Planning commission sends Hiddenwood rezoning back for more study after steep cuts to setbacks, traffic concerns

The Loudoun County Planning Commission on March 25, 2025 voted to send the Hiddenwood Assemblage rezoning application back to a planning commission work session after staff and several commissioners said outstanding issues remained over land use, building setbacks and transportation impacts.

Allison Britton, a planner with the Department of Planning and Zoning, told the commission the 28.92-acre site east of Dulles West Boulevard and north of Hiddenwood Lane is currently zoned Countryside Residential (CR-1) and lies in the suburban neighborhood place type of the 2019 general plan. “Staff cannot support a recommendation of approval due to a number of outstanding issues, and find the application is not consistent with the 2019 general plan or the countywide transportation plan,” Britton said, summarizing staff’s conclusion and the reasons the board of supervisors remanded the application in February for additional review.

Why it matters: The applicant seeks to rezone the property to Planned Development Industrial Park (PDIP). That change would allow a wider set of industrial and office-type uses in an area where the 2019 general plan anticipates primarily single-family housing and only limited nonresidential uses. Commissioners focused on whether proposed reductions in buffers and setbacks, changes to tree conservation, and the potential trip generation of retained uses would adequately protect nearby residential neighborhoods.

Most important facts

- Scope of the request: The applicant has revised an earlier, larger proposal and now requests a PDIP rezoning with an overall proposed FAR of up to 0.27 (about 337,000 square feet), down from an earlier concept that had approached 756,024 square feet.

- Height and massing: The revised application reduces maximum building heights to 39 feet from previous proposals that were as high as 55 feet. The applicant said the current plan’s heights are below what some legacy provisions previously permitted.

- Setbacks and buffers: Commissioners and staff noted the plan reduces building setbacks and tree conservation areas along the site’s northern and eastern edges. Britton and others identified a prior 130- to 180-foot setback in an earlier concept that is now reduced in parts to a 75-foot building setback from the property line.

- Transportation and trips: Staff recommended a revised traffic impact study that scopes the highest trip-generating uses that PDIP zoning would permit. County staff and the applicant’s transportation consultant said office could generate more trips than warehouse depending on square footage; applicant’s consultant has suggested a cap of 64,000 square feet of office as one way to resolve that issue.

- Data center use: The applicant has proffered out data center use in the current submission; data centers had been the most controversial element of earlier versions of the application.

Discussion and positions

Allison Britton (Department of Planning and Zoning) outlined the plan-area context and staff’s recommendation for additional proffers and design detail, saying the suburban neighborhood place type does not anticipate PDIP-level uses and that “removal of housing units to the county’s housing supply may impact affordability in the county.” She asked the applicant to provide building renderings and additional street‑view sight lines so staff could confirm screening and facade commitments.

Michael Romeo, the applicant’s land‑use planner, described changes since the board remanded the application and emphasized reductions the applicant had made. “We have reduced the square footage, by over 55%,” Romeo said, and added the proposal reduces building height to 39 feet and retains tree conservation and open-space commitments. He told the commission the project team was willing to refine architectural details and screening commitments.

Residents and advocacy groups pressed for stronger protections. Sharmin Khan, a property owner in the Hiddenwood assemblage, said she and neighbors supported the rezoning application as a means to stop ongoing construction impacts: “We are seeking removal of this unbearable situation through this application,” she said.

Jen Bingle of the Piedmont Environmental Council said the site currently provides an important sense of openness along the Loudoun County Parkway corridor and urged stronger northern buffering and clearer, proffered design commitments so the county can enforce them.

Points of contention

- Setback and footprint changes: Several commissioners pressed the applicant to restore larger setbacks or reduce the eastern building (referred to during debate as Building C). The applicant repeatedly said it could not remove an entire proposed building footprint but later agreed to work on building‑specific mitigation and architectural/screening improvements.

- Trip generation and use limits: Staff asked for a traffic study scoped to the most intensive uses still allowed under PDIP for full analysis. The applicant’s consultant identified a 64,000-square-foot cap on office as a targeted proffer that would address staff’s trip‑generation concern.

- Consistency with the general plan: Many commissioners said the proposal raised fundamental land‑use questions because the general plan’s suburban neighborhood place type anticipates primarily residential development; staff concurred that PDIP uses are not a match for that place type without additional, documented transitions and mitigation.

Action and next steps

Commissioners voted to forward the application to a planning commission work session so the applicant, staff and the commission could refine outstanding items including: additional building renderings and sight‑line views to demonstrate parking screening; clearer proffer language and timing commitments for transportation right‑of‑way dedication and traffic analysis; and targeted design or siting changes for the eastmost building to reduce neighborhood impacts. The motion to refer to a work session passed with seven in favor, zero opposed, one abstention and one member absent; the record shows Commissioner Jasper abstained and Commissioner Banks was absent for the vote.

What’s next: The applicant agreed to brief staff and the commission on additional screening and design measures and on whether Building C’s massing and setbacks can be altered; staff will review any revised traffic analysis and updated proffers before the work session. The commission’s referral does not constitute approval; it routes the item back to commissioners for further negotiations and clarifications before any final recommendation to the board of supervisors.

Speakers quoted in this article are those who appeared on the hearing record for this item and are included in the article’s speaker list below.