Data centers; sitings near parks, schools, and residential areas.
Summary
HB1984 would restrict where local governments may approve land-use applications for new data centers in Virginia. Under the bill, a data center site could only be approved if it is at least one-quarter mile away from federal, state, or local parks, schools, and property zoned or used for residential purposes. The bill applies broadly to local land-use approvals and is written to override any conflicting general or special law.
The measure is aimed at limiting data center siting near sensitive community uses, effectively creating a statewide setback requirement for these facilities. It would add a new section to Title 15.2 of the Code of Virginia governing local land use and planning, and it references the existing statutory definition of data center for tax and classification purposes.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would impose a uniform statewide siting restriction on data centers and constrain local governments’ discretion in approving such projects. It would amend the land-use provisions of Title 15.2 by adding a new section that requires a minimum one-quarter-mile buffer from parks, schools, and residentially used or zoned property. The practical effect would be to make some parcels ineligible for data center development and to give nearby communities stronger protection from data center proximity.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill faced little support in subcommittee, with an 8-0 recommendation to lay it on the table. No committee transcript is available, so there is no recorded debate to indicate broader arguments for or against the measure. The vote outcome, however, points to a generally unfavorable reception at the early committee stage.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the balance between local economic development and land-use flexibility on one side, and community impacts on the other. Supporters would be expected to emphasize noise, traffic, visual impacts, and compatibility concerns for parks, schools, and neighborhoods, while opponents would likely argue that the bill is overly restrictive, could limit investment, and interferes with local planning authority. Because the bill establishes a mandatory setback and overrides other laws, it may also be viewed as a significant state-level constraint on local siting decisions.