VA Appeals Court Tosses Prince William County Data Center Rezonings

PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, VA — A Virginia appeals court on Tuesday invalidated three controversial rezoning ordinances in Prince William County, effectively halting the development of a massive data center corridor known as the "Digital Gateway".

The Court of Appeals of Virginia ruled that the Prince William Board of Supervisors failed to follow strict state and local advertising requirements before the December 2023 public hearing where the projects were approved. The 53-page decision renders the ordinances "void ab initio," meaning they are legally void from the beginning.

The legal battle began after the Board approved three separate rezonings — Compass, Digital Gateway North, and Digital Gateway South — to transform thousands of acres of rural land into an industrial hub. The projects collectively proposed nearly 23 million square feet of data center space, with building heights reaching up to 85 feet in some areas

Two groups of local landowners, the Burke and Oak Valley plaintiffs, sued the county. They argued the Board rushed the approval process and failed to provide the public with proper notice or access to the proposed plans.

According to court documents, the county's problems began when a clerk failed to confirm a publication request with The Washington Post by a required deadline. Consequently, the first mandatory advertisement did not run on schedule.

While the county attempted to "scramble" by running three alternative ads, the court found several legal deficiencies:

• Lack of Public Access: The proposed ordinances and amendments were not available for public review in the clerk's office until Dec. 7, 2023 — after the first two advertisements had already run.
• Timing Violations: The ads failed to meet the "six-days-in-between" requirement set by state law and the "not-less-than-five-days-after" requirement established by the county’s own zoning ordinance.

Judge Stuart A. Raphael, writing for the three-judge panel, rejected the county's argument that "actual notice"— the fact that many residents knew about the meeting and attended it — excused the technical advertising errors.

"A public body must advertise proposed zoning ordinances in compliance with Code § 15.2-2204(A) and with any non-conflicting advertising requirements self-imposed by ordinance," Raphael wrote.

Also See ...

• Data Center's Bank Tenant Leaves Manassas With Lower Than Expected Revenue
• Couple Sees Taxes Soar $35K While Trapped By Lawsuits Over NoVA Data Center

The court also affirmed that the neighboring landowners had standing to sue because they faced "particularized harm," including increased noise, light pollution, and a potential decrease in property values.

The ruling is a significant victory for environmental groups and residents who spent years fighting the industrialization of the county's "Rural Crescent". However, the court maintained a partial stay on the judgment, meaning the decision's full effect is paused — except for a ban on land-disturbing activities — while the Board and developers decide whether to appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia.

While both the Burke and Oak Valley cases challenged the same three data center rezoning ordinances based on identical advertising defects, they followed different procedural paths through the Prince William County Circuit Court before being consolidated on appeal.

Trial Court Stage: Demurrer vs. Bench Trial

The primary difference lies in how the two circuit court judges resolved the "safe-harbor" defense, which excuses advertising errors if a newspaper is at fault for failing to publish a timely request.

• The Burke Case (Record No. 2025-24-4):
  • Resolution: Decided at the demurrer stage.
  • Judicial Finding: Judge Tracy C. Hudson ruled as a matter of law — based strictly on the administrative record — that the Board was entitled to the safe-harbor protection because it had submitted a timely request to The Washington Post.
  • Outcome: The petition was dismissed with prejudice without reaching a trial.
• The Oak Valley Case (Record Nos. 1584-25-4, 1590-25-4, 1592-25-4):
  • Resolution: Decided following a five-day bench trial.
  • Judicial Finding: Judge Kimberly A. Irving found that the administrative record alone was inconclusive regarding who was at fault for the advertising failure. After hearing testimony, she found as a fact that the County Clerk was at fault for failing to confirm the ad, meaning the safe-harbor provision did not apply.
  • Outcome: The judge invalidated all three ordinances as void ab initio.