Developers of “Dahlgren West” (presented as Dahlgren Innovation Hub) gave a detailed presentation to the King George County Planning Commission on proposed rezoning, a comprehensive‑plan amendment, and several text amendments and special‑exception requests for a large data‑center campus on the north side of Route 301.

What was proposed: The developer team asked to rezone four parcels to industrial, amend the comprehensive plan for one parcel currently mapped outside the Claydales settlement area, and request text amendments that would permit higher building heights and conditional groundwater use by special exception. The application would also seek special exceptions for data centers, taller screening/fencing and other site features. The presenters said the current concept shows roughly 6.7 million square feet of data‑center floor area on a site of approximately 485 acres, with about 40% preserved as open space.

Why it matters: The applicant described the project as a major employer and infrastructure investment: the team said the site has an approximate authorizable power footprint of about 1.18 gigawatts and estimated multi‑phase buildout over eight to ten years. Developers proffered local community benefits including a publicly accessible trail (proffered and maintained by the property owner), conveyance of an on‑site water tower to the county, a $1 million parks contribution, $500,000 for workforce development, and $3 million for public safety improvements.

Key technical and planning issues raised in the meeting
Water and reuse: Developers and counsel said the industry standard intent is to use air cooling; any water needs would be addressed through reuse water lines, potential on‑site wells and upgrades to the county wastewater treatment plant. Project counsel said wells would only be used for operations subject to DEQ and board‑approved agreements; staff and several commissioners requested more detail and a formal, negotiated agreement to ensure county water systems and private wells would not be harmed.
Power and interconnection: Developers and Northern Neck Electric Cooperative staff said the project expects transmission‑level delivery from Dominion Energy and distribution by Northern Neck Electric; the presenters reported a feasibility determination has been completed and conceptual planning with Dominion is underway. Presenters said the project anticipates on‑site standby generation to back up each building.
Noise, screening and setbacks: The plan includes a 250‑foot perimeter setback along Route 301, a minimum 100‑foot landscape buffer, and other screening and proffered noise mitigation measures. The developers said they would proffer no solar on the parcel and limit uses to data centers and accessory utilities under contractual covenants and a property‑owners association.
Traffic and access: The traffic study submitted to VDOT found driveway volumes below the thresholds for signalization. Developers said VDOT approved the study’s conceptual design and that off‑site intersection modifications are proffered as part of the application.
Commissioner questions and staff status: Commissioners pressed the applicants on water impacts to the county’s aquifer and private wells, standby diesel generation (air permits and runtime), and the countywide implications of the requested text amendments (height and groundwater use). Planning staff indicated the application is not yet complete for final review: the developer has submitted a third package and staff asked for 30 days to review and return comments. Commissioners asked for clearer maps of resource protection areas and wetlands in subsequent filings.

What was not decided: This meeting was a presentation; the planning commission did not vote on rezoning, the comprehensive‑plan amendment or any text amendments at this session. Staff and applicants will continue technical review and negotiations; future public hearings and planning‑commission recommendations would follow normal review timelines.

Context and limits: Developers said they prefer air‑cooled designs and that reuse water and on‑site storage tanks would be part of a mitigation strategy if operational water were needed; they emphasized that any potable or reuse water provision would be subject to separately negotiated agreements approved by the Board of Supervisors. The transcript and staff said additional technical exhibits (detailed wetland/RPA mapping, air permitting analyses and a complete fiscal impact study) will be provided as part of continuing review.