Board members Kristen Umstattd, Caleb Kershner and others voted against the amendment to the county’s comprehensive plan and Zoning ordinance. In places where data centers are currently used as a complementary or core use, the comprehensive plan amendment changes them to a “conditional” use. All future data centers must meet certain requirements to be built.
In counties where data centers were permitted by right, the amendment to the zoning ordinance designates them as “special exceptions”. Applications that were approved by-right could be done administratively. However, “special exceptions” require applicants to undergo a public hearing and receive approval from the board.
In a separate vote of 5-4, the board approved provisions for grandfathering applications that had been in place as early as Feb. 12, the night before the Board held a public hearing about the proposed zoning change, and that involved projects located more than 500 feet from residential units. The grandfather provision stipulates that applicants must “diligently pursue” approval and prohibits any substantial modifications to the application.
Vice Chair Mike Turner, Supervisors Laura TeKrony and Juli Briskman, and Sylvia Glass voted against the grandfather clause. Kershner moved to extend the deadline for grandfathering applications until March 18 but the motion failed. Umstattd was the only supervisor who supported it.
Turner claims that 24 data centers applications have been grandfathered in by the Tuesday vote.
Staff noted in the action item documents that this is an “unconstrained number” and it’s likely that not all possible data center square footage may be fully realized due to various factors, such as changes in the political landscape impacting the industry, a class=”st_tag internal_tag” href=”https://virginiabusiness.com/blog/tag/technology/” rel=”tag”, title=”Posts tagged with technology”>technology/a> change and limitations of electric transmission capacity Staff noted that this is an “unconstrained” number and that there’s a good chance that not all data center square footage will be realized because of various factors such as changes to the political landscape affecting the industry, technological change, and limitations in electrical transmission capacity and infrastructure.
Kershner stated that data center companies are “some of our strongest partners here in Loudoun County” and the new rules will create an uncertainty, making companies reluctant to do business with the county. He called the new rules a “dangerous” game of “Loudoun County Zoning Roulette.”
Kershner stated that “when you spin the wheel, there’s a level uncertainty that permeates every business. Not just this one, but all those who think and do business in Loudoun County, and it has huge negative impacts on Loudoun County.”
Umstattd reiterated Kershner’s concerns. She said she was worried about taking away the by-rights opportunities from businesses that have invested in county. Umstattd reminded the other members of the board the revenue data centres have brought to the county. Tim Hemstreet, the County Administrator, said that 38% of the general fund revenue for the county comes from the data center sector.
Many county residents are concerned about the data centers that have been built in the county. They complain about the data centers causing problems for the electric grid of the state, the data centers making too much noise, and the ugly buildings. Many residents believe that data centers are built in the wrong places, right next to residential areas.
Matthew Letourneau, the supervisor of the district, says that he is grateful for all revenue generated by data centers and supports them “when they are located in areas where they belong.” However, he believes many data centres are not in their proper locations. Glass said that the approved changes empower the board “to make thoughtful decisions about what data centers we will build in our community.”
