Stafford Approves Accokeek Center 4–3 as Data Center Rules Remain Under Review

Updated October 9, 2026. The Board’s October 7 action has been added using the official meeting record and October 8 reporting by the Fredericksburg Free Press. The accepted proffers, site-plan review and utility approvals remain important implementation records to follow.

STAFFORD COUNTY, VA — Stafford County has approved another data-center campus while supervisors prepare to reconsider some of the county’s broader rules and policies governing the industry.

After a meeting that ran into October 8, supervisors approved Accokeek Center’s M-2 rezoning and a conditional-use permit for an electrical substation. The approvals concern a two-building campus totaling approximately 590,000 square feet on roughly 121 acres.

The timing raises an important question: What happens to projects already moving through the system while the county considers changing the rules?

The Board approved Accokeek Center 4–3

Accokeek Center is a proposed campus along Richmond Highway in the Falmouth District. The Board approved rezoning approximately 120.88 acres to M-2 Heavy Industrial and separately approved the substation permit.

The proposal includes approximately 590,000 square feet in two data center buildings, an electrical substation and a requested electrical load of approximately 122 megawatts. The Planning Commission had also recommended approval by 4–3 votes in August.

The project changed during review

An earlier version contemplated three buildings totaling approximately 690,000 square feet. The revised proposal removed a building, moved the substation farther into the property and incorporated additional buffering and tree preservation.

Stafford’s primary-building standard is 750 feet from specified property lines, including those adjoining residential uses or undeveloped residentially zoned property, and those across a public right-of-way from such property. It is not simply a measurement from a building to the nearest house. Separate standards address accessory facilities and vegetated buffers.

Potomac Local’s September 1 account of the August hearing reported requested primary-building setbacks of 550 feet along I-95 and several southern parcels, and 399 feet to one parcel proposed for a no-build covenant. Those figures describe requested parcel setbacks in that hearing record, not distances to occupied homes or confirmed final Board conditions.

The developer’s FAQ, checked October 3, says the nearest proposed data center building would be at least 660 feet from the closest existing residence. That is an applicant claim about building-to-home separation. It does not establish compliance with the 750-foot property-line rule.

The earlier 500-foot figure was a Planning Commission recommendation discussed by the applicant, not the Board’s adopted 750-foot standard. The final setback exhibit, requested modifications and accepted proffers must establish what the Board actually approves. A proffer is a commitment offered with a rezoning that becomes enforceable if accepted as part of approval.

A 122-megawatt question

The proposed substation does not, by itself, answer how the campus would receive its requested power. Residents and reviewers have raised questions about transmission alignment, Accokeek Creek and environmental protection areas.

Approval of a substation and confirmation of the infrastructure supplying it are different steps. The complete connection route remains an important document to watch.

What is confirmed about cooling water?

The developer’s current FAQ states that Accokeek would not use potable water for industrial cooling. September 1 reporting on the commission hearing described reuse-water or air cooling. These are proposed commitments; the final accepted proffers and utility approvals will determine the enforceable requirements.

Correction: The earlier version attributed specific daily, monthly and annual potable-water limits, filling-notice requirements and a 24-inch water-main requirement to Accokeek. Those provisions were not verified in Accokeek’s current documents and have been removed. Matching water-limit language appears in Stafford’s Blaisdell application record and cannot be assumed to apply here.

$6.4 million in proposed contributions

The developer has promoted approximately $6.4 million in contributions:

Reporting from the commission proceedings places payment before the first certificate of occupancy. The developer has also described flexibility for eligible county priorities. Final accepted proffers will govern the amounts, timing and permitted uses.

Projected tax revenue is not a constant number

Potomac Local’s September 1 report described county revenue projections reaching approximately $15.5 million around 2029, then settling near $13.5 million by 2035. The developer’s website, checked October 3, continues to advertise approximately $13.5 million annually at full operation.

Those are forecasts, not guaranteed receipts. Taxable equipment depreciation, replacements, investment, tax rates and the construction schedule can change the outcome. The developer currently projects 64 operational positions and more than 200 construction jobs. Accokeek is primarily a tax-base and infrastructure proposal rather than a large permanent-employment project.

Simms Farm remains a separate pending proposal

The October 7 agenda also included time-limit extension requests for several pending development applications, including Simms Farm. A time extension keeps an application active; it does not approve the campus or resolve the underlying land-use, noise or infrastructure questions. Save Stafford has not yet independently verified the final action on that combined extension item.

A study reported this week measured existing background noise near Simms Farm, George Washington Village and Forest Lane. Protect Stafford commissioned Noise Control Engineering to conduct the work. It is an advocacy-funded study, not a county study or a measurement of operating noise from those proposed campuses.

Its findings add evidence to the debate over whether numerical noise limits adequately address changes in quiet neighborhoods. Read our earlier examination of Simms Farm’s county review.

Stafford is simultaneously reconsidering the rules

Following the September 29 joint meeting with the Economic Development Authority, supervisors plan to revisit data center incentive eligibility and M-2 approval requirements on October 27, according to October 1 reporting by the Fredericksburg Free Press. Staff have also been asked to examine ending local nondisclosure agreements with developers. The same report quotes the county economic development director saying no data center developers had applied for the incentives being questioned; eligibility does not mean an award has been made.

The discussions are not adopted policy changes. Under the existing framework, data centers can be permitted by right on M-2 property, although a particular project may still need rezoning, permits for related facilities or other approvals.

On October 7, the Board rezoned Accokeek to M-2. Later in October it plans to discuss changing how data centers on M-2 land are approved. That sequence makes the treatment of pending and approved projects especially important.

What happens to projects already in the pipeline?

Would future requirements affect Accokeek after the Board’s approval? Would Simms Farm face new requirements while still under review? Could campuses operate under different generations of county rules?

Virginia’s vested-rights statute identifies certain approvals as significant governmental acts, but its general test also considers good-faith reliance and substantial expenses or obligations incurred in pursuing a specific project. An application filing date alone does not answer the question.

The outcome depends on the approvals, proffers, ordinance language, effective dates and applicable law. This article does not determine whether either project has vested rights. The county should explain how any proposed changes would affect each stage of the pipeline.

Another issue in the county records

Stafford County’s public permitting portal currently lists the Accokeek Center Comprehensive Plan Amendment application as “Incomplete.” The application seeks to change the future land-use designation from Mixed Use–Commercial/Residential to Business and Industry and covers approximately 120.88 acres.

That portal status should not be interpreted by itself as reversing or qualifying the Board’s October 7 rezoning and Conditional Use Permit votes. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment, rezoning and CUP are distinct land-use actions whose current procedural relationship should be determined from the adopted records.

See the data centers on the Save Stafford map

You can explore where these proposals sit in relation to your neighborhood using the Save Stafford interactive map.

1. Open the map and enter your Stafford County street address in Find an Address, or pan and zoom to the area you want to examine.
2. Keep the Data centers layer checked under Map Layers to display labeled project areas.
3. Click a data center area to see its name, then follow the project-details link for status, location and available records.
4. Use the residential development, existing right-of-way and proposed transmission corridor layers to examine the surrounding context.

Mapped boundaries may change. A project appearing on the map does not mean it has been approved, and proximity to an existing line does not confirm a future electrical connection. Check each project’s linked official records for the latest status.

Explore the Save Stafford map

The October 7 vote settled the land-use decision, not every question

The Board approved the 122-MW Accokeek proposal while noise research, incentive eligibility, M-2 approvals, nondisclosure agreements and transmission needs remain part of the wider debate.

None of those issues automatically decides whether an individual project should be approved or denied. Together, they raise a larger policy question: Should major projects continue through the existing approval process while Stafford reconsiders the rules governing them?

The October 7 decision shows that a majority was willing to approve Accokeek under the current framework while the broader policy review continues.

Save Stafford will continue reviewing the adopted Accokeek records, Simms Farm’s status, utility requirements, proffers and proposed policy changes as additional documents become available.