At the Oct. 14 work session the Board of County Supervisors heard public comments and then voted to advertise a board member’s substitute noise‑ordinance text for a public hearing.

Two in‑person speakers addressed the board during public comment about the county’s proposed noise ordinance changes. Barry Braden, representing the Commercial Development Committee and a long‑time Brentsville resident, warned the board that “this noise ordinance that the county is trying to implement now is going to severely impact all businesses in this county,” and said many businesses in his area had not been informed about the proposal.

Nicole Riley, a Washington, D.C.‑area representative of the Data Center Coalition, said the draft ordinance lacks key pathways for operational facilities to achieve compliance and urged the county to add clarity and “pathways to compliance” that include grandfathering, safe harbors, realistic modification timelines, and enforcement alternatives that avoid criminal penalties for employees.

Board action

Supervisor Peter Bodie (Supervisor Bodie) moved to waive the rules and advertise a substitute noise‑ordinance text he circulated to the board; a second was indicated on the dais but not identified in the record. After objections and discussion about timing and public involvement, the board voted to place Supervisor Bodie’s text on the Oct. 28 public‑hearing calendar.

- Motion to advertise substitute noise ordinance for Oct. 28 public hearing: approved 4–2. The minutes record that Supervisors Bailey, Franklin, Bodie and Angry voted yes; Supervisors Gordy and Chair Jefferson voted no. Supervisor Vega was absent for the vote.

Consent and procedural votes

- The consent agenda covering items 3A and 3B was approved unanimously earlier in the meeting (motion moved and seconded; recorded as unanimous).

- A motion to adjourn at the end of the session was approved unanimously.

What commenters asked

Commercial interests asked the county to ensure businesses received direct notice and said the proposal, as drafted, could force compliance actions against existing industrial operations. Data‑center industry representatives sought (1) explicit grandfathering or transitional language for existing facilities, (2) clarity that the variance process applies to operating facilities, (3) safe harbors or extensions for good‑faith efforts to comply, and (4) non‑criminal enforcement alternatives where possible.

What board members said

Supervisors debated whether to advertise the member substitute in lieu of the staff text, with some members noting the short time since the substitute was circulated and others arguing for making a public version available so the community can comment. Chair Jefferson and Supervisor Gordy recorded “nay” votes on advertising the substitute; Supervisor Gordy said he had not had time to review the new text.

Ending

Staff said the advertised language will be published in the newspaper twice before Oct. 28 and that any further changes after that public hearing would require additional public notice. The board’s vote puts Supervisor Bodie’s version — not the staff text — before the public for the initial hearing on Oct. 28.

Quotes

Barry Braden: “This noise ordinance that the county is trying to implement now is going to severely impact all businesses in this county.”

Nicole Riley (Data Center Coalition): “The proposal lacks a grandfathering provision for existing facilities.”

Votes at a glance

- Consent agenda (items 3A & 3B): approved, unanimous (tally recorded as unanimous in meeting).
- Motion to advertise Supervisor Bodie’s substitute noise ordinance for Oct. 28 public hearing: approved 4–2; yes — Supervisors Bailey, Franklin, Bodie, Angry; no — Supervisors Gordy and Chair Jefferson; Supervisor Vega absent.
- Motion to adjourn: approved, unanimous.

Meeting procedure note

County staff advised the board that if the board wished to make changes to the substitute ordinance after the Oct. 28 hearing, additional public notice and another public hearing could be required.