Goochland supervisors OK $250K to fight lawsuit over potential data centers

Goochland County supervisors agreed last week to allocate $250,000 for its legal defense against four residents’ lawsuit to prevent a technology overlay district that could bring data centers to the county.

On Dec. 4, 2025, Cynthia Haas, Peggy Knisley, Virginia H. Reed and Gail A. Minnick, all Goochland property owners, filed a lawsuit in Goochland Circuit Court against the county, the board of supervisors and the planning commission.

The lawsuit stems from the board’s November 2025 approval of a technology overlay district, or TOD. The decision came despite opposition from dozens of residents who raised concerns about potential noise and environmental impacts associated with data centers.

The suit alleges that prior to the board’s vote to create the district, county officials did not properly identify properties that would be impacted and adopted a measure that differed from what appeared in published notices.

The Goochland plaintiffs’ argument is similar to that of 12 Gainesville residents who sought to stop the Prince William Digital Gateway data center campus. In August 2025, a Prince William County circuit judge voided the massive project because the county didn’t comply with advertising policies established by the state and county to allow the public sufficient notice about a 2023 rezoning vote. That case is still making its way through the state appeals process.

In addition to data centers, the district could attract advanced manufacturing facilities and energy storage facilities to an area along Route 288.

At the Nov. 6, 2025, meeting, Deputy County Administrator Sara Worley said attracting high-tech businesses has been a priority for the county because of the tax revenue they generate.

Board member Jonathan Lyle cast the lone no vote for the ordinance last year after failing to convince the other board members to hold off making a decision until July 2026.

Under the ordinance, data centers would be permitted by right within most of the district, excluding its western portion, although utilities such as gas peaker plants or small modular nuclear reactors would require conditional use permits. The ordinance also includes provisions intended to reduce noise and pollution and to prevent buildings from being visible at ground level.

“The TOD ordinance contains provisions authorizing certain uses without adequately objective standards, includes internal inconsistencies that fail to provide clear notice to landowners and administrators, and delegates broad discretion to county officials in the review and approval process,” the lawsuit stated.

The suit asked that the ordinance be vacated, and that the county be reminded to follow the state’s public hearing requirements. The plaintiffs also seek that the county pay its legal fees.

During the Feb. 3 Board of Supervisors meeting, county attorney Tara McGee explained that her office is unable to defend the county in court because of staffing limitations and competing responsibilities, including responding to Freedom of Information Act requests and addressing legal matters related to human resources and purchasing.

“We don’t have the staffing in our office, given the numerous tasks we have to support the operations [of the county], to handle all elements of defensive litigation,” she said.

Board member Charlie Vaughters stated that hiring outside counsel for the case was the financially responsible strategy. “You don’t want to hire a full-time attorney if you’re not going to be utilizing them on a regular basis,” he said.

Board Member Tom Winfree said the lawsuit hasn’t caused him to doubt his November vote to create the technology district. “I’ve never been convinced any more than I am today that we made the right decision in this case,” he said at last week’s meeting.

Goochland County also holds public officials liability insurance through the Virginia Association of Counties, which provides up to $100,000 for the costs of defense in litigation, according to Jessica Kronberg, a spokesperson for the county.

Gentry Locke, a Roanoke-based law firm, is representing the county, Kronberg said Monday. She expects the county to file its response to the plaintiffs Wednesday.