Gibson Property (REZ #08-26):
What Frederick County Residents Need to Know
A 244-acre farm rezoning to industrial (M1), bought by Peterson Companies with a state grant pending. Stated uses: defense tech, advanced manufacturing and logistics, and food and pharmaceutical manufacturing. The record shows a site built for very large power. The site was first pitched as a hyperscale data center campus, with data centers never ruled out. The Board of Supervisors decides on the outcome October 28.
There is nothing in the application itself that directly states a data center plan for Gibson. However, the land was first marketed as a data center campus, it is being engineered with data-center-scale power, the use was never ruled out in the proffers, and the county's September 23 removal of data centers can be reversed or worked around. Only a proffer that removes data centers as a use would close the door.
The Planning Commission voted 11 to 2 on October 7 to recommend denial. The Board of Supervisors will cast the final vote on October 28, the same night Virginia Technology Park and Winchester Gateway come before it.
- Applicant: Real Estate Pursuits LC, the contract purchaser, buying from the Estate of Montie Wood Gibson, Jr. Its disclosed owners are five Peterson family trusts, and its listed contact is Peterson's Clark Tutwiler. Attorney Ty Lawson; engineer Bohler, who is also the engineer on the Virginia Technology Park data center campus.
- Stated uses: the Impact Analysis Statement lists “Warehousing/Distribution Facility/Industrial Park.” The pitch speaks of “advanced manufacturing, logistics, and distribution,” and “defense tech” was the focus of the October 7 presentation. No data center use in the application itself is mentioned.
- However, the proffers exclude only jails and fast food, not data centers. The “Limited Uses” section (Proffer 4, revised through October 7) rules out “regional criminal justice, enforcement, and detention facilities” and drive-through restaurants, but nothing else. Proffer 1.4 lets the existing overhead power lines “be relocated and… remain overhead,” which county staff flagged as fitting “high-energy use facilities.”
- The original rezoning was larger, as the draft application covered 294.14 acres, including the roughly 50-acre Funkhouser farm (87-3-A). That parcel sits outside the sewer and water service area, and a CPPA request to plan it for development did not get consensus, so the applicant dropped it. However, the ~300-acre grant site still includes it, and it is likely where the gas connection is.
- Additionally, it should be noted that the grant application assumed “Rezoning Complete 10/01/2026,” and awards come “before the end of October.”
- January 28, 2025: Patrick Barker, former EDA director, pitched the land as a potential “hyperscale data center campus” with a “100+ MW” gas power plant, to Adam Cook, who replied that he had “a meeting on this today.” Adam Cook is Peterson's Managing Director of Development in the September 2026 emails.
- Power far beyond a warehouse park: a $50M substation, 1,200 MSCFH of gas, and power generation allowed by right in M1.
- Water: the application tells the county to expect 60,000 to 125,000 gallons per day. VEDP asked “what would it take” to reach 500,000 gallons to 1 million gallons per day: four to sixteen times more, the range of a very water-hungry user. Why that question was asked was not stated.
- Overlapping roles: Deputy Administrator Wyatt Pearson helped coordinate Peterson's grant pitch, then told the Planning Commission the grant and the rezoning are “completely independent.”
- Private access: Mr. Lawson said the applicant met commissioners “one on one.” We don't know who.
- Repeatable pattern: Peterson ran the same play at Valley Innovation Park: a $7.23M state grant through the EDA, then a $38M land sale.
- On uses: “The proffer statement does not contemplate allowed or prohibited uses.” Staff advised that “uses that might be noxious, unsafe, or disruptive” should be considered for exclusion, and that the uses to be developed “or uses to be prohibited, should be carefully selected.” The final proffers exclude two.
- On traffic: the applicant's traffic study found that key regional intersections “continue to fail” with the development, yet “no improvements are proposed.” Staff called this “grossly inadequate.”
- On the neighbors: staff noted the Lake Frederick Urban Development Area is immediately to the south, the rural areas of Clarke County adjoin the site, and enhanced buffering, lower building heights, and larger setbacks “may be appropriate.”
- Peterson's Clark Tutwiler is the contact person on the rezoning application and the grant's secondary contact. He also happens to sit on the executive committee of the industry group whose data center bus tour hosted Supervisors Aikens and Liero in October 2025. Peterson Companies was a tour sponsor. Supervisor Liero represents the Shawnee District, where the Gibson property sits.
- Planning Commission Chair Tim Stowe said in September that not proffering out data centers was “a big problem,” then on October 7 voted in favor of the application with no such proffer.
Again, there is nothing in the application itself that states a data center plan for Gibson, but the land was first marketed as one, and it is being built with data-center-scale power. The use was never ruled out.
The county's September 23 amendment deletes data centers from the ordinance rather than prohibiting them. A future Board can add the use back, and in the meantime an unlisted use is decided by the Zoning Administrator under §165-602.01, without a public hearing.
Only a proffer would close the door on data centers for good. If the Board approves REZ #08-26, it should require one that excludes data centers by name.
The Board of Supervisors votes on October 28. The property is in the Shawnee District (Robert Liero), but all seven supervisors vote on rezoning applications.
Your Board of Supervisors
All seven supervisors vote on this rezoning. The property is in the Shawnee District, represented by Robert Liero.