Board forwards Milestone/Verizon monopole at Route 7/Claiborne Parkway to June 3 after residents object to proposed location

The Loudoun County Board of Supervisors on May 14 voted to forward the Milestone/Verizon telecommunications application for a 150‑foot monopole at the Route 7/Claiborne Parkway interchange to the June 3 business meeting for action after a contested public hearing with multiple residents urging denial.

Proposal and staff recommendation - Christian Maldonado (Department of Planning and Zoning) summarized the application: a monopole sited within VDOT right‑of‑way along Route 7, proposed to support up to four carriers, mounted with a two‑foot lightning rod and surrounded by an enhanced 20‑foot landscaping buffer and a 10‑foot chain‑link fence with 95% opaque green privacy slats. The proposed site lies adjacent to the planned Dominion Energy transmission corridor. - Staff recommended approval of the commission permit and recommended the special exception be approved subject to conditions intended to blend the monopole with the natural surroundings and ensure appropriate screening.

Applicant rationale and technical detail - Aaron Frank (Cooley, representing Milestone) and RF engineer Paul Dugan described the coverage gap the applicant said exists south of Route 7 and east of the Ashburn Village corridor. The applicant presented propagation maps and said other rooftop options in the service area did not meet the height or coverage requirements; the applicant reported efforts to pursue rooftop colocation but said negotiations with a property owner did not yield a viable rooftop option. - The applicant said the proposed monopole would be roughly 52 feet from the centerline of Dominions proposed easement in preliminary plans and that Dominions planned transmission structures would be higher (up to about 195 feet for the transmission lines described in Dominion materials) than the monopole. The applicant conducted a balloon fly and prepared visual simulations to demonstrate appearance from nearby viewpoints.

Public comment and concerns - More than a dozen nearby residents from Regency at Belmont and other nearby neighborhoods spoke in opposition. Concerns included visibility of a 150‑foot tower from townhome terraces and apartment windows (residents repeatedly asked for upper‑floor views to be rendered), potential property‑value impacts, the towers proximity to multifamily and 55+ housing (residents cited distances of roughly 300–380 feet to the nearest buildings), and safety worries regarding maintenance or electrical incidents at monopoles. - Lansdowne Conservancy (represented by Brian Turner) urged denial or deferral, citing the sites designation as a gateway and proximity to scenic easements and noting an ongoing appeal related to Dominions undergrounding proposal to the Virginia Supreme Court.

Board discussion and technical clarifications - Supervisors asked for comparisons with other recent monopole approvals along Route 7, whether the applicant had explored rooftop siting near Whole Foods and Ashburn Village, whether Dominion's transmission project timeline (staff mentioned a 2026 projection) changes the analysis, and how co‑location typically occurs. - RF engineer Paul Dugan testified the site fills a specific coverage and capacity gap in the Belmont Chase area and that Trailside Park (approved previously) is roughly two miles away and would not cover the same area.

Actions and votes - Motion: Supervisor Glass moved to forward the application (LGGI‑2023‑393 / MileSpecs‑2023‑28 as referenced in the staff report) to the June 3, 2025 business meeting for action; the motion was seconded. - Vote outcome: motion carried by voice vote and recorded as 8–0–1 with Supervisor Turner absent.

Key quantitative and procedural details - Proposed monopole height: 150 feet (applicant). - Co‑location capacity: support for up to four carriers; Verizon is the committed carrier at application time; the applicant said towers are typically marketed for colocation and that other carriers often colocate after construction. - Buffering and screening: 20‑foot wide enhanced landscape buffer and a 10‑foot chain‑link fence with 95% opaque green privacy slats. - Proximity to nearby residential: staff and applicant cited approximately 350–380 feet from the proposed monopole to the nearest apartment building (Ashburn Chase) and similar distances to nearby townhomes; residents described the pole as highly visible from rooftop terraces. - Dominion coordination: applicant said it coordinated with Dominion and that Dominion's permitting and line construction are separate (staff referenced Dominion's publicly stated schedule that included 2026); Dominion 500 kV policies were cited by staff and applicants as relevant to co‑location constraints. - Visual analysis: the applicant performed a balloon fly and camera viewpoints and provided simulations used during the hearing.

Why it matters: cellphone coverage and fixed wireless broadband are frequent local concerns. Residents and supervisors weighed the tradeoffs between improved Verizon coverage/fixed‑wireless service and the visual and neighborhood impacts of a monopole sited near existing housing.

Next steps and outstanding requests - The board forwarded the application to the June 3 business meeting for final action. Several supervisors and residents asked the applicant to continue to explore alternatives (rooftop options, alternative right‑of‑way locations), to provide renderings from upper‑floor resident viewpoints, and to document colocation interest from other carriers.

Representative quotes - Christian Maldonado (DPZ staff): "Staff recommend conditions related to design, including material and color, to blend in with the natural surroundings." - Paul Dugan (RF engineer): "This site is particularly suited from a radio‑frequency standpoint... Its at the junction of two major roads, and it fills in this area very nicely." - Resident Laura Einarard (Regency at Belmont): "Please exercise the good judgment to say no to this proposal."

Board vote summary: Motion to forward the application to the June 3 business meeting passed 8–0–1 (Turner absent). Supervisors expressed a mix of support for addressing coverage needs and concern over visual impacts; staff and the applicant agreed to provide additional analysis and renderings prior to the business meeting.