Three recently enacted rezoning ordinances permitting large-scale data center development in a rural area previously zoned for agriculture have been declared void after a legal challenge from local landowners. The dispute centers on whether the Board of County Supervisors of Prince William County followed required public advertising procedures before approving the rezonings, which would have allowed construction of up to 37 data centers operating continuously on hundreds of acres.
The complaint was filed by Oak Valley Homeowners Association and other landowners in the Circuit Court of Prince William County against the Board of County Supervisors and several developers, including H&H Capital Acquisitions, GW Acquisition Co., and GW Acquisition Co. I. The opinion was issued by Judge Stuart A. Raphael on March 31, 2026, following appeals consolidated under Record Nos. 1584-25-4, 1590-25-4, and 1592-25-4.
According to court documents, the landowners argued that three separate rezoning ordinances—referred to as Compass, Digital Gateway North (DG North), and Digital Gateway South (DG South)—were invalid because the county failed to comply with state law and local ordinance requirements for public notice prior to their adoption in December 2023. Specifically, they cited violations of Code § 15.2-2204(A) and Prince William County Zoning Ordinance § 32-700.60 regarding how and when advertisements for public hearings must be published.
The record shows that while the Board intended to run its first advertisement on November 28, 2023—14 days before the scheduled hearing—the ad did not appear as planned due to a failure by the Board’s clerk to confirm publication with The Washington Post newspaper. Despite this issue, the Board proceeded with additional ads on December 2, December 5, and December 9. However, Judge Kimberly A. Irving found at trial that these ads did not satisfy statutory timing or content requirements: notably, copies of proposed ordinances were not available for public review until December 7—after two ads had already run—and there was insufficient time between publications as required by law.
At a lengthy five-day bench trial for Oak Valley plaintiffs in June 2025, evidence was presented showing that several plaintiffs lived within close proximity—some within just hundreds of feet—to one or more of the affected parcels. They testified about concerns such as increased noise levels from both construction and operation of data centers (including around-the-clock generator use), light pollution affecting wildlife and property enjoyment, potential impacts on water systems from runoff or construction activity, visual impacts including loss of rural viewsheds, reduced property values due to proximity to industrial facilities, and increased traffic volume during years-long building phases.
Judge Irving concluded that at least eight plaintiffs demonstrated both proximity and particularized harm sufficient for standing under Virginia law: “ten of the twelve Plaintiffs … provided credible testimony showing a substantial risk that they were not only located close to the rezonings but faced a substantial risk of particularized harm as well.” The court found these injuries—including noise disruption affecting home life or animal husbandry—were different in kind from those experienced by members of the general public.
The developers argued unsuccessfully that mitigation measures such as noise caps would address these concerns; however, evidence showed those limits did not apply during construction periods or generator testing events likely to produce significant disturbance.
On appeal from an earlier related case brought by ten other landowners (the Burke plaintiffs), Judge Tracy C. Hudson had initially dismissed similar claims after finding that actual notice among some plaintiffs excused any advertising deficiencies under Code § 15.2-2204(B). However, Judge Raphael’s appellate opinion reversed this view in part: “we hold that Judge Hudson erred in sustaining the Board’s demurrer to the landowners’ claims … which raised the same advertising deficiencies on which we affirm judgment invalidating the rezoning ordinances.”
Ultimately, Judge Raphael affirmed Judge Irving’s findings that one or more Oak Valley plaintiffs had standing for each rezoning action challenged; further holding that procedural failures—including improper advertisement scheduling and lack of timely access to proposed ordinance texts—rendered all three rezonings void ab initio under Virginia law.
As relief sought through their lawsuits filed within thirty days after approval votes in December 2023—as required by statute—the Oak Valley plaintiffs requested judicial declaration invalidating all three rezoning ordinances based on procedural defects rather than substantive merits regarding development plans themselves.
Attorneys representing parties included Andrew R. McRoberts (with Maxwell Hlavin et al.) for Prince William County; Robert W. Loftin (with John J. Woolard et al.) for GW Acquisition entities; Matthew A. Westover (with John H. Foote et al.) for H&H Capital Acquisitions; Craig J. Blakeley for appellees; J. Chapman Petersen (with Christopher T. Robertson) for appellants in Burke; along with various amici curiae supporting both sides from real estate associations and environmental groups.
Judges named explicitly include Kimberly A. Irving (trial judge in Oak Valley litigation) and Tracy C. Hudson (who ruled at trial level in Burke). The consolidated appeals are docketed under Record Nos. 1584-25-4, 1590-25-4, and 1592-25-4.
