Goochland supervisors approve data center zoning after rural backlash

Tract filed a pre-application in June 2026 for the Tuckahoe Technology Park, a proposed data center campus on about 900 acres along Route 6, also known as Patterson Avenue, in eastern Goochland. The site includes 13 parcels owned by members of the Haddock, Stern and Arenstein families, and Tract first contacted Goochland County on Nov. 17, 2025 about developing part of the TOD West property.

The project became possible after the Goochland County Board of Supervisors approved the Technology Overlay District and Technology Zone on Nov. 6, 2025, by a 4-1 vote. The new framework was designed to steer high-revenue, low-impact commercial and industrial uses into a defined eastern growth area while preserving the county’s rural character. The ordinance also added definitions for small modular nuclear reactor facility, natural gas peaking plant and utility generating station, and it changed planning rules for data centers.

Public meetings began July 7, 2025, followed by meetings with homeowner associations and an Oct. 2, 2025 town hall. Economic Development had spoken with 5 to 10 data center projects over the previous two years, but there were no active data center projects in Goochland at the time of the July FAQ. The technology effort was tied to a fiscal goal of 70% residential and 30% commercial tax revenue and to the county’s $0.53 real estate tax rate.

The Planning Commission recommended approval by a 3-2 vote after hearings in September 2025. Residents packed meetings in October and November 2025 to argue that data centers could damage rural character, environmental quality and quality of life. Stephen Levet, of Mosaic at West Creek, asked supervisors to delay the measure so the county could keep working through neighbor concerns. Goochland, which has just over 28,000 residents, sits more than two hours south of Northern Virginia’s Data Center Alley.

In December 2025, Cynthia Haas, Peggy Knisley, Virginia H. Reed and Gail A. Minnick sued the county, the board of supervisors and the planning commission over alleged statutory and zoning violations. Supervisors later set aside $250,000 for the county’s defense, and in June 2026 the county filed a modified legislative record after the plaintiffs withdrew their most substantive arbitrary-and-capricious claim.