Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Datacenter topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board delays decision on Cross Mill data‑center rezoning after hours of debate and a last‑minute reduction in proposed square footage
Summary
The board debated the Cross Mill (ZMAP 2020‑364) data‑center application, reviewed revised materials filed the afternoon of the meeting that cut the proposed data‑center square footage, and ultimately tabled any final action to a future board meeting after close votes and competing motions.
The Loudoun County Board of Supervisors took up the Cross Mill Center land‑use application (ZMAP‑2020‑364) on May 6 after staff said the applicant submitted revised materials the afternoon of the meeting that removed a special exception request and reduced the proposed data‑center square footage from roughly 740,000 to about 556,000 square feet.
Planning staff told the board the applicants revised the proffers, concept plan tabulations and conditions of approval; the change kept the same building footprints but reduced the total floor area by removing a requested increase in floor‑area ratio (FAR). Staff confirmed the new materials had been reviewed but not broadly redistributed before the meeting.
The Leesburg Airport Commission and multiple local residents and workforce training representatives spoke. The airport commission’s vice chair told the board the site lies under the Runway 35 flight path and argued non‑residential development such as data centers is compatible with airport operations. Several speakers representing the Nova Data Center Academy, students and NOVA DCA staff urged approval, saying data centers provide local job and training opportunities.
Opponents, supervisors and staff raised concerns about site topography, retaining walls, floodplain areas tied to Sicklin Creek, visual impacts, and the availability and routing of transmission/service lines. Dominion Energy had earlier flagged transmission‑routing constraints; staff and the applicant discussed that those utility routing questions are governed by state regulators and can affect off‑site impacts.
After extended discussion the board considered a motion to approve the application, then subsequent motions to deny and to table. The meeting recorded multiple procedural votes. The final board action on May 6 was to table the denial motion and schedule the matter for future board action; the public will be notified in a future board agenda when the item’s next date is set.
The applicant and staff had previously told supervisors the project would include permitting options allowing alternate uses (warehouse or flex industrial) if the data‑center use were not chosen; staff said those alternatives remain part of the application’s concept options.
