Orange County reviews draft Technology Zoning District to guide data center development

County staff on Thursday walked the Board of Supervisors through a draft Technology Zoning District intended to govern data centers and other high‑intensity technology uses, with board members asking for clearer rules on permitted uses, setbacks and environmental protections.

Michelle, staff member, summarized the draft’s purpose, saying the “T District supports Orange County’s economic development and diversification objectives by encouraging investment in technology sectors, while preserving the County’s rural character and quality of life, and ensuring that such development remains targeted and context sensitive.” The board spent more than an hour weighing how narrowly to define permitted uses and what protections to require for nearby homes, farms and natural resources.

Why it matters: Data centers and associated facilities can bring large buildings, intensive utility infrastructure and, in some designs, substantial water and generator use. Supervisors said they want a clear, upfront set of standards so property owners and applicants know what Orange County will and will not allow.

Most important provisions and debate

- Permitted uses and exclusions: Staff proposed permitting a limited set of technology uses — notably data centers, technology research and development facilities and technology‑related higher education uses — and adding definitions for the new categories. Several supervisors stressed they do not want the district to function as an industrial or manufacturing zone. Board members repeatedly said the draft should specifically exclude manufacturing and warehouse/distribution facilities from the T District so those uses cannot “sneak in” under another label.

- Relationship to industrial zoning: Participants discussed removing data centers and certain technology uses from the county’s industrial district so applicants cannot rely on the broader industrial rules to site data centers by right. Several supervisors voiced support for creating the T District as the primary pathway for new data center rezonings.

- Setbacks and buffers: Staff proposed a tiered approach to setbacks: 25 feet between lots inside the district, 100 feet from commercial or industrial districts, 300 feet from agricultural districts and 500 feet from residential districts. Board members debated whether improved lots (lots with an existing dwelling or structure) should receive larger setbacks than unimproved parcels; participants settled on the working approach in the draft that treats the residential district setback as 500 feet and contemplates an “improved lot” distinction that would effectively increase protection for existing homes. Buffers were proposed to equal 50% of the required setback depth and to be vegetated and maintained in perpetuity unless otherwise approved; the board asked staff to provide more specific language and photos/examples for the Planning Commission.

- Landscaping, visual screening and building design: Supervisors asked staff to add detail on preferred landscaping (native plants, berms and tree preservation) and on building materials and colors so large, reflective or highly visible facades are discouraged. Staff said they will collect examples from other localities and provide photographic guidance to the Planning Commission.

- Height and viewshed: The draft sets a baseline height cap of 80 feet for T District structures, with a board special exception option for taller facilities; supervisors supported the lower baseline and the possibility of special exceptions tied to a viewshed analysis.

- Signs and lighting: Staff recommended limiting monument signs on improved lots (not to exceed roughly 8 feet high or 32 square feet) and forbidding building signage visible from public rights of way. Digital signs would be prohibited. The board discussed dark‑sky friendly lighting controls and minimizing internally lit signs in rural locations.

- Water use and cooling systems: For data centers, the draft requires that any water cooling systems relying in whole or in part on groundwater submit a groundwater impact study prepared by a licensed geologist. Staff and supervisors agreed the draft should emphasize closed‑loop or recycled water systems and should avoid allowing potable or river withdrawals for industrial cooling; they asked staff to tighten the draft wording and to review stronger language used by other localities.

- Generators and noise: The draft would require emergency generators to be enclosed within a level‑3 sound attenuation enclosure, limit non‑emergency testing hours (draft suggested 10 a.m.–4 p.m. unless otherwise required by Virginia DEQ) and require a sound study showing site noise not exceed 65 A‑weighted decibels daytime and 60 dB nighttime at property lines. Supervisors asked staff to look at examples that require periodic post‑occupancy noise monitoring.

Next steps and staff direction

Staff said it will refine the T District language, incorporate clearer definitions for tech uses, tighten the water and generator provisions, add landscaping and facade examples, and return the draft to the Planning Commission in the Berkeley Group format used for the county’s zoning rewrite. Supervisors asked staff to collect and circulate comparable language and examples from Prince William, Loudoun, Fairfax and Fredericksburg and to reference the JLARC study on data centers when refining water and economic impacts language.

The discussion produced no formal vote; supervisors signaled support for keeping manufacturing and warehouse/distribution out of the T District and for moving the draft forward for Planning Commission review.