Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everybody. The May 26, 2026 Loudoun County Planning Commission public hearing will now come to order. As is our custom, let us stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Members of the public who wish to comment on any item on the public hearing legislative agenda may do so. If you are in the boardroom, please fill out a speaker slip and hand it to the Assistant Deputy Clerk of the Planning Commission at the end of the dais to my left. If you are participating electronically, please call the number at the bottom of the screen. Indicate your name and the agenda item you wish to address. Each speaker, whether speaking on behalf of an organization or as an individual will have three minutes. written comments may be submitted to the assistant deputy clerk who will make copies for the planning commission members the commission may vote on applications tonight and send its recommendation to the board of supervisors or may forward the item to a work session for further consideration before taking a final vote vote our procedures for tonight's public hearing is as follows 10-minute staff presentation followed by commissioners questions to staff commissioners will be given three minutes to ask questions 10-minute applicant presentation commissioners will be given three minutes to ask questions of the applicant hearing is then open to the for public comment three minutes for each speaker After everyone has had a chance to speak the hearing is closed The applicant and staff will have an opportunity to provide any responses to public comment Finally there will be a motion deliberation and vote by the Commission the maker of the motion will have three minutes for opening and closing remarks Commissioners will be given three minutes to speak on the motion All right, next up, we have the minutes for the April 28th, 2026 public hearing. If commissioners have had a chance to review them, I'll accept a motion.

I make a motion to approve the minutes from that last meeting.

Motion to approve, made by Vice Chair Maduretti. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Commissioner Combs. Any discussion on the motion? Those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Those opposed? Aye. It's seen. Okay, so that motion will carry Michelle you there for yes on the minutes. I am an eye the motion that will pass 801 Commissioner Banks abstaining from the vote Next up disclosures. I will start to my right. If you have any disclosures, please turn on your light Mr. Jasper

Chair Kearse, today I met with the team from BF Saul and their representatives at Curata Partners concerning the Dulles Technology Park ZMAC.

Okay, Commissioner Combs.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Similarly, I had a video conference today with the applicant and representatives of the applicant for the tech park at Dallas Tech Park.

Dallas Technology Park.

Yeah.

That one. Thank you.

Okay.

Commissioner Miller.

Same for me. Just on May 20th, with Bill Agenda, Ben Wales and the group from Saul Centers, BF Saul, about Dulles Technology Park. Vice Chair Modere.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. On May 20th, I've met with the South Riding Intergenerational Community, John McGrath and the applicant team. On May 21st, I met with Ben Wells from Curata Partners regarding the Dulles Technology Park. Thank you.

Okay. Commissioner Banks. Today, I met with or spoke by phone with Colleen Gillis regarding the technology part. Technology, Dulles Technology Park. Commissioner Myers.

On May 18th, I met with Packy Crown and the applicants in regards to the south riding intergenerational application. And then on May 21st, I met with Bill, Ben Wales, and Colleen Gillis and their team in regards to the Dulles Technology Park.

Okay. For myself, on May 25th, I had a meeting with the Dominion team regarding the Golden substation application tonight. all right we have four items on the public hearing agenda one a fifth item has been deferred which is allegedly 2025-35 loudon county adult detention center expansion phase three so if anybody was here to speak to that item we will not be hearing it tonight however if you had prepared comments you can you can drop those off and we'll be hearing that that application at a later date So the first item is LEGI 2023-115, joint LCPS, Loudoun County Public Schools, County of Loudoun, Central Loudoun Service Center and Storage, special exception 2024-6, special exception 2024-7.

Good evening, Commissioners. While Brianna was pulling that up, I want to introduce her, Brianna Smith. She is one of the new planners joining us from Rochester, New York since July, and this will be her first presentation, first of many presentation in front of this Commission. Welcome.

Thank you. As Wah just mentioned, I'm Brianna Smith with the Department of Planning and Zoning, and I'm here to present the application for joint LCPS-COL Central Loudoun Service Center and Storage. The subject property is a 13-acre portion of the Loudoun County Government Support Center and is located east of Sickle and Road, north of Cross Trail Boulevard, and west of Kincaid Boulevard in the Leesburg Election District. The property is split zone joint land management area 20 in planned development special activity. The property is located within the Leesburg JLMA policy area and in the Leesburg JLMA employment police type. The applicant is requesting a special exception to permit a public service center with outdoor storage with modifications to the perimeter buffering and screening requirements between the proposed use and the residential subdivision to the north. The application also proposes a 3,000 square foot expansion to an existing small engine repair shop and a minor specs to modify the type C buffer landscape requirements for the proposed outdoor storage use by utilizing existing vegetation in lieu of additional plantings and using the building facades in lieu of installing a six foot fence wall or berm. The purpose of this application is to provide a central location to accommodate the grounds maintenance and inclement weather operations for Loudoun County Public Schools. On this slide is the annotated specs plat showing the proposed site layout of the public service center. As you can see there is one existing pole bar style structure depicted in orange and there are several structures proposed for development that are shown in pink including the 3,000 square foot addition to the engine repair facility and multiple equipment storage facilities. Located west of the site in blue is the proposed material storage facility which will contain road treatment supplies such as salt, sand, and stone dust. The area shown in dark gray depict the locations of the outdoor storage yards proposed with this application. On this slide is a rendering of the proposed public service center depicting the proposed storage enclosure facilities and existing onsite shipping containers. The Leesburg JLMA employment place type anticipates 100% non-residential uses consisting of various light and general industrial uses such as flex space, warehousing, and light production. Public facilities and institutional development types are considered conditional uses in this place type. Specifically, this place type anticipates non-residential development up to 1.0 floor area ratio and envisions that sites housing industrial and employment uses will generally contain detached one- to two-story structures. This application proposes several low-rise metal storage enclosure buildings that will store various treatment supplies such as road salt, sand, and stone dust, in addition to lawn maintenance and snow removal equipment and vehicles. Given the similarity in operational character to uses anticipated in this place type, staff finds the proposal consistent with the uses envisioned in the JLMA employment place type. In the staff report, staff identified two outstanding issues related to delineation of the specs limits and stormwater mitigation measures. On May 21st, the applicant submitted a meets and bounds description of the project site as requested by staff. Staff has reviewed the document and confirmed that it meets the requirements. Therefore, this issue has been resolved. Stormwater mitigation remains an outstanding issue. The 2019 general plan policy supports stormwater mitigation measures that aim to address impacts on water quality and quantity. This application proposes to expand the existing on-site dry pond to support the proposed use, effectively mitigating stormwater quantity concerns. Consistent with the general plan, staff recommends a condition that addresses both water quality and quantity and continues to work with the applicant to finalize condition language. Staff has also recommended conditions related to buffering and screening and tree conservation. At the PC briefing, questions were raised relating to containment of the treatment supplies and maintenance of the tree stand areas to the north and east of the project site. Treatment materials will be stored on a concrete or asphalt pad within a three-walled 20,000 square foot utility building. Salt will drain from the containment facility to designated inlets and from there be conveyed into underground storage tanks. The tree stand areas to the north and east between the proposed specs use and the new government center have been designated as protected open space through existing restrictive covenants. On this slide is a map depicting the locations of the proposed specs use outlined in yellow, the new government center outlined in red, and the dedicated preservation areas in green. This visual illustrates the 430 foot preservation area buffer between the proposed specs use and the residential subdivision to the north. And on this slide is a site plan depicting the layout of the new government center, which will be located east of the project site. Staff could support approval of the application. As conditioned, the proposal aligns with the policies of the 2019 General Plan. Staff is available to answer any questions.

All right. Thank you. Questions for staff? Commissioner Barnes.

Yes. Did you hear anything from the applicant about the concerns that you have so far?

Yes. Yes, we're working with them.

Have they resolved any of those?

Yeah, they resolved the specs delineation issue, and then we're still working with them, collaborating with them to kind of finalize the conditions, the condition language.

So it's going to be done?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Nobody else? A quick question. What is the distance from the back of the building to the property line at the northern end as you go towards the neighborhood back there?

Um, that distance ranges is between four and 500 feet.

Four to five. And that's four to 500 feet of on Loudoun County side or to the, to the north. Yeah. So, okay. So the property line is, is four to 500 feet.

Yes. So that buffer area is four to 500 feet, but property line, it's more than that. Okay. Yeah.

Okay.

All right. Um, that's all I have. Does the applicant, yes, the applicant have a presentation. Yep. All right.

It's mine. Sorry.

That's embarrassing, excuse me.

We'll find out. I didn't do anything, no. Thank you Good evening commissioners. My name is Jefferson Miller. I'm a planner with LCPS with me this evening is mr. Christopher Myers He's our civil engineering consultant on the project works for urban for the record I want to say the affidavits for notice and posting have been provided this evening To begin with I just want to talk about the project overview the special exception request is for the zoning zoning wording of public service center and outdoor storage. Technically, we're asking for what we're calling an inclement weather facility and an expansion to existing outdoor storage. It's critical to the maintenance and operations of LCPS facilities. There are two existing smaller locations in the county, one at Harmony Middle School out west and one at Lightridge High School down south. So this would be the only central location and allow for better use and efficiency during inclement weather events. Excuse me.

This thing is sensitive.

Marshawn, I'm going back and it's going forward.

Oh my gosh. All right. Thank you. It's okay.

This location is proposed to be what's called the Government Support Center. It's a 645-acre site. North of Cross Trail Boulevard is the industrial portion of this site. It houses many county government uses, as well as the LCPS Central Garage, which is the long building just south of the project area. So to give everyone an orientation on where we are today, the yellow area exists. It's an LCPS outdoor storage and pole barn. To the right side, north right of the slide, is an existing county vehicle lot operated by Department of General Services. LCPS has been coordinating with General Services to relocate that. To date, we've permitted, designed, and are beginning construction of a new location on the same government support center site to relocate that. The area highlighted in red is the area for the new inclement weather facility. As Brianna mentioned, it's about 20,000 square feet. That's the only portion of the project that will house salt, sand, and materials for inclement weather. The existing pole barn and the proposed pole barns will not have salt, sand, and other materials for inclement weather. Those are for vehicles and equipment to support not only LCPS every day, but during an inclement weather event. So this is another rendering of the proposed site. The two things I want to draw your attention to are in the middle in the south of the slide is the loader garage. LCPS will have a front end loader to load dump trucks in an incumbent weather facility as well as the county that is either operated by DGS or PRCS staff or their consultants. To the right of that and a little bit north is the proposed outdoor storage that will be part of an expansion to the existing LCPS transportation garage. This rendering you've already seen. I just want to highlight the recycle and trash dumpsters and the shipping containers. Some shipping containers and recycling dumpsters already exist on site. Essentially, staff will order them in bulk. New ones will arrive. And as old ones either are beyond disrepair or need to be shipped out, they're replaced. The dumpsters specifically aren't things that are filled with trash or recycle and then dumped on site. This is just brand new stuff that's either coming in or old ones that are being moved out. The shipping containers, they are a lockable storage facility that when we get bulk equipment or bulk materials that can get transported to individual schools. They exist on site today. We're just proposing to move them farther south on the site to accommodate a continuous area for storage under roof. This is a mock-up of what the inclement weather facility could look like. It's about three storage bays, one for salt, one for sand, and one for a third material. I've been told by our facilities folks most likely some sort of combination of either salt and sand or A21 gravel, depending on what's needed. To the right side of the screen, that's the loader garage I mentioned with the two doors. And then one other building on the left-hand side of the slide is a brine tank building. So as part of this facility, there'll be a dedicated underground storage tank that during salt season, all runoff from this property or this portion of the property will go to that underground storage tank. It will be pumped out. That pumped out material is then transferred to this brine facility. This is exclusively used by Department of General Services to pretreat areas. LCPS doesn't pretreat our facilities. We do what's called reclaim. after an event happens. To answer Commissioner Keir's questions about the distance, roughly to the property line, it's about 450 feet at the closest. And then as you travel north and west, it gets farther. And then Kincaid Forest is even farther west. We took the opportunity to fly a low-level drone at about 40 feet. That's about the top height of the storage buildings. And you can see from that angle, it's really hard to see any of the homes at almost 500 feet away. This is just the example building of what could be out there today or what is out there today versus what we could add to. Color-wise, it seems to blend in nicely. This is an example of what's stored under roof and why we need to keep things out of the sun and in good repair so they don't get under disrepair. Excuse me. The second specs request is for a modification to the existing buffer requirements of a type C. We're proposing to use the rear facing of the buildings and fencing in lieu of a wall or berm or just fencing by itself. This will create a year-round buffer that I think will be adequate and above what's required. In terms of stormwater management, I mentioned the underground storage facility. I just want to mention that in terms of the discrepancy between staff's request and LCPS's request, it seems to be a policy guidance versus meeting the state and county requirements in terms of building. We're meeting those requirements. We're being asked to provide above that requirement. If we are asked to provide above the requirement, that star represents an existing DGS facility. It would necessitate the expansion of the existing dry stormwater pond to envelop that space. LCPS does not wish to have to replace that. If that's the guidance given by the Planning Commission, we would look at other options to expand.

with that take any questions all right thank you questions for the applicant commissioner miller this is more of a just a curiosity for the benefit of this of this project it'll be expanding the capabilities of um inclement weather management so that means adding more um weather clearing machinery adding having able to store more salt and more sand is that correct Yes. So it turns 200 device that closes schools for a week into three days type of thing.

Possibly.

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Combs. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jefferson, you mentioned LCPS is not looking to expand that current dry pond. We'll look at other options if so needed. What are those other options? I know it looks like staff is calling for convert it to a wet pond or achieve an 85% phosphorus reduction across all management facilities. So could you just in specifics give us what those other options might be?

I can try. So we're still in the planning development stage of this project. So the entire stormwater management outcomes haven't been designed. Ultimately, we're expanding the dry pond now to meet the requirements of the facility and not impacting the decant facility. If we were to meet the above required, so 75% versus 85%, it might be difficult without having an impact to that. And we're looking at what those options could mean. We're working with county staff and I think we can come to a resolution that works well for the county and LCPS. Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Barnes. I was going to ask, the staff said some concerns about it, that you are working with them. Staff has some concerns about this application. And they said, are you working with them to solve it?

We are. We're working together to try to come to a resolution on that.

Okay.

Commissioner Myers.

Just a quick question in regards to the expansion of the area that the staff is looking at in different alternatives. Is that something that's really done at this point in time usually? Or is that something that's done as you get towards site plan?

It would be done typically during site plan, but if we're adding a condition that we haven't been able to design for yet and it's above what we believe could impact, we might get to site plan and realize it takes out the facility and then we have to replace it somewhere else and then we're hoping not to do that.

But no matter what, you're gonna have to meet the requirements when you get to the site plan, whether it's turning this into a wet pond or doing something else. When you get there, kind of the bread and the pudding come together and that's when you gotta do it in order to get your approval.

As far as I understand it, I'm not a engineer and I could turn to Mr. Myers and he could. And we're not related, by the way, for the public.

Yes, again, Chris Myers with Urban, the applicant's civil engineer. So that is correct. So at site plan stage, we would meet all the requirements, all the state and county requirements. The policy goal or the policy guideline is sort of what we're still working with staff on to come up with solutions and alternatives to try to honor that decamp facility.

Anybody else? So to staff, if we move this forward tonight, are you comfortable with resolving this prior to it getting to the board, or is it something that needs to be resolved, do you feel, before we move forward with it?

I think it's ready for your decision this evening. The special exception boundary has been taken care of. The stormwater question is something we're talking about with all the county facilities. So in our mind, it's resolved and just ready for your decision. If so, click fine.

All right, thank you. All right, we'll go ahead and open up the public hearing on this item. We have one person signed up to speak and that's Teresa Goodyear. You can come up to one of the podiums and you'll have three minutes.

I haven't done any public speaking in years, but I'll try. I live on Hallyard Court and if you look at that big plat there and you see where their proposed items are, my house is just about the closest to that facility. Now, when we moved in here 33 years ago, we looked at 30 different places and we listened for sound, we listened for the air, listen for the peacefulness. And with that facility there, we're going to have none of that. I will not even be able to open my bedroom windows anymore because I'm going to hear that beeping, that constant beeping of backup trucks and heavy machinery. The other thing is, there's that creek that runs through there, where all the peepers are. How is that salt and sand gonna affect those peepers? I mean, that's one of the nicest things about being in that rural area. And I look at that giant plat that you've got there, and you want all this right next to the residential area. Why? You've got the area near the animal rescue, you've got the area over there next to the ballpark where there's nothing. Why put it next to our homes so that we won't be able to have a decent night's sleep? It's going to affect the value of our houses having that kind of noise. I can already hear the buses. I can already hear the Dulles toll road, something that's that close to my bedroom window. I'm gonna hear constantly. Now, my neighbors, I see they're not here. I did try to get them to come in too. But we do feel strongly about this. What can I do? I'm 73 years old. I can't move. I'm stuck in this house. And for me, that facility will just ruin the living with the dust, the salt, and the noise. And I just feel that it's, I know you want this. I remember when we first moved here, the bumper stickers were, don't Fairfax Loudoun County and keep Loudoun beautiful. And I see that just sort of going away. And I don't want it to go away. I picked this area for a reason. It's beautiful. But this is selfish and ill-conceived to have it right next to a residential area. I realize that I'm just the one voice for my neighborhood. But until you open your windows at night and try and sleep, you're not even gonna notice it until you can't sleep anymore. All right, thank you.

Thank you. All right, it's the only person I had time to speak. Is there anybody else in the room that wishes to speak to this application? We had nobody online, correct? Okay, the public hearing is now closed. Does staff or the applicant wish to address the comment? No? Okay. All right, this application is in the Leesburg District.

I think there's a question. I'm sorry. The comment raised a question for me that I'd like to ask the applicant.

Pardon?

The comment from the witness raised a question I'd like to ask the applicant.

Okay, so you'll have three minutes after the motion's made, so you can ask the applicant at that point. That's all right. All right, Commissioner Barnes, this is in the Leesburg District, if you'd like to make a motion.

I move that the Planning Commission forward LEGI-2023-0115 Joint LCPSCOL Central Loudoun Service Center Storage SBEX 2024-0006 and SBEX 2024-0007 to the Planning Commission

work session for the further decision unless they can all right so there is a motion to go to work session is there a second then i'll make the other one okay well that motion will die for lack of a second is there another motion i can move another one okay go ahead

I move that Planning Commissions approve LEGI 2020-30115 joint LCPS-COL Central Loudoun Service Center storage SBEX 2024-006 and SBEX 2024-007 subject to the conditions of approval dated, oh, gone. I don't even have it. It went away. I gotta find it again. My tablet is not working very good. There it is. Do you want me to finish the sentence? Okay, subject to the conditions of approval dated May 18, 2026, and based on the findings for approval provided as the attachment one and three to the May 26th Planning Commission Public Hearing Staff Report. And that's the end of it.

Okay, a motion to approve made by Commissioner Barnes. Is there a second? A second made by Commissioner Myers. And Commissioner Barnes, do you have an opening? No. Okay, Commissioner's comments. Commissioner Jasper.

Thank you. This is in the nature of a question to the applicant. Was there a community meeting about this application?

There was. It was in late 2024. It was nearby and no one showed up.

Okay, thank you. I would say that when we get closer to decisions and applications being heard, but people don't remember and it's I frequently hear from community members that with regard to county projects, they're not really given what they consider to be a great opportunity for input because as it goes through the process, they never hear back that it's moving. So in the future, I would request that something closer to hearing have a community meeting. Thank you or some sort of community notice.

Commissioner Combs.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And this may be more for staff or Jefferson if you know, but I know our zoning ordinance includes noise standards. And can somebody remind us what those standards would be that would apply to this project?

55 comes to mind, but we would have to look up the ordinance.

And so that's 55 at the property boundary?

The property boundary from which the noise is generated.

Okay, so it would be at the boundary which is 450, 500 feet. So then measured on the other side of that wouldn't have a bearing. It just would be what is measured at that boundary.

Correct. And I'm sure there's people that are trying to look it up for me right now.

Sure, yeah.

If I may expand on that, Mr. Chair. So... This was delivered by design, and I can certainly sympathize with the public speaker's sentiments, and this is one of the reasons, and Jefferson, help me out, the buildings were rotated with the entrances facing opposite the residential, so there was some thought into the way the buildings were laid out and where those uses would be happening. The idea was between the two buildings, so hopefully to muffle the sound or to dampen the sound from areas around it. And then the tree conservation area was already an area designated to separate the uses. So there was some thought into trying to mitigate as much as possible. And I do believe the operations are not 24-7, they're only during...

They're not. Thank you, Marshawn. So during day-to-day working, there's about 16 folks that would come here in their personal vehicles, get in LCPS work trucks, and go off to other sites to do their daily maintenance. The only time the inclement weather facility would be mobilized is during that type of event. There will be occasional deliveries for the salt and the sand, but this by no means is a 24-7 operation for that facility.

And so then, you know, the comment regarding, you know, the beeping noise that comes from heavy equipment in reverse, what will be the frequency of that? And do we have anything? And I don't think I saw anything in the conditions about how we can perhaps try to limit that so that is not disturbing sleep of nearby residents, because I would imagine that noise does carry, even though it may not be at 55 decibels at the boundary. I would suspect that that would be disruptive.

And I understand. In terms of the number of days we've mobilized in the last few years, it was 13 days in 2026, 10 in 25, 9, 2, and 6 for the years following that. There will be larger pieces of equipment here and when they're utilized, they do have safety requirements when they're operated.

Mr. Combs, 55 is the standard at the property line?

55 dbh got it okay thank you mr frank i'm going to ask a related question i mean given that this property is an expansion of a current use in in some ways are there currently vehicles on operating in this facility as it's set up now that are having to use those safety features in the backup um signals and things like that so that, do we know, are they existing now and do we know how much of an increase it is over what's currently happening?

There are vehicles on site today that would have that exact same impact. There are other vehicles now we're parking not under roof at other LCPS facilities because there is no centralized home for them. So we'd bring those facilities here, there'd be slightly more vehicles, but not used on a daily basis. Typically, for the snow plows and the trucks that meet that need, they're not operated on a daily basis.

Right. Okay. And do we know, have you guys ever gotten or has the county ever gotten complaints for those vehicles, particularly this location in the past for the noise or anything that they create? I know we're talking about an increased use, but I'm trying to kind of baseline things.

During our review process, we did not receive any complaints to that. Whether or not there's been separate complaints to our zoning enforcement team, that's something we would have to ask.

Okay.

And we can certainly look into that if this moves to the board, we can look at it on the board.

Okay. That would be good to know. Thank you.

Any other commissioners? All right. For myself, I'll be supporting the motion. This is an expansion of a use that's been in that area for a long time. It's still significantly buffered from the residential minimum 450 to the property line, and on the other side of the property line, there's a buffer from the community as well. As far as other places to the speaker's comment the area around the animal services There's I think four buildings already planned for counties to be built by the county to be built there. So they are taking available use of all their available properties all right Commissioner Barnes, do you have a closing? All right. We have a motion to approve all those in favor say aye aye aye opposed And that motion will carry 9-0. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Our next item, Leggie 2025-12, Golden Substation, Commission Permit 2025-5, Special Exception 2025-32, Special Exception 2025-33, and Special Exception 2025-137.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Christian Maldonado with the Department of Planning and Zoning, here to present the application for Golden Substation. The subject property is located east of Pacific Boulevard, west of Route 28, and north of the W&OD Trail, near Dulles 28 Center and the Sterling Election District. The proposal is on the periphery of the suburban mixed-use place type. The applicant is proposing a commission permit and special exception to permit a utility substation in the IP zoning district, a special exception to reduce the minimum required parking from 30 parking spaces to one parking space, and a minor special exception to eliminate the required type C buffer along the northern boundary of the proposed use. The proposal includes a hybrid air and gas-insulated substation consisting of four GIS buildings surrounded by a 20-foot-tall screen wall and is directly south of planned data center development. Staff notes the substation will be visible from the W&OD Trail and the public right-of-way along Pacific Boulevard and Route 28. The energy policies of the 2019 general plan support the co-location and construction of electrical infrastructure along existing transmission corridors to ensure stability and reliability of existing and improved development. County policies further anticipate development on the periphery of place types to transition appropriately and blend with the surrounding environment with additional considerations on electrical infrastructure. Additionally, the preservation and incorporation of existing vegetation and wildlife habitat is encouraged. The proposal is proximate to existing and approved electrical infrastructure, planned data center to the north, and an existing data center to the west, and the W&OD trail and commercial uses to the south. The proposal is for two infrastructure projects. known as the Aspen to Golden and Golden to Mars transmission projects. Staff has identified an issue for commission consideration related to land use Utility substations are not anticipated in the suburban mixed-use place type. The use is located along major roadways. Given the proposal is on the periphery of the place type and located adjacent to major roadways, the proposal may be compatible given the surrounding built environment with the appropriate design. The proposal commits to a 20-foot tall screening wall around the entirety of the substation. Staff recommends the applicant provide enhanced landscape buffering between the substation, Route 28, Pacific Boulevard, and the W&OD Trail to protect and retain the viewshed of the trail and surrounding uses. Staff recommends conditions for the applicant to provide pollinator habitat, screening of the use, and supplemental plannings to the southwest of the subject site. The commission requested information about green space onsite. The buffer on the north side of the proposed substation is approximately 880 feet in length and is required to be 25 feet wide with 120 plant units per 100 linear feet. The request to eliminate this requirement would result in approximately a loss of an approximately 22,000 square foot area equivalent to approximately 1,056 plant units. Staff could support commission approval of the commission permit and a recommendation of approval for the special exceptions and minor special exception to the board subject to the conditions. Staff is happy to answer any questions.

All right. Questions for staff? Vice Chair, moderator.

Do you have any other renderings of how this facility looks other than the wall?

Staff was not provided any. I believe there is one in the applicant presentation. We'll defer to them for that.

Thank you.

Commissioner Jasper.

You said there are data centers planned immediately to the north of the site, but I'm wondering, is this facility is not specifically for those data centers?

That's correct. To our understanding, yes.

Thank you. Okay. Anybody else? Commissioner Frank?

You are recommending enhanced landscaping on other sides, I guess the Route 28 and WNOD Trail side. Did you have any specifics in mind or is that something you've worked through with the applicant already?

Staff was looking for enhanced vegetation to be provided in those buffers to the point On all sides, other than the north side that's proposing the waiver, the other three sides, they're providing the minimum. So to go above and beyond, plant policy would activate us to find a way to add as many plants to that area as possible to screen.

Because the site has transmission lines on multiple areas, that makes it a little bit more complex, so I think we'd want to work to, like, a tailored approach with the applicant team, but probably involving more evergreens, which provide the most in-hand screening.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay, and just to kind of follow up on that, So in additional evergreens, would it be something along the lines of one additional evergreen for every 10 linear feet where feasible? Is there some number that you're sort of looking at outside of obviously areas they can't because of the overhead? Do you have kind of a standard that you're looking for that the applicant would at least kind of know what you're looking for?

To the first part of your question, yes, that is correct. We would likely review with the applicant more specifically to decide to tailor a response to that, a solution, if you will.

Okay. Okay. No more questions for the staff? Go ahead, Commissioner Jasper.

Sorry, I should have asked this earlier. I'll wait for the applicant. Okay.

All right. Does the applicant have a presentation? We do. Oh, Dale, sorry. Didn't see your light.

Sorry. I just want to understand, because the 880 feet area that you're talking about in the red, that's where you're looking at for more buffering?

No. The additional buffering that staff is looking for is along the east, west, and south sides.

Which isn't on this picture then?

That's correct. The 880 feet references the minor specs request.

I'm trying to figure out what it is you want and what areas you want in that. So I'm looking at this because that's what you've highlighted in red, but that's not really where you're looking to do increase, right?

Correct. And we'll pull out our nifty pointer here.

Even somebody gives me something bold red, it tells me that's where they want me to look.

So the red, the question was, what is being lost by that? So not doing the buffer on this side, oops, go back to the, right here is fine too, okay. the 800 feet that we're talking about, essentially the substation is able to move further north away from the trail. So the question was how much area here is not being used for the buffer yard by it being eliminated. What that does is it moves the substation further north and it does allow for what the applicant is doing right now, which is allowing supplemental plantings. This is Pacific Boulevard, this is the WND Trail, this is Route 28. It is encumbered by transmission lines here, here, and I believe here as well, which means what you can do under those transmission lines with regards to height is limited because of being too close to the overhead lines. So we were asking the commission if there is a need or interest in having more opportunities in these areas to enhance the landscaping to try to offset the proximity to these three road areas.

Because you can't go where the 880 is shown because that's where it's got access easements too.

Correct, that and they're asking to eliminate that. So there's no buffer yard on the north side. They've asked to eliminate that and allows the substation to move 25 feet closer to those two planned data centers.

So your other choice would be to not let them move 25 feet?

If you were to recommend denial of this minor special exception, they'd have to move the substation based on their existing footprint. They'd either have to shrink the footprint or they'd have to move the whole campus farther south to the trail. Okay.

And then I'm not sure what is the, I mean, are we trying to buffer the wall?

A combination. It's a 20-foot wall. Are we trying to buffer the 20-foot wall with six-foot evergreens? That would be one approach to mask it with different, so you break it up, break up the scale and massing of the wall, use the supplemental landscaping. So we're asking the commission, they're meeting the standard on two sides. They're supplementing on the south. Is the commission interested in any additional plannings to offset the screening they're proposing?

And it's just on that one corner you're talking about. I mean, Christian, you said that we're talking about here?

That's correct, along Route 28, along with the trail and on Pacific.

Okay.

Okay.

Now, this was, as we were putting the staff report together, we were looking to be consistent with the other recommendations we've seen along the trail. And that sort of has to do with the timing of our recommendation in our staff report.

Okay. All right. The applicant had a presentation.

We do. Good evening, my name is Jack Story. I'm with Dewberry, the applicant representative. With me tonight is Kristen McDonald from Dominion. So similar to the applications you've heard recently with the Aspen substation, this is part of the Northern Virginia reliability loop that includes the Goose Creek, Mars, Aspen, and Wishing Star substations. This is the last of the substations that completes the loop. It's the easternmost that is designed to strengthen the loudon grid particularly in the eastern area and that's to meet the load and future reliability needs through the year 2032 it's not for any particular dedicated customer this is for the overall region you've already heard about the application so i won't go through all of those The parcel is east of Pacific Boulevard and west of Route 28 and just north of the W&OD Trail. All the uses around it are industrial or data center uses. There's a commercial across on the other side of the W&OD. The area in pink is the SMU place type. and their nearest residential is over a half mile away. The red that you see on the screen are the existing transmission corridors and the dashed lines are the proposed reliability loop. And this use does align with industrial character and it supports the energy policy for reliability for future growth in the area. The application is for two GIS. It's a GIS on the 500 side and a GIS for the 230 side. So just a small minor correction. We are proposing the buffering on the three sides. I heard the discussion about that type C buffer. So as part of the offset of that, we are doing an enhanced buffer along the WNOD trail in that kind of triangle wedge area. And that's an additional 528 plant units to help bolster that buffering on that side. That's not the full plant units that's coming out of that type C buffer on the top, but that's what we can fit and provide a enhanced buffering along the WNOD trail. We also are providing as mitigation 97,000 square feet of pollinator. That's a pollinator meadow and that's in those two areas that were mentioned. It's all the light green areas you see that will be underneath the transmission line. So almost the entire W&OD trail and then wrapping the corner along 28. And that comes out to about 22% open space for the entire project. There are some major water transmission lines that run through this, and that actually is what dictates how close we can get to the W&OD trail. So that set that boundary. The reduction of the 25 feet on the other side is just to maximize the space that we can accommodate the substation. The parking request is typical of all substations, trying to reduce it down to one space for the entire facility. It's an unmanned facility, only has service trips, approximately five per month, and again, that's all inside of the enclosed space. Access to the site will be from the existing intersection that is already on Pacific Boulevard, and it will be shared with the future data centers. So this is a rendering that was just recently prepared, kind of showing what that future view would be like from the WNOD trail with the enhanced planting along there. As you can see, it does provide a decent amount of screening. You can barely see the wall. This is about 10 years of growth. And you can see pretty much just the backbones coming out of here. And so we do feel that we've done above and beyond the minimum buffers along the W and OD trail and the area along 28 that was discussed earlier is pretty much entirely within a transmission corridor. So we cannot go over 10 feet with plant material, but we have provided all that additional pollinator planning, which yes, it will not screen the substation, but it is adding the additional planting above and beyond what the buffer requires. And with that, we're happy to answer any questions.

Okay, questions for the applicants? Commissioner Miller.

Thank you. To me, a 20-foot relatively solid wall made out of some concrete material is a prison wall. And that will be seen, if this comes in 10 years, great, maybe. I've seen lots of renderings where it'll look like in 10 or 15 years, and that's never the case in housing developments and wherever it may be. Is there a way to break up the wall In other words, and I think we did this on Waxbow Road a couple, several years ago, where they wanted a 20-foot wall. So we're like, can you do eight foot of berm with 12-foot wall on top of it? It sounds like that this is 20 feet because it's a 500 KV line, and there are security measures and rules that require it to be 20 feet. Therefore, can that wall, instead of having 20 foot solid straight up, can we have the berm, can we do something to offset the visual of 20 feet in front of it, more so than just plantings like this, but is there a way to architecturally design a berm? Or, absent that, Is there a way to split the wall, let's say, first 10 feet is the concrete we're used to and the pressed concrete or forms, or then go above the next 10 feet being some sort of metal mesh, unique patterns, something that differentiates it so as we're driving down Route 28, we don't see a prison wall?

I think the actual substation wall needs to be that consistent material to 20 feet for the security purposes. anything that we would do to kind of break that up would probably need to be separated from the substation perimeter wall. And so there is a retaining wall out along 28 that we could, Theoretically, we could put something on top of the retaining wall to help mitigate the mass of 20 feet so that it didn't appear to be just one solid.

Something like that would be, and if what goes above that retaining wall were some sort of decorative mesh, Amico, I believe is the company, or Amico. an architecture firm that did some stuff like this in Minneapolis area around their substations that I've seen. And it's just unique designs with metal mesh and things of that that helps offset and create movement within the visual aspect of it so we're not staring at a prison wall. And I say this because Look, most of us saw the meeting from last week. We understand. And any way that we can help up here further anything we do with the board to help make an application better, make it visually more appealing, I think would go a long way towards stemming some of the angst that applications like this will see when they go to the board.

Yeah, so again, all along 28, I believe, Right along there. We could, there's a retaining wall that runs the entire length of that. Right. Basically in front of the substation. So on top of that wall, we could add an eight or 10 foot decorative metal perforated type of secondary screening element.

That would be terrific. Something like that would be great. Thank you.

I speak up real quick.

So I wanted to offer... For the applicant, our recommendation in terms of additional screening, this is something we put together with the staff report. So we did not necessarily give, we did not give the applicant a whole lot of time to be able to think of the alternatives after that staff report. So I appreciate Jack sort of discussing this in real time. But out of fairness to the applicant, this is something we developed as we put our staff report together. And I believe they're still considering what the options could be if there's an interest in doing additional work, so.

Commissioner Frank.

I would echo Commissioner Miller's concern about 20-foot wall concrete. I mean, we've asked for people who have buildings that are nothing but a slab of concrete to mitigate that. I think that would be helpful here. I'm the one who had asked during our pre-briefing about how much square footage of plantings is lost by that's by the specs that removes the buffer on the north side. And again, that is partly visual, but it is partly, You know, I am not the expert, and five years ago I would not have expected to be the one sitting up here talking about trees as much as I am these days, but you know, we are losing so much green space, and we have so many heat island issues, and so much concrete, and so many heat generating buildings and facilities and things that are happening that I understand the need to move it closer on that side, and I appreciate pulling it a little away from the trail. Is there a way to supplement and find that 22,000 square feet of plantings that we're going to lose and stick them all other places. I'd like to see some evergreens in there, not just pollinator gardens. But I don't know what your limits are with the water lines, the transmission lines, and everything else. But all of the other three sides, I would love to see supplemented. Is that something that's possible to do more of than what you've done already?

So not the evergreens, but we could certainly go above and beyond the meadow plantings with shrubs that stay 10 feet or lower.

Even on Pacific Boulevard? We've got those same...

There are a massive amount of existing utilities that... Okay. The buffer that we're showing there, that's why it's not in a straight line. It's...

Okay. I'd like to see if we couldn't, you know, before we say it's all right to have the exception and eliminate that buffer, I'd like to see us mitigate it a little better with more plantings. So I guess that would be my request.

Okay. Commissioner Jasper.

Thank you, Chair Kearse. I have two questions. The first is, this is partially gas insulated and partially air insulated. It's all gas insulated now.

It's all gas.

Okay. Okay, that was question one. Question two, I agree with the comments made by the other commissioners I've seen in other jurisdictions. substations and I've said this before, that were kind of designed with artistic values in mind or traditional local design in mind, etc. So I think that what's being suggested about mitigating the visual impact of the concrete wall along both 28 and the WO&D would be important. My next question, my question really relates to the above ground transmission lines. I'm wondering where in the conversation Dominion is in terms of starting to consider below ground transmission because this reminds me of, you know, the way that cities looked when electricity just started being generated and everybody was just stringing wires willy-nilly everywhere through cities and with no consideration. So is that part of the conversation at Dominion right now, undergrounding these lines?

I know especially with regard to the Aspen to Golden project and the Golden to Mars project, both of those SEC applications and routing studies included studies to attempt to put even portions of them underground and those were presented as part of the routing studies. Unfortunately, because of how developed these portions of Loudoun County are, it makes it very difficult to cite underground transmission lines. It is something that we are reviewing with every SEC application. Unfortunately, it doesn't always prove out to be the best route. And even if there were a constructible route, the routes are ultimately chosen by the State Corporation Commission. And then we build the ones that they approve, but we do review them with underground studies.

Why does the state select the not? What criteria do they use?

I know at least one of the criteria is cost. Underground is significantly more costly to construct than overhead. Part of it is also overall construct ability part of it is Also the time frame certain projects are needed underground also takes longer to construct But there are any number of reasons why they would choose it. I think most significant is cost Okay, I appreciate your candor.

Thank you and for the explanation Any other questions My quick question, when we spoke yesterday, I had talked about a possible condition, although remote, is if the property to the north does not develop as data center, that you would go ahead and put in the required type C buffer along the northern boundary. You weren't sure if that would be possible or not. Have you had a chance to look at it?

Yeah, we did look at it, and there is not the physical space there right now, so the substation wall would have to move.

I think I got the hint, as Marshawn said, is you moved it farther north to get away from the trail, and this would be the sacrifice along there, that you couldn't provide the buffer to the north unless you moved the whole wall and moved it closer to the W&OD. Is that correct?

That's mostly correct, but it is the water lines. That's that area in between the trees and the substation. There are two major water transmission lines that run through the site there, so that's kind of our limiting factor. We can't go any closer to the trail.

But there is some opportunity to provide some vegetative buffering along the wall on the north side? Just not obviously, you said you probably couldn't put a tree line here.

We couldn't put a full 25 foot type C with 120.

Right, but you could do some.

We can do some for portions of it, yes.

Yeah, the portions that you're able. Okay. All right, let me go ahead and open up the public hearing on this item. We didn't have anybody signed up. Is there anybody in the room that wishes to speak to this item? No, and nobody in line? All right, we will go ahead and close the public hearing. Before I make the motion, I got one of two ways. It sounds the applicant is willing to work with staff to provide additional plantings of the proper type and height where able. Is that something you're committing to willing to do with staff?

We are.

Staff, are you comfortable with working with them if we should move this forward tonight or would you prefer to actually see something drawn up and brought back? we're comfortable moving forward okay all right um so with that i move that the planning commission approved leggy 2025-12 golden substation commission permit 2025-5 subject to the commission permit plat dated may 12 2026 and based on the findings for approval provided as attachments one and three to the may 26 2026 planning commission public hearing staff report I further move that the Planning Commission forward Leggie 2025-12 Golden substation, special exception 2025-32, special exception 2025-33, and special exception 2025-137 to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of approval. subject to the conditions of approval dated May 18 2026 and based on the findings for approval provided as attachments two and three to the May 20 20 May 26 2026 Planning Commission public hearing staff report and with the understanding that the applicant will continue to work with staff to find appropriate places to put additional vegetative screening on the south east and west and north boundary all around it where it's where it's appropriate is there a second

Second.

All right, motion made by Chair Keir, seconded by Vice Chair Moddaretti. As far as an opening, understand the need for this. Is the applicant is probably aware that the county is looking for more creative design solutions for substation exteriors and walls 20 foot I don't know how much of that variability is out there But I do know that there are a lot of other different designs types of material The Dominion uses somebody just showed me a picture of a nice looks like a nice brick wall and that's a Dominion substation in Fairfax County, so there are other types and styles that dominion does use for their substation walls and i would just encourage moving forward that you consider proposing some of those and my comment for staff is that if you can find different examples of these types of walls it would be great for us to see him i mean i'll be perfectly honest i really do want to see a lot of different things but i don't really know what everything is out there for substation you know walls and so I Would like to see additional styles move You know coming forward to us to consider as we deal with more of your standard substations versus the 500 KV ones Any other comments from commissioners? Vice-chair moderate you have a comment Thank You mr.

Chair, so very similar in terms of what chair is mentioning here. I would like to see what Commissioner Miller and Commissioner Frank said about the wall towards the 28, I think that needs to be enhanced visually. And the second one is making sure you somehow mitigate those trees and the plants that we are losing. So if you can come up with a mitigation factors on those two things, I think I'll be certainly supporting this application.

Commissioner Miller.

Thank you.

I support the spirit of the motion which is that we need to send this forward to the board because the substation has to happen and I get that. But I am leery of sending it forward with the request to work on the design of the walls and the plantings and things in the buffering as it gets to the board. I would prefer If it's possible if it's the will of the Commission to keep this with us at a work session so that it gave us an opportunity We gave the minion opportunity to bring back to us some some thought into what walls and buffering could look like Because this is going to come up again and again And I think the more that we can do here will help I THINK IT WOULD BE GREAT IF WE HAD SOMEBODY FROM DOMINION, NOVAC, ANY OTHER UTILITY, NEXT ERA, WHEREVER IT'S GOING TO BE IN A COUPLE YEARS, TO COME BEFORE US WITH THINGS THAT HAVE TAKEN THAT IN CONSIDERATION IN ADVANCE. AND SO IF IT'S THE WILL OF THE COMMISSION TO SEND THIS FORWARD AND WORK ON IT AS IT GETS TO THE BOARD, GREAT. so that Dominique can come back to us at some point in time and let us as a planning commission take a look at some of the things that they were proposing, some of the things we've proposed to them. I sent Kathleen an email just recently, just now, with some of those designs I was mentioning before in my opening remarks. So that's where I stand. I certainly know that it needs to go forward, but I would like the opportunity for us as a commission to weigh in further on the design and the look of some of the buffering in the walls. Thank you.

Commissioner Combs.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Aligning myself with Commissioner Miller's statements, I think I can be supportive of the application, but I would like to see the changes that you all are contemplating. I think they're going to be reflected in a different CDP and a different set of conditions than we have before us now. And I think we as a planning commission should have the opportunity to review that. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Jasper.

For the reasons identified by Commissioners Miller and Combs, I won't be supporting the motion. I would prefer to see it come back before it goes forward.

Okay. Commissioner Frank.

Ditto I you know, don't make need to make you at all. I could support the question permit and the and the utility use as well as the parking reduction but the I'd like to talk about the visual impacts and the and the Landscaping that we could do to mitigate some of that type-c buffer being removed as well as just the overall Impact of the project and I think that it's more appropriate for us to do that ourselves in a work session before it goes to the board so

Commissioner Banks. Yeah, I too am concerned about the visual impact and would really prefer that we work on that matter. I think it is appropriate for us to see it. And frankly, I'm sort of aligned with your comments earlier, Chair Kearse, that a lot of times we know we want to see something different. We're not sure exactly what it is we want to see, but I would like an opportunity to work on that. So while I could support this moving forward, I think my preferred option would be for it to stay here in another work session for us to continue to work on that. Okay. Commissioner Myers, do you have a substitute motion? No? Would you like me to?

Okay. It'll move things along. Okay. I move that the Planning Commission forward Leggie 2025-012, Golden substation, special exception 2025-0032, special exception 2025-0033, special exception 2025-0137 to a future work session of the Planning Commission.

Okay. Substitute motion to send to a work session made by Commissioner Myers and I missed who did the second? Commissioner Combs. Commissioner Myers, do you have an opening?

I would just say I think everybody's pretty much expressed the same thing. I think one thing that we should challenge the applicant a little bit on, I mean, yes, this is a substation, but it is just a 20-foot concrete wall. There are all kinds of different ways that you can do a 20-foot concrete wall out there if you take the initiative to look at whether it's a facade that looks like brick, if it's a facade that looks like stone, if it's a mixture of stone and brick. I mean, there's all kinds of things that you can do between those spacings. And I would challenge the applicant to bring us back some different solutions and ideas that also fit into the character of the surrounding area, which could be, a difference of components of things we do. And then I think we're looking for some finance numbers when we're talking about where you're going to enhance the buffering, what buffering we're going to see. Is it evergreens? Is it bushes? What is it? So that we can feel more comfortable as we send it to the board supervisors.

Okay, Commissioner's comments on the substitute motion. Commissioner Jasper.

In coming back to us, I would encourage the applicant to also consider not just the kind of standard material changes, but also artistic interventions that can really make it lovely and an asset rather than an eyesore.

I will also support support the motion I was kind of hoping we could move this along but I have no problem going to work session and starting to work on those concerns sooner rather than later and I think when we get to data center standards phase two we'll have a nice lengthy discussion when we get to the substation section of that Commissioner Myers, do you have a closing? All right. All those in favor of the motion to send to work session say aye. Aye. Opposed? That motion will carry 9-0. Thank you very much. All right, our next application, Leggie 2025-7, Tech Park at Dulles Substation, Commission Permit 2025-2, Special Exception 2025-16, and Special Exception 2025-20.

Good evening. My name is Darby Metcalf for the Department of Planning and Zoning. I'm here tonight to present the application for Tech Park at Dulles substation. The subject property is a 20.6 acre portion of an 8308 acre parcel located south of Old Ox Road, west of Carter School Road, and north of Dulles Airport in the Dulles election district and the suburban industrial mineral extraction place type. The subject property is zoned general industry under the Loudoun County zoning ordinance. The applicant requests a commission permit and a special exception to permit a utility major use, minor specs to eliminate buffer planting requirements in areas where transmission lines intersect along the northern boundary towards the site plan for data center use, and provide a type two road corridor buffer in lieu of the anticipated type C buffer along the southern boundary. Present on screen is an annotated excerpt of the specs plan. The proposed substation is indicated in gold and buffer modifications are indicated in purple. The 2019 general plan policies recommend siting substations proximate to existing transmission corridors and encourages additional screening to mitigate visual impacts. Consistent with plan policies, the proposal is proximate to two transmission lines, is sited away from travel corridors, and provides a 12-foot screening wall on all sides of the proposal. Conditions of approval have been recommended by staff to include right-of-way reservations for west perimeter roads south of the proposed substation, screening walls, and reforestation as well as soil remediation. At the May planning commission work session, the commission had a question related to the West Perimeter Road access currently. The road is currently private access. It's indicated on screen by the curved pink. Staff supports a commission of approval of the commission permit application and a recommendation of approval for the specs applications to the board subject to the conditions of approval. Staff are available for questions and there is DTCI staff support online currently. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Questions for staff? Last chance. All right, does the applicant have a presentation?

I do, Chair. Good to see you, sir. Distinguished members of the Commission, I remain Tony Calabrese with DLA. Delighted to be here this evening. I wonder if we could pull up Marshawn. My song and dance would be great. I have a slew of bodyguards behind me. I won't name them all. I'd be wary of the young lady in red. She's dangerous. and we're excited to be here on a case that's been pending for a bit and we've been very pleased to work with staff and his, Darby and his predecessor.

All right, make it move.

I think Darby and the staff report really laid this out pretty succinctly. We're right on the west side of the airport. You can actually see in the bottom right-hand corner the southernmost existing runway. See the site area. And we're within the 65 LDN. This is a very helpful graphic. I'll come back to this in just a minute, but it really gives you a good depiction of the site. The existing pond, maybe many of you are familiar with it. On the left side of the graphic is Ox Road. I'm going to use the pointer here and not get anybody in the eye. There's Ox headed north. Existing data centers, the solar, panel facility that the airport has put in, very sizable substation immediately contiguous to ours reflected there. These three centers are the subject of a pending site plan, where I think we're pretty close to concluding. Importantly, and you'll see this in another graphic as well, that's the Mars facility, which was just discussed by the Commission and Dominion. very quickly, no outstanding issues, commission permit special exception and I can embellish on that minor special exception where we're doing substantially more landscaping to make up for a very modest area that no one will frankly ever see. I think the general plan really lays this out. We're in the suburban industrial mineral extraction district and you obviously see what's recommended in that area. Also helpful, existing conditions and vicinity map. And I have another one here in just a minute that really lays out the surrounds that we have by the airport and along Ox. I won't go through these in much detail unless the Commission has questions. Long story short, that's the first view up here. This is, to your left, traveling northbound on Ox. There's actually a nice existing berm out there, one of many of the transmission corridors reflected here in the middle, south facing towards the airport. and looking east down the perimeter road. That actually, that line here to the right is what is existing here contiguous to the perimeter road and on our property. Again, there's the pond. Second perspective, moving a little bit to the north and to the east. Again, along Ox, looking toward the south. This too is a major corridor leading back to the Mars station that you just talked about. Third perspective here is back at the Mars station close to the confluence of the airport property and to the south and east of our site. Actually, these are really quite helpful. Some excellent graphics, we'll go through them rapidly. The first one is on Ox Road looking, if you were hovering in a drone or a helicopter, which would not be a good idea, approximate to the airport right here, you'd be looking northbound at Ox. Here's the pending site plan, the proposed substation, this is an existing corridor, the airport substation is immediately here to the right. Importantly, you've got some very substantial landscaping existing around this pond. You've got a nice berm along Ox and we're about 810 feet As the red arrow reflects from the property line back to this corner of the substation, frankly, we don't think anyone other than people that are on site or if you're on an airport employee on that perimeter road will ever see this property or this substation. I snuck in some graphics here because I can attest to the accuracy of the excellent design team. About two weeks ago I was flying out west to see that young kid graduate from the west coast and I literally got a video and it looks almost exactly like this sans the the not yet constructed data centers. This is a really accurate depiction of the area, of the solar panels, of the existing substations here on the airport, as well as what's under construction with Mars. And it gives you a nice flavor, I think, for the setback, and frankly, the lack of visibility of this substation. If I could just get those other two kids off the dole, that'd be even better. This is the next graphic, which is right on Ox, looking back towards the property. Chair had asked a question earlier. The data centers are located here behind. This is likely to be a flex office. perhaps serving as a guard station, or even we could have some minor warehouse. Chair, I think you asked about that small facility here in the front. I'll show that on another graphic. If you can see it, that is an accurate depiction of the distance off of Old Ox of our substation, and those are lines that are out paralleling Ox today. Went one too fast. That's the berm along Ox here. We're basically going from the airport property farther to the north, and that's a depiction, again, of the substation located behind the pond. We think it's appropriate in scale, obviously in accord with the plan character, Regional context well articulated in the staff report and I think by some of these graphics, the Mars substation, the contiguous airport, the solar farm flex warehouse noted were over 800 feet removed from Ox Road. Their existing conditions, what's quickly reflected are existing data centers in gray. You can see the purple of our property outline. You can see the significant electric infrastructure throughout this region, self-evidently existing substations in blue, and the solar panels. Importantly, again, for context, these are either pending site plan data centers, substations. I think there's one or two applications that are on the west side of OLOCS, but basically pretty much everything that's reflected here is consistent with grandfather provisions. Helpful context. We believe we're in character with the general plan for all the reasons noted. We have committed to a 12 foot screening wall. Again, I don't think anyone will ever see that unless you're actually on the property itself. We work very closely with transportation. I think it's interesting. We've talked a lot about the west perimeter road, which basically, as I'm showing here, the right-of-way is reflected here. There's been a lot of discussion with staff on the CTP. It's shown as potentially ultimately a public road. I personally don't think the airport is ever gonna let that be a public road. I think it's always gonna be a private road. If it does become public and if the airport wants it, we've reserved 56 feet basically from the center line along our contiguous property line. We've reserved it for 40 years. So if that's ever triggered, you will have the right of way at no cost. The airport has indicated to us that if they ever continue to improve that road, it's very likely to remain private and it's very likely they're gonna take all the right of way on their property for that reason. We also have a shared use path easement. So when Ox is ultimately widened, we'll be able to have a 10 foot shared use path along that whole face of the property. And I think that's it. You know what, let me, while I have one more minute, Chair, if you don't mind, I do want to address the minor requests that we've had. This is the substation area. This is the existing transmission line along our property line. There are three small areas where the substation needs to connect to the data centers. we would be basically disturbing about 2,000 square feet of buffer. We actually are proposing some close to 50,000 square feet of reforestation all around to the discussion that the Planning Commission just had on the golden site all around that property. So we're pleased to work with staff and I think they support that as well. Thank you for your time. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

All right, questions for the applicant? Mr. Frank.

All right, more trees. Tony, you mentioned 50,000 square feet of reforestation and where is that going? Do we know where that is?

We do. It's 47,000 plus, Ms. Frank, and I'll show you in purple right where that is. Let me go back to it. Sorry, am I going the wrong way? I'm going the wrong way. Marshawn told me there's great responsibility with this too, so I'm failing miserably. One more, two more. Everything in purple, oops, is... The 47,400 square feet of reforestation area, and we're actually doing a nice little pollinator there at the northwest corner, which is proximate to the pond, so it's an appropriate location. We have the required setback in green and landscaping along the transmission line area, and there's 120 feet of right-of-way under that line. We've done all that we can, of course. Dominion, as we well know and just heard, has a lot of restrictions with regard to that. So the reforestation is the north, the south, southwest, and I guess the southwestern portion of the site, everything in purple.

And that's not required?

No, ma'am.

Okay. Do we know, well, the lines from this substation, they will only go to those, what's three data centers that are right there? They're not going to need to cross over where the pond is in that direction? Correct. Or they're staying pretty much on site? Yes, ma'am. Okay, so we feel pretty confident that everything that's around the pond will be protected and preserved and fine.

Yes, ma'am.

What's going in on that little wedge between the pond and the intersection of the private and public road? It's just grass right now. It looks like it's got a dotted perimeter of some kind of evergreen or planting, that little pie shape.

So I think you're talking about... That area to the southern, this area here? Yeah. To be determined, we're actually looking at maybe doing a small office flex type building that's not in our pending site plan. Okay. We don't need it. We certainly don't need it right now. I don't know that we'll leave it as is. I actually think that the building that's proposed along the front is both attractive and a nice buffer to the data center. So maybe someday we'll come back in and do something there.

Okay. Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Any other questions for the applicant? I just have one since we're really focused on screening. And my question is, if I'm sitting in the right window seat of an airplane taking off Dulles on runway 30 and I look down, can you provide some screening so I don't see the substation? Never mind. all right i will open the public hearing up on this item we have nobody signed up to speak is there anybody in the room that would like to speak to this application no all right i will close the public hearing this is in the dulles district i'll go to vice chair moderati for a motion thank you chair

I move that the Planning Commission approve Leggie 2025-0007, Tech Park at Dallas substation, CMPT 2025-0002, subject to the Commission permit plot dated April 1, 2026, and based on the findings for approval provided as attachments 1 and 2 to the May 26, 2026 Planning Commission Public Hearing Staff Report. I further move that the Planning Commission forward Leggie 2025-007, Tech Park at Dallas substation, SPEX 2025-0016 and SPEX 2025-0020 to the Board of Supervisors with the recommendation of approval, subject to the conditions of approval dated April 7th. 2026 and based on the findings for approval provided as attachments two and three to the May 2026 Planning Commission public hearing staff report second All right a motion to approve made by vice chair moderate a second by Commissioner Miller vice chair moderate.

Do you have an opening?

Very brief on I think the application speak itself white needs to be approved where it is. I think Anthony and his team you guys did a good job of the addressing the things we typically ask about this thing. So I don't have any questions. I'll be supporting the motion.

Commissioner Miller. Lest anyone think I'm playing favorites, were this substation on the other side of the pond, my request for unique style and architectural walls would be the same. And I will give Marchant and staff a break since the briefing and today was an intervening holiday where some people may have taken extra time off. I will not belabor the point that we still need to change, match the orientation of all the graphics to go the same direction. Thank you.

So this is the old standard. The next application will be to your standards.

Thank you.

Anybody else? I would just like to thank the applicant for an easy substation application. We don't get many of those anymore. All right, so we have a motion. You have a closing? No. No, okay. So motion to approve. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay, that motion will carry 9-0. Thank you. Commissioners, we only have one left. Do you want to plug on or do you want to take a quick break? Plug on. All right. Next application is Allegi 2024-56, Dulles Technology Park, ZMAP 2024-18. Thank you.

Okay, we're ready. Good evening. My name is Matt Kessler with the Department of Planning and Zoning here to present this application for Dulles Technology Park. As of 5 p.m. today, staff has not received any public comment. The subject property is located in the Sterling Election District, south of South Sterling Boulevard and west of Shaw Road on the east side of Route 28. The site is 37.24 acres in size and zoned planned development industrial park under the 1972 Loudoun County Zoning Ordinance. It is currently developed with a mix of non-residential uses, including office, hotel, and a conference center. The zoomed-in view shows the current uses and construction dates of the existing parcels within the premises, with existing structures dating from 1972 to the year 2000. The proposal requests conversion within the Route 28 taxing district in order to rezone from the PD IP zoning district under the 1972 zoning ordinance to the IP zoning district under the current zoning ordinance for the development of up to 979,055 square feet of data center use. This annotated concept development plan shows the limits of the proposed conversion. Three pads for the location of future potential data center buildings with associated mechanical yards are included as part of the CDP under consideration this evening. The property is subject to a number of past legislative actions tied to the current use of the property. The existing hotel and office space was approved in 1997 and 2000, adding over 320,000 square feet of office and warehousing use. There is also a current application for the road abandonment of Holiday Drive, which is to be brought concurrently to the Board of Supervisors for decision by building and development staff. The 2019 General Plan encourages both the protection of the Route 28 Taxing District as a location for a broad array of employment uses, as well as the conversion of properties to the current zoning ordinance through the ZMAP process. Data centers are considered a conditional use in the suburban employment place type and should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Staff has identified one outstanding issue for the proposal related to the administrative review of this application. The zoning ordinance identifies factors for consideration when considering an application for zoning conversion in the Route 28 tax district. One of these factors is the evaluation of potential impacts when a specific development proposal is included as part of the application. While data center use is identified on the CDP, the application does not provide information necessary to fully evaluate these impacts, such as the inclusion of a traffic impact study. Staff recommends that the applicant provide additional information for evaluation of the specific layout shown on the CDP. At the Planning Commission briefing for this item, there were questions related to the scope of this conversion application, the potential for a specs requirement for the data center use, and the location of substations that would service this property. This application was accepted prior to the adoption of the comprehensive plan amendment and zoning ordinance amendment on March 18th, 2025, that required new data center applications to receive specs approval. Since March 18th, the applicant has made no substantial modifications as defined by the March 18th grandfathering resolution and has diligently pursued approval of the subject application. As a result, the applicant is not required to obtain a specs to permit data center use in the IP zoning district. This table further clarifies the scope of this application as requested by the commission. Shown are the process and development standard differences of the current PDIP district under the 72 ordinance, a ZMAP zoning conversion with no development plan in the center, and the conversion with a specific development plan shown on the right. This application proposes the rightmost column highlighted in yellow. At the briefing, there was also a question related to the location of the substation that would provide necessary power for this use. There is an associated ZMAP specs and commission permit application, LEGI 2025-0053, Dulles North Technology Park, that proposes a utility substation use. This application is forthcoming to the Planning Commission at a future date and is not within the scope of the proposal before you this evening. For the aforementioned reasons, staff cannot provide a recommendation at this time. Staff recommends that the planning commission forward the application to a future commission work session with direction to the applicant to provide necessary information for staff to evaluate the proposal. Staff is available for any questions. Thank you.

All right, questions for staff. Commissioner Jasper.

Could you go back to the little chart you provided about the 1972 ordinance? Okay. So this site is currently, and forgive me because I do not understand all of the Route 28 zoning district requirements. But right now under the 1972 zoning ordinance, a specs is required for a data center, right?

That is correct.

Okay. And the only option, which is the option the applicant is asked for, is the ZMAP and development plan, and that avoids the requirement of a specs. When you said it's part of the suburban employment place type, right? Correct.

Correct.

And yet data centers have provide minimal employment relative to the other uses that would be allowable under the existing zoning, like flex industrial or whatever. So I wondered, so did staff consider that kind of bigger picture question about the minimal employment generated by a use of this type?

I would say that's not typically part of the scope of the land use consideration, the employment piece. So, no. Okay. All right. Thank you.

Commissioner Frank?

Okay. I'm going to take this a little farther into the Route 28 district, and I don't know if Jason will need to jump in or Marshaunter, because my experience with that particular entity goes back a good 15-plus years when I served on it at one point, representing a very large employer in the county. So my question is, it used to be, that if you were in the Route 28 tax district, you could just ZRTD this. And we've seen ZRTDs in the last half a dozen years that did that. Why would this not be a ZRTD? Why is it a ZMAP? And why, if they're under the original 72, Do they even need the grandfathering? Because I thought the Route 28 tax district provided a level of protection because certain things could not be changed if you were a member of the Route 28 tax district.

Yeah, so I'll address the first part. So the ZRTD application that you're familiar with has been rolled in with other ZMAP applications. So although it is a zoning conversion, it is rolled under that ZMAP application type.

Just add on to that, please. It's the same application type and process. We just changed the name of it for when we created Landmark, our new land management system, we just changed the name of it. But it's still the same process. It's an abbreviated process with... very few submittal requirements and it's it's supposed to be fast and Supported by the plan, but in this instance they've proposed this Particular development plan without giving us all the information to fully evaluate it Okay, and and this may not have been this is this non lawyers who've maybe got too close to legal things in the past but

I thought there was something that sort of an assumption that came along with the ZRTD in the past that it was very limited what we could weigh in on and couldn't. So by rolling this into the ZMAP, did we kind of lose that protection? We just don't know if we have enough detail here to give that protection.

The difference is that in the new ordinance, there is a factor for consideration that says that if a ZRTD proposes a specific development plan that the impacts of that plan need to be addressed and evaluated. So that's why we're bringing this to your attention. Those ZRTDs that you've been reviewing for the past half dozen years, like you mentioned, They did not include a specific development plan, but this one does. So they're proposing data centers and so now we have to talk about data centers. And what are those impacts and how do we appraise them and mitigate them?

So they're grandfathered, but then the new treatment of the ZRTD goes into effect, but then they're also Route 28. Are there no, is that, I know it's, long in the tooth in the Route 28 tax district and maybe going away, but is it still there? Is it still functioning?

The tax district is still there.

Yeah, it is still there. Okay. Because there were also, like I said, a lot of, I mean, they couldn't be forced into a new thing. Obviously, they're here asking to go into that. So that changes some things. I'm just trying to understand because we've, again, they may not have always been correct, but there were certain assumptions and treatments around what legally we could and couldn't do and how we handled these things. And I'm just... grandfathering the new stuff, the old stuff, but it's still Route 28. This just is striking me as an absolute minefield. I'm not sure where we're really supposed to be weighing in.

So for this LEGI, the commission is evaluating the conversion request, which the plan supports, but also the land use, the data center land use.

Okay.

Which is a conditional use in the place type, so case by case.

Commissioner Frank, another way to explain, so your typical process was a blanket bubble plan, standardized traffic study, and they could be open to any development option, which was the goal of the ZRTD process, bring people up into the current ordinance so we have consistent development standards throughout the corridor. That being said, it was still subject to future amendments of the zoning ordinance. So in this case, if they just did a standard zoning conversion, they would have to come back in with a special exception for, because they're not grandfathered, they would have to come in for a special exception for data center. And if the board were to develop the standards for data center, they would also be subject to those standards as well.

Okay, so not to make too many assumptions or speak on Mr. Wills and his client's behalf, but my guess is doing it this way and giving the detail that they're looking at a data center is to at least make it a one-step painful process versus the multi-step painful process you just described.

What we saw before the zoning ordinance rewrite, what we saw is a lot of the zoning conversions were turning into more fully development plans. They were not paying the same fee. We weren't getting the same analysis. So this was an interim step to say, if you elect on your own accord to show a development plan to, I'm not going to use the word vesting, but to better illustrate what your intent of the property is, then that's when it opens up the discussion about the other elements that Matt was talking about in his presentation.

Okay. Thank you for trying to help educate me. You're around too long and you start to get confused with all the different versions of things we've had. All right. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Commissioner Banks. I think the prior discussion answered at least partially my question. Let me make sure I get it out. Excuse me. In addition to the traffic study, what if any other information does staff need in order to make a recommendation and have you fully communicated all of that to the applicant?

So we've been in discussion with the applicant on these additional requirements. Data center specific impacts such as noise and any mitigation proposed there, screening of mechanical yards as well from the public right of way and surrounding properties. phasing as well. You know, there's existing uses on this property and understanding when they plan on transitioning and demolition of those businesses, as well as specific height information. So those are the types of things we would like to know.

And did you say you have already begun discussions with the applicant about those specific issues?

We have begun, so it's a continued discussion, but we have met with the applicant to start the discussion on the traffic analysis that needs to happen, and we will continue discussing these additional issues.

Thank you. Commissioner Myers.

Yeah, I guess I've been around too long, too. because I was here for the creation of it. I'm definitely perplexed a little bit because when the Route 28 Taxing District was created, part of the privilege or whatever you want to call was given to the people that decided to be part of this was the privilege of paying more in taxes. to help pay for the benefits that were needed in infrastructure that the county or the state could afford to do. So they self-imposed a tax on themselves. And because of that, there were certain rights that they were told they would be able to obtain and keep that didn't exactly exist to the other parts of the county. Hence, when we redid the 93 zoning ordinance and other ones, we've always been told you can't touch the Route 28 taxing district because of the privileges that are given to them from the rights that they did because they decided to do taxation among themselves. So that's probably, that's kind of how we got here and the 28 district does still exist and so they do still have those, what I'm going to call bundles of rights that are entitled to them because they've paid for our road improvements, which I think is different than just a pure conversion because they've got certain bundles that are privy to them. They could just come in here and as many have done and done a conversion and not give us any information. They just want to go into the next ordinance and we'd have nothing to look at. I also find it a little perplexing that so if you go down there and I went down there this weekend and drove all the little rickety roads that need to be all repaired, okay, there's a whole lot of uses going on there between hotels and industrial buildings and everything else. They generate a whole lot of cars and a whole lot of traffic. And then I drove over to the other side where there's the data centers, and there are empty parking lots, and there's no cars, and there's no people. So I'm a little perplexed why we need a traffic impact study to tell me, if I go to three buildings that are a data center versus the multi-buildings that have hotels there, flex buildings there, and everything else going on, why I need to know or think about, is the traffic going to be more or less, or how it's going to be impacted? I mean... Common sense tells me the traffic impact is going to go down because what we're going to have are security guards, basically, and some maintenance and that's it. But we're not going to have the hotel, the Irish pub, the other hotel, the other flex stuff. So I'm not sure what we think we're getting from that.

Part of it is not just that the traffic study studies sheer volume, it's also that it provides more information kind of like Matt had mentioned about the phasing and how that intersects with some of the other ongoing projects in the area. That's kind of what the study we're looking to evaluate is. So we met with the applicant earlier this week to talk about the scope of what we're looking for. And I think staff and applicant team are pretty well on the same page with that, but sort of is a multitude of things. But like you said, the sheer volume it would go down on the site if this is converted to data centers.

So couldn't you just simply get that same information also as they go through their site plan process?

If there is something that needs to be mitigated, an impact that needs to be mitigated, then that would be part of this process.

Correct. Or part of the site plan. I mean, if they can't mitigate it, they can't get an approval.

There's not an opportunity to really mitigate impacts beyond what's required at the time of site plan. I think is what we'd be looking to do now.

What are we looking to do now that we wouldn't be looking to do then? We're looking to mitigate impacts, whether it's right now or whether it's at site plan, correct?

It would... You want to go? Go for it. I was going to say, it would... I think we're looking to mitigate the impacts as part of the legislative application. Instead of at the site plan? Right. Okay.

So site plan, the ability to, if off-site intersections are impacted, you would not have the same ability. If that was a term in its site plan, there would not be the same ability to require the applicant to do those intersection improvements or offer mitigation of those improvements. It would be limited to just the road improvements associated around the property. The expansion of roads, any additional turn lanes, any signalization specific to their site. That's typically what the site plan would require. that versus the broader one i think we're also not having the buy right the development by right development's been there for years the traffic patterns of the region have changed i think overall everyone agrees data center is less we don't have the study to verify that other than the anecdotal name we know about data centers and then the the existing uses are going to they're one of the special exceptions is being superseded by this application for this for the hotel does the commission have an interest on understanding the nature of the existing uses because they haven't been evaluated in a number of years. If these existing uses are to continue indefinitely, does the commission have any interest in knowing what those impacts would be given how the road network has changed?

I mean, I think when we went to making 28 a fully non-accessible road and the Holiday Inn and all those other businesses got cut off.

Okay, Commissioner Myers, we're getting into a debate about things.

Can you tell us, was there a study done to look at what that did to those areas?

So the generalized traffic study, I believe, did capture what it meant to close off a number of those at-grade intersections, and it tried to anticipate that traffic in the corridor. So we're asking for the commission's sort of feedback. Is there additional? We would need additional detail to give you information on these questions. We're sort of seeing what the commission wants to do. So thank you.

Okay. Commissioner Combs.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So back to the ZRTD issue. I'm trying to get a sense of, because I don't think I can recall an application where we've had staff say, we don't have enough information to make a recommendation. The things that sounds like you're looking for are, they seem to me to be things that would be required when someone submits a ZMAP application. I'm thinking there's an application checklist and staff runs through that checklist to determine whether the application can then be accepted by the county. Things like the TIS phasing, a lot of the things that you're talking about you need. And I see this is a ZMAP application with a prefix 2024. So I'm assuming it came in as a ZMAP application. And why don't we have that real fundamental baseline threshold information that we would expect with any other ZMap. Is it because this is a ZMap in name only and really came in as a ZRTD with a development plan? I'm just trying to get a sense of why we are where we are now.

So one thing that maybe causes confusion is that the number assigned to this is like ZMAP number. There are still two different processes. The rezoning and the conversion are two separate processes with different fees, different process structures in the county still. It's just that under the naming in landmark, they're given one kind of acronym. So they are still two separate processes with two different checklists, as you mentioned, Commissioner. This application came in as the conversion type. And then partway through its processing, proposed a very specific development plan. So you normally see specific development plans with the rezoning. You usually see very generalized plans with a conversion. This is a little bit of a mix where it's a conversion with a specific plan.

And so when it came in as a conversion, it didn't have the same checklist. It then started to look more like a ZMAP and not a conversion. And you all said, well, hey, we need more information to evaluate it as such.

That's right. Although to the applicant's credit, that has been more of the recent discussions. It ebbs and flows as it's gone through the process. But yes, that is correct.

Okay, and so has the applicant had an opportunity to supply the information that you all are requesting?

I think they have more clarity now than they've had previously to what staff are looking for.

Okay, thank you.

Any questions? All right.

So this case or this application for data center seems a bit unusual to me and from what I recall from the last several when it comes to substations either the data center application has a substation on site and we evaluate that with the application or they say no my power is coming from here and they point to an adjacent substation that it's coming from so there's no need to build another substation. This case we don't have any substations to provide the power that's For being told that will be coming later But is this unusual for men I was since I've been back on the Commission even towards the last term These those questions were resolved at the time the data centers were approved. Is this unusual from staff's perspective for? three data center buildings and then say well we'll do the substation later on a different site or

I would say we've seen it both ways throughout different times in the county. I would say most of the more recent ones do identify or reserve an area, but again, those are most commonly the rezoning path, not necessarily the conversion path.

Because at the end of the day, if we approve this, And then they say, well, okay, my substation application comes later. And that doesn't get approved. At the end of the day, the applicant could then go to the state and say, I got three data center buildings approved. County won't give me power. And the state, I think it's the SCC, can override a county jurisdiction and say, you will build the substation. Is that correct?

I'm not sure.

Jason, do you know? That's my understanding.

I don't know off the top of my head.

It'd be good to get the answer that because everything I've found is that yes, they can so That's my concern about proving data centers with no idea where the substan where the powers coming from powers coming from Dominion somewhere But without knowing where the substation is how it's located and its impacts. It's difficult to Consider that. All right. I will go to the applicant for presentation.

I

Sorry about the pause. Good evening, members of the Planning Commission. My name's Ben Wales. I'm a land use planner with the law firm Curata, here this evening with Brian Downey with the applicant and other members of the applicant team. We're pleased to be here with you to answer some questions and provide additional information. And to some of the discussion that just went, we're grateful for staff's willingness to work with us recently in meetings and conversations to try and better grasp what additional information we can provide. We had a really productive meeting on Friday afternoon with DTCI. I believe we have a revised scoping report that's been signed and we're gonna submit a traffic memo on Thursday. which we understand addresses staff's comments on that topic and I understand from, I don't know that we need to provide any additional information on the other topics to Mr. Banks, Commissioner Banks' question but staff will consider some topics that perhaps weren't brought up because of the way that this was processed and we understand that. So this is a data center application, albeit a zoning conversion, but as one of the things I want to explain through these slides is we have a significant amount of detail and of the way that we've worked with staff through this process to come up with some really detailed profits consistent with other data centers that you've seen. The staff has explained this application site is between Shore Road and Route 28. It's an assemblage of parcels. Almost all of them are developed with aging buildings. Some of them date back to being 40, 50 plus years old. I think the oldest is a Holiday Inn from 1972. And I looked up earlier, that application must have been reviewed against the Loudoun County 1959 zoning ordinance, but I don't want to bring another one in. So this image is a bit bright on this screen. Hopefully it's better on yours. But this shows how the site is laid out amongst its surroundings. The CDP as I'll show includes development envelopes. It doesn't show the building footprints and this gives a sense of where the buildings would go and the green space that Commissioner Frank you mentioned at the briefing and really lets you give a sense for how it fits in with its surroundings. We have data centers immediately to our south. We have them over 28 to our west and down southeast also. And as staff noted in the staff report, it is consistent with existing development pattern and in alignment with the 2019 general plan vision for the suburban policy area. There's a lot of words on this slide, I'm not gonna read them all. But I did again think it would be helpful just to give a sense for some of the topics that we've discussed. This application has obviously been unique, but we have got into a number of detailed topics with staff. So from a zoning administration perspective, it will meet all the stances of the zoning audience, the current zoning audience. Community planning, as with other applications, we have commitments to build and design, sustainable design, DTCI, on-off-site pedestrian connections, EV charging stations, bike racks. And then transit bus service easements and bus shelters. And then numerous environmental resource commitments, tree-safe areas, pollinators, additional plantings, a lot of which you'll see in all data centers. Some, I think, go beyond other data center applications. So this is our data center layout on our CDP. Again, it's not a typical ZRTD CDP, which just is a blank canvas with only the buffers and setbacks. around the edge of the site. Clearly this is not a typical zoning conversion. I've got to thank Mr. Junder behind me for reorienting this image after Mr. Miller's comments at the briefing session. But again, this is our committed layout. It shows our development envelopes, which are buildings and mechanical yards, parking areas and travel ways, and some of the commitments to the environmental resources that I mentioned on the previous slide. This image has a lot of colors. Again, it helps to give a sense of how this site fits in with the surroundings. Here's the orange area in the middle. The green is existing data center development. Purple is proposed data center development. And the blue is industrial zoning districts. I've labeled on here the Dulles North Technology Park. That is the sister application that's coming with this one that has special exception applications for substations that will serve this site. They'll be connected by underground distribution lines. And yes, it is coming to you and we've been working well with staff on that one too. Building height was mentioned at the briefing session. I just wanted to note some of the building heights around us that have helped us refine what height we should be at. CDP is submitted, shows what the zoning ordinance allows, 100 feet, but we are revising the profits after this evening to reduce that to 70 feet. It will be a maximum of two stories, which we think is consistent with what's surrounding us here. Just to touch on a couple of these buildings. Again, we're proposing 70. This hotel south of Old Aux is 69 feet. These two data centers are approximately 60, but like ours, they are two-story. The application parcel is in the center here. This is a Dose Electric day center building, which is approved for 75 feet. These two hotels, this one is 67 feet. This one's 52, I believe. And these two buildings are four and five stories. The five story building is, again, 67 feet. So again, we believe that 70 foot maximum building height is appropriate here. Community planning, this is suburban employment. We have the typical commitments that help us conform consistency with those recommendations. Those are all memorialized in our draft proffers. one of which is building design. These are building designs that are included in our CDP and discussed in our profits. What we're showing across the top here are our principal facades, so that principal facade will face Shore Road and Route 28. These are our end facades, and all three buildings will be the same, so they'll all share the same design. We also have some renderings coming up which help show how these will look in real life. But this is a mechanical screen facade which will screen mechanical equipment. These will be within the sites. The buildings will be back to back. So this is again within the site. And then these are some of the renderings that we've created to show that building design. Again, the principal facade facing Shore Road and Route 28. That's the same facade looking in the other direction. These designs have been created by the architect Gensler and some of the information we've submitted to staff to demonstrate conformance with the general plan has been pretty detailed to explain how they came up with this design, what cues they took from the surrounding built and natural environment. One of our side facades, again, showing that mechanical screen wall, again, internal to the site, screened by the buildings. And then this is another facade with our main entrance. And I will note, in meetings with some of you this week and last week, we had some comments on our architecture. We're working with the architect to try and address some of those comments and bring revisions back to you. And those are our slides.

Okay, questions for the applicant? Commissioner Miller.

Thank you. Mr. Wales, the proposal is for up to 100 feet. Will the applicant be willing to commit to a height of no more than 70 feet?

Yes, we're pleased to revise the profits after tonight, tomorrow morning, to a maximum of 70 feet. Thank you. Commissioner Myers.

I wanted to ask a question. I think you told me this when we were in our briefing. The reason why the substation is kind of disjointed to this application is that because there was a request made to keep that hotel intact, the two became two separate applications. Is that the case?

Yes, that's one of the reasons this was separated. I'm just trying to go back to one that shows a whole thing. Yes, so when we submitted this whole area, all this is owned by the applicant, obviously the purple, that's the sister application, these parcels in blue, and this hotel here on the corner, it was all one application. We were asked to retain, I think at least one of the hotels, maybe both, and take those out of the applications, which we did. And at that point, these two pieces weren't contiguous.

I just think that's important because there's not a thing of going like you're just hoping it's later. Your intention originally was to have these joined together, but because somebody on a county level requested you pull it apart, then the applications got disjointed.

Right. Okay.

Jason, do you have a comment? Commissioner Jasper.

Thank you. So I'm going to, Ben, you and I spoke earlier, and I think you were familiar with the staff report at the time you mentioned it. I'm looking at page five because I'm still back on the ZRTD, ZMAP, blah, blah, blah stuff. At the top of page five on the staff report, it says, it sets forth, I think, what the review criteria are, which are consistency, are you at that, so you're reading along? I just don't wanna get ahead of you. You see it?

You're at part G?

Um, I'm at, it says policy analysis route 28 tax district. Yeah. Yep. Um, so it says consistency with the general plan land use compatibility, including impacts to surrounding area impacts to natural environmental and heritage resources impacts to housing, economic development impacts to public services, utilities, and infrastructure. Consisted with the countywide transportation plan, which I assume is part of what the information staff has asked for and mitigation of impacts of proposed development and if specific which is what is Here potential impacts of the proposal. I just want to make sure that if that if that is if those are in fact the things that are permissible be looked at with this application and I'm getting nodding from staff, and does the applicant agree?

We don't disagree.

Okay, all right. I think that's it. I think Dale raised something I had a question about. When you were speaking, answering Dale's question, Commissioner Meyer's question, you were saying that staff asked you to split apart the applications because they wanted the hotel retained?

I didn't say staff asked that question. I didn't say staff asked them to. I said someone in an official position asked them not to separate them.

Oh, okay. And somebody, okay. And the applicant is planning on retaining those hotel uses. Okay. All right. Thank you. That was enough. Thanks.

Can I just add, in answer to your first question, we agree that these are the, what the application should be reviewed against. We, I just want to make it clear, we haven't held back any information. We haven't pushed back on anything.

Oh, no, I didn't think you had. No, no. I apologize if that's what it sounded like.

Commissioner Frank.

I'm trying to figure out how to ask this, but the lovely purple block on the image in front of us right now, the other application that isn't here, what's on that besides the substation, anything?

As proposed, no, it's just a substation. It's a larger area than you might expect because it's a special exception and we're not entirely sure what the final design might be the need and so with a special exception, it's a layer that we can use some or all of it and that's the reason.

Okay, so I guess then, and correct me if I'm wrong, but to Chair Kearse's kind of thought process earlier about usually we have a substation, well that's because a number of years ago we started realizing there were a lot of data centers being built and nobody knew where the substation was going to go. And so now I think also Dominion has probably, I'm going to go out on a limb, pushed out onto the data center community and said, you have to bring your own land or tell us where it's going because they're having trouble procuring it all anymore and finding the places for it and making it fit. So I think there's been an evolution of this process. So if that is an application that is only for a substation and it is your land and this is an application for data center, it's essentially, yes, there's stuff between it. But really, it's two pieces that make up that whole that we're usually asking people to do. Is that how you guys are approaching this?

Exactly. And again, those pieces between it are owned by the applicant, apart from this one on the corner.

They are. So the undergrounding is truly not a pipe dream. Pardon me.

And an ordinance requirement, too.

You know, wishful thinking would be the non-pun on that. Because, you know, folks come in a lot of times and reassure us things. But it sounds like you have control of that stretch. And so as long as the utilities that are already in place all along that way can accommodate you doing that. Okay. I just wanted to be clear that that was your intention of what you guys are trying to do here. Yeah. Thank you.

Anybody else? All right. I will go ahead and open up.

Chair Keers, just to answer your question from earlier about, and I guess maybe the conversation's moved on, but just to answer your question earlier, generally the SEC does not have the power to overrule the locality's land use decision on a substation. There's an exception, though, if the substation is like an integral part of the regional grid necessary for transmission of power, but for something that's serving an individual customer, the SEC generally won't. will not have the authority to overrule the locality. Having said that, Your question did remind me, I think we ran into this maybe with another application, might have been Tuscarora, where it does kind of put the Board of Supervisors or Planning Commission Board of Supervisors in a bind, though, where you do approve the legislative application for the data center, but then are put in a situation where you potentially will deny the substation powering it, and that can lead to some problems, claims of unfairness from the applicant.

Thank you. So to your point, an Aspen and a Golden, the state would typically step in and override that, but a local one, probably not.

Okay.

All right. I will open up the public hearing for this. We had nobody signed in advance. Does anybody in the room want to speak to this application? No? Nobody online? All right. The public hearing is now closed. This is in the Sterling District, so I will make the motion. here somewhere i Moved that the planning commission forward led you 2024-56 dallas technology park z map 2024-18 to a planning commission work session for further discussion second okay motion made by chair keir seconded by commissioner frank um is as far as an opening I see why we have this the way we do. It's sort of a loophole with the change in the data center regulations that allows this is a way to avoid a special exception. but I think we need to apply at least I feel we need to apply the same criteria looking at this in that same kind of view as far as the data center the substation I don't I wasn't arguing they had to be contiguous I just would have a much preferred they both be presented to us together even if they're separate applications because the two go hand in hand and I do have concerns about putting the cart in front of the horse by approving the data centers before we have any idea where the facility that's going to provide the power is coming from. But with that, the other items that I think the staff and the applicant already realized to kind of get the information that staff's looking for to complete the application, we have time to do that. I also... I agree with Commissioner Miller and the applicant's willingness to drop the height to 70 feet. It seems much more appropriate for this area. And in my preference, I wish you just came with a zoning conversion to the current zoning ordinance period and moved on from there. But after seeing the chart, now I know why specifically you're doing this because of that loophole. Those are my comments. Anybody else? Commissioner Myers.

I just want to make sure when it comes back to the commission, and I know I expressed this with you all when we met privately, I would like to see some beefing up, if that's the word we want to call it, of what you're calling the front facades and all. I think they could have a little more glass or office building looking to it than the grates. So I definitely would like to see some enhancement to those elevations that we talked about.

Understood. Thank you.

Mr. Frank I would like to align myself in just about every way with what chair Kier said I'd like a commitment to the 70 foot height reduction or limit and and you know if there's perhaps the time it takes I don't know how far the other application is behind this I know there's only so many things we can all control in the universe but it would be really nice if they aligned and kind of came for us at the same time I understand why they're separate, but perhaps the time it takes to get a little bit more meat on the bones of this application to where folks feel comfortable and staff can give us a recommendation either way would also give the other one time to catch up. I know we can only let things sit idle for so long before they sort of time out and expire and there's issues and we, you know, we've obviously this one is good, you know, congratulations on being the guinea pig and I don't even know what else you call it. Hopefully you're not the first of many of these that are this complicated. I think you just sort of fell into a twilight zone that it all overlapped in the perfect way. imperfect way so You know if you can make it a little less painful for us perhaps that that will help everybody and get you where you want to be but the timing thing is is kind of a Sticky wicket for me as well Thank You Commissioner Combs

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I echo a lot of what has already been said. And question with respect to the status of the substation application. How far behind is it compared to this one? Do we know? Yes.

I don't think we have it scheduled yet, but that's something we can track down. I don't think it's in our forecast before August. We're checking it. Okay.

Well, to the extent it's doable, I would second the sentiment that we try to get it to catch up with this so that we can consider them as closely as possible just for efficiency sake. And especially since if the applicant did break them apart at the request of the county, it'd be nice for us to perhaps accommodate that by getting them a little more parallel tracked. So with that, happy to support the motion. Mr. Jasper. Oh, do you have a response?

I was going to just, yeah, say we don't have it currently slated for scheduling at this time, so we must be waiting on the resubmission.

No, no.

We'd ask for July, yeah.

June or July, okay.

Well, sometime soon.

Yeah. Mr. Jasper.

I'll support the motion to send it to a work session. I am concerned that we are not looking at these broadly enough for consistency with the general plan. When I looked at the criteria for reviewing this, I think they clearly enable us and county staff to look at things like that against the desperate need that we have countywide for flex space. Recently the commission voted in favor of putting flex space in the rural policy area because of the lack of flex space in the eastern part of the county in the employment areas where it belongs. The proliferation of data centers will diminish employment opportunities and certainly diminishes the availability of space for flex industrial and other uses. And so I really think that that is in fact an important part of the review and I would hope that staff would think about that as intentionally as it does, you know, the traffic circulation.

Okay, thank you. Uh, Vice Chair, Moderate?

Thank you, Chair. I think, uh, Commissioner Combs kind of asked the question I was thinking of asking, so, um, I don't know how much ever is possible. I don't know if the application is not scheduled for the substation. At least I would like to get some kind of references from the, either applicant or the staff, uh, some kind of idea what I know we are not going to make you bind to what you guys are going to tell us, but maybe give us some kind of an idea what substation is there and how you guys are planning for the transmission lines or how this is going to impact the data center because some of us feel that we are not looking at the full picture in evaluating this application as together. I know if your application is coming behind, I have no date, but I'd rather say something about it, know something about it, before we make a decision on this particular parcel. So, thank you.

All right. I think that's everybody. All right. I don't have a closing, so the motion to send to work session. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? That motion will carry 9-0. Thank you. Thank you.

I have a quick question. Was the suggestion of underlining from the substation to this site, was that a request in jest or was that a serious?

Wasn't there discussion? I thought they brought that up of burying the lines.

I didn't know if that was a wishful thinking and that was expected.

No, that was my full support of their commitment.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

What did I say?

Okay.

Okay. I've been saying a lot of things.

Okay. Thanks.

All right. So commissioners, administrative items. So we do not have any items for the June work session. So we will not have a meeting. Pardon? I think it's already probably past the turn-in date So we don't we will not have a work session in June so The public hearing items for June. We have quite a few so expect a much longer night then and staff will get the Reports out to us ahead of time so we can ask questions since we're not having the work session meeting Brian what else you got? That's it. All right. We are adjourned What's that? Yeah, that's totally, I forget when that is, but that's in June sometime. Yeah.