Residents continue to question Orange County Supervisors about alleged back door dealings and point out what they say are flaws in the county’s technology zoning district.
In December, supervisors approved a new technology zoning district to accommodate high-intensity technology-based uses including data centers, technology schools or colleges and technology research and development facilities. Four uses are allowed by special use permit (SUP)–on-site power generation, a public utility facility not including utility-scale solar, a telecommunications tower and a data center. The district could be applied to any suitable property through a rezoning and sets forth larger setbacks and buffers as well as height restrictions and sign regulations. The use of public water, groundwater or potable water is prohibited.
Additional items added by the planning commission in response to public feedback were removed by supervisors including the requirement of quarterly utility usage reports and a 1,000 feet setback from an occupied residence.
Since its approval, county residents have questioned the zoning ordinance, stating it lacks specific guardrails and should be applied to a designated area rather than be applicable to any qualifying parcel via a rezoning. They’ve also utilized the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to pull county emails and other records, determining supervisors not only knew about the potential of a 765kV transmission line coming to the county, but identified potential properties for hyperscale data center development.
In July, District 1 Supervisor Jason Capelle responded to citizen comments regarding the technology zoning district. This time, it was District 2 Supervisor Ed Van Hoven who took time to “clarify some points.”
Van Hoven said years ago, the board sat down and identified key objectives, one of which was finding ways to reduce the tax burden on residents. He said that brought up an important question–what are some economic development revenue drivers that can be brought to the county?
“Data centers were on the front page news two years ago,” Van Hoven said. “Could we achieve the goal and [would they] become a good fit for the county or not?”
He said the county supervisors began embarking on a journey to learn everything they could about data centers, touring facilities and speaking to anyone involved in the chain of data centers from operators to developers to better understand how they were planned, built and operated. That, he said, led to land use and planning questions–could they exist in the county, which districts would allow the use, would they require a special use permit, rezoning or text amendment?
“What would the county want to control through site plan and development standards,” he asked.
That, Van Hoven said, led to the discovery that data centers were allowed by-right within industrial zoned areas, something that became a catalyst for the creation of the technology zoning district. The district closed the loop, making data center projects not only undergo the public special use permit process, but also a public rezoning process, as well as meeting a variety of other requirements.
“Then we moved from can it be built to should we encourage it,” Van Hoven said.
He said while data centers can represent substantial capital investments and significant tax revenue, they also raise questions about land consumption, noise, environmental impacts, appearance, generators and more. He encouraged looking at not just the negatives of having one, but also the impacts of not considering them.
The county’s existing obligations, he said, could mean an additional 10-cent real estate tax increase. Adding the career and technical education center project is roughly another two cents for construction and three cents over time to operate and staff, bringing Van Hoven’s total to 15 cents. He also pointed to peer pressure stating as data centers are built in neighboring counties those localities will start offering higher salaries, creating pressure to stay competitive. He said there will be those among the county who can’t afford a higher real estate tax rate.
“The issue in front of us is a little less about being for or against data centers and more about whether the county wants to examine, in an open way, opportunities to broaden the tax base without placing the burden on tax payers,” Van Hoven said.
District 4 Supervisor Crystal Coleman confirmed there was “a little bit of chatter” last summer about a 765kV line, but at the time she didn’t give it a second thought, thinking she could get educated once a plan came about.
“Hindsight is 20/20,” she said. “When we found out the enormity of that project, we all jumped in to fight it.”
At least one of the proposed routes for the Joshua Falls-Yeat Transmission Project runs through Coleman’s family farm.
“To think I asked for that, I wanted that is mind boggling,” she said. “We’re trying every which way up and down to fight that project and find some kind of way to bring economic revenue to this county that would help everybody.”
Coleman said she’s not pro-data center, but what if one or two could be “tucked away” in an area that would be beneficial to all with negative impacts to few?
District 3 Supervisor Keith Marshall asked for patience as the board seeks economic development opportunities and said he understands the need, but also some of the concerns.
For his part, District 1 Supervisor Jason Capelle, who was on the planning commission at the time the technology zoning ordinance was being developed, confirmed what some have thought regarding the commission’s knowledge.
“A lot of what I’ve seen posted online I wasn’t aware of,” he said. “Much like Wilderness Crossing, the planning commission was not read into all the different aspects of that; that was no different than this.”
Capelle said there was a problematic ordinance, the commission worked to put in the best they could through the technology zoning district and hit the “pressure points.”
“Not everything we recommended made it through, but we were motivated to get an ordinance in place,” he said, reiterating that he thinks the ordinance is strong and gives the county the ability to say yes or no to a project.
District 5 Supervisor Bryan Nicol took issue with the idea that data centers and the transmission project are interrelated. He said the transmission line is going straight through to Loudoun with the only electricity coming to Orange from it being by way of harmful electromagnetic fields. He said the technology zoning district ordinance allows thoughtful decision making with multiple levels of public input.
Residents weren’t convinced. Anna Ahlbin said the board members seem to be hung up on the work they’ve done versus listening to their constituents who are saying they don’t want data centers in the county.
“How can you ignore the connectedness from the transmission line to data centers,” she asked. “The 765 [kv line] may not drop power down, but a 500 [kV] line from the Culpeper substation will. You’re not listening to the residents of Orange. We don’t find revenue from data centers compatible with the vision for the county.”
Sarah Klosky said data centers can’t be “tucked away” and proposed a referendum on data center development.
Sue Verling asked that former supervisor and current Rapidan Service Authority Chair Mark Johnson be reprimanded for his comments online, calling them “insults.” Johnson has recently posted several pro-data center posts on social media, stating opponents are using “amateurish intimidation” to stop discussions of what he calls “smart growth.” Verling also said the technology zone needs to be retained to a specific area.
Sarah and Michael Regan, who have led the charge in utilizing the FOIA to determine what occurred behind the scenes, said the public deserves full transparency.
“There’s a very real question about how much of this story we still haven’t seen,” Sarah Regan said.
Lindsay Colvin suggested one way to fix the revenue issues is to budget.
“Figure out what we need versus want,” she said. “We want a new soccer field? No we don’t.”
