The acronym N.I.M.B.Y. is sometimes used as a descriptor — or even a pejorative — for those opposed to nearby developments.
But for Erica Kasraie, a proposed data center at 1500 Gateway Blvd. in Fredericksburg drives the meaning home literally. Kasraie lives on Great Oaks Lane, a little over 600 feet away from the proposed development, which, she said, would face her backyard.
“I don’t want constant humming noises generated in my backyard,” Kasraie said Wednesday night during a public hearing before the city’s planning commission. “I don’t want headaches. I don’t want the peace that my family moved away from Northern Virginia for taken away from us.”
Kasraie and other residents who packed council chambers to oppose the data center can breathe easy once again. The Fredericksburg Planning Commission voted unanimously Wednesday to recommend disapproval of the project, which was proposed for 84 acres in an area near Cowan Boulevard, Route 3 and Interstate 95.
In three separate 7-0 votes, the commission found that the proposal wasn’t in compliance with the city’s Comprehensive Plan, and also denied a zoning map amendment and special-use permit.
Wednesday marked the second time the project from developer Penzance went before the planning commission.
The first hearing, on July 9, ended with a unanimous vote to recommend disapproval, with commissioners citing concerns over the potential location of electric-transmission lines needed for the development.
Less than two weeks later, Penzance submitted an appeal of that determination. On Aug. 27, after City Council denied an extension of that appeal, the applicant dropped it and prepared a new application.
On Tuesday, Hirschler Fleischer attorney Charlie Payne presented several “enhancements” made to the project since the first hearing. Notably, the applicant pledged $200,000 toward the city schools’ Career and Technical Education (CTE) programs and reoriented backup generators so they would face toward I-95 and away from Gateway Boulevard or adjacent developments.
Payne also noted that the proposed development either meets or exceeds standards — such as for setbacks and open space — as defined in the Technology Overlay District (TOD), a zoning classification adopted by the city council in February specifically for data center development.
Proffers, or voluntary offers from the developer, also included up to $955,000 for public safety improvements and the construction of a four-lane Gateway Boulevard, connecting Route 3 and Cowan.
But those pledges did little to sway residents, who spoke out against the project en masse. Not a single commenter or letter writer voiced support Wednesday.
Jimmy Morris said he isn’t opposed to data centers and came to Wednesday’s meeting with an open mind but found himself with more questions than answers.
“Nothing about this makes sense other than there’s a data center that wants to make a lot of money,” he said.
“From a revenue perspective, is this city selling its soul?” echoed resident Paula Chow.
Commissioners’ concerns, however, ultimately proved more practical.
Commissioner Mary Margaret Marshall argued that the TOD was intended to house all future data center development in the city.
“This was explicitly discussed by this body and the city council,” Marshall said. “The Technology Overlay District was pretty clear in that reason … it was set up so [data centers] stayed in one place.”
For her part, commission Vice Chair Carey Whitehead voiced worry over climate effects and how the project aligns with the city’s carbon-neutral goals.
And, concluded Commissioner Dugan Caswell: “For me, there’s just more in the detriment column than the benefit column.”
