Loudoun County Facility Standards Manual Public Review Committee Meeting – July 9, 2026

The Loudoun County Facility Standards Manual Public Review Committee (FSM PRC) met on July 9, 2026. Note: the agenda for this meeting is dated June 18, 2026; per source metadata the meeting date is July 9, 2026, and this summary follows that date. Chair Kevin called the meeting to order with 13 committee members and a quorum of 7 present, and no members participated remotely. No public comments were offered. The committee adopted updated bylaws, approved prior minutes, reviewed an updated erosion and sediment control (ESC) bond unit price list, received referral responses for two draft ZOAMs, reviewed its annual report, and held extended discussion of a plan clearance tech memo, which was deferred pending review by the county attorney’s office.

Administrative Items

• Bylaws update: On May 19, 2026, the Board of Supervisors approved FSM PRC bylaw amendments increasing the potential number of all-virtual meetings from 25% to 50%. The committee unanimously adopted Article 7 and Article 8 of the bylaws for remote participation and all-virtual meetings for the remainder of calendar year 2026.
• Minutes: The May 21, 2026 minutes were approved with a correction — adding the word "acts" in the third paragraph in which the chair called the meeting to order and stated the meeting was being conducted as an all-virtual meeting.

Public Comments & Testimony

• No public comments were offered.

ESC Unit Price List Update Tech Memo

• Orion Sader, Erosion and Sediment Control Program Manager, and Gwen Kennedy, Natural Resources Division Manager, presented the updated ESC bond unit price list, last updated in 2022. Sader said the county surveyed land-disturbing activity firms to determine general ESC costs and updated the list, adding controls from the ESC handbook that were not included on the previous list.
• Sader noted that as of July 1, 2026, an agreement in lieu of an ESC plan is available for single-family homes or accessory uses (e.g., a pool) on up to one acre, with a flat bond amount, since extensive controls are not typical below that threshold. He said he is weighing whether to waive bonds altogether for disturbances under 10,000 square feet in these situations.
• Committee discussion included questions about why the bond includes so many line items when the purpose of the bond is to allow the county to come in and stabilize the site if the developer walks away; Sader and Kennedy responded that it depends on the circumstances and that the structure is standard in most jurisdictions. Members also asked about corporate sureties, Excel-based forms, and ADA accessibility of a fillable PDF. The ePlan/CPAP terminology and a title line that should read "Version 7 Control Bond Estimate Form" were flagged for correction.
• The effective date of July 1, 2026 was chosen to coincide with the Chapter 1096 ordinance update establishing the agreement in lieu.

Archaeology and Fire Marshal Referral Comments

• Dan and Lee of the Fire Marshal’s Office reported no comments. Laura stated the referral response rate was the highest ever — 16 of 23 referrals returned (17 counting schools, whose comment was "no comment") — and that DTCI commented the drafts would improve the transportation network.
• Steve of DPZ introduced Katie Kosak, Loudoun County’s new archaeologist and collections manager. Referral comments included: the VSMP team asked that Section 811 reference the most current adopted Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook; DPZ community planning caught a missed terminology change from "archaeology" to "cultural resources"; and zoning ordinance terminology will be addressed through the "zoning ordinance adjustments" quick fix rather than the FSM ZOAM.
• Gwen Kennedy reported that a review comment from the natural resources program identified a potential conflict where archaeological surveys in the mountainside overlay district and limestone areas could be interpreted as land-disturbing activities requiring a grading permit. Staff met with the zoning administrator and are preparing an advisory opinion clarifying that surveys returning the ground to existing condition are not land disturbance; the clarification will also be incorporated into a future cleanup ZOAM.
• Loudoun Water’s referral was initially unclear; after meeting with staff, they revised it and raised no objections to the ZOAM as presented.
• Timeline: staff plan to take the intent-to-amend resolutions to the July 21, 2026 Board of Supervisors meeting, then to the Planning Commission in September and the Board in November, with potential inclusion in the January 1, 2027 annual FSM update.

Annual Report

• Laura presented the draft annual report to the Board of Supervisors covering the fiscal year ending June 30, 2026 (one speaker described the period as "July 1st of 2021 through June 30th of 2026," an apparent slip). The committee met 16 times during the year — two fewer than the prior year — and has 13 members with a quorum of 7.
• The report aligns the purpose section with the new bylaws, notes the bylaws amendment, and lists two approved ZOAMs during the reporting period: Rowways Over Dams and Plat Notes (approved July 9 of the prior year) and the ZOR, the Stormwater Handbook, and the timing for PSRs (approved last September). It also lists the two draft ZOAMs reviewed this year (archaeology and Fire Marshal).
• A new category captured other discussion items, including the floodplain work group, the 10-year reserve fund, and a gated residential community entrance discussion. Betsy made word-smithing edits, and members agreed the committee "discussed" staff recommendations rather than "debated" them; no substantive content changes were raised.
• The report goes to the Transportation and Land Use Committee (TLAC) in July before going to the Board of Supervisors.

Plan Clearance Tech Memo

• Zeb presented the plan clearance tech memo, which follows an outreach tour to industry groups. The memo formalizes optional, request-based clearances (e.g., design, mapping, VDOT entrance) that allow grading or other early work while a site plan is still in review, and it proposes replacing "conditional approval" with "approval with conditions": once all comments are addressed, the plan would be marked approved in Landmark, drop off the project manager’s list, and carry conditions (e.g., recorded easements, posted bonds) that must be satisfied before permits are issued.
• Committee members raised practical concerns. Brandon predicted the bond-posting requirement would be a recurring problem because applicants would be paying on bonds while unrelated issues pend; Zeb responded that developers he spoke with had no concern about the bonding issue and that the process is voluntary. Pete asked whether the VSMP permit requirement creates a catch-22 because a VSMP permit cannot be issued until the grading permit is approved; staff agreed to verify that sequencing. Keith asked how an applicant requests a clearance and was told it is by request through the project manager.
• Jason of the County Attorney’s Office objected to the "approval" terminology, stating that signing the plan and calling it approved indicates final plan approval and creates legal entitlements; he noted that Virginia Code §15.2-2261 does not mention easements and argued a plan cannot be approved without the legal right to build the site. Carlos said he was not sure that code section is being properly interpreted as requiring a conditional approval and called for a broader legal discussion. Jason also asked that the tech memo be aligned with the existing early grading process in FSM Section 8.200.
• The committee agreed that no final decision could be made without consulting the county attorney’s office. Laura said she would convene a meeting with Carlos and Jason, and the committee will revisit the memo in July, August, or September, possibly at an all-virtual meeting. Staff will consider adding a flowchart and timeline showing the two tracks. Conditional approvals remain in use in the meantime.

Key Outcomes

• The committee unanimously adopted Article 7 and Article 8 of the FSM PRC bylaws for remote participation and all-virtual meetings for the remainder of calendar year 2026.
• The May 21, 2026 meeting minutes were approved with a one-word correction.
• The ESC unit price list tech memo will be corrected (including retitling the form as "Version 7 Control Bond Estimate Form") and published with a July 1, 2026 effective date.
• The Archaeology and Fire Marshal draft ZOAMs were cleared by the referral process and are scheduled for the July 21, 2026 Board of Supervisors intent-to-amend agenda, September Planning Commission, and November Board, with possible inclusion in the January 1, 2027 FSM annual update.
• The annual report will be finalized with minor edits and submitted to TLAC in July, then to the Board of Supervisors.
• The plan clearance tech memo was deferred pending legal review; the county attorney’s office will meet with staff, and the committee will revisit the memo in July, August, or September. Conditional approvals continue until then.
• A committee member announced a job change at the end of the month and offered to remain until a replacement is found. The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, July 16, 2026 (Dulles Room), with an August recess.