New regulations on the construction of data centers in Fairfax County cleared their first major hurdle last week.
The Fairfax County Planning Commission unanimously endorsed zoning amendments on Thursday (June 6) that aim to restrict the size, location, equipment screening and design standards of any new data centers in the county.
Proposed by county staff, the new regulations come as data center construction in Northern Virginia intensifies, heightening unease among residents.
While the new limits address some objections raised by opponents, many who testified at the planning commission’s two-day public hearing argued they don’t go far enough. Advocates, however, made the case that data centers have potential to increase revenue for the county and reduce taxes for residents.
“Now, data centers may not be a perfect solution, but considering the economic and potential tax-lowering benefits that you can bring to Fairfax County, they deserve a fair look with reasonable guidance considerations,” resident William Walsh said during the commission’s June 5 hearing, which continued through Thursday, June 6.
What’s in the proposed regulations
The Board of Supervisors directed staff last year to develop stricter guidelines that address the impact of data centers on surrounding neighborhoods and public facilities.
In January, county staff published a report recommending that new data centers in most commercial and industrial zones be subject to special exception approvals. They also proposed limits on height and size, energy efficiency requirements like LEED Silver certification, and the installation of noise reduction equipment.
Supervisors instructed staff in March to revise the county’s zoning laws based on the recommendations. After getting the planning commission’s support last week, the proposal will go before the Board of Supervisors in July.
Currently, data centers can be built without county approval in certain areas, including medium to heavy industrial districts. However, if they’re larger than 40,000 square feet in office areas or 80,000 square feet in lighter industrial areas, they need special approval by the county.
The proposed amendments would end by-right approval in commercial districts and require a special exception for light and medium industrial data centers that exceed 80,000 square feet, a process that includes public hearings. Data centers in general and heavy industrial districts (I-5, I-6), however, can still be built by right.
Future data center development would also be prohibited in Planned Residential Community districts — specifically those designated for town and conference centers.
Additional changes include requiring data centers to be built at least 200 feet from residential areas and a mile from the nearest Metro station, with mandatory noise studies before and after construction.
Emergency generator use during power outages would be exempt from noise restrictions, and routine generator testing would be allowed between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. for up to two hours per day.
All equipment, including HVAC units and generators, must be enclosed or screened; if not, they must be at least 500 feet from residential neighborhoods. Data center buildings would also need varied, attractive facades and additional design features for those near residential areas to minimize visual impact.
Arguments for and against the proposal
Last week’s public hearing was attended by about 50 people and covered a range of topics, including concerns about noise and property devaluation as well as the benefits of tax revenue from data centers.
Some of the most common objections from residents and environmental groups concerned the proximity of data centers to residential neighborhoods and conservation areas, such as rivers or streams.
Fairfax resident and conservation advocate Renee Grebe suggested increasing the mimimum distance for data centers from “residential and public facilities” to 500 feet, up from the over 200 feet proposed by staff.
She argued that placing them any closer would increase health risks for residents, including pollution caused by diesel generators and mental strain from equipment noise, and threaten streams and rivers flowing into the Chesapeake.
“The zoning changes we make today have decades-long consequences,” Grebe said. “Let’s aim to get this one further improved to help us achieve the climate and community goals we have for a better Fairfax County.”
Resident Kenneth Erickson took things a step further by urging the commission to extend the buffer zone between data centers and residential areas from 200 to 1,000 feet to mitigate noise and visual disturbances.
Living near the proposed site of a two-story, 466,000-square-foot data center in Springfield, Erickson noted that he’s not opposed to data centers in the county, but he worries that having one so close to his home could decrease his property value and adversely affect his family’s quality of life.
“I want to make sure that those kids have a place where they can recreate; where they can come home and do homework; where we can telework to take care of child care; where we can sleep and take care of our health without the noise and light pollution that comes from one of these facilities — being close enough that you can throw football, kick a soccer ball right into it,” he said.
While most speakers supported the idea of minimum distance requirements, some were concerned that overly stringent regulations on data center development could discourage developers from investing in Fairfax County, potentially leading to a significant loss in tax revenue.
Resident Ronald Wilcox appealed to the commissioners to rethink the proposed “broad brush regulations that don’t take potential future innovations into account.” Instead, he proposed that each data center be “evaluated on its own merits.”
“The Board of Supervisors has begun the process of looking at potential meals tax in Fairfax County, a tax that would hit lower income groups the hardest,” he said. “We are facing the possibility of people being unable to afford to live in Fairfax County and I’m getting very near that point myself.”
Several speakers, claiming to have experience in or related to the data center industry, also attempted to dispel specific claims made by some others at the hearing.
Brad Gray, a local resident and owner of the Herndon-based data center design firm Worldwide Mission Critical, refuted claims that data centers use excessive amounts of water and emit excessive noise or that generators run constantly and leak fuel.
Having served as a project manager for various data center firms, Gray said the water consumption of modern data centers is comparable to that of a commercial office, primarily utilized by “human occupants.” He added that generators are typically used only in emergencies, making fuel leaks “really unheard of,” and there have been virtually no noise complaints from residents near data centers he’s helped design.
“I’ve installed data center equipment in urban areas such as New York City, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, certainly in Northern Virginia, and rural areas out in the Midwest and West,” he said. “Every jurisdiction has a noise ordinance. In the design phase, you run a noise impact study. From that study, you make adjustments to your equipment to the layout of your building. It’s just part of the design process.”
Commissioners tweak staff recommendations
The commissioners voted to recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt the staff proposal, with a few amendments of their own.
Sympathetic to residents’ concerns about the proximity of data centers to residential and public facilities, Braddock District Commissioner Mary Cortina and Providence District Commissioner Jeremy Hancock separately moved to increase the proposed distance from Metro stations from 0.5 miles to a full mile and to require a 500-foot setback for data center equipment if it can’t be enclosed.
“It just makes good common sense to locate all that equipment away from the residential side of the district,” Cortina said.
Commissioners also agreed to grandfather provisions for data centers that have already been constructed or approved by the county, meaning that the new regulations, if approved by the Board of Supervisors, won’t apply retroactively to those facilities.
The commission acknowledged a strong demand from some residents that the county address the amount of energy consumed by data centers, which has increasingly strained the electric grid in recent years, but they conceded it was outside the county’s purview.
“While it would be advantageous to have commitments for greater energy efficiency, the zoning ordinance does not include regulations for energy use and efficiency and a [special exception] for that purpose alone is not supported by the SEC requirements,” Cortina said.
Chairman and At-Large Commissioner Phil Niedzielski-Eichner acknowledged that while the commission’s decision might not satisfy everyone, he believes that the increased setback for the data center facility and equipment is a suitable solution.
“The key issue is, are we protecting a residential community or adjacent property owner from the potentially onerous… consequences of equipment placement and this motion as it has been amended, again, I find to be an elegant solution to that issue,” he said.
