Judge hears arguments in lawsuit seeking to halt Amazon data center in Warrenton

After more than three years, a lawsuit that has delayed a potential Amazon data center on Blackwell Road in Warrenton took a step toward a conclusion Monday as both sides presented oral arguments. The lawsuit, filed in Fauquier County Circuit Court on March 17, 2023, by Citizens for Fauquier County and 10 individual plaintiffs, seeks to overturn the Warrenton Town Council’s February 2023 approval of an Amazon data center at the town's eastern gateway. Plaintiffs allege the special-use permit for the center’s development was issued improperly. The Warrenton Town Council was initially the only defendant, but Amazon Data Services petitioned the court in April 2023 to join as a party. They argued they had a vested interest in the suit. On Monday, legal representatives from the involved parties presented oral arguments to Judge Stephen Sincavage, focusing on the validity of the special use permit and the future of the proposed data center. Sincavage, though, did not deliver a decision Monday, nor did he give any timeline for when one might come. Both sides will have to wait at least a little bit longer before the data center's fate is decided. The plaintiffs’ argument The case for Citizens for Fauquier County and the other plaintiffs centers on the charge that a zoning amendment the Warrenton Town Council made in April 2021 to allow data centers was improper. They argue the change should be voided and any permits based on that amendment—such as the one for Amazon’s data center—should go down with it. Dale Mullen, the attorney for Citizens for Fauquier County, argued the amendment is void ab initio – Latin for “void from the beginning” – because the town failed to identify the amendment's purpose in its initiating resolution. Under Virginia statute, changes can be made when “public necessity, convenience, general welfare, or good zoning practice requires.” “Reliance on a void act is reliance on nothing,” Mullen said in his opening argument. Amazon’s argument Amazon, through attorney Matt Westover, took issue with several aspects of the plaintiffs’ case. For one, they made the argument that the zoning amendment was valid, claiming both that the initiating resolution does not have to parrot statute and that Warrenton is beholden to its own zoning ordinance, which does not require the statement of purpose. “The zoning ordinance controls,” Westover said. Timeliness was also a critical part of Amazon’s argument, with Westover contending there is a 30-day time frame to which any potential challenges to the zoning amendment were confined. The plaintiffs’ challenge did not come during that 30-day period but rather years later – and after a lengthy public process during which the special use permit for Amazon was discussed at nine public hearings. Mullen argued that void ab initio claims are excepted from that 30-day window – but to the notion that a zoning ordinance could be challenged as void at any time after its passing, Westover said, “that has never been the law in Virginia.” Westover went on to paint a picture of a Virginia where zoning decisions could be challenged at any time, posing a hypothetical to Sincavage in which the judge would have to leave his own home due to such a challenge. If you can challenge zoning decisions at any time after their inception, Westover warned, it would create “chaotic conditions beyond all comprehension.” The town’s stance One wrinkle in the case is the position of the town of Warrenton itself. Despite the fact the town was originally a defendant in the lawsuit, Town Attorney Philip Carter Strother spoke in favor of many of the plaintiffs’ arguments Monday. Strother, in his time in front of Judge Sincavage, said the town’s position was “limited.” He argued the void ab initio challenge is “legally cognizant” and the 30-day review period asserted by Amazon is not applicable. He also made the case that the town’s acceptance of the facts of the case has not changed, but rather its “legal assessment” has shifted. Strother, who has served as the town’s attorney since early 2026 and was not in the position when the permit was issued or the plaintiffs’ suit filed, said Warrenton no longer shares Amazon’s “litigation alignment.” Of note is the fact the Town Council’s posture on data centers has changed considerably since the Amazon decision. In July 2025, it amended the town’s zoning ordinance to remove data centers as a permissible use in industrial zoning districts. That amendment did not reverse the February 2023 Amazon permit decision, but it did make any future approvals more difficult. The vested rights question Beyond questioning the plaintiffs’ argument, Westover argued that even if Judge Sincavage were to deem the zoning amendment void, the court has “broad discretion” when it comes to determining a remedy. He asked the court to consider the significant investment Amazon has sunk into the property. But Mullen said this consideration would apply if Amazon had vested rights – an absolute legal entitlement – in the property, which he said they do not. Mullen argued that because Amazon did not wait for the special use permit, which would have served as that entitlement, to buy the property, they have no vested rights. Mullen also claimed that Amazon is trying to reserve the vested rights argument for another case involving the Board of Zoning Appeals. The timeline At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Sincavage told the parties – and the relatively large crowd gathered in the gallery – that he could not provide any specific date by which he would have his ruling. He mentioned the considerable amount of work and research he needed to do on the two sides’ arguments. After the hearing Patricia Ewing, who is on the Board of Directors of Citizens for Fauquier County, told FauquierNow that she felt good about how it went.