Charles City supervisors defer decision on rezoning for Diode data center
A decision for the rezoning of property to allow the construction of a data center in Charles City has been put on hold for two months.
Charles City’s Board of Supervisors voted 3-0 to defer a decision on a request made by Diode Data Centers to rezone agricultural land to commercial and industrial during Tuesday night’s board meeting, gaining applause from concerned citizens.
Charles City Director of Community Development Gary Mitchell displayed an updated presentation from Diode. With earlier feedback stemming from concerns of sound, machine operations, and sightlines, Mitchell proposed a 200-foot buffer on the property. A display map illustrated the development with limited residential. Mitchell said no water would be drawn from the aquifer for cooling purposes and that no permits would be issued until all questions are answered and resolved.
Mitchell continued by saying he visited a data center in Henrico County, with no measurable sound emitted from the buildings. His staff also believes standard lighting and frontage on the property of CC Road was reasonable, with the standard lighting addressing community concerns.
Diode representative T. Preston Lloyd Jr. presentation on the group’s plan showed that the company would reinforce standards needed to have a data center in the county. This includes lighting, air quality, noise, parking, stormwater management, erosion, and sediment control, as well as utilities. Lloyd also said that the data center in Charles City would produce 800-1,200 construction jobs, and garner $258 million in tax revenue over the next 20-year period.
But after the presentation by both the community development director and Diode, the next two-and-a-half hours were spent by citizens addressing concerns and referencing the company’s history. Many citizens who live near the property that Diode wants to rezone said they don’t mind the data center, but that areas in the county were designated for those type of facilities and that the rezoning was unnecessary. Citizens also questioned the legitimacy of the company’s research, as basic questions such as noise levels and the amount of water needed for the facility unanswered. District 1 Supervisor Ryan Patterson, who oversees the area where the proposal is located, questioned Diode as well.
“I sit here and listened to this presentation and what the citizens said, and I have asked you all [Diode] about what is the noise level these facilities present based on your previous experience?” Patterson said. “I have concerns that you cannot answer this question, and I personally am uncomfortable making a decision on this tonight.”
Lloyd responded to Patterson, saying that he didn’t want to mislead the board with inaccurate information. But Patterson had a retort to his response.
“If everyday citizens are able to get access to this information through their research, how come a company can’t do the same?” Patterson said before concluding his statements.
District 2 Representative Michael Hill motioned for the two-month deferral to the August meeting to allow more research and information to be brought forward towards the board before a final decision is made.