Data centers were again the topic of conversation at an Orange County Board of Supervisors meeting, this time in a worksession held prior to the regular meeting.
On Tuesday, supervisors met in a worksession focused on the technology zoning district. In December, supervisors approved the 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 is floating and could be applied to any suitable property through a rezoning. It 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 regulations 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. Residents utilizing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) allege emails confirm those additional regulations were removed after feedback was received from those in the data center industry.
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. Further FOIA requests of county emails and other records have led residents to determine 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.
District 4 supervisor Crystal Coleman has voiced her preference for sending the ordinance back to the planning commission for further refinement. She’s also requested a pause on data center applications until that work can be completed. Both have been denied. During the worksession, she again voiced her concerns, asking if the ordinance provides adequate protections related to noise, power generation and consumption, water consumption and discharge, setbacks and more. She said circumstances have changed since the ordinance was adopted, referencing new requirements for high energy use facilities and new regulations announced last week by Governor Abigail Spanberger.
“I’m not a subject matter expert, but I have listened to citizen constituent concerns,” Coleman said.
District 1 supervisor Jason Capelle said Coleman brought up good points, but the ordinance requires elements like sound modeling pertaining to noise, a water service plan and planted buffers. He said many of the concerns will be addressed through the SUP process.
Coleman also questioned if the ordinance should be allocated to a specific area.
“I felt that we purposely did not anchor the tech district for positive reasons,” she said. “Maybe there would be a site we weren’t aware of that would be the perfect site. I was led to believe this was the best approach; I have since realized it’s not the best approach.”
Coleman said not anchoring the zone has caused stress for residents who worry their properties could be the next to be affected by a data center on an adjoining parcel. She also stated the desire for a limit as to how many acres in the county could collectively be rezoned to the tech district.
Capelle said anchoring could be a double edged sword, potentially weakening the ability to say no to a project in the zone or yes to one and no to another.
“There are risks either way you go,” he said, noting the county’s ordinance eliminates a lot of properties with its restrictions. He did say he would entertain a conversation about an acreage limit.
Coleman said she’s not sure anyone understands the stress the ordinance has put on the residents in District 4, where some have said a data center would be most palatable.
“It’s not palatable to me or my constituents,” she said. “Nobody, until one of these projects is talked about in their neighborhood or backyard, understands the stress.”
For the third time, Coleman requested a pause on data center applications. Board chairman and District 5 supervisor Bryan Nicol said that issue has been before the board and wasn’t approved. He also said in requesting the worksession on the ordinance, Coleman had noted she wouldn’t relitigate the issue.
During board comment, Coleman said she will keep asking the question. She said all supervisors should have a vested interest in the development of the agenda, but they don’t see it until it’s published. She also said there are lots of discussions about “a lot of things” that she isn’t included in.
“For a month and a half I have been dredging forth with concerns of my constituents and have not received one phone call from one board member to try to talk it out,” Coleman said. “That’s not common. There has been a lot of discussion about things that will potentially happen in District 4 that will impact District 4 folks. I will keep bringing it up and keep pissing people off. Sometimes leadership can be difficult. The tides have turned; I’ve learned, when you believe something deserves another look I will ask for it. When I believe the citizens deserve [something, I will ask for it.] I will keep bringing it up.”
Several residents voiced their frustrations during public comment. John Peterson who lives on True Blue Road where several projects are rumored to be locating said the board seems to do what it wants with no thought to what residents want. John Souza agreed stating residents don’t want data centers. Michael Regan said the residents don’t trust the board members to exercise discretion over a data center project via an SUP. He once again asked for transparency, something Sarah Regan also stated.
“The Freedom of Information Act requests are going to continue and we will find out exactly what has happened here,” she said.
