On the agenda: Caroline County meeting — data center (Jan 22)

1. ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Organizational Meeting to be called to order by the Clerk of the Commission
Election of Chairman
Election of Vice-Chairman
Adoption of Rules of Order
Establish Dates and Times for Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Adoption of Policy for Electronic Participation in Meetings from Remote Locations
Close Organizational Meeting

Documents:
RULES OF ORDER-2026 DRAFT.PDF
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DATES - 2026.PDF
2026 ELECTRONIC MEETINGS POLICY - CAROLINE COUNTY PC.PDF
2. CALL TO ORDER - REGULAR MEETING
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE / INVOCATION
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4.I. Meeting Minutes
Documents:
PC 12182025 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES.PDF
5. ANY AND ALL MATTERS
6. ADJOURNMENT

PLANNING COMMISSION OF CAROLINE COUNTY
2026 RULES OF ORDER
I.

MEMBERSHIP
1. The Planning Commission of Caroline County, Virginia (the “Planning
Commission” or “Commission”) shall be governed by these Rules of Order (the
“Rules”), in addition to applicable federal, state, and local laws, statutes,
ordinances, as amended, including the following:
-

Title 15.2, Chapter 22, Article 2 – “Local Planning Commission” (Va. Code
§§15.2-2210 et seq.);

-

The Virginia Freedom of Information Act (Va. Code §§ 2.2-3700 et seq.);

-

The Virginia Conflict of Interests Act (Va. Code §§ 2.2-3100 et seq.);

-

The Caroline County Zoning Ordinance; and

-

The Caroline County Code.

2. Upon taking office, all members of the Commission shall familiarize themselves
with the foregoing and shall be strictly governed thereby in the conduct of
Commission affairs.
3. When a member proposes to resign, if reasonably feasible, they shall give
advance written notice to the Chairperson, or make the date of resignation
effective in such a manner as to allow time for timely appointment of a
replacement.
4. All new members appointed to the Planning Commission must attend a
Commission-approved training program, such as the Land Use Education
Program (LUEP) Certified Planning Commissioner Program, within one (1) year
of appointment. Costs associated with attendance will be reimbursed by the
County upon completion. All Planning Commission members should attend
seminars and annual refresher courses.
II.

OFFICERS
1. As the first item of new business at the Commission’s organizational meeting,
held during the first meeting of the Commission for each calendar year, the
Commission shall elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson. If such meeting is
canceled or a quorum is lacking, the election shall be held within 36 days
thereafter at a regular or special meeting.

Adopted January 22,2026

1

2. If present and able, the Chairperson shall preside at all meetings and hearings.
If the Chairperson is absent or unable to preside, the Vice-Chairperson shall
preside. If both are absent or unable to preside, the members present shall
appoint a temporary chairperson to preside.
3. In accordance with these and other applicable rules, the presiding officer shall
decide all points of procedure or order unless otherwise directed by a majority
of the members in attendance on a motion duly made and passed.
4. The Clerk, who shall be appointed from the staff of the Planning Department,
shall handle correspondence subject to these rules at the direction of the
Commission, shall send out Notices required by these rules, shall keep minutes
of the Commission’s proceedings and shall keep a file on each case which
comes before the Commission.
III.

MEETING
1. Regular meetings of the Commission shall be held at 6:30 p.m., in the
Community Services Center Auditorium, located at 17202 Richmond Turnpike,
Milford, Caroline County, Virginia on the 4th Thursday of the month provided
that such meetings may be held at any other convenient place if directed by
the Chairperson in advance of the meeting or upon finding that such other
location would serve the public convenience or necessity.
2. A worksession of the Commission may be held as needed in the Community
Services Center, located at 17202 Richmond Turnpike, Milford, Virginia. The day
and time of the worksession will be determined by the Commission.
3. If weather or other conditions are such that it is determined by the Chairperson
that it may be hazardous for the public to attend a scheduled meeting or work
session, that meeting shall be automatically continued to the following
Thursday at the same time and place as the previously scheduled regular
meeting.
4. Special meetings may be called at the request of the Chairperson or at the
request of a quorum of the membership. Written notice of the meetings shall
be given at least five days prior to such meetings and shall state the purpose
and time of the meeting.
5. In the event that a regularly scheduled meeting, specially called meeting,
and/or work session meeting of the Caroline County Planning Commission
continues to 11:00 PM, the Commission may, at its discretion, adjourn the
meeting until the next business day provided the motion of adjournment states
the hour and location that the adjourned meeting is to be reconvened.

Adopted January 22,2026

2

IV.

RULES OF PROCEDURE
1. All meetings shall have a prepared agenda. The general order of business for

each of the Commission's regular monthly meetings shall be as follows:
Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Invocation
Approval of Minutes
Subdivision Review
Unfinished Business
Public Hearings
New Business
Any and All Matters
Adjournment
During the preparation of the agenda for any Commission meeting, the
Director of Planning may, when appropriate, amend the general order of
business.
2. If a majority of the Commission fails to attend within a quarter hour after the

time appointed for the meeting, the Clerk shall enter in the minute book the
names of the members present and the adjournment for want of a quorum.
Four commissioners (2/3 of the Commission) must be present for a quorum.
3. If, in advance of a scheduled regular or special meeting of the Commission,

the Clerk is informed by a majority of Commissioners that they will not be in
attendance, the Clerk shall inform the Chairperson, who may thereafter deem
the meeting adjourned for want of a quorum. If the meeting is so adjourned
in advance of the scheduled meeting time, notice of the adjournment for
want of quorum shall be posted at the location of said meeting.
4. All votes shall be recorded "yea" and "nay”; in cases where the vote is not

unanimous or confirmation is necessary, a roll call vote shall be conducted.
5. The Chairperson may make a motion or second a motion on any matter under

consideration by the Commission.
6. No motion will be acted upon until it has had a second. At this time, the

Chairperson will call for a discussion.
7. A majority vote of the Commission is necessary to advance a motion.

A
motion made to approve that does not receive a majority vote does not
constitute a motion to deny. A separate motion to deny is necessary for the
case to be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of
denial. Conversely, a motion to deny that does not receive a majority vote
does not constitute a motion to approve.

Adopted January 22,2026

3

8. In the event of a tie vote, the

case will be forwarded to the Board of
Supervisors with no recommendation, unless controlling law requires
otherwise.

9. A member shall address himself/herself to the Chairperson and be recognized

by him/her before that member may proceed. After being recognized, the
member shall not be interrupted during the time allowed him/her.
10. All debates shall be regular without altercation or personal invective and must

be pertinent to the question.
11. The Sheriff, or his deputy, may be required to attend the meetings of the

Commission to preserve quiet and order at the direction of the majority of the
Commission.
12. After a member has been entered as present at any meeting, he/she shall

not, without leave of the Chairperson, absent himself/herself.
13. In the case of the absence of the Chairperson, the Vice-Chairperson shall

preside.
14. No question will be considered that is not on the agenda, unless the majority

of the Commission agrees.
15. A tabled item will not be brought back before the Commission until a motion

to reconsider the issue has been adopted.
16. A regular meeting may be adjourned to a worksession if a motion to do so is

approved.
17. In any matter not addressed in these Rules of Order, Robert's Rules of Order

shall be followed.
18. The Commission, in accordance with the CODE OF VIRGINIA and Robert's

Rules of Order, may continue meetings at its discretion, set rules for public
hearings and call special meetings as necessary.
19. The Commission may, upon a majority vote of all Commission members during

a properly called meeting, amend these Rules of Order.
20. Any use permit application dependant upon a zoning text amendment(s)

shall not be scheduled for a public hearing until one (1) month after the
Commission considers and acts upon the proposed text amendment(s).

Adopted January 22,2026

4

V.

PUBLIC HEARING PROTOCOL
1. The purpose of a public hearing is for the Caroline County Planning Commission
to listen carefully to the verbal expression of position and opinion from the
citizens of Caroline County.
2. All public hearings are advertised weeks prior to the scheduled hearings and
the notices indicate where citizens can obtain information pertinent to matters
scheduled for public hearing.
3. Public hearings are not question and answer sessions or debates and all
statements should be addressed to the chair.
4. Public hearings are intended to give citizens an opportunity offer comment as
part of the public decision process.
5. When members of the public offer comment, they need to clearly state their
name and voting distric prior to making their comments.
6. Applicants, or representatives of the applicant, will be allowed 15 minutes, at
a minimum, as determined by the Planning Commission, to introduce
information regarding the matter advertised for public hearing. All comments
are to be pertinent to the issue being considered.
7. Persons speaking at public hearings are respectfully requested to keep
comments brief, not to exceed three (3) minutes, and to address only those
issues pertinent to the matters advertised for public hearing.
8. After the Public Hearing has been closed, the applicant or representatives of
the applicant will be allowed ten (10) minutes to address any issues identified
by the public.
9. Written copies of statements made at public hearings are requested but not
required.

VI.

APPLICATIONS
1. All applications will be received by the Planning Department and shall be set
for public hearing in the order in which they are received and deemed
complete.
2. Completed applications and any other items for review or approval by the
Commission shall be placed on the Commission’s agenda for the appropriate
month by the Planning Department, unless otherwise authorized by the
Commission.

Adopted January 22,2026

5

3. Prior to being placed on the Commission’s agenda, the application must be
reviewed by staff and the Technical Review Committee (TRC) unless such
review is otherwised waived by the Planning Director.
4. The Clerk of the Commission shall notify all interested parties of the public
hearing, schedule the case, and give public notice in accordance within 15.22204, Code of Virginia.
VII.

RECORDS
A certified official copy of the rules of the Commission in current form shall be
available in the office of the Planning Department, Caroline County, Virginia.
Additional copies shall be provided to members of the Commission and made
available to the public upon request.

VIII.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION
All applicants with requests before the Planning Commission will be responsible for
the main presentation to the Planning Commission. Staff will first present a general
overview of the project and applicable background information, then the
applicant will be allowed fifteen minutes at a minimum, as determined by the
Planning Commission, to make a presentation. After the applicant has had an
opportunity to present, the Planning Commission may discuss the application and
ask questions as appropriate to staff or the applicant.

ADOPTED THIS

22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

CHAIRMAN

CLERK

Adopted January 22,2026

6

2026 REGULAR MEETING SCHEDULE
OF THE

CAROLINE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

THURSDAY
THURSDAY
THURSDAY
THURSDAY
THURSDAY
THURSDAY
THURSDAY
THURSDAY
THURSDAY
THURSDAY
THURSDAY
THURSDAY

DATE
JANUARY 22, 2026
FEBRUARY 26, 2026
MARCH 26, 2026
APRIL 23, 2026
MAY 28, 2026
JUNE 25, 2026
JULY 23, 2026
AUGUST 27, 2026
SEPTEMBER 24, 2026
OCTOBER 22, 2026
NOVEMBER 19, 2026*
DECEMBER 17, 2026*

TIME
6:30 p.m.
6:30 p.m.
6:30 p.m.
6:30 p.m.
6:30 p.m.
6:30 p.m.
6:30 p.m.
6:30 p.m.
6:30 p.m.
6:30 p.m.
6:30 p.m.
6:30 p.m.

Regular Meetings are to be held at the Community Services Center
Auditorium, 17202 Richmond Turnpike, Milford, VA 22514
*Date changed to Third Thursday of the month due to Holiday

PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY
Remote Participation and All-Virtual Meetings
Adopted:

Revised:

CAROLINE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
POLICY FOR ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION IN MEETINGS FROM REMOTE
LOCATIONS
1.0

Purpose and Need
The Planning Commission of Caroline County, Virginia (the “Commission”) practices
open and transparent governance in full compliance with the Virginia Freedom of
Information Act (“FOIA”) and other applicable laws and regulations. Commission
members shall make every effort to physically attend every meeting of the Commission.
The Commission, as a Virginia local public body, desires to adopt this policy, as
permitted by Virginia Code §§ 2.2-3708.2 and 2.2-3708.3, to provide for the use by the
Commission of all-virtual public meetings in the event of a state emergency under
Virginia Code § 44-146.17 or a local state of emergency declared within Caroline County
pursuant to Virginia Code § 44-146.21, and to afford members thereof the opportunity to
participate remotely in a Commission meeting when such member may be unable to
attend the meeting due to: (1) a physical disability or medical condition of a member; (2)
a medical condition of a family member of the member for whom the member is required
to provide care; (3) the member’s principal residence is more than sixty (60) miles from
the meeting location identified in the required notice for such meeting; or (4) a personal
matter.
This policy shall apply strictly and uniformly to the entire membership of the
Commission without regard to the identity of the member requesting remote participation
or the matters that will be considered or voted on at any meeting.

2.0

Definitions
“All-virtual public meeting” means a public meeting (i) conducted by a public body,
other than those excepted pursuant to subsection C of § 2.2-3708.3, using electronic
communication means, (ii) during which all members of the public body who participate
do so remotely rather than being assembled in one physical location, and (iii) to which
public access is provided through electronic communication means.
"Electronic communication" means the use of technology having electrical, digital,
magnetic, wireless, optical, electromagnetic, or similar capabilities to transmit or receive
information.
Medical condition of a family member of a Commission member means those situations
in which the family member’s medical condition requires the Commission member to
provide care for the family member and thus prevents the Commission member from
physically attending the meeting.

Page 1 of 4

PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY
Remote Participation and All-Virtual Meetings
Adopted:

Revised:

“Personal matter” means any matter deemed by a member of the Commission that
prevents their attendance in person at a meeting of the Commission, examples of which
include, but are not limited, to personal, family or business matters that prevent
attendance at the meeting location; severe weather conditions or unexpected traffic or
travel conditions that prevent travel to the meeting location.
Physical disability or other medical condition of the Commission member includes, but
is not limited, to temporary hospitalization or confinement to home, contagious illness,
any temporary or permanent physical disability that prevents travel to the meeting
location by the Commission member.
"Remote participation" means participation by an individual member of a public body
by electronic communication means in a public meeting where a quorum of the public
body is otherwise physically assembled.
3.0

Requirements for All-Virtual Commission Meetings During a Declared Public
Emergency Without a Quorum Physically Assembled
As permitted by Virginia Code § 2.2-3708.2, at any of its meetings or joint meetings with
another public body, the Commission may meet by electronic communication means
without a quorum of the Commission physically assembled at one location when the
Governor has declared a state of emergency in accordance with Virginia Code § 44146.17 or when there is a local state of emergency declared within Caroline County
pursuant to Virginia Code § 44-146.21, provided that (i) the catastrophic nature of the
declared emergency makes it impracticable or unsafe to assemble a quorum in a single
location and (ii) the purpose of the meeting is to provide for the continuity of operations
of the Commission or the discharge of its lawful purposes, duties, and responsibilities.
The Commission convening a meeting in accordance with this section shall:
1) Give public notice using the best available method given the nature of the emergency,
which notice shall be given contemporaneously with the notice provided to its
members;
2) Make arrangements for public access to such meeting through electronic
communication means, including videoconferencing if already used by Commission;
3) Provide the public with the opportunity to comment at its meetings when public
comment is customarily received at such meetings; and
4) Otherwise comply with the provisions of this policy and Virginia Code §§ 2.2-3708.2
and 2.2-3708.3.
The nature of the emergency, the fact that the meeting was held by electronic
communication means, and the type of electronic communication means by which the
meeting was held shall be stated in the minutes.

Page 2 of 4

PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY
Remote Participation and All-Virtual Meetings
Adopted:

Revised:

The provisions of this section shall be applicable only for the duration of the emergency
declared pursuant to Virginia Code § 44-146.17 or § 44-146.21.
4.0

Requirements for a Commission or Commission Committee Member to Participate
Remotely in a Meeting
As permitted by Virginia Code § 2.2-3708.3, when a quorum of the Commission is
physically assembled at the primary meeting location, a member may request to
participate remote when that the member will be unable to attend the meeting in person
due to one of the following reasons:
1) The member has a temporary or permanent disability or other medical condition that
prevents the member's physical attendance;
2) A medical condition of a member of the member's family requires the member to
provide care that prevents the member's physical attendance;
3) The member's principal residence is more than 60 miles from the meeting location
identified in the required notice for such meeting; or
4) The member is unable to attend the meeting due to a personal matter and identifies
with specificity the nature of the personal matter. However, the member may not use
remote participation due to personal matters more than two meetings per calendar
year or 25 percent of the meetings held per calendar year rounded up to the next
whole number, whichever is greater.
If participation by a member through electronic communication means is approved
pursuant to Section 5.0, the Commission shall record in its minutes the remote location
from which the member participated; however, the remote location need not be open to
the public and may be identified in the minutes by a general description. If participation
is approved pursuant to subdivision 1 or 2, the Commission shall also include in its
minutes the fact that the member participated through electronic communication means
due to a (i) temporary or permanent disability or other medical condition that prevented
the member's physical attendance or (ii) family member's medical condition that required
the member to provide care for such family member, thereby preventing the member's
physical attendance. If participation is approved pursuant to subdivision 3, the
Commission shall also include in its minutes the fact that the member participated
through electronic communication means due to the distance between the member's
principal residence and the meeting location. If participation is approved pursuant to
subdivision 4, the Commission shall also include in its minutes the specific nature of the
personal matter cited by the member.

5.0

Procedure for Making and Approving Requests
Requests for remote participation or that the Commission conduct an all-virtual public
meeting shall be conveyed to staff who shall then relay such requests to the chair of the
Commission.

Page 3 of 4

PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY
Remote Participation and All-Virtual Meetings
Adopted:

Revised:

Individual participation from a remote location shall be approved unless such
participation would violate this policy or the provisions of FOIA. If a member's
participation from a remote location is challenged, then the Commission shall vote
whether to allow such participation.
The request for remote participation or that Commission conduct an all-virtual public
meeting shall be recorded in the minutes of the meeting. If Commission votes to
disapprove of the member's participation because such participation would violate this
policy, such disapproval shall be recorded in the minutes with specificity. The minutes
shall include other information as required by §§ 2.2-3707, .2-3708.2 and 2.2-3708.3
depending on the type of remote participation or all-virtual public meeting.
6.0

Responsibility and Authority
This policy should be reviewed annually and revised as required to conform to current
law and regulations.

Adopted:
Date
______________________(Printed Name)
______________________(Title)

Page 4 of 4

At a regular meeting of the Caroline County Planning Commission, held Thursday,
December 18, 2025, in the Community Services Center Auditorium, located at 17202
Richmond Turnpike, Milford, Virginia, at the hour of 6:30 p.m.
Present
Steve Rollins
Robert Schwartz
Lee Tingler
Richard Williams (virtual from a location within the U.S.)
J.D. Young
Also Present
Max Hlavin, County Attorney
B. Leon Hughes, Planning Director
Craig Pennington, Planner
Brad Robinson, Zoning Administrator
Absent
Dr. Carol Horton
Chairman Schwartz called the Regular Meeting to order.
Chairman Schwartz led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. Young led the Invocation.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Young motioned and Mr. Tingler seconded to approve the November 20, 2025
minutes as presented.
Voting yea: Rollins, Schwartz, Tingler, Williams, Young
Motion carries.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Pennington read the public hearing protocol.
SPEX-08-2025 – CCCII CDEFG, LLC, Owner / SAC III Acquisition Co, LLC, Applicant:
Request a Special Exception Permit in accordance with Article XVII, Section 13 (Standards
for Special Use Permits) and Article X (M-1 Industrial) Section 3.25 of the Caroline County
Zoning Ordinance on Tax Parcel No. 83-A-83B1, consisting of 95.4 acres for the
development of a phased data center campus as well as public utilities – distribution,
transmission, and generation (to include electric substation(s)) and supporting accessory
uses subject to the standards contained in Article XI, Division 7, Planned Innovation,
Research, and Technology Park. The subject property is located east of Colemans Mill
Road along W.C. Spratt Drive within the Reedy Church Voting District. The 2030
Comprehensive Plan designates this parcel as Planned Innovation, Research and
Technology within the Carmel Church Growth Area
1

December 18, 2025 – Planning Commission Summary Minutes

Mr. Pennington provide a staff report:
The applicant is requesting approval of a Special Exception Permit for a data center
pursuant to Article X, Section 3.25. In December 2024 the Caroline County Zoning
Ordinance was amended to require data centers in the M-1 district be approved via
special exception subject to the Planned Innovation, Research and Technology (PIRT)
district standards.
The property consists of 95.431 acres and is bounded to the west by the MC Dean
manufacturing facility, zoned M-1 (Industrial); to the south by 354 acres of vacant land
zoned RP; to the east by 1,001.5 acres of land zoned RP which currently contains a single
family home; and to the north by 85.22 acres of land zoned M-1. The subject property
and adjacent parcels to the north and west are zoned M-1 as a result of a rezoning in
1989 to establish an industrial park, Spratt Commercial Park, generally located along W.C.
Spratt Drive. The parcels to the South were recently the subject of an application for a
Rezoning to the PIRT zoning classification for a data center use, which was withdrawn in
August 2025. The 1,001.5 acre parcel to the east currently has an application for Rezoning
to PIRT in process.
Generalized Development Plan (GDP)
The applicant’s Generalized Development Plan (GDP) for the project shows four data
center buildings toward the southern property line, a 10 acre substation bordering the
property to the north and a site access from W.C. Spratt Drive (private road) along with
associated internal travelways and facilities. The square footage of each two-story data
center building shown is 375,000 square feet, for a total of 1.5 million square feet of data
center use proposed on the site. The GDP depicts the buildings with a maximum height
of 95 feet and meeting the required 130 foot setback to accommodate the increased
height. The generator yards are oriented internally utilizing the buildings as noise
attenuation. the proposed data center buildings are approximately 1,500 feet from the
existing buildings on the MC Dean facility. According to the applicant’s narrative, the
proposed data center campus would be constructed over several years.
The GDP also shows water storage tanks and a gatehouse located toward the northwest
portion of the property; an office building towards the northeast corner; and existing
electric transmission lines along the western boundary of the property. The applicant is
providing the required setbacks and buffering along all property lines on the GDP.
Environmental Issues
The project site development will be subject to the County’s Chesapeake Bay
regulations. The GDP depicts the southwestern and northeastern portions of the property
as containing Resource Protection Areas (RPAs) and wetlands. The proposed layout does
not depict any structures located within environmentally sensitive areas which minimizes
impacts. Should the special exception request be approved, the Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) will review plans for compliance with stormwater
management Regulations.

2

December 18, 2025 – Planning Commission Summary Minutes

Traffic Impacts
The proposed entrance for the project is from W.C. Spratt Drive which is a private gravel
road within a 100’ ingress/egress easement with an unposted speed limit. The entrance
to the site is approximately 1,500 feet from the terminus of W.C. Spratt Drive at Coleman’s
Mill Road (Route 656). Coleman’s Mill Road (656) is a secondary road with a posted speed
limit of 45 MPH. According to VDOT data from 2024, the annual average daily traffic
(AADT) on the .89 Mile segment of Coleman’s Mill Road (656) between Dry Bridge Road
(684) and the CSX railroad crossing was 720 vehicles. The applicant provided a traffic
impact analysis with the special exception request that concludes no off-site
improvements are recommended at the study intersections. The applicant also provided
a turn lane analysis that concludes no turn lane is warranted on Coleman’s Mill Road at
W.C. Spratt Drive.
Construction traffic will arrive to the site via Coleman’s Mill Road (656). Staff is
recommending conditions for a Construction Mitigation Plan and Roadway Condition
Assessment and Analysis to address construction traffic accessing the site.
Public Utilities
The project will be served by public water, sewer and electric utilities as required by the
PIRT district regulations. The property is located near existing water and sewer
infrastructure which will require the applicant to extend these utilities to the site. Public
Utilities will only be used for domestic use and not for any industrial use. According to
the applicant, the data center will utilize a closed looped system with minimal
evaporation to the atmosphere. Rappahannock Electric Cooperative (REC) will provide
electrical service to the property. The GDP depicts a ten (10) acre substation along the
north side of the property. There are existing transmission lines and a REC utility easement
that traverse the length of the western property line.
General Discussion
Data centers in M-1 zoning must be developed in accordance with PIRT district
regulations which address standards such as setbacks, landscaping, buffers and fencing
among other requirements that assist with mitigating impacts and promoting attractive
and environmentally sensitive development. The project provides a 40’ transitional buffer
containing trees of varying sizes along three property lines. Where vegetation is not
existing or the buffer is disturbed for construction, the applicant will replant deciduous
and evergreen trees. The proffers from the previously approved rezoning in 1989 (RZ-0688) also require a 100’ undisturbed buffer around the perimeter of the Spratt Commercial
Park which includes the eastern property line of the subject parcel; as a result, the 40’
buffer required by the PIRT regulations is superseded by this proffer requirement in this
location on the property. Landscaped areas will also be provided in the interior of the
site around buildings and parking areas.
As this is a special exception request, there are no proposed proffers associated with this
case. The property is currently zoned M-1 as a result of the original rezoning case (RZ-0688) and is subject to existing proffers from that case. There were two proffer amendments
that occurred after the original rezoning, RZ-23-97 and RZ-11-99. The following uses were
proffered out in rezoning case RZ-11-99 and would not be allowed: offices, wholesale
business, storage warehouse and distribution facilities, printing and publishing, animal
3

December 18, 2025 – Planning Commission Summary Minutes

hospitals and kennels, truck or freight terminals, cabinet, furniture, and upholstery shops,
research, experimental and testing facilities, contractor’s equipment, storage, and sales
facilities, coal, wood, lumber yards and sawmills, ice manufacturing, feed and seed
stores, building materials sales and storage yards, bottling and canning facilities,
blacksmith shops and welding and machine shops, photographic processing or
blueprinting facilities, and manufacture of horticulture products. Other by right uses in
the M-1 district such as manufacturing, tow service, or trade school would be allowed to
utilize this parcel for by-right uses. No special exception uses in the M-1 district were
proffered out.
Data Centers approved via Special Exception in the M-1 zoning district must follow all
PIRT design standards. The GDP provided meets all PIRT design standards that are
required. The use is consistent with the surrounding uses, zoning classifications and
comprehensive plan future land use map designation. Adequate facilities are depicted
on the GDP to address utility, drainage, parking, loading and other necessary facilities.
Traffic generated by the completed project will not be hazardous or conflict with the
existing neighborhood and roads. This application complies with the Special Exception
standards in Article XVII, Section 13 of the Caroline County Zoning Ordinance.
The 2030 Caroline County Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Planned
Innovation, Research, and Technology (PIRT) within the Carmel Church Community Plan.
The subject property was included in the original adoption of the PIRT overlay district in
October 2023. The PIRT overlay district is designed for data center and research and
technology uses. This request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
All comments provided by the reviewing agencies have been addressed. Comments
issued during the review process were regarding labeling and clarification of items shown
on the GDP. GDPs are conceptual in nature and Comments offered to this stage of this
request are for design only. Further review will occur during site plan review should this
request be approved.
While the design of the site meets the required criteria, Planning Staff has concerns about
construction traffic utilizing Dry Bridge Road (684) and Coleman’s Mill Road (656). The
railroad crossing may prevent some construction traffic from utilizing Coleman’s Mill Road
(656) from the north. This would force some construction traffic to use Dry Bridge Road
(684) to Coleman’s Mill Road (656) and access the site from the south. Dry Bridge Road
(684) is a narrow secondary road with many tight curves.
In accordance with Article XVII, Section 13.D. of the Caroline County Zoning Ordinance,
all use permits including special exceptions shall satisfy the following general standards.
Staff has included an analysis of each standard.
1. The use shall not adversely affect the character and established pattern of

development of the area in which it wishes to locate.
This project is located in the PIRT overlay district and is located directly adjacent
to MC Dean manufacturing facility. This request is consistent with the above
standard.
4

December 18, 2025 – Planning Commission Summary Minutes

2. The use shall be in harmony with the uses permitted by right under a zoning permit

in the zoning districts and shall not affect adversely the use of neighboring
properties.
Data Center uses are allowed by Special Exception in the M-1 district. This use is
consistent with by right uses permitted in the M-1 District. This request is consistent
with the above standard.
3. The location and height of buildings, the location, nature and height of walls and

fences, and the nature and extent of landscaping on the site shall be such that
the use will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of
adjacent or nearby land and buildings or impair the value thereof.
The property is zoned M-1 and located within area initially rezoned for an industrial
park. Adjacent parcels are either currently zoned M-1 or within the PIRT land use
designation in the Comprehensive Plan. This request is consistent with the above
standard.
4. The use shall not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working

in the neighborhood of the proposed use.
The parcel is located within the PIRT land use designation with limited residential
development. The closest residential use is .8 miles from the proposed data center
uses. This request is consistent with the above standard.
5. The use shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious

to property or improvements in the neighborhood.
The parcel is located within the PIRT land use designation with limited residential
development. The closest residential uses are located along Coleman’s Mill Road
approximately .28 miles from the proposed data center uses. This request is
consistent with the above standard. Staff has recommended a condition that tier
4 final diesel generators be utilized.
6. The use shall be in accordance with the purposes of the zoning regulations

contained in this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of Caroline County.
This use is permitted in the M-1 district by Special Exception and must be
developed in accordance with the standards of the PIRT District. The
comprehensive plan designates this area as appropriate for data center use. This
request is consistent with the above standard.
7. Adequate utility, drainage, parking, loading and other necessary facilities to serve

the proposed use shall be provided.

5

December 18, 2025 – Planning Commission Summary Minutes

The site is located adjacent to an existing power line and within an area served by
public utilities. The site will utilize a closed loop system for cooling. This request is
consistent with the above standard.
8. The use shall be such that air quality, surface and groundwater quality and

quantity, are not degraded or depleted to an extent that would hinder or
discourage the appropriate development and/or use of adjacent or nearby land
and/or buildings or impair the value thereof.
This site will be reviewed by DEQ at the time of site plan for compliance with air
quality, surface and groundwater quality and quantity. This request is consistent
with the above standard. Staff has recommended a condition that tier 4 final diesel
generators be utilized.
9. The use shall be such that pedestrian and vehicular traffic generated will not be

hazardous or conflict with the existing and anticipated traffic in the neighborhood
and on roads serving the site.
At completion the project will not have any negative impact to the transportation
network. During construction there will be a significant number of vehicle trips.
In accordance with Article 17, Section 13 of the Caroline County Zoning Ordinance, the
Board of Supervisors may specify conditions in granting use permits as it deems necessary
in the public interest to assure compliance with the general and specific standards and
that it will continue to do so. Staff offers the following conditions for the Planning
Commission to consider as part of its recommendation to the Board:
1. The data center project will be developed in substantial conformance with the
GDP. (This applies to the development of the data center project only. Should the
property develop as a different project this condition will not apply.)
2. Any private access agreements shall be recorded in the Circuit Court.
3. The To-Wit shall be recorded in the Circuit Court within 30 days of receipt.
4. The applicant will prepare a roadway condition assessment and analysis (RCAA)
for the purposes of evaluating the existing geometric conditions, shoulder and
road surface quality and availability of sight distance to key roadways and
intersections and identify warranted improvements thereto. Prior to commencing
the RCAA the Applicant will submit a draft RCAA scoping application to the
County and VDOT for review, all in accordance with VDOT and County
requirements. The RCAA scoping application and resulting RCAA must be
approved by the County’s Zoning Administrator and VDOT, as applicable. Any
damage to the identified roadways due to construction traffic will be repaired
within 120 days from the date of the first Certificate of Occupancy for each data
center building or within forty-eight (48) hours after receiving notice from the

6

December 18, 2025 – Planning Commission Summary Minutes

County’s Zoning Administrator or Director of Planning that the damage has made
a road unsafe.
5. A Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the
Caroline County Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of a land disturbance
permit. The plan should include measures to mitigate impacts of construction
traffic and provide details of anticipated peaks of construction traffic.
6. An Emergency Action Plan shall be submitted and approved by Caroline County
Fire-Rescue prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy for the first data center
building.
7. All improvements required by the TIA shall be installed prior to the first Certificate
of Occupancy for the first data center building.
8. Prior to the issuance of the land disturbance permit, the applicant shall establish
an Erosion and Sediment (E&S) control inspection services payment agreement
that wholly covers the cost of any third party Services required to ensure
compliance with all E&S and stormwater laws and regulations , acceptable to the
Director and the County Attorney, to address third party E&S inspection services
that may be retained by the County.
9. The applicant shall notify the Zoning Administrator with at least 48 hours prior
written notice for any expected large or oversized deliveries to the project.
10. The applicant shall designate at least one public liaison and publicize a toll-free
phone number and email address during construction of the project. At minimum
the information must be published on the applicant’s website and provided to the
Zoning Administrator for publication on the County’s website or other social
media. The liaison must act as a point of contact between citizens and
construction crews. The liaison must be available during active construction hours
and respond to any questions related to the project within 48 hours.
11. If requested, the applicant shall participate in a Joint Construction Traffic Reaction
Team, which may include members of County Staff, VDOT, the County Sheriff’s
Department, and the Virginia State Police to identify and resolve or mitigate traffic
issues that may arise during the construction of the project. The applicant shall
assist in resolving and implementing solutions to traffic issues.
12. On each anniversary date (or the next business day if the anniversary date falls on
a weekend or holiday) of the project’s special exception approval and expiring
upon the full development of the project, the applicant shall provide the County’s
Zoning Administrator a written update and general projected development
schedule for the project. The general development schedule shall forecast the
proposed development activities related to the project for the next thirty-six
months, subject to modifications by the applicant.
13. This project shall use a closed-loop air-cooled cooling system in accordance with
Caroline County Utilities requirements or cooling system that is compliant with the
Public Utilities Data Center Water Usage Policy.(language changed from original

7

December 18, 2025 – Planning Commission Summary Minutes

staff report provided in the packet. The applicant would not have to return to the
Board if the Policy changed in the future)
14. All generators shall be tier 4 final certified diesel generators.
Mr. Tingler asked if the closed loop system limited the amount of water they could use in
toilets, hand washing, etc.
Mr. Pennington said the Utilities water usage policy allows for domestic use only so it must
be an air cooled closed loop system where minimal evaporation can occur.
Mr. Tingler asked if the added language to Condition 13 would allow them to use more
or would it continue to limit the amount.
Mr. Pennington said the current Utilities policy requires a closed loop air cooled system or
requires the applicant to do the investigation on the financial aspects of creating a reuse system and building the re-use system and turning it over to Utilities.
Should Utilities end up with a re-use water system at some point in the future, it would
allow them to use that system or if Utilities and the Board adjusted their policy to allow an
open cooling system in the future then they would be allowed to switch to that.
Mr. Tingler said the intent is to limit the pressure on the public system.
Mr. Pennington said, yes. Currently Utilities policy is a closed loop system with minimal
evaporation and they offer an opportunity for applicants to investigate a re-use water
system at their cost and provide the documentation to the Utilities Department for review.
Chairman Schwartz said an open loop system would be a greater burden on the water
consumption. He worries about loop-holes, not just in in this. Is it foreseeable that an
applicant, whether it be this applicant or one in a future endeavor, would say we aren’t
going to be able to use the closed loop system, we have to use an open loop and use
County water. Is this a pathway to that end.
Mr. Pennington said no, not unless the Utilities Department and Board of Supervisors
adopted that into their policy. Currently an open loop system would be against the water
usage policy and they would not be allowed to do that.
In the future, if Utilities had more capacity and the Board agreed to open it up to an
open system, then it would allow them to switch to an open system. But until Utilities or
the Board allows an open system then they could not switch over.
Chairman Schwartz said so as it stands right now in writing, the Applicant is proceeding
with a closed loop system.
Mr. Pennington said that is correct, that is all that Utilities allows.

8

December 18, 2025 – Planning Commission Summary Minutes

Mr. Young said, Dry Bridge Road, is the Applicant going to show the Commission how that
is going to look?
Mr. Pennington said he has not seen the Applicant’s presentation
Mr. Tingler asked if there would be more traffic than when M.C. Dean’s facility was
constructed?
Mr. Pennington said he was not here for that so he can’t compare them but it would be
a significant amount of construction traffic.
Chairman Schwartz said under the “Discussion” section of the presentation, the GDP
indicates a 130’ setback. For the sake of everyone present or listening, does that mean
that no portion of a building shall be closer than 130’ to the property line.
Mr. Pennington said, no. The setback for a data center is 100’, for a building with a
maximum height of 65’. For every foot over 65’, it will extend the setback by 1’. If they
build to a maximum height of 95’ then the data center buildings would be required to
be 130’ off the property line. But if they build at a lower height, 65’-70’, then the setback
would be 100’ – 105’.
Mr. Pennington explained other buildings, not a data center building but an
administration building for example, would have to meet the 100’ setback per the PIRT
district regulations.
Mr. Rollins said in the “General Standards” #5, staff requested a tier 4 diesel generator be
utilized. Is the data center a tier four data center.
Mr. Pennington said that is a condition that was added (#14) to use the tier four final
generators. As it stands unless the Planning Commission changes the conditions, that
would be a requirement. The condition only speaks to the generators, not the data
center.
Chairman Schwartz asked if Coleman’s Mill Road would be able to handle the
construction traffic.
Mr. Pennington said the Traffic Impact Analysis was submitted to VDOT and after analysis
no road improvements were recommended for Coleman’s Mill Road.
Chairman Schwartz said he read the TIA and that seemed to be the item most delved
into. If that’s acceptable to VDOT, then it will have to be acceptable to them.
Mr. Pennington said there is a condition for the roadway condition assessment and
analysis that says they will need to assess the roadways prior to construction and any
damages attributable to construction would need to be repaired.
Mr. Rollins said is there a possibility a requirements could be made that the road be
improved prior to construction. He has been down there three times this week and there’s
9

December 18, 2025 – Planning Commission Summary Minutes

a portion of the road, prior to the railroad tracks, that is 15’ wide. He thinks there will be
a problem there with the traffic meeting each other. He has a concern with the
narrowness of that part of the road. Dry Bridge Road is not in good shape either. If this
project is approved, is there a possibility, we could say make some
improvements/enhancements to the road prior to the trucks coming onto the road.
Mr. Rollins referring asked about the to the water quality, specifically hard water,
referenced in the staff report.
Mr. Pennington said that was a comment from Public Utilities. They said some pretreatment might be needed but staff would have to follow up with them on that.
Mr. Rollins said, so now, the water is not suitable for a closed loop system.
Mr. Pennington said Public Utilities stated their water is hard, in general, and needs to be
treated.
Mr. Williams – question regarding hardness of water (could not hear)
Mr. Pennington said the hardness of the water wouldn’t impact our system, It’s a
recommendation from Public Utilities that they treat the water going into their closed
loop system.
Chairman Schwartz asked if the Applicant or Operator would take care of that or would
the County.
Mr. Pennington said that would not be on the County. The way he read the comment
from Public Utilities is that they should consider a pre-treatment of the water for the
system. The Applicant can answer the question as to whether they will treat the water or
not.
Applicant’s Presentation
Charlie Payne with Hirschler representing the Applicant presented a Powerpoint.
SAC III Acquisition Co, LLC is an affiliate of Stack Infrastructure which is a prominent
developer of data centers in our area, Northern Virginia, and across the Country.
Mr. Payne reviewed the details of the special exception request, including current zoning,
comprehensive plan designation, size of the project, number of buildings, buffer
requirements, proximity to large electric transmission facility, job creation; support of CTE
programs within the School system, traffic during and post construction, fiscal impact,
etc.
Mr. Payne spoke about a closed loop system and a re-use system. A re-use system is the
re-use of wastewater, not potable water. Typically that system is built and financed by
the developer, working with the local jurisdiction as to how much effluent/wastewater
would be available. The utility would be turned over to the County and the County would
bill them. This would be based on the County’s policy. It goes through a process that the
10

December 18, 2025 – Planning Commission Summary Minutes

Board of Supervisors would have to approve. It is a very lengthy, diligently analyzed
process.
Mr. Payne continued explaining when the water is actually used. It’s during the hotter
months, typically four months out of the year. There is very little usage the rest of the year
of re-use water.
Chairman Schwartz said that he had received an email from Mr. Payne and wanted to
explain why he did not respond. He didn’t want the public, the citizens, to have any sense
of impropriety by having private conversations between himself and any other advocate
or applicant. Conversely, he does not want his phone number provided.
Mr. Payne said he appreciates that and his job is not only to advocate but also to
educate by answering any questions. It’s a very transparent process.
Chairman Schwartz clarified that M.C. Dean owns the property where the data center is
proposed and asked if there would be a sale of the property. He mentioned another
approved data center project that was sold after receiving approval and wants to know
if this is an investment opportunity for someone else.
Mr. Payne said they do have the property under contract. His client, Stack Infrastructure,
is a data center developer. They are the real deal. They will own and operate the facility
and lease to tenants. They are well known for attracting the top data center users in the
Country. They will be here to stay and a great community and corporate citizen.
Chairman Schwartz said the Board of Supervisors has the final say on the passage of this
special exception. If the Board of Supervisors rejects the special exception, is there a
contingency clause on the failure of that passage.
Mr. Payne said that he can’t disclose what is in the contract but his client is one hundred
percent invested in committing to $5.3 billion in Caroline County.
Chairman Schwartz said he realized Mr. Payne cannot answer his next question but as a
matter of record for the citizens that he represents, he is going to ask it. He does not want
Mr. Payne to take offense and knows that he will not. Have discussions occurred with the
Applicant or the Applicant’s representative with any member of the Caroline County
Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Payne does not know the answer to that. He has sent information to the Board
members but he has not had any direct conversations with Board members. Certainly
that would be something that would be reasonable to do. They have conversations with
Economic Development, with staff. Not to his knowledge but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t
happened.
Chairman Schwartz said to Mr. Payne, if there are any non-disclosure agreements
entered into between the Applicant, the Applicant’s representative or any member of
the Board of Supervisors, you would not be able to comment on that, would you?

11

December 18, 2025 – Planning Commission Summary Minutes

Mr. Payne said no but the non-disclosure agreement they had has expired.
Chairman Schwartz said he is not going to ask for the content but he does know that
historically there have been a couple of members of the Board of Supervisors who did
enter into non-disclosure agreements.
Mr. Payne said that’s not unusual. Everything you are seeing, hearing today, is what the
project is. There are certain things that are proprietary, trade secrets that need to be
protected. It is a very competitive industry. How much water, how much power, are you
using; where are you going to be located, etc. You want to be sure the community you
are investing in is interested in having you here. He doesn’t want folks to think an NDA is
somehow being used for nefarious purposes. It is typically being done to protect
proprietary information.
Chairman Schwartz said he can fully appreciate that aspect of it. His concern with an
NDA would be regarding the allowance of any tax break, credits, long term exemptions
that would be generally hidden from the public.
Mr. Payne said he did not know of any of that being discussed. But if any of that type of
incentive is created it has to be transparent to the public before it is approved. That type
of information, when finalized, is presented in a public hearing.
Mr. Rollins said we just had a groundbreaking on another data center a few weeks ago
and based on what was said, they were going to use 600 megawatts of power. This is 300
megawatts. Is there something different between what is being proposed and the other
project, a different tier. It is using half the power but almost the same square footage.
Mr. Payne said he’s not familiar with that project or why it’s 600 megawatts. Typically that
is based on the size of the building. There is not “tier” with data centers. What staff has
put into the conditions is relevant to generators. A tier 4 generator is very efficient, diesel
fuel generator that has less emissions and is a favorite of the EPA and DEQ. That’s why
localities ask for Tier 4 generators.
Mr. Rollins asked the purpose of the water storage tank and how much would it hold.
Mr. Payne said that isn’t unusual for any data center project, having the ability to store
the water and not pulling it from the system. Remember the heavy water usage is four
months out of the year so having the ability to store water on site is an advantage for
operational efficiencies.
Mr. Rollins said how much water does it take to do the initial fill.
Mr. Payne said they are not sure; they haven’t designed it so that analysis hasn’t been
done. An air-cooled system doesn’t use a lot of water. The tanks onsite would be very
useful if a re-use system is approved.
Mr. Rollins said the current transmission lines running on the western side, those lines
currently don’t have power to feed that data center.
12

December 18, 2025 – Planning Commission Summary Minutes

Mr. Payne said they do have power.
Mr. Rollins said the power in those lines will run the data center. Nothing else has to be
done with those lines.
Mr. Payne said they will have to have a sub-station that Rappahannock Electric Coop
will be constructing. Then you have facilities that connect from the transmission facility to
the sub-station. That is all on site. If you are asking if there is any need for off-site
infrastructure, he doesn’t know but they are not anticipating it.
Mr. Rollins said there is not going to be a need to run any lines to that data center other
than the lines that will run to the sub-station. No more need for right of way.
Mr. Payne said the reason they site these facilities near major infrastructure is to avoid
having to build significant off-site infrastructure. But he is not familiar or know if any new
off-site has to be built or any new right of way has to be acquired. It’s his understanding
the facilities they have on-site are sufficient for what they need.
Mr. Payne said he knows here is a lot of conversation in the community about Kraken
Loop, about the infrastructure being built, through Caroline and Stafford. That is planned
infrastructure that has been in design and development for a very long time. His
understanding, especially for some of that infrastructure, is the right of way is already
there. So whether this project is here or not, the infrastructure will be in place.
They purposely sited near this transmission infrastructure to basically minimize any off-site
infrastructure requirements. That was the whole purpose of being where they are.
Mr. Rollins said, so if this project was approved, Kraken Loop or any other loop that came
through, you wouldn’t need it for this data center.
Mr. Payne said Kraken Loop is going to benefit any user along the corridor. That loop is
being built to serve and support all of the power infrastructure requirements all the way
to Northern Virginia. Ultimately, it’s going to be built whether this project is approved or
not.
Mr. Rollins said he understands, but his point is, whether they built it or not, this data center
will still function if no other power lines every came through Caroline County.
Mr. Payne said he’s not an engineer but he’s confident the infrastructure they have onsite is going to be satisfactory for the project.
Mr. Rollins, speaking to Mr. Pennington, said how many acres was withdrawn from the
PIRT.
Mr. Pennington said it was 354 acres that previously had a rezoning request to rezone to
PIRT for a data center but that case was withdrawn in August. The property to the east
is 1,000 acres and currently has a rezoning request to rezone to PIRT.
13

December 18, 2025 – Planning Commission Summary Minutes

Mr. Rollins said, the one that withdrew, would still want to be RP to build a house or
whatever.
Mr. Pennington said there is a house on the property now at the southern tip of the
property.
Mr. Rollins said where is Carneal Lane and what impact does it have, if any.
Mr. Pennington explained Carneal Lane is located southwest of the facility, off Dry Bridge
Road. Construction traffic using Dry Bridge should turn on Coleman’s Mill Road so Carneal
Lane shouldn’t be affected by construction traffic or operational traffic.
Mr. Rollins, referring to the CTEC program, asked if Stafford already had it and will the
benefit be there prior to start of construction so County residents will be qualified by the
time the project is completed.
Nick Minor, Director of Public Affairs with Stack Infrastructure said the program is
contingent upon a “Go Virginia” grant award. That grant will probably go before the “Go
Virginia” council sometime in the Spring. Once that grant is awarded, Stafford will work
in coordination with Caroline County to stand that program up. What they are
committing to is ten internships, five for Stafford, five for Caroline County. Even if this
project is not approved, but the program is approved, they will still offer those internship
in collaboration with Caroline County Public Schools. That is just the beginning. If a
project like this is approved, that is more beneficial because then they have a
construction project for those students to get involved with their construction team to
actually see that digital infrastructure build out in the County.
Mr. Minor said he’s a native of this area, grew up in Spotsylvania County. He knows and
worked with Dr. Hubbard, he believes he’s a member of the School Board. He would be
looking to reach out to Dr. Hubbard to see what else they can do to support the
community.
Mr. Williams (could not hear the comments)
Mr. Payne said we are talking about two different types of traffic. For construction traffic,
there will be a construction mitigation traffic plan that will be in place as to when heavier
equipment, trucks, etc. will be traveling on Rogers Clark and Coleman’s Mill to the site,
and on Dry Bridge to the site if that’s necessary. What we’re talking about for operational
traffic, is for full build-out of the entire project. The A.M. peak hour time is 6:30 a.m. to 8:30
a.m. The P.M. is 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. The traffic generation is pretty low. At full build-out
we’re talking 135 trips in the A.M. and 45 in the P.M. during the peak hours. That’s what
they are focusing on. They provided this analysis to the County and to VDOT and there
were no recommended improvements or mitigation changes except for the entrance to
the site. There are two different traffic counts, one for operation and one for construction.
The one for construction will require a construction mitigation plan.

14

December 18, 2025 – Planning Commission Summary Minutes

Mr. Rollins said he is concerned with the traffic during construction. There was a note in
the packet about the speed limit on Rogers Clark Blvd. It doesn’t drop to 55 MPH going
south until you get to Enterprise Parkway. It’s 60 MPH after you pass the school on the
southbound side and northbound until Enterprise. His concern will be at Coleman’s Mill.
Mr. Payne said that’s good knowledge as to what they should be focusing on. The key
focus for them, and everyone, is public safety. How you ensure public safety is through a
mitigation plan. If they violate the mitigation plan, they can get pinged for a zoning
violation. They have to comply with it. Law enforcement reviewed this application and
he can't speak for them but they noted it “approved”. He doesn’t think they would have
remotely considered this a good application without a requirement of construction
mitigation plan.
This is very common. His client has a lot of experience with it. They have a project in
Stafford, would love for the Commission to see it, if they are interested. Very efficient
traffic flow, very efficient operational systems, very efficient construction activity. It’s a
much larger site than this site. It’s over 500 acres, includes 5.8 million square feet of data
center space.
Mr. Williams (could not hear the comments)
Mr. Pennington said no, at this time they are not using wastewater. That would be if any
applicant investigated the cost to build a wastewater system, implemented the
wastewater system, built the re-use system and turned it over to Public Utilities. Then it
would use wastewater. Currently, they are using domestic Utilities water to fill up the first
time and then it would be a closed loop, non-evaporative system.
Mr. Williams (could not hear comments)
Chairman Schwartz opened the Public Hearing
Mark Sandor, Mattaponi Voting District, he is concerned, he does not know if they are
intentional misrepresentations, but he does take exception to the thought that there is
adequate utilities present. Right now because of the AI craze, there is over 45 gigawatts
of demand required. Currently there is only 5 gigawatts under construction. So where is
all this additional power going to come, it’s certainly not going to be purchased on the
grid. Maybe it’s going to come from Canada but no one has really explained how these
requirements are going to be met and if it’s going to be families across Virginia that are
going to pay for all the additional infrastructure and power generation. Dominion has
stated that their additional demand projections, 25% are primarily due to data centers.
It’s just not reasonable that working families should have to see that in their monthly utility
bills. That is one area that needs some additional clarification. Secondly, the idea that
this is going to be a cornucopia of jobs for the County. I hope the Commission realizes
that most of the planning, construction of these data centers is done by very specialized
companies. None of which are in Caroline County. They will come from outside the
County and probably not employ that many local tradesman. That’s just the reality-do
some research and you’ll see. Also, he has yet to see any business plan presented by
any of these applicants. So this whole idea of these revenue projections that the County
15

December 18, 2025 – Planning Commission Summary Minutes

is banking on could be illusionary. Some of these data centers may not have adequate
power for eight years. That’s if this whole puzzle of power generation gets solved. He
would ask them to be very questioning on these applications and insist that there is more
transparency for the public so we know what’s going on. The other question on his mind
is how many data centers are enough. Why is the County so in need of additional
financial resources. Are we in a crisis right now? I don’t know but keep in mind many of
us moved here and bought houses trying to escape the hell of Northern Virginia. We
don’t want this County to turn into another Arlington or Fairfax. That mess can stay up
there.
Mary Hodge, Bowling Green Voting District, I was putting together a tricycle for my
grandson tonight and really didn’t want to allow time to come out and speak before you
tonight but I realized he is the reason I need to do so. This is our citizen’s opportunity to
arise and let our voice be heard and I speak on behalf of many that believe theirs may
not be. I see our friends from Stack are here, whose representative Zoomed in virtually
from his vacation in Hawaii to moderate the Caroline data center town hall in October
2023. At that point, citizens were just becoming cognizant of data centers and if I recall
there were only three of us here in opposition, kind of like tonight, to the Amazon data
center. Then there was the joint meeting where you and the Board so hastily signed the
agreement under Mr. Payne’s purview ensuring there would be no discarded tires laying
around that would attract mosquitoes. However, with the public totally unaware of what
the real risks were and not disclosed to us, our health, safety, and that of our environment,
and still are not. I am grateful that the Board amended the Zoning Ordinance that these
monsters must go through a special exception permit process and my vote is to deny this
one tonight. We don’t even know what is going on in Thornburg with Mattameade other
than Mr. Payne’s Khalahari monstrosity that has also destroyed that area and cost the
Spotsylvania tax payers dearly. The Avaio data center the County eagerly approved in
Carmel Church has been sold to a foreign entity, Spain. Whose citizens have suffered
massive blackouts due to supposedly green energy. Now we await the CleanArc pride
and joy in Ladysmith while citizens, like my friends the Anduros, lives will be forever ruined
by the transmission line running through the back of their wooded property and the
nearby schools and church listening to the incessant hum of the energy intensive fans of
the air chillers and the massive 900 Megawatt substation. They don’t even know where
the power is going to come from, be generated from. It is all a master cluster “F” bomb
that is like a hot potato, no one knows how to drop it. So please don’t drop it in Caroline.
It is forecasted that they will be running their generators thanks to the Clean Energy Act.
Where is this project in proximity to the water treatment plant and are there future plans
to cool it with a future re-use water plan. Will this water be from the Rappahannock
agreement which is not allowed by the permit or is that another loophole in all this. Closed
loop, I hear these systems are notorious for leaking glycol and other toxic chemicals. The
GDP proposes water storage tanks. How are we protecting our Mattaponi River from
pollution through all of this, how are we protecting our shallow well systems through all
this, The powers that be keep re-drafting Chesapeake Bay Protection regulations but with
all the toxic forever chemicals emanating from these electronic warehouses, where will
life cease to exist. For there will be no farmland, no water and no nature left. Please
recommend denial for SPEX-08-2025 and its numerous monikers. It is time for Caroline to
say no.

16

December 18, 2025 – Planning Commission Summary Minutes

Chairman Schwartz closed the Public Hearing.
Mr. Pennington said staff wanted to take this opportunity to remind the Planning
Commission of the 2232 requirement when a new utility is required. If you remember from
the previous cases, to motion whether the new utility substation would meet a 2232
review and be appropriate in this area.
Chairman Schwartz said that review would be conducted by the Planning Department.
Mr. Pennington said the 2232 review is to state whether a substation is appropriate in this
area and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as this is a growth area.
Mr. Payne said on the 2232 review, you may recall when they went through the rezoning
process with Amazon, because of the PIRT, and the comprehensive plan process with the
PIRT that the need for the substation was incorporated component into that. This likewise
is in the PIRT and next to a large transmission facility. Certainly it’s at your discretion to
review that and I’m sure you will but wanted to add a little more support for the 2232
review that his has pretty much been covered by the PIRT.
Chairman Schwartz said he’d like to hear from the Applicant (Mr. Minor). What is CCCII
CDEFG, LLC.
Mr. Minor said it’s better to give an overview of Stack Infrastructure. Stack Infrastructure
is headquartered in Denver. They are a REIT, that is backed by Blue Owl, a private equity
company. Because we are a REIT, we have to create LLC’s that roll up to our larger fund.
We create LLC’s that own the property. These LLCs operate under that LLC Specifically,
CCCII or sometimes it will be SI (Stack Infrastructure). It will have the name of the campus,
in this case SAC III. It is an acquisition entity that rolls up to a larger Stack entity that fall
under the larger Stack, Inc.
Mr. Pennington said to be clear, the CCCII CDEFG, LLC. Is an M.C. Dean LLC; M.C. Dean
is still the owner of the property. The SAC III is the Applicant.
Mr. Minor said SAC III is their acquisition LLC.
Chairman Schwartz said when construction is completed, who would be the
owner/operator of this specific site.
Mr. Minor said we, Stack, would be owner/operator.
Chairman Schwartz said when the phrase data center is used, people envision a singular
large building. Your GDP depicts four data center buildings which in his mind says four
data centers. That’s not unusual, we have other sites with multiple buildings as well. It is a
campus style setting. He thinks it would be good for our citizens to be reminded of that.
That we’re not dealing with just one building, on this site we are dealing with four data
centers.

17

December 18, 2025 – Planning Commission Summary Minutes

Chairman Schwartz continued saying to his understanding, to resolve some of the issues
with electrical power, the power lines are going to be run regardless of the status of this
data center. Those lines were designed years ago by Dominion Electric. So M.C. Dean,
Stack, are not at fault for where these power lines are going to go. The SCC approved
these pads years ago. If you have a complaint, take it up with the State Corporation
Commission.
Data Centers are collectors of information on businesses, people, everything we do on
the internet, emails, messages, grandma’s recipe for chocolate cake that we send. All
of that information is retained so there are going to be many entities interested in that
information, I have seen computer rooms where it is just wall to wall computers, data
banks, hard drives where data is collected and saved. His question is would that
equipment be owned by Stack or would it be leased equipment.
Mr. Minor said the equipment is leased. They do not own the computer equipment inside.
That would be their client’s or tenant’s equipment. Their responsibility is to keep the power
going and the water running to cool them. They are owner/operators, own the building
and operate the building. But they do not manage the computer equipment or server
equipment inside them. Those areas are typically restricted and their critical operation
guys are the only one allowed to go in them.
Chairman Schwartz confirmed the equipment was owned by the client/customer. Would
any of your customers/clients be government entities.
Mr. Minor said it’s always a possibility but he’s not aware of any conversations or
negotiations in the past with government clients. They have all been top five technology
companies.
Chairman Schwartz said, in theory, if the federal government wanted to lease one of
their entire buildings and furnish it with their equipment, that’s capitalism. That’s good
business. The reason he brings this up is because of the fiscal impact projection. We know
that government entities do not pay any property tax on equipment. So that would be
somewhat of a reduction in the tax benefit.
Mr. Minor said yes. What the County would see, is tax on the generators, cooling
equipment. Your assessor could give you a list of what would be personal property that
could be taxed. The only thing that wouldn’t be taxed is the servers. You would reap the
benefit from the real estate taxes and the mechanical, electrical, cooling equipment.
Chairman Schwartz, referring to page C-301 of the GDP. Are the water tanks going to
above ground or elevated.
Mr. Minor said above ground.
Chairman Schwartz, referring to page C-301 of the GDP, the “IW” Building, what are the
circular items shown. What does “IW” stand for.

18

December 18, 2025 – Planning Commission Summary Minutes

Mr. Minor said that is general storage and maintenance facilities. “IW” stands for industrial
wastewater.
Chairman Schwartz, the two elongated items to the right of the “IW Building”, what are
those?
Mr. Pennington said that is the gate house and entrance lanes.
Chairman Schwartz said there is a 130’ setback based on a 95’ high building. Referring
to the GDP, Page 301-C, building 4, only show 12’ from the property line. Building 3 is at
65.6 feet.
Mr. Minor said that should be 212’ and 165’.
Mr. Pennington added the line showing the limits of disturbance is obscuring the
measurement.
Chairman Schwartz asked if they had a projected amount of water that they will be using
in non-peak season.
Mr. Minor said that is a great question. He is basing this number off a previous project,
that is about three times as large using 20, 000 gallons per day. This one would be in the
range of 7,000 gallons per day (per building) for domestic use (facility usage).
Chairman Schwartz said what about during the hottest months of the year.
Mr. Minor said multiply that by two, so 14,000 gallons per day per building. That’s with
everyone in the building using sinks, toilets; watering the landscaping, etc.
Chairman Schwartz said, for comparison, if someone said that they would use 1500
gallons per day for domestic use. Would that be realistic. He noted a previous applicant
had used that figure.
Mr. Minor said no, he would not say that is realistic. He said the project he referred to
earlier is in New Mexico, all that information is public information.
Chairman Schwartz asked how many generators are going to be required for each of
the buildings.
Mr. Minor said 22 per building based on another project, 88 generators total.
Mr. Rollins asked if there was a picture with the generators (there is not).
Mr. Minor said the generators are only run during emergencies for about 10 minutes. They
can only be run when the DEQ says they can. They are not there to be used often.
Chairman Schwartz said you realize that number is going to scare and/or upset our
citizens even more.
19

December 18, 2025 – Planning Commission Summary Minutes

Mr. Minor said he understands that but he’s not here to lie to them.
Chairman Schwartz said he appreciates that because regardless of the showing here
tonight, historically this Commission and the Board of Supervisors has faced a lot of
opposition from the citizens. Mr. Payne has been down that road many times in other
jurisdictions. He knows that the citizenry is highly opposed to data centers. Strictly
because of the amount of electrical power required, the amount of water they require.
These power lines are going to go in, period. And everyone across this state, every
household, their electric rates are going to increase because Dominion Power and the
other electrical providers will go to the SCC and say we need the money and the SCC is
going to give it to them, the rate increase. We know that it is coming. I don’t know if
there is anything we can do about it except complain to our legislators. Right now I think
we have five sites that are already approved for data centers. We, as citizens of this
County, want to maintain the rural flavor that we have enjoyed. We do not want to be
overrun with data centers. We went through this about five years ago with solar facilities,
they would have gobbled up every square inch of our rural county that they could.
Fortunately our Board of Supervisors put a stop to it. I’m not fussing at you or the data
center industry but Caroline County wants to maintain its rural flavor, its our way of life.
Mr. Minor said to respond to some of those power concerns. I’m sure people have
referenced this before but there was a JLARC study done by the State Legislator. That
JLARC study found that data centers do pay their way. The pay for the transmission, the
fuel, the distribution of those facilities. Stack would like to continue to pay our share, that’s
where we stand on it. It depends on what the SCC does, but we would be for the SCC
making a decision that data centers continue to pay their fair share.
Mr. Rollins said, for clarification, if the facility loses power do they have to wait for DEQ
to allow them to turn on the generators.
Mr. Minor said no. They have to do maintenance and DEQ only allows them to run the
generators for a certain amount of time during a certain time of the day. During the
summertime, they have to run at night, during the wintertime, they can run during the
day but only for certain amount of time. DEQ tells them when and for how long. Other
than maintenance, they can only be on in case of emergencies and they can only run
them for 24-36 hours (he believes). If the power is not back on by then, they have to get
a waiver to continue to run.
Mr. Young asked, regarding employment, do you have in place or would you consider
putting in place, a first right of refusal for general contractors in the County.
Mr. Minor said he doesn’t know if they can guarantee or put that in black and white but
what they can do is work with the locality to identify contractors that could support the
site. As was mentioned earlier, this is a very specialized industry, it’s hard to enter into it
because we are talking about billions of dollars of investment. Taking a chance on a
local contractor without experience is tough but they could do some outreach to see if
there’s some ability to work with them. It’s never a “no”, but we have to put feet on the
ground to see if there is something they could support.
20

December 18, 2025 – Planning Commission Summary Minutes

Mr. Young asked if they would consider putting together workforce development plan
to get certification for folks here in the County so that they can move up to the building
the next data center, etc.
Mr. Minor said yes.
Mr. Rollins said he has been researching all he can about data centers and everything
he reads is about power being increased and that data centers are driving it. The citizens
are concerned about their rates going up. He’s pretty sure that Stack and the others are
making money otherwise they wouldn’t be trying to build data centers. You made the
statement that you guys wanted to pay your fair share, what do you consider to be your
fair share as far as power is concerned.
Mr. Minor said one of the reasons they site next to a transmission line is because they don’t
want to go through a public process to pull a transmission line across a piece of property.
The other part of that is the cost associated with having a transmission line come to a
site. If they were to select a location that is off the transmission line, the data center would
pay for the infrastructure to be brought to our site. The substations, any of the electrical,
the infrastructure, that goes to servicing the site, the data center industry has paid for it
to be installed for us to use that power.
Mr. Rollins said he hasn’t heard representatives from Rappahannock Electric Coop and
Dominion say that just because the transmission line is already there it won’t affect
residents of the County. He wants someone from the power company to stand up and
say that – because that transmission line is already there, it’s not going to impact the
residents in Caroline County.
Mr. Minor said it’s called smart siting. Caroline County developing a PIRT next to a
transmission line is smart. It’s less impactful to the residents, its more cost efficient for the
data center industry. It’s smart planning even though not everybody appreciates it
Chairman Schwartz asked if the Applicant would like to address any comments made
during the public hearing.
Mr. Payne said he appreciates the comments from the community, he does a lot of this
and he represents major users and developers in the data center industry and he’s also
general counsel for Rappahannock Electric Cooperative. He thinks it’s important to
understand that this is not secret that utility costs are going up. He thinks it’s unfair to
blame only data centers. Extreme weather patterns, rise of EV’s, the average home has
about ten electronic devices in their homes. We are in many ways driving the power
demand.
The other issue is generation. There hasn’t been much generation in the Commonwealth
of Virginia since 2020. The Green Economy Act has played a roll in that. There’s a goal
to have 100% renewable energy, emissions free State by 2040. Which has led to less
generation. As you all know, it’s not easy to get a renewable project approved.
Dominion’s pursuit of those renewable energy projects has been somewhat challenging.
So Virginia imports, buys more, power from outside the Commonwealth because we
21

December 18, 2025 – Planning Commission Summary Minutes

generate less and because we have a great demand. That’s good, because demand
means we have investment and economic development opportunity. As I noted earlier,
one of the goals of the Commonwealth of Virginia is to maintain being the data center
capital, the tech hub capital, the AI capital of the World. That provides significant
benefits to us. Sometimes that’s not easy for folks to understand but the realty is these
costs are going to be shared among rate payers whether we have the data centers or
not. The benefit of having the data center is to help offset that impact and provide a net
benefit to the County.
Mr. Payne continued, with regard to power costs, he knows Rappahannock Electric
Coop does this and Dominion recently received authority to do this from the SCC, that is
the most recent tariffs that were approved by the SCC that give Dominion the authority
to charge heavy load users. Twenty five megawatts or more will be responsible for paying
and providing collateral to wholesale power costs and to infrastructure. So now you will
start seeing a different approach because Dominion has the authority to do so. In his
opinion you will start seeing the speculators going away and real users coming to the
table which will reduce the capacity issues.
He knows there is a constant capacity question. Dominion has received 22,000 power
applications. There is nothing like it in the history of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Many
of those are speculating. His client is not a speculator, they are a developer and will be
here. A tariff that says you have to pay to play is going to remove the speculators from
the process in his opinion. It will also ensure that the cost, as the JLARC study
recommended, is absorbed by the developers and users. Rappahannock Electric Coop
does an excellent job of protecting its members in that regard. Ensuring that the
appropriate collateral is provided and that these developers are paying for 100% of the
cost of the infrastructure.
He wanted to make sure he got that point across because it’s not an easy discussion to
have. Sometimes it’s difficult to understand.
He said there is a great need for skilled trade labor. The fact that we are now attracting
this investment to the community, you will start seeing organized labor, the pipe fitters.
electricians, union groups, developers and users, doing their best to recruit from the local
community. You’ll be surprised how many organized labor residents that you have who
have to get on the road at 3:00 a.m. to get to work in Northern Virginia. We have an
opportunity to expand that footprint here in Caroline County and it’s to his client’s interest
to do so and help train those individuals.
The entitlement process is really important to power access. Rappahannock Electric
Coop is committed to provide power to the site. There’s a 230 KV line on site. It ensures
we don’t need a significant amount of infrastructure off site.
He appreciates what he hears from the community. It is important to get to the facts and
that the facts be discussed and evaluated. That’s what he’s here to do.

22

December 18, 2025 – Planning Commission Summary Minutes

Chairman Schwartz motioned and Mr. Young seconded whereas Special Exception
request SPEX-08-2025 for CCCII CDEFG, LLC, Owner / SAC III Acquisition Co, LLC,
Applicant appears to be generally consistent with the goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, and whereas the public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices warrants the approval of this
request, I recommend that CCCII CDEFG, LLC, Owner / SAC III Acquisition Co, LLC,
Applicant be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of approval
to include the 2232 review for consistency with the comprehensive plan and to include
amended condition #13 to read as follows
13.

This project shall use a closed-loop air-cooled cooling system in accordance with
Caroline County Utilities requirements or cooling system that is compliant with the
Public Utilities Data Center Water Usage Policy.

Voting yea: Schwartz, Tingler, Williams, Young
Voting nay: Rollins
Motion carries
TXT-05-2025: An ordinance to amend the Caroline County Zoning Ordinance by 1)
amending Articles IV, IX and X to add Tower as a Special Exception Use; and 2) amending
Articles II and XV to revise or update definitions and standards for Communications
Facilities and Towers.
Mr. Pennington provided a staff report:
The Planning Commission initiated a text amendment on August 28th regarding the
permitting of towers. Staff brought this amendment forward in response to an inquiry from
a utility provider that desires to construct a new radio tower that would be utilized as part
of their operations and internal communication.
Article II of the Zoning Ordinance currently defines “Communication Facility” as “Facilities
including towers, where the principal use is to provide point-to-point communication
services whether by wire or radio, either aurally or visually, including radio, telephone and
television broadcasting and the exchange or recording of messages”. The definition
incorporates the term “Towers” that is also defined in Article II. Although “Towers” is a
defined term in Article II, it is not enumerated in the Zoning Ordinance as a separate and
distinct use. Towers are subject to the development standards for Communication
Facilities in Article XV of the Zoning Ordinance which primarily pertain to towers for cellular
providers.
The proposed amendment adds language to Article XV, Section 8.B. to clarify that towers
providing point-to-point communication for the internal operations of a public utility or
governmental entity are separate and distinct from towers for cellular providers and may
exceed the maximum height of 199 feet with approval by the Board of Supervisors.
Communication Facilities require approval of a Special Exception Permit in the RP, AP,
RR-5, B-1 and M-1 zoning districts.

23

December 18, 2025 – Planning Commission Summary Minutes

Article XV Supplemental Regulations
SECTION 8 – Development Standards
B. Standards for Communication Facilities
1. Each applicant for a tower shall provide the Department of Planning and
Community Development with an inventory of its existing facilities that are either
within the jurisdiction of the governing authority or within five miles of the border
thereof, including specific information about the location, height, and design of
each tower. The Planning Department may share such information with other
applicants applying for approvals or special use permits under this ordinance or
other organizations seeking to locate antennas within the jurisdiction of the
governing authority, provided, however, that the Planning Department is not, by
sharing such information, in any way representing or warranting that such sites are
available or suitable for use by others.
2. An engineering report certifying that the proposed tower is compatible for a
minimum of four (4) users, must be submitted by the applicant. The applicant shall
also permit collocation by additional users without requiring any form of reciprocal
location agreement from subsequent users. The provision may be modified by the
Board of Supervisors in conjunction with paragraph 14, when a lower height is
approved by the Board of Supervisors and collocation of four (4) users is not
possible.
3. A preliminary site plan of the proposed facility shall be submitted to the
Department of Planning and Community Development as a part of the submittal.
The applicant must provide Caroline County with detailed information regarding
the proposed facility’s location, latitude and longitude.
4. The facility shall not interfere with the radio, television or communications
reception of nearby residents at the time of construction. The applicant shall take
steps to successfully eliminate any such interference.
5. All towers and other structures shall meet all safety requirements of all applicable
building codes.
6. All towers shall be set back from any property line per the zoning district
requirements set forth in Article XII of the Caroline County Zoning Ordinance. The
entirety of the collapse zone shall be contained on the parcel of request.
a. Setbacks from residential dwelling units shall not apply to the property
owners’ construction of a residential dwelling subsequent to erection of the
tower.
b. No setback shall be required adjacent to VDOT right-of-way for an
interstate highway. Setback requirements from residential dwelling units,
however, shall supersede this provision.
This provision may be modified by the Board of Supervisors during the special
exception process.

24

December 18, 2025 – Planning Commission Summary Minutes

7. Documentary evidence of compliance with all Federal Aviation Administration
and Federal Communication Commission requirements shall be submitted by the
applicant at the time of application for the special exception. If any approval for
the wireless facility or structure has been granted by a federal agency, provide a
copy of that approval, including any conditions imposed by that agency.
8. Unless otherwise allowed under the conditions of a special use permit, or as a
requirement of the Federal Aviation Administration, all structures shall have a
galvanized steel finish. If painting is required by the FAA, documentary evidence
from the FAA requiring such painting must be provided to the County by the
applicant. Should the applicant request to construct the tower from materials
other than galvanized steel, the applicant shall state the reasons for the request in
the application, and the applicant shall also furnish the County with photographs,
videos, or some other visual sample of the proposed finish.
9. All applicants must provide documentary evidence that the facility will meet or
exceed applicable health standards established by the Federal Government
and/or American National Standards Institute.
10. No advertising of any type may be placed on the tower or accompanying facility.
11. All tower structures must be dismantled by the owner of the structure if not utilized
by a service provider or properly maintained for a period exceeding twenty-four
(24) consecutive months. The applicant shall post surety in an amount sufficient to
cover the direct costs of removing the facility. Surety shall be submitted to and
approved by the County prior to site plan approval.
12. Maximum tower height (including appurtenances such as lightning rods) shall be
199- feet, however, the Board of Supervisors may approve a greater height based
upon the following criteria: (Amended 2/20/2007)
a. The tower shall generally support the County's policy of maintaining the
County's rural and historic characteristics by not creating a visually adverse
impact on residences (other than a residence on the subject parcel),
historic sites or scenic roadways;
b. The tower shall be located in areas designated in the Zoning Ordinance as
Rural/Agricultural Preservation where existing topographical features
provide significant visual buffer between the tower and nearby residences
and/or businesses located on adjacent or surrounding parcels.
c. It shall be demonstrated to the Board's satisfaction that the additional
height will provide more effective coverage and more effectively meet the
communication needs of the residents of Caroline County than a 199-foot
tower. However, at no time shall such a tower exceed a maximum height
of 300-feet.
d. It shall be demonstrated to the Board's satisfaction that the additional
height will decrease the overall number of towers in the County.
e. Only those areas of the County designated as Permitted Commercial Tower
Development Areas (PCTDAs) as set forth in the Caroline County
Communications Tower Master Plan, prepared by Atlantic Technologies,

25

December 18, 2025 – Planning Commission Summary Minutes

dated December 21, 2006, are eligible to have a maximum tower height in
excess of 199-feet.
f.

Notwithstanding the other criteria of this subsection, a tower utilized for
point-to-point radio communication for the internal operations of a public
utility or governmental entity, or as an emergency services communication
facility, may exceed 199 feet with approval of the Board of Supervisors.
However, at no time shall such a tower exceed a maximum height of 300
feet.

13. The tower owner shall annually provide the Planning Department and the
Commissioner of Revenue a report with the names, addresses, contacts, structures
and equipment for all providers utilizing the tower.
14. The tower shall be constructed and at least one PCS/cellular user located on the
tower within twelve (12) months of the date of issuance of the special exception
or approval shall be null and void. The applicant shall post surety in an amount
sufficient to cover the costs of dismantling. Surety shall be submitted to and
approved by the County prior to site plan approval.
15. The applicant shall be responsible for any costs incurred by the County for review
of the application.
Chairman Schwartz asked if point to point communication was line of sight?
Mr. Pennington said no, it could be however the entity chose to communicate for their
private communication from the dispatch facility to the trucks or workers.
Mr. Tingler asked if a tower were on top of the building, would the height of the building
be considered in the tower height.
Mr. Pennington said yes, if it was installed on the top of a building, it would increase the
tower height.
Chairman Schwartz opened the Public Hearing.
Charlie Payne with Hirschler, said he represents Rappahannock Electric Cooperative in
a pending zoning case that includes a tower site that is necessary for their operation.
They are in support of this text amendment.
Chairman Schwartz closed the public hearing.
Mr. Young motioned and Mr. Williams seconded, whereas the public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices warrants the approval of TXT05-2025, I recommend that TXT-05-2025, be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with a
recommendation of approval.
Voting yea: Rollins, Schwartz, Tingler, Williams, Young
Motion carries.

26

December 18, 2025 – Planning Commission Summary Minutes

ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Young motioned and Mr. Tingler seconded to adjourn to the January 22, 2026
meeting.
Voting yea: Rollins, Schwartz, Tingler, Williams, Young
Motion carries.
Meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
B. Leon Hughes, AICP
Director of Planning & Community Development

27

December 18, 2025 – Planning Commission Summary Minutes