Planning commission to study Leesburg Gateway town plan amendment proposing data centers, flex industrial and parkland

The Leesburg Planning Commission voted June 5, 2025, to move the Leesburg Gateway town plan amendment (TLTPAM‑20240001) to a commission work session in July for further discussion and refinement of policy language after extensive public comment and questioning by commissioners.

The amendment, submitted by property owners represented by Curata Partners and a development team including the Peterson Companies, would add an alternative policy to the Eastern Gateway District small‑area guidance allowing a land‑use pattern that includes data centers, flex industrial (LEHI industrial), and a dedication of approximately 22 acres of parkland rather than the mixed‑use, walkable neighborhood currently envisioned in Legacy Leesburg and the Eastern Gateway Small Area Plan. Staff described the proposal as a deliberate alternative to the current mixed‑use vision tied to physical constraints — notably roadway access changes created by the completed Battlefield Parkway/Route 7 interchange — that would make the higher mixed‑use densities difficult to achieve without additional connections that VDOT spacing standards now limit.

Rich Klusek and Scott Parker (staff) summarized procedural history: the applicant sought a rezoning pre‑application in August 2023; Town Council elected not to initiate a plan amendment; the applicant pursued a town plan amendment in July 2024 and a concurrent rezoning application in August 2024. Town policy requires council action on any town plan amendment before a rezoning can be advertised, so the plan amendment is a gating item for the applicant’s rezoning. Staff said the town plan amendment is appropriately general in scope (policy rather than development level) and recommended forwarding the application to a work session to refine the proposed text.

Applicant planner Molly Novotny (Curata Partners) described a concept that concentrates three data‑center buildings on the west side of the U‑shaped property, preserves substantial tree cover through tree‑conservation easements and reforestation in denuded areas, and dedicates roughly 22 acres along Battlefield Parkway for a public park. The applicant’s conceptual drawings show data centers sited in lower topography behind mature tree buffers so the visible building height from Potomac Station Drive would be limited; Novotny said the teams have refined sections to retain mature trees and proposed a combination of berming, tree preservation and architectural screening to reduce visual impacts.

Staff and applicant emphasized the amendment would not itself authorize construction; any subsequent rezoning and special‑exception applications would provide design, buffering, noise, and utility plans for detailed review. Still, the proposed policy departure from the walkable, mixed‑use vision attracted robust public opposition and technical questions at the hearing. Public speakers from Sycamore Hill and Potomac Station asked how power needs for data centers would be met and where distribution lines, substations or backup generation would be sited; Brian Wegener (private citizen and Loudoun County planning staff) asked for clarity on substations, transmission and noise/vibration concerns. The Piedmont Environmental Council urged denial or much more detailed study, citing regional power and water availability concerns and potential environmental and visual impacts. Several Sycamore Hill residents said they were not aware of the application and expressed concern about construction impacts, increased traffic, long‑term visual effects and effects on property values.

Commissioners’ questions focused on: compatibility with adjacent residential parcels (the so‑called “donut” parcel inside the U‑shape owned by a different party), noise and vibration (applicant proffered a noise limit proposal and staff noted the draft rezoning contains noise‑related proffers), power and water capacity (multiple speakers asked for Dominion load letters and water‑budget analyses), buffering and visual sections (applicant showed a section that placed data centers roughly 40 feet below Potomac Station grade and cited a 350‑foot setback in places), and transportation constraints created by the Route 7/Battlefield interchange and the town’s planned Cardinal Park overpass. Applicant representatives said they have proffered transportation improvements, tree conservation areas, and architecture commitments and that many of the technical issues would be resolved with a rezoning submission now in review; they also said they have undertaken extensive outreach including six community meetings and mailings like a rezoning application.

After more than an hour of public comment and commissioner questions, the commission unanimously moved to send TLTPAM‑20240001 to a work session in July 2025 for additional analysis and refinement. Commissioners asked staff and the applicant to prepare targeted materials for that work session, including certified mailing receipts and outreach documentation; clearer redline language for the proposed amendment; a compiled response to questions raised by public commenters (power/substation needs and likely locations, water‑budget and utility capacity analysis, construction traffic/maintenance‑of‑traffic plans, noise/vibration studies and proposed noise limits, visual cross‑sections and illustrative buffering, and the planned disposition and stewardship of the proposed 22‑acre park); and, if available, Dominion or utility load letters and more detailed transportation analysis addressing where construction and service traffic would enter and exit the property and how existing town plan roads are affected by VDOT spacing standards.

Staff recommended the work session because the amendment represents an alternative way to achieve town goals (jobs, tax base, open space) but raises trade‑offs: increased tax revenue potential and a large dedicated park vs. loss of walkable mixed‑use character, no new housing, and potential compatibility concerns with adjacent homes. The Planning Commission did not vote on the amendment itself; the work session will produce refined policy language for possible future recommendation to Town Council.