Prince William County supervisors authorized advertisement of a supervisor‑sponsored substitute to the county’s noise ordinance and scheduled a public hearing after public comment and debate on Oct. 14.

Public comment before the board included a business owner and a Data Center Coalition representative, both urging clearer grandfathering, realistic compliance pathways and better stakeholder outreach.

What speakers said

- Barry Braden, who identified himself as a long‑time Brentsville resident and commercial developer, told the board a proposed noise ordinance “is going to severely impact all businesses” and said many local business owners had not been notified about draft rules. Braden said a landowner in Hornbaker Road had previously received county cease‑and‑desist orders for noise issues and related enforcement that had affected his site development approvals.

- Nicole Riley, representing the Data Center Coalition (headquartered in Leesburg), said the draft noise ordinance “lacks a grandfathering provision for existing facilities” and asked staff to clarify that the variance process (she referenced “section 14‑8‑1”) applies to operational sites. Riley urged pathways to compliance such as clearly defined modification criteria, timelines, safe harbors while requests are considered, and enforcement alternatives that avoid criminal penalties for local employees.

Board action

Supervisor Boddy asked that the board advertise a substitute noise‑ordinance proposal that he circulated to supervisors. After a brief procedural discussion about timing and availability of the draft, the board voted to advertise the substitute language and set a public hearing date. A clerk’s announcement noted the advertisement will run twice in the newspaper before the scheduled hearing. The motion passed by a 4–2 vote; Supervisors Gordy and Chair Jefferson were recorded as voting no. Supervisor Vega was absent for that vote.

Why it matters

Staff and county consultants have been working on a comprehensive rewrite of the county noise ordinance; public commenters and industry representatives told the board any changes affecting operational facilities should include grandfathering or explicit, workable variance and compliance processes to avoid financial and regulatory harm to existing employers and to protect employees from criminal enforcement where alternatives are practical.

Next steps

The advertised substitute ordinance will be the public‑facing language for the scheduled public hearing. At the hearing the board may receive testimony, consider amendments, and later vote on final ordinance language. Staff noted that changes to the board‑advertised text after the hearing would require another public hearing.