Gibson REZ #08-26

The applicant asked for a fast hearing schedule because the VEDP site grant “requires all grant-eligible property to be fully zoned (M1 industrial).”

The grant application describes a 300-acre site with 3.25 million sq ft. The rezoning covers 244.062 acres in three parcels, 87-A-16B, 87-3-B and 87-A-94, all owned by the Estate of Montie Wood Gibson, Jr.

On 9/2, the County’s economic development office wrote that the grant “need[s] to reflect the 250 acres being considered in the rezoning.” The developer replied: “the project is still 300 acres” and “the 300 number is correct for the narrative of our presentation.” The same email says the application materials were “adjusted to 250 acres,” so the version VEDP has now should be confirmed.

The extra land, parcel 87-3-A (the Funkhouser Farm, east of Rt 522), is outside the sewer and water service area and is planned to stay “rural.” A Comprehensive Plan amendment request for that parcel “did not receive consensus for further study.”

The 5/8 Bohler plan set rezoned 294.14 acres, including the 87-3-A farm parcel. That parcel was later dropped from the rezoning, but it is still in the state grant’s 300 acres.

Sources: Applicant response matrix (PC packet p. 54); VEDP grant application; Peterson–County EDA emails 9/1–9/2/26; staff letter 6/18/26 (p. 47); response matrix p. 51; proffers rev. 10/22/26; Bohler plan set 5/8/26

“The 300 number is correct for the narrative of our presentation.”

Developer’s email to the County EDA, Sept. 2026

New Proffer 5.3 (10/22) reads: “of the uses which are not authorized in the Light Industrial (M1) zoning district, the Property will not be developed for a data center.” That bans a data center only while M1 zoning does not allow one.

The County recently removed data centers as an allowed M1 use, so today the proffer adds nothing beyond the ordinance. If a future Board allows them in M1 again, the proffer no longer stops one. The staff report’s table lists “data centers” as an excluded use, which overstates the actual text.

The Planning Commission raised “concern for a data center in the future at this location if not proffered as a restricted use” at its 9/16 work session. Before 5.3 was added, staff noted the revised proffers added no use restrictions, which “was a significant concern raised by the Planning Commission.”

There is no square-footage cap. The traffic study tested 2.6 million sq ft, but the plan sheet lists the allowed maximum as 12,812,738 sq ft, almost 5 times what was studied. (That figure equals floor area ratio 1.0 on the old 294-acre size; on 244 acres it would be about 10.6 million.)

Staff recommended that “uses that generate higher traffic than what has been contemplated in the TIA should be further considered for exclusion.”

Sources: Proffers rev. 10/22/26, §5.3 (Board packet p. 24); Staff Report 10/23/26 (p. 7); Staff Report 9/30/26, pp. 6, 10, 12; GDP site data table

The applicant’s Impact Analysis Statement estimates 60,000–125,000 gal/day of water and 50,000–125,000 gal/day of sewer.

Frederick Water says the existing force main “was not sized to accommodate development of the subject properties.” Its later estimate: about 60,048 gal/day of sewer capacity remains. The grant application lists 45,000 gal/day of sewer capacity available.

So even the applicant’s high-end sewer number is about twice what is left. New Proffer 3.1 (10/22) says the applicant will install water and sewer improvements “triggered by specific needs and uses” of the development, but does not say what they are or when. Staff still lists Frederick Water’s comments as “Not fully addressed.”

VEDP asked the County what it would take to supply 500,000 gal/day or 1 million gal/day. Frederick Water answered for “the volume of sewer you desire (500,000–1MGD)”: a new pump station and a second force main, “a $13M undertaking.”

The developer’s cost estimate sent to VEDP includes a $50 million substation allowance.

The applicant told the County it had “attached” a Bohler Engineering report on water and sewer demand. A FOIA request for it got this answer: “we never received the report from Bohler Engineering.”

Sources: Impact Analysis Statement 8/21/26 (PC packet p. 32); Frederick Water letter 6/12/26 (p. 39); County EDA email 9/11/26; VEDP email 9/3/26; VEDP grant application; response matrix p. 55; FOIA #26-1453 response 10/1/26; Proffer 3.1 (rev. 10/22/26); Staff Report 10/23/26

“We never received the report from Bohler Engineering.”

County response to FOIA #26-1453, Oct. 1, 2026

The Rt 522 / Rt 277 / Rt 340 intersection is projected at LOS F in 2035. Delay goes from 109 s (AM) / 161 s (PM) without the project to 147 s / 190 s with it. Even with the proposed turn lanes, the PM peak still has about 94 seconds of delay.

Proffer 2.8 (10/22) builds the turn lanes only “provided there exists sufficient right-of-way.” VDOT says the existing right-of-way “may not accommodate” them.

The 10/22 version builds them only “when warranted and requested by VDOT.” The 1.5 million sq ft backstop is gone. If the right-of-way falls short, the applicant installs only what fits and what VDOT and the County direct. Staff says this may “leave others (VDOT or the County) responsible for such improvements, which are not currently planned, designed, or funded.” New Proffer 2.5 promises right-of-way only for improvements required for the site entrances.

Proffer 2.9 (10/22) requires the entrance signal study before the first building, an improvement over 2 million sq ft. But it only builds what that study finds “required,” and staff asked for the study before the public hearing.

The traffic study’s recommended fix at Warrior Drive (flashing yellow arrow) is not in the proffers. The I-81 Exit 307 memo relies on a planned interchange reconstruction “projected to cost approximately $62.5 M.” The memo does not show that it is funded.

Clarke County reserved the right to comment on transportation impacts after seeing VDOT’s review.

Sources: VDOT letters 6/10, 8/7, 8/26 and 9/30/26 (PC packet pp. 35–38); staff letter 6/18/26; Proffers rev. 10/22/26, §2.5, 2.8–2.9; VDOT email 10/20/26; Staff Report 10/23/26, p. 2; Staff Report pp. 7–10; Exit 307 memo 5/8/26; Clarke County letter 6/12/26 (p. 44)

The public hearing packet contains proffers dated 9/21. The staff report reviews proffers “Revised September 29, 2026.” VDOT reviewed a version “dated 9-26-2026.”

A new revision dated 10/7, the day of the Planning Commission hearing, changed the turn-lane and signal language and added a building-orientation proffer. The redline’s signature blocks are blank.

A 5th version dated 10/22 is in the Board packet, written after the Planning Commission voted 11-2 to recommend denial. But the draft ordinance in the same packet adopts the rezoning “with proffers dated October 7, 2026.”

Sources: PC packet p. 23; Staff Report p. 7; VDOT email 9/30/26; Board packet proffers 10/22/26 and draft ordinance (p. 83); Proffer redline dated 10/7/26

The Impact Analysis Statement says: “There are no historic structures or resources located on the Property.”

The grant application reports that the Department of Historic Resources noted the Funkhouser Farm (VDHR 034-0444) as “potentially eligible” for the National Register. That farm is on parcel 87-3-A, which is in the grant but not the rezoning.

The Historic Resources Advisory Board recommended a Battle of Double Tollgate marker on the property, plus a Phase 2 archaeological survey if warranted. Proffer 1.7 puts the marker on a Clarke County lot instead, and it lapses if that owner says no.

The grant application says the Phase I cultural survey did not include shovel tests.

Sources: Impact Analysis Statement 8/21/26; VEDP grant application §5; HRAB letter 8/24/26 (PC packet p. 45); Proffer 1.7 (rev. 10/22/26)

Overhead power lines may be relocated “and may remain overhead” (1.4). Staff calls this “atypical”; the Subdivision Ordinance requires underground utilities.

Building fronts must face Rt 277 and Rt 522 within 250 ft (1.6), but the proffer expressly allows openings for trucks “to access or drive through the buildings.”

No larger setbacks, only a 45-ft height limit within 100 ft of Rt 277 and Rt 522 (1.5). No land-bay phasing, though the Commission asked the applicant to evaluate it. New Proffer 1.8 (10/22) limits buildings in Land Bay A to 35 ft (single-story) or 45 ft (multistory) and an 80,000 sq ft footprint each. That helps, but it covers only that land bay, and berms there along Rt 277 may be 6 ft instead of 8 ft.

Elsewhere, the plan sheet allows buildings up to “100' maximum with waiver” (60 ft by right). That line is still on the current plan in the Board packet (p. 36). Only buildings within 100 ft of the roads are held to 45 ft.

The collector road right-of-way is only reserved, and the reservation expires if the Comprehensive Plan drops the road (2.10).

The only cash proffer is $0.10/sq ft for fire & rescue, about $260,000 at 2.6 million sq ft. The Impact Analysis Statement claims a “positive net fiscal impact,” but no fiscal impact study was provided.

Sources: Proffers rev. 10/22/26; Staff Report pp. 6–8, 10–12; Impact Analysis Statement p. 3

No geotechnical report. No threatened and endangered species survey. The Phase I cultural survey had no shovel tests.

The grant timeline assumed the rezoning would be complete by 10/1/2026.

Frederick Water records released under FOIA also note “trace amounts of arsenic found on the property.”

Sources: VEDP grant application, timeline and §5 (Environmental Readiness); Frederick Water records released under FOIA