Stafford’s Simms Farm Review Raises Questions About Location, Solar Power and Impacts on Neighbors

Stafford County’s review of the proposed Simms Farm Data Center reveals a question that goes beyond the design of its buildings: Does an industrial data center belong on land the County’s Comprehensive Plan designates Agricultural and Rural?

County planning staff found that the site lies outside the Urban Services Area and that the proposed industrial use is inconsistent with the plan’s land use recommendations for the property. The applicant acknowledged the finding but argued that Simms Farm would be developed alongside the proposed Sisson North, Sisson South and Forest Lane data center campuses. Staff responded that each application must be reviewed separately.

The exchange is one of several substantive issues in the County’s published review. Staff also asked how the project would affect nearby homes, what its electrical facilities would look like, how much water it would need and whether the applicant would make stronger commitments through its rezoning proffers.

A solar suggestion became a request for a commitment

County staff suggested placing solar panels on the data center rooftops to offset some of the project’s electricity demand. The applicant declined, saying panels would interfere with roof equipment and chillers.

The applicant said it might instead use small solar installations on the ground for limited needs, such as parking security lights. Staff followed up by asking the applicant to include solar power generation in its proffers. The difference matters: a possibility described in a response is less certain than a commitment written into the terms of a rezoning. The published exchange does not establish that such a commitment has been finalized.

Staff wants to see the view in winter

The County asked for illustrations showing how the buildings and substations would appear from Kings Highway, the Rappahannock River and neighboring properties. After the applicant submitted site sections, staff requested that existing trees be distinguished from proposed plantings and that the screening be shown during fall and winter.

That request could give residents a clearer picture of what the project would look like when leaves are off the trees.

Staff recommended berms along Kings Highway and the eastern side of the site. The applicant proposed a 20 foot berm along the eastern property line near Old Landing Court but declined to provide one along Kings Highway. It instead pointed to a 200 foot building setback and 50 foot landscaped buffer along that road.

Noise analysis remains a key document to watch

County staff recommended a sound study before zoning approval to test whether the proposed buffers would adequately protect nearby residences. Staff also raised the issue of low frequency noise and suggested considering sound barriers near mechanical equipment.

In the responses shown in the County record, the applicant said it had requested a study and would provide it before public hearings. Staff’s review stated that no sound study had been provided at that stage. Residents will need the study and any updated mitigation commitments to judge how the project might sound beyond the property line.

Open space and water questions are still being worked through

The applicant described a commitment to 25 acres of tree preservation and 30 percent open space. Staff asked it to label the 25 acres as a tree preservation area so that readers would not confuse it with the overall open space calculation. In its Comprehensive Plan evaluation, staff marked the proposal inconsistent on open space, stating that 40 percent was required and that more was preferred.

Staff also requested an analysis of water demand and supply, preferably with a comparison to residential use. The applicant relayed a County Utilities estimate of one gallon of cooling water for every square foot of data center space, with about 39 percent returned through the sewer system. That statement alone does not establish the project’s final water demand. Staff kept the issue open for coordination with Utilities.

The electrical facilities may occupy substantial land

The applicant’s response says information from Dominion Energy and Northern Neck Electric Cooperative indicates that a regional switching station could require about 30 acres, while a 300 megawatt substation could require about 7 acres. Those figures describe potential facility requirements, not a confirmed final layout for Simms Farm. They make the County’s requests for equipment details and views from surrounding properties especially relevant.

Staff also sought a proffer limiting traffic from all allowed uses on the property to 999 vehicle trips per day. After the applicant revised its language, staff asked that the limit say traffic “shall not” exceed that number. The wording would make the proposed cap more direct.

These review comments are not a rejection or an approval of Simms Farm. They show what County staff wanted clarified or revised in the application reflected in the published record. The next documents for residents to examine are the updated proffers, sound study, water analysis, revised open space figures and views showing the site in winter.

Together, those materials should help answer the central question in the review: whether the applicant can show that a data center of this scale would be compatible with its rural surroundings.