This article was republished with permission from WTOP’s news partner InsideNoVa.com. Sign up for InsideNoVa.com’s free email subscription today.
The Prince William County Planning Commission on Thursday recommended the denial of all three rezoning applications associated with the divisive PW Digital Gateway data center proposal.
The meeting adjourned after almost 24 hours conducting three public hearings, grilling the applicants, county staff and energy officials on the fine details of each application then hearing from hundreds of members of the public both in person and online.
The Board of County Supervisors will have a final say on QTS Realty Trust Inc. and Compass Datacenters’ proposal to build 23 million square feet of data centers on roughly 2,100 acres along Pageland Lane in western Prince William near Gainesville in what would become the largest data center corridor in the world. The supervisors’ Democratic majority on Dec. 12 are expected to approve the project.
The commission’s rejection of the plan follows Prince William County’s professional planning staff also deeming the applications underbaked because of the lack of information provided by developers. Staff spent much of the public hearings working to outline to commissioners and the public why they rendered such searing opinions of the companies’ plans.
Gainesville District Commissioner Richard Berry, whose district includes the area where the Digital Gateway is proposed for development, made several attempts to defer a vote on the project, arguing it’s not ready for primetime. Joining him were the other three western Prince William commissioners, Brenstville’s Tom Gordy and Coles District Joseph Fontanella, but they couldn’t secure enough votes for the measure to pass.
Chair Cynthia Moses-Nedd of the Woodbridge District, Vice Chair Juan McPhail of the Potomac District, Qwendolyn N. Brown of the Neabsco District, At-Large Commissioner Patty Kuntz and Raheel Sheikh of the Occoquan District all opposed deferral. The commission instead eventually moved to recommend that the supervisors not approve the project.
A deferral from the Planning Commission would have slowed the project’s momentum to a halt, necessitating a holding period followed by more hearings likely early next year.
The rush to move the applications along through the approval process stems from deadlines the developers’ say they must meet. The political realities surrounding the project are also a critical wrinkle. The board’s Democratic majority will hold into next year, but Deshundra Jefferson, the incoming chair, has been a staunch opponent of the project and has vowed to take steps to mitigate it and other similar data center projects once in power. Her ascendance, paired with Republican opposition to the project, could kill it should a vote be pushed to January.
“I do not believe we have enough information regarding the concerns, issues and omissions as outlined in the staff report and from citizens comments to determine if this application properly mitigates impacts of development in this location,” Berry said of his move for deferral.
He had hoped to give staff the “professional courtesy” of reviewing the company’s amended project applications that were submitted just days ahead of the hearings in response to the county’s staff’s rejection of their initial plans.
The companies had sought to assure officials they were committed to clarifying the imprecise information initially provided about the project’s layout and potential impacts on the surrounding area.
But because of the late arrival of the companies’ amended applications, county staff didn’t have enough time before Wednesday to render a new verdict, leaving members of the Planning Commission to review thousands of pages of new information and reach their own conclusions without the formal guidance of impartial professionals.
The disconnect was a recurring theme of the hearings. Representatives from the companies were speaking about compromises they said are included in the resubmitted applications, but staff were only available to speak about their opinions that were based on now-outdated documents.
Members of county staff who wrote the reports calling the developers’ initial Digital Gateway application submissions inadequate said many times through the hearings they feel they don’t have enough time before the planned Board of County Supervisors meeting to fully review the new documents.
The holidays between now and staff’s mid-November deadline to file new reports complicate the timeline further, with several days where local government is closed.
“I spent probably a total of three weeks writing the staff report. I didn’t do anything else,” said Principal Planner Emilie Wolfson who oversaw the Compass application. “The amount of information we received … it’s unreasonable to ask staff to review that amount of information in a quarter of the time.”
Planner Christopher Perez, who oversaw the QTS applications, also raised concerns about the tight timeline.
After several failed attempts to defer, Berry moved to deny all three proposals.
Moses-Nedd, McPhail, Kuntz, Brown, Berry and Fontanella all backed denying Compass’ proposal, with Gordy and Sheikh opposing.
Moses-Nedd, McPhail, Berry, Kuntz, Brown and Sheikh also voted to reject both QTS applications. This time, it was Gordy and Fontanella who voted against denial of the two proposals.
Fontanella, who supported the motions for deferral, but ultimately voted in favor of denial, said the staff had been put under an impossible deadline to review the recently-submitted materials.
“My personal belief is it’s irresponsible to move these applications forward until the staff has completed its review. However, we’ve just seen two motions to do just that fail. And I’m not going to vote in favor of this application,” Fontanella said.
Gordy told InsideNoVa he remains opposed to the Digital Gateway project, but his vote against the motion to deny was meant to signal his opposition to advancing the project to the board of supervisors.
Gordy, who earlier this week was elected Brentsville District supervisor, said he doesn’t believe planning staff and the commission had ample time to review the latest applications and amendments, and thus the proposals shouldn’t be sent on to the board, regardless of what recommendation is attached.
Gordy admonished Compass and QTS for their last-minute submissions and amendments.
“If they thought this was a good project for Prince William and the residents, they wouldn’t be playing these games,” Gordy said.
Kuntz said while she disagreed with her own vote to deny the proposals, she believed it was necessary to bring finality.
“I’m disappointed that a majority of the commission is not yet prepared to recommend this approval on this application, I see no reason to further delay the Board of County Supervisors consideration of what I believe to be an important and very beneficial project to our county,” Kuntz said.
Shortly after the Planning Commission rendered its verdict, a spokesperson with Compass called the decision a disappointment.
“While Compass is disappointed the Planning Commission did not recommend approval, we thank the Commissioners for their consideration and the hundreds of Prince William County residents who spoke in support of our application for their thoughtful comments,” the company said. “Next, we look forward to presenting our application at December’s Board of Supervisors meeting”.
A QTS spokesperson said the company is “confident” it will address leaders’ remaining concerns and win approval from the board.
“QTS is grateful for the Commission’s time and dedication and looks forward to finalizing our partnership with Prince William County, which will support taxpayers, educational goals, and public safety priorities,” the company said.
