12 Conservation Groups Request Prince William Supervisors Send Digital Gateway Plan Back to Planning Commission

Cite confusion and lack of public knowledge of detrimental changes to comp plan proposal

Posted

Leaders of 12 regional environmental and historical conservation groups are requesting the Prince William Board of Supervisors delay its Nov. 1 vote on the Comprehensive Plan to approve the 2,100-acre Prince William Digital Gateway, as per an Oct. 18 letter. 

They believe the agenda item should be sent back to the Prince William Planning Commission for reconsideration since the commission's recommended proposal including significant changes not made available for the public ahead of the vote. 

Those changes are detrimental to environmental and historical preservation, particularly around the Manassas National Battlefield. 

Conservation groups that signed the letter were the American Battlefield Trust, Piedmont Environmental Council, National Parks Conservation Association, Preservation Virginia, Coalition for Smarter Growth, Great Falls Group of the Sierra Club, Prince William Conservation Alliance, Virginia League of Conservation Voters, Virginia Native Plant Society, Prince William Wildflower Society, National Trust for Historic Preservation and Faith Alliance for Climate Solutions. 

The Prince William Digital Gateway along Pageland Lane would change the nature of Western Prince William County.  It would amend the intended use of 2100+ acres of agricultural/estate land near the Manassas National Battlefield. The change would pave the way for the building of the world's largest data center in Prince William County.

"The Digital Gateway is a $10+ billion economic development project, the largest outside development project of its kind in Prince William County history," said Chair Ann Wheeler-D. 

Conservation groups believe the new proposal is more detrimental to the Manassas Battlefield and environment as it offers less open land, parkland, tree buffers, and historical preservation areas. (See left column for details.)

The land use redesignation would also open up more of the county's rural crescent for various kinds of development be they industrial, commercial or residential; they are already within the 2040 Comp Plan approved by the planning commission. 

Wheeler said that they would delay the vote until Nov. 1 due to confusion.  She did not say the confusion stemmed from the Sept. 9 letter, but instead whether or not the 13000 block of Catharpin Valley Drive is included in the CPA study area.

But opponents to the digital gateway do not like how the planning commission handled the vote and thinks it should be invalidated. 

Commissioners did not vote until 5 a.m. on Sept. 15, after working all night. Commissioner Qwendolyn N. Brown (Neabsco) made the motion to approve the application and include all the requests as per the applicant's Sept. 9 letter. 

The letter was not posted on the county website until later that day, and even some commissioners said they were unaware of the letter, including Brentsville's Tom Gordy and Gainesville's Richard Berry who both voted to defer the vote. If they received it, it was lost among hundreds of other emails on the issue. 

Horner said technically the letter did not need to be made public. It was from the 'initial applicant,' for the gateway: data center developers Compass and QTS. They were not the final "applicants" as per the comprehensive plan amendment, that was the county. 

Horner said that essentially the letter was no different than any other letter the planning department receives from constituents or interested parties, although she understands the community's confusion as to who the "applicant" was. 

But despite the changes recommended by the majority of the planning commission, the board of supervisors need not approve all changes. The planning commission only makes recommendations to the supervisors. 

The protected rural crescent is located in the Gainesville, Brentsville and Coles magisterial districts, whereas districts to the east experienced more accelerated growth. Supervisors on the eastern end of the county, all of whom are Democrats, see opportunity in the digital gateway as a means to bring in millions in tax dollars to serve the entire county. 

But others counter that money will not be seen for approximately a decade, and preservation would cause irreparable damage to the environment and would negatively impact the national park. 

The letter: 

October 18, 2022

Prince William County Board of Supervisors

1 County Complex Court

Woodbridge, VA 22192                                                                                             VIA EMAIL

Re:   Public Discussion and Clarification of Planning Commission Recommendations on Proposed Digital Gateway Comprehensive Plan Amendment  

Dear Chair Wheeler and Members of the Prince William County Board of Supervisors:

In light of the perplexing and unprecedented circumstances surrounding the Planning Commission’s public hearing and vote on the proposed Digital Gateway Comprehensive Plan Amendment (“CPA”) last month, County residents and stakeholders were encouraged to see Chair Wheeler quoted in a recent Prince William Times article as acknowledging that the County needs, “to take a step back and clarify,” the many questions and the deep confusion that the Planning Commission’s action has generated.[1] 

As you are aware, the Planning Commission’s September 14 public hearing on the CPA ran through the entire night, with the Commission finally voting around 5 a.m. the next day. With all due respect to the members of the Planning Commission, the perils of making decisions under such circumstances were on full display during those early morning hours. 

Most troubling is the fact that the motion the Commission adopted recommending approval of the draft CPA included three major “additional recommendations” that were never explained or discussed further.[2] 

The last-minute inclusion of these additional recommendations has left the public thoroughly confused about what changes to the draft CPA the Planning Commission intended to recommend, and it is difficult to see how County staff could prepare and present to the Board a draft CPA that properly incorporates the Commission’s input without further guidance from that body. 

More specifically, the first two of the “additional recommendations” in the Commission’s motion were extremely vague, making it impossible for the public—and presumably staff as well—to determine the types of additional mitigation measures the Commission felt were needed to address its concerns regarding adverse noise and environmental impacts. 

But even more troubling is the third of the motion’s “additional recommendations,” which purported to incorporate various changes to the draft CPA that had been proposed in an exhibit attached to a September 9, 2022 letter that the data center companies who are seeking to develop the lands at issue had sent to the Planning Commission. 

We find it unacceptable that the data centers’ letter was not made available to the public prior to the public hearing, and that there was no presentation or discussion of the data centers’ proposed changes or of staff’s assessment of them.[3] 

This total lack of discussion or even public knowledge of the data centers’ proposed changes is obviously a major source of the confusion and frustration that has erupted among the public around the Commission’s action. That frustration has only intensified now that the public has become aware of the magnitude of the changes the data centers proposed and the extent to which they would undermine key protections included in the draft CPA. 

For the County to truly take a step back and make a meaningful attempt to address the public’s confusion and frustration surrounding the Planning Commission’s action, we believe the Board must send the proposal back to the Planning Commission with the direction that County staff present the data centers’ proposed changes—and staff’s assessment of them—to the Commission for open discussion in a public meeting. 

The meeting must also provide an opportunity for the Commission to provide much-needed clarification regarding the changes it is recommending to the draft CPA before the Board reviews it. 

We noticed that an October 11, 2022 memo from staff to the Board was recently posted on the County’s webpage for the Digital Gateway CPA, and we feel compelled to say that if this memo is intended to be the clarifying “step back” to which Chair Wheeler referred, we find it completely inadequate. 

It contains no discussion of the Planning Commission’s “additional recommendations” or the data centers’ proposed changes, and it fails to explain how staff might be attempting to address them. 

Just as troubling, it indicates that despite the unresolved confusion surrounding the Planning Commission’s action, the Board now has its own public hearing on the draft CPA scheduled for November 1.

For the benefit of County residents and stakeholders—both in terms of their understanding of the draft CPA and their faith in the County’s public review processes—we strongly urge the Board to send the proposal back to the Planning Commission for a public meeting to discuss the changes the data centers have proposed, and to clarify the “additional recommendations” that the Commission included in its motion.  

Notably, we believe this clarifying step would also be of tremendous value to the Board as you prepare to evaluate such a controversial and impactful proposal, and to determine whether it is consistent with your vision for the County’s future.

 Sincerely,

Jcc:       Members of the Prince William County Planning Commission

(Chair Cynthia Moses-Nedd, Vice-Chair Juan McPhail, Joseph Fontanella, Jr., Patty Kuntz, Tom Gordy, Richard Berry, Qwendolyn N. Brown)

            The Honorable Tim Kaine

            The Honorable Mark Warner

            The Honorable Jennifer Wexton

            The Honorable Gerry Connolly

            The Honorable Abigail Spanberger

            Ms. Raquel Montez, Superintendent (Acting), Manassas National Battlefield Park

Jim Campi

Chief Policy and Communications Office

American Battlefield Trust

Julie Bolthouse

Director of Land Use

Piedmont Environmental Council

Kyle Hart

Mid-Atlantic Program Manager

National Parks Conservation Association

Elizabeth Kostelny

Chief Executive Officer

Preservation Virginia

Morgan Butler

Senior Attorney

Southern Environmental Law Center

Stewart Schwartz

Executive Director

Coalition for Smarter Growth

Ann Bennett

Land Use Chair

Great Falls Group of the Sierra Club

Bill Sellers

Presidents and Chief Executive Officer

Journey Through Hallowed Ground

 Court Squires

Executive Director

Prince William Conservation Alliance

Mike Town

Executive Director

Virginia League of Conservation Voters

Nancy Vehrs

President

Virginia Native Plant Society

Claudia Thompson- Deahl

Conservation Chair

Prince William Wildflower Society

 Elizabeth Merritt

Deputy General Counsel

National Trust for Historic Preservation

Andrea McGimsey

Executive Director

Faith Alliance for Climate Solutions

cc:       Members of the Prince William County Planning Commission

(Chair Cynthia Moses-Nedd, Vice-Chair Juan McPhail, Joseph Fontanella, Jr., Patty Kuntz, Tom Gordy, Richard Berry, Qwendolyn N. Brown)

            The Honorable Tim Kaine

            The Honorable Mark Warner

            The Honorable Jennifer Wexton

            The Honorable Gerry Connolly

            The Honorable Abigail Spanberger

            Ms. Raquel Montez, Superintendent (Acting), Manassas National Battlefield Park

[1] Jill Palermo, County board will delay Prince William Digital Gateway vote ‘to clear up confusion' about the process (Prince William Times, Sept. 22, 2022),

[2] Commissioner Brown’s motion, adopted by the Commission on a 4-3-1 vote, reads as follows: “I move that the Prince William County Planning Commission adopt the findings set forth in the draft resolution contained in the staff report and recommend to the Board of County Supervisors the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2021-00004, the Prince William Digital Gateway, with the following additional recommendations: (1) noise is adequately reduced and/or mitigated; and (2) proper measures are taken to address any potential negative environmental issues; and (3) planning staff include the revisions and clarifications requested by the applicants in Exhibit A attached to the letter to the Planning Commission dated September 9, 2022.” (Emphasis added.)

[3] Jill Palermo, Data centers’ last-minute letter seeks to weaken county policies for PW Digital Gateway, Prince William Times (Sep. 21, 2022), 

NOTE: Bristow Beat revised the spacing of paragraphs in this article to improve clarity but left the capitalization and style as written. 

Prince William County, Nov. 1, Digital Gateway, vote, board of county supervisors, Prince William Board of County Supervisors, letter, conservation groups, preservation groups, historical preservation groups, Manassas National Battlefield, Sept 9 letter, planning commission, American Battlefield Trust, Piedmont Environmental Council, National Parks Conservation Association, Preservation Virginia, Coalition for Smarter Growth, Great Falls Group of the Sierra Club, Prince William Conservation Alliance, Virginia League of Conservation Voters, Virginia Native Plant Society, Prince William Wildflower Society, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Faith Alliance for Climate Solutions, Pageland Lane, Ann Wheeler, Qwendolyn Brown, Tom Gordy, Richard Berry, Gainesville, Manassas, Gainesville Magisterial District