[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-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",[32,76,88],{"_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",6675446,"mediaKeyId","3789417-de295b23fdbbe0a1f27ef8bc9f902db4","parentId",3789417,"title","Supervisors remove Red Hill from paving list, approve partial hard‑surfacing of Hogback Mountain Road","audioSeconds",2821,"startMs",3953000,"endMs",6774000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3789417-de295b23fdbbe0a1f27ef8bc9f902db4&start=3953&end=6774","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3789417-de295b23fdbbe0a1f27ef8bc9f902db4/thumbnail_3953000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6675446/Virginia/Supervisors-remove-Red-Hill-from-paving-list-approve-partial-hardsurfacing-of-Hogback-Mountain-Road","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6675446-cc2bcd74ff3b3f286c72da60ada35408/orig.mp4?Expires=1771074153&Signature=XdkkFpmyPzMbp9RPSj4KuNY1BN~vT1Prd-eGBw93jugB-OkRkl-fQnEMxhBRxjyERnkcuYXo0IippLilJqH1NF38bALvHxyXH6JmdmMxY89iUi4gLeNBYM2On-OOxEIRzis~XRbPM0GFkcoOpO3mBvLGRtEpRloNwLx6ALRgPMfIjnw7jI206Obew8Depu5vaTFo-H6YsXBg0sJp5fT0HnIXxmNonTXjuLfi1K86bQMTGf9514Gb5zE~br9DemTtCzn6Vu86Tt2RPzqfOZk4bvHnHt1w2LBxfKWlohNWSiQHClk8CPWMVbu6VEzUgWM04wgvm22Ia-YwxzGxDd-~DA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Loudoun County","date","2025-06-11T00:00:00Z","article","The Loudoun County Board of Supervisors amended the county’s FY 2026–2031 Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Secondary Road Six‑Year Plan on June 11, removing Red Hill Road from consideration for hard‑surfacing and approving a partial hard‑surfacing of Hogback Mountain Road, limited to the segment from U.S. Route 15 to the Stone Tower Winery entrance. The actions followed multi‑hour public comment and several motions on the six‑year program and related rural rustic road designations.

The board’s votes: Supervisor Christine Tacrone moved to remove Red Hill Road from the county’s paving list; the motion carried 7–0–2, with Supervisors Turner and Sainz off the dais. Later, Supervisor Caleb Kershner moved to amend the Rural Rustic Roads resolution to hard‑surface Hogback Mountain Road from U.S. 15 to the winery’s westernmost entrance and to ask VDOT to investigate and implement enhanced maintenance for the remaining unpaved segment; that motion carried 7–0–2.

Why it matters: The county’s annual secondary road plan assigns state funds to improve unpaved roads through VDOT’s rural rustic road program. The plan has been the focus of heated debate in western Loudoun, where residents, equestrians and recreation groups value gravel roads for their rural character and tourism, while other residents and local businesses cite safety, dust and maintenance issues as reasons to hard‑surface parts of the network.

What the board approved and removed: The approved amendment programs hard‑surfacing on a portion of Hogback Mountain Road only to the Stone Tower Winery entrance; supervisors directed VDOT and county staff to investigate enhanced maintenance and preservation options — such as improved drainage, higher‑quality aggregate and profile corrections — for the remaining unpaved segments. The board removed Red Hill Road from the county’s FY 2026 paving list after hearing that community balloting produced near‑even splits and that residents near Red Hill opposed paving at community meetings.

Staff and VDOT findings presented to the board showed differing safety and usage profiles across the four roads that had been under consideration. Highlights drawn from staff’s presentation and the public record: Hogback Mountain Road carries about 320 vehicles per day (VDOT 2023 data) and had four reported crashes on the unpaved segment during the past five years; Red Hill Road’s 2023 traffic count was about 470 vehicles per day and staff recorded 21 reported crashes in the past five years, most classified as property‑damage‑only; Lena Road’s traffic was about 340 vehicles per day with three crashes over five years; Gulick (Gulloch) Mill Road showed about 260 vehicles per day and no reported crashes in the five‑year window. Ballot tabulations shared by staff: Red Hill — 37 returned ballots, 18 in favor of hard‑surfacing and 19 opposed; Gulick Mill — 36 returned ballots, 33 in favor and 3 opposed. The board heard several additional ballot counts and community meeting results during discussion.

What supervisors said: Supervisor Tacrone, who moved to remove Red Hill from consideration, told colleagues she had held a community meeting where the majority of residents attending opposed paving and said she supported seeking enhanced maintenance first while the county and VDOT develop objective criteria. Supervisor Kershner, who moved the Hogback amendment, described his proposal as a compromise reflecting strong support from property owners near Hogback while asking VDOT to pursue preservation‑oriented surfacing options for remaining segments.

Public comment and community input: More than three dozen residents, businesses and interest groups spoke during the public hearing. Speakers who favored leaving roads unpaved cited safety and recreation benefits for cyclists, horseback riders and hikers and urged use of the 2024 state rural roads law to fund non‑paving improvements. Residents who live on sections of Red Hill, Lena and Gulick Mill described safety hazards, frequent potholes and dust and asked the board to approve hard‑surfacing where local need and support are strongest. Stone Tower Winery representatives and some Hogback Mountain Road property owners submitted petitions and spoke in favor of hard‑surfacing the south portion of Hogback for better access.

Next steps and implementation: Supervisors asked staff and VDOT to collaborate on a county‑level set of criteria for when roads are programmed for hard‑surfacing versus enhanced maintenance, citing the 2024 state law that allows more flexible use of rural road funds. The county will forward the amended six‑year plan to the business meeting for final action as required by the board process, and staff will return with details about the maintenance options, recommended design standards for rural rustic surfacing (e.g., chip‑seal alternatives), and any proposed use of developer or subdivision cash contributions to offset costs.

Clarifying details from staff presentation and ballots: Hogback Mountain Road — approximately 2.0 miles long; VDOT traffic count 2023: ~320 vehicles/day; four crashes on the unpaved segment in past five years; staff said 18 property owners were balloted (13 responded in one count reported). Red Hill Road — ~2.0 miles; VDOT 2023 traffic count ~470 vehicles/day; 21 reported crashes in five years (including one severe injury in 2018); recent local speed study averages were within the posted 25 mph limit; ballot returns: 37 responses — 18 support, 19 oppose. Lena Road — ~1.6 miles; VDOT 2023 ~340 vehicles/day; three crashes in five years; ballots returned 100 sent (number of returns and split reported by staff). Gulick (Gulloch) Mill Road — ~1.4 miles; VDOT ~260 vehicles/day; no reported crashes in five years; 55 ballots sent, 36 returned, 33 support and 3 oppose. Funding bucket reported available for future projects: $10,266,015 (staff slide).

What the decision does not do: The board did not adopt a countywide standard for rural‑road maintenance or change VDOT’s statutory eligibility rules. Supervisors explicitly directed staff to develop criteria and consult with VDOT on how to use new state guidance and funding for enhanced maintenance and alternative surfacing techniques.

Speakers (attribution whitelist)
Susan Glass — County transportation planner, Loudoun County Department of Transportation & Capital Infrastructure (first reference: 01:05:53) ; Sunil Toure — VDOT preliminary engineering manager, Northern Virginia district (first reference: 01:05:53); Supervisor Caleb Kershner — Board of Supervisors (first reference: 01:20:11); Supervisor Christine Tacrone — Board of Supervisors (first reference: 01:33:36); Supervisor Terry Letourneau — Board of Supervisors (first reference: 01:51:16); Representative Gary Higgins — Delegate, Virginia House of Delegates (first reference: 05:11:00); Multiple residents and business representatives (public comment). Quotes in this article are drawn from the board meeting record and public comments made during the June 11 hearing.

Authorities cited in the hearing: Virginia Code (remote‑participation provision referenced by the chair; citation not specified in the meeting record).

Implementation risk and follow up: Staff rated the implementation risk as medium — the board approved programming changes but asked staff and VDOT to sort out funding/credits, design standards, and how to apply the 2024 state rural roads law. The board asked that staff return with draft criteria and cost estimates for enhanced maintenance options and the proposed scope of the partial hard‑surfacing project for Hogback so that VDOT can begin preliminary scheduling and cost estimates.

Provenance: Public hearing record, Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, June 11, 2025 (staff presentation and public comment segments).","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Loudoun County - Board of Supervisors Public Hearing - Jun 11, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Loudoun County Board of Supervisors amended the county’s FY 2026–2031 VDOT Secondary Road Six‑Year Plan on June 11, removing Red Hill Road from consideration for hard‑surfacing and approving a partial hard‑surfacing of Hogback Mountain Road only from U.S. Route 15 to the Stone Tower Winery entrance.","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},6675436,"Board sends three zoning matters back for further review; Greenfield, Hiddenwood and Belmont Cove to return for action",1799,8760000,10559000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3789417-de295b23fdbbe0a1f27ef8bc9f902db4&start=8760&end=10559","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3789417-de295b23fdbbe0a1f27ef8bc9f902db4/thumbnail_8760000.jpg","/articles/6675436/Virginia/Board-sends-three-zoning-matters-back-for-further-review-Greenfield-Hiddenwood-and-Belmont-Cove-to-return-for-action","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6675436-c62982339931efb28639421aa0c0c66a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771074153&Signature=MzuygrwVwWWMcr26bBGGLuk1y21gYOR6OOvvwTX44JBo34IFuPcr4TfqfvoHcJ~qXRdxiYquw39ML~NuuzQsqDL6pV4AnPq5U-RSsODTP4NDf2vvx2XqHAx8w~q9W0-7pn11Y2lhSZK9D~bI6K66CaUrAfQzI0R2N2RKqs1teRWhSdNk17DPqYv1t~M5wCr0UFTvVnhxO2enKjzrnTWsqomHMqVwS2q7PpyLXhBOE-bvlWWvflQ4mQqWvcaYYO5tkf6FAxHUOxyI9Fc4jkjKA9StewvrgnAkP~lRw-~JWwIV4ZHr8RgX4o76yceLI1r~g7lVMIg1HQ3snjxhpvoFIQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Loudoun County Board of Supervisors on June 11 advanced several major land‑use applications for additional review rather than approving them at the public hearing.

Greenfield Farm (ZMAP/rezoning): County staff told the board that the 174‑acre Greenfield Farm assemblage in the Transition Policy Area proposes a clustered residential and commercial neighborhood — roughly 518 units across multiple lot widths plus a small commercial village — and includes requests for credits against regional road contributions for planned improvements to Evergreen Mills Road and Cross Trail Boulevard. Staff flagged outstanding issues related to heritage resources, fiscal/credit calculations, and the proximity of development to an adjacent historic manor house that the Virginia Department of Historic Resources has identified as significant. The applicant proffered protections including buffers and a potential phase‑3 cultural resources study and has committed to a $100,000 contribution to the housing trust fund; staff recommended additional commitments and further detail before approval. The board voted to forward the Greenfield Farm application to the July 15 business meeting for action, giving supervisors and staff more time to resolve outstanding heritage and capital‑credit questions.

Hiddenwood Assemblage (ZMAP/rezoning): The applicant revised a previous data‑center proposal and resubmitted a non‑data‑center industrial/warehouse plan capped at 335,000 square feet; staff said the current design still raises compatibility concerns because the suburban neighborhood place type anticipates primarily single‑family housing and limited non‑residential uses. Residents and applicants both addressed the board: Hiddenwood Lane neighbors described long‑running construction impacts, aircraft noise and a desire to end a protracted uncertainty about the site; the applicant presented revised building profiles, additional buffers, lower building heights and proffers that prohibit data centers and restrict loading hours. The board voted to forward the Hiddenwood Assemblage application to the July 15 business meeting for action so staff and the applicant can address remaining compatibility and resource issues.

Belmont Cove (ZMAP and associated ZCPA/ZMOD requests): The applicant seeks to rezone an 8.19‑acre parcel in the Belmont area from PD‑OP (planned development‑office park) to R‑16 ADU (residential) for 78 townhome units and to amend setbacks and landscape commitments. Staff identified outstanding issues such as unit size commitments, sidewalk connectivity and public/civic space, and recommended further refinement. The applicant said it will resubmit design and unit‑size commitments and requested the item be sent to the July Transportation & Land Use Committee (TLUC) meeting; the board agreed and forwarded the item for TLUC consideration.

Why it matters: Each application touches major county policy questions: where and how to add housing (and what types), how and whether to credit developer‑funded road improvements against capital or regional contributions, and how to identify, protect and integrate cultural and historic resources into new development. Greenfield Farm raised the most substantial heritage‑resource flags (the historic Greenfield manor house and three archaeological loci that may be associated with earlier tenant or enslaved populations). Hiddenwood’s item involved intense neighborhood stress from years of adjacent construction and the question of whether a long‑running land‑use dispute can be resolved by moving away from a data‑center proposal.

Public comment and staff concerns: Speakers on Greenfield urged stronger, specific protections for the manor house and an explicit plan for the archaeological loci; county staff asked the applicant for clearer transportation credit calculations and more specificity about the community and civic space. On Hiddenwood, several homeowners described constant construction traffic, aircraft noise and the strain of a multi‑year process and urged a solution. Belmont Cove drew discussion about unit sizes and sidewalk connections; staff asked the applicant to commit to square‑footage limits and to provide sidewalk access for all units.

Next steps: The board’s forwarding motions put three large applications on a short timeline for additional review and possible final action at July meetings: Greenfield Farm and Hiddenwood Assemblage to the July 15 business meeting; Belmont Cove to the July TLUC meeting. Staff and applicants will negotiate the outstanding issues identified in presentations, including heritage‑resource protections at Greenfield, improved proffers and unit‑size commitments at Belmont Cove, and the exact mitigation and design commitments for Hiddenwood.

Speakers and presenters (attribution whitelist)
Allison Britton — Department of Planning & Zoning, Loudoun County (Greenfield and Hiddenwood staff presentation); Darby MacCath — Department of Planning & Zoning (Belmont Cove presenter); Roy Barnett — applicant representative (Belmont Cove); Denise Harover — applicant representative (Greenfield); Scott Bell — Hiddenwood resident (public comment); Jackie Clement — community speaker/teacher (public comment on Hiddenwood); Emily Johnson — Piedmont Environmental Council (public comment on heritage resources).

Authorities and special issues: The applicant and staff discussed credits against capital facilities and regional roads contributions for off‑site improvements; staff said the proposed cross‑trail and Evergreen Mills improvements are not currently on the county CIP and therefore do not meet staff’s standard for credit against capital facilities but may be eligible for credit against regional roads under board policy. Staff also noted an identified bald eagle nest near Greenfield and asked for the applicant’s 660‑foot buffer commitment for that feature.

Provenance: Planning staff presentations and the June 11 public hearing record.

Proper names referenced: Greenfield Farm; Greenfield Manor House; Belmont Cove; Stone Tower Winery; Piedmont Environmental Council; Shreve Mill Road; Evergreen Mills Road; Cross Trail Boulevard.

Implementation risk: High for Greenfield until heritage and credit issues are resolved; medium for Hiddenwood while the applicant and neighbors finalize proffers and buffering; low‑to‑medium for Belmont Cove pending unit‑size and sidewalk commitments.

Searchable tags: Greenfield Farm, Hiddenwood Assemblage, Belmont Cove, rezoning, historic resources, transportation credits, sidewalks, ADU.","The Loudoun County Board advanced three major land‑use applications for additional review on June 11: Greenfield Farm and Hiddenwood Assemblage were sent to the July 15 business meeting for final action, and Belmont Cove was forwarded to the July Transportation & Land Use Committee for further refinement.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6675441,"Board approves consolidated consent items including residential permit parking, Lucketts wastewater facility and Banneker Elementary renovation",0,393000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3789417-de295b23fdbbe0a1f27ef8bc9f902db4&start=393&end=393","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3789417-de295b23fdbbe0a1f27ef8bc9f902db4/thumbnail_393000.jpg","/articles/6675441/Virginia/Board-approves-consolidated-consent-items-including-residential-permit-parking-Lucketts-wastewater-facility-and-Banneker-Elementary-renovation","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6675441-a92359e23cf01fc3e1f3d8f147fcbafe/orig.mp4?Expires=1771074153&Signature=cblKsRy~bCFevUkidEh0NZzc5dO0xmW10gZmJE~KJXzvhspS2vwmXrXbHZ5SnTa6OJEzLgHeZFsl11Q4074nwmyfcc7U029KlBWGSHXpFV787cQlcF1sfgJUQDEqJfvuFemDdlvEWr1nRhYe3u-zNy2Dq~U1AbvZYyyx7rqyC55oz3QVIeYBQYviSzkIIKYdwwaEysC4z3mIQAJJ1YudCR7C-AiJFaFRVoFqLK7i2E--xQu3g9YofghuYs55yrhF7LK8Q5wyuGRsW7jSDrPoz075fR7hNnQGkuFk2bhl9sGnlIFlhIGM5bffY269wzpx3hasVrJDfreqVkI3DK7wdg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Loudoun County Board of Supervisors approved three items on the consolidated public hearing on June 11: a residential permit parking district request, a special exception and commission permit for a wastewater treatment facility that serves Lucketts community uses, and a minor special exception to allow renovations and an addition at Banneker Elementary School.

The board approved the consolidated agenda motions in sequence. Julie Brixman moved to approve the proposed residential permit parking district for the Richmond Forest/Monocan area; her motion carried 8–0–2 with Supervisors Turner and Sainz off the dais. A second motion to ratify the Lucketts wastewater treatment facility special exception and associated permits was made by Supervisor Caleb Kershner and seconded by Supervisor Umstead; that motion passed, recorded as 7–0–2. The final consolidated item — a minor special exception to permit expansion and renovation of Banneker Elementary School, including a 38,000‑square‑foot addition — was moved by Supervisor Crony and passed 7–0–2.

Why it matters: The residential permit parking district is a local traffic management tool to address campus‑adjacent parking pressure in the district named in staff materials; the Lucketts wastewater facility will serve a limited collection of civic uses including a fire station, Lucketts Elementary School and community center; and the Banneker Elementary approval advances a project that the board and speakers described as preserving a building of historic significance while expanding capacity.

Details: Board members and staff described the residential permit program as a community‑initiated request with relatively low implementation costs (signing and administration). Supervisor Kershner described the Lucketts wastewater project as a focused, small facility intended to support essential community uses. Supervisor Crony and other speakers noted Banneker Elementary’s historical significance — the school dates to 1948 and served African American students during segregation — and supported renovating the original building while adding classrooms and multipurpose space. Each of the three motions was explained by the mover and recorded as part of the consolidated hearing record.

Speakers (attribution whitelist)
Julie Brixman — Supervisor (first reference: 00:06:33); Caleb Kershner — Supervisor (first reference: 00:11:43); Umstead — Supervisor (seconded motion for wastewater item, first reference: 00:11:43); Supervisor Crony — Supervisor (first reference: 00:12:59).

Actions (summary):
• Residential permit parking district (Consolidated Item 2): Motion to approve as provided in staff report; mover Julie Brixman; outcome: approved, vote 8–0–2 (Turner and Sainz off dais).
• Lucketts wastewater treatment facility (Consolidated Item 4): Motion to ratify commission permit and approve special exception as provided in staff report; mover Caleb Kershner; outcome: approved, vote 7–0–2.
• Banneker Elementary renovations and addition (Consolidated Item 5): Motion to approve minor special exception to permit a 38,000‑square‑foot expansion and renovation; mover Supervisor Crony; outcome: approved, vote 7–0–2.

Context and next steps: Each item was recorded as part of the consolidated agenda public hearing and will be processed through staff and permitting. For the Banneker project, staff and the applicant will proceed to site plan and construction documentation; the board’s action authorizes the approvals described in the staff reports.

Proper names: Banneker Elementary School; Lucketts Elementary School; Richmond Forest neighborhood; Mononcian (Monocan) area.

Provenance: Board public hearing minutes and motions, June 11, 2025.","On the consent/consolidated hearing the board approved a residential permit parking district, ratified a wastewater treatment special exception for Lucketts area, and approved renovations and expansion at Banneker Elementary. All motions passed with recorded tallies.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Supervisors remove Red Hill from paving list, approve partial hard‑surfacing of Hogback Mountain Road

Board sends three zoning matters back for further review; Greenfield, Hiddenwood and Belmont Cove to return for action

Board approves consolidated consent items including residential permit parking, Lucketts wastewater facility and Banneker Elementary renovation