Sample Email to Department of Planning and Development, Planning Commission, and Board of Supervisors:

Email (all): data-centers@PublicInput.com; plancom@fairfaxcounty.gov;  clerktothebos@fairfaxcounty.gov; mason@fairfaxcounty.gov; chairman@fairfaxcounty.gov; braddock@fairfaxcounty.gov; Dranesville@FairfaxCounty.gov; huntermill@fairfaxcounty.gov; Franconia@fairfaxcounty.gov; mtvernon@fairfaxcounty.gov; providence@fairfaxcounty.gov; springfield@fairfaxcounty.gov; sully@fairfaxcounty.gov; peter.murphyjr@fairfaxcounty.gov; john.ulfelder@fairfaxcounty.gov; timothy.sargeant@fairfaxcounty.gov; alis.wang@fairfaxcounty.gov; mary.cortina@fairfaxcounty.gov; john.carter@fairfaxcounty.gov; chris.landgraf@fairfaxcounty.gov; walter.clarke@fairfaxcounty.gov; jeremy.hancock@fairfaxcounty.gov; evelyn.spain@fairfaxcounty.gov; phillip.niedzielski-eichner@fairfaxcounty.gov; candice.bennett@fairfaxcounty.gov; brenmar@googlegroups.com  

Subject: Needed Changes to Data Center Zoning Ordinance Amendment 

Text: Dear Department of Planning and Development, Planning Commission, and Board of Supervisors:

As a resident of Fairfax County who is deeply concerned by the impact of data centers on our communities I would first like to thank you for taking action to strengthen data center requirements in our county.  I urge you to act without delay and to commit to your timeline of enacting changes at the July 16 Board of Supervisors hearing.

While the county provided draft text is a start in the right direction, I am asking you to make the following edits and additions to the draft text to the Data Centers proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment prior to the Planning Commission public hearing on June 5. 

The changes below will ensure that residents across the county will be protected from any harmful impacts of any type of data center, including massive data centers larger than 80,000 sq. ft., and ensure that as Chairman McKay indicated, Fairfax County can have the highest standard in the state and country in terms of protecting residents.

Thank you,

[NAME]

[ADDRESS]

Requested Changes to County Data Center Amendment

Key Asks

• All data centers must require a Special Exception, especially in I-5 Districts that place residents at greatest risk for massive data centers. This includes:

  • • • All data centers larger than 80,000 sq ft. (massive data centers);

      • All data centers in I-5 Districts directly adjacent to Residential districts ;

      • All data centers that have the possibility to exceed a 12 MW electrical load;

      • Any exception to the requirement that equipment for data centers (HVAC, generators, etc.) be enclosed

• The county must set a minimum setback from residential districts of at least 2,640 feet (½ mile) from residents for massive data centers larger than 80,000 sq. ft. or that exceed a 12 MW electrical load;

• A Minimum 1 mile distance from metro station entrances must be required

Permissions: 

• All data centers must require a Special Exception, especially in I-5 Districts that place residents at greatest risk for massive data centers. This includes:

  • All data centers larger than 80,000 sq ft. (massive data centers)

The county must recognize data centers greater than 80,000 sq. ft. as massive data centers requiring closer scrutiny to ensure conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and mitigate impact on neighboring properties.

• All Data Centers in I-5 Districts directly adjacent to Residential districts 

The proposed county rationale that data centers should be pushed to I-5 and I-6 districts ignores the reality that nearly all I-5 districts are directly adjacent to Residential districts and raise the very concerns with noise, visuals, and environmental impacts, that these proposed amendments are seeking to address. 

• All Data Centers that have the possibility to exceed a 12 MW electrical load

No other industry has such high energy demands that also impact surrounding districts, therefore any building or site plan requiring more than 12 MW of electrical load must require Special Exception approval. Current data centers consume 5 to 20 MW for buildings up to 100,000 sq. ft. and 20 to 100+ MW for over 100,000 sq. ft. (the recently approved Chantilly data center anticiaptes 54 to 75 MW). With the move towards AI, energy usage of data centers will continue to grow exponentially, which means more noise and greater impact on surrounding districts. An article from The Next Platform highlights this impact: “The power consumption goes from 500 watts to 700 watts for a general enterprise-class server to between 2,500 watts and 4,500 watts for a single AI training node. Imagine the heat generated from that compute horsepower then visualize an air conditioning unit trying to cool it with mere chilled air.” 

• Requires the construction of a substation

Use Standards: 

Equipment screening/enclosures: 

• A Special Exception must be required for any exception to the requirement that equipment for data centers be enclosed (HVAC, generators, etc.)

The proposed requirement that all equipment for data centers (HVAC, generators, etc.) is a positive addition. However, the exception where the Director of Land Development Services determines that it is not mechanically feasible must be changed to a Special Exception requirement. Noise and other factors caused by exterior equipment are the biggest concerns for residents and decisions of this magnitude should rest solely with the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Past approvals of massive data centers have shown the only way for the county to obtain the necessary proffers to protect residents, specifically around noise, has been through the Special Exception process. 

Equipment enclosures will grow more and more mechanically challenging as data center technology advances and requires more cooling As such, the county should not provide administrative exceptions to the issues that will have the biggest impacts on residents, especially given the need for data centers to locate close to substations or need new substations built, that many land parcels for data centers are directly adjacent to or within ½ mile of residentially zoned districts, and the trend of data centers moving towards AI servers that require five times more power and much more cooling,

If an exception is needed, it should go through the Special Exception process. If the data center developer is unable to comply with the equipment screening/enclosure standards they must come before the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors and explain why and what they will do to negate the impact on their surrounding districts. 

Size thresholds for by-right data centers: 

• As indicated under the Permissions section, the county must require all data centers greater than 80,000 sq. ft. (massive data centers); be approved by Special Exception, regardless of district. I-5 Districts are immediately adjacent to residential districts. 

The proposed county rationale that data centers should be pushed to I-5 and I-6 districts ignores the reality that all or nearly all I-5 districts are directly adjacent to residential districts and raise the very concerns that these proposed amendments are seeking to address. 

• A Special Exception should be required for data centers that have the possibility to exceed a 12 MW electrical load;

The more electricity that is needed, the more HVACs and generators are needed, adding to the impacts on noise and other factors. If a data center requires over 12 MW or requires a substation to be built, or if other data centers already exist within ¼ mile, then they should go through a Special Exception. 

For example, if a data center requires 75 MW, and 3 MW backup generators are used, then it will need 25 generators and enough HVACs to cool (see Chantilly Premier RZ 2022-SU-00019 noise study requiring over 130 rooftop fans for its 75MW data center). These excessive power requirements are also straining the grid and hampering efforts to combat climate change. 

Setback from residential: 

• The county must set a minimum setback from residential districts of at least 2,640 feet (½ mile) from residents for data centers >80,000 sq. ft (massive data centers) or that have the possibility to exceed a 12 MW electrical load that creates additional noise, visual. and other environmental impacts.

This is generally consistent with previously approved data centers in the county (see RZ 2022-SU-00019), with a set-back of 0.4 miles and the recommendations of the HOA Roundtable of Northern Virginia. County comparisons to the minimum distance to barns, extraction, or crematory is not a similar comparison as those don't run 24/7. Additionally, barns and extraction facilities are a different nature of use not typically found in urbanized areas of the county. Similarly, a crematory's impact on neighboring property is of a different nature than a data center (i.e., data center noise propagates farther and differently than emissions from a crematory).

Comparisons to Loudon County fail to include the fact that Loudon is also proposing to eliminate by-right data centers in most locations, and have additional requirements related to change in building height, and building step-back. The county must not cherry pick comparisons. 

• Data Centers less than 80,000 sq. ft. or that are less than 12 MW electrical load must be setback at least 500 feet and fully eliminate any impact to residents, including noise, and other environmental impacts.

Distance to residents could be based on a scale with size or ability to enclose noise sources. The county could encourage small data centers that adhere with all other requirements suggested and that have no impact on neighboring properties to move their high tech, high salary jobs into locations that also permit ground level store fronts, provide nearby residential options, metro access, etc.

Distance from metro: 

• A Minimum 1 mile distance from metro station entrance must be required.

A minimum distance from a metro station is a welcome addition that recognizes the unique nature of these sites with high-population and employment centers near transit. This distance must be expanded to 1 mile and rather than relying on a SE, the distance from the metro should be permitted or not permitted based on size and enclosure, with mixed use requirements required. This would prohibit massive data centers in a metro area that would be the relative job killer. The county should encourage smaller DCs with no impact on neighboring properties to move their high tech, high salary jobs into locations that also permit ground level store fronts, provide nearby residential options, etc. The county must discourage massive data centers and encourage development that replaces losses in office buildings, etc.

Noise Study:

• Use Standards must me strengthened, as indicated above, for Noise Study to have impact

While a noise study requirement is welcome, including post-construction. This requirement does not go far enough to address impacts on residents. The above use standards must be strengthened in order for the impact of noise to be eliminated.

• The cumulative impacts of noise should be examined when approving multiple data center buildings on a site or when other data centers already exist within 1000 feet.

The noise study performed for the Chantilly Premier data center which was modeled on upgraded noise mitigation measures, demonstrates that in order for noise to be below the nighttime standard of 55 dBA, the range is out to about 1000 feet, which is why a greater setback for residential is needed, especially for massive data centers (larger than 80,000 sq. ft). Given that the dB(A) scale is not an accurate measure of the noise, the County should consider a greater distance.

Building Design: 

• Requirements for building design are a welcome addition.Additionally, the recommendations from the Northern Virginia HOA Roundtable, concerning building design should be considered where not already recommended in the amendment:

“Data centers can have significant adverse visual impacts. They should be sited and designed to avoid these, especially for viewsheds that are valued by the community, including historic and cultural resources, residences and neighborhoods, parks and schools, and natural resources such as forested areas. 

Data center architectural design should be aesthetically compatible with adjacent uses, particularly residential neighborhoods, parks and schools. Exteriors should use fenestration, windows, variation in exterior materials, and other features to avoid monolithic appearances and to be congruent with the adjacent uses that have a view of the data center. Data centers should incorporate landscaping that is similar and compatible with that of the surrounding uses. Fencing and accessory structures and features (guard stations, waste areas, accessory equipment, parking areas, etc.) should also be designed and landscaped to be aesthetically compatible with the surrounding land uses.”

Additional Recommendations

Environmental Concerns: 

• Given the tendency for data centers buildings to cluster together, Tier IV diesel generators should be required if green alternatives are not being used (e.g. microturbines, or hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO))

Phone Numbers

• Chairman Jeff McKay: 703-324-2321

• Vice Chair Kathy Smith (Sully) : 703-814-7100

• Andres Jimenez (Mason): 703-256-7717

• James Walkinshaw (Braddock): 703-425-9300

• James Bierman (Dranesville): 703-356-0551

• Walter Alcorn (Hunter Mill): 703-478-0283

• Rodney Lusk (Lee): 703-971-6262

• Daniel Storck (Mount Vernon): 703-780-7518

• Dalia Palchik (Providence): 703-560-6946

• Pat Herrity (Springfield): 703-451-8873

Script

As a resident of Fairfax County who is deeply concerned by the impact of data centers on our communities I would first like to thank you for taking action to strengthen data center requirements in our county. 

While the draft text is a start in the right direction, I am asking you to make the following edits and additions to the draft text.

The changes below will ensure that residents across the county will be protected from any harmful impacts of any type of data center, including massive data centers larger than 80,000 sq. ft., and ensure that as Chairman McKay indicated, Fairfax County can have the highest standard in the state and country in terms of protecting residents.

Key Asks

• All data centers larger than 80,000 sq. ft. (massive data centers) must be approved through Special Exception;

• All Data Centers in I-5 Districts must require a Special Exception;

• The county must set a minimum setback from residential districts of at least 2,640 feet (½ mile) from residents for massive data centers larger than 80,000 sq. ft. or that exceed a 12 MW electrical load;

• A Special Exception must be required for any exception to the requirement that equipment for data centers (HVAC, generators, etc.) be enclosed;

• A Special Exception should be required for data centers that have the possibility to exceed a 12 MW electrical load and that will likely have similar noise impact as massive data centers;

• A Minimum 1 mile distance from metro station entrances must be required 

Chairman Jeff McKay

• "If we are going to do any data centers in Fairfax County, even if its one-fifth or one-tenth of what other people are going to do, the ones we do in this County are going to be done at the highest standard we can possibly foresee."

• "I will also support making sure that this is the standard on any data center that comes into Fairfax County, because frankly we need to be setting the nationwide standard on these. And I believe that we can do that and that’s what we asked for and this application will do that."

• "Our job is to do a land use analysis to look at this application and weigh at against what our standards are, question ourselves whether our standards are the highest in the Commonwealth and I would argue probably put them up against most in the nation in dealing with data centers. Are they at that standard? And they are. Does this application meet those standards? It does." 

• "There are times where commitments are made through the land use process that people think will not be upheld. And that’s why I’m making sure not only we got some things on the record but also making sure that the proffers are so extensive. The proffers are legally binding. They exceed the zoning ordinance standard, The protections for noise for people related to this property are better than the protections for noise anybody else living around industrial properties in Fairfax County unless there’s a proffer like this in here. And most industrial cases don’t have that…There are some elements of the proffer here that most certainly exceed what our own county requirements are for industrial/commercial properties in other parts of the county. And for me that's a bellwether for if we should make this change. Are we doing better than what our own zoning ordinance tells us that we need to be doing? And I think that this application does that."

Vice-Chairman Kathy Smith (Sully District)

• "Again, I really appreciate the public participation, that input helped to prompt real improvements to the application."

• “At this public hearing, at the Planning Commission hearing, in other community meetings and countless correspondence, we’ve heard concerns about noise, visual impact, energy demand, water quality, and the like. But we’ve also heard how thoroughly this applicant has addressed these concerns by submitting a more robust proffer package than any data center applicant has previously provided in this county.”

Supervisor Andres Jimenez (Mason District)

• “I don’t think data centers should be anywhere near communities. I don’t think we’re going to turn Mason into a data center hub. The bigger longer-term picture is what do we do with data centers throughout Fairfax County.” (Source: Annandale Today, Supervisor Jimenez Wants to Make Mason District a Cultural Hub, Jan. 19, 2024.)

Supervisor James Walkinshaw (Braddock District)

• "This is an issue that we really as a county have to get right."

• "We also have an opportunity to establish standards that are the highest in the Commonwealth if not the highest in the nation and I think the work of this application and the work that staff has done with our data center report put us on that path. I think as we move forward into the future we will be able to put in place standards that are even higher than what we are talking about today and that were in the data center report."

• "The challenge is if we can establish the highest standards here and hold data centers to those standards we can do better than other places where they would be build if they were not built here."

• "This case meets all of our existing standards and meets all of the higher standards that we are likely to consider in the years to come."

Supervisor James Bierman, Jr. (Dranesville District)

• "What message would it send that we’re accepting a data center without stuff from the data center report? But I got news for you, there’s a lot of proffers here, there’s a lot here with this data center that matches this report."

• "The report here says you should work on water treatment and consider water treatment before it goes in your watershed. Do we proffer about water treatment? We do. There’s something in here about proffers based on lower noise requirements. We’ve already been over that. We proffered lower noise requirements. There was literally something in here about a post-construction noise study and we’ve got that right here as well."

• "We asked and we got a lot out of this applicant to make this a responsible plan."

Supervisor Rodney Lusk (Franconia District)

• [Nothing on the record.]

Supervisor Walter Alcorn (Hunter Mill District)

• “I’d encourage staff to move quickly on this and, frankly, if there are things that are ready to move before the end of the year [2023], I would suggest that they do that,” Alcorn said. “This is a moving target . . . This technology is changing. The practices are changing, so there may be some things that we would need to do even sooner than the end of the year.” (Source: Gazette Leader, Fairfax leaders aim to stay ahead of curve on data centers, May 12, 2023)

Supervisor Daniel Storck (Mount Vernon District)

• "Recognize where data centers should and shouldn’t be. Recognize the ability to put them in industrial centers. I think that’s why we’ve created that opportunity and option. I think even some commercial places it’s appropriate. Obviously where it’s not is areas that are at residential locations."

• "I want to support that need [of data centers] but I want to do it in a way that minimizes its impact because every time you do a data center, every time you do a major construction like this there is an impact."

Supervisor Dalia Palchik (Providence District)

• [Nothing on the record.]

Supervisor Pat Herrity (Springfield District)

• "It comes before the board has been able to discuss and issue our guidance on data centers."

• "Springfield garage looms over the neighboring church and as I drive by that thing and look at what we did to that church it bothers me what we’re going to do here and it’s out of character with that area in the county."