Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Progress Park Siteplan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board authorizes perimeter fencing and staff determination for FluidStack site plan in Progress Park
Summary
After a staff review and developer presentation, the Board approved perimeter security fencing for Lot 35 in Progress Park and authorized staff to issue a determination that the FluidStack site plan meets Progress Park covenants; one member voted no on the final site-plan determination.
County staff and developer representatives reviewed the site plan for FluidStack's proposed Lot 35 build in Progress Park and asked the Board to approve perimeter security fencing and to allow staff to issue a covenant determination.
John Penshorn, civil engineer and project manager for Stantec, and Brian McGuire, senior civil engineer for FluidStack, told the Board that the project has applied to the Town of Wytheville for 3,000 gallons per day of domestic water (for employees), submitted a sanitary application roughly equivalent to 7–10 households, and intends to use a closed-loop cooling system that would only need occasional top-offs. Penshorn said preliminary noise modeling is "well below" the covenant standard; staff later characterized preliminary modeling in the low 50s decibels. The developers described a substation on the property, two site entrances (one emergency), and three retaining walls; they requested different types of perimeter fencing including crash-rated access gates and privacy slats near substation equipment.
On separate roll-call votes the Board unanimously authorized the use and types of perimeter security fencing requested by the developer and then authorized staff to issue a determination that the site plan meets Progress Park covenants. The site-plan determination vote passed with AYES from Supervisors Cook, Morgan, Smith, Terry and Burnett and a NAY from Supervisor Sarah P. Crockett. County staff said they had sent two rounds of review comments and received timely responses from the developer, and that they would provide the Board with final decibel models and additional technical details requested by supervisors.
Supervisor Jesse R. Burnett asked the developers to provide comparisons so residents could better understand what a 65-decibel covenant limit meant in practice; Penshorn agreed to provide a written equivalence for common sounds. Staff also agreed to add answers to resident questions in the county Q&A and provide follow-ups on employment numbers and operational site locations if available.
