Conceptual plan shows 13 data centers on 622-acre Sandston site

A conceptual plan submitted by the developer seeking to rezone 622 acres at the I-295/I-64 interchange in Sandston envisions the possibility of as many as 13 data centers on the prominent site, along with one area of utility infrastructure.

Although the proposed M-1C light industrial (conditional) zoning classification sought for the site by Richmond-based developer Hourigan also would allow for advanced manufacturing and office usage – uses that the applicant previously indicated could take shape there – the plan showing only data centers was the only one it provided recently to county planning officials. Hourigan officials intend to call the development White Oak Technology Park 2, since it sits adjacent to the county-owned 2,278-acre White Oak Technology Park, where 470 acres of undeveloped land remains.

Hourigan’s rezoning request now is scheduled to be heard at the Henrico Planning Commission’s March 14 meeting, after the commission granted the developer’s second deferral request in two months at its Feb. 15 meeting.

What ultimately takes shape at the site is of interest to many parties: Henrico County, which has made no secret of its desire to attract data centers to the White Oak Technology Park area, where two massive ones (owned by QTS Data Centers and Meta) already exist; environmental groups, which are urging the county to establish more uniform standards for data center development; nearby residents, who for years have wondered what might ultimately locate at the site that once was called one of the most desirable on the East Coast; and businesses that might potentially locate there.

In a report analyzing the proposal, Henrico planners concluded that the project generally would be in keeping with the anticipated land use plans for the site but that the applicant should provide more specific proffers (voluntary development standards) related to potential building locations, development conditions, noise, concept roads involving the site and several other issues. They supported the case’s deferral “in order to allow more time for the applicant to enhance their request.”

* * *

Members of the Henrico Conservation Action Network, an environmental group, are imploring county officials to temporarily halt data center rezoning cases in order to consider more uniform standards for the facilities and to weigh potential short- and long-term impacts to the community, environment, electrical grid and water supply, among others.

They also want the county to establish a stakeholder group to help provide input into those standards. But such a specific examination by county officials of one industry on a contingency basis would be a first for Henrico, Varina District Supervisor Tyrone Nelson told the Citizen.

“We don’t do that for any other industry, we’re not going to do it for data centers,” Nelson said. “We have data centers already, so if the commonwealth wants to put together some [development] mechanisms for data centers, then clearly we follow the law of the land. But right now, we’re going off what we have.”

Bills in the Virginia House and Senate that would have required data center operators to meet certain energy efficiency standards in order to be eligible for a sales and use tax exemption for data center purchases were continued to next year.

Another bill that would have banned data centers from locating within half a mile of a national park, state park or historically significant site died in committee.  (The Hourigan proposal includes a portion of the Savage Station and Seven Pines Civil War battlefields.)

Henrico planners have examined a 34-page report about data centers produced in January by Fairfax County’s Department of Planning and Development, which resulted from that Northern Virginia county’s board of supervisors concluding last May that data centers are “an evolving industry that merits further research and analysis.” In their report, Henrico planners concluded that Hourigan’s proposal would be “largely consistent” with the recommendations of the Fairfax report and with another set of data center standards recently created and approved by Fauquier County in Northern Virginia.

Nelson told the Citizen that he’ll wait until the case arrives before the board of supervisors to consider its merits and said that he had heard from a number of citizens opposed to it but some who support it.

Henrico is a desirable location for data centers in part because of the location at the QTS facility in White Oak Technology Park of the Richmond Network Access point, or NAP – the only spot in the world in which four subsea cables, terrestrial networks, and data center management meet – and in part because of its low data center equipment tax rate of 40 cents per $100 of assessed value. Henrico supervisors slashed the rate from $3.50 in 2017 as a way to help attract the facilities.

A report last month from a Virginia State Corporation Commission senior hearing examiner concluded that the $44.6-million construction of two new 230-kilovolt electric transmission lines proposed by Dominion Energy to run nearly 4.7 miles through the White Oak region – and across part of the Hourigan site – is warranted. If SCC commissioners ultimately approve that proposal as expected, it would provide direct access to the type of energy needed by data center users.

SCC Senior Hearing Examiner Michael Thomas concluded that the need for the new lines already exists, but some residents of the region believe that since data centers are likely to benefit the most from the lines, their owners (and not Dominion customers) should foot the bill for the new lines.

* * *

Hourigan Senior Managing Director of Development Brian Jenkins declined to discuss specifics of the company’s proposal with the Citizen, saying that it would let the public process play out before speaking in detail about its plans.

Company officials have hosted two community meetings to hear input from residents and have met directly with representatives from HCAN, who presented a 12-page list of proffers they would like the applicant to add to its proposal.

A key concern of the organization, according to HCAN representative John Montgomery, is that without proffers that restrict energy, water or noise levels to specific, identifiable amounts, there’s no way to know what their impact actually might be. Though Hourigan has pledged to adopt “industry standards” for water usage and noise levels, for example, it was unwilling to proffer specific levels, said Montgomery, one of the HCAN officials who met with the applicant.

In their report, Henrico planners wrote that more specific commitments related to the noise levels would be desirable.

“Based on statewide research, at a minimum, it is recommended the applicant include committing to establishing baseline noise data, defining possible noise mitigation techniques, specifying goal noise levels, and conducting post-construction noise analysis to measure the effectiveness of noise mitigation efforts,” they wrote.

Planners also encouraged the applicant to enhance its proposal by addressing other issues, such as how several concept roads shown for the area in Henrico’s Major Thoroughfare Plan might ultimately figure into the development; construction hours; construction and permanent access points; and non-vehicular transportation improvements.

Although the site is zoned for agricultural uses, planners wrote that rezoning it for other uses would not amount to the county “losing” agricultural land, since it was not designated as prime agricultural space in the 2026 plan, meaning that planners didn’t view it as farmland into the future.

The applicant proposed buffers and building setbacks of 50 or 100 feet at various along various portions of the outer edges of the site (the former mostly adjacent to roadways, and the latter mostly adjacent to residential and resource protection areas). No structures would be permitted within the 100-foot setback areas, but parking lots and stormwater management facilities could occur in portions between 50 and 100 feet.

Those buffers and setbacks generally are consistent with the ones currently in place within the White Oak Technology Park and along Technology Boulevard, according to planners.

They concluded that the applicant’s proffers appeared to minimize the impact on adjacent homes but asked that the applicant provide specific information about how far new buildings would be located from those homes. They also suggested that the applicant consider allowing public access in the form of a sidewalk or shared-use path along portions of the site adjacent to major roads.

Proffers would limit the tallest buildings on the site to 93 feet – 17 feet shorter than the maximum height allowed by county code but 18 feet taller than the current building in the White Oak Technology Park. Planners also suggested that the applicant should give consideration to develop buildings, including data centers, “consistent with an established environmental building program, such as LEED” (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, a green-building rating system that is designed to recognize sustainable construction).

Montgomery told the Citizen that HCAN asked Hourigan to commit to LEED standards but the company denied that request and declined to offer any other specific sustainable standards to which the project would adhere. But, as of Jan. 18, new data centers in Virginia now are required to comply with new energy standards adopted as part of the 2021 Virginia Energy Conservation Code – standards that are designed to foster more energy-efficient designs. Previously, no energy conservation requirements existed for data centers in Virginia.

“Hourigan will say ‘We’re not the ones who are going to build it,’ and I’ll say that’s all the more reason [to commit to specific standards],” Montgomery said. “The impact of this is really much greater than the 622 acres. . . I hope that they will make some meaningful proposals, and if they don’t, I hope that the county says come back to us when you do.

“That hose [undersea cable] coming from Europe that’s popping up over there, it’s not going anywhere. So it’s going to be there. We’ve got one chance to get it right, and frankly it takes more than one or two Henrico planners working as hard as they can go to manage an issue that’s bigger than anything we’ve ever seen in a Henrico zoning situation.”