Planning commission votes to recommend Fruit Hill rezoning despite traffic, data center concerns

The Frederick County Planning Commission voted Sept. 4 to recommend approval of rezoning 06/24, known as Fruit Hill, sending the proposal to the Board of Supervisors for final action.

Mr. Bishop, presenting the staff report, said the application seeks to rezone roughly 220 acres from rural-area zoning to a mix of M1 (light industrial), TM (Technology & Manufacturing) and B2 (general business). The developer’s generalized development plan anticipates about 2.4 million square feet of buildings across up to five structures, a hotel (up to 100 rooms), a 5,000-square-foot restaurant and a 300,000-square-foot area reserved for a potential data center. Proffers shown on the record include use restrictions, a landscaped berm and setbacks, relocation and dedication of right-of-way for Fruit Hill Road, roadway improvements and a pro rata share for a possible traffic signal at Fruit Hill Road and Rest Church Road.

The proposal, Bishop said, does not fully conform to the county’s adopted comprehensive plan because the plan’s text does not list warehousing as an EDA-targeted industry; staff also noted the project does not address certain I‑81 northbound ramp issues identified in the TIA. Bishop said proffers require that if development exceeds the studied traffic counts the applicant must prepare another traffic-impact analysis and implement the improvements shown in that TIA.

Applicant John Foote of Walsh Colucci, representing EQUS, told commissioners the case had been before the commission previously and described the company’s local track record. Foote said VDOT and ITE trip-generation numbers were used for modeling, and he argued actual traffic on comparable sites had been lower than model estimates.

During public comment, several neighbors urged caution. Charles Gilbert, a resident and former municipal traffic engineer, warned that developers’ traffic analyses often undercount trips and recommended more conservative assumptions. Other speakers raised worries about 24‑hour construction, visual impacts from large warehouse buildings, noise and the potential for truck traffic to overwhelm Route 11, I‑81 ramps and nearby neighborhood streets.

Commission discussion focused on whether the proposal meets comprehensive-plan objectives, how buffers or berms will protect adjacent residences, who would measure whether a signal is warranted (staff said VDOT typically runs warrants), and whether the county’s pending TM ordinance will control data‑center noise. Commissioner comments ranged from support for the site as an appropriate industrial/transitional use near I‑81 to requests for clearer proffers limiting non‑industrial uses. Commissioner DeHaven moved to forward the rezoning to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for approval; the motion was seconded and carried on roll call. The vote sheet recorded multiple yes votes, one no and one recusal; staff said the item will go before the Board of Supervisors in September.

The commission’s action is a recommendation only; the Board of Supervisors will consider the full record, including proffers and any further refinements, before making a final decision.