Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan Approval topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves Progress Park site plan and fencing for proposed FluidStac data center
Summary
After staff review and a developer presentation, Wythe County supervisors authorized fencing per Progress Park covenants and approved the FluidStac site plan for Lot 35, with staff to post technical studies including a noise model.
Get email alerts on the Site Plan Approval topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wythe County supervisors voted July 28 to approve the site plan and fencing proposals for Lot 35 in Progress Park, a plan submitted by FluidStac (doing business as Archipelago Compute LLC). Staff said the developer’s administrative submission included 71 plan sheets and that staff reviews (administration, engineering, building inspections, wastewater) showed the plan conforms to Progress Park covenants after two rounds of responses.
Developer project manager John Penshorn (Stantec) and Brian Dwyer (FluidStac) presented the site plan. Penshorn said applications were submitted to the Town of Wytheville for 3,000 gallons per day of water for domestic use when the site is occupied — an amount the team compared to the domestic usage of about seven to ten households. On noise, the applicant noted the covenant standard of 65 decibels at 500 feet; preliminary modeling submitted to staff showed levels “well below” that covenant threshold and the presenter said early estimates were in the range of 50–52 dB at 500 feet. Penshorn also described site features including two entrances (primary and emergency), three retaining walls (maximum ~30 feet), a stormwater pond and a proposed substation accessed by overhead high‑voltage lines.
Staff recommended and the board authorized the three specified fence types and locations required under Progress Park covenants (standard security fence, crash‑rated gates at vehicle access points, and slatted privacy panels around substation equipment). After a motion by Mr. Cook and a second by Mr. Morgan, the board conducted a roll‑call vote and approved both the fencing and the site plan.
The developer said it will submit a full noise study to county staff for review and promised lay‑friendly descriptions of what the decibel limits mean; staff also committed to share the developer materials through the county Q&A and website to address citizen concerns about transparency.

