Planning Commission recommends denial of Hornbaker Road rezoning and special‑use permit

The Prince William County Planning Commission on Nov. 5 recommended denial of a rezoning and companion special‑use permit for a proposed data center and industrial building on Hornbaker Road, citing unresolved concerns about setbacks, easements, buffers and the development’s fit with Innovation Park.

Commissioner Carroll moved to recommend denial of REZ2025‑0014 and later moved to recommend denial of SUP2025‑00016; both motions carried after roll‑call votes. The votes recommending denial were supported by Commissioners Carroll, Justice, Ross and Schiefler and opposed by Chair Sherry McPhail, Vice Chair Brown and Commissioner Moses Ned.

Lee Gleeson, land‑use attorney with Cooley representing Mortenson Development, presented revised elevations and commitments intended to address concerns from a Sept. 24 hearing. Gleeson said the applicant hired a new architecture firm, increased glazing and varied façade materials, and revised landscape plans to place taller planting units at the top of the slope. He also described a proffer limiting cooling to an air‑cooled closed‑loop system rather than an open water‑withdrawal cooling system.

Staff planner Perez told commissioners the applicant had submitted materials after the staff report was finalized, including updated GDP (general development plan) cross sections and revised proffers. Perez said the applicant increased the plantable width along Prince William Parkway from the earlier 73‑foot estimate to roughly 91–95 feet in the revised GDP, but noted existing easements may reduce the true plantable area and that planting inside easements remains contingent on the easement holders and VDOT.

Commissioners pressed on several technical points. Commissioner Justice asked whether plantings in roadside easements would be maintained and whether they might attract trash; staff said maintenance responsibility typically rests with VDOT or, if permitted and agreed, with the county and the property owner through site‑plan commitments and bonding. Commissioner Ross asked for clearer proffer language on cooling and noted the county adopted a new noise ordinance, which could affect noise standards for mechanical equipment; staff and the applicant said the proffer language still reflects the older ordinance but that the intent is to use a closed‑loop cooling system that would not draw county water.

Commissioner Carroll said the parcel had been removed from the overlay in recent years and that, despite design improvements, open questions about building footprint, signage and buffers left him unable to support the applications. "I just can't get there tonight," Carroll said during debate. After the vote, the commission’s recommendation is to deny both the rezoning and the special‑use permit; the Board of County Supervisors will take a final action at a later date.

Action details: REZ2025‑0014 (Hornbaker Road rezoning) — motion to recommend denial carried on roll call (Yes: Carroll, Justice, Ross, Schiefler; No: McPhail, Brown, Moses Ned). SUP2025‑00016 (Hornbaker Road SUP) — motion to recommend denial carried on a similar roll call.

The public hearing for these items had been closed prior to the continuations; applicants and staff noted some outstanding technical work (easement negotiations, refined plantings and possible place‑making signage) that could be advanced before a Board hearing but would not change the Planning Commission recommendation.

The planning commission adjourned after other routine business; the denial recommendation moves the Hornbaker applications to the Board of County Supervisors for final consideration.