Goochland overlay district lawsuit heads to key records hearing

The next courtroom step in Goochland County’s technology overlay district fight could determine how much of the county’s planning record gets scrutinized, and how much room nearby property owners have to challenge the approvals that opened the Route 288 corridor to more technology-focused development.

A hearing in Goochland Circuit Court is set for Tuesday, May 26, where the judge is expected to decide which of roughly 8,500 records and documents tied to the Technology Overlay District must be reviewed in the case. The lawsuit was filed by four residents, Cynthia Haas, Peggy Knisley, Virginia H. Reed and Gail A. Minnick, who argue the county did not clearly or lawfully explain what supervisors were approving when they signed off on the district.

The county approved the Technology Overlay District and a related Technology Zone on November 6, 2025, by a 4-1 vote after what officials describe as a six-month process of community engagement, community meetings and public hearings. Goochland County says staff and supervisors took part in more than a dozen meetings with the public, and that revised ordinances and maps were released on October 21, 2025 before the final hearing.

At issue is a swath of about 4,400 acres along Route 288, stretching from Interstate 64 south to Patterson Avenue and bordering Hockett Road. About 3,500 of those acres sit inside West Creek Business Park, an area controlled by Pruitt Associates. County officials say the overlay district and technology zone are designed to work together to attract high-revenue-producing technology projects and broaden the tax base, while also protecting rural land and supporting public services.

The county’s own materials say the overlay brings extra standards such as buffers, setbacks, noise limits and architectural controls. The approved ordinance also added definitions for a small modular nuclear reactor facility, a natural gas peaking plant and a utility generating station. By-right uses in the district can include pharmaceutical companies, biomedical research uses and data centers, while an energy-generating facility would need a conditional-use permit.

The Planning Commission held hearings on September 18 and September 25, 2025, then voted 3-2 to recommend approval. County documents also say the final ordinance added extra protections for residentially zoned adjacent properties, including a condition that any data center use on M-1 land near residential areas must meet stronger requirements.

Opponents say the process was flawed from the start. They argue nearby residents were not properly notified, that the advertising was confusing and inadequate, and that later amendments materially changed what had been described in public notices. One resident said a FOIA request turned up more than 1,000 emails sent to the county about the plan, the vast majority negative.

Residents involved in the challenge say they do not intend to back down, and some have already helped pay legal fees through private support. The May 26 hearing will not settle the entire lawsuit, but it could set the terms for how much of Goochland’s record enters the fight over a corridor now positioned to reshape future development west of Richmond.