This article was republished with permission from WTOP’s news partner InsideNoVa.com. Sign up for InsideNoVa.com’s free email subscription today.
In a stunning rejection of the largest data center development in county history, Prince William County staff on Friday issued recommendations that the Planning Commission deny all three rezonings associated with the divisive PW Digital Gateway.
County documents show staff suggested that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Supervisors to not approve two rezoning requests by QTS Realty Trust Inc. — Digital Gateway North and South — and one by Compass Datacenters, which combined are aiming to build 23 million square feet of data centers on roughly 2,100 acres along Pageland Lane in western Prince William County near Gainesville.
Staff rejected the applications largely because of the lack of information provided by developers. They pointed out that many of the documents submitted by the developers “contain technical errors, are contradictory, and contain nondescript verbiage, that may make enforcement of some of the proffers difficult.”
Staff also determined the project is not in alignment with the county’s Comprehensive Plan, despite amendments made to the document last year to pave the way for the Digital Gateway.
“The proposed rezoning is not favorably aligned with the County’s Strategic Plan goals associated with sustainable growth,” staff said of all three applications.
The Digital Gateway project has generated years of debate among county residents who argue its proximity to Manassas National Battlefield Park would be environmentally disastrous and an irreversible blow to the rural character of the area.
Proponents say it would be a boon to the county’s finances and help bolster the commercial tax base.
The commission is the first body through which the rezoning applications must pass before going to the Prince William Board of County Supervisors for final approval in December. Planners on Nov. 8 will issue recommendations on whether the supervisors should adopt the applications, but the board is free to override whatever suggestion the Planning Commission reaches.
Planning Commission Chair Cynthia Moses-Nedd did not immediately return a request for comment.
The supervisor’s Democratic majority has signaled its support for the project. At-Large Board Chair Ann Wheeler, who was ousted in a June primary largely over public discontent with data center development backed by her and the party, said in a text message she was unsurprised by the staff’s rejections.
“Am I surprised the planning department recommended denial of the Digital Gateway? Not really, I think it was expected,” she said. “Given the magnitude of the project, which has tremendous scope and vision, and the length of time under review, I am not surprised there may be outstanding issues.”
She continued: “That said, it is very possible that the concerns of planning staff are surmountable. It is ultimately up to the applicants to address any issues and work with the Planning Commission and the Board of County Supervisors regarding these concerns. But I want to remind the public that this is not just a planning exercise, but a transformational project for Prince William County as a whole, positively affecting generations to come.”
The staff’s ruling on the insufficiency of each application is based on a large list of criteria.
Staff cited the developers’ lack of building footprint or site layout for each application. Staff also nailed each application for not including elevations for the roughly 30 proposed buildings. Without that information, staff said it would be improper to grant the developers permits to build given the uncertainty of the projects.
“Site layouts and building footprints are important for this project because the viewshed analysis is predicated on the proposed height and proposed building locations,” staff said. “As such, the Applicant provides no assurances that the buildings will be located in these specific locations and layouts.”
Staff also objected to the amount of flexibility the developers gave themselves to modify their proposals should they be approved.
The applicants did not provide information on the proposed location of electrical infrastructure that will serve the facilities in each land bay, such as transmission lines.
“Without this information, staff is not fully able to analyze the projects’ impacts on the surrounding community, to include but not limited to impacts on viewsheds, proposed open space, proposed tree preservation areas, buffering, and site layout,” the staff reports say.
The project was additionally deemed environmentally unfriendly, as many critics and advocacy groups have pointed out over the years.
Staff noted the project’s proximity to the Manassas battlefield, citing the National Park Service’s opposition to the Digital Gateway, which “determined that the proposed rezoning will adversely affect the battlefield and the numerous historic resources outside of the [park] boundary, and the application does not provide sufficient modifications to mitigate the impacts to these resources,” staff said.
They also pointed to the project’s proximity to Conway Robinson State Park, noting the Virginia Department of Forestry’s belief that the rezoning could have “substantial impacts” on the “forest and ecosystem services, which consist of flood mitigation, water quality, clean air, habitat for forest and aquatic biodiversity, and scenic value.” The forestry service also raised concern about the loss of open space land and riparian forest, fragmentation, and loss of ecosystem functions, staff said.
It’s not the first time staff have been critical of the Digital Gateway proposal. Last year they released a draft plan that imposed stricter regulations for the project than those proposed by developers.
