A Richmond Times-Dispatch report by Michael Martz examines questions raised after a New Kent County rezoning vote and a separate property transaction involving the same developer. Supervisor Thomas Evelyn and county officials maintain that the matters were separate and that no conflict required him to abstain. Residents represented by former state Sen. Chap Petersen say publicly disclosing the transaction before the vote would have helped preserve public confidence.
Rezoning vote and separate property sale
On July 13, the New Kent County Board of Supervisors voted 3–2 to rezone approximately 343 acres along Route 33 as an “economic opportunity” zone. The zoning allows a range of industrial, light-industrial, office and commercial uses.
According to Martz’s reporting, Supervisor Thomas Evelyn voted in favor of the rezoning. The following month, a company that Evelyn co-owns and manages sold a separate 10-acre property several miles east of the rezoned land to The Curtis Group Inc., the developer that requested the rezoning. Land records cited by the Times-Dispatch placed the sale price at $2.1 million.
Evelyn told the newspaper that the transaction was separate from the rezoning. He said the 10-acre property had been acquired in 2024 as part of his company’s $1.1 million purchase of Caruso Inc., a lumber-export business. The property is adjacent to offices used by Curtis Contracting, an affiliate of The Curtis Group.
Evelyn also said he consulted County Attorney Benming “Benny” Zhang and other attorneys about whether he should recuse himself. According to Evelyn, the attorneys advised him that the circumstances did not constitute a conflict requiring recusal.
County Administrator Rodney Hathaway told the Times-Dispatch that Evelyn informed him before the July 13 meeting about the pending sale and his consultation with the county attorney. Hathaway said he agreed with the county attorney’s assessment and did not view the situation as a conflict. Andy Curtis of The Curtis Group did not respond to the newspaper’s request for comment.
Residents question whether disclosure was warranted
A group of New Kent residents represented by former state Sen. Chap Petersen has raised concerns about public disclosure and the appearance created when a supervisor votes on a developer’s land-use request while participating in a separate transaction with that developer.
Meredith Rose, president of Transparency 4 New Kent, told the Times-Dispatch that public trust requires transparency and avoidance of even the appearance of a conflict. Resident Mo Gauthier said the concern extends beyond the data-center debate to public confidence in land-use decisions generally.
The Times-Dispatch report did not state that a court or ethics agency had determined that Evelyn violated conflict-of-interest law. The issue presented in the report is whether the transaction should have been publicly disclosed before the vote, despite county officials’ conclusion that no legal conflict required recusal.
Petersen subsequently asked the county to amend the rezoning decision by seeking a voluntary commitment, commonly called a proffer, from the developer not to pursue a data center on the property until New Kent adopts its pending data-center ordinance.
What the rezoning did—and did not—approve
The July rezoning did not include or approve a data-center project. County planning staff described the anticipated development as a mixture of industrial and light-industrial uses. The New Kent Planning Commission recommended approval in June, and Principal Planner Patrick Silva emphasized that the rezoning did not authorize data-center development.
Supervisor Amy Pearson, whose district includes the property, also voted for the rezoning. She said its purpose was to diversify the county’s tax base and support an industrial corridor toward West Point.
Before the vote, the Board of Supervisors had imposed a moratorium on new data-center applications while officials developed a regulatory ordinance. The board had also rejected a proposed 1,800-acre technology-overlay district that would have allowed data centers by right and would have included the Curtis property.
Under the regulatory approach described by county officials, a data center could be considered only on industrially zoned property and would still require a conditional-use permit, including public hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.
Pearson has asked county staff to prepare requirements intended to protect county water and electrical services and ensure that data-center developers bear costs associated with effects on public resources. Hathaway said the county’s intention is to control potential data-center development, not promote it.
The broader data-center debate
Residents’ concerns arise as data-center development expands beyond Northern Virginia into other parts of the Commonwealth, including nearby Charles City County.
Evelyn has received attention for supporting PointOne’s proposed 250-acre data-center project in Charles City County. He told the Times-Dispatch that he had never met with a data-center company regarding New Kent and that The Curtis Group’s rezoning request was unrelated to data centers.
The article also reported that Andy Curtis had told residents he would not consider placing a data center on the rezoned property. Former New Kent Sheriff Joe McLaughlin, who spoke in support of the rezoning, said he accepted Curtis at his word and would oppose a data center if one were later proposed there.
Any future data-center proposal for this property would require a separate application, public notice, public hearings and approval under the ordinance ultimately adopted by the county.
Source note: This is an original factual overview of reporting by Michael Martz for the Richmond Times-Dispatch, published September 18, 2026. It does not reproduce the full copyrighted article.
Read the Full Times-Dispatch Report
Access to the original report may require a Richmond Times-Dispatch subscription or individual article purchase.