Public Meetings - Loudoun County, Virginia

The Loudoun County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) convened on June 26, 2025, at 11:00 AM to hear Appeal 2023-0001, concerning a notice of violation (NOV) issued on February 1, 2023, for the illegal establishment of outdoor storage of vehicles at 16980 Hillsborough Road, Purcellville, Virginia. The board heard extensive public testimony, deliberated, and ultimately voted to uphold the NOV and deny the appeal. Public Comments & Testimony - Jonathan Hinkle (complainant): Argued that the property has been used as a trailer park, not agriculture, and that the owners never sought proper rezoning. He expressed concern about potential groundwater contamination from leaking fuel and oil. - Tony Buffington (former Loudoun County Supervisor): Spoke in favor of the Fields family, citing the need for vehicle storage in the area and the property's suitability due to its location near the future 690 interchange. He noted that county staff and supervisors had visited the property over the years without raising issues. - Connie Fields (mother of appellants): Asserted that the property is in compliance with JMAL3 zoning (joint land management area) as described on the county website, and asked the board not to shut down the family business. - David Parker (real estate investment banker): Stated he is working with the Fields family on potential redevelopment of the property, viewing the current use as a temporary step toward a higher and better use. - Susan Payne (customer): Highlighted that closing the storage would reduce personal property tax revenue and local business spending in Purcellville, and that many customers would move to West Virginia or Prince William County. - Harry Gillam (customer and former employee): Refuted claims that the storage had been operating for 20 years, stating he was the first renter in the late 1990s. He estimated roughly 200 renters, including 15 small businesses, and argued that the service is difficult to replace due to high land costs. - Additional speakers (including Kevin Bath, Joseph Easton, Arkirick Tour, Daniel Fling, Mohammed Khan, and others): All expressed strong support for the Fields family, emphasizing the lack of affordable alternatives, the impact on personal property taxes, and the importance of the storage for small businesses and recreational vehicle owners. Discussion Items - Staff Presentation (Amanda Johnson, Assistant Enforcement Program Manager, and Hugh Green, Senior Assistant County Attorney): Explained the background of the NOV, the deferral granted to allow abatement, and the lack of substantial progress. Attorney Green argued that the BZA lacks authority to consider equitable defenses like laches or constitutional claims, and that the zoning administrator correctly interpreted the ordinance. - Appellant's Presentation (Mark Nealis, attorney for Trevor and Tanya Fields): Argued that the property has been used for vehicle storage for over 20 years with county knowledge (e.g., grading permits, business license). He raised defenses of laches and equal protection, and questioned the enforcement timing. Trevor and Tanya Fields testified that the storage is a continuation of the family farm, providing affordable space for the community. They requested grandfathering or rezoning. - Board Deliberation: Members acknowledged the powerful testimony and the genuine need for storage, but repeatedly stated that as a quasi-judicial body, they could only rule on whether the NOV was correct under the existing zoning ordinance. They could not grant equitable relief or rezone the property. The motion to uphold the NOV was made, amended to remove a statement about the appellant admitting illegality, and seconded. Key Outcomes - Vote: The board voted 3-0 to uphold the notice of violation and deny Appeal 2023-0001. The motion was carried by the affirmative votes of three members present (Mr. Gray, Mr. Walker, Mr. Kramer; Chair Nan Forbes also voted but did not indicate a dissenting vote). - Findings: The board found that the property was in violation of Sections 1-103 and 1-203 of the revised 1993 zoning ordinance for the unauthorized outdoor storage of vehicles in the JLMA3 district. No permissible uses were proven. - Next Steps: The board encouraged staff to bring the issue to the Board of Supervisors for potential zoning code amendments. The zoning administrator noted that a new variance application would be needed for a previously approved but incorrectly located structure, and a potential August meeting was discussed for training on the new zoning ordinance. Additional Notes - The board received 10 emails in support of the appellants on the day of the meeting, which were noted but not formally considered as they arrived after the deadline. - The meeting concluded with a motion to adjourn, which passed unanimously.

The Facility Standards Manual (FSM) Public Review Committee (PRC) met on June 24, 2025, to discuss updates to FSM Chapter 5 level spreader standards, floodplain amendment language, and administrative items. The committee approved minutes from the May 15, 2025 meeting as amended and the draft annual report by acclimation. No public comments were received. Consent Calendar - Minutes Approval: The minutes from the May 15, 2025 meeting were approved as amended after minor corrections (e.g., clarifying that “over 40 feet” level spreader length is rare, not 40 feet itself). Motion carried unanimously. - Annual Report Approval: The 2024–2025 annual report was approved by acclimation. It will be presented to the Board of Supervisors at the July 16, 2025 e-Book meeting. Public Comments & Testimony - No members of the public offered comment. Discussion Items Level Spreaders (FSM Chapter 5) - Staff reported discussions with DEQ regarding the maximum discharge rate for 200-foot level spreaders. DEQ agreed to revise their manual from 30 CFS to 20.87 CFS but cannot publish the change before July 1, 2025. The county may adopt the 20.87 CFS standard now and submit a follow-up report to DEQ. General Services supported the change provided that all level spreaders include a concrete lip. The committee agreed to adopt the 20.87 CFS threshold and revisit the standard after one year of implementation. - A scenario was discussed where a pond outfall discharges to a wetland channel. Using a level spreader to avoid wetland disturbance may require exceeding DEQ’s criteria. The committee concluded that such site-specific situations should be handled through the variation process rather than codified in the FSM. - Additional technical concerns were raised about velocity calculations and Manning’s n values used in the DEQ handbook. The committee agreed to defer a full discussion on allowable velocities to a future meeting. Floodplain Amendments - The committee debated whether to keep floodplain study exemption language in the FSM or move it to the Zoning Ordinance. A key point was whether a floodplain study should be required for boundary line adjustments (BLAs) when the number of lots remains the same and no dedications or easements are proposed. After extended discussion, the committee agreed to keep BLAs in subsection B (administrator may require) rather than A (study not required). - Discussion also covered zone A floodplains and the 50-lot/5-acre threshold. The committee added language stating that the floodplain administrator may determine a study is not required for subdivisions with FEMA zone A affecting 50 lots or 5 acres under specific conditions (e.g., conservation lot with no buildable area in floodplain). - The committee reviewed type one floodplain study definitions. For major floodplains, a type one study is limited to re-delineation only (no new hydrology or hydraulics). For minor floodplains, updated hydrology is allowed but no new hydraulic analysis. Staff will draft clearer text with bullet points for the next meeting. Tech Memo Supersession - The committee decided that the May 28, 2025 technical memo on interim standards should be rescinded and replaced with a new tech memo that incorporates the level spreader changes. The new memo will note that it supersedes the May 28 memo. The revised document is expected to be distributed shortly before the July 1 effective date. Key Outcomes - Approved minutes and annual report unanimously. - Adopted 20.87 CFS as the maximum discharge for 200-foot level spreaders, with a concrete lip requirement. One-year trial period agreed. - Site-specific level spreader issues related to wetland impacts will be addressed through the variation process. - Floodplain study exemption language for BLAs will be retained under subsection B (administrator may require) with condition that number of lots remains the same. - Added language allowing floodplain administrator discretion for zone A subdivisions exceeding 50 lots/5 acres under certain conditions. - Type one floodplain study definitions refined: major floodplain – redelineation only; minor floodplain – updated hydrology allowed but no new hydraulic analysis. Staff to prepare revised text. - The May 28 tech memo will be rescinded and replaced with a unified tech memo covering level spreader changes and other interim standards. - Next meeting scheduled for July 17, 2025 (Sycolin Road).

The Loudoun County Communications Commission met on June 18, 2025, at 7:00 PM in the Lovettsville Room of the Loudoun County Government Center. The meeting focused on the introduction of a new commissioner, approval of the virtual meeting policy, and a substantive discussion regarding the commission's future role and value, particularly regarding potential expansion into wireless and mobility technologies. No public comments were received, and both Comcast and Verizon were absent. Consent Calendar - Approved the agenda as presented. - Approved the minutes of the March 24, 2025, meeting. Public Comments & Testimony - No members of the public signed up to speak or provided comments. Discussion Items - Introduction of New Commissioner: Marion Shannon (who goes by Jamel) was introduced as the Ashburn District Commissioner. She shared her background in computer engineering, telecommunications, and diplomatic work, expressing interest in leveraging her expertise for the community. - Approval of Virtual Meeting Policy: The commission unanimously adopted Article VII-C of its Bylaws for all-virtual meetings and remote participation for calendar year 2025, per state requirements. The policy limits remote participation to 25% of meetings (or two per year) and requires written requests to the chair before noon on the meeting day. - Awareness of Future Virtual Meeting Policy Change: Staff noted that Virginia Code § 2.2-3708.3 has been updated to allow up to 50% of meetings to be all-virtual, but the county must first update its own policies and bylaws before the commission can take advantage of the new limit. The timeline is to be determined. - Franchisee Discussion – Comcast and Verizon: Neither Comcast nor Verizon attended. Staff reported that Comcast did not attend due to a scheduling conflict (meeting was on a different Monday than usual) but remains in regular communication. Verizon has a policy of not regularly attending; staff noted decreased responsiveness from Verizon compared to prior years, particularly regarding infrastructure tickets. Commissioners expressed concern that the agenda listing of specific attendees created a false expectation for the public. It was agreed that staff will reach out to franchisees ahead of future meetings to confirm attendance, and the agenda will be revised to a general item ("Franchisee Discussion") rather than naming specific individuals. - Staff Response & Recommendation for Commission Focus – Potential Expansion to Mobility Technologies: This was the main agenda item. Staff presented findings from county administration and the county attorney’s office. Key points: - The annual commission update did not constitute a refocus on mobility/wireless technologies, and the current bylaws do not support such a shift. - To change the commission’s focus, the board of supervisors must approve a formal resolution or motion, and the commission would need to develop a presentation with proposed bylaw changes (without staff assistance). - The county attorney’s office stated that the commission cannot become regulatory; it will always remain advisory. - The recommendation from the county attorney is for Chair DeSilva to reach out to Supervisor Latorno to gauge appetite for a change in focus before the commission invests further effort. - Commissioner Deliberation on Purpose and Value: Commissioners extensively debated the commission’s relevance and demand signal from the board. Several commissioners noted that the board rarely seeks their input directly, and that staff and outside experts already provide the needed technical advice. Commissioner Bridge questioned whether the board still needs the commission. Commissioner Kennedy argued that the commission has been involved in franchise renewals and BEAD buildout, but others countered that the board did not rely on the commission for those decisions. Chair DeSilva suggested that each commissioner should individually engage with their supervisor to ask: (1) Do you see value in the commission? (2) Would you want an expanded role (e.g., wireless/mobility)? (3) How should communication be structured? The commission agreed to develop a standardized set of questions to ensure consistent feedback. A timeline was set: questions to be drafted by the end of the week, discussions with supervisors within two weeks, and feedback compiled a week before the next meeting. - Review of Action Items: Action items 262 (what it would take to update bylaws and scope) and 263 (read the commission bylaws) were closed. New action item 264 was created to capture the agreed-upon outreach to supervisors and development of standardized questions. Key Outcomes - Adopted the all-virtual/remote participation policy for 2025 (unanimous). - Closed action items 262 and 263. - Created action item 264: Commission chair to engage Supervisor Latorno; all commissioners to engage their respective supervisors with standardized questions about the commission’s value and potential expanded focus, with feedback due before the July 28, 2025, meeting. - Staff will contact Comcast and Verizon ahead of future meetings to confirm attendance. - Agenda language for franchisee discussion will be revised to avoid naming specific attendees. - Next meeting scheduled for July 28, 2025, in the Lovettsville Room.

The committee met to adopt the annual all-virtual meeting policy, approve past minutes, and conduct a detailed review of proposed amendments to the Floodplain Standards Manual (FSM). Discussions centered on floodplain study requirements, boundary line adjustments, level spreader criteria, and design reference updates. Several technical items were deferred for further analysis. Consent Calendar - The committee unanimously adopted the annual all-virtual meeting and remote participation policy, enabling virtual meetings through the remainder of the calendar year. No changes to current bylaws were proposed. - Minutes from the May 1, 2025 meeting were approved with amendments after corrections provided by Megan and Maggie. Public Comments & Testimony - No public comments were presented. Discussion Items - Floodplain Study Exemptions: The committee debated whether boundary line adjustments (BLAs) that consolidate lots should trigger a floodplain study. Staff noted guidance from DCR that consolidation may be considered a subdivision; some members preferred simpler language or removal of the provision. The item was held for further clarification. - Design Reference Revisions: The opening statement in section 5200 was adjusted to say "shall apply" instead of "apply in all cases" to better reflect that floodplain studies use different references. A sinuosity diagram will be added as a new figure (Figure 9). - Level Spreader Standards: Extensive discussion occurred on the proposed 15 CFS cap for level spreaders within 50 feet of wetlands. Megan suggested removing the CFS limit and using a maximum length of 144 linear feet, allowing compliance with channel and flood protection criteria to govern. The committee agreed to explore this as a limited application under the B criteria before broader implementation. - Land Cover Coefficients: Megan proposed reclassifying 'meadow' from its current 'orchard/vineyard' grouping to a lower C factor, closer to 'open space' or 'lawn', to better match TR55 and Virginia runoff values. Staff noted the table has been in use without complaints; no consensus was reached, and the item was left for future discussion. - Grandfathering and 'Accepted' Definition: A question from DTCI requested clarification on what 'accepted' means for grandfathering purposes (e.g., completeness check, fee payment). Staff indicated that the definition aligns with past zoning ordinances and a checklist is available. Key Outcomes - The virtual meeting policy was adopted unanimously with no opposition. - Minutes from May 1, 2025 were approved as amended. - The floodplain study exemption language for BLAs will be revisited after staff consults with DCR. - The level spreader CFS threshold and B criteria amendments will be addressed at the June 12, 2025 working meeting, with potential notification to industry ahead of the July 1 implementation date. - Several other technical edits (e.g., design references, table updates) were accepted or deferred for minor refinements.

The Loudoun County Board of Zoning Appeals held an educational session on May 22, 2025, to receive a preview of the upcoming online zoning ordinance. Staff from the county also provided reports on legislative amendments and future board agenda items. No hearings were conducted. Discussion Items - Online Zoning Ordinance Preview: Staff members Judy and Teresa demonstrated the new online zoning ordinance platform, which converts existing PDFs into a user-friendly, interactive format. Key features include: - Four navigation tabs: Zoning Districts & Land Uses, Development Standards (parking, lighting, open space, signs), Natural Resources & Attainable Housing, and Administration & Procedures. - A zoning toolkit with links to zoning maps, land use lookup, development calculators, and Landmark. - Smart Search functionality allowing full-text search of the ordinance, including advanced options (e.g., searching for “animals” but not “kennels”). - Land Use Lookup tool to determine where a specific use (e.g., data center) is permitted across the county, with results displayed on an interactive zoning map. - District Summary tool to generate a list of permitted uses for a given zoning district. - Calculators for sign regulations, parking, affordable dwelling units, etc., that pull directly from the ordinance text but include a disclaimer that they do not account for property-specific entitlements or proffers. - Hyperlinks within the ordinance text to definitions, cross-references, and external resources like the Code of Virginia. - Ordinance amendment history embedded directly in the document. - Staff Statement: Staff noted the platform has been in development for three to four years and emphasized it is a supporting tool, not the official zoning ordinance. The official ordinance remains the 12 chapters, appendices, and amendment table. - Board Questions & Discussion: Board members asked about the appropriateness of using the tool during hearings. Staff clarified that the ordinance text itself is authoritative, while calculators and lookup tools carry disclaimers and may be impacted by entitlements. It was generally agreed that the tool would be used for background research, not during hearings, as staff reports already provide relevant code sections. - Assistant County Attorney’s Report: Hugh Green from the County Attorney’s Office reported on amendments to the Virginia code effective in July regarding the order of evidence in zoning appeals. Under the amendment, the zoning administrator presents first, then the appellant; failure to follow this order is reversible error only if an objection is lodged citing the section and the board refuses to reorder the hearing. The attorney provided this information for awareness, noting no change to current practice. - Zoning Administrator’s Report: Staff announced the next meeting is scheduled for June 26, 2025. Agenda items include: an appeal from 2023 (first hearing, not a continuance), two sign development plans not yet ready, and at least one potential variance in early stages. The online zoning ordinance is expected to launch within a few weeks, with public communication coordinated by public affairs. Key Outcomes - No votes were taken during the educational session. - The board and staff expressed enthusiasm for the new online zoning ordinance, which is expected to launch in the coming weeks. - The board was informed of the upcoming June 26 meeting and pending cases.

Note: The agenda listed this meeting as Wednesday, May 14, 2025, but the transcript indicates the meeting occurred on May 19, 2025 (a Monday). The summary below follows the transcript date. The Transit Advisory Board (TAB) held a business meeting covering officer elections, a presentation from NOVA-TRAC on a proposed rail-with-trail project, and staff updates on ridership, service expansions, and a microtransit pilot. The meeting was chaired by Ray Delpesche. Consent Calendar - Approval of November 13, 2024, Meeting Minutes: Approved unanimously by voice vote. - Approval of Regular Meeting Schedule through January 2026: Approved unanimously. Meetings will be held on the second Wednesday of the month (July 9, September 10, November 12, 2025, and January 14, 2026) at the Transit & Commuter Services Office. Public Comments & Testimony - No public comments were made during the meeting. Discussion Items Officer Elections - Chair: Ray Delpesche was nominated and re-elected by acclamation. - Vice-Chair: Vlad Ovchynnikov was nominated and elected by acclamation, replacing outgoing Vice-Chair Suzi Wilson (who is departing the board). - New member Alan Wynn (Broad Run District representative, retired transit professional) introduced himself. NOVA-TRAC Presentation – Rail-with-Trail Concept - Kevin Potter, planning director for NOVA-TRAC (a nonprofit), presented a proposal to build a rail line along the Washington & Old Dominion (W&OD) Trail from East Falls Church to Purcellville, using half of the 100-foot-wide right-of-way. The concept aims to provide a faster, express rail alternative to the Silver Line, with estimated travel times of 45 minutes from Leesburg to D.C. and 1 hour from Purcellville. - Board members raised numerous concerns: - Alan Wynn noted institutional agreements (e.g., with WMATA) and the need for extensive feasibility studies, safety and utility issues, and the proper order of engagement with DRPT (Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transit). - Other members questioned the compatibility of a high-speed rail with the trail, potential noise, community opposition, environmental impacts, and the concept's viability given the existence of successful commuter bus service. - Several members suggested that light rail or bus rapid transit might be more suitable alternatives. - Kevin Potter clarified that the request was for a non-financial endorsement (to be listed as a supporter). No formal vote was taken; the board expressed that the concept is too early in development to endorse at this stage. Staff Updates - Commuter Bus Ridership & Service: Sarah Kleckner (filling in for Scott Gross) reported that commuter bus ridership surged in March 2025 due to federal return-to-office mandates. On May 5, 2025, two additional morning and two afternoon commuter trips were added. Retiming of all commuter trips is underway to reflect increased traffic, effective July 1. Potential for new routes (e.g., Navy Yard, East Side) is being explored, but ridership data is needed. - Local Bus Ridership: Weekend service expansion (April 1) on legacy routes significantly increased ridership: Saturdays jumped from 400 to 700 riders, Sundays from under 100 to 400 riders. Local fixed-route daily ridership surpassed 2,000 riders every weekday in May. - Microtransit Pilot: A microtransit pilot in Leesburg is set to launch July 1, 2025, operating Monday–Friday, 7:00 AM–7:00 PM. It will use the Rideco app (branded as LCT On Demand) with virtual stops and call-in booking. The service will complement existing fixed routes; no changes to those routes initially. - Bus Stop Improvements: Shelter installation is in design/land acquisition phases; ADA improvements ongoing. Real-time data enhancements (GTFS-RT feed) are being developed to improve rider information via Google Maps and other platforms. Key Outcomes - Officer Elections: Ray Delpesche re-elected Chair; Vlad Ovchynnikov elected Vice-Chair. - Minutes and Schedule: Approved unanimously. - NOVA-TRAC Proposal: No endorsement; board encouraged the group to complete feasibility studies, community engagement, and environmental analysis before returning. - Commuter Service: Additional trips implemented; retiming set for July 1. Future expansion depends on ridership demand. - Microtransit Pilot: Launch confirmed for July 1, 2025, in Leesburg. - Next Meeting: Scheduled for Wednesday, July 9, 2025, at 7:00 PM at the Transit & Commuter Services Office, 209 Gibson St. NW, Suite 100, Leesburg, VA.

Note: The agenda and transcript indicate this meeting took place on May 1, 2025, but the user specified the meeting date as May 8, 2025. This summary reflects the content of the May 1 meeting. The meeting was a joint session of the Zoning Ordinance Committee (ZOC) and the Facilities Standards Manual Public Review Committee (PRC) to discuss proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance (ZO) and Facilities Standards Manual (FSM) related to floodplain regulations. Staff from the Department of Building and Development, including Natural Resources Division Manager Gwen Kennedy and Floodplain Administrator Maggie Auer, presented an overview of the draft changes. The goal is to maintain compliance with FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program, improve clarity, and align with the county’s Comprehensive Plan. No members of the public signed up to speak, but committee members asked detailed questions and raised concerns. Discussion Items Zoning Ordinance Amendments - Floodplain Map Updates: The proposed change allows staff to update floodplain maps as studies are approved, without a separate zoning map amendment (ZMAP) public process. In place of that, a property owner notification requirement will be added to Chapter 8 of the FSM. - Permitted Uses Table (Section 503E): Changes include removing “active recreation” as a permitted use in the major floodplain to align with the Comprehensive Plan, removing swimming pools as a permitted use in the minor floodplain, and adding “adaptive reuse” in both major and minor floodplains. The use table was reorganized with ‘Y’ indicators for clarity. - Development Procedures (Section 503P): Renamed to “floating development” for clarity. The requirement for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and timeline were moved from the FSM to the ZO to align with state code. - Development Standards (Section 503H): A zoning permit will now be required for any development in both major and minor floodplains, not just major. This aims to better track development (e.g., fences, tree planting) in the regulated floodplain. - Purpose Clause (Section 605): The purpose language was changed from “conserve the natural state of water courses” to “improve public health, safety, convenience, and welfare.” Staff explained that FEMA’s primary focus is life and property protection, not environmental protection. Some members expressed concern that the new language is too vague. Facilities Standards Manual (FSM) Amendments - Floodplain Study Type One (Section 5411): Clarified when a type one study is applicable to make it easier for applicants to determine appropriateness. - No Rise/No Impact Certification: Replaces the old “Declaration of No Impact Statement.” This certification applies to a broader range of projects, but staff noted it will require case-by-case evaluation. - Floodplain Alteration Type One (Section 5442): Expanded to include additional scenarios (e.g., revisions to approved models, such as updating rainfall data), reducing the need for full type two alterations. - Plan Requirements (Section 8104/8105): Added requirements for a narrative describing the project, spatially referenced digital model files, property owner notifications when floodplain boundaries change, and final mapping files to expedite map updates. Key Concerns Raised by Committee Members - Active Recreation: Several members questioned removing active recreation as a permitted use in major floodplain. Concerns included the broad definition of “active recreation,” impacts on existing parks and golf courses, and the inability to expand non-conforming uses. Staff clarified the removal was driven by the Comprehensive Plan, but the Planning Commission is re-evaluating that plan. Members requested analysis of how many parks and HOAs would be affected. - Minor Utilities vs. Underground Utility Lines: Discussion focused on whether underground utility lines (e.g., water service laterals) would now require a special exception under the “minor utility” definition. Staff confirmed underground lines are not minor utilities and would not trigger a special exception, but above-ground features like pump stations would. Members requested clearer distinction. - Notification Requirements: A member asked why the property owner notification requirement (for floodplain map changes) is only in the FSM and not also in the ZO, since users often look at the ZO first. Staff said it could be added to the ZO. - Grandfathering: Industry representatives expressed concern about the lack of a grandfathering provision for projects already in development when the new regulations take effect. The county attorney noted the changes are largely a transition from an overlay district to performance standards, so permissions are mostly unchanged, but members urged early planning for implementation. - No-Rise/No-Impact Certification: Members sought clarity on which specific projects would qualify (e.g., filling an ineffective ditch). Staff explained it depends on technical demonstration and is not a fixed list. - Separation Distance: The old practice of avoiding a floodplain study if a project had sufficient horizontal (5 vertical feet or 3 horizontal feet) separation is now codified, but members wondered if this applies to limits of disturbance or structure location. - Overlay District to Performance Standards: A member asked whether changing from an overlay district to performance standards would alter the interpretation that the floodplain zone extends infinitely upward (e.g., for a pedestrian bridge over the floodplain). Staff agreed this needs further discussion. - Stormwater Management: Members questioned the performance criteria numbers (e.g., 600 sq ft accessory structures, two-thirds of drainage area for stormwater). Staff said FEMA dictates 600 sq ft, but other numbers are county-driven and open to discussion. Key Outcomes - No formal votes were taken; this was an introductory discussion. - Next Steps: - The ZOC will hold its first meeting on May 7, 2025 to review ZO amendments. - The PRC will meet May 15, 2025 to review FSM amendments. - Staff aims to complete committee review before the August recess, with three meetings each. - After committee input, a draft will go to state agencies (DCR for FEMA review) and county referrals in September, then return to committees in October for formal recommendation. - The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors will consider the amendments later (late 2025/early 2026). - Staff will compile a list of FEMA-required vs. county-initiated changes to help committees focus. - Staff will coordinate with the Planning Commission on the active recreation issue during the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. - Version control of draft documents will be managed as multiple iterations are produced.

The Zoning Ordinance Committee (ZOC) met on May 7, 2025, at 9:30 AM in the Dulles Room. The meeting covered routine approvals, a demonstration of the new online zoning ordinance platform, status updates on multiple zoning and comprehensive plan amendments, and initial review of the floodplain ordinance update. The committee set a comment deadline for floodplain ordinance sections and discussed future meeting dates. Consent Calendar - The committee approved the Action Report from the April 2, 2025 meeting, with a noted correction to add attendee names. Public Comments & Testimony - No public input was offered. Discussion Items - Online Zoning Ordinance Launch: Staff (Judy, Teresa) demonstrated the new ENCODE Plus platform, which will replace PDFs with an interactive, searchable ordinance. Features include hyperlinked definitions, search with AND/OR/NOT, land use lookup tool, built-in calculators (development yield, parking, signage), and an amendment history table. The platform is expected to launch within weeks, no later than July 1, 2025. Committee members raised concerns about legacy zoning districts, parcel-specific overlays, and the need for user tip sheets. Staff acknowledged the issues and noted that the tool pulls from the same text as the current PDF ordinance. - Clean-Up ZOAM (Zoning Ordinance Adjustments): Staff reported that comments from committee members were received on a spreadsheet of proposed adjustments. About half of the committee submitted feedback. The timeline calls for draft text in July 2025, with the committee plan to review the written text before detailed discussion to focus on priority items. The schedule may be adjusted to allow adequate review time. - Western Loudoun / Rural Uses and Standards (CPAM/ZOAM-2024-0002): Staff is preparing for a June 18, 2025 special T-leg meeting on limited breweries, wineries, and distilleries. A bus tour with stakeholders and Virginia ABC representatives is tentatively scheduled. Draft text on equestrian stables is planned for July 2, 2025. Discussion on bed and breakfast and special events is pending scheduling of a separate T-leg meeting. - Floodplain Ordinance Update: Staff (Gwen Kennedy, Melanie Mason, Maggie Auer, Todd Taylor) presented the background: the Board of Supervisors directed moving floodplain regulations from an overlay district into Chapter 6 (Natural & Environmental Resources) via a ZOAM. A companion ZMAP will remove parcels from the overlay based on updated data. The state (DCR) reviewed the draft on behalf of FEMA; a checklist of FEMA-required provisions was provided. Committee members requested clarification on which changes are FEMA-mandated versus county improvements. Staff agreed to color-code future drafts to distinguish FEMA requirements. The committee deferred discussion on active recreation in floodplains pending further internal coordination. - General Plan Update: A brief discussion occurred regarding the General Plan update and its relationship to zoning. The chair clarified that zoning-related changes from the General Plan will come to ZOC separately. Key Outcomes - Comment Deadline: Committee members are to submit comments on Sections 605 and 605.01 (23 pages of the floodplain ordinance draft) by Tuesday, May 27, 2025 (extended from May 23 due to Memorial Day). Comments should be provided via a spreadsheet format to staff. - Next Meeting: The next ZOC meeting is scheduled for June 4, 2025, at 9:30 AM (corrected from the agenda's June 2 date) in the Lovettsville Room. - Future Floodplain Review: Staff will work to provide a color-coded version of the draft highlighting FEMA-required provisions. The committee will continue section-by-section review, with the possibility of a joint meeting with the FSM/PRC after both committees finish their reviews. - Board Response to ZOC Letter: The committee acknowledged receiving a response from the Board of Supervisors regarding their earlier letter. Further discussion on specific items raised is expected after conversations between the chair and the board.

The Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) met on April 30, 2025, to consider two public hearing items: a sign development plan for the Aventon Moorefield Station apartment building (continued from March 27) and a variance request for a storage shed on a residential property located within the new mountainside overlay district. The meeting also included administrative reports, discussion of board member term expirations, and planning for a future training session on the new online zoning ordinance platform. Discussion Items - LEGI‑2024‑0062 – Aventon Moorefield Station Sign Development Plan – Staff presented a revised proposal addressing board concerns from the March 27 meeting. The applicant eliminated several signs (loading dock wall signs, six residential entry signs, and some window/wall signs) and reduced the ground monument sign to 60 square feet, meeting ordinance standards. The applicant requested two variances: (1) to increase the height of a miscellaneous parking sign from 6 feet to 9 feet 2 inches to comply with ADA requirements (the ordinance limits miscellaneous signs to 6 feet, but ADA requires a minimum height of 7 feet to the bottom of the sign), and (2) to allow a vertical blade sign displaying the development name to be mounted at a height of 65 feet (the ordinance limits illuminated signs to 25 feet). The applicant argued that the building’s six‑story height is unusual in Loudoun County and that the sign is needed for branding and wayfinding. Staff reviewed the seven approval criteria and recommended approval subject to four conditions. The applicant provided precedent images of similar signs at The Wyatt, Vine at One Loudoun, and Boulevard at Gramercy in Ashburn Station. Board members visited the site and commended the applicant for addressing prior concerns. The board unanimously approved the sign development plan subject to the conditions. - BOZA‑2025‑0001 – Variance for Storage Shed at 14674 Waterford Court – Applicant Patrick Hurley requested a variance to allow a 16‑foot by 32‑foot (512 sq ft) non‑habitable storage shed within the ridge feature protection area of the mountainside overlay district (MOD). The entire 3.23‑acre property, zoned AR1, lies within the MOD, and the majority is in the ridge feature protection area. Under Section 7.01.04.B.4 of the new zoning ordinance (effective December 13, 2023), non‑habitable accessory structures are prohibited in the ridge feature protection area, though habitable structures like an accessory dwelling unit are allowed. The applicant testified that he purchased the lot in 2019, built the house in 2020, and ran out of funds to include a shed at that time. The property’s steep slopes and existing improvements (house, garage, well, drain field) leave no other buildable area outside the ridge feature protection area without extensive tree clearing and grading. He argued that the strict application of the ordinance unreasonably restricts his ability to maintain the property because he has no storage for necessary equipment (zero‑turn mower, snowblower, chainsaw, etc.) and that the hardship stems from the physical condition of the property (steep slopes, ridge feature overlay) that existed at the time of the ordinance’s adoption. Staff noted this is the first variance request under the new MOD provisions and that the situation is unusual because the entire parcel is within the restricted area. The board heard that the shed location is already cleared, will not be visible from Stump Town Road, and that the applicant could not store equipment in his garage without parking cars outside. The board determined that the variance criteria were met, including that the hardship was not self‑created. The variance was approved unanimously. Key Outcomes - Approval of LEGI‑2024‑0062 – Motion by Mr. Kramer, seconded. The board voted unanimously (5‑0) to approve the sign development plan for Aventon Moorefield Station, subject to the conditions in the April 30, 2025 staff report. - Approval of BOZA‑2025‑0001 – Motion by Mr. Clark, seconded. The board voted unanimously (5‑0) to grant the variance for the storage shed, based on findings that the applicant met the burden of proof under Code of Virginia and Section 10.08.D of the Loudoun County Zoning Ordinance. - Administrative Matters – County Attorney Hugh Green reported that board member terms have expired and the court has not yet appointed successors; members continue to serve until successors are appointed. Zoning Administrator Ryan Reed noted that two upcoming sign plan applications have been delayed and may appear in June. The board agreed to hold a business meeting on May 22, 2025, for a training session on the new online zoning ordinance platform, to be led by new Zoning Administrator Teresa Miller (introduced at the meeting).