[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-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",[32,75],{"_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":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6517000,"mediaKeyId","5429408-b007c606a24098c28b0a8f3e05599ac3","parentId",5429408,"title","Leesburg commission reviews draft zoning-ordinance changes for decisionmaking, review procedures","audioSeconds",189,"startMs",8840000,"endMs",9029000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5429408-b007c606a24098c28b0a8f3e05599ac3&start=8840&end=9029","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5429408-b007c606a24098c28b0a8f3e05599ac3/thumbnail_8840000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6517000/Leesburg/Loudoun-County/Virginia/Leesburg-commission-reviews-draft-zoning-ordinance-changes-for-decisionmaking-review-procedures","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6517000-ea65882c396327a9f26f120f2bb3b431/orig.mp4?Expires=1773582385&Signature=SBjsFR~UX~YBZ7txSstt56aIlhLNBpGmeKJtjlaZJjSsk-Y090Ody5LcgwMprCvn2Q3mvXiyp2xOA7J~9URAmAWnjok4XG78CTxICl0GLNVI4hnZegyR4cVXG0Lo4Ht~AFi5asQQIi1tKC64V46no13Gfm-in1RTtkZZZYlBGcDLv~ILyEY5vuMOZoJLLNkPPjJGuik9KUTniX8dbLkN~CfXmMcMLfnpVdjvm5HLaTajECwZFLWB9f5QgFlhfEBnwjqgFzgxvErFW89ohIyhuCJnaa7tFOiqrnVmJ5RZ5Md4GhUSauuG0638BbcAEG82FSrW2aoUmZL-MvKbA4pZzQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Leesburg","date","2025-07-17T00:00:00Z","article","The Leesburg Planning Commission used a July 17 work session to continue review of a draft zoning-ordinance rewrite, focusing on Article 5 (roles, responsibilities and administrative officials) and Article 6 (common review and approval procedures).

What the draft covers: Article 5 organizes decisionmakers and administrative roles — the Planning Commission, Board of Architectural Review, Board of Zoning Appeals, the zoning administrator and the floodplain administrator. Article 6 lays out standard procedures for application submittal, completeness review, neighborhood meetings, public-notice requirements and timelines for legislative and administrative reviews.

Commission discussion and key clarifications: Commissioners and staff discussed several specific operational items:
- Planning-commission budget and consultant use: Commissioners asked for explicit authority to use a commission-controlled budget to pay for training or outside experts. Staff said the commission does have a line-item budget administered through the Community Development Department and recommended language that allows use of that existing budget without specifying dollar amounts in the ordinance text; procurement rules would still apply.
- Zoning administrator duties and response times: The draft sets a 90-day response time for zoning-administrator decisions or determinations. Commissioners asked what happens if the zoning administrator does not act; staff noted the statute-backed remedies (for example, a writ of mandamus) and that the town would apply state code remedies rather than create an administrative shortcut in the ordinance.
- Completeness, waivers and acceptance: The draft retains a formal completeness review before an application is accepted. Commissioners pressed staff for tighter rules about what minimal materials must be submitted to begin the review clock and whether certain high-impact items (transportation, utilities, water studies) should be required before the application is accepted. Staff noted applicants can request waivers and that the draft provides staff delegation to grant limited waivers, but agreed to return with clearer guidance on which items staff would not waive for major legislative applications.
- Neighborhood meetings: The draft makes neighborhood meetings optional; commissioners discussed whether the meetings should be mandatory for certain applications and concluded the ordinance may not authorize a blanket mandatory requirement. Staff said they would continue to refine the language to strengthen community outreach expectations while remaining consistent with state law.
- Application inactivity and withdrawal: Staff described an existing practice of notifying applicants and withdrawing applications for inactivity; commissioners asked staff to preserve that ability while ensuring the town treats applicants fairly during economic downturns.
- Floodplain and FEMA references: Commissioners discussed whether the town should permit certain mixed-use residential configurations in floodplain areas (FEMA has updated guidance); staff said the town currently prohibits residential in the local floodplain overlay and that any change would be deliberate and require policy discussion.

Process and next steps: Staff and the commission agreed to return revised wording on several points — budget/consultant language, completeness and waiver standards, and stronger neighborhood-meeting/outreach expectations — before the commission continues its article-by-article review. No formal vote was taken on the ordinance language at the work session.

Ending: The commission will resume review of subsequent articles and incorporate the requested clarifications into a revised draft for future meetings.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Leesburg - Planning Commission Meeting - Jul 17, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Planning Commission continued a work-session review of a draft zoning-ordinance rewrite on July 17, focusing on Article 5 (roles and administrative officials) and Article 6 (review and approval procedures).","taxTitle","Leesburg, Loudoun County, Virginia","taxId",5641,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6517005,"Leesburg Planning Commission recommends denial of town-plan amendment to allow data centers at Eastern Gateway",4964,240000,5204000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5429408-b007c606a24098c28b0a8f3e05599ac3&start=240&end=5204","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5429408-b007c606a24098c28b0a8f3e05599ac3/thumbnail_240000.jpg","/articles/6517005/Leesburg/Loudoun-County/Virginia/Leesburg-Planning-Commission-recommends-denial-of-town-plan-amendment-to-allow-data-centers-at-Eastern-Gateway","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6517005-017dfda17636961e24842dc074903a5c/orig.mp4?Expires=1773582385&Signature=A98Ad~rB9mi5rx8m2UEnvXLMoAbeZ0hpZgXDsQGsy3-kJjG~zLMJ9xFuUExuPuQ2R5USexkxGmBJJdbZkSWXKAYsquc~rhTlWSjM2UfblyE7KHdt24Ow-E7NAjmI8pR35lGygyfU1X0TWbs-bKEucRr70pcYDJvTMuKqjrTY5HVTTnsjVdug1OZ6SM77MPwxV2jNthl99EfFbPC3uSAsoNJVlQzAoItoXqz7CA~lK0ibdaRgwxClARd0y~siDmypEgZUSc6mi7P3heZbVQoecRpA5kQrMpExmCoeFYUgzWX9Yi9F8GWRqzo6TYCyLly5qir6abN151xN5Z2bKzkH4Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Leesburg Planning Commission on July 17 voted 6–1 to forward a recommendation of denial to the Town Council for a proposed town-plan amendment (TLTPAM20240001) that would add an alternative policy allowing data centers, flex industrial buildings and a town park on three parcels totaling about 101.9 acres north of Route 7 and south of Potomac Station Drive.

The commission's action came after public comments, a staff presentation and an applicant-led presentation that laid out competing claims about traffic, utilities, tree preservation and economic benefits. The motion to recommend denial concluded a multi-hour public discussion in which commissioners and members of the public raised concerns about the proposal's compatibility with the Eastern Gateway District Small Area Plan and unanswered infrastructure questions.

Why it matters: The Eastern Gateway area is a primary entry point to Leesburg and is designated in the Legacy Leesburg plan as a mixed-use, walkable employment center. The amendment would have created a site-specific, alternative policy allowing data centers — uses that attracted strong public concern about noise from generators, potential new high-voltage infrastructure, stormwater impacts and whether existing roads and water supplies can support intensive electrical load.

Public comments: Two speakers who identified themselves as Leesburg residents and area advocates urged caution. Olga Hanover, a Potomac Station resident, said the proposal “goes against the town's plan and the East Gateway District small area plan” and stressed noise, night-time generators and stormwater concerns. She told the commission, “If you can't see this from these towers from your house now, you will once Dominion rebuilds line number 514.”

Jen Bingle, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, urged the commission to “look at this area holistically” and to include the community fully in any change to the plan. Bingle said the area had been planned as a mixed-use neighborhood and asked the commission to consider whether the applicant's alternative vision matched the public process that produced Legacy Leesburg.

Staff presentation: Scott Parker and Rich Klusick, planning project managers for the town, summarized the application and responses to questions raised at the June public hearing. Parker said the subject property is comprised of three parcels totaling 101.9 acres that border the Leesburg Outlets and Potomac Station Marketplace; Sycamore Hill residential is to the north. He noted the current Legacy Leesburg designation anticipates an employment-focused mixed-use “innovation center” guided by the Eastern Gateway District Small Area Plan.

Parker reviewed draft policy language staff had proposed to mitigate potential impacts, including: a maximum continuous noise standard (55 dBA at the property line under the zoning ordinance), a requirement that landscape buffers be maintained “in perpetuity” by replacement of diseased or damaged vegetation, and a rezoning-stage demonstration that visual, noise and vibration impacts would be mitigated given the site's topography and relative elevations. He also summarized transportation constraints tied to VDOT access-spacing requirements for the Route 7/Battlefield Parkway interchange and said the town's utilities staff is preparing a semi-annual plant capacity and flow projection update for Town Council on Sept. 8, 2025.

Applicant presentation: Colleen Gillis, attorney for the applicant, said the town-plan amendment would only create an alternative vision and would not itself change zoning or authorize construction; any development would still need a rezoning with proffers and a concept development plan. Gillis said the current alternative proposal reduces the number of pure data-center buildings from earlier iterations, adds flex-office uses and dedicates 22 acres as a town park. She said the design preserves existing tree canopy (the applicant described roughly 13 acres of preserved tree canopy in “land bay A”), provides about 58% open space in that land bay and places data-center buildings at a finished-floor elevation set about 30 feet lower than Potomac Station Drive to reduce visibility.

Gillis told commissioners the applicant would provide sound studies and mitigation commitments at rezoning and asserted the project would deliver a substantial tax benefit and daytime employment in flexible office space in addition to the parkland dedication.

Key technical points raised during discussion:
- Transportation: Staff and the applicant acknowledged VDOT access-spacing standards (1,320-foot separation from an interchange for a first intersection). Several commissioners and the applicant's traffic consultant said the Route 7/Battlefield Parkway interchange and adjacent network have capacity and safety constraints that complicate adding a new high-traffic access point; potential fixes would require VDOT coordination and may not be approved.
- Utilities: Town staff said previously approved projects were accounted for in the last water capacity study but stressed the present application had not been included; utilities staff expected to present updated plant capacity numbers to council in September. The applicant said it anticipates drawing power from an approved substation (Village at Leesburg Land Bay DNE) and proffered underground distribution; the town reiterated Dominion Energy (the utility) has final authority over substations.
- Noise and emergency operations: Commissioners asked whether diesel generators used during brownouts and emergencies would exceed the town's 55-dBA standard. Staff said emergency operations may be governed by Town Code (chapter 12) provisions that give the town manager certain emergency powers; the zoning/noise code defines continuous noise and enforcement would be considered against that standard. Staff and the applicant said proffered sound studies would be submitted at rezoning, and the applicant proffered to study noise at 50% and 100% occupancy for mitigation planning.
- Visual and topographic relationships: Staff proposed additional rezoning requirements because rooftop equipment at data centers could be closer to residential elevations than typically assumed; the applicant described setbacks and retention of tree canopy and said data-center pads would be lowered and screened.

Commission deliberation and outcome: Commissioners voiced repeated concern that the proposed amendment conflicted with the Eastern Gateway Small Area Plan's mixed-use vision and that infrastructure — particularly water, power and Route 7 access — lacked definitive, contemporaneous engineering confirmation. Several commissioners said the town plan should continue to guide the area's mixed-use development rather than create a site-specific exception for data centers.

The commission adopted a motion to forward TLTPAM20240001 (Leesburg Gateway town-plan amendment) to the Town Council with a recommendation of denial. The motion text was read into the record and the recommendation passed by a 6–1 vote. The commission's recommendation is advisory; the Town Council must still consider the amendment and any related rezoning applications.

Next steps: The Planning Commission's negative recommendation will be transmitted to the Town Council. Any rezoning or development proposal would still require a separate public hearing, a rezoning application with proffers and technical analyses (transportation, noise, utilities) that the commission and council can evaluate. The town's utilities staff indicated a water-capacity update is scheduled for a Sept. 8, 2025 council work session.

Ending note: Speakers and staff emphasized that approval would not automatically authorize construction: a town-plan amendment only amends policy and any built project would require later, discrete approvals and technical demonstrations.","The Planning Commission voted 6–1 to recommend denial of a town-plan amendment that would add data centers and industrial flex uses to a 101.9-acre parcel in the Eastern Gateway area, citing conflicts with the Eastern Gateway Small Area Plan and unresolved infrastructure questions including traffic, water and noise.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Leesburg commission reviews draft zoning-ordinance changes for decisionmaking, review procedures

Leesburg Planning Commission recommends denial of town-plan amendment to allow data centers at Eastern Gateway