Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. The 02/24/2026 Loudoun County Planning Commission 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. If you signed up to speak after 12:30PM, please confirm your name is on the speaker list as public comment sign up closes at twelve noon.

Indicate your name and the agenda item you want 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. Our procedure for tonight's public hearing is as follows.

Ten minute staff presentation followed by commissioners questions to staff. Commissioners will be given three minutes to ask questions. Ten minute applicant presentation and followed by commissioners having three minutes, to ask questions of the applicant. The hearing is then open for public comment. 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 open and closing remarks. Commissioners will be given three minutes to speak on the motion. All right.

Commissioners, we do have minutes for review. And if you've had a chance to review them, I'll Motion to approve made by Commissioner Cohen, second by Vice Chair Moderetti. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

That motion will carry Commissioner Myers, were you an eye on the I said aye. Yep. You did okay. That motion will carry eight zero one. Commissioner Banks absent for the vote. Next we will start to do our disclosures I'll able be do do And

the applicant on the Fleetwood Road child care center application.

Thank you. Commissioner Combs.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Today, February 24, I had a video conference with Mike Romeo regarding the Fleetwood Road Child Care Center application before us tonight.

Commissioner Miller?

Yesterday, on the twenty third, I spoke with Mike Romeo and Tushar and Chris Avery regarding the Fleetwood Child Care Center. And then on Thursday, February 19, I spoke with Eric Zig regarding the Duval property.

All right. Thank you. Vice Chair Maheradi?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. On Wednesdays, February eighteenth, met with MicroMia and the applicant team regarding the Fleetwood Chair Care Center discussion.

Thank you. This way. Nope. For myself, on February 17, I met with Kathleen Leonard, Jack Story, John Mulligan, and Laura Meadows regarding the Aspen substation application. And on February 18, I met with Mike Romeo and Chris Avery regarding the Fleetwood Road development application. Alright. Our first item tonight is Ledgy twenty twenty five dash 41 Duval properties, special exception twenty twenty five dash one fourteen, special exception twenty twenty five dash one fifteen, and special exception twenty twenty 5 dash one sixteen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. While I'm not going set up, I would like to introduce Matt. So Matt, this is Matt Kessler. He comes to us from the city of San Diego. Let's say we stole him from San Diego, but he's been here for about seven months. And this is his first application before the commission. Welcome.

Weather is much nicer here, isn't it?

I am still in the adjustment period.

Have we already joined the meeting, Amanda?

Close it.

You can close it? Okay. And just oh, there you go.

Go for it.

All right. Good evening. My name is Matt Kessler with the Department of Planning and Zoning here to present this application for the Duval property. As of five p. M. Today, staff has not received any public comment. The subject property is located North Of Route 7 in the western portion of the Catoctin Election District near the West Virginia border which can be seen here on the left side of the vicinity map. The site is approximately 44.6 acres in size, zoned AR 1, and is largely undisturbed with dense, mature vegetation. The site currently contains a small shed and detached deck. Treecrops Lane, the road that provides access to the property, bisects the site from north to south.

The applicant requests three special exception requests to allow for the construction of a private residential driveway within the Mountainside Overlay District, or MOD. All three requests are for MOD regulations and stem from two main triggers: very steep slopes and sensitive soil types. It should be noted that while this application is for a residential driveway, the home itself is to be built at a future date and is not within the scope of this application. This annotated specs plot shows the location of the MOD features and proposed improvements. The bright yellow line snaking up the hillside to the left of tree crops lane shows the proposed driveway leading to the future residence.

The sensitive soils are located within the pink highly sensitive MOD overlay, which covers the majority of the property. The red cross hatched areas show locations where the driveway would cross patches of very steep slopes, which is defined as grades that exceed 25%. The location of the home and driveway are further limited by the existence of a conservation easement across the property, which limits development to the building envelope shown in orange. The rural North place type considers single family residential development a complementary use. The proposed driveway provides necessary access for this use and is consistent with the rural low density character of the surrounding area.

In addition, the soils and geologic resources policies of the general plan aim to minimize grading, clearing, and erosion of sensitive soils and slopes. The placement and design of the driveway proposes only the minimum amount of disturbance possible to sensitive features consistent with these policies. Staff is recommending several conditions including land disturbance and erosion control measures as recommended in the provided geotechnical report. Staff is also recommending a condition that the existing structures be relocated outside of the highly sensitive MOD and that a remedial revegetation plan be provided for that area of disturbance. Staff supports planning commission recommendation of approval of the specs request to the board of supervisors subject to the conditions of approval.

Staff is available for any questions. Thank you.

Alright thank you. Questions for staff. Mr. Jasper.

Thank you. Just one. There wasn't much discussion, although I saw it on one of the attachments to the CDP that there's an existing logging road on the site. I'm just trying to understand. There's no overlay of the existing road to the sensitive slopes and soils, but is there a reason that that, you know, maintaining that same footprint wouldn't be appropriate?

Could you repeat that last portion? I'm sorry.

Is there a reason that maintaining the same alignment as the existing logging road wouldn't be appropriate or wouldn't work?

I believe the applicants here this evening can probably Alex. Their preference as to why they went that direction.

It's on a tree conservation plan.

Gotcha.

As she called that.

Any other questions for staff? Alright. Is is the applicant here and would you like to make a presentation? If so, please come on up and just introduce yourself and you'll have ten up to ten

minutes. Good

evening. My name is James Kirk, not of the enterprise. Kirk Engineering, Miss Duval hired us after she'd purchased the property and, to build her home. So we've been aiding with her. You are a very familiar project. I'm not gonna take time telling you what you already know, so I'm just here to answer questions. If you'd like me just to address that one now, I can. Logging roads don't have slope standards. They just take equipment up and a place to drag them down. So that would not meet fire department or Loudoun County FSM requirements for access. It's too steep, too direct up the mountain, and and it doesn't give enough length to have a slope that is manageable.

Okay. Any other questions? Commissioner Jasper, do have anything else?

Yeah. Road is now really leading to a fairly large footprint around the proposed drain field and, I guess, well site, right? I mean, it going to get realigned, or is the idea for the building envelope going to be close? I mean, we're looking at overall disturbance an area of steep and sensitive slope. So I'm just trying to understand.

So the building envelope was created when the property was put in conservation easement. We had nothing to do with that. That was that was chosen before we got there, and and it is what it is, and that's subject to state rules about those. So that's that's not changeable. And I guess what's left over is is the area that the home can be developed in.

There was a PSR done that changed the mountainside characteristics on the property. The the mapping changed. So what was there before that showed a different kind of mountainside scenario is no longer the scenario. And and really where that house is located on the property is the only place that it can be located. That's within the building envelope that we're legally required to put the house and outside the the highly sensitive mountainside areas. So it's it's pretty much where the house can be, and that's where it can be. And and it's all pretty contained to one location, so they're not doing extra clearing to get to drain fields that are, you know, remote. It's

So it so the house will be the road will go to the drain field in the well, and then the house is gonna be adjacent. I'm just trying to under I think let me just say what my concern is, and then you can address it. Okay. You know? My concern is just that we don't get another specs for another, you know, road that now will lead to the house rather than to, you know, rather than to where we've got the road going now, which is the drain field and the wells.

So what you're seeing, the box on that plan is the house. The drain the drain field sits right below it. Perfect. And the well is within the limits of clearing. So that is where the house will go. That's really the only place it can go, and and and we've already planned for no this this will be the driveway, the only driveway.

Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Mister Miller, Miller.

The the logging road, I know there's several of those types of roads up here. The what is now the former Clemens property to the immediate, I guess, On the aerial map, you all may have seen a coming of Treecrops Lane. There's a small little clearing that the Clemens had cleared out so they could access the rest of that 166 acres for their logging purposes. This logging road, it's not a road it hasn't been used in a long time because it also does sort of it looks like it crosses over into the Clemens property.

Yes, don't know what the usually logging happens on roughly a forty year schedule.

Right.

So I don't know when the last time it was logged, but you know it's essentially just a path that they use to skid logs back to the road.

Right. So I don't know where it went. Even though the dirt really paper road that a logging road is, even though it appears that it crosses over the property line, it may or may not even no one's really sure, so we didn't really map out the logging road.

Yes. Well, the one we showed on the plan that kinda looped up, that was mapped out because that's how the surveyors and whatever kind of access the property to do what they did. But we didn't follow them off the property. So I don't know where the network goes beyond that.

Okay.

Yeah. They're not you can walk up there, but it's not but you wouldn't be able to drive a car up there.

No, cannot.

It's not an open road. It's just a path that they used. I've tried

and that property also extends to the other side of Raven Rock Road where there are paper roads essentially up there that bring you into that property as well. So as long as we know that the logging road really doesn't encroach on anything because it's not really a road that I can't imagine that the Duvalles will use it for that purpose any time, any decade soon.

No. I don't have any plans to log anything.

Okay. That's fine. That that's that's all I wanted. That's all I was concerned about, and I'll have some comments when I make a motion later.

Great. Commissioner Myers?

Yeah. I wanna get a little bit of talking about this existing structure. I mean, it's almost an exaggeration, I would say, to call it an existing structure because it really doesn't have a real foundation as most of us know today. And I know that the real issue was because it was near the some floodplain area and stuff is why people had wanted to see it be moved. But Not floodplain. But Without floodplain, the Outside. Outside mountainside,

the

sensitive. What I wanted to make sure of is I know that you really can't move that facility. You can't move that structure even though it's seems like it's on pallets and stuff really until you get away erode in a way of moving it up the hill. So to say that it's gotta be moved before the grading permit, it's kinda like a a chicken and an egg, and you can't really move it up there because there's no way to get it up the hill. Would would you agree?

I agree. It would have to be demolished and removed from the property, which is too nice to do that.

Right. Which isn't the whole thing they didn't wanna do. They wanted to relocate it actually up on the hill.

Exactly.

So with that being said, if we change that to be in prior to the issue of occupancy permit, then that would give them the flexibility to be able to move it, not have to destroy it and get it moved before anybody moves into the property.

Yes. And we'd be very grateful for that modification.

And then on that second sentence, I wanna also make sure that because I think something needs to be changed there too because it also then spells out that alright. Just it talked about also the the vegetation plan. It's got being it being due prior to the grading permit. Well, if we're not moving the house until the end of it, shouldn't that think the same thing be then that that's due prior to an occupancy permit?

But, I believe we can plan for that. It's the plan for it, not that that has to be done. So so I believe we can provide the plan at the grading permit, stage so that you know what's gonna happen and staff can approve that, but but it obviously wouldn't be implemented until the structure is moved.

Okay. So you're okay with the second sentence just changing the

first one to provide? The plan with the grading permit

Okay.

As long as we can play light things later when the structure is actually moved.

Okay. And the other thing is I know one of the things from looking at this property. One of the reasons why the road kinda looks like a snake is is or to try to keep that grade under 14%.

Yes.

Also, so I think that's one thing that needs to be pointed out is that why straight shot would have been obviously, in some theories, a lot less expensive and a lot less disturbance. Then you have to look at now you're into substantial grade elevations there. So one of the reason why it's snaking the way it is to the property to get there is because to try and keep it under the 14% grade. Yes. Yes. Thank you.

Commissioner Combs?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is there any concern with the eastern portion of the proposed driveway being outside of the prescribed building envelope? I'm guessing that the boundaries of that building envelope are per conservation easement instrument. And is there any concern at staff level or with the applicant with the road of a certain portion of that drive aisle being well outside of it? Even though for the, I guess, topo concerns that Commissioner Meyer just mentioned.

I will say from a staff perspective, the grantee of that easement is Old Dominion Land Conservancy, not the county. So staff would not have a part in reviewing or approving for compliance with that easement.

And the building envelope is where they prescribe the structures to be located. That doesn't regulate the driveways. And I believe we've already reached out to Land Conservancy, they've blessed the grading plan as we've already presented it. There's no way to keep the driveway inside the building envelope and manage the slopes and access the building site.

Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Barnes.

Yes. I have a very one question. What size is the building envelope there? The square that shows. What size is that?

I don't have that with me. The entire disturbed area is three acres, I believe.

The envelope is three acres?

Well, that's the entire includes the entire driveway. The home site itself is, you know, an acre acre 1.2 acres. No. It's square. The actual home itself? Like the house?

The square, the setup I see, the square on the corner. What size is that?

That's the square that the staff put on there.

Yeah. We we don't have that information Do for

you know the size of it?

No. That was outside of the scope Just of

for the site. That's all you did. Yeah. For the house. Yeah.

The specific square footage wasn't needed for our analysis where our analysis was limited to the driveway. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay.

We'll go ahead and open up the public hearing for this item. We do have one person that signed up in advance and that is Tom Moeller. He'd like to speak either podium and you'll have three minutes.

My name is Tom Moeller. Thank you for allowing me to be here this evening. My wife and I grew up locally and raised our family here in Western Loudoun County for the past forty years. Our family owns a neighboring property at the end of Treecrops Lane where my son and his wife have made their home. Prior to purchasing her property, Ms.

Duvall exercised quite a bit of due diligence to ensure she could build her home on the mountain. From the time of her purchase, she's been extremely conscientious of mountainside resources and has exhibited nothing but good stewardship in that regard. My family and I are in favor of this request by Ms. Duvall. The home plan that she has shared with us will blend nicely into the woods and the surroundings and it's going to fit right in with the character of the mountain. Very minimal disturbance to the mountainside environment. Ms. DeVall has been very connected to the existing neighbors on the mountain, and quite frankly, both she and her home are going to be welcomed additions to our small community there. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Mister Mueller was the only person who signed up. Is there anybody else in the room that would like to speak on this application? Sir? Okay.

I signed up in advance, I thought, but

Okay. If not, we didn't have it. But if you could come up and speak, and when you're finished, if you could just, fill out a speaker slip when you're done.

Online the other day, but yes, sir.

Yeah. Okay.

I've lived down on the bottom of

If could just state your name.

JT Horniak. I've lived down on the bottom of the mountain for twenty five years, my whole life. And that land that they're trying to build on is has you guys labeled it as conservation easement. Just conservation easement for a reason I would say there's a many a mountain springs up there. And there's numerous mountain springs up there.

And with a development going in or a house going in that would significantly impact the natural mountain springs up there. And I've talked to many neighbors I don't know he kind of threw me off right there because I've talked to numerous neighbors and everyone's I'm speaking on behalf of many people here. And they're very concerned with the aquifers that and their wells that would go in with disturbing the natural springs up there. I don't know if any of you guys have been to the property yet but if you have been to the property you would see at least three natural well built spring houses that have been there for a numerous of years like. I don't know when they were built but they have been there for a long time.

At least Probably a hundred years I would say. And it's a I just don't see how you can just build a road over those and destroy those. Maybe they don't destroy them. That's why they're building on whatever they're building on. But to me and a lot of people that I've lived around, it's a big concern.

And, it's just,

I don't

know if we feel some type of, a lot of people in the area, my neighbors feel some type of way about a road going into a conservation easement, a plowed or a asphalt driveway going into a conservation easement you guys have it labeled as a Environmentally sensitive. An environmentally sensitive area for a reason. There's you you wouldn't label that as an environmentally sensitive area for if you didn't think it was a reason. And I can assure you I'm up there all the time I've spent no one has spent more time on that mountain than me. And I can assure you there's rock there's rock outcroppings it's steep.

I would I would I would invite any of you guys that are gonna vote yes to this to come out there and I would give you a firsthand tour. It's nothing but rocks, it's outcroppings, and to build a road going through there is just gonna be bad for the erosion for one, if you want it for erosion, for native wildlife is another one. And it just sets a terrible, a terrible precedent for anything that's gonna go on in the future with land that's in a conservation easement. If you allow this to happen because what what's a conference what's a conversation easement

then?

Alright. Thank you, sir. Your time is up. Appreciate it. Would anybody else like to speak on this application? No. And was there anybody else signed up remotely? No. Alright. Then public hearing for this item is closed. Would staff or the applicant like to address ever any final comments or address any comments made? No? Okay. This application is in the Catoctin District, so I'll go to commissioner Miller.

Thank you. I move the Planning Commission forward Legi 2025 Dash 0041 Duval Property, specs 2025 Dash0114, specs twenty twenty five-fifteen, and specs twenty twenty five-one 116 to the Board of Supervisors with the recommendation of approval, subject to the conditions of approval dated 02/17/2026, and based on the findings for approval provided as attachments one and two to the 02/24/2026 Planning Commission public hearing staff report, I further move that we amend the existing structure conditions to allow for them to be moved at occupancy permit rather than grading permit. Prior the issues of occupancy permit.

Second.

Motion made by commissioner Miller, seconded by commissioner Myers. Commissioner Miller, do you have an opening?

I do. I I respect the concerns of the the gentleman that spoke and I know that the engineering of this property is done has been done in such a way that it does avoid many of those the of all of the issues that he has brought up. There are some springs up there and in fact there's a fellow that lives up there that gets his water from a spring currently that runs over the former Clemens property, Silviculture now is the name. This is a unique property up there, all the properties that run across the trail. It's fascinating from a geological standpoint that there is a shelf essentially in the northern part of this property along the Appalachian Trail that is flat enough for a house and that shelf extends through the larger property.

You see where the word site is and they have a building envelope up there where they can put a house and have a not going to. And then further on down as you go out to Ravens Rock, same shelf exists where it's kind of flat ish and then you have the mountainside above and below it. I would like to further comment for the Duval's. I wish we had a better system in place that allowed for a more administrative look at something like this rather than having to go through the legislative process for as long as it has been to build a road that's going to probably cost less than the cost of going through the application process. This is a wonderful piece of property.

I've spent a lot of time up there in the last year on this and other properties on the neighboring properties and those below it on Simmental Lane and Ravens Rocks as well. It's a wonderful community of people up there. I hope the Duvall's fit in nicely and well and it sounds like they've already got a friend. The rest of people up there are great and wonderful people. It's a well cared for area and it sounds like this home will be well cared for and built into the environment that already exists up there and I wish you the best of luck.

Any other comments? Commissioner Myers?

I too will of course be supportive of the application. I also wanna thank staff, for the times that they met with me in regards to this application. I think it was a good example of getting the applicant's representative in a room with all of us together to work through the issues and and resolve them to get us to this process where it didn't take us till September to get to the board of supervisors. And I do want you to know I appreciate you adjusting your schedule to make that happen very much so. And I'm gonna hold you to that because this is your first one.

You proved you can do it. So you know? But now it's it's been it's been a it's been a really good partnership. I appreciate it very much. I do also wanna speak to the fact that I think there's some confusion about sometimes I think when people hear a property that's in a is in a conservation easement, they think that that conservation means means the property cannot have any development on it.

And 90% of the time when properties are put into conservation easement, there are some type of entitlement that is left to that property. The whole idea of it is to limit the amount of development that will occur so that it preserves the greatest amount of what is the natural resource of that particular property. And that is what has happened with this piece. This piece of property already has the entitlements and the right to one single family dwelling unit. The real issue that we're simply dealing with tonight is the way that the driveway crosses two different types of source types.

It's nothing to do with whether a house should or shouldn't be built there or an entitlement to whether the latter we give in a special use to the house to be built. When this property was created, I believe there were seven lots, I think, associated with it up in this area that the other ones have also easements on them to again to at one point in time when this came about, you could have had a house on every three acres. And through the conservation easements that's been done, it's done to protect that. So I will absolutely be supporting the application tonight. Thank you.

Commissioner Barnes. I have

a question. But we just heard from the young man in public hearing about those streams coming out and popping out in boxes. Are you going to avoid all that while you build a driveway or whatever you want a road there?

Yes. There's one spring has been identified during the surveys in the county's preliminary soils report process where they came out and remapped the soils on the site, and it is on the east side of Tree Crops Lane. So on the opposite side from where the proposed house and driveway are going.

You're going to be avoiding it. Right?

We're avoiding it entirely.

All of it.

There's there's a structure that was constructed by somebody else, a previous owner. That's the one that they've talked about moving. That's gonna be moved away from that site. It doesn't have a foundation. It's on pilings, piers, and that's gonna be moved from near the spring, but only one spring has been identified on that particular property. So you're

gonna avoid all the springs?

We're gonna avoid it. All of them. Yes.

Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Jasper?

Sorry. Since I Commissioner Barnes asked a question and the concern that was raised by the witness who came and testified about runoff as a result of the road. What's surfacing will the road have? Just out of curiosity. And has provision made been made for runoff?

Yes. So to the largest extent possible, we're maintaining sheet flow, no concentrated flows, and it's gonna go off into the woods and and be as minimal. We're not concentrating anything anywhere. The zoning ordinance requires that the driveway be made of permeable pavement or permeable surfaces. So right now, we're assuming it's going to be gravel. It could be some other kind of pavement that will accept rainwater and not run it off. That's a requirement of the zoning ordinance.

Thank you.

Commissioner Miller, do have a closing?

Do not.

All So we have a motion to approve application. All those in favor, aye.

Aye.

Aye. Opposed? That motion will carry eight zero one with commissioner Banks absent for the vote. Thank you very much. Our next application, is Allegi 2024 Dash 38 Aspen Substation, special exception twenty twenty four dash fifty four and fifty five, and special exception 2025Dash26.

Good

evening. My name is Tess Lynch with the Department of Planning and Zoning here to present the application for Aspen Substation. Prior to 5PM today, staff received one public comment expressing concern that the development would encroach on the Washington And Old Dominion Trail. Staff would like to clarify that there will be no encroachment onto the trail. The subject property is located Northwest of Cochrane Mill Road and Southwest of the Washington And Old Dominion Trail.

To the West of the property is Boland Park. The site is located within the Leesburg JLMA employment place type in the Leesburg Election District. The site has a total of 34.32 acres. The substation shown is the existing Goose Creek expansion, which is not part of today's application. Present on-site is an existing pond about which we received a briefing question, which will be answered later in the presentation.

The applicant is proposing a special exception to construct a utility substation, a special exception to reduce the parking ratio from one space per 1,000 square feet to one per 33,000 square feet, which would be one for the whole facility, and a minor special exception to modify buffers. An existing substation on the property was approved in 2013 as the Pleasant View substation and an expansion was approved in 2023 as the Goose Creek substation expansion. These are not part of the current application. The commission permit associated with this application was approved by the Board of Supervisors in January. Present on screen is an annotated specs plat.

The limits of the specs application are outlined in green with the proposed substation in purple. The approved substation on the site is to the north in gold. Existing substations in the area are to the right in gray. The existing transmission lines are depicted in red. This application is a compatible use in the place type and is located in an existing developed industrial area.

It is part of the Aspen to Golden transmission line project. The transmission lines run through the center of the property along the top line of the specs limits. The general plan supports locating substations proximate to existing overhead high voltage electric transmission infrastructure and promotes the preservation and protection of trees and forests. Staff recommends conditions related to TCA, which will be redistributed around the property, wood turtles, pollinator habitat, specimen trees, easement realignment, inclusion of a 20 foot minimum 100% opaque screening wall. Staff has requested from the applicant a cross section of the site depicting visibility of the substation from the road and the trail.

Staff have no outstanding issues related to this application. Prior to this meeting, questions on the following topics were asked at a briefing. This application is unrelated to the nearby Tuscarora development. The existing pond on-site will be relocated, and this will be an air insulated switchgear substation. Staff supports Planning Commission recommendation of approval of the application to the Board of Supervisors.

Alright. Thank you. Any questions for staff? Commissioner Jasper.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't

No questions? Alright. Anybody? Just one quick question is, has the applicant agreed to all the conditions?

Yes.

Okay. Alright. Thank you. Any other questions? Alright. We'll go to the applicant. Do you have presentation?

We do. But I will skip over most of the specs, the three different specs in there, and I'll just briefly highlight on a few items. My name is Jack Story. I'm with DuBerry. I'm the applicant's representative.

With me tonight is Laura Meadows with Dominion. And I'd like to point out that this is one of the five substations that are part of Dominion's Northern Virginia reliability plan that's been designed to help alleviate some of the constraints here in Eastern Loudoun. The first one was the Goose Creek, which you just heard about, and that was the expansion that occurred, and that has now energized. And after that was Wishing Star and Mars, which have both been approved and are under construction now. And then the last two are Aspen and Golden tonight.

This is the Aspen substation, which is located on the same parcel as the Goose Creek, substation. You can see that there's a major transmission corridor that runs right through the middle of the site. The cleared area just below Goose Creek. This Aspen substation has been sited partially under that. About a third of it is underneath the existing transmission lines, and then they will go up to that pond area that's on the screen.

With the previous application, there were several commitments that were made on this parcel that also helped site where the Aspen Substation would go, and you can see that highlighted here. The area in white is the road reservation for Gloucester Parkway and also the realignment of Cochrane Mill Road. The blue area is a water and sewer easement that was the extension for the extension into the Leesburg JLMA area as well as a 30 foot trail easement connecting the Washington o d the Washington Old Dominion Trail to Bowen Park. That's the area in orange. And then there's a tree preservation easement as well as 98,000 square feet of tree conservation on the site.

This is an image of where the substation will go, and you can see I heard that there was a question about the pond. The pond is an old farm pond that's on the site. It will be reconstructed to meet the storm water requirements for the additional area for this substation. There'll be a an outfall that goes into the creek that's just off-site, and it kinda runs right there along the edge of Bowen Park and then crosses Cockermill Road. And I'll just skip ahead to, kind of the last slide here just to talk about the commitments that Dominion has agreed to with this project.

And we are increasing the tree conservation area on the site up to 2.8 acres. All of those areas will receive three years of invasive species control on there. We've agreed to provide a tree preservation plan by certified arborist for the one specimen tree that's located outside the substation. There's a condition for wood turtle protection on the site if any are found. There's also a 15,000 square foot pollinator planting area that is underneath the transmission lines that we are agreeing to.

And the 30 foot trail easement along Cochrane Mill Road that connects the park and the W And OD Trail. We're agreeing to work with PRCS during the site plan to realign and make the connection a little bit easier so that the the trail doesn't have to use the existing bridge on Cochrane Mill Road. And the last item was we are agreeing to a 20 foot solid precast decorative screen wall on all four sides of the substation. And for reference, the Goose Creek substation has a 20 foot 95% opaque screened fence. And I do have some sections here that are taken from existing Cochrane Mill Road and also from several along the W And OD Trail to give a a sense for the separation between the trail and the proposed substation.

There's one pinch point right there. It's item c, and that is about a 150 to a 175 feet away from the trail, and there's a little bit of existing tree cover in that area that is being preserved. And with that, if there's any questions, we'd be happy

to answer those. Alright. Questions for the applicants. Commissioner Barnes.

Yeah. I have one question. Is it a 20 foot wall all the way around?

Yes. On four sides. On all four sides. All the way.

Okay. Thank you.

Mister Jasper?

Just I didn't see the applicant's presentation before. If you could go back to the perspectives that you had and just go through them a little tiny bit more slowly. And another concern I have, and it may be completely unfounded based on geography, but will there be visibility from Boland Park? I can't imagine that. So Yeah.

From Boland from Boland Park, there you can see those existing trees running from pretty much the transmission corridor to the left of of the screen. Mhmm. All of that will be preserved.

Okay.

Obviously, the area where you see the poles, it's a little bit difficult to see. That area has to remain open. Right. So starting at the section a that you see on the bottom of the screen, that is through Okay.

A toy.

Alright. Thank you.

Yeah. I see it.

Yeah. That's that's 384 feet where that's cut through. Mhmm. Today, that that area or when this application goes in, that will all remain as is. The realignment and all the other elements that were shown on the very first slide, those are all reservations.

So that is someday, the CTV road may come through there and clear that, but Dominion has no plans with this application to clear that. So the 384 feet is existing existing trees. The one above that is 378 feet, and that is the it's it's cut through a tree preservation area, and then there's the access road that you see going into both substations. That's an existing access road. And then there's the reconstructed stormwater pond and then the substation.

Section d is 350 feet, and that area is mostly under existing transmission lines. So the native meadow and existing vegetation that's there will remain, but no trees would be in that area. And then the one pinch point there is c, and that's like I was saying, it's about a 150 feet at the the narrowest spot that where that's cut, it's a 172. But right there at the pinch point, it's a 150.

And that's the WOND?

Is that Sorry. Can say that?

Is that the WOND?

Yes. It is.

Okay. Jason. Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant? No? Alright.

Sorry. Why are are you I know that the other substations here are air insulated, not gas insulated. What is does Dominion have a position on gas insulated substations? We've seen a lot of the on-site substations serving data centers now move toward gas insulated.

So I actually meant to correct that. Is a gas insulated substation. There's a 500 side and two thirty side, both of them are GIS.

Thank you.

Okay. Last chance for questions. Alright. We'll go ahead and open up the public hearing for this item. We don't have anybody, signed up in advance. Is there anybody in the room that would like to speak to this application? No? Anybody online, I don't believe? No? Alright. The public hearing is now closed. This application is in the Leesburg District. I'll go to commissioner Barnes for a motion.

Thank you. I move that the planning commission forward L E G I 20240038 Aspen Substation S B E X 20240055 and SPEX 20250026 to the Board of Supervisors with the recommendation of approval subject to the conditions of approval dated 02/11/2026. And based on the findings for approval provided as attachment one and three to the 02/24/2026 planning commission public hearing staff report.

Second.

Motion made by commissioner Barnes, seconded by Commissioner Jasper. Commissioner Barnes, do have an opening? No. Any other comments on the motion? No? I'm assuming you don't have a closing. So all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? That motion will carry six zero three with commissioners Banks, Miller and Myers absent for the vote. Thank you very much. All right. Our next and last application tonight is Legi 2023Dash0104 Fleetwood Road Child Care Center, special exception 2020Dash16, and SIDP 2020Dash6.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Guadal with department planning and zoning here to present the application of Fleetwood Child Care Center. The property is located Northwest of the intersection of Fleetwood Road and Route 50 in the Little River Election District. The four acre property is still on transitional residential one, Upper Broad Run, and Upper Foley. It is located within the transition policy area in the transition large lot neighborhood place type.

This application is being reviewed under revised 93 zoning ordinance in accordance with the adopted board grandfather and resolution. The applicant seeks a special exception to permit a 10,000 square feet childcare center for up to 167 children with a 7,500 square feet outdoor play area. The applicant also seeks a sign development plan request to increase the sign area and to allow for external illumination of the proposed signs. The proposed sign plan include a monument style sign along Fleetwood Road and a wall mounted sign. The proposed signs exceed the maximum sign area allowed by three and a half times and exceed the allowed aggregate area by more than five times.

On screen is the proposed site layout. The blue is the proposed childcare center building, and in yellow is the proposed outdoor play area. Overall, staff find the scale and mass of the building and signage size to be inconsistent with the development pattern for the policy area as further discussed later in the presentation. Staff identified outstanding issues related to land use, compatibility, tree conservation area, and site access. The proposed commercial childcare center is not envisioned in the transition large lot neighborhood place type.

The place state envisions low density residential neighborhood with substantial open space that allow for agricultural uses while preserving adjacent environmental sensitive area. The proposed use is not consistent with the place type. Should the commission contemplate approval, the 2019 general plan anticipates that nonresidential uses within the transition policy area be developed at a scale that minimize impacts on the surrounding roads and community. The proposed building size and signage area that exceed the allowed sign area by five and a half times are not consistent with the existing development pattern and the policy area recommendation. Staff recommends reducing the scale and intensity of the development, including building size, signage size, and the number of children enrolled in order to minimize impact and better align with the plan use within the policy area.

The proposed childcare building and outdoor play area will be located approximately 55 feet from the adjacent residential dwelling to the north. The applicant proposed a 25 feet tree conservation area and install a 10 feet wide landscape buffer for screening. Staff recommends increasing the distance between the proposed use and existing dwelling, as well as installing a noise attenuation wall between the proposed TCA and 10 feet landscape buffer in order to reduce the visual and noise impact to the adjacent dwelling. As stated, the proposed scale of the development is inconsistent with the policy area. The development exceed a maximum FAR allowed.

The applicant is taking advantage of a provision under the revised '93 zoning ordinance for optional development type to exceed requirement of the zoning district by subdividing this partial and providing a minimum of 50% open space. Staff note that this provision does not exist under the current zoning ordinance and it was not intended for development such as this. It was envisioned for a large residential lot to be subdivided in subdivided a small portion of their property to construct a home while while keeping the remainder of the lane in its natural state. The general plan encouraged proactive preservation and protection of the county forest and trees to ensure long term environmental and community benefit. The proposed The proposal will provide approximately 65,500 square feet of TCA.

As a tree survey was not submitted, staff cannot verify if the existing vegetation will meet the requirements set forth in the facility's standard menu, which include but not limited to the location, types, and quality of the vegetation. Staff recommends that a tree survey be submitted for review for consistency with the adopted policy. Site access is proposed from Fleetwood Road, a two lane minor collector roadway. The submitted traffic impact study indicate that a turn lane is not warranted for the proposed use. However, the 2019 countywide transportation plan recommends incorporating turn lane and other safety features for commercial sites and for development serving children.

The proposed development is expected to generate over 50 additional peak time trips to the already congested and failing intersection during the peak period. Staff has observed that the absence of dedicated northbound and southbound turn lanes from Fleetwood Road does not offer convenient access for patrons. The absence of the westbound turn lane will create additional delay exiting the site. Lastly, staff note that there has been 22 accidents between the period of 2021 and 2023 at this location. Due to the nature of the proposed use and high speed travel condition along Route 50, staff recommends installing a northbound left turn lane on Fleetwood to ensure safe access of the proposed childcare center.

The commission had inquired about the use of the adjacent property to the north of this site. The property is listed for as a residential use. The dwelling was constructed in 2021, and there are no record in the county system that indicate that this is a property being used for a daycare. Staff finds that the proposal does not align with the recommendation of the general plan nor the county wide transportation plan. The proposed commercial use is incompatible with the development patterns and low intensity land use and vision for the place type.

The proposal does not provide safe access to the site for development serving children, and the intensity of the use with 167 children, and the size of the building and signage far exceed the scale envisioned for the policy area. Staff recommends that the planning commission forward this application to the board supervisor with a recommendation of denial. Should the commission recommend approval, staff propose conditions minimize impacts on the surrounding area and better align with the policy area. Those conditions include limiting the number of children for the outdoor play area, limiting the children for the enrollment of this facility to no more than one hundred hours of operation, providing tree conservation area, providing a screen wall for noise attenuation, as well as providing a turn lane to provide safe access into this site. And staff have not received any public comments for this application.

Staff is available for questions.

Alright. Thank you. Questions for staff? Commissioner Jasper.

Okay. Thank you for the report, mister Dow. I this is in the Little River District. I guess I have a few questions. Some relate to what was in the report and some stuff that wasn't in the report.

I'll start with traffic, which was in the report. I'm noting that the traffic impact study that was provided by applicant says that there be an additional 53 AM peak trips a day. And I'm trying to imagine how with 167 students and staff, you're only generating 53 trips a day. Did DTCI or is somebody somebody available available to to comment comment on on that? That?

Yes, we do have DTCI staff here.

Thank you, Marsha.

Good evening. Lori Ratcliffe Myers with DTCI. Welcome, So their trip generation, what they're doing is they are utilizing pass by trips as well. So, when they evaluated their their traffic and they said they were you know, 53 trips, they're accounting for that 55% of those trips would be pass by trips. So meaning if the person going to the daycare center wasn't directly going to there, maybe they stopped to get coffee first and then going to the the daycare center.

So it's it's just the way that that they evaluated the traffic utilizing those pass by trips. So that's why it doesn't we're saying a 167 students but only 53 peak trips, and that's due to that reduction, the 55.

I I find that unintelligible. I'm not sorry. I I just I don't know.

It's yeah. It's the way that the the traffic impact study allows for pass by trips to decrease the actual AM or PM peak trips. I'm not quite sure how else to say that.

If I can try to clear it, see if I'm They're understanding this saying that a certain percentage of the traffic going to that day care center would already be going down Fleetwood Road.

Correct.

So that's already counted as traffic in the background. They're saying additional trips, meaning cars that wouldn't normally be on Fleetwood Road is increased by the number Did that they three trips.

Okay. Does that make sense? Was super helpful. Yeah. I apologize. I didn't

You knew what pass by trip meant

Yes.

With my apologies. To English for me. Thank you. You're very Thank you. Cheers. Okay. That may be right now my only question for DTCI. Well, what what what do you think about the potential for a turn lane at that location? What impact might that have on traffic along Route 50

as well, you know, in general or traffic along Fleetwood coming to Route 50? So, we can't comment on that because currently there are multiple studies along Route 50 and including that intersection of Fleetwood for safety concerns. Currently, Fleetwood is not built to VDOT standards. So, I believe that even the applicant spoke with VDOT about putting a turn lane there and they will not allow it. They cannot receive a waiver to put in a turn lane because the road is not built to VDOT standards.

So, truly, the road would need to be built to VDOT standards before a turn lane could even be installed at that location.

Okay. Thank you. And I know Chair Kearse may have another question about the failing nature intersection, and I will leave that to Chair Kears to ask. The other thing that I noticed, Mr. Dow, and Laura, you may want to sit down if you, be more comfortable until the next question comes up, Is the applicant has included in the application the option to either hook up to Loudoun water and sewer or to provide water and sewer based on well and septic on-site.

And I have some concern about the nature of well and septic serving a facility of this intensity. In particular, I believe that's not compliant with the urban and suburban transition policy areas central sewer and water strategy, which actually requires connecting to Loudoun water. You researched for me the status of the development, the surrounding developments, and the subdivisions there are all on water and sewer. I I would note in the absence of my friend and colleague Dale Pullen Myers, she's complaining to me that her little farmhouse in Ashburn has to, despite the fact that she's been there forever, has to hook up to Loud County water and sewer. So I don't understand why, you know, a facility of this size would not be required to do that.

What what do you think this provision of the policy would apply to this development?

Yes, ma'am. So this property is located within an area identified as within a growth boundary. So it does provide applicant the opportunity to either utilize on-site water and sewer system or connects to the extend and connects you to public system. There are policy, as you stated, for new development within transition policy area that will support new development to be connected to water, public water and sewer services. So if that is a recommendation from the commission, it will be a change in modification to one of the condition recommended conditions to allow that.

Okay. Thank you. That's all for now.

Commissioner Barnes. Yeah. I have few. Just a few questions. I'm sorry.

What is that little triangle above it? You know, that little triangle is empty over the yellow line?

I'm sorry. Can you refer which slide?

On the site, where the site is, right above the site.

Is this is I'm This It's a property

to the north. Yeah.

Oh, that's a single family dwelling.

No. This.

That's a single family dwelling.

So it's right next to the single family home.

Right.

Is that you know, that's what it is.

The closest residential home to the north is 55 feet from their proposed That's right there.

Yes. Yeah. It's right there. On top of that, if you go sewers and septic system, you got a 157 kids. You're gonna have to have some problem because the septic system and the water.

There's a lot of water and a lot of lot of septic will be unless you have a special. Anyway, that's not that's another problem I have. That problem is right at the 5th Route 50 and it's pretty dangerous at that road to build for the kids, you know, play and all that not too far from that. And there's no you can't get in and can't get out. How you if you're coming down from other side, you you have to make a left turn into Fleetwood and right from getting out if that's what you're gonna use.

It's a pretty tedious place to have kids in there and I don't go for the only people will be about 55 cars coming through there because you don't know it and I don't know it. I think most of the people those who come there, they will bring their kids. You know, if they're 157, unless they are coming down with groups or something that's different. But people are gonna stop there to bring their kids one by one. And I think it's gonna be 160 or 57 cars coming in there.

I don't care what study has been done, but that's how the kids come, you know, in their parents' cars. So I don't they're not gonna go have coffee and come back. That's not not right. But anyway, this is a very dangerous place for the kids to be having a school there. That's what I think. Thank you.

Commissioner Combs?

Thank you, mister chair. Just picking up where commissioner Barnes left off. That that intersection of Fleetwood Road, Route 50, and what is it, to the south? Mill Boulevard. Lena Mill Boulevard. We've got in our staff report that the northbound and southbound travel lanes at AM and PM peak times are rated at, E and F during those peak times, which is already a failing level of service, Do we have any information on how the westbound and eastbound on Route 50 travel lanes are rated at that intersection during the AM peak and PM peak times?

For existing conditions or under

Both. For existing. First.

Just really quick get to that page. I can tell you. Sorry, I just have to get to the page. So future conditions without development levels of service and lane configurations. So, it breaks it up in regards to.

So, if we're looking at westbound, the right turn lane onto Fleetwood from Route 50 operates at AB in the AM, a C in the PM. Through lanes operate at C and C, and then the left turn onto Lena is E and E. And now the eastbound Route 50 to make a left onto Fleetwood operates at E and E. The through lanes operate at C and D and the right turn onto Lean Lina is b and c.

And those are those

are AM and PM.

And those are existing conditions? I'm sorry.

That's future conditions without development levels of service. So 2025.

Okay.

So that's that's that's what they were looking at. So if we go to sorry, it's it's a lengthy. Of course, don't have my mouse with me. So I apologize. Now it's going to go blank.

Future conditions with development levels of service and lane configurations for 2025. Again, the intersection is operating west Westbound Route 50 is overall D and D. So, AM and PM that. We're we're to to that. Ir

a

very,

So,

DTCI does realize that this is an intersection that needs

Does DTCI have any concerns with traffic? So northbound on Fleetwood turning left into the the site. Does Mhmm. Does DTCI have any concerns with traffic stacking onto Route

traffic impact study shows that when we look at so AM, it's the the potential for stacking is there but not sure. It that it's the PM. We're looking at a possibility of someone trying to make a turn into the site. There could be 22 to 25 cars stacked waiting to get onto Fleetwood from that and it could block the access.

Okay. So staff has that concern even though the traffic impacts that he is not indicating a stacking.

Yeah. They did. Correct. Okay. The 95 percentile is definitely high for sure.

Especially at that PM.

Correct. Uh-huh.

Correct. Thank you, Laurie. Appreciate

it. Uh-huh.

Mr. Frank?

I'm gonna go ahead and continue on that line of of thought and question that, commissioner Coombs was on. He asked my question about stacking. Are there plans to have that section of Fleetwood accepted by VDOT? And So

a study and there was some discussion that to bring that road up to VDOT standards would be about $38,000,000. So, but that again, that study, it's it hasn't gone they're again not approved. We they're not in the CIP neither one of those projects are in the CIP. So there's we don't have funding for that term.

Right. Alright. Well, you went down the the right where my train of thought was going. So, it's not funded. Currently, it doesn't have any shoulders, curbs, rainwater runoff, any of that. That's

part Yeah. Of the mean, it's essentially just

a Pave in place.

Pave in in in place.

Pave maybe ten years ago. Yeah. 2016. Yeah. So with the pavement place, there's pretty much they put the pavement down and Mhmm. No improvements to ditch, no shores, anything.

Oh, sometimes the trees grow real close on sections of that.

Hey, Rory. Could you introduce yourself? I'm sorry. Oh. Oh. I'm a new old guy. Rory Tooth with DTI.

Welcome, Rory. Okay.

So I forgot where I was gonna Okay. I've forgotten my last question because we got into introductions. If I think of it later, I'll bring it up. Thank you.

Vice Chairman already? All right.

Thank you, Mr. I'll continue the same thought of process here. Going last, kind of everybody asked you the questions you wanted to ask. In terms of the CIP study you just mentioned, I know there are some plans for the CIP. The fleet redevelopment, there are some plans going on, but it's not funded yet.

As a regular user of that road, I live in Stone Ridge, which is pretty close to this neighborhood, and I take this road on a regular basis. That road does not only need improvements right by the site. Further down north, there are more challenges. Any few cars can add to that road. There are more challenges.

We'll be add as we add more traffic to this road anyways. I want to make that point. The second thing in talking to the staff and also with the applicant, they said they try to get some additional land dedicated so that they can build the build the left lane turn, which were they are not successful. But I just want to ask a staff, was there a discussion that you asked them to use their own land to do the left dedicate some of their land to make that extra lane? Was there a conversation on that?

For them to shift their site and try to the issue is that since that road is not a VDOT standard road, VDOT would not allow them to even do that. Goes back to that even though they have been doing their due diligence and trying to get property from the other side, the residential side, and they fell short of that. The HOA over there, they don't want to give away any land, but they met with VDOT to see if they could possibly get a waiver to be able to build possibly shifting that property and putting in the turn lane, but VDOT said that they wouldn't allow it because the road is sub standard at this point.

Okay. I think you know what? Until I feel comfortable with the traffic, I don't even want to look at other issues at this point. So thank you. Mister Frank.

Okay. I remembered my question. Thank you for indulging me, chair. That that that whole stretch of Fleetwood is is substandard, not not ready for VDOT primetime. There's is there you mentioned it's not in the CIP. Is there any funding dedicated to it in anybody's proffers with any of these residential developments over the last, I mean, said ten years, that's not an accident that that's when that was put in. That's when they were building a lot of those houses. Yeah.

Yeah. Not to my, not that I'm aware of. I know that a lot of the developments in that area are by right

application. So we

don't really get proffers with those. So And to answer your question though, we don't have any funding in the CIP specifically for that. However, there was funding to fund the Fleetwood study and obviously the Route 50 safety study. But again, we don't have the improvements that they're even proposing yet because they're still working on that through the parameters of the study.

Okay. So there's no dedicated partial pot of money anywhere. Okay. All right. That's what I feared. Thank you.

Okay. My turn. There's one question I have regarding it, the current status of that being a failing intersection.

Mhmm.

I just wanna clarify, is it failing due to the amount of cars or the timing of the lights? And the reason I mentioned that is, when you want to make if you're on Eastbound 15, you want to make that left turn on to Fleetwood, you you could do your laundry in the back seat of your car while you're waiting for that light to change, even when there's not a lot of traffic. It's just the timing of the lights. Do you know what the case is? Is

I mean, I think it's a combination of I mean That's

what was gonna say.

In that too, I mean, Route 50 is the main, you know, the main artery there VDOT is not going to change the signal timings to give more, you know, green time, if you will, to the side streets at Fleetwood and And

this yeah. This this is kind of a scenario down Route 50 at a lot of the intersections because of the timing issue with VDOT giving Route 50 the

Right. And most most of the time I I don't since all the roads have opened, I don't go this way much anymore. But when I did, pretty much when the lights did change, it cleared out Fleetwood. It it it cleared all the other directions. Mhmm. And then you had to wait another five minutes before you got a chance because it gave 50 such a long time period. So I'm just trying to make sure that that's more the reason for the failing rather than there's so much traffic on Fleetwood and Lena Mill that they can't get through the light.

It's I I would say it's a combination of both. I do think that North Star Boulevard extension is helping to alleviate some of that traffic, again, it's I believe that along Route 50, the intersections there most of them

are Yeah. It it was a progression when Everfield opened up, then I got off a fleet when went to Everfield. When North Star now, the North Star is open. I stay on North Side. So there's a lot of other roads that have made the need to use this much less, which makes me fear VDOT's even less likely.

I mean, spend the money to fix this little stretch of road when there's other better roads nearby, I think it's dubious if it'll happen. The other question regarding from Seth's comment about this inappropriate front, I think you said place type, which I could sort of understand. But when you look at if you have a form of a bird's eye view of like a Google Map view and you look at all the houses that are have been built in this area in the last ten, twelve years, It to me and you go if you go even farther out of a view, you will see a lot of homes that have been built along this corridor. So from a practical point of views to and just have see this would be an appropriate place for daycare with this significant amount of residential development in the area and really no other I don't believe there's any other daycare sites anywhere from here West. You have to go east and then you find more.

So is it staff's contention that a daycare just doesn't belong here in this area or just doesn't meet fit the place type?

The place type doesn't envision a commercial use or any institution use within this area. The proposed use will be more there is a transition commercial center that's about half mile east of this site that will be more appropriate location for this type of use, Or to the west, there is a suburban policy area which this use will also fit in as well.

Okay. All right. Thank you. And so we'll go to the applicant if you have a presentation.

Good evening, Chair Keers, members of the commission. My name is Michael Romeo. I'm a land use planner with Wolff's Colucci here in Leesburg. With me at the table this evening is Mr. Alfaldo Ramos with Timmins, Mr. Steve Clinton with the applicant Fleetwood Development LLC, and we have Mr. Ms. Portia Lardy with Grove Slate. If you have any specific questions about the technical studies that were completed, they can certainly address those. I do want to also say Mr.

Chris Avery is another applicant here for this application this evening. He had emergencies, so he could not attend this evening, but he certainly wishes he could be here. As Wah mentioned, this is located in the Tier 1 zoning district. It's located in the transition large lot neighborhood place type. And just one thing I want to point out on this image here is the proximity of other homes and the size of the other homes nearby.

Immediately to the north of us is Mr. Daniel Hernandez's home. We've been working with him since the application was going And he is supportive of the application. We were hopeful that he could submit a signed letter of support before the hearing this evening, but I'm not sure if you all received that or not. Either way, we will submit it to you when it's available.

The other homes nearby, if you go to the West is Nicholson Farm, to the East is The Meadows. And we've reached out to Nicholson Farm and we've met with the Meadows regarding the turn lane issue as well as other aspects of the application. But I just want to have you take a look at the size of the homes that are on the screen. I have some follow-up slides later in the presentation to kind of illustrate the point of the acceptability and the ability for this use to fit in here. The homes you see on the right in The Meadows are approximately 4,000 to 5,000 square feet in size.

Nicholson Farm, they're a little bit smaller, but in the 3,000 to 4,000 foot range, two to three stories each. The TR1 and other TR districts do not regulate the size of homes, such as a dwelling unit or one or more dwelling units. The FAR is regulated for commercial uses, so you do have regulation on size of those uses. So just want to make that point at the outset here to provide a little bit of context. The site which while provided a overview of is subdivided into two lots or will be per the application.

One of those lots is an open space lot. It's 50% of the site and the area along Route 50 which is about 100 feet and goes up even higher at about 125 feet or so from Route 50 is all tree conservation area and open space. That open space partial goes around this site on the west and the north as well as a portion on the east and it preserves those trees in that area. And again, that's 50% of the size open space. As you get into the developable area of the site, you have the building which is the rectangle source to center upper portion of the screen.

Then you have the player to the left and then a passive recreation area to the left of that. The passive recreation area and the open space or the play area are over 20,000 square feet, and that's all open space effectively. So in addition to the 1.8 acres of open space parcel, you have another 20,000 plus feet of effective open space. So you have just the pervious area, the impervious area of the parking area as well as the structure itself, which really are the developer portion of the site. The vast majority of the site is open space, which certainly complies with the transition policies.

As you go from the building itself south, you have a seven foot sidewalk to walk on. As you go to the tree conservation area, it's a natural path, it's seven feet in width. And then along Route 50, the dotted line is a shared use path that we will construct as part of this development. Just a couple of things on this point. These are the specifications for the site. There is a reference in the staff report to zoning modification being needed for the outdoor play area. I discussed that with our project manager and that's something that we'll correct on special exception plat. It was a simple misstatement as to what's required and what's provided. In regard to the open space, I referenced the 50%. One of the outstanding issues that Wah mentioned was the tree survey.

It's something that we were hoping could be conditioned upon site plan approval and staff has been adamant about making that condition of this application itself, which we are now agreeing to that tree survey has been commissioned. If we are fortunate enough to go to work session, which is our request, then we would have that in advance of that meeting. So just to address the why of why we're here today, and it's kinda hard to see on the screen, but there's a little star kind of in the lower part of the screen there. This is primarily Western Loudoun. You can make out the airport to the right of the star there.

But the orange dots are areas where there's a scarcity of child care center provisions. The blue dots are coverage areas where it is addressed currently. There is a deficit or demand for childcare in the Western part of the county as well as Leesburg and in Sterling. The dots that you see on the screen are representative of 10 families with a child of at least one or of under five years of age. And this is data from 2014 to 2018.

And what I want to show you now is what existed in 2015 in this area. You can see the site on the far right highlighted in yellow and the Gilbert's Corner on the far left above the two in 2015. Really it's Lena Run out here and not much else other than some other subdivisions. Fast forward ten years and the transition policy area has developed with primarily by right development. Everything to the west of our site has been by right and it's all effectively residential.

There's no childcare center located west of our site in screen. So there is a need and that is the purpose of the application at this location. To address the comprehensive plan inconsistency referenced by staff, they're interpreting this place type, which is the transition large lot neighborhood place type, which is all the yellow area that you see on the screen there, has not been acceptable or being permitting of childcare center uses because there's been a long understanding or long, I guess, of childcare center uses as being retail uses or commercial uses per the comprehensive plan. However, they really do function more as institutional uses, and there is a provision that allows for conditional uses for civic, cultural, community, and public facilities, which are very similar to an institutional type use that we believe the childcare center to be. And given the demand and the growth of buyer development in the yellow space on the screen, we believe that there's more than enough demand and suitability for childcare center at this location, which is identified by the star on the screen here.

The zoning ordinance actually takes a little bit of a different approach. Going back to this screen, the Yellow Area is comprised of TR1, TR3, and TR10 zoning predominantly. And in those zoning districts, if you look at the bottom right image here, the highlighted portion for the child day center per the new ordinance, All those, this uses a special exception or permitted use in all those districts. This contradicts the interpretation of the conference of plan that says this kind of use is not permitted in that place type because that's where all these zoning districts are located. Additionally, the definition of child day center in the ordinance does state at the very bottom there, which is bold, that it's primarily for educational recreational purposes.

So there's a bit of a contradiction in the conference of plan and zoning ordinance. And given the demand on this site in this area, we believe it's an appropriate use for this area. So there's additional plan policy issues in regard to the suitability of this size of a building. I will state that this is a one story building. The roofline of the building is no higher than 22 feet. There's a cupola feature that goes to 31 feet. The actual maximum building height in this district is 40 feet. So we're well below that. And we're all below the adjacent homes, are 30 feet generally, if not higher. And we do have the TCA that surrounds the site, which helps block any views of the site of the one story building.

So we do believe that it's actually appropriate given what has actually been developed in the transition policy. This is a building elevation of the building itself, which is included in the plan set. So around our site, this is the property of the north. This is the two story structure. It's a very beautiful house, I think, from 2021.

And it does have a significant tree area that we're going to be preserving between our building and this structure. As Walt mentioned, it's 55 feet from our structure, but this resident is supportive of the use. Nicholson Farm, which is to the west of us, from lot line to lot line, the closest lot line is two seventy five feet to our lot line, does not account for the distance from home to facility. But when you look at this line of structures here, it is far more imposing than the Chalker Center would be in its totality. With the Meadows on the East Side of Fleetwood Road, very similar situation, beautiful homes, but they're large homes.

They're four to 5,000 square feet and they would be much larger than the childcare center on our site. For Route 50, we'd be preserving the treat area along Route 50, about 100 feet into the site. We would be adding the trail along Route 50 within the right of way there per staff's request. So the Fleetwood Road left turn lane, just to give some background and this has already been discussed to a certain degree, but the northbound left turn lane is not warranted by VDOT. VDOT has no objection to the application given the fact that the turn lane is not warranted.

And I do have some standards. I know Commissioner Jasper, you asked about those standards. I can have a separate slide for those if you'd like to see that. But we did get a request from DTI per policy in the comprehensive plan or the county wide transportation plan to seek out the addition of a left turn lane. We did meet with the Meadows community. We don't believe there is a support to acquire right of way through our means. That doesn't mean we're not interested in pursuing that further. But our ability to acquire that right away is not possible. Just in terms of stacking, our entrance will be 600 feet from the Route 50 entrance. Per our traffic study, the max queue length in the PM is four sixty feet.

The max in AM is three forty two feet. So we do not believe there will be a stacking issue with stack these cars going eastbound on Fleetwood Road and intersecting with Route 50 in our entrance. And so that's something that we believe is safe. But we also want to point out the other mitigation measures that are occurring around the site that will come in the future. Where the star is, is the location of our site.

As has been mentioned, North Star Boulevard now connects to Route 50. Heartland Drive through another proffer from a different application will be completed down to Route 50 fairly soon. And Fleetwood Road, as was mentioned, is subject to an improvement study, which was a $250,000 allocation by the Board Finance Committee, which is underway now, should completed by the end of this year. This is the FY 2027 budget item for Fleetwood Road, 37,000,000 to $38,000,000 This is a longer term solution. As Saf has mentioned, there's no funding for today. We do see this as the long term solution. Fleetwood Road does need to be improved. There's no question about that. It's not to be that standard.

Mr. Romney, if you could wrap up your Sure.

My last slide is about the conditions of approval. We are in agreement with 28 or there's 28 conditions. We're in agreement with all of them except for these three. The number of children, we cannot operate at 100 new children. It must be 167. However, we are amenable to other changes to the application if requested. The turn lane is something we cannot acquire on our own. Although I think I have other ideas for an interim solution and a long term solution for that roadway. And then the noise assenuation, while this was not a referral comment we received, it was a condition that was imposed and we don't believe that's necessary or appropriate and I believe the neighbor of the North would agree with that. So we'd be happy to discuss these conditions or anything else.

Again, we appreciate your time and hope we can be sent to work session to help work out some of these issues. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Yep. All right. Questions for the applicants? Commissioner Monterey.

So one thing you just mentioned, that new trips 63 or 53, one of those numbers you just mentioned, Mike. I can understand your number where you're coming from, the new trips. But the thing is, whether it's a new trip or an existing continuation of somebody else's trip, when there are 160 kids in the day care center, I I I I know that you guys continue to use the 63 as a number. Only 62 dips won't add too much to the stacking. I just want to say I disagree with that statement because there's a continuing traffic out of the new new new, cars.

It will be still stack a lot on that road in my mind. So and I just wanna make the comment for now.

Collins.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mike, with respect to the traffic impact study and the pass by calculations, do the numbers that we see in the staff report, does that include we've got 167 students with parents who are driving them to and from. And then we've got 25 employees who are driving to and from. AM peak trips, we're looking at 53. And PM peak trips, 51 additional trips. Does that, I mean, how we squaring that with I think what you're hearing from all of us on the ground anecdotally? Can you shed some more light on that?

I'm not going to try to shed light on the traffic study. I would defer to Portia and Tushar on that. But what I would say there's a methodology to it and it's a methodology that was acceptable to the county. So I can fully understand where you're coming from and others are coming from on the safety aspect and the volume through that area. And I don't disagree with your comments.

I think they're valid and I think there is a solution that does need to be implemented for the existing traffic today as well as anything that goes on this site. I would say that this site does have other rights, so to speak. I think that this is just my opinion and based on the application that we're proposing, there are merits to this use of this location. But I think what we're trying to do is try and find the best solution for this site. So I can't speak specifically to the Pass five trips. I can have Portia come up and provide a better answer than I would. But I do believe that there are improvements that are needed and we're hopefully willing to work on those and get a solution for this issue. But there are existing conditions that are causing problems. There's no question.

Do we have a sense, and maybe Portia you can answer, do we have a sense of what the traffic counts would look like without factoring in the pass bys?

We have the report here if they can't look

at it. Okay. Thank you. But because the pass by is a methodology used to come up with a count. I'm wondering what perhaps a different analysis would look like if we're not taking advantage of that methodology.

Yes. Firstly, just to clarify, the next new trip that was cited, the fifty three a. M. And fifty one trips, are just the net new trips. And then we have another line called the pass by trips, which was mentioned, which hasn't been cited here. And the fact that we call it pass by doesn't mean we do not account for that in analysis. It's included in the analysis. We account for those trips. We just separate them out to show that these are already existing trips that would essentially divert to the new day care center and continue on to their destination, but then they are accounted for in our analysis. So we do not omit them from the analysis.

We just call them out separately to show that since it's a daycare who would have users that are already have a different destination but then would pass by to the daycare as like an interim trip. Not sure if that makes sense.

Yeah. I I follow what

you're saying. But then, yeah, we account for the pass by trips in our analysis. So the queueing, the delay, any any conclusion from the traffic study accounts the pass by trips.

Okay. So they're fully accounted for in your methodology. Yes.

We just pull them out separately.

And then I think I was getting from Lori and Roy that yes, this is your traffic impact study and this is your methodology, but there are concerns that DTCI has that aren't flagged based on your traffic study. So I'm trying to square that. How is the county accepting of the TIS but having concerns that the TIS isn't really flagging?

Well, I think our main concern was that we have the CTP policy that looks specifically at when you're for access management chapter five, it specifically states that when you're dealing with a childcare center and you have children being dropped off, that turn lanes are of importance that needs to be evaluated.

Whether warranted or not.

Correct. Correct. Correct. Okay. Yep. So, DTCI can't step back and say, well, their TIS doesn't warrant it but this is a childcare center. We are very aware that there are issues on Fleetwood at this intersection. We already dealing with a failing intersection. And the reason we, you know, we agree it it is already failing. Their their trips adding to it doesn't completely, you know, take it from, you a know, LOS of D down to an F, but it's failing no matter what.

And that's just a concern for us safety wise that this child care center probably is not in the location that it should be.

Got it. Okay. Thank you.

Mister Barnes. Yes, sir.

I don't think there I don't think there is a magical way of taking the traffic from Route 50. If you go up there about 04:00, 05:00, the traffic is like running fast and you got trucks and all construction people going through there right on 50. I've seen it because I got tied up in it in the traffic. It takes long time. In the evening, they're going the other way.

Morning, they're going this way, and it's all tied up. And they're going fast, fifty, sixty miles an hour on that road. And this little road just connecting and that that it's gonna be hard. They'll be sitting up there to get get into the traffic, yeah, to get out of there. And where where the kids are involved, I don't think that we can do magic and say, hey.

It's a magically be done because you can't take a chance on kids. I can see grown up, and if they wanna take chances on their lives, that's fine. But we there's no sense putting the kids into a problem like that and hurt them somewhere. That that's just not gonna work up there. It's it's not. That place is not right. It's too close to 50, and it's Fleetwood. The road is already beaten up, so there's nothing up there that you can do. So that's what my comments are. There's no magical thing you can do whether you bring the traffic consultant and all that.

This this gonna go away, it is already. And then you on top of that, you're adding 160 some cars for the kids and you're adding the staff. You got you got a couple 100 cars and and traveling just for the schools. So that's that's my situation here. Thank you.

Okay. Commissioner Jasper.

I'm I mean, I will associate myself with all the comments that have been made by other commissioners regarding traffic and access and concern for safety that DTCI has pointed out. I'd like to add some other concerns I have about the application that we discussed on the phone. One is a concern about the fact that there hasn't been community outreach. When we spoke with yesterday, Mr. Avery mentioned that the neighbors who are not interested in selling, providing an easement across their HOA property are, you know, we're not fans and and did what neighbors will do, which is complained about the potential for noise and traffic.

So the lack of community outreach is of concern to me. I would like to point out that my concern is not to the size of the building. So I don't think, you know, I don't think the policies that are not favoring commercial operations in this area are based on size of building. They're based on intensity of use. And so the size of the building, I mean, it could be 30,000 feet if it had four cars going to it a day and very little activity.

Well, that is less of a burden in a neighborhood like this than a facility that has 200 people going back and forth every day in an basically exclusively residential area. So I don't want that to be lost here because it's easy to say, oh, well, there are other buildings this big everywhere. But that's not the issue. The issue is intensity of use. And I think to bring this forward to work session, we really have to understand that the intensity of use here is something that can be discussed along the lines of perhaps of what staff suggested in terms of limiting the number of students in this.

I mean, the alternative here is three or four single family residences, which is what would be allowed, although I think the site configuration is such that it would be harder to get three because it's a kind of wonky site in terms of its configuration. I you know, I think we're saying we're going to put a very busy facility here or there'll be three or, you know, at most four single family homes. I just, I think that's a really big issue that we haven't spent, you know, that we need to pay attention to. I asked and I know that, you know, yesterday, mister Avery mentioned that I'm concerned. I I believe there's probably need for more child care facilities.

Right? This isn't the only site in the county or in this part of the county where child care facilities could go.

Commission commissioner Jasper, I've yet to hear question. Do you have a question for the applicant?

I do. Okay. Thank you, chair cares. The question is, will you be providing more current data about the need and location as requested of others childcare facilities in this area?

Yes, we can, Commissioner Jasper.

Okay. And my last question is, will you be what is your response to the kind of question about hooking up to county water and sewer?

So this was a condition that we did not draft. It came as a originally just a wall and septic condition. Then we noticed that that was not appropriate because we are intending to hook up to public water and sewer. So we modified it to allow for that. And if the commission feels that's not appropriate, then we can modify it further.

So you would we are committed willing to commit to water and sewer?

Yes. Okay. Thank

you. Commissioner Frank, question.

Yeah. A quick clarifying question, and I'm not sure if it's the applicant or our wonderful folks from DTI who wanna answer. But the the traffic studies and the the TIS and everything we're looking at right now, does that account for the build out of already approved residential developments to the immediate north of this on Fleetwood Road and everything? Would those numbers be in there? Or is that gonna be an additional traffic that's not in these scenarios? So

as of the time we spoke this study

Oh, sorry.

If you

come to the mic.

As of the time we scoped the study, there were no

Can you turn it on? Sorry. Here, you're don't think it's on. Oh, it is. Okay.

There As we of the time we scoped the study, there were no approved development in the vicinity of the site. So the analysis does not account for any background development. Anything that any residential development in the vicinity of the site that is already built would have been captured in our existing traffic count.

Okay. I'm not sure. How do we define vicinity of the site? Like, how how far does that go?

I believe any in the vicinity of the site, we will define that as any development that will utilize Fleetwood Road because Yeah. We would analyze Fleetwood Road in around 50. So anything that will utilize Fleetwood Road, we need to account for that.

Okay. So at the time there was nothing approved but not built. When when did you do this study?

In 2023, I believe. Yeah. 2023.

Okay. Because we've approved I mean, Parkside Village, there are already people moving in. So we approved that more than a couple of years ago.

Yes. So they would have then been accounted for in the existing traffic count.

Yeah. It should've. Okay. So there's things that are not fully built out now that are in correct. So

typically, what they'll do is their background development will include approved projects but maybe haven't been built yet. But if it's already existing, that's captured in their existing traffic counts.

Yeah. I mean, it's it's yeah. The approved but not built is what I'm concerned about because if it was 2023, there's more than one application that was approved on that stretch of Fleetwood North south of Heartland, North Of 50 that is residential. So there's a lot of car trips that come from that. And I have to imagine a number of them are going to Route 50, which just creates more traffic at an intersection we have that's failing.

And if I may

Please.

Commissioner Frank. And also within the traffic study in the approved scoping, in addition to that background traffic that is, you know, assumed to be in in the traffic counts, there's also what's called an inherent growth rate. So there is a growth rate of 1%, along 50, which is, you know, minimal, but that does to it is to account for that background traffic

Yeah.

That is

Along 50 that that whatever the appropriate inherent growth rate makes some sense. It's Fleetwood that I think I'm really concerned about. Just knowing I mean, if you look at a Google image, you can see a lot of disturbed dirt and then you see things that looks like farmland that we all know are no longer planned for farmland. So, not to mention a really big one right up at if you go all the way up near the new schools. Okay. Alright, thank you.

Can I ask a quick question and then I'm done?

Not now. Everyone's gone pretty much over, so you can make a comment when we get to the motion. Alright. So if I go quickly again, specifically there was two developments approved. Think they were called Fleetwood North and Fleetwood South. This commission approved one of them. If the study was done in 2023, then that isn't gonna be part of this. This would have been and that's a several 100 unit development. Do you know if those two developments were included in the traffic study?

Let me take a look at the the scoping document.

They were not. And

They were not.

Yeah.

Okay. That's okay. That's what I thought. Another question for the applicant. You you made a comment that VDOT said that a turn lane was not warranted. Did VDOT actually look at your proposal, do a traffic analysis for the existing conditions in a 167 child care child day care center and say that it wouldn't be needed? Or they just say, step, you can't have a left turn there because it's an unimproved road and we won't allow it.

So there was a warrant analysis completed with the traffic study and based on that analysis did not meet the warrants. And this is based on conservative analysis too. I wanna go into too many details. But they did not meet warrants per the analysis. That's what VDOT said. It's per VDOT's criteria. Yes.

Yeah. Mhmm.

Okay. So you made a comment. VDOT said a turn lane was not warranted. Did VDOT actually make that statement?

Yes. Okay. It's in the referral. Okay.

Alright. So let's go ahead and go to the public hearing. We do have several people signed up in the building and also remote. I will read the first few names and when your name is called, if you could, we have two microphones. If you could just get ready to speak behind one of the microphones, it can move things along a little quicker.

The first speaker, and I'm sorry with most of these names, I'll try to get through them as close as I can. But the first one is Ronak Shah. Okay. And that is to be followed by, it looks like Ben Ketil will be next. And Ben will be followed by Alan Hinch Hinchliff. Right, sir.

How are you doing? My name is Ron Akshaw. I actually live third House down on Fleetwood. So very familiar with the area since 2014. I'm not understanding the math on the the cars coming in, cars coming out.

167 plus 25, roughly 200 cars or 200 people traffic going in and out even if you count. You have two kids versus one, whatever. You count that as a third of the cars coming in. I think it's probably 100 cars or 185 to 100 cars one way on AM and PM. The traffic is a concern because if you make a right right now, it takes about three traffic lights on a peak time, which is 03:30 to 05:36PM.

And then mornings, obviously, if you're trying to make a left on Fleetwood, it takes about three turns, three traffic lights to make a left turn to get on 50. That's a major concern. And I think something to do with the easement on sewage. I think they they reached out to the HOA on us. I mean, the Meadows.

So that's one thing. I'm not sure what they're trying to do from and the questions you have, commissioner Barnes and Jasper, about how they're gonna get the the sewage and water supplies, but not sure about that either. The studies to me seems like they're kind of old. If you look at the traffic right now, it's bottleneck just to, you know, just to get to get home. And I take 50 every day, so I know how this works last eleven years.

So I just want to make sure that the studies and everything else is kind of put together from the developer and the applicant is accurate, which we don't think it is. To double on commissioner Barnes point, it's a it's a dangerous sight to have a childcare if you're trying to get the left turn or whatever turn you wanna make on the fleet border outside of 50. Another thing I wanna make sure is 50 turns into one lane after this traffic light. So you're looking at as it is a bottleneck just to get on a Fleetwood and Atlanta Mills traffic light itself. So after this is a one lane.

So it takes a lot longer to get to and if you get hired more cars every day, it's gonna give you that challenge. And we live there and there's another development coming right next to our community that 57 homes. So that's gonna add to traffic as well at this point. So I just wanna make sure that everybody we have enough data and understand what we're trying to do before we can get this plan. I appreciate your time. Alright. Thank you. Thank you.

Next speaker is Ben Keithill followed by Alan Hinchliffe and then followed by Sheldon Danto.

Yeah. Thank you. It's actually Ben Kieffler. I should have been a doctor. So if you're reading my my handwriting. I'm here on behalf I'm the HOA president. So I'm here on behalf of the HOA. I'm gonna use some of my time for those comments and then I'm also a homeowner homeowner, so I will provide my own comments as well. For for the HOA, we had and somebody, I forget which one of the commissioners made comment that there was a lack of outreach. We've actually been in contact with Chris Avery for a number of years.

So I don't want to misrepresent that there hasn't been outreach there. We've certainly been engaged with him over the years on this. And he was very accessible and we had a town hall with several of our residents that that joined where he made himself available, provided the plans in advance, and then had a lot of Q and A and discussion throughout that. So terms of general comments from we didn't have anything to vote on as a community at that point. There was discussion about an easement acquisition and those types of things.

Those become a little more complex, but but this was just kind of discussing the basis of the project. And in general sentiment from everybody was traffic. And that is that has been a concern. A little bit of a knit on new commissioners. We've had a lot of approvals of additional homes down Fleetwood for a number of years.

And it's not it hasn't grown at all, believe it or not. But we've got, you know, probably a thousand more homes down at the end of Fleetwood. When I moved in, in 2014, that was a gravel road, you know, beyond Revival Drive that you see up there on the screen. The Route 50 area there, some folks raised a consideration for a potential turn in off of Route 50. I heard, you know, safety issues regarding the traffic study along those lines.

When I say that, I'm talking about the past the traffic light attorney and onto the site would certainly mitigate traffic flows on Fleetwood. But generally speaking, everybody in the community that I have spoken to, whether, you know, it's it's another development down the way or this site traffic is just generally a a a concern. Switching over in the last thirty seconds to my personal views as a as a homeowner. A daycare is not an offensive use. I think to the point of the applicant, you know, that's certainly a a need in the area.

Across Lena Mill Boulevard there where Fleetwood turns into Lena Mill, there was a Montessori school over there that has recently moved. So I do know that there is a challenge for daycare in the area and we do have a lot of homes that have been sold and built since then. So again, not not an offensive use and I I personally don't have begrudge the use, it's the traffic on that on that end. I'm also since I'm the HOA president, if there's I don't even know if it's appropriate, but I can answer questions from that perspective if if the commissioners have any. That concludes my comments.

Alright. Thank you. Yep. Next up, Alan Hinchliff followed by Sheldon Dan Danto.

And oh, thank you for pronouncing the name right.

Got one.

Yeah. Thank you. Yes. I'm Alan Schliff. I've lived in Devon Statesboro. In fact, my house is right above the r in Statesboro on that. But since I work from home until I retired, I was able to walk my dog down along Fleetwood every morning, and I'd see the traffic back up that everybody's concerned about. Sometimes almost almost backed up to that one house that's on the White House. So and being a six segment black belt when I was working, You know, we did a lot of studies with data, and it seems to me the only data I could find on the Loudoun County website for the traffic study was in 2020. Now I don't know if the traffic study you're talking about is something newer than that, but if it isn't, then that's old data.

You need something new. And like somebody mentioned, yes, I do think when they opened up North Star To 50, it did take some traffic off of Fleetwood. But as Ben said, there's a lot more houses going in on Fleetwood. Back right next to The Meadows are building another development with some 100 plus houses. So I would recommend that you do another traffic study to see what the real data is before you make any decision.

That's it.

Thank you. The last speaker, Sheldon Danto.

Am I on? Yeah. Okay. First, thank you for allowing me to address you. My name is Sheldon Danto. I'm a homeowner in The Meadows. I was pleased to hear most of you have already highlighted concerns, which is why I'm here. There was one item that scares the hell out of me, and that is traffic. And not so much traffic for the sake of traffic but the safety that goes along with it. As many of you have highlighted we are talking of kids.

Kids going in and out of the day care. And I just wanna highlight a couple of things in conjunction with things that you've already said. Number one, this isn't an issue of just traffic flowing in and out of a school district or school. This is a left hand turn crossing over Fleetwood, which we already know is inadequate as a road. Various individuals, our friend over here, basically highlighted the speed in which people driving.

Well, crossing over 50 with kids with speed of cars going back and forth. And as Michelle highlighted, there's new developments going in that are not necessarily in the headcount and the numbers. They're already starting to build houses there that's gonna make the numbers worse. And if this is a failing road now, god knows what will be when these kids start going into school. Now our friend over here highlighted the fact that he goes on this road and he knows how terrible it is.

And back to you, sir. You know, you you raised a very important question and that is how long does it take to get through this the lights going from Fleetwood onto Route 50? And as the previous speaker indicated, it normally takes two to three lights to get people in and out. That's now without people crossing over, without a backlog of cars on a line waiting to get in and out of the development. And my only concern, which is why I I asked for the time, is this scares the hell out of me.

I do not wanna see kids hurt. I don't wanna see anyone hurt. But there's gotta be better ways to do this. And from my perspective, I'll offer one suggestion, and it may not be possible, and that is the entrance and exit to the school if it's approved should not be off of Fleetwood. It should be off of 50 which raises a whole bunch

of other

questions because the Fleetwood narrows down at that point in time. But off of 50 gives you a more viable entrance and exit. You cannot do it off Fleetwood, and with that I will shut up. Alright.

Thank you very much. We also have several remote speakers. First is Ramana Pradator.

He did not call in.

She did not call in. Alright. Second is Ashley Lalani.

She did not call in as well.

Did not call in. Alright. Third, it looks like, Sanku Saha.

Yes. Hi. This is Sanku Saha. Thanks for taking my call. So yes, like everyone mentioned also, the proposed childcare facility would generate a substantial increase in daily traffic on Playtruth Road, which is currently a narrow single lane road, not designed to accommodate high traffic volumes and consolidated morning drop off and evening pickup period would likely create a significant congestion, bottlenecks and safety concern for the Meadows residents because we live in Meadows.

And free to do already serve as a primary access access point for Loudoun Meadows, our community. And for it's for us, it's very difficult to take a left turn because that is the only way we can get into Route 50 to take a left turn onto free to during the busy hours. So beyond the traffic and safety concern, the proposed day care could negatively impact our property values within our community, like increased condition, noise, and commercial activity in in what is currently a receding residential setting may reduce the overall appeal of the neighborhood. Furthermore, the demographic composition of Loudoun Meadows doesn't indicate a strong demand of this type of childcare facility within the community, meaning the residents are unlikely to derive meaningful benefit from its present while behind the associated drawbacks. That's pretty much from my side.

Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much. Our next speaker is Suresh Vanmarathil. I think I got the Suresh part right.

Good evening.

Good evening. Hey,

good evening. So, yes, thank you. So my concern is in the same lines as many of them who've talked before me. I live in the community. I live the pain to navigate through that intersection of this proposed plan.

And so just want to reiterate that there is no room for this and it is only going to make the problem worse. And unfortunately, we have only this road for us to go in and go out of the community. So yes, just wanted to mention that and reiterate the pain that most of them who've already talked before me. Thanks.

All right. Thank you. Our next speaker is Rolana Akanuri.

Hi. Yes, this is Srikant Akanuri. Thank you for putting me on the list and hearing my concern. A lot of my neighbors, and I live in Meadows, and all residents around my neighbors have expressed severe concern about the traffic. I do have a similar concern.

There are two congestion points we're going to make it even worse. One is when we try to get from our community, when we try to make a left turn onto Fleetwood, it's an extremely dangerous left turn because you have now adding more homes on the right side of our community. Already there is Nicholson Farm and doing that itself takes a lot of time to make that left turn during rush hour. The second thing, I did time the traffic light up there. It usually I go to DC every day in the morning and evening.

I come back in the evening. It is about five minutes because it takes three traffic lights. Each traffic light is roughly one point five minute. So you're really adding a lot more congestion to that area. Not only are we putting the residents, this I think this plan is very detrimental in the sense that you're putting the residents at risk as well as the children at risk. So I think the developer said they had some study done, but I don't think it includes any of the recent data that they have looked at. So I strongly think that this is a really bad plan to implement. So I request the members to consider this and this is all I have. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Our next speaker is Surajin Paturi.

Hi. Thank you for giving me this opportunity. I agree with everyone whatever they're saying. I'm also one of the residents from the Meadows community. So what are the things I wanted to come is like first is the Fleetwood Road already experiences flooding and closures during the regular rainfall. And it's not a rare event, actually. It's an ongoing issue. And adding commercial construction will only increase runoff and further strain already in that infrastructure. And the second thing is the traffic condition at Route 50, which is already very severe. During peak morning and evening summers, it takes three to four signal cycle just to make a turn.

And this is the current reality without additional development. Any commercial project will significantly worsen delays and create serious safety concerns for residents, which we are facing already. And the third one is the VDOT traffic study, which is being referenced is outdated and does not reflect current traffic volumes, rapid growth in the area or present condition levels. And this should not be made based around old data that fails the the present present day conditions because we are going through that every day, we know the daily traffic how much it is. And this this proposal prioritizes commercial interest over the safety and quality of life of the existing residential committee where we and their own communities.

The infrastructure is already strained, approving the development will only compound existing problems. And one thing I wanted to highlight is I always I'm just like I can see the property right now when I'm talking, and I have seen many accidents where people died also in this 50 turn towards the route towards Fleetwood. And so I so that's the worst main concern is the safety. And especially when it's coming to the chill daycare, it's kids which we more keep like safety features. So that's my concerns. Thank you for the opportunity.

Alright. Thank you. And, last speaker is Naresh Ganji.

He dropped off.

He dropped off. Okay. Is there anybody else online?

No,

Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody else in the room that would like to speak to this application? Okay. So with that, the public hearing is closed. The staff of the applicant have any comments or anything they'd like to state to address the comments? No? Staff, anything else? No? Okay. Alright. This application is in the Little River District, so I'll go to Commissioner Jasper for a motion.

Thank you, Chair Kearse. I'm gonna make the following motion, a bit of surprise to me. I move that the Planning Commission forward Legi 2023Dash0104 Fleetwood Road Child Care Center specs Dash2020Dash0016 and SIDP dash 2020Dash006. The Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of denial based on the findings for denial provided as attachment three to the 02/24/2026 planning commission public hearing staff report.

Is there a second?

Second.

Great. Motion made to deny by commissioner Jasper, seconded by commissioner Combs. Commissioner Jasper, do you have an opening?

Yes. I do. I was when I walked in, I was planning, you know, expecting to, move that this go to work session. But listening to my fellow commissioners kind of probe into the traffic issues, listening to the public witnesses discuss the traffic issues. I really I'm not sure this that there's anything that can be fixed, understanding the condition of the roads.

And I also started to have images in my head not just to you know, not just of traffic backing up, but of people actually, including children, being injured in accidents and and concern about getting emergency vehicles into the site should something happen to a child who is already there. So I really that that was what caused me to change my mind and recommend denial.

Okay. Any other comments on the application? Commissioner Barnes?

Yeah. I I would have sent it to okay with the work session, but the more I hear, there's no way they can correct it. You know, it is what it is. You can go to work session. It's not gonna change the traffic that's already there and the existing. And they they're not gonna cut down the number of the students to like 20 or 25. It's not viable for them. So what we gonna do? So I'm I'm ready to vote on it.

All right. Thank you. Commissioner Combs.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm gonna support the motion. I too would've been supportive of work session, but hearing that a facility that can accommodate anything less than 167 students is not viable, to me means we're dealing with the same scale and the same impact. The benefit of a work session would be to perhaps try to update the TIS and see what things can be done.

But it just seems like such a far stretch to do anything that could improve that intersection and that stretch of Fleetwood Road in any with any urgency that could accommodate a project of this size. So for that reason, without wasting any of your further time, I'll support the motion. Okay. Commissioner Frank.

I too well, I doubt I would have been, in favor of approval, would have supported it going to a work session so we could work on it a little bit. But my colleagues are right. I mean, an updated TIS is probably not going to look better. I suspect it

will look

worse. You know, we didn't even get into the impact on Revival and Nicholson Meadows, the light that's or the the intersection that's also about 600 feet from the entrance to to the childcare center. If this was truly being treated as an educational use and we felt that that was appropriate and LCPS were putting a building here, there would be turn lanes. They would not build a school without turn lanes. So if the applicant wants us to consider this as not a traditional commercial use, but rather an educational supportive use, you need turn lanes.

And if there's no way to get there, then I think you gotta wait till Fleetwood builds out if and when that time comes before this use is really appropriate. I lived in one of those neighborhoods at twenty years ago. The development got ahead of the road system and watched a minivan get flipped upside down, right in front of a childcare center. In fact, actually, two because one there's one in a church. Boy, did they fast track that road and that that traffic light really fast after that, and there had been numerous accidents and problems documented at that intersection for years.

So so, you know, it it does happen, and it is a very scary thing, and I don't know that any of us would feel good with it happening on our watch. So short of turn lanes and a completed VDOT acceptable road on Fleetwood, I don't know how I support this application in this use here.

Thank you. Vice chair moderating.

Thank you, mister chair. Again, I think the team is going the same way. I came into this meeting thinking that we are going to go into work session. But before even I might I make my decision, I do want to ask, Ben, the from the Meadows HOA a a quick question on, because I don't think I got a concrete answer on, is Sure. Meadows still willing to work with this applicant to make a right of way or that road is closed, you think?

What do you mean by that? To Because when I widening talk of Fleetwood? Yes. It it it's for us to sell off common area requires, I believe it's a 70% vote by all homeowners. So we didn't have that many go to the meeting. So I don't have a gauge for you on that. Okay. We didn't really pursue the conversation further, from there. So, you know, I I think we would probably be open to convert further conversation, but I don't know that we would where the votes would sit in terms of accommodating that that request.

Actually, that does answer my question.

Okay.

Because I do actually, work on the board of Stone Ridge HOS. Yep. I know. 70% getting I know what what you're talking about.

So I

I think with further and as I I agree with every commissioner here, I think it's just wasting more time. I think it will give you a better decision for applicant to rethink this whole idea because not seeing this whole plan in the CIP at this time, when it will be budgeted, what's going to be done with this road, and not even having the right of way, all these things. I think it will be I know you might not agree with me at a 100% right now, but I think going to denial is a better way to just going to work session and just waste all your resources on both sides, on the staff as well as on you guys. You. I'll be supporting the motion. Okay.

Questions for staff. So the applicant put up a slide that talked about monies being allocated to Fleetwood Road improvements in the 2027 budget. Are you familiar with that? Has it been approved and has it been determined where on Fleetwood Road that money would be spent?

I'm not aware that that's been approved.

Okay.

I think it said that it was up for

Discussion? Yeah. Okay.

It wasn't

If it was the board supported spending the money on Fleetwood Road and they supported widening this to VDOT standards so a paternal lane and all could be put in And assuming they work with and can acquire the right of ways, realistically, when would it actually get built?

That's a, yeah, that's a loaded, I don't, I, I

No way you can tell. No. Yeah. There's 20 beyond twenty thirty?

Yeah. I mean, it yeah. At least.

Because I know you already have a certain queue of roads that it's not gonna get in front of. Alright. And is it possible to put an entrance off a Route 50 beyond to the west of the Fleetwood traffic light? Is that something that's not possible?

No. Route 50 is a controlled access roadway, and we do not approve any additional access points off Of 50.

Alright. So based on this, as I told you, there's simply no way this works without that turn lane. And finding out that even if the HOA went and said, hey, applicant, you can take some of our right away, unless you built that entire road to VDOT standards, you couldn't do it. You couldn't just say, give me enough to put a turn lane in and put it in. That won't be allowed by VDOT unless that whole road is built to VDOT standards.

Is that accurate? That's what I thought. It just sending this to work session, I I don't see what benefit we gain from it given that in the I think the best possible scenario were years and years out from that happening because this simply does not work without the left turn lane into the site. Then there's nothing you can do to convince me otherwise. I've seen enough daycare center operations and applications to know that. So I will be supporting the motion. Right. Commissioner Jasper,

No. Thank you, everybody.

All right. So the motion is to deny the application. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? That motion carries six zero three with commissioners Banks, Miller, and Myers absent for the vote. Thanks. Alright, Brian. Any administrative thing to bring up?

No updates.

Okay. I want to bring one thing up commissioners. I know we're getting back into it. During public hearings when it's questions for staff and questions for the applicant, please restrict to questions. Most of what I heard a lot of tonight were just comments about the application, what they liked or didn't like about them, and questions weren't even asked.

And sometimes those went on four or five minutes. You have the opportunity to opine on the application during motion comments or obviously if anything that goes to a work session, that's where we can spend a lot more time opining on it. Especially we have six items coming up in March. So please if you can keep yourself to questions during the question portion for staff and the applicants. Alright, that's it. We're all done. Thank you very much. We're adjourned.