John Penshorn of Stantec, presenting on behalf of the developer, said the company applied to the Town of Wytheville for a domestic water supply of "3,000 gallons a day" for employees and that the site's closed-loop cooling would need only occasional top-offs. Penshorn also noted that Progress Park covenants require a noise standard of 65 decibels at 500 feet and said preliminary modeling puts expected noise more in the "50 to 52 decibels" range at that distance. The board authorized the use of the proposed fencing styles and locations and voted to confirm the site plan meets Progress Park covenants; those motions passed by recorded vote.
Residents who spoke during citizens time continued to press for broader information. Miranda Edwards said, "1 data center is 1 too many in our county," and requested that the board publish verified details about FluidStack's operating locations, job counts and end users. Chair James D. Smith (reading the site-plan packet and motions during the meeting) urged staff and the developer to provide follow-up details to the public and pointed supervisors to the county Q&A webpage for further updates.
The developer team described site features including two entrances (primary and emergency), three retaining walls, a nearby substation to bring high-voltage feeds to medium-voltage service, a stormwater pond and secure perimeter fencing. Staff told the board they had completed administrative reviews across engineering, building inspections and wastewater and had returned two rounds of comments that the developer addressed. The board instructed staff to post the technical documentation and the forthcoming noise study so residents can review the supporting analyses. The board's vote allows staff to issue the formal determination of compliance with Progress Park covenants and clears the submitted site plan to move forward under county processes.
Next steps: staff said it will post the developer's final noise study and follow-up Q&A on the county website and will continue to coordinate required permits and inspections.
