Prince William supervisors press on noise ordinance after residents cite data‑center hums

Dozens of residents, members of the county's Data Center Ordinance Advisory Group and county staff pressed the Prince William County Board of Supervisors on June 10 over whether and how the county can regulate low‑frequency, continuous noise coming from nearby data centers.

The residents said the noise — a persistent low frequency hum that they say shakes walls and disrupts sleep — has harmed quality of life in neighborhoods such as Great Oak and surrounding districts. County staff described several rounds of technical testing, multiple consultants on the project and a short timeline to complete further work before presenting a draft ordinance to the board this fall.

The issue matters because the county has approved or is considering a large amount of data center development clustered in parts of the county. Residents and advisory‑group members argue that an enforceable noise standard is needed to protect health and property; staff and legal advisers warned that enforcement must be based on measurement methods the Commonwealth Attorney and courts will accept.

Public comments and advisory‑group reports

Residents and members of the Data Center Ordinance Advisory Group (DCOAG) described years of measurements and daily disruption. "An image of the Great Oak neighborhood with the surrounding data centers and, and, substations...the previous version of this had 13 data centers...We've now gone to 14," said Rob Pixley during the public comment period, noting that many centers are either operational, under construction or approved nearby.

Catherine Kulick, vice chair of a homeowners association roundtable and a DCOAG member, said the problem exists across the county and listed separate facilities that she said had been heard miles away during tests: "Data center noise is not just a Great Oak or Amazon problem...It's been heard and felt 4 miles away during a test of the NTT data center at the Route 29 and 66 interchange," Kulick said.

Multiple speakers asked why development continued while DCOAG's work had not produced a stronger enforceable standard. Bill Wright, also a DCOAG member, told supervisors the group had formed after board directive 22‑28 (July 12, 2022) and only met a year later; he said the advisory group has collected data and hired consultants but has not yet produced recommendations. "Activity is not accomplishment," Wright said.

Dale Brown, representing the Great Oak HOA, said residents felt abandoned: "I come here today upset, let down, and and feel that my compute community is being abandoned." Brown and others said staff had proposed postponing the ordinance until the fall and that this delay is unacceptable to people who have documented noise for years.

Technical work under way

Deputy County Executive Wade Hugh told the board the county has mobilized multiple consultants: JMT drafted ordinance language and Moseley Architects is working on zoning and the design manual; the county later added Nelson Acoustics (technical acoustics) and Rutgers University consultant Eric Zwerling (enforcement and measurement methodology). Hugh described a sequence of testing and review that began after DCOAG drafted a scope and the consultants were hired.

Hugh said county and consultant teams have executed field measurements at multiple locations and that Nelson visited Great Oak in January to take readings. "We had a day of testing...we felt like we had the framework to bring forward to you for a noise ordinance and just to get some general direction," he told the board.

But Hugh said a recent review by one consultant found difficulty definitively separating data‑center noise from traffic and other ambient sources using standard weighted measurements. "David came back on May 14 and presented to the group and said I'm having trouble distinguishing between traffic noise and data center noise," Hugh said. "If an expert can't say that, then we need to pause and decide next steps." Hugh said the county has tried using octave‑band analysis (which isolates low‑frequency energy) because a single dBA reading can mask low‑frequency industrial noise, and he described additional overnight testing done using methods advised by the Rutgers consultant.

Board debate: enforcement, exemptions and siting

Supervisors and the county attorney emphasized the legal and enforcement limits. County Attorney Roble told the board noise regulation rests on the board's police power and that the Code of Virginia and recent case law constrain how ordinances can be written and enforced. She noted the law permits civil enforcement for many noise uses but preserves criminal prosecution for noise generated by businesses on industrial property under current state code, a distinction that matters because many data centers sit on industrially zoned land.

"If you have so many exemptions that it waters it down, then the Commonwealth attorney may not prosecute those charges that are brought," Roble warned.

Several supervisors pressed for parallel action on zoning and siting. Supervisor Gordy urged faster changes to prevent more residential areas from being encircled by industrial development: "The problem is that we're building data centers in your homes...until we fix that, we're going to have to have this, and we're gonna have to have more problems." County staff said work is under way (Stantec/Moseley) to consider changes to the overlay and to zoning that would influence where data centers can be sited.

Timeline and next steps

Hugh said staff will analyze the new overnight readings and expected to know in the coming weeks whether the current measurement approach will reliably isolate facility noise. If those data and the enforcement protocol meet the consultants' standards, staff would do a final round of testing, refine a numeric scale and bring a draft ordinance forward; if not, staff will return with alternative approaches. Hugh said a realistic target for returning with a complete recommendation would be the fall, with one county leader citing an October timeframe for further action.

Votes at a glance

• Suspension of rules of procedure (allowed extended questioning during the work session): motion passed 5–3. Supervisors Jefferson, Gordy, Boddie, Weir and Vega voted yes; Supervisors Angry, Bailey and Franklin voted no. (No mover/second recorded in the transcript.)

• Adjourn: motion passed unanimously among present supervisors; Supervisor Vega was absent from that final vote.

What the board asked of staff

Supervisors asked staff to continue testing using methodologies advised by the Rutgers consultant, to coordinate with the Commonwealth Attorney's Office and law enforcement on enforceable protocols, to consider the practical ramp‑up time for businesses to comply if a new standard is adopted, and to present options on siting and overlay changes. Hugh said staff will return with the analysis of the latest testing and a proposed path forward.

Ending

For now, the board left an open path: staff must show that measurements can distinguish data‑center noise in ways that hold up to prosecution, or else recommend a different regulatory approach. Residents said they will press the board for quicker action; supervisors said they would balance enforceability, legal constraints and community protection as staff develops the draft ordinance and implementation plan.