Supervisors pause applications while pursuing zoning change

Fluvanna County took a major step toward excluding data centers Wednesday night, with the Board of Supervisors voting 4-1 to begin a process that could remove them as an allowed use and pause consideration of new applications through the end of the year.

The resolution does not change the current zoning ordinances. Instead, it sends the matter to the Planning Commission for consideration and public hearings. The Planning Commission will propose amendments, which will then return to the supervisors for a final vote.

If ultimately approved, the change could remove data centers as a use allowed by special use permit in the county’s I-1 and I-2 industrial districts.

After Palmyra supervisor Tim Hodge raised concerns, the members also requested the Planning Commission consider regulations allowing smaller data facilities as an accessory to another primary business.

Chair Tony O’Brien (Rivanna) cast the lone dissenting vote.

The discussion grew pointed at times, particularly between O’Brien and Cunningham supervisor Chris Fairchild.

O’Brien argued that the board has considerable control over granting applications as it is and should be able to debate projects as they arise, rather than banning an entire industry category.

“So we say no to cows because they produce methane?” O’Brien said.

“You really make that comparison to cows?” Fairchild asked. “I don’t think most of the people who are sitting in the audience are comparing cows pooping to a million-square-foot data center.”

Fairchild said one landowner in his district had been approached by a data center and offered to purchase the land “at amounts that exceeded anything they thought they’d ever be offered.”

He also pointed to an 843-acre industrial site near Bremo Bluff that has been marketed for potential data center development, despite the board never formally endorsing that use for the property.

For Fairchild, those examples showed that the possibility of a data center proposal was no longer merely hypothetical. He argued that the county should close the door now, before a developer could gain vested rights under the existing ordinance.

As part of the resolution, Fork Union supervisor Mike Goad called for extending the moratorium on data center applications from the originally proposed Nov. 30 to Dec. 31, giving the Planning Commission more time to consider new regulations.

Currently, there are no data center applications on file with the county.

Fluvanna’s action places it among a growing number of Virginia localities moving to put the brakes on data center growth. With a statewide moratorium off the table, different areas are taking different approaches. For example, Virginia Beach recently adopted a yearlong moratorium on new applications, while Goochland County has moved to confine data centers to a designated technology overlay district.

The statewide pushback has been echoed in Fluvanna, with many residents urging supervisors not to allow the industry to establish a foothold.

“There are some things that matter more than additional tax revenue: our land, our water, our roads, our quality of life, and our rural character,” said Rivanna District resident Jennifer Kingrea Ruffner. “We have to look at the infrastructure that comes with these enormous industrial facilities. And we don’t want it.”

TRANSMISSION

Earlier in the meeting, supervisors unanimously agreed to add policies regarding transmission lines to the county’s Comprehensive Plan.

Several counties in the path of the proposed Valley Link transmission line have made similar moves in the hopes of influencing the State Corporation Commission’s review of Valley Link’s application, which is likely to be submitted for consideration by the end of this year.

The new guidance calls for transmission lines of 150 kilovolts or more to use existing utility corridors where possible and seeks to limit impacts on homes, farms, natural resources and historic sites. It also states that Fluvanna prioritizes burying transmission infrastructure.

Supervisors were well aware that changing the Comprehensive Plan does not have the force of law. Transmission line projects are regulated by the state, leaving Fluvanna and neighboring counties with little say over routing and approval.

But it does give the county an established policy to cite to state regulators when opposing proposed routes or recommending alternatives.

The transmission addendum and the data center resolution addressed two aspects of the same issue: the explosion of data center growth in Virginia and how to power it.

Goad argued that Fluvanna could not credibly oppose the transmission line while leaving the door open to the industry helping create the need for it.

“If we are opposed to Valley Link, how can we sit here and say that we would not get rid of something that primarily has a lot to do with it?” he said.

Home

Intro

Spotlight

Fluvanna moves to shut door on data centers