[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6665335,"mediaKeyId","2360446-70f604e4e08451c88cdcb629d0e5cec7","parentId",2360446,"title","Board approves several land‑use items; Oak Grove, Novak reconsideration and Stonehill among actions","audioSeconds",16748,"startMs",1067000,"endMs",17815000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2360446-70f604e4e08451c88cdcb629d0e5cec7&start=1067&end=17815","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2360446-70f604e4e08451c88cdcb629d0e5cec7/thumbnail_1067000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6665335/Virginia/Board-approves-several-landuse-items-Oak-Grove-Novak-reconsideration-and-Stonehill-among-actions","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6665335-9ae81c84118126e3c0fbb8f2b31202d8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771172794&Signature=fnJFO5fwmtsdrQmOXxtKsTlpGx1Qrx2kco3R6aC-UuHCnNbpecrbCgc2vHkWo1QXCELShaxlxu~SMIJJRbRSGEDU7yhUBGkacFaUUyy1oRdQlx1lR8wzf9bEkmVRNnSzHY~ZensVfwP7~8sckqK5E2FdrGvmVl5UT5CF~m-nv7Of4Qdvps1RjOSB-L-Sxrg1OTBI-1M7bcS24khvhymL15IDVhdUlAgtjF-eM2r-FxtRiI2uv2Eb~t2t4UxkmbgqS4ql-qdK1Q-KLH0GtM1MeHO-rgN-W0KoVu7qdUBAPaGHyweQJczgDZeZZkel2ISFFockY0OxKQ1u9By4n-1WuA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Loudoun County","date","2025-02-19T00:00:00Z","article","Loudoun County's Board of Supervisors acted on a series of rezoning and procedural items during its Feb. 19 business meeting, approving some applications and sending others back for additional review.

Oak Grove (ZMAP 2019‑0021 / LEHI 2024‑0069)
The board approved the Oak Grove application following a motion that was seconded by Supervisor Sainz. The motion, as read into the record, approved LEHI 2024‑0069 and ZMAP 2019‑0021 \"through the proffer statement dated 11/27/2024\" and accepted the findings attached to the meeting materials. The motion passed 8–1; Supervisor Kristen Umstead was recorded as opposed.

Novak South Fork Substation (LEHI 2023‑0109; SPEX 2024‑0033 and 0034)
At the Feb. 19 meeting the board reconsidered its Feb. 12 public‑hearing approval of the Novak South Fork Substation application. The board voted to reconsider the earlier action (motion to reconsider adopted 9–0), and then to forward the application to the board's March 18 business meeting so the applicant could present additional screening and an extended screening wall and supplemental evergreen plantings along Route 50. The board's actions on the reconsideration and the forward motion were unanimous (9–0).

Greenland Park (LEHI 2023‑0059)
The board considered a rezoning application for Greenland Park during public comment and staff presentations, heard from multiple community members and labor representatives, and then voted on the application. The motion to approve was made and seconded and passed 5–4; supervisors Crony, Sainz, Brixman and Turner voted against approval. Supporters at the meeting included labor representatives who said the project would create jobs; opponents raised concerns about environmental impacts to Sicklin Creek, the scale of impervious surfacing near an impaired stream, and cumulative data‑center growth countywide.

Stonehill residential (ZMAP 2020‑0076 et al.)
Later in the meeting the board took up Stonehill, a residential rezoning that staff said had been revised since the planning commission hearing. The applicant reduced the proposed unit count, committed to architectural and acoustical measures and added a pledge to fund a crosswalk on Evergreen Ridge Drive if a crosswalk study found one warranted. After discussion the board approved the revised application by a 5–4 vote.

Other procedural and legislative actions
- The board adopted a federal legislative program (discussion and votes on several priority statements were recorded on the Feb. 19 agenda). During debate the board added priority language opposing increases to Reagan National Airport slot/perimeter exemptions and encouraging use of Dulles International as the region's long‑haul domestic and international hub. It also added statements supporting congressional authority to set federal workforce rules and opposing large‑scale freezes in federal grant funding that would have disparate effects on local governments.

What the votes mean
- Several approvals were divided, reflecting differences among supervisors about where residential development belongs in relation to airports, streams and existing industrial uses. Opponents of the data‑center rezoning argued about long‑term electrical demand, tree clearing and effects on streams; proponents emphasized site design commitments, reduced unit counts and the applicant's proffers to mitigate impacts.

Next steps
Approved rezoning items will move to recordation and implementation steps per county process. The Novak South Fork Substation will return to the board March 18 with supplemental screening materials per the board motion.

Votes at a glance
- Oak Grove (LEHI 2024‑0069; ZMAP 2019‑0021): Approved 8–1 (Supervisor Umstead opposed). (Provenance: motion reading and vote recorded at meeting.)
- Reconsideration of Novak South Fork Substation: Motion to reconsider adopted 9–0; motion to forward to March 18 adopted 9–0. (Provenance: board motion and vote recorded during meeting.)
- Greenland Park (LEHI 2023‑0059): Approved 5–4 (Crony, Sainz, Brixman, Turner opposed). (Provenance: public comments then final vote.)
- Stonehill (ZMAP 2020‑0076 and related ZMODs): Approved 5–4 following amendments and a supplemental proffer to fund a crosswalk study. (Provenance: staff update and vote recorded in meeting.)

All three rezoning approvals were recorded in the meeting minutes and are subject to the county's standard administrative steps for implementing approved proffers.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Loudoun County - Board of Supervisors Business Meeting - Feb 19, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Loudoun County Board of Supervisors took a series of formal actions Feb. 19 on rezoning and legislative items: Oak Grove was approved 8–1; Novak South Fork Substation was reconsidered and sent to March 18 for more screening (9–0); and the board approved both Greenland Park and Stonehill by narrow 5–4 margins.","taxTitle","Loudoun County, Virginia","taxId",5640,"location","Virginia","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6665340,"Board hears technical briefing and public debate on ranked-choice voting",1443,3260000,4703000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2360446-70f604e4e08451c88cdcb629d0e5cec7&start=3260&end=4703","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2360446-70f604e4e08451c88cdcb629d0e5cec7/thumbnail_3260000.jpg","/articles/6665340/Virginia/Board-hears-technical-briefing-and-public-debate-on-ranked-choice-voting","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6665340-10baa3a8e663256708851d607b453d40/orig.mp4?Expires=1771172794&Signature=H1n5siK8H7dVUM3yy9h4JcLiz2OYE77-Kth6jfLxeBjahJg1aGkFsgYgj2V-8UZuoJc1qEbz8QEFbyK3LSC1JVyNh65iJrTsglaSwBvFFqsKr5RHa2yirUchSadGSW9irZZ22fo7BMy7ZbqFpU~sk6EEVhj4FvgjmRDRYv0K7lmhbleBu3xkDqyp3TPVsUJahZfeMIBfxneR64JC3pBcsdZDl~p1wmtZkspWOsD3gN8dUxaZm1UkwsmDmePLNLPH~p5BOPAG8BsJaJ0RbMQEr7BEXLaXfVjxguQnliCtudZm6-m0qRWZwr0keJCy4ojJAbGanRQLQasyVnJbIMa9jw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Loudoun County elections officials gave the Board of Supervisors a technical briefing Feb. 19 on ranked‑choice voting and the operational steps the county would have to take if the board chose to use it for future supervisor races.

The Office of Elections explained that, under current Virginia certification, the county's voting system can record and tabulate up to three ranked choices per voter; a later certified upgrade would allow five. Elections staff said rank processing could not begin until all ballots are tallied, including mail and provisional ballots, which would likely delay a final result by roughly a week after Election Day.

\"If a candidate receives a majority, that candidate is declared the winner,\" said an elections presenter. \"If no candidate receives a majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and those ballots are redistributed by next choices until someone has more than 50 percent.\" The presentation also noted that the board must adopt an ordinance for each election in which it wants ranked choice used and that the current enabling law sunsets in 2031 unless the legislature renews it.

Elections staff outlined several operational concerns: likely need for two physical ballot cards in many Loudoun contests, additional printing and storage costs, increased processing time, the need for a specific voter education campaign at least 60 days before any election using ranked choice and the requirement that the board consult with the electoral board and registrar before moving forward.

Arlington County's Gretchen Rennermeyer, who advised the board by phone about Arlington's experience, said education was \"a big lift\" the first year but that voters adjusted. \"By the general election it was basically a non‑issue,\" Rennermeyer said of Arlington's implementation. She added that Arlington saw broad voter comprehension after sustained outreach and that, in Arlington's recent use, ranked choice nominated and elected candidates who were women and people of color.

Public commenters were divided. Supporters said ranked choice can prevent the \"spoiler\" effect and encourage broader campaigning; opponents said the method is complex and can result in ballots that are not counted in final rounds. Some speakers said the system can disenfranchise voters whose ballots become exhausted during multi‑round transfers; others cited national examples where implementation problems delayed certification.

Board members asked about legal authority, the interaction with partisan primaries, and where the method could be used. Elections staff said the current state law permits only boards of supervisors to use ranked choice and that it would apply only to local supervisor races selected by ordinance. They noted that primaries run by the state would raise additional coordination issues and that, if the board adopted ranked choice, the county would have to decide by statutory deadlines (90 days before the relevant election) for each contest.

Supervisor Sainz, who requested the briefing, told colleagues the session was intended to give the public and board members a chance to inform themselves. \"This will provide a high level overview about how rank choice voting works, and the technical and operational considerations related to implementation,\" he said during the introduction.

The briefing was informational only; the board did not vote on adopting ranked choice voting. Several supervisors said they wanted more time to weigh costs, legal questions and the scale of outreach required before considering an ordinance.

What's next: Elections staff said they could prepare a fiscal impact analysis, a voter‑education plan and draft ordinance language if the board chooses to proceed toward using ranked choice in a future election cycle.","Loudoun County elections staff briefed the Board of Supervisors on how ranked‑choice voting would work in county contests, including equipment limits and likely operational impacts. Dozens of residents and representatives of Arlington, which has implemented the system, spoke for and against during public comment.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board approves several land‑use items; Oak Grove, Novak reconsideration and Stonehill among actions

Board hears technical briefing and public debate on ranked-choice voting