Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

good evening everyone the july 9th 2026 loudon county planning commission work session and public hearing will now come to order as is our custom let's 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 At the request of the applicant, Dulles Technology Park, LLC, the Planning Commission work session item number one tonight, LEGI 2024-56, Dulles Technology Park, ZMAP 2024-18 has been deferred to the September 10th, 2026 Planning Commission work session. And that was our only work session item tonight, so we'll move on to the public hearing. Members of the public who wish to comment on any item on the public hearing legislative agenda may do so. If you're 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're participating electronically, please call the number at the bottom of the screen. If you signed up to speak after 12 noon, please confirm your name is on the speaker list as public comment signup closes at noon. 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 per the Commission bylaws. Written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Deputy Clerk who will make copies for the Planning Commissioners. 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. Our procedure 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 of staff. 10-minute applicant presentation. Commissioners will be given three minutes to ask questions of the applicant. Hearing is then open 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. Commissioner for tonight given these two public hearing items. We've actually Kind of seen once before but have had some slight modifications to it My intent is to give each commissioner at least two rounds of three minutes if they wish to speak because in my mind This is more of a work session on an item. We've already seen so I want to make sure Commissioners have every opportunity to get their their thoughts and comments in All right, we have Two minutes to review. Has anybody that has the commission had opportunity to review the minutes of the May 14th, 2026 work session? And if so, I'll accept a motion.

Second.

Okay, motion approved, made by Commissioner Combs, seconded by Commissioner Miller. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? That motion will carry 7-0-2 with Commissioners Myers and Jasper absent for the vote. And secondly, we have the minutes for the June 23rd, 2026 public hearing. Motion to approve made by Commissioner Combs, seconded by Vice Chair Moderelli. Any discussion on the motion? Okay, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? That motion will also carry 7-0-2 with Commissioners Jasper and Myers absent for the vote. All right, next up we'll do our disclosures and I will start at the end of the day as to my right. If you have any disclosures, just turn your light on.

Thank you.

Commissioner Miller.

Yeah, I'm trying to see the right date. I apologize. I believe it was July 2nd. I had a phone conversation. I'm sorry. No, it was, I believe it was July 2nd. I had a phone conversation with Todd Pearson from BF Saul regarding the application that was now deferred this evening. That's all. Okay.

Anybody else? Commissioner Frank.

Today, July 9th, I also had a conversation with representatives from BF SALT regarding the Dulles Technology Park application that has been deferred.

Okay. Anybody else? All right. For myself, on July 6th, I had a meeting with the representatives for the Dulles Technology Park application. July 7th and July 8th, I had a phone conversation with Ben Wales regarding Dulles Technology Park. And on July 9th, I met with the members of Dominion regarding their Golden substation application tonight. And with that, we'll move on to our... First item, which is Leggie 2024-8, Dulles South Community Park, which I think has since been renamed Special Exception 2024-17 and Special Exception 2026-34.

Good evening, my name is Christian Maldonado with Department of Planning and Zoning here to present Dulles South Community Park. Staff can provide an abbreviated presentation if the commission wishes as well.

Yep, I think that's fine. Great. Basically, I think just as long as we get the updates from the public hearing and I think that's really all we need. Sure.

Prior, this application was previously held at the April 28th commission public hearing and has since been revised to include an additional special exception request. As a result, the application has been re-noticed for public hearing. The application proposes the regional park, NDTR 3, UBF zoning district, as well as the special exception to increase the maximum permitted color temperature rating of the proposed fuel lights from 3000 Kelvin to 5,700 Kelvin. At the commission's request, the application now includes a commitment to plant approximately 16 evergreen trees near the pinch point of the subject site between residential dwellings and the athletic fields. Staff has recommended a condition for these plantings. As of yesterday evening, the applicant held a lighting demonstration as well. And LCPS has since submitted a letter of intent citing ongoing coordination efforts to address traffic, construction and operational and safety concerns. The commissioner requested information on dark sky standards that has been provided in the staff report, characterizing lighting and how it is measured. and reached on surfaces, including the appearance of light. The zoning ordinance requires consistency with dark sky standards and permits a maximum of 3000 Kelvin for outdoor field lighting and requires these levels, these lighting levels to be demonstrated on a photometric plan that do not exceed 10 foot candles at property boundaries or road of right away. The application is proposing to increase that color temperature to 5,700 Kelvin for all the field lights resulting in cooler toned field lighting. For reference, 3,000 Kelvin is equivalent to an average household light bulb. 5,700 Kelvin is similar to a clear midday sunlight. Staff notes the dark sky standards permits a maximum color temperature rating of 5,700 Kelvin consistent with the applicant's request, recognizing visibility needs associated with user safety, playability, class of play and spectator viewing. Staff could support the requests given the request demonstrates conformance to the zoning ordinance remains within dark sky standards and therefore remains consistent with the lighting policies of the 2019 general plan. As mentioned, and for the Commission's awareness, the Board of Supervisors approved a request to finalize the naming of the subject application as Light Ridge Park at their May 19th, 2026 Board Business Meeting. Staff continues to support a Planning Commission recommendation of approval to the Board as it is consistent with the County policies. Staff is happy to answer any questions.

Great. Any questions for staff? Vice Chair, Moderating?

Christian, were there any changes made to the operating hours or anything?

To clarify, operating, the hours of operation? Yes. Specifically pertaining to the field lighting?

Yes.

The language was clarified in the conditions to say that the field lighting will only be on during scheduled events and activities and would otherwise be off specific to each field.

Is there a latest time in the night that they got to turn them off?

That would depend on programming with the applicants

Thank you.

Anybody else? No? All right, does the applicant have a presentation?

We do have a presentation.

Space Arts would have done this

So while we're getting that out, my name is Jack Story. I'm the applicant's representative. I'm with Dewberry. With me tonight is Megan McCarthy and Taryn Buck from DTCI and Steve Torpey from the director of PRCS. Thank you. So Christian already hit on the updates from the last time we were here, but I'll go into it in just a little bit more detail. So there was discussion about the park layout and specifically where we had placed different amenities within there. And I think the playground was one of those items. So to kind of give a little more detail on that, we did evaluate multiple configurations of all of those elements and there's been quite a few different options presented and what we are currently proposing with a centrally located concession facility, restrooms and playground all as a central hub to kind of feed into all the other areas. That's the desired layout. It functions the best for safety and security and also just allows parents and other users like coaches to observe the kids as they go back and forth between the fields and the centrally located facilities there. Another discussion point was about the field surface. So these are natural turf fields currently and there was discussion on whether or not they would ever be changed in the future and we would like to retain that flexibility to potentially use synthetic turf in the future because that allows for greater field availability, fewer weather related closures and it also reduces the maintenance. There's no plan for that at this point but we would like to retain that flexibility. Site security was also discussed and this is a layered approach that we have to the security of this facility. As you know, there is a controlled access to the park itself and that is at the entrance to the park and that would be closed when the park hours are closed. And then there are also security cameras within the park. And then there's coordination with the offices of emergency management and safety and security. The second layer to that is that you have to come through the school property to get to the park and the school property, the facilities there have additional security measures through LCPS staff, their security, as well as the sheriff's office, and then monitoring of the cameras. It's 24 seven on the school property. As Christian mentioned, the buffer was another item that was discussed, and you can see on the screen that there's significant forest cover between the west side of the park and the adjacent residence. However, it does get fairly narrow up in the northeast corner, so we have proposed an additional supplemental area of evergreen plantings, and that would kind of provide some immediate screening. The HOA you can see in that sort of open area up there has done reforestation, so that would not come into play for several years down the road. So these trees that we would plant there would provide that immediate screening. and traffic was another item that was discussed. There was a lot of back and forth on what areas were studied and after our last hearing, we did meet with DTCI staff in May and we reviewed the study area, all the roads that were studied, all the intersections that were studied, the methodology and the findings and DTCI has confirmed that the report does address all of their concerns and there are no outstanding comments or any requests from DTCI to modify that report. We've also been coordinating with LCPS since the project began and that continues back in March of 2025. That conversation started with construction site logistics and that's gonna continue on through the entire construction of the project. And as you heard, LCPS did provide a letter of support in noting that that coordination is ongoing. And the last item is about field lighting. So all the lights that we are proposing are full cutoff fixtures. They have shielding on every fixture and the optics of these are all customizable. So each individual light on the pole is aimable and there's precise aiming angles, which really cuts down on light trespass and glare for the residents. that might be offsite. The hours of operation, it would be consistent with the restrictions of the zoning ordinance, so there is a curfew, but the lights would only be on during scheduled activities. So if there's a practice scheduled or a game scheduled, the lights would be programmed to come on at that time only. The height of the poles, that extra height, it's, necessary to aim the lights down instead of across the field. So that also helps us to reduce that stray light that might go off the field and onto neighboring properties. And as you heard, there was a open house or a demonstration at Hanson Park to show these exact light fixtures and how they actually function in real life. And this next slide, is a photo taken from Hanson with the new lights installed, and it's a very similar application to our side-by-side large rectangular fields, and you can see that the light fixtures are completely cut off from above, and the light is really well controlled right onto the field. and the color temperature. So I imagine there's a couple questions about it. We are asking for a special exception to increase it from 3,000 up to 5,700 Kelvin. And what is the 5,700? That, as Christian mentioned, it does simulate daylight, but that's important for player safety so that they can see the ball as it's moving fast, visibility. It's It's a clearer light, as you can see in that image to the right. That's the upper ball field is high-pressure sodium, and that's that more amber color light that's in the 3000 range, whereas the bottom field has been improved with the Musco lights, and it has that higher color temperature so that it's much clearer for seeing the ball. And that is kind of the industry standard, as you can see in the Illuminating Engineer Society standard. Their recommended practice is the 5700, and as well as Dark Sky International guidelines for sports also recognizes that same metric. And lastly, it is a county standard for PRCS and LCPS, and it's been installed, that specific temperature has been installed in over 200 athletic fields throughout the county. With that, we'd be happy to answer any questions you have. We also have Groslade here and Musco, if there are any particular questions about the lighting.

All right, thank you. Questions for the applicants? Okay, I just have one. Assuming all goes well through the board, when do you anticipate construction to begin and when would it end?

So generally construction will begin mid next year as long as everything goes well with this application and the rest of our site plan and it'll last generally in the range of two years. We're still coordinating with LCPS to determine the restrictions that they would request on the hours that we would be importing fill and other construction materials.

So you said two years? Yes. Wow, okay. All right. Commissioner Combs.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to understand the lighting dynamics a bit better. So the lights will only be illuminated when there's scheduled activity on the field. How is that controlled? Is there literally someone who operates a switch at the fields or is this controlled remotely?

That's one of the benefits of this new lighting system. You actually have the ability to do both. What we do with our leagues that have this technology at the field, that gets put into the system so that the lights come on automatically. but you also have the ability on site to cut them on and off. With this being what we consider a priority one field site, there would be a facility attendant there to ensure that the lights do come on automatically, but also as a backup for on off if something was to happen with that system. So any of us, like I've got the ability to go in and control any of my fields from my phone so that if there was an issue, it's just a matter of a phone call and you can turn them off remotely.

Okay, but there is a field attendant, someone who will be there during all scheduled activity times to manage the on and off.

That's correct.

And then with respect to the dark sky standards, so I understand that 5,700 is still compliant with dark sky. Is there a certification process for the outdoor sports illumination standards that this park could qualify for, given that it is consistent with the standards?

I can speak generally to that. So if this isn't satisfactory, we can have Joe come up here. But there's kind of a two-stage. There's a design certification where it's not actually certifying the entire actual conditions. It's just does the design generally meet those standards. So that's the first phase. And then after the project's built, you would submit for another one. And it either meets it or it doesn't. But it's based on actual standards. like going out there and measuring it.

Okay, so do we know whether the design is eligible for dark sky certification?

It's designed with that in mind, but that has not been a target of us. There are certain metrics in there that we have designed it to, and Joe, I don't know if you wanna come up and speak to any specifics on that.

Okay, thank you.

To answer your question, when we originally designed the project, we did not design that according to the outdoor sports lighting program. We did review with engineering in the beginning stages as to what it would take to meet qualification for that program. And I've been told that we would have to go up higher in pole height and potentially add more fixtures to the project itself. So we were trying to achieve the fine balance of keeping pole heights as low as possible as that can be a science but also an art in achieving reduced spill and glare for your neighbors but also achieving the right amount of light on the field. along with the smoothness of light on the field. So we never designed it that way, but it would, it is a possibility, but you'd have to go up in pole heights and potentially add more poles.

May I follow up with the amount of time? Okay, so that's interesting. I was gonna follow up and ask whether the 105-foot pole height or the 80-foot pole height are consistent with the certification standards, but in order to make them eligible, you'd have to go higher, which... Correct.

Particularly on that cricket field because of its relation to that property line, how close the proximity of it is. Taller poles for us is better because we're getting better aiming angles and putting that light precisely where we want it, which is on the field itself as opposed to neighboring properties. So in order to achieve what dark skies requires as a part of that program they're judging what we call candela or glare which is that intensity that's coming out of the light fixture itself which is what your neighbors are going to care about so we'd have to go up higher in pole heights and potentially add more poles as it applies to that cricket field in our last sorry last question are there any other elements of the current design that wouldn't lend itself to certification are there not that i'm aware of okay thank you

All right, Vice Chair Moderelli.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. In both the staff as well as applicant presentation, what they did not see is concern from the schools that we heard in the public hearing last time. I know there was some safety concern. There were access concerns that they had. So I haven't heard from any of you guys whether those concerns been addressed or the LCPS and the Lightridge School is happy with what those adjustments, if any, made. I think we're about to find out.

Good evening. I'm Jefferson Miller with LCPS. LCPS is in full support of the park. We've been meeting since March of 2025. We've had bi-weekly meetings talking about this, and we've also been meeting with the principals to address their concerns. And DTCI staff, Megan and Taryn specifically, have been a great help and are leading this project, and we're in full support of it.

I'm glad to hear that, because I haven't seen it in the presentation. I just don't want to miss that, so thank you.

Of course, thank you.

Anybody else? All right, we'll go ahead and open up the public hearing. I do have two people signed up. First speaker would be Tom Thoma, followed by Frank Blackstone, and you can come up to either podium.

Hi, I'm Tom Toma. I'm the resident of Willowsford community. I'm the house closest to the lights. So I'd like to thank the project team for having us out last night to look at the park. Quite frankly, I looked ahead and the fields were indicated closed on the status chart. So I fully expected to go to Hanson Park and see all the lights on. They were off. So I talked to the field, the on-site field guy out there, for about a half hour. And one of my biggest concerns was, how are you gonna turn these lights on and off? And he answered all my questions. They can do it here. The default is the lights are off, unless there's a scheduled event. After the third Monday in November, they're off for the winter, because it's grass fields. So the lighting situation, as demonstrated here, and talking to the field rep in my mind is pretty much solved unless we can just have no lights. But they've got about as far as they can in doing it. I really appreciate the homework and the setup they did for the demo. I mean they were out there earlier putting things up and this flag here is where your house would be with that light and they really went through the numbers. on the paper that I'd handed out the last time, the only really big issue is the traffic, what that's gonna look like. And I noticed this week the housing development right across the street from the school has started digging up trees and things. So you're gonna expect a lot of traffic from that housing development here pretty soon. And not to mention the conflict during the construction of trucks Competing with each other on the traffic circle where all the kids are so Thank you for your time and thank the team here for setting the demo up.

That was really good Thank you next Frank Blackstone

Good evening. Frank Blackstone. I'm the president of the Willisford HOA and also a resident of Blue Ridge District on Homestead Landing. I wanted to thank all you guys for your service. I know what's involved in this. I'm also on the PROS board. And fortunately, we didn't have a meeting tonight, Steve. And I wanted to come here in person because I have this small little file that I've been working on this park in all those capacities. And I felt like it was necessary to thank all of you guys for your questions and your concerns. Robin Eve isn't here, this is in her district, but what you guys did and permitted us to be able to do a work session and have some follow-on conversations has really been helpful. I apologize, my statement only made it this afternoon. I wanted to sort of take into account what happened last night. And so I wanted to thank also the people that arranged for the meeting last night so that we could alleviate one of the major issues that we had on behalf of our residents, because as you see, those are our residents and Tom's one of them. Tom is our lighting expert within Wellesford on our design review committee, knows a little bit about it. So you guys did a great job in addressing that. And I wanted to thank, I mean, I really should put on the record all of you guys' names that made it. Taryn, Megan, Christian, Amanda, Robin Eve is not here, but Steve, Mark, Marshawn, I mean, Christian. Who am I missing? I think I got just, oh, Bev Tate showed up from the schools. We couldn't get Jefferson, but Beverly made it. And so it's really helpful, and I wanted to thank all of you guys for doing what I asked you to do, which was to listen to us and work with us, because that's the way that things get, I think, best done in the community. I'm on your guys' side sometimes. I get the privilege of sitting in on these pros boards meetings, I think, as an aside, it's interesting. Steve says he can control all the fields. He's about to go four and a half hours north of Montreal and is not going to have cell services. Somebody else better have those controls, Steve. But I did want to take the opportunity to thank you guys. the staff, and that includes everybody that was involved to work with folks on making this happen. I wanna thank Tom. I thought the Willisford Conservancy folks were gonna be here. They did give me some comments and I presented them to folks along the way, but I felt like it was necessary for me to be in person and thank you guys.

All right, thank you. Let's see, we do have one remote speaker. Is there anybody else in the room that wanted to speak to this application? Okay, I will go. We have a remote speaker, BJ Constantine.

Yes, hello. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you tonight. My name is BJ Constantine and my home is in close proximity to the proposed facility. This is a poorly chosen location for this proposed facility. As mentioned earlier tonight, the proposed location is behind two elementary schools, Hovatter and Henrietta Lacks, with 800 classrooms. And 50 to 900 students in each school and also the light bridge high school with approximately 2050 students. That's nearly 4000 students that are in the direct path to to get access to this. Proposed facility traffic congestion at the traffic circle at road and light Ridge farm road is already significant. And I'm concerned that the addition. The addition of traffic to and from the proposed facility is going to significantly increase traffic in this area. This park is concealed behind three schools previously mentioned, as well as a natural vegetation in the area. The location is secluded and is not visible from any major road, either Braddock Road or North Star Boulevard. I strongly believe that this is the wrong location for this facility and that the issues of safety, security, and traffic congestion will be exacerbated if this proposal moves forward. Thank you for your time.

All right, thank you. All right, we have no other speakers, so I'll go ahead and close the public hearing. Would the staff or the applicant like to address anything they've heard?

So we do have a representative here from Grove Slade, if you'd like us to address concerns regarding traffic?

Sure.

Okay, fantastic.

Grove Slate Associates. So we've completed a traffic study. We met with DTCS staff right after the public hearing to go over some of the assumptions and the findings that were presented in the study. And there were no concerns or comments expressed by DTCS staff. I think the assumptions in the study were very conservative as far as background growth is concerned, as far as the assumptions from the park are concerned. One of the things about the trip generation with respect to the park is that the traffic flow is gonna be in the opposite direction as compared to the school traffic. The elementary schools, their dismissal time is way before the main park activity that'll happen in the off-peak hours. So there wasn't any major conflict that was revealed in the traffic study. The roundabout met the county's level of service criteria. with the park traffic included in the network. So again, I think we've checked all the boxes in terms of meeting the county's level of service standards, and DTCS staff has acknowledged that and accepted the traffic statement. There were no outstanding issues.

All right, thank you. All right, this application is in the Little River District. Commissioner Jasper is not here. So Commissioner Miller, would you like to make a motion?

I certainly would. I move the Planning Commission forward leggy 2024.0008 Dulles South Community Park. Do we have to update the name in this? It doesn't matter. Okay. Specs 2024-0017 and specs 2026-0034 to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of approval subject to the conditions of approval dated June 29, 2026 and based on the findings for approval provided as attachments one and two to the July 9, 2026 Planning Commission Public Hearing Staff Report.

Second.

All right, okay. We have a motion to approve made by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Frank. Commissioner Miller, do you have an opening?

I do. In February, my son completed his 31st season of rec and LCPS sports as a high school senior at Loudoun County High School. During the, I believe, 13 years that we had some sort of rec activity, he participated at 17 high schools, all 17 high schools, most of the middle schools, probably a third of the elementary schools in every single park that has a rectangle or diamond in the county or the town of Leesburg. We have been there on Sunday mornings when it's 30 degrees. We have been there on Friday nights. We have been there at every day of the week, at every time of the hour to participate in youth sports in Loudoun County in some capacity. It is a yeoman's effort by Steve and the folks at the towns that run their facilities to pull off what they've pulled off over these last 13 years for my son with a clear, and without question, deficit of fields and ability to actually host everything that they do. It's a remarkable program that we have, it's a remarkable system, and this is one more park in what I hope will be another crown jewel for us. hope that the day comes sooner than later that we can make these fields turf instead of grass. Not so that you can play year round in the winter time, but so that you can play constantly and not have a field be unusable for a week after we have four inches of rain. But other than that, what we have learned over the years and how we've planned these parks and we've added the cricket pitches now, it's a tremendous, we're looking out for the people that are coming here and the things that they wanna do and the way they wanna use these facilities. And this park is just another fine example of how we're gonna be able to do that. My only wish, and Steve and I have talked about this in years past, One day, someway, somehow, at one of our parks, the self-timed 40-yard dash track that would be a welcome addition to one of these parks anywhere is my only hope. Other than that, thank you very much. This is a great opportunity for the county, and I encourage everyone to support this. Thank you. All right. Vice Chair Moderati?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be supporting the motion. Again, this field, especially the cricket field, is a welcome addition to this entire park. I don't know if everyone is aware, but we have 100-plus teams that that plays cricket in this county, and we don't have enough fields, and not the lighted fields. So I know I just want to appreciate LCPS work on this, the parks and recs work on this thing, and also the staff and the applicant who worked on to refine this application as best as you can. and took all the feedback that planning commission provided and improvised on it and every issue to check off that these things have been addressed and come up with an application at the end of the day, we couldn't find a single thing that we can point and say, you know what, you haven't addressed this issue. These are the kind of applications we would like to really see and I just want to congratulate both applicant as well as the staff for presenting such a good application. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments? Commissioner Miller, you have a closing? I do not. Okay, so we have a motion to approve. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? That motion will pass 7-0-2. Thank you very much.

Thank you all.

And next up is ledgy 2025-12 golden substation, commission permit 2025-5, special exception 2025-32, special exception 2025-33, and special exception 2025-137.

Ready? Yep.

Good evening. My name is Chris Chamaldonado with Department of Planning and Zoning, here to present the Golden Substation application. I could also provide a condensed version of updates at the Commission's... Great. The application was previously heard at the May 26th Commission public hearing. Since that time, the application was revised for consistency with zoning ordinance requirements. As a result, the application has been re-noticed for public hearing. The applicant continues to request a commission permit and special exception to permit the substation in the IP zoning district, reduce parking as well with an additional specs and a minor special exception to modify buffer requirements by eliminating the buffer along the north side of the substation, reducing widths on the three additional sides and plant heating requirements. The applicant has since committed to providing a decorative 10-foot-tall supplemental screen fence along the W&OD Trail and Route 28 outside of and in addition to the proposed 20-foot-tall screen wall enclosure. Additionally, 520 plant units have been added along the W&OD Trail for a total of 1,048 plant units. The modifications are shown on the graphic on screen as A, B, C, and D, and the table included there, including what is required, which again include a reduction in buffer width and plant unit requirements. Renderings were also attached to the staff report as attachment six for your reference. Staff continues to identify the issue for commission consideration related to land use. Substations are not anticipated in this bourbon mixed use place type and are encouraged to use design techniques to minimize visual impacts adjacent to major roadways. As stated, the proposal commits to the 20 foot tall screening wall around the entire substation and the decorative 10 foot tall. supplemental screen fence along the W&OD trail and Route 28. In addition to the supplemental plannings along the trail, staff raises for commission consideration whether this proposed screening along the trail, Route 28 and Pacific Boulevard is consistent with the 2019 general plan. Staff could support commission approval of the commission permit and a recommendation of approval for the special exception and minor special exception applications to the board subject to conditions of approval. Staff is happy to answer any questions.

All right, thank you. Questions for staff? Commissioner Miller. Could support.

What would you need to see to say staff supports? What's the difference between staff supports versus staff could support?

Given the 2019 general plan has this site as suburban mixed use, to be transparent here, there's no way to support this use in this place type, given the policy allows design techniques to allow something to be here like this would be up for the commission to consider, which is why staff could support the use where it is.

Anybody else? Could you quickly run between the public hearing and now? What was the number of plantings that they had proposed then and how many are they proposing now? What was the number? You think you said 100 and some additional or?

Yes, so at the May 26th Planning Commission public hearing, if memory serves me correct, it was 528 planning units that were proposed along the trail, supplemental in addition to what the buffers would require. Now they've added 520 for a total of 1,048.

Okay, above and beyond, gotcha. Any change along Route 28? Other than the screening fence. So as far as plantings, are there the same number of plantings?

That's correct.

Okay.

Generally, I would have the applicant speak specifically as to what those species are. Okay.

Okay, I think my other questions are for the applicant. Okay, anything else for staff? Okay, does the applicant have a presentation?

We do. So again, my name is Jack Story. I'm with Dewberry applicants representative. With me tonight is Greg Matthey from Dominion. So this is a reliability project, as I'm sure you all are aware. And just as of Tuesday, the other reliability substation was approved by the board. But prior to that approval, there was discussion with the board to have more community engagement with all of the reliability projects. So there was electrical infrastructure working group that was formed, and Dominion was a part of that. And the three substations that are that you guys are seeing and the board is seeing were a part of that. So this was one of the substations. So the screening, the need for it, all of that was part of that working group. So four meetings were held in June. And there was also a virtual public meeting on the 25th of June. where the need for the substation, what it was serving and discussion of the upcoming process for more community engagement was discussed during that. And then there was an open house held on June 29th with Dominion and all of the public to gather feedback and to just talk about the project and different options for it. So since we were last before you, the updates are we've enhanced screening and buffering. You've heard that already from Christian. And then there were also options for color variations and material changes for the wall, and then that screen fence that you'll see in a moment. Dominion has also been engaged with Nova Parks to discuss additional planning along the trail, and that's still ongoing, but they have provided a letter of support that recognizes that Dominion is working with them and that there will be an agreement at some point that's offsite, but it's along the W&OD trail that Dominion will commit to working with Nova Parks to plant areas along there. So the screening and buffering, as was just discussed, we did increase the supplemental planning and that basically, it's coming out of our last planning commission hearing, that buffer along the northern side between us and the future data center, we were just accounting for some of that plant units along the W&OD. We're now accounting for all of the plant units that would be required in that buffer. We've added a secondary supplemental planning area along the W&OD closer to 28. We've also added that 10-foot tall decorative screen fence element, which just helps break up some of the linearness of the substation wall, because we do have some very long frontages on this project. And that would be in two areas. It'll be on 28, and you can kind of see it in that purple color, and then also along a portion of the W&OD trail in the meadow there. This is a sample of some of the colors and different wall combinations and the screen fence that were presented in the open houses to the public. You can see on the right that generally with feedback from the public is breaking up the wall so that it's not just one solid color. The consensus seemed to be that a darker color on the bottom was preferred because it allowed it to blend in a little bit more with the landscaping there and a lighter color on the top. So this is a view from the Pacific side where the future data center will be, but it illustrates what that wall looks like, where it has a darker green lower half that, again, blends in with the landscape. And the top could either be in this buff color or in the wheat color, not a whole lot of difference. Generally, it seems that the feedback we received was for a lighter neutral color. And then here's a few more simulations. This is the view from 28 with about 10 years of growth. So that is the limit that we can do because there are transmission lines running down 28. And then you've seen this view previously, but this is with the addition of those screen panels that came out of the public engagement process. And with that, we'd be happy to answer any questions about these updates.

Okay, questions for the applicant?

Mr. Miller. Jack, when you say that because the transmission lines and along the corridor, these are the limits that you can do. By limits, do you mean the type of wall? Sorry, I was speaking to the landscape.

Landscaping. Yeah, so there is a height restriction for any of the plant material that's underneath it, and it is running parallel with 28.

Right, the foliage can't grow beyond, say, the wall height.

Correct.

Yeah, because the lines are there.

Pretty much the limiting factor, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions? A couple I have. The question that came up, and I've never heard it brought up or even discussed before, but the actual backbones themselves, what do you call it, the H-type frame, is there anything that can be done to... screen that or make it look any better? I mean, given all the power lines that run through it, I don't honestly know of anything, but I'm not an expert on this nor have I. Is there cases that something can be done with those or is that just not physically possible?

Unfortunately, it's just a function of the State Corporation Commission approved the transmission lines as an overhead configuration. And so those backbones are needed to sort of dead-end those transmission lines and then bring them into the substation for the use of the substation. And so those are the... the heights that are needed. And unfortunately, nothing else can be done to shield it or to make them shorter. If you try to shield them, you need electrical clearances to the wire, so that just makes them taller. So it is a function of that it's an overhead configuration.

Okay. And is there much in the existing vegetation of any height on this property? Meaning is there around, is there any vegetation that exists that can be maintained to help rather than waiting for all of it to grow up from the ground? Is there any that can be saved that would be of any screening potential when it's first built? Or is it not anything there that would be of?

This this previously was a field. So this is all Second growth. It's a lot of invasives just like with the amount of incoming lines. We have to clear it. Yeah Okay

That's all being cleared. But what is not shown in this, because it's still under consideration with Noble Parks, is along the paved path on their property, looking to add plantings that are no more than 10 feet tall. Again, in alignment with the MOU that we have with Noble Parks.

Okay. All right. Chair Moderelli.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So during the last meeting when we are talking about the screening related from the Route 28, I don't know whether this is allowed, but I was expecting something like this to at least think about because this is not too complicated to put together for a... for the screening part. Something on top of the wall that can cover the edge, that can cover the edge, whatever you call it, edge frames. So I kind of did not see much change from the last division. I don't know whether there was any discussion to think about like this because this is the first thing that comes out if you type in innovative substation screening. I wonder what discussions have been taking place after the last meeting to now and why something this is not possible right now.

Sure. So Jack mentioned the working group that Vice Chair Turner initiated in the beginning of June. His motion for the working group asked for two meetings and one community meeting led by Dominion Energy by July. That working group quickly decided to meet every Monday through June, and Dominion held three open houses, one in person specifically for Golden and one for the Aspen substation. During the working group, we talked through a lot of the design considerations we have for substations, the different voltages, the different images that you see online. These are what we would call reliability projects with extra high voltage transmission line, which is 500 kV, which tends to have a larger footprint given the size of the equipment. With this, as well as the Aspen substation, we are using gas-installated switchgear that makes the substation a little bit smaller. But given that it's an overhead configuration, there are limits to the height given that every height that you add around the substation increases the line heights of the structures because you need those electrical clearances. A lot of what we see online are either distribution or lower voltage transmission lines that are underground. So you're not seeing those overhead lines coming over the wall. they're coming in underneath the walls. And so those screening fences are sort of an electrical hazard, so to speak. And so we've talked about in the working group around what are the applications for that? What are the applications that we can have for these reliability projects that are critically needed and confirmed by the state corporation commission to do that now while we work with staff on design criteria for substations coming to the board later on. And so it was sort of a two phase process that we agreed to in that working group was what can we do now, elements like those screening fences, added plantings, working with the W&OD trail to make sure that we're putting things closer to the, the transportation area, those are the elements that we could do in a short amount of time while we work on a longer plan for some of the other substations that are coming up.

Thank you.

Thank you. Follow up, how is the 20 foot wall an electrical hazard?

So it has to all be grounded in, and I'm not an electrical engineer, but everything near the substation has to be grounded so that there's no induced current or there's no stray voltage. And so anything, and then with the line heights, you have to maintain certain clearances by safety code. Sure, but we can put a 20-foot wall. yes that's okay but how is that 20-foot wall an electrical hazard because then the the lines uh treat that top of the wall as the floor and so then the the engineers use that as their clearance versus sure i i get that but commissioner murray is asking about going upside the h frame i'm not going that high i'm talking about just a 20-foot wall that's already been proposed right

that 20 foot wall itself is an electrical hazard or is it the material of it? Because the design he showed you, which I actually forwarded that to Kathleen Leonard after the last meeting and others might be a wall made out of metal or metal design on the exterior. All these walls have metal in them. So does the type of material that the wall was made of causes the electrical hazard or just the fact that there is a wall?

The fact that there is a wall.

Okay.

So the wall has to be grounded. Right. And at a certain height that we need. So there has to be a wall. There has to be a wall.

There has to be a wall and that wall is going to be an electrical hazard, okay, but the quality of the wall, the design of the wall can be of any number of things. It's just some things cost more than others, correct?

No, it is a protection of the substation from a security and cyber perspective. So it has to meet certain standards for things like anti-ballistic, anti-ram, those sorts of elements. So it is a very thoughtful wall. It's not just any type of wall. um and so we had different standards from anywhere from closed mess fencing to something like this which is a stamped concrete type application but it meets certain specifications of those security measures okay thank you so just if i understand the issue if with what was shown is trying to put

measure of screening above the 20-foot wall that now raises that is now the top or the floor and It raises the height that the wires would have to be because they have to be a certain distance above The wall yes, so it just it doesn't you just created a taller structure if you put a taller wall up because that's that's correct Interesting okay Any other questions for the applicant? I'm curious if there's any other screening things that the commission would like. That's the main reason we brought them back, is we feel this sufficient or not. Well, let me say, open up. We'll open up the public hearing. I don't have anybody signed up. Is there anybody in the room that would like to speak to this item? And nobody online? Okay, so the public hearing is now closed on this. So my question for the commission, is this sufficient? Or is there more that we would like to see? And I don't even know how to begin to go towards what other things could be done. I know one of the concerns is with the overpass of the W&ODs, when you're on that over, you're kind of looking down into this. Is there any way to screen that? I can't think of anything because you're so high up. you're gonna be above it. Vegetation, I think you've pretty much maxed out, if I'm not mistaken, what feasibly could be done along there and you've put the screening wall up. I personally like the two-tone wall with the darker partitions between them to break up the look of it and how other commissioners feel if there are other screening elements that they feel should be incorporated into this design. So I'll kind of open that up.

Commissioner Miller. So my feeling is that the current design to me. It's still a 20-foot prison wall with two-tone. Okay, great. We have we as the commission and individually have sent to Dominion and others samples of walls, decorative designed walls that presumably still serve the same, are designed and built in a way that serves its purpose. And this, the reason my objection for these walls here was proposed is this is a very visible area. And I recognize you're never gonna, you're not gonna shield an A train, you're not gonna do that. I also understand that if we build vegetation up to the edge of the trail, then line of sight, a 10 foot tree on the trail will block everything, because of line of sight. We need more of that. We talk about the fact that this electrical fabrication work group thing, and people had some design ideas, okay, but we had actual images of things that had been used in other places, I think it was Minnesota, was where those were done, and we're not getting that. Now, one of the things we're hearing is, okay, this is what we can do now while we work towards something in the future. Okay, so we solve something in the future. We have a great way to implement lattice design, metal works, things of that nature that look new and wonderful. Are we going back to the highly visible areas and replacing fences? I'd like to think so. It'll be the CEO of next year that gets to decide that. My guess is the answer's gonna be no, so we get what we get. So when it comes to it, if we're gonna have just a two-tone prison wall again, I'm kinda done supporting that. If that means, and it goes to the board and the board doesn't, and one day the SEC comes along and says, you're done and the state's taking over zoning for substations, then so be it. And then the constituents here in Loudoun County can go complain to the state representatives instead of the board of supervisors. At some point, I think the electoral utilities need to figure out and read the rooms that we need something other than 20 foot prison walls. And so that's why, unless we're gonna get there now, or have some promise that all of these that we're building currently will be upgraded in the future once we have a better design, I can't support these walls going forward. That's where I'm trying to get to. Hopefully I articulated that. Commissioner Combs.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I recognize we are, I think, fully hamstrung here with the electrical infrastructural working group, this being a reliability project, time being of the essence, resources being what they are, I appreciate the GIS, I appreciate the additional wall screening, the additional plantings. I think something we can do, given our limited availability to do anything here, is address that line of sight issue. Additional plantings along the trail I think would go a really long way from cutting off, there is no way to screen those H frames, I understand that, but to me they're the most offensive part of this. curing that line of site issue, fixing that with plantings closer to the trail is, right, to me that's the best way to sort of bring us out of the impact, the visual impact of those backbone structures. So if that's something that's achievable, that's something I would support.

Go ahead. Sorry. It is. That's the reason why Nova Parks wants to write that letter. Because it's off-site, it was agreement with Nova Parks so that it was a commitment to work it through. But because it's off-site, that's why we want to provide and work with Nova Parks on that collaboration. So yes, that is the intent. All right. Anybody else?

Commissioner Frank.

Question for the applicant. If we look at figure six in our staff report, there's the decorative supplemental screen fence and that's on the Route 28 side. It's got plantings in front of it. We've had the discussion before that the large concrete block fence thing, there's a security perimeter and we cannot turn that into some kind of like a green living wall because you guys maintain that causes security problems. Why couldn't these supplemental fences become green? I mean, could things just all climb up and over them and I mean, why not let them have some kind of natural element to them?

I think that's why we have increased those planting units so that even though this is the initial planting, that the screening panels are meant, as Jack said, to break up the linear nature of it as that foliage grows up. And those are the panels that we sort of proposed and they're low maintenance for sure. We guarantee the plantings for a year. We water them for a year and then maintenance thereafter. So because it's an unmanned station and there's not irrigation, making sure that those plantings survive past a year was really important to us. A living wall makes that a little bit more cumbersome. But this is just the proposal we had because those screening walls were available. It seemed to meet the expectation of breaking up the linear nature of the prime security wall.

Yeah, I still would love to see some kind of native climbing something on those security walls. But, you know, that's a that's another battle, I guess, for another day, because I've been told no repeatedly on that, because that would break it up in some way visually and and otherwise. So. All right. Thank you.

I asked another question. Sure, Commissioner Burns.

Yeah, I'm hanging. I'm thinking like Mr. Miller here because if you're gonna do something in the future to improve it, why don't you come up with some plan that you can improve right now so we can vote on that, what you're gonna put in future. What are you talking about future? Next week, two weeks, year, two years, three years, but what are you talking about in the future?

So the process that we're going through as dictated by Vice Chair Turner and agreed upon with staff was that we would, again, have this sort of phase one enhancements to try to break up the security wall and add the screening, break up the line of sight to work with Nova Parks. And then subsequent substations would have an enhancement based on zoning and place type that was appropriate to the condition of that site. longer range, there's gonna be work for the comp plan review with staff to make sure that there's guidelines in place so that the expectations are set ahead of time versus during voting sessions like this one. And so it's not a promise for next year, it's a promise for the next substations that are gonna come up, which are very soon. to make sure that those are enhanced and work through with the community so that we can have a better design for the place of those substations.

Why don't you give us a better design and enhance right now on this one? What stops you?

So there's a critical nature of the time we had to have these voted on and through the approval process. to meet the electrical need of the grid. And so this application being in process for a year and the comments that we got back in May, we had four weeks to turn around some things that were acceptable to come back in the timeframe that we needed to get these projects in service. And so that's the two phase approach that we've sort of been talking about with staff and with the Board of Supervisors.

Anyway, it doesn't make sense to me, but whatever you say.

Commissioner Miller. So to follow up on what Commissioner Combs had asked about plantings along the trail, you had mentioned that that's offsite. So it's not part of this application. You have to work in conjunction with Nova Parks. The Friends of the WOD Trail had a fundraiser. They replaced all the mile markers on the trail, about 160 of them, at a $30 donation each. So the Friends raised 4,800 bucks. Nova Parks itself to do plantings on the trail, even though it's their trail, money's just not a lot of money for that. Even though this is offsite, is this something Dominion would work with Nova Parks and help fund? So additional plantings that are on Nova Parks as close to the trail as possible?

Sorry if there's confusion. Yes, we would fund and plant those along the frontage as you see in this picture now. What's that? And maintain them. And so the agreement with Nova Parks is just making sure that it comports with the MOU that we sign with them, but it would be the work and funded by us. So we're not asking Nova Parks to do that for us. We're gonna be doing it in front of Golden for them.

Okay, so it'll be up to the trail within a couple of feet, hopefully, of the trail in their easement, but if things there can grow to 10 feet tall, then nobody on the trail will see, and that's been my argument all along. When I got my trail sign, my mile marker, it was 35 because it's Leesburg, that's when we get on the trail, and we love it because it's just tree canopies the whole way, and there's no substations. But in the Ashburn side here, it's a visual nightmare, it's scrub brush and prison walls. And also one of my other objections is something that Commissioner Barnes had mentioned about the timing, how we had since May to turn something around in four weeks, except, I've been talking about 24 prison walls for five years. None of this is new to Dominion or to Novec. It may have come to a head a couple months ago with the creation of actual infrastructure subcommittee, but this hasn't been new to anybody. It's just no one decided to ever listen to what we've been saying up here for all these years. Now that we have no choice but to listen, well, I appreciate that, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't have been listening a while ago to come up with something a little bit more creative than we've been doing for all these years.

Mr. Chairman, if I may add. So the Aspen application that you reviewed, there was a similar approach done at the request of the board to look at enhancing the vegetation along the WD trail. And the letter of intent that the applicant provided also improved landscaping in front of the Pleasant Valley.

Pleasant Views.

Pleasant View with the prior substations that were there to provide a consistent screen along that entirety. And that's the same, I believe, same similar agreement where they'll work with Nova Parks to install and maintain that vegetation. So this has been something that's already been discussed at the board level and I think would be supported. There's not a specific condition that requires this, but this is the intent that's been stated on the record.

Okay, so my last question for Dominion, so we move this forward tonight and it goes to the board and for those that didn't watch the boards hearing the other night where they reviewed Aspen and Barrister and some fairly strong comments were made regarding bring your best foot forward, don't hide, have anything in your back pocket, you know, when you come to us have the best that you can do. If this application makes it to the board, is that gonna be the case? Is there anything else that could be done to enhance these? I wish I could say do this, that, and the other, but I don't have the expertise to say these are what you need to do to make this better because there's only so much you can do with something of this size. There are decorative things I think that can be done you see a lot of when they're doing the sound walls and other areas where there's interstates that are down low they do kind of That's what I'm looking for there's designs built into the walls like when you go to Dallas or Texas you'll see a lot of things like the Dallas Star and things built into maybe that the top three feet they'll be an insignia in New Mexico I see that a lot things that are remind people of new mexico or kind of built stamped into the bill to the design of the wall to make the walls decorative to look at not just a wall uh... or potential vertical like the vertical elements the darker elements separate the panels maybe wider vertical elements with some kind of decorative feature on again to break up enhance the look of it These are things I can think of to try to make the wall look better, but it's still, to quote Commissioner Miller, a 20-foot prison wall, so to speak. It's just a nicer looking 20-foot prison wall by doing some of these decorative enhancements. And I don't know if you've done things like that. I mean, when you see the sound walls going up, some of them do have some kind of decorative elements to them to make them look a little better. if I was to say let's bring this back to another work session, I don't know if we'd have to get anything different or we'd get anything better than what we're seeing today or what we would ask them to do. The main part to me is the W&OD side and I think you're doing everything possible including offsite to screen that. And the advantage on the W&OD side are people are at bicycle or walking level looking up. You're not going to see beyond those trees to see the H frame and beyond. When you're up in the elevated part, I don't think there's any way that you can block that. So, and commissioners, do we wanna, I'm gonna, well, let me start with the motion first, and then I'll make my comments if it moves forward. I move that the Planning Commission approve Leggie 2025-12 Golden Substation Commission Permit 2025-5, subject to Commission Permit Platt dated July 2, 2026, and based on the findings for approval provided as attachments one and three to the July 9, 2026 Planning Commission Public Hearing Staff Report. I further move that the Planning Commission forward Leggie 2025-12 Golden Substation, special exception 2025-32, 33, and 137 to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of approval subject to the conditions of approval dated July 2, 2026 and based on the findings for approval provided as attachments 2 and 3 to the July 9, 2026 Planning Commission Public Hearing Staff Report. So I made the motion to approve, seconded by Commissioner Banks. So I kind of gave you my comments about moving this forward. If there's any additional decorative things that could be done with this, I don't know if you'll have an answer from Parks about, you may be able to further commit to doing that when it gets to the board. but given that this is a reliability substation i don't know that this is the one to fall on the sword over even though it is in a fairly public viewed place but that's uh that was my thoughts behind this and uh go to any other commissioners for comments commissioner moderati thank you mr chair

To tell you the truth, I don't really want to support this application, but just because this is a reliable project, I'm kind of leaning towards approving or supporting this application. I am kind of disappointed at the options that you guys came up with after we had a long discussion from the Planning Commission what we would like to see with that application, especially on the 28 side. I do agree that what you guys have done on the WOD trail is kind of in the right direction. But on the 28 side, I think you guys could have done much better here. especially I think Chair Keyes actually mentioned the same decorative walls last time. I don't know whether there was any discussion on that front. Again, I don't really know. Again, for the last couple of years, I can tell you, In front of the Planning Commission, we've been told, when we looked at the Dominion applications, GIS is not an option. Where are we right now? I think you guys came along now, you want to do GIS. Again, I feel like this is the same thing here. You guys drag your feet for a few years before you commit to anything, and by then, we already built like four substations with the below standards, what we wanted to see on this. So again, I do agree with Commissioner Barnes and Commissioner Miller. Yes, it's a good thing that you guys have The public forum is set to discuss what's going to happen in the future. But I think we want to see some of these changes now. I think this would have been a good example where you could have actually used some of those design elements to make this one better. But like I said, I feel like my hands are tied. I might be supporting this application, but if, again, a similar application comes with the same design elements, it will be really difficult for me to support anymore.

Thank you, Commissioner Miller. Thank you. I'm not going to be supporting the application, even though I know the board is going to approve it. It's a reliability site. I know that's going to happen. It is a major visibility point. This is essentially a corner at the intersection of not just the trail and 28, but also Pacific Boulevard. It's not an unheavily traveled road, and it's getting busier and busier with Concord coming online. And so I think this is just now my, and I've done what Commissioner Monterey has done, which is hold my nose and vote for these things in the past, even though I've decried prison walls for four or five years now, I'm done with that. And so this is my making my stand, making my foolish, taking my foolish stand in the ground, I guess, okay. Recognizing that the board almost has to approve this, but This is me saying to Dominion, and I'm generally one of the more supportive people up here of these things and for the things that they power, but it's time to get better at what we do and do it quickly. Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Commissioner Barnes. Yes, thank you, Chair. When this application goes to the Board of Supervisors and they want you to improve something on it, Would you give them the same answer what you gave us that you can't? Yes, sir. You're not going to change it? I will not change my answer. When it goes to the board? Yes, sir. You're not going to change it? No, sir. Okay, that's what I want to know.

Marsha? I'm going to let Commissioner Banks go first. I had a clarification, sorry.

I will be supporting motion as my colleagues have already stated. This is a reliability project and that's that to say that Does not mean I disagree with Commissioner Miller's comments at all I do believe that we should be calling upon Dominion to improve the look of these substations as much as possible and stretch the boundaries With that said, however, this is a substation into which transmission lines will be transiting large H structures. There's just not much you can do to hide that. You can't make that thing pretty. There's nothing we can do about that. It is a reliability project. For our grid, we must have it, and it will have large H structures. Anything else that we do at this point is simply putting a slightly better shade of lipstick on this pig. And I'm sorry, I don't think that we need to waste our time, Dominion's time or anyone else's in doing anything other than, again, encouraging Dominion to increase their visual standards as quickly as possible. But let's go ahead and approve this reliability project because our county, our state, our nation needs this power. That's why I will be supporting it. Thank you. Commissioner Frank.

I will echo just about everything that everyone both in favor and opposed has said. I don't ever want to see modifications and type C buffers and specs anymore. I don't want to see us losing green space and plantings. I understand we're relocating them. I feel like we are dragging you all kicking and screaming and I will use the example of a couple of recent data center applications that have come before the commission who they went out and they got new architects. and they went out and they found new people. And I'll tell you, for all the issues we have with a number of data center projects, we are starting to see proposals in front of us that are aesthetically pleasing, that don't make residents and visitors cringe as they drive by them or ride past a trail or wherever they are. So I don't know if y'all need to go out of house and bring in somebody to redo this design, but what you've been bringing us for the last six years is not, and beyond, since we've been here it's just not working so I mean it's it's very frustrating and anything other than a reliability issue I wouldn't even consider supporting this so yeah just I guess this is my plea to please do better going forward

thank you mr chairman so i wanted to gentlemen when i talked earlier aspen had the off-site supplemental condition were you thinking about doing something similar here with the plantings along the domino d uh the nova parks letter uh outlines the collaboration that we're having and the commitment that we've made as a as a partnership okay i was gonna see if it was if that was if we were duplicating what we already did for the off-site planting for aspen not the offsite planting, but what we did in the Nova Parks right of way, if you're intending to do that here as well, we could probably write a similar condition that matches that.

Does that make sense what I'm asking?

It does. Okay.

I'm sorry we're talking about was the when I talked earlier about Aspen there was the the W&OD frontage that they were providing the additional plantings and then there was the off-site at the Pleasant View or Pleasant View substation so I guess we wrote a condition that memorialized that and what was suggesting is could we modify or provide a similar condition that talks about what plantings would go along the W&OD easement that's off-site of this property and we're willing to talk about that so. Okay. if that provides some assurances that what we talked about this evening with the Nova Parks MOU will actually happen.

Okay, all right. All right, I think everybody had a chance. So just in closing, Another thing that it's been brought and I don't know if it's possible because of the distances But a lot of places when you see a long straight wall, they put little jogs in them every so far They'll jog them a few feet and just to provide the breakup of the long wall Don't know if that's a possibility here because of the tightness of the site But that's another thing that can be done to try to make the walls look less like a monolithic My vision of the future with these, as this work group continues, it's been talked about quite a bit, and it would be nice to come out of that process somewhere that says, when we have a substation, and it's this type of substation, whether it's a reliability versus just simply a distribution, here's a package of options for the wall and screening that would be appropriate for that location. And we come up and the commission looks at it, yeah, option number three, that's kind of the way to go for that location. And get rid of the debate about each individual wall and what can you do, and then it gets to the board, then they want more, and then you find out you can do more. And I think if we could get all of that kind of worked out in advance, then there will be very little discussion when it actually gets to the planning commission and the board. So in my perfect world, we will get to that point. So anyways, so we have the motion to approve. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Nay. Okay, that motion will pass 6-1-2 with Commissioner Miller opposed, Commissioners Jasper and Myers absent. Commissioners, I just wanted to give some direction As this goes to the board, do we prefer the two-tone wall? I personally kind of like that dark green lower and a lighter color above. At the end of the day, I guess the board can pick, but we do like the dark green below and a lighter color up above. I think that dresses the wall up quite a bit.

There's a supplemental item that's going out tomorrow. This is being scheduled for the board next week. There's a supplemental item that Christian's preparing for tomorrow. We'll include that in the summary of your discussion, the preference for the two-tone balls.

Okay. All right. Thank you very much. So we'll have our briefings for the July public hearing.

commentary goes into them as we requested with supervisors. Does the commentary what went on today in terms of the discussion, does it reach out to them?

Okay, sorry about that. So two of you will not benefit from this briefing because you won't be here. Hopefully it's someplace fun.

So Commissioner Combs and myself will not be at the July public hearings.

I have to admit, neither will I, but so.

What's that?

Okay. Yeah, I've done that.

So for your July hearing you have, and thank you again for moving it a week. It does allow the staff to go to the Virginia Planning Conference, so we do appreciate that accommodation. So six applications on this agenda. First are two AFDs, whoops, I'm getting my, my mouse is getting a little jumpy. five items, excuse me, although technically six with the two AFDs. One is the ZOAM, we have the AFDs, and then several LEGIs. It looks better as five items than six.

Yeah.

Exactly. Okay, first... This primarily has to do with the Route 28 ZOAM that's underway, or potentially underway. The new zoning ordinance required placards for every single parcel involved in a county-initiated remapping. That can be thousands of placards. Scrivener's error, but it's the law. So this is a ZOAM that removes that requirement that every single parcel be advertised as part of a board-initiated remapping. So that's not to say that there's still language that says if we need to over-placard a proposal, we can do that, but it removes the burden, the technical burden, and I'm not aware of any other requirement that requires all parcels to be you know, have a placard on it. Typically, it's by a public.

Are those folks still notified?

Yes, they're still notified by mail.

Okay, so the notifications stay the same.

Yeah, it's just, you know, rather than going out with the, you know, the stakes and the yellow signs and staple guns.

Marshawn, does this, going through this ZOAM, does this slow down the process to close out the tax district? No. Okay.

It's being held in tandem. Okay. So...

Okay. On Commissioner Miller's question, there are two other ZOAMs, sorry, ZMAPs, ZOAMs with ZMAPs that are being held up. One is for MOD and one is for FOD because of the placard notice. That's Mountainside Overlay District, Floodplain Overlay District. That's kind of how we caught this as opposed to having two placard 100 parcels, some of which are out in the middle of the woods, rather changed.

But DMOD and FOD, that stuff, but that's not related to eliminating the Route 28 tax district, or is it?

This could potentially affect I'm trying to think, yes, there will be, I believe, a ZMAP component to the Route 28, so this could affect that too. However, that is several months beyond where we want it to move forward with the at least with the floodplain FOD. I can't remember specifically where MOD was. Maybe MOD was wrapped up in Walrus, in the Walrus OAM.

My point was I don't wanna do anything that, I wanna at least know that when we go into this that we need to be expeditious about it so as not to hold up anything with the Route 28 task district elimination.

My expectation is that this could be wrapped up before the ZMAP even comes to you. Okay, thanks. Okay, next. Next, we have the two AFD renewals. One is the Hillbrook. I just had it in my hand and I lost it. The Hillbrook and the new Featherbed renewal of those two districts. They're intact. I don't believe they've lost any acreage. ADAC recommended approval. Cochrane Tech, you've seen before, this got to the board. There was a number of changes and amendments that the applicant was proposing. The effect of all that was to send it back to the Planning Commission. They've moved uses around the site. They've moved their energy storage to the interior of the property. They've provided some inter parcel connections to Twin Creeks to the south. They've also reduced the overall size of the data center buildings that are being proposed. I believe there was one other change also to their building into the topography to reduce the overall building height. but it is still several applications. So it is rezoning to go from JLM LA-3 to the IP district to allow development of commercial industrial uses. Four special exceptions, this still has a non-conforming status for the driveway that sort of crosses to another residential property. Permit data center use in the IP district, prevent data center use in moderately steep slopes, and to permit utility scale energy storage in moderately steep slope areas. and then also the additional minor special exception for the energy storage use. So overall, same number of uses requested at a different arrangement and slightly less intensity on the property.

So would it be fair to say that all these changes coming back are making it a better, less of controversial, I shouldn't say controversial, less of an impact project than what we saw before.

Yes, the scale and massing, the intent was to reduce the scale and massing, at least the visual effect of the scale and massing of it by burying it into it and creating more TCAs, doing more interpersonal connections, so. Vice Chair, moderator?

This is the one where We did not have too much information on the energy storage. There was an expert showed up to talk about this one, right?

Yes, sir.

Okay. And also, this is the same application where there is a resident on the back of the who supported this application.

Yes, sir. There's the small little parcel down here that connects to. They reduced the energy storage from 11,000 square feet to 4,500 square feet and moved it into the storage yard for the data center. Rather, it used to be on the periphery over closer to the creek, which was some of the concern about... pollutants going down, a runoff going into the creek. So there's been a number of changes.

Are there a lot of issues still to be resolved between the staff and the applicant?

I'm sorry, say again?

Are there still issues need to be resolved?

Just modifying everything to capture what they're doing. I think overall we're considering an improvement to the application. It is still going to be a question or tentatively what we've identified for the commission is the building heights. We're still working out some trails and bridges, proffers that they're asking for or proposing, and then some technical revisions to the proffer statements.

Thank you, motion. Mr. Frank. A vast majority of applications leave us and see changes between us and the board or at the board's request. So what on this was significant enough that it triggered coming back to us? Do we know? Just a cumulative number of changes? Just felt like it needed to come back? Correct. Okay.

Particularly the inter parcel connection. What's that? The board asked for it to come back. Correct. Because they felt it was a part of their motion.

Enough had been done that it needed to be reviewed through again. Okay.

Okay. So that is that.

And I apologize, this is the revised layout. You show the inter-parcel connections to the south. Overall, the building footprint is moved to the lower part of the property. And you see the purple was the energy storage. That was on the periphery. That's now moved to within that hatched area that you see on the back sides of the equipment in the generator yard. So... That's where we are. Next is Spring Valley Technology Park. This is... This is in the Middle Goose transition policy area. The specific place type is transition large lot neighborhood. In this instance, this is an application or zoning map amendment, two special exceptions and three minor special exceptions. This would rezone 325 acres from TR 10 to IP, permit up to 3.25 million square feet of data center across 12 buildings, three campus dedicated utility substations, and a utility scale storage use. There's also a number of modifications to reduce setbacks to adjacent residential uses, increasing the FAR building masses, vent massing, and to eliminate buffering between internal uses on the site. This is the layout of the campus. You'll see Evergreen Mills Road to the left. The black line is the boundary. Orange are the data center buildings, the salmons and the mechanical equipment. Areas in blue are the substations. Area in purple is the energy storage. There is a cemetery that they're avoiding down on the lower side of the project. And you see the areas of Minor Floodplain and Risker. And then there's four points of access from Evergreen Mills Road.

Do we know, I understand this is a question we can ask, we can't question them getting power to the site, but my understanding is we can ask where are the lines going to come from? Do we know that?

Yes, there's overhead lines in the area, but we will be prepared to provide a graphic.

Okay.

We do have the electrical infrastructure board initiative that was asked that with every application like this that we show what's on-site, what's proposed, and what's off-site in proximity.

Okay.

Anything else? To that effect, the other part of that question is, I guess, for the applicant, is do they have a firm commitment from Dominion, and if so, when and where? I mean, where existing things are, nothing existing in that corridor is going to power this. I think we're all pretty aware of that. There's going to have to be something new put in. So, I mean, I suspect I know there's a non-answer answer, but, you know, I'd like to know what conversations they've had with, whether it's Novec, Dominion, whomever that little... piece of the world belongs to?

I believe this application includes substations and energy storage.

So we know where the lines are coming?

There was a power line to the east. It's not far away.

And I want to know if it has the capacity, that line, to carry whatever would have to come into this, because that's not, I mean, we're not talking one or two buildings here. That's, yeah, that's significant.

They don't usually provide that information to us.

I know. I'd like to ask them if they know. I'm putting somebody on notice that that's a question that will be asked.

On this, you see the regional lines just to the right of the screen.

Yeah.

But yes, we have, as with every application, we have graphics and maps that show the existing infrastructure. Wrong direction, I apologize. Okay, this is again the campus. Okay, any other questions? We have questions about sort of the infrastructure that's in the area. And Dominion, do they have a commitment and when and where it will be provided? Any other questions? Beaver Dam Reservoir. Beaver Dam?

We just make sure that that's very clearly delineated here.

Okay.

That's further south, isn't it? It's east and south. Oh, it's east.

Okay, I keep talking back and forth, I apologize.

Any other questions? Okay. Next is Western Loudoun Recreational Complex. This is two commission permits. And two special exceptions, this is a 145 acre parcel. It would allow for a regional park with recreation center and also a public library. This is in the area one and JLMA3 zoning districts. And similar to the last application, they're also asking to modify the color temperature of the light fixtures associated with the athletic fields that will be a part of the application. So here is a layout of the complex. So overall, we've worked with the applicant to address sort of locating uses to the interior of the property, buffering and screening along the periphery. The building in red is the rec center, and then you'll see the number of ball fields. There's also some proposed maintenance facilities, playgrounds, and what else other features are on there? Off-leash areas, picnic pavilions in blue, and then you have obviously the inter-trail system to connect all of those uses. How many acres is this? 145. 145.

No cricket pitches? No, sir, not in this design.

All right. So the one question that we we've sort of put to that we'll be putting the commission is that the square that you see in purple, they have not yet funded the library, but they expect to provide it here. So they provided the general location. They provided design or illustrators of what the recreation center would look like, but they do not have a specific design for the library. We've worked to provide conditions that more or less say, hey, you'll mimic what you're doing with the recreation center. We've identified a location and parking on the site, but we don't have specific illustratives or design with which to show the commission. And that's where I think the focus of the application, other than the lighting and the field arrangements, will be what details the commission might want regarding the library before it makes a recommendation or decision. They've not funded it yet, other than identifying at this location. We've limited height, we're recommending limited height, we're recommending a limited square footage, which I think is 45,000 square feet. But if you ask for what it's gonna look like, they don't have a plan to show you.

Because I'm gonna go out on a very small limb here to say that I understand the library system better than anybody else in this room. Why are we limiting it to 45,000 feet? 45,000 square feet? We'll be ready, we'll be prepared to.

That may have been a limit that the library, or not the library, but the applicant imposed. But we can have that answer.

Okay, because it needs to be larger. There's a standard on a per square foot per person that libraries are, and that has historically worked out to be about 40,000 square feet. which is why Gumspring and Brambleton were built to 40,000 square feet, but it is woefully inadequate for what Loudoun County offers and the nature of libraries today, and they need to be a minimum of 52,000 square feet for a variety of reasons, and this is gonna need to be at least that. I'm happy to chat with anybody here who wants to understand why.

Okay, I will pass that on. Has the town of Percival weighed in on this?

We have referral comments. I'm not aware of what's in them, but we'll make that available in the report in the presentation. Okay. Anything else? All righty, that is all.

All right, thank you.

Brian, any administrative items? Just to remind everyone that the July hearing, it was moved to the 23rd. It won't be on the typical fourth Tuesday of the month.

All right. All right. With that, we are adjourned.