Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Courthouse Security topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee asks Leesburg to close Church Street by courthouse after security study; board endorsement sent to full board

3764647 · June 10, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A Loudoun County committee voted to ask the Town of Leesburg to permit the permanent closure of Church Street between Market and Cornwall Street after a county security study found courthouse setbacks did not meet recommended minimums; a county traffic study said closure would have modest traffic impacts, while Leesburg raised concerns.

A Loudoun County finance committee on June 10 voted to send to the full Board of Supervisors a recommendation that the county request the Town of Leesburg permit the permanent closure of Church Street between Market Street and Cornwall Street adjacent to the courthouse complex.

The move follows a county Department of Transportation and Capital Infrastructure (DTCI) security study, issued after a January 2024 review and corrected today to fix a mislabeled diagram, that concluded the courthouse buildings do not meet recommended minimum setback distances and therefore face security risks. DTCI also commissioned a traffic study analyzing 11 intersections and multiple future scenarios; the study found Church Street carries roughly 640 vehicles per day and concluded a closure would not cause significant adverse effects on the modeled network. DTCI staff told the committee the model's conservative assumptions produce travel-time increases the study estimated at about 71 seconds in 2025 and 97 seconds in 2044, and staff said actual impacts should be lower.

The town of Leesburg reviewed the traffic study and raised objections, saying the study did not solve preexisting congestion, pointing to concerns about increased travel times and special-event impacts. DTCI staff said the town’s comments were not technical in nature and further revision was unlikely to reach full concurrence; the study authors and county staff stressed the closure proposal is intended to be implemented with an ability to open Church Street when courts are not in session to reduce impacts on evening/weekend events, but the committee ultimately adopted language for a permanent closure.

During discussion, committee members split over whether the closure would materially improve security. Opponents argued the closure would not prevent some attack modes and could shift vulnerability to nearby streets and residents. Supervisor Umstead said the closure “will do nothing to prevent a pedestrian with bankers boxes on a dolly from coming up and parking the dolly right next to the courthouse,” and noted prior incidents where vehicles breached fencing. Supporters said security experts and the county sheriff’s office had advised that closing the street is the most effective mitigation short of extensive structural hardening. “My number one factor is safety,” the committee chair said while urging action to reduce the courthouse vulnerability.

The committee’s motion to ask the full board to endorse a formal request to Leesburg was made by the committee chair and seconded by Supervisor Briskman. A friendly amendment to remove the phrase “part-time” and direct that closure apply between Market and Cornwall Streets carried; staff clarified that the amended motion was understood to request a 24-hour permanent closure. The committee approved the recommendation 3–1–1, with Supervisor Umstead voting no and Supervisor Sainz absent from the dais. The item follows a brief closed-session consultation earlier in the meeting under Virginia Code § 2.2-3711(a)(19) to consult with legal counsel on courthouse protection; the committee recorded that no formal action was taken while in closed session.

If the full Board of Supervisors adopts the committee’s recommendation, county staff said they will prepare a formal request and follow-up materials for submission to Leesburg town officials and will continue outreach with the town on implementation details, traffic management and communications with nearby residents and businesses.

The committee discussion shows the county faces a tradeoff between implementing a physical access restriction the county’s security advisers favor and the town’s concerns about traffic and special-event impacts. The Leesburg Town Council will need to weigh the county’s security findings, the traffic analysis, and local impacts if the full Board forwards the formal request.