Charles City citizens express concerns over data center project, property reassessments

Charles City County citizens are challenging local leadership to have an impact in major areas in the county and provide more transparency.

Residents voiced concerns on two specific areas during Tuesday night’s Charles City Board of Supervisors’ meeting, hoping their messages get through and are addressed.

The first issue brought to the table was concern about the Pointe One data center project. Currently, the project is zoned for M-1 and M-2 (industrial zoning) and could construct by-right. However, citizens believe that the additional infrastructure needed for the project does not qualify and that public input should be solicited.

“By-right permission should not automatically allow industrial infrastructure,” commented Pat Davis. “If you do that, it fundamentally changes the nature of the operation.

“There are zoning ordinances for times like this,” she continued. “This project needs to be reviewed for noise and environmental impacts.

“We fought this last year when Diode tried to bring a data center in,” Davis added as she wrapped up her comments. “The board should require a review before this project moves forward. The by-right label should not be stretched to cover uses that shouldn’t be allowed. The by-right for data centers zoned M1 and M2 need to be reversed.”

Brandi Morano echoed the same sentiments as Davis, saying that the definition of by-right has been legally defined.

“Data centers may be by-right but that doesn’t mean everything associated with it is,” she said, pointing to how gas turbines and a power plant substation does not fall under the legal definition. “When will public hearings for power infrastructure be held by the board?

“If those uses are treated as by-right, what happens is simple, zoning expansion going through the legally required amended process,” Morano continued. “That means public review is bypassed. That is a precedent that is being set for major utility infrastructure to be built and being covered by the by-right and labeling themselves as a data center.”

Other citizens approached the lectern and continued to question the county’s oversight of the project. Residents voiced concerns of the qualifications of a person overseeing the project, the lack of transparency and organization, and the environmental impacts if the project comes to fruition.

The other issue citizens raised concerns about was the recent reassessment of property in the county. Citizens were not happy about recent appraisals and the value of their property escalating by what many call an astronomical amount.

“One of my properties escalated by 161 percent,” commented Martha Harris. “I requested an appeal and contacted the Commissioner of the Revenue.

“After a few exchanges, she told me to contact the county administrator and told me she did not have anything to do with the hiring of the assessor,” she continued. “I don’t think you all know what’s going on with it. We got to get on one accord and to do better.

“The assessments were done and I had my appeal heard and it was lowered,” Harris said as she concluded her comments. “But what about the other people who had theirs done and can’t get down here to file an appeal such as the disabled or elderly? Something is not right because the same thing happened for personal property taxes. It’s not fair for the people who did not come up to file an appeal to deal with the same things.”

William Myers, who has spent more than 50 years in real estate, commented that his meeting with the assessor about his property didn’t go as planned.

“I asked him how he got these numbers and I thought everything would be swell,” he said. “But he was adamant they were right and real immature. He didn’t’ want to talk about him even when I asked how he got the numbers.

“I looked at my property, and it had the wrong square footage on it,” Myers continued. “I don’t know who is in charge or who hired the person to do the assessments, but this person is not licensed to be an appraiser. His license expired on July 31, 2025, so when he did this, he wasn’t licensed.

“Anybody who is coming out to put a price on property needs to be up-to-date on what they are doing and should be licensed,” Myers concluded.

Earlier in the meeting, county leaders approved extending the reassessment cycle from four years to five years. The change was made due to the fact that the contractor had not met all of the requirements necessary by the March 31 deadline to complete the duties.