The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors voted 10-0 to defer their decision on a proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment regarding data centers until their July 30 regular meeting. This unexpected move occurred late Tuesday evening, July 16, after a staff presentation, Q&A between the board and staff, and four-and-a-half hours of public testimony. The record would still be open for written testimony.

“To me, it would be a disservice to those who testified to try to act on this at this point, ” said Board Chairman Jeff McKay. He explained that the supervisors needed time to absorb the testimonies, and ask additional questions of county staff that they may think of over the next couple of days. McKay said the board would come back for a decision when it meets again, Tuesday, July 30.

The proposed data center zoning ordinance amendment would revise the permissions and add or revise the use-specific standards for data centers to address compatibility issues with surrounding uses, noise, and aesthetics. The One Fairfax Policy Area of Focus 11, as stated in the board's Equity Impact statement, "encourages a quality built and natural environment that supports a high quality of life for all people."

Staff presentation 

Fairfax County's Deputy Zoning Administrator, Carmen Bishop, presented the staff report, saying that the staff recommends Option 1. During her approximately eight-minute presentation. Bishop highlighted the proposed amendment recommendations as follows: 

• A setback for the building of 200 feet and for any ground level equipment of 500 feet, unless that equipment is located on the other side of the building from the residential use;

• 50 foot wide transitional screening yard is required between industrial and residential uses,

• Submission requirements for a noise study with a rezoning or a special exception and before site plan approval and is applicable to by-right development; 

• Building design standards that would apply to by-right development to include a main entrance feature, facade variation, and fenestration; and

• A more flexible provision would apply with a rezoning or a special exception where architectural renderings could be submitted for review.

Bishop presented a diagram that, as she described it, “puts it all together and shows what a by-right data center could look like in the 5 or 6 districts with a 75-foot tall building, which is the maximum height allowed; a 200-foot setback to residential; and 50 feet of transitional screening. You have the enclosure of equipment, an entrance feature, and the fenestration.”

Supervisors Question Staff

During the board's questions for the staff, Mason Supervisor Andres F. Jimenez (D) requested a second look at slide four. He asked Bishop what equipment would be feasible to enclose. “It's been my understanding that no equipment would be able to be enclosed outside.”

Bishop replied that plenty of equipment, such as generators, can be enclosed and are typically enclosed. She said other equipment can be enclosed; however, equipment that typically cannot be enclosed would be something like a cooling tower. Bishop said that a wall can screen such equipment, regardless of its location on the ground or rooftop.

Supervisor Pat Herrity (R-Springfield) asserted that the proposed amendment could encompass nearly anything. He worried about the use of the word “feasible" in the proposed amendment versus “practical.”

“If it takes a ton more power, a ton more space, [and] a ton more units to cool that space, does that make it feasible? … Or does that knock it out of feasible if you're spending a whole bunch more electric money and everything else to fully enclose it?” Herrity asked the question, seemingly to ensure precision and clarity in what would be a legally binding document.

Bishop clarified that they had coordinated the standard with the building official, who suggested it would depend on the manufacturer's specifications and the degree of equipment enclosure. She said that they heard from industry, and they provided a list of different types of equipment that they typically enclose and don't typically enclose. "I will say we agreed on that list,” Bishop said. She cited as an example that a cooling tower “is not typically enclosed. … That would have the screening,” she said.

Braddock District Supervisor James Walkinshaw (D) requested a discussion on the difficulties associated with "building design" and the 30 percent fenestration, considering the need to establish objective standards in the zoning ordinance to avoid the subjective aim of transforming a data center's appearance.

Bishop said when they were drafting the proposed standard, as they have it for by-right development, it had to be "specific," but "maybe not too specific," because it had to allow "developers to be creative as designs evolve over time." The requirements include the main entrance feature and facade variation, so there is no single blank wall, Bishop explained. The variation could be accent material, texture, or color, as there is flexibility in meeting that standard. Fenestration could be included, as the standard specifically mentions windows and door features. ”We're providing direction to developers to indicate here's what we would like to see, but not too specific, that they can't be creative with their own designs,” Bishop said, concluding the Q&A with the board.

All full Board of Supervisors meetings are televised on Channel 16 and streamed live online with closed captions provided in English and Spanish.

Public Testimony Excerpts

Renee Grebe, Northern Virginia Conservation advocate for Nature Forward: “We submitted written comments in partnership with 13 other organizations which you should have. Data centers might be one of the most pivotal issues of our generation. New changes that you approve today will have decades long consequences on our county and its residents.

“Chairman McKay, during the Chantilly Premier public hearing, you boldly stated that through your motion, the goal was to ‘make sure that if we're going to do any data centers in Fairfax County, the ones we do in this county are going to be done at the highest standards we can possibly foresee.’”

Whitney Redding, Friends of Holmes Run: “Data center developers have as much right to build in Fairfax County as anyone else … The devil is in the details. The Bryn Mawr Park, Plaza 500 [data center] project is a poster child for why there needs to be more basic common sense guardrails as to how and where these data centers are live situated … The fact that two data centers plus a substation can be built by right means the county has not given itself the leverage to require optimal stormwater management or other site specific environmental protections.”

Terry Clower, professor of Public Policy at George Mason University, runs the Center for Regional Analysis and the Steven Fuller Institute: “Data centers currently have a positive impact on our locality in our region, both in terms of jobs spillover economic impacts, as well as, of course, important tax revenues … Data centers are one of our few economic bright spots in this region … Emerging technologies depend on having the right infrastructure and data centers are a key part of that infrastructure. It is where these industries will develop. Without all of these elements of our infrastructure, we will see growth pass by.”

Douglas Bell, senior principal consultant and president of Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, an acoustical consulting firm: “Over the 35 years as a principal consultant at this firm I have been in charge of over 1000 projects associated with environmental sound. I'm thoroughly familiar with noise produced by all industrial facilities … I'm qualified to speak to you about noise and data center noise. It's my professional opinion that there is no need for Fairfax County to provide a special zoning amendment for data centers to control sound. There is no compelling evidence that data centers are more acoustically impactful than other permitted permitted industrial uses.”

Bradley Gray, owner of Worldwide Mission, critical leader in data center development: “Fairfax County and Virginia already have some of the strictest data center regulations in the country… There are some additional misconceptions that I'd like to clear up first. Data centers do not consume vast amounts of water. Most use air cooled systems with water usage similar to office buildings… Concerns about stormwater pollution are also misplaced. Modern air cooled units don't produce runoff and redeveloping old industrial sites often increases [a] pervious area, improving stormwater filtration. Lastly, diesel containment tanks used in data centers are highly secure with double walled steel designs, leak detection and spill response.”

Robert (Bob) Kitchen, M.D., representing the members for Climate Action: “There can be several health problems or challenges that come from data centers. There's a growing body of research that says that chronic noise exposure is putting nearly a third of Americans at heightened risk of hypertension, stroke and heart attacks, as well as mental health problems… A larger area in terms of a threat to health has to do with poor air quality or air pollution and many common health problems are related to this, such as cardiovascular disease, chronic lung disease, kidney disease, low birth weight infants, pediatric asthma as well as many others. Data centers do contribute to poor air quality both directly and indirectly. The direct contribution is through the use of backup diesel generators, which will be needed at a time of power outage … Recognizing that right now renewable energy is not really available for backup energy, I think that the county should consider the recommendations from the Jan. 6 2024 staff report, which stated that the Comprehensive Plan incurs use of tier 4 generators and state of the art technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”