Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

Facility Standards Manual Public Review Committee Meeting - April 27, 2026

Commissions & Advisory Boards — Monday, April 27, 2026

BodyLoudoun County, Virginia

SessionCommissions & Advisory Boards

DateMonday, April 27, 2026

StatusFILED

Video Record

0:00 / 1:50:51

Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

0:00

Uh I'd like to call an order the April 16th, 2026 facility standards manual public review committee meeting.

0:07

No members are participating remotely.

0:09

Committee members dispose that the members of one or more affiliated groups and their respective declarations of interest are kept on file in the minutes of the facility standards manual public review committee.

0:21

All right.

0:27

All right, why don't we go ahead and start into archaeology?

0:31

Okay.

0:32

So Heidi's joining us.

0:34

She just stepped out for a minute.

0:35

We have Steve online joining us today.

0:38

And we did meet um since our meeting last Thursday to talk through some of the comments and make some proposed changes here.

0:46

Let me um blow this up on screen a little bit.

0:49

Um can see this.

0:52

Um so one of the comments was define the size of the cluster lots.

0:58

And we to start this conversation, we went into AR1, AR2, and to my surprise, it's four acres.

1:06

The cluster lot max size is four acres.

1:10

Um Jason, I think have mentioned CR, and I think those are small.

1:15

They're like 40, the loud acre, 40,000 square feet.

1:19

So this seemed to be a good place to at least start the conversation, would be at four acres or less for the cluster lots.

1:29

I don't think we have many four acre cluster lots.

1:31

I think that's why I'm confused because I don't think I see them very frequently.

1:38

But If you have a four-acre parcel that would require this, whatever.

1:47

Only if it's a cluster lot.

1:48

I understood.

1:49

Yeah.

1:50

So it wouldn't just be like a principal subordinate lot or I that doesn't even work.

1:55

I know the math doesn't work.

1:56

But like a A3.

1:58

If there was an A3 and there's a three-acre lot, it wouldn't it wouldn't qualify.

2:02

It wouldn't qualify for this.

2:03

It has to be.

2:04

It has to be a cluster lot.

2:06

Does it have like do we have to say cluster lot?

2:09

Could we just say no?

2:11

Yes, you have to say cluster lot.

2:13

I think the other question is do you have to say four acres?

2:15

Why do we have to say cluster lot?

2:17

Isn't the the issue more once a lot becomes a zerto size?

2:22

That's you don't have to do the testing.

2:25

We talked about that.

2:26

That was one of the things we talked about internally, and we felt like we still wanted it to only apply to clusters, so it wouldn't apply in something like I don't even know if there's remnant A3.

2:38

That those would just do the disturbed areas.

2:41

But we could it could just say I don't think staff was opposed to it saying all lots four acres or less.

2:48

We were trying to just make it cluster, and but I don't know that there's any objection to saying all that's four acres or less.

2:55

Yeah, I feel like this is a bigger issue than a language fix in the sense that you guys don't have the checks and balances in place for grading permits.

3:09

That's true.

3:10

So cluster will catch it because we'll be looking at a preliminary or preliminary record.

3:15

Well, the whole I mean the whole emphasis about the issue was LOD changes.

3:19

And yeah.

3:21

You don't have a mechanism to stop and check that.

3:24

Right.

3:25

We don't, we don't, but this is good because this means the whole cluster lot will be tested so they can move the house around.

3:32

I just don't think we see many this big.

3:34

I uh you guys designed them.

3:35

I I don't recall, I didn't even know that that was the threshold till we had the conversation last week that was much higher than I realized.

3:42

I'm used to 40,000 square feet, 80,000 square feet.

3:45

I just am not used to seeing this.

3:47

So they're four acre minimum in cluster lots.

3:51

I think the max.

3:52

Let me show you the ordinance.

3:53

Yeah.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Zoning Regulations████████████████████████████████32%

Historic Preservation█████████████████████████25%

Zoning Regulation███████████████████19%

Engineering And Infrastructure████████████████16%

Procedural████4%

Historical Preservation███3%

Public Safety█1%

Summary of Proceedings

Facility Standards Manual Public Review Committee Meeting - April 27, 2026

This meeting of the Facility Standards Manual Public Review Committee (FSM PRC) focused on proposed amendments to archaeology requirements, including lot size thresholds, cemetery depiction on plats, and related provisions. The committee also discussed forming a work group for gated community standards.

Consent Calendar

The committee approved the minutes from the April 9, 2026 meeting with corrections for spelling errors (archaeology, amendments).

Public Comments & Testimony

No public comments were made.

Discussion Items

Archaeology Amendments

Cluster Lot Threshold: Initially, the proposal defined cluster lots as four acres or less (based on zoning). After discussion, the committee agreed to change the threshold to all residential lots two acres or less, with full phase one archaeological survey required for those lots. Lots over two acres only require testing within limits of disturbance. The rationale was that two acres balances cost and the ability to carry testing for denser subdivisions.
Historic Structures: Defined as structures greater than 50 years of age (National Park Service standard). Documentation for such structures includes a building plan (exterior walls) and photographs of interior spaces if accessible. The committee clarified that this documentation is for recordation, not necessarily for significance determination.
Maps: Changed "historic maps" to "19th and 20th century maps and aerial photographs" to clarify the source.
Cemetery Depiction on Plats: Extensive debate centered on whether to require showing cemeteries (from GIS data) on easement plats, vacation plats, and dedication plats. The final compromise: for easement plats, cemeteries within 50 feet of the proposed easement must be shown if no easement exists; for vacation plats, cemeteries do not need to be depicted if only vacation of easements is proposed. For SBBD (base density division) plats, cemeteries on the property within 50 feet of the property line must be shown if no cemetery easement exists. The committee also agreed to apply similar language to other plat types (8103.7 and 8103.8).
Grading Permits: After discussion, the committee decided to leave the existing grading permit language unchanged, as the current wording (cemeteries and buffers) was deemed sufficient.
Forest Management Plans: The committee agreed to add location of known cemeteries on the property within 50 feet of the property line, using GIS data.
Other Sections: The committee noted that similar changes would be applied to sections 8106 (site plans/CPAPs) and 8107 (existing conditions plans).

Gated Communities Work Group

The committee was informed of the Board's direction to develop standards for gated residential communities. A director's work group will be formed, requiring two members from this committee and recommendations for traffic consultants. Members were encouraged to provide names at the next meeting.

Key Outcomes

Vote: The committee voted to approve the archaeology amendments as modified (with one member abstaining). The approved draft will undergo agency referral and then return for final consideration.
Next Steps:
- Staff will circulate a final draft of the archaeology amendments.
- The next meeting is scheduled for May 7, 2026 (all-virtual).
- Members interested in serving on the gated communities work group or nominating traffic consultants should contact the staff by the next meeting.

Meeting Transcript

Uh I'd like to call an order the April 16th, 2026 facility standards manual public review committee meeting. No members are participating remotely. Committee members dispose that the members of one or more affiliated groups and their respective declarations of interest are kept on file in the minutes of the facility standards manual public review committee. All right. All right, why don't we go ahead and start into archaeology? Okay. So Heidi's joining us. She just stepped out for a minute. We have Steve online joining us today. And we did meet um since our meeting last Thursday to talk through some of the comments and make some proposed changes here. Let me um blow this up on screen a little bit. Um can see this. Um so one of the comments was define the size of the cluster lots. And we to start this conversation, we went into AR1, AR2, and to my surprise, it's four acres. The cluster lot max size is four acres. Um Jason, I think have mentioned CR, and I think those are small. They're like 40, the loud acre, 40,000 square feet. So this seemed to be a good place to at least start the conversation, would be at four acres or less for the cluster lots. I don't think we have many four acre cluster lots. I think that's why I'm confused because I don't think I see them very frequently. But If you have a four-acre parcel that would require this, whatever. Only if it's a cluster lot. I understood. Yeah. So it wouldn't just be like a principal subordinate lot or I that doesn't even work. I know the math doesn't work. But like a A3. If there was an A3 and there's a three-acre lot, it wouldn't it wouldn't qualify. It wouldn't qualify for this. It has to be. It has to be a cluster lot. Does it have like do we have to say cluster lot? Could we just say no? Yes, you have to say cluster lot. I think the other question is do you have to say four acres? Why do we have to say cluster lot? Isn't the the issue more once a lot becomes a zerto size? That's you don't have to do the testing. We talked about that. That was one of the things we talked about internally, and we felt like we still wanted it to only apply to clusters, so it wouldn't apply in something like I don't even know if there's remnant A3. That those would just do the disturbed areas. But we could it could just say I don't think staff was opposed to it saying all lots four acres or less. We were trying to just make it cluster, and but I don't know that there's any objection to saying all that's four acres or less. Yeah, I feel like this is a bigger issue than a language fix in the sense that you guys don't have the checks and balances in place for grading permits. That's true. So cluster will catch it because we'll be looking at a preliminary or preliminary record. Well, the whole I mean the whole emphasis about the issue was LOD changes. And yeah. You don't have a mechanism to stop and check that. Right.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com