On the agenda: Charles City County meeting — data center (May 14)

CHARLES CITY COUNTY

1

PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Agenda
Thursday, May 14, 2026 @ 6:30 p.m.
in the Government Adminstration Building at
10900 Courthouse Road, Charles City, Virginia, 23030

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

Notice is hereby given that the Charles City County, Virginia, Planning Commission will hold a
meeting at the date, time and place shown above. The agenda for this meeting is shown below:
I.

CALL TO ORDER

II.

DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM

III.

ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS
a. Election of Officers (first meeting of the calendar year)
b. Review and Adoption of PC Bylaws (first meeting of the calendar year)
c. Adoption of the PC Annual Meeting Calendar (first meeting of the calendar year)

IV.

PUBLIC HEARING(S) - None Scheduled

V.

WORK SESSION
a. A discussion of Planning Commission Objectives, Priorities, Resources, and
Schedule moving forward. During a recent training class, the Chair compiled a list
of “things to consider” for the CCC Planning Commission (CCCPC). Those “things
to consider” will be the starting point for the work session. Each Commissioner and
Staff member is asked to bring their own list of things the CCCPC should be
considering at this time. Note, the objective for this Work Session is not to resolve
every concern, but to recognize and compile the concerns, gain some mutual
understanding, assign relative priorities, and discuss potential resources to aid
resolution.

VI.

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF PAST MEETING MINUTES

VII.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None Scheduled

VIII.

NEW BUSINESS – None Scheduled

IX.

PLANNING DIRECTOR/STAFF UPDATES

X.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

XI.

COMMISSION COMMENTS

XII.

ADJOURMENT
a. No meeting is scheduled for May 28, 2026.
b. Next PC meeting is currently scheduled for June 11, 2026 to include at least one
public hearing
c. Additional Work Sessions may be scheduled depending on Staff availability
1

CHARLES CITY COUNTY

1

PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
May 8, 2025

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51

CALL TO ORDER:
The Charles City County Planning Commission Meeting was called to order on May 14, 2025 at
6:30 p.m. at the Charles City County Government Administrative Building.
PRESENT: Edward Baber - Chairperson
Andrew Adams - Vice Chairperson
LaToya Johnson-Davis
Clyde L. Miles
Brenda Jones-Cotman
Ryan Petterson (BOS Representative)
ABSENT: James Walton
OTHERS: Gary Mitchell, Director Community Development
Sheri Adams, Deputy Zoning Administrator/Transportation Planner
Christopher Mackenzie, County Attorney
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
The Chairman reviewed the guidelines for Public Hearings.
RZ-01-2025- C – Roxbury Technology Park, LLC & Roxbury Technology Park II, LLC, represented by
T. Preston Lloyd, Jr., Esq., have applied to rezone 515.23+/- acres from Agricultural (A-1) to Light
Industrial (M-1) for tax map parcels 3-19, 3-20, 3-21, 3-30 (partial), from Planned Development
Industrial Park (PDIP) to Light Industrial (M-1) for a portion of tax map parcel 3-30, and from
Residential – 1 (R-1) to Light Industrial (M-1) for tax map parcel 7-140, for the development of a data
center with proffered conditions. The subject properties are located with approximately 1000+/- feet of
frontage along CC Road (SR 622) and 55 feet of frontage on Charles City Road (SR 600).
SUP-01-2025 - Roxbury Technology Park, LLC & Roxbury Technology Park II, LLC, represented by T.
Preston Lloyd, Jr., Esq., have applied for a special use permit for the development of a central utility
system in conjunction with a right-of-way greater than or equal to 30-feet in width. The specific
properties subject to this application are tax map parcels 3-19, 3-20, 3-21, 3-30, and 7-140. The subject
properties are located with approximately 1000+/- feet of frontage along CC Road (SR 622) and 55 feet
of frontage on Charles City Road (SR 600).
SUP-02-2025 - Roxbury Technology Park, LLC & Roxbury Technology Park II, LLC, represented by T.
Preston Lloyd, Jr., Esq., have applied for a special use permit requesting relief of three (3) performance
standards for data centers. The specific properties subject to this application are tax parcels 3-19, 3-20, 321, 3-30, and 7-140. The subject properties are located with approximately 1000+/- feet of frontage along
CC Road (SR 622) and 55 feet of frontage on Charles City Road (SR 600).
On Motion by Mr. Adams, seconded by Ms. Jones-Cotman, and carried with a vote of 6-0, the Planning
Commission voted to consider all three applications scheduled for public hearing together, providing
three (3) minutes of comment per speaker during public comment.
1

52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104

The Chairman authorized fifteen to twenty minutes for the Application to make its presentation on all
three applications.
Staff Presentation:
Mr. Mitchell presented the Staff Report on RZ-01-2025-C, SUP-01-2025, and SUP-02-2025 highlighting
major themes, including: compliance with the existing Land Use Plan, proffers regarding water sources,
noise concerns, the lack of any evidence of a resource protection area (RPA) existing on the property, and
that Charbelee Drive will not be sued at any time to access the property.
Staff recommended approval of all three applications with proffers and conditions as presented.
Applicant Presentation:
Mr. Preston Lloyd, Esquire of Williams Mullen presented on behalf of the Applicant, Roxbury
Technology Park, LLC & Roxbury Technology Park II, LLC. Mr. Lloyd’s presentation addressed topics
including the following: compliance with the future land use map industrial development designation, the
applicant’s history of community involvement regarding the applications, and the applicant’s responses to
Staff comments on the applications.
With specific respect to RZ-01-2025-C, Mr. Lloyd addressed the purpose and terms of the proposed
conditional rezoning, including the following: the setbacks provided, limitations on access, restrictions
and limitations imposed to mitigate sound concerns, the source and availability of power, and the
anticipated financial impact of the development, utilizing figures and estimates drawn from VEDP.
With specific respect to SUP-01-2025, Mr. Lloyd stated that the SUP was requested due to the likelihood
of a substation on the property, approval of approval for the development of a central utility system was
requested.
With specific respect to SUP-02-2025, Mr. Lloyd provided the reasons the applicant was requesting
modifications to the County’s performance standards relating to data centers, as approved in ZTA-022024 and ZTA-06-2024, which included: the need to ensure that safety lighting was permitted on the
property, the ability to mitigate visual impacts of power lines through buffers as opposed to burial of
liens, and an attempt to clarify the requirements of the performance standards.
Public Comment:
Following the conclusion of the Applicant’s Presentation, the Chairman asked the PC if there were any
questions about the proposal. Hearing none, the Chairman provided an introduction to the public
comment session, stating that full proffers were available in the packet, the proffers will be finalized upon
submission to the Board of Supervisors, and proffers cannot be negotiated by the County. The Chairman
restated the rules for public comment and that each speaker would receive three minutes.
The following citizens spoke in favor of or in support for the RZ-01-2025-C, SUP-01-2025, and SUP-022025: Charles Kelly; and Trey Christian.
Comments included support due to anticipated job creation and tax revenue for the County.
The following citizens spoke with concerns about or in opposition to RZ-01-2025-C, SUP-01-2025, and
SUP-02-2025: Luke Miller; Georgia Pulliam; Terry Hogan; Pat Davis; Bandi Marano; Mathew
Montgomery; Joseph Sherman, Esquire; Jared Kline; Brook Piercy; Ruth Washington; Charles Russell;
Charles Skelly, Denise Bobadilla; Nelly Turpin; Tony Turpin; Nikki Jones; Lisa Ciosjarik; Susan Ware;
Bobby Haller, Deborah Hardwick; Wanda Roberts; Jeff Pyles; Tracy Floyd; Doriene Billingsley; Craig
2

105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157

Christian, Rob Tyler; Alice Starke; Judy Sadler Pulliam; Melissa Bryant; Elisabeth Kustalow; Burke
Owen; Tony Webb; Amiee Kline; Ron Washington; Martha Harris; Francy Turpin; Kathryn Miller;
Shelly Brown; James Pollock; Josh Richardson; and Kara Nice.
Comments included concerns about noise; the actual revenue that would be received from the project;
impact on rural nature of community; compliance with the County’s comprehensive plan; negative impact
on property values; environmental impacts on land, air, and water; pollution from diesel generators and
light pollution; impacts on the roads; impact on adjacent Charbelee Estates neighborhood; need to comply
with existing data center performance standards; effect on health of domestic and wild animals; impacts
of health on nearby residents; improper location; insufficient water supply; status of EDA support for
project; concerns about deforestation; concerns about availability of Fire and EMS service; and issues
raised in recent JLARC study.
Applicant Response:
Mr. Lloyd provided a response to public comment on behalf of the applicant, highlighting the low impact
of the use, ability for the County to participate in the digital economy and generate revenue therefrom.
Discussion and Vote:
Once all comments were received the Public Hearing was closed and the Planning Commission
considered a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Commissioners asked questions regarding
anticipated investment, stormwater management, and buffers. The Chairman then called for a separate
vote on each application.
RZ-01-2025-C
On a motion by Ms. Jones-Cotman, second by Mr. Miles, and carried with a vote of 4 in favor,
(Jones-Cotman, Miles, Johnson-Davis, Baber), 1 opposed (Adams), and 1 abstention (Patterson), the
Planning Commission recommended approval of RZ-01-2025-C by the BOS with proffers as presented.
SUP-01-2025
On a motion Mr. Adams, second by Ms. Latoya Johnson-Davis, and carried with a vote of 5 in
favor (Baber, Adams, Miles, Jones-Cotman, Johnson-Davis) and 1 abstention (Patterson), the Planning
Commission recommended approval SUP-01-2025 by the BOS as presented.
SUP-02-2025
On a motion by Mr. Miles, second by Mr. Adams, and carried with a vote of 5 in favor (Baber,
Adams, Miles, Jones-Cotman, Johnson-Davis) and 1 abstention (Patterson), the Planning Commission
recommended approval SUP-02-2025.with exemptions to performance standards # 5 and 9 as well as the
deletion of performance standard # 10, underground utilities, by the BOS.
APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES:
None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
None
NEW BUSINESS:
None
3

158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168

PLANNING DIRECTOR/STAFF UPDATES:
None
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
None
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:46 p.m.

4

A List of Considerations for the Charles City County Planning Commission, by Ed Baber
Listed below are several “thoughts” or action items that came to me during a recent training class regards Planning.
To me, after a long hiatus, these “thoughts” represent “things” the Charles City County Planning Commission might
consider as we begin to move forward again. I have arranged these roughly by topic. The italicized entry is my rough
or initial thought. That which follows is a slight expansion or clarification. I invite my “CC Planning Colleagues” to
make notes on these items and include their own concerns to present a PC work session I am trying to schedule for
May 14, 2026.
Comprehensive Plan
1.

2.

Produce Comp Plan
a. Top of our list of things to do is to update or revise our 2014 Comp Plan. Perhaps most difficult in
this effort will be how to and how much of the Citizen Advisory Committee product to incorporate.
Explore using American Planning Association (APA) guys as consultants - Alan Simpson. Or see what
resources are available at PlanRVA and Crater Planning Districts.
a. The APA guys have done some good Comp Plan work and they are looking for clients in whom
they can invest some volunteer effort. Alan Simpson - Chair, Community Planning Assistance
Program (Virginia Chapter of the American Planning Association). https://epr-pc.com/alan-simpson/

b.

3.

4.

5.

6.
7.
8.

9.

RRPDC (now PlanRVA) has done much of the work on past CC Comp Plans and either they and/or
Crater Planning District could likely help with this revision.
Use “Small Area Plans” in our Comp Plan, improve community buy-in, better plan overall. 106 Corridor,
Route 5, Rural Area, Courthouse, Adkins, Parrish Hill, Wayside, Ruthville, Samaria.
a. We have used Development Centers and Neighborhood Service Areas in the last several versions
of CC Comp Plans. This recent training introduced the idea of “Small Area Plans” as a potential
improvement to what we have been doing. One advantage I see in this is the potential for
significant community buy-in. Invite these communities to self-design how their community might
look.
“Comprehensive” downzoning is probably legal.
a. This goes to the challenge CC faces with 1 acre minimum lot size in probably 90% of the county,
virtually the entire county is A1. We have been told consistently that “downzoning is illegal but it
sounds like several jurisdictions have accomplished much good by using comprehensive
downzoning.
Map visual resources and pics/inventory to support maintenance of rural character. Chesterfield
a. Use pictures in the Comp Plan as a way to document and inventory what is meant by “maintain
rural character” or “scenic vistas”, or “sense of community or belonging”.
Conduct a “Farm Survey/Inventory”, conservation, sustainability. American Farmland trust, Rural survey
a. This looked like a good tool to help inventory the importance of farming for our community.
Does the comp plan use the data from the county-wide soil survey?
a. This was a soil survey (actual testing) completed many years ago, but soils have not changed.
Show “ground water recharge areas” in comp plan.
a. Sounds like a good idea, but it might cause a “re-think” of where some things are located in the
comp plan.
Include energy mapping in comp plan.
a. Especially important to include mapping of electric, water, gas, internet, sewer, solar, etc with all
the work on data centers

Comprehensive Plan - Continued
10. Affordable Housing
a. Must include affordable housing in comp plan, maybe ask communities how they would accomplish
affordable housing.
b. Affordable Housing requires guidance from Regional Planning - Crater or RRPDC. None yet.
c. “Family Land” (many heirs, unfindable heirs) creates roadblocks for improvement
d. Impact of Section 8
e. What does our Comp Plan do to lessen the impact of poverty on our citizens?
11. How to include “resilience” in comp plan.
a. This is a fairly new VA requirement.
12. Is the “food desert” aspect included in the Comp Plan?
a. How to address the county’s lack of grocery stores.
13. How reasonable and realistic comp plan goals/expectations? Are they attainable in time given.
a. We have been putting the same Comp Plan goals, objectives, strategies out there for years, but
little seems to be getting accomplished. Are our goals unrealistic, out of touch?
b. Who is going to use/open the Comp Plan? What are their expectations/needs for the plan?
c. Is the Comp Plan coordinated with the IDA/EDA plans & efforts?
d. Should the County be doing additional “speculative” buying and zoning of developable properties?
14. Several overall thoughts came across:
a. Comp Plan is promise vs. policy
b. Policy Plan direction different from Land Use
c. Land Policy - direction to achieve policies - rural, environmental protection, urban, new
development
d. Bring comp plan recommendations at same time as major changes - zoning. Go through battle
once, maybe 106
e. WHY PLAN - a) strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory, b.) tactics without strategy is
the noise before defeat.
Zoning
1.

2.
3.
4.

5.

6.
7.

Explore “Restricted Use” to reduce SUPs, see Chesterfield. Permitted if standards are met, otherwise
consider as conditional use.
a. This seems like a great idea to reduce the need for numerous SUPs.
When considering conservation easements, they must agree with comp plan
a. I’m not sure we have considered if conservation easements are in agreement” with the Comp Plan
Add to bylaws, schedule for conditional zoning proffers to be finalized before PC public hearing.
a. This is the Chesterfield method to get proffers into a finalized state before PC public hearing.
Add a “similar use” in each district for similar uses.
a. Explore this as a way to make sure our zoning ordinance has some flexibility without causing us to
try to fit a “square peg into a round hole”. “Use” is always there.
Unified Ordinance - is it legal in VA? Can/should we use? NC thing, who uses in VA?
a. There has been mention of combining zoning and subdivision into a “Unified” ordinance, but in a
State where subdivision ordinance is administrative and zoning is per the Planning Commission
there is the question about the practicality and legality of doing such in VA.
Fix our definitions
a. The Chairman has a marked-up copy with numerous recommended corrections.
Solar Farms – do we want more? Is this the best use of our open spaces?
a. This is one of my ongoing concerns and I am concerned that VA has some additional ideas.

Subdivision
1.
2.

3.

New street = subdivision. Check this
a. Check our ordinance to see if this is true in our ordinance
Discuss the integration of design standards in subdivision order. Vs. zoning.
a. We have built a lot of design standards into the CC Zoning Ordinance and I wonder if they might
also be in the subdivision ordinance.
Look at subdivision provision to disallow lots fronting on arterial roads
a. This might be a good way to improve our “roadside residential” look, i.e. driveways every 100’.

Planning Commission
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

6.

Print out Albermarle County Land Use Law Book
a. Cited as an excellent reference
FOIA must I start using county email - anyone else?
a. I don’t really want to, but the down side is possibly exposing personal email to FOIA.
Planning Commission needs its own website.
a. Consider this for improved communication
Comment cards at back of room during public hearings to outline the process for public comment
a. Sounded like a good idea to help things move along smoothly
I have not signed PC minutes for couple years – is this required
a. The Chairman used to sign all the approved minutes but I have not been asked to do this in several
years.
We need a better system to record meeting minutes.
a. Meeting minutes are a great hassle for the PC. We need dependable help.

Board Of Supervisors
1.

2.

3.
4.

5.

Should PC be participating in CIP and how does this impact requests for certification of “substantial accord”.
a. When a State required Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) first became a thing, the Planning
Commission was told they had a key role in putting the plan together. We did for a few years, but
no longer participate at all. Is it a State requirement that the PC be involved with CIP for
consistency with Comp Plan?
Does Planning Dept filing system work.
a. There have been a number of lost and misplaced documents in the Planning Department. The filing
system is a problem. Is this possibly a county-wide problem?
Publish accurate appointment dates for PC Members
a. Please keep us out of trouble and get our qualifications current.
What is a data center bank? Lacks incentives per VA
a. There seemed to be one jurisdiction in the state that suffered a fatal misunderstanding with a data
center “bank” that does not carry same incentives.
Staff help needed.
a. Planning needs help, Staffing level is waaaayyyy low.