Loudoun County Board of Supervisors Public Hearing - May 13, 2026
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Loudoun County Board of Supervisors Public Hearing - May 13, 2026
The Loudoun County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on May 13, 2026, to consider five consolidated agenda items and two individual land use applications. The hearing opened with a procedural debate over whether to postpone reconsideration motions from the May 4, 2026 special board meeting until May 19, 2026, due to two absent supervisors. The board voted 4-3 to postpone the motions. Following that, the board approved the consolidated items, deliberated on the SDC Ashburn I special exception and the Barrister substation applications, and forwarded both to future business meetings.
Consent Calendar
- Item 1 (Erosion and Stormwater Management Amendments): Approved motion 2B as presented, adopting amendments to Chapter 1096 of the Codified Ordinances. Passed 7-0-2 (Supervisors Kirschner and Glass absent).
- Item 2 (Repeal of Dulles Town Center Community Development Authority): Approved motion 2B to repeal Chapter 260, finalizing the earlier dissolution of the CDA. Passed 7-0-2. Supervisor Sainz noted 18% of people shop online and emphasized the importance of keeping the mall as a community asset.
- Item 3 (Kincora Fire Station Easement Conveyance to Loudoun Water): Approved motion 2B for the conveyance of easements within PIN 042-49-0209-00. Passed 7-0-2.
- Item 4 (Goshen Corner Park Water Main Easement Conveyance to Loudoun Water): Approved motion 2B for conveyance of a 20-foot easement within PIN 248176330. Passed 7-0-2.
- Item 5 (New Bluemont Agricultural and Forestal District Withdrawal): Approved motion 2B for ALEGI-2025-0013, withdrawing land owned by Thomas L. and Mary F. Francis. Passed 7-0-2.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Tia Ehrman (Piedmont Environmental Council): Spoke on Item 6 (SDC Ashburn I). She expressed opposition to the data center expansion, citing unanswered questions about cooling mechanisms, generator tiers, and energy/water impacts. She requested generator specifications in proffers and a commitment against non-emergency generator use, and urged the board to oppose continued expansions.
- Barry Wiseman (remote): Attempted to speak on Item 7 about a road safety issue on Route 650 (Oatlands Road). Chair Randall ruled the comment out of order because it was not related to the agenda item, and suggested he address it at the May 19 business meeting.
Discussion Items
- Item 6 – LEGI-2025-0015, SDC Ashburn I (Special Exception SPEX-2025-0031): Staff presented a request to increase the building footprint by approximately 800–1,000 square feet (about the size of a two-bedroom apartment) for Building D, which extends beyond the approved rezoning boundary. The applicant, SDC, explained that the building was removed from the site plan to close bonds, and redesigning to avoid the encroachment was impossible due to fire code setbacks from adjacent buildings. The applicant highlighted proffers including low-carbon concrete (30% reduction), EV charging, and bike/pedestrian facilities. Public speaker Tia Ehrman opposed the project. Supervisor Sainz proposed forwarding the application to the June 16, 2026 business meeting, with a request to proffer a Tier 4 backup generator and consider solar panels. The board voted 6-0-1-2 (Supervisor Brixman abstained; Kirschner and Glass absent) to forward it.
- Item 7 – LEGI-2025-0010, Barrister Substation (CMPT-2025-0004, SPEX-2025-0021, SPEX-2025-0023): Staff presented a hybrid GIS/AIS substation application by Dominion Energy to serve the Dullesbury data center campus. The substation is in the Urban Transit Center place type, where substations are not anticipated. Dominion agreed to enhanced screening: a 15-foot masonry wall along the future Barrister Street and 12-foot walls elsewhere, plus enhanced buffers and tree conservation. Multiple supervisors criticized Dominion's refusal to consider alternative wall designs or materials beyond three standard colors, citing the need for better aesthetics as many more substations are expected. Supervisor Brixman announced she would vote no. The board voted 6-1-2 (Brixman opposed; Kirschner and Glass absent) to forward the application to the May 19, 2026 business meeting for action.
Key Outcomes
- Procedural motion: The board voted 4-3 to suspend Rule X of the Board Rules of Order, allowing motions to reconsider actions from the May 4, 2026 special board meeting to be brought at the May 19, 2026 special board meeting instead of the current meeting.
- Consolidated agenda items 1–5: All approved unanimously (7-0-2) with two supervisors absent.
- Item 6 (SDC Ashburn I): Forwarded to the June 16, 2026 Board of Supervisors Business Meeting for action by a 6-0-1 vote (one abstention, two absent). Supervisor Sainz requested additional proffers for a Tier 4 generator and solar.
- Item 7 (Barrister Substation): Forwarded to the May 19, 2026 Board of Supervisors Business Meeting for action by a 6-1 vote (Supervisor Brixman opposed; two absent). Dominion was asked to provide visuals of a hybrid substation and alternative wall designs before that meeting.
Meeting Transcript
Supervisors, good evening, staff, and good evening, Louden. Before I call to order the um the public hearing, uh, because once I call the order the public hearing, we're in public hearing, I want to have just a discussion with colleagues and see what you all think about this idea. Um the last time when we were on the dais, we recessed the meeting instead of adjourned it only because we were so tired that we were seeing spots in front of our faces, and we were going to have a close session that had nothing to do with the with Raw Rush that probably would have lasted about an hour. So we recessed a public meeting till tonight so that we can roll the closed session over. Um technically, obviously we're still in that meeting from the fourth. However, I will say that the motions on the dais right now that came today make me a little concerned because I don't believe, although it is appropriate to make them at this time. I don't believe that they have been um put out to the public at all. And I I I just Mr. Kirshner can't make the meeting tonight because he's in some remote part of Nebraska doing Mr. Kirshner stuff. Ms. Glass can't make the meeting tonight. Um and so this is my thought. Now, and and either way is it really is fine with me. But my thought is at this point we have two colleagues that could bring this back again on May 19th anyway, if they wanted to, if they didn't like the way motions went tonight. And they probably would. Instead of doing this last time and then tonight, and then on the 19th, we could make a motion, I could make a motion to s to allow us for this one time to send um reconsideration motions to the meeting on the 19th when everyone is here. Um, and then everyone who would be in the public who want to be part of this discussion could be back, whether it be conservationists or people that which Ms. DeCrony calls the industry or whatever. Either way, I really I just I have a feeling that we're gonna do something tonight, and then we're going to take a lot of time doing it, and then do it again in the 19th when Mr. Kirsthners back and Miss Glass is back, and it just doesn't make sense to me to do it twice. So I would be fine, you know, doing making a motion to say let's do it on the 19th. Um but if you all don't want to, don't. But I just I just I don't particularly I mean we're we are still in that meeting, not for these motions. We're still in that meeting because we had a closed session that we weren't going to have. And so I don't think anybody but the people who put the motion on the table and us who've seen them since since if they got test by 12 noon, were ready for this, and I'm not even sure how ready staff are for these motions right now because they were just completely completely unexpected to be honest. So that's my thought is to send this all to the 19th, because we're gonna do it again on the 19th any way possibly and probably um versus doing it tonight. So I I just kind of at a in a because we haven't called this meeting to public hearing to uh to into order first. Just I any thoughts on that? Any thoughts on that? Any thoughts on that? I'll continue in a sec. Mr. Crony. So um my concern would be that you know this is guidance, and uh we do have a very tight tight timeline to get the uh Zoam and CPAM done by the end of the year, so this will you know delay some time again that staff could be uh drafting some text. Um I I I did send uh my concern with one of the uh wrap-up motions to staff uh last Tuesday. So um staff has had my reconsider mo reconsideration motion for quite a while, and um I believe that they've seen some of the others as well. Um I mean I would I would I would tend to lean towards uh let's move this forward. You're right. This is guidance, but the staff's not going to do too much if they hear from uh other colleagues on not in the dais that they're gonna bring it back anyway. So either way, we'd still go. I mean, that's next Tuesday, so it's less than a week from now. And if my and if our colleagues bring it back, they're still not gonna do with anything on it's literally five days, and nothing would happen anyway within these five days because our meeting is next Tuesday. So, but you did, you're right. You're sending you sent this out. You sent this out. I'm not I'm not that's not I'm just trying to say uh you're you absolutely did, Mr. Crony. Absolutely. And and if and if we go ahead, fine.
openpublica.com