Stokes County Rezones 1,849 Acres Next to Belews Creek for Project Delta, 3-2, With No Megawatt Figure on the Record

The Stokes County Board of Commissioners in North Carolina voted 3-2 on Monday, September 14, to rezone about 1,800 acres of farmland outside Walnut Cove for Project Delta, a hyperscale data center campus proposed by Engineered Land Solutions ^[5,7]. The site sits beside Duke Energy’s Belews Creek Steam Station ^[1]. The board has now approved the project twice by the same margin ^[7].

What the board approved

The application asks to move four parcels totaling about 1,848.74 acres from Residential-Agricultural zoning to a Heavy Manufacturing Conditional Zoning District, M-2-CZ ^[1]. The property owners are DFC Stokes, LLC and DFC Stokes 2, LLC; the land runs along U.S. 311, Tuttle Road, Oldtown Road and Coon Joyce Road, between Walnut Cove and the Dan River ^[1]. Conditional zoning in North Carolina means the conditions the developer consents to in writing become part of the zoning itself and run with the land ^[2].

This was a second pass. The board approved the rezoning 3-2 in January. Residents and nonprofits sued, and a court adopted a joint consent order that voided that vote and added procedural safeguards, including a September 8 special hearing with three hours set aside for public comment ^[7]. Engineered Land Solutions filed a new application and held a public information meeting on it on July 8 ^[1].

On August 13 the Planning Board recommended denial, 5-2, finding the proposal inconsistent with the county’s 2035 Vision Plan ^[2]. That recommendation is advisory under state law ^[2]. County planning staff had gone the other way, recommending approval as reasonable and in the public interest, on the condition that approval “should rest on the enforceable conditions proposed by the Applicant” ^[1].

According to WFDD, Chairman Wayne Barneycastle and Commissioner Brad Chandler voted no ^[6]. Chandler moved to have Commissioner Keith Wood recuse himself over ties to CMC Rebar, a possible materials supplier; the motion drew only Chandler’s vote, and the county attorney said she saw no conflict on the facts known ^[6].

What the conditions say about power

Here is the gap. The record has the acreage to two decimal places. It has no megawatt figure.

The conditions dated September 8, the last version the county posted before the vote, run to nine sections ^[3]. Six of them deal with noise, cooling and water, floodplain, lighting, height and buffers ^[3]. Power gets one short section and one clause:

• The permitted accessory uses include “power generation; substations; electrical infrastructure; natural gas infrastructure,” along with battery backup and generation equipment ^[3].
• Power generators may not sit within 300 feet of the exterior property boundary ^[3].
• “The use of diesel fuel for power generation shall be limited to the operation of emergency backup generators” ^[3].

Read together, diesel is confined to backup and gas-fired generation is allowed. Nothing in the conditions caps generating capacity, limits how many hours on-site units may run, or sets a date by which the campus must take grid service ^[3]. The staff report says the application “contemplates the use of temporary ‘bridging’ generation pending permanent connection to the electric grid” ^[1]. Bridging generation means power plants on the site that carry the load until the utility can serve it.

Staff described the power question as outside the zoning case: “Energy demand and grid capacity are similarly matters that will be addressed through the applicable utility interconnection process independent of the zoning approval, though the zoning conditions establish enforceable limits on temporary on-site generation pending permanent interconnection” ^[1]. The limits in the posted text are about location and fuel. Duration and size are not in it.

The questions were asked. At the developer’s July 8 public information meeting, attendees raised generator quantity, capacity and fuel types, projected demand relative to available grid capacity, curtailment, the timeline for permanent grid connection, and the effect of data center demand on residential electric rates ^[1].

What the Planning Board wanted, and what the posted text has

The Planning Board’s denial cited, among other concerns, “uncertainty regarding on-site power generation and duration of bridging generation” ^[2]. Chair Ronnie Tilley attached conditions for commissioners to consider if they approved anyway. Two were about power ^[2]:

• On-site generation: the applicant would state “the types of generators, total number and generating capacity, and a best estimate of the bridging duration before public utility service comes online.”
• Electric rates: “a binding agreement with Duke Energy funding additional capacity attributable to the project and restricting residential rate increases to not more than 3% every five years.”

Others called for property-line air monitoring with weekly reports, a decommissioning bond and spill liners sized to on-site fuel capacity ^[2].

None of these appears in the September 8 conditions ^[3]. The nearest is condition 9, which requires environmental reports, monitoring results and compliance materials exchanged with the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality on air or water quality to be “provided or made accessible to the County” ^[3]. That puts any state air permit for on-site generation in the county’s hands. It does not set a limit.

Water is handled more concretely. The Stokes County Water and Sewer Authority’s will-serve letter puts the campus at an estimated 100,000 gallons per day at full build-out, including fire suppression, contingent on system upgrades and on the developer paying “100% of all cost” of the improvements ^[4]. The conditions bar open-loop cooling and direct withdrawals from streams, rivers, wells and other private sources ^[3].

Where the sides stand

The developer says the project changed since January. WFDD reported that Drew Nations, the company’s chief executive, pointed to stricter standards on noise, energy generation and water use, and tied the project to teacher pay and faster emergency response ^[6]. Commissioner Sonya Cox cited voters’ repeated rejection of tax increases and called the project a turning point for county finances, according to WFDD ^[6].

The revenue figures are the developer’s own. The staff report describes an Engineered Land Solutions estimate of about $50.7 million a year at full build-out, based on an assumed $7.09 billion in assessed value across about 1,050 developable acres; the company labels it illustrative and not a representation of actual value ^[1]. The Planning Board brief lists the applicant’s projection as “$40 million-plus” ^[2]. An analysis by economist Michael Hicks, funded by the Southern Environmental Law Center, found the project would produce a fraction of the promised local tax revenue ^[6,7]. The developer disputes it, saying it assumes a much smaller build-out ^[6]. Staff also noted that the 2026-27 state budget ended North Carolina’s sales tax exemption on data center electricity purchases, revenue the state collects and distributes rather than the county ^[1].

Opponents focused on generation. Walnut Cove resident Tim Mabe cited studies on gas turbine exhaust reaching homes more than two miles away, including the town’s three schools, and Megan Kimball of the Southern Environmental Law Center warned of pollution from generators near homes ^[7]. Chandler objected to being rushed on late changes of this size ^[7]. Anne Harvey David of the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, which brought the first lawsuit, would not say whether another is planned ^[6].

What I’m watching

First, the adopted conditions. The county has not yet posted the version the board approved, or the consistency and reasonableness statements state law requires with any rezoning decision ^[2]. If any of the Planning Board’s power conditions made it into the final text, that is where they will show up.

Second, the interconnection. The staff report pushes demand and grid capacity to the utility process ^[1]. Neither Duke Energy nor the developer has put a load figure or a service date in the county record. Until one of them does, how long the gas units run is an open number.