Fauquier supervisors hear hours of divided testimony on proposed Remington data centers

Dozens of residents and union members addressed the Fauquier County Board of Supervisors during citizens’ time to voice sharply divided views about the proposed Giga Land data center project near Remington.

Supporters, many speaking on behalf of building trades unions, said the proposal would bring local construction jobs, higher prevailing wages for journey-level trades, and tax revenue. Don Slaiman, representing IBW Local 26, said the centers “provide such great jobs and such great careers,” and several other union-affiliated speakers — including Zachary Borman, Raul Castro of the Eastern Atlantic States Regional Council of Carpenters, and Steamfitters Local 602 members — said they support siting data centers in Fauquier to reduce long commutes and expand local employment opportunities.

Opponents raised concerns about environmental, infrastructure and community impacts. Speakers including Jean Adkins and Will Ziegler warned that large data centers are long-lived industrial facilities that could alter the county’s rural character. One Remington resident asked the supervisors to consider what would happen to tax revenue and the landscape “in 10, 20 years when these towering buildings … become obsolete.” Several speakers also raised concerns about developer tactics and the provenance of pro-project emails; a speaker identified in the record as Mira (transcript: “Bridal”) said some pro-Giga emails “were possibly fraudulent” and could not be traced to local residents.

Public remarks touched on technical issues the board has been hearing for months: water and power use, noise and view-shed impacts, transmission-line expansions, and precedent for rezoning. A speaker cited an estimate that a single proposed center could require about 150 megawatts of power and warned that multiple projects could push demand into the hundreds of megawatts, a level that would require substantial transmission and generation investments. Several speakers also urged the board to hold to the county’s recently adopted data-center policy and to avoid rezoning that would extend service districts.

The comments illustrated a broad split in the community: union and trades speakers focused on jobs, wages and local economic opportunities; long-time residents, historic-preservation groups and local advocates emphasized conservation, scenic and heritage impacts and long-term fiscal risks. Speakers asked the board to carefully weigh proffers and the enforceability of any developer commitments; one speaker noted a $15 million proffer tied to a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program and asked whether such funds would have a legal nexus to impacts from a rezoning.

The board did not take action on the data-center proposals during citizens’ time. Supervisors later heard related agenda items and public hearings at the same meeting (see separate articles). The length and intensity of public comment signal continued community engagement and that the board will face additional public testimony and regulatory review before any rezoning or special-exception decisions are final.