DATA Centers Future Here, Changes in Zoning Text Amendment Procedures, and a Little Post-Meeting Drama for One Supervisor

The application by Rushmark Properties for a rezoning to permit construction of a DATA Center in Warren County was withdrawn the week prior to its scheduled Public Hearing at the August 18th regular meeting of the Warren County Board of Supervisors. That Public Hearing was anticipated to lead to a vote of approval or denial and to draw a large crowd of concerned citizens to the meeting. That anticipated crowd led to the August 18th supervisors meeting being moved to the Warren County High School auditorium.

And while it wasn’t the 100-plus speakers and their supporters expected for the planned public hearing, if our count was right, only 2, possibly 3, of the 18 total speakers even suggested considering the permitting of DATA Centers moving forward.

The County Supervisors prepare to convene their August 18 meeting. Below, a perspective on a portion of the public seating in the WCHS Auditorium at the meeting’s outset. Royal Examiner Photos Roger Bianchini.

One of those 2 or 3 speakers, Jerome Parz, told the County’s elected officials that, “Warren County can benefit from DATA Center investment — but only if strict, enforceable conditions are required before any project is approved. These standards are already used in well-managed jurisdictions and are designed to protect the county’s core assets,” Parz asserted. Those “core assets” were cited as: “Our aquifer and drinking water;

“Our electrical reliability and power costs;

“Our neighborhoods and quality of life;

“Our emergency services and public safety;

and “Our rural landscape and property values.”

Of that list, Parz observed, “Every protection listed here must be a condition of approval, not a suggestion. Voluntary promises are not enough. Enforceable requirements are the only way to ensure responsible development.

Jerome Parz at the podium during Public Comments. Parz urged the county’s elected officials to take advantage of the tax revenue DATA Centers generate, but ONLY under strict written, legally enforceable guidelines that ensure the owners live up to the limits placed on their use of community assets in DATA Center operations.

“Warren County does not need to choose between economic growth and environmental protection. We can have both — if the county sets clear conditions up front and makes them legally binding.” He followed that assertion with additional detail on the community assets above.

“These standards are not obstacles — they are safeguards. They ensure that any DATA Center built in Warren County protects our aquifer, maintains grid reliability, prevents noise impacts, supports emergency services, and preserves the rural character that defines our community … Warren County can welcome economic growth while protecting residents, resouces, and quality of life — but only if these requirments are mandatory,” Parz asserted of what he sees as walking a legally enforceable tight rope.

However, other speakers worried that approval under any circumstances would begin the downfall of Warren County as a rural retirement-living and tourism destination. Some in that majority of speakers cited past living experiences in communities allowing DATA Center development in Virginia. And it was noted more than once that Virginia is considered a DATA Center capital nationally—and that was not cited as a badge of municipal insight; rather, quite the opposite: it was noted by a number of speakers.

Zoning Text Amendment options

Moving beyond the DATA Center topic, early in Tuesday’s meeting Planning Director Kelly Wahl presented a staff outline on a proposed Zoning Text Amendment. The staff summary on the matter cited the “Purpose of this Report: Warren County Code §180-61A currently permits a property owner, contract purchaser with the owner’s written consent, or the owner’s agent to initiate a proposition to amend the zoning ordinance or rezone property.

“The proposal under discussion would revise the portion of the section designating who may initiate a proposition to amend a zoning while preserving the statutory route for an owner to seek rezoning of specific property.”

Planning Director Kelly Wahl and County Attorney Jason Ham, at the far-right table, advised the county board on legal considerations involved in pursuing Zoning Text Amendments for private-sector rezoning initiatives.

Under “Reasons for Caution” on such a change were, “Loss of Useful Proposals: and “a shift to informal lobbying”. On that latter matter, it was noted that the suggested change could lead to applicants approaching “individual supervisors privately, which could make the process less consistent.”

Subsequent discussion of the submitted report led to a motion to add a vote on whether to proceed with consideration of the proposal. Later in the meeting under “Additional New Business,” there was a motion by Richard Jamieson, seconded by John Stanmeyer, to instruct Planning and Zoning staff, “to proceed with preparation of a draft ordinance to amend County Code 180-61” on the proposed Zoning Text Amendment.

That motion was approved by a 5-0 vote. It appeared that the board wanted additional information on the potential consequences, both positive and negative, of such a Zoning Text Amendment before a final vote on approval or rejection.

New Business

Under “New Business,” the board approved the “Granting of Temporary Construction & Right of Way easement” by a 5-0 vote, on a motion by Henry, seconded by Jamieson.

The board also approved a 10-item Consent Agenda for coming business, “as presented” — motion by Henry, seconded by Jamieson. That business included two advertisements for Public Hearings on Short-Term Tourist permitting applications, one at 285 Dry Run Court and the other at 1716 Ridgeway Road. Also permitted was an advertisement for another Public Hearing on permitting for Private Use Camping at 0 Rivermont Acres Road.

One scheduled Public Hearing on a Short-Term Tourist rental permit at 339 River Oak Drive was canceled due to a foul-up on the legally required advertising in local media.

Post-meeting drama

During his Board Report, Fork District Supervisor Hugh Henry acknowledged what he appeared to consider untrue or perhaps even slanderous postings, likely on social media, from a county citizen whose name we were later given as Jay Newell. Henry stated, somewhat reluctantly, that he would be at his car in the parking lot after the meeting if the cited individual wanted to confront him further.

Hugh Henry read from notes during Board Reports, referencing what he perceived as inaccurate, accusatory statements by a citizen. Below, WCSO deputies halted an escalating personal confrontation between Henry, left, and citizen Jay Newell, right, after the meeting ended.

As this reporter and others were leaving the meeting, several WC Sheriff’s Office deputies intervened at what appeared to be a brief physical confrontation during which Henry appeared to push a man to the ground. Some words were exchanged as the deputies saw that there was no escalation of the incident. One later told this reporter that the man arguing with Henry, who was reported to us as Jay Newell, had declined to press charges for his brief trip to the ground during the incident.

During his remarks to Henry following the brief physical altercation, the man was heard shouting at Henry, asking whether he supported DATA Centers in the community. Royal Examiner will seek additional information from both Henry and Newell for a subsequent story on the dispute between the two.

 Watch the Warren County Board of Supervisors Meeting of August 18, 2026