Supervisors remove Red Hill from paving list, approve partial hard‑surfacing of Hogback Mountain Road

The Loudoun County Board of Supervisors amended the county’s FY 2026–2031 Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Secondary Road Six‑Year Plan on June 11, removing Red Hill Road from consideration for hard‑surfacing and approving a partial hard‑surfacing of Hogback Mountain Road, limited to the segment from U.S. Route 15 to the Stone Tower Winery entrance. The actions followed multi‑hour public comment and several motions on the six‑year program and related rural rustic road designations.

The board’s votes: Supervisor Christine Tacrone moved to remove Red Hill Road from the county’s paving list; the motion carried 7–0–2, with Supervisors Turner and Sainz off the dais. Later, Supervisor Caleb Kershner moved to amend the Rural Rustic Roads resolution to hard‑surface Hogback Mountain Road from U.S. 15 to the winery’s westernmost entrance and to ask VDOT to investigate and implement enhanced maintenance for the remaining unpaved segment; that motion carried 7–0–2.

Why it matters: The county’s annual secondary road plan assigns state funds to improve unpaved roads through VDOT’s rural rustic road program. The plan has been the focus of heated debate in western Loudoun, where residents, equestrians and recreation groups value gravel roads for their rural character and tourism, while other residents and local businesses cite safety, dust and maintenance issues as reasons to hard‑surface parts of the network.

What the board approved and removed: The approved amendment programs hard‑surfacing on a portion of Hogback Mountain Road only to the Stone Tower Winery entrance; supervisors directed VDOT and county staff to investigate enhanced maintenance and preservation options — such as improved drainage, higher‑quality aggregate and profile corrections — for the remaining unpaved segments. The board removed Red Hill Road from the county’s FY 2026 paving list after hearing that community balloting produced near‑even splits and that residents near Red Hill opposed paving at community meetings.

Staff and VDOT findings presented to the board showed differing safety and usage profiles across the four roads that had been under consideration. Highlights drawn from staff’s presentation and the public record: Hogback Mountain Road carries about 320 vehicles per day (VDOT 2023 data) and had four reported crashes on the unpaved segment during the past five years; Red Hill Road’s 2023 traffic count was about 470 vehicles per day and staff recorded 21 reported crashes in the past five years, most classified as property‑damage‑only; Lena Road’s traffic was about 340 vehicles per day with three crashes over five years; Gulick (Gulloch) Mill Road showed about 260 vehicles per day and no reported crashes in the five‑year window. Ballot tabulations shared by staff: Red Hill — 37 returned ballots, 18 in favor of hard‑surfacing and 19 opposed; Gulick Mill — 36 returned ballots, 33 in favor and 3 opposed. The board heard several additional ballot counts and community meeting results during discussion.

What supervisors said: Supervisor Tacrone, who moved to remove Red Hill from consideration, told colleagues she had held a community meeting where the majority of residents attending opposed paving and said she supported seeking enhanced maintenance first while the county and VDOT develop objective criteria. Supervisor Kershner, who moved the Hogback amendment, described his proposal as a compromise reflecting strong support from property owners near Hogback while asking VDOT to pursue preservation‑oriented surfacing options for remaining segments.

Public comment and community input: More than three dozen residents, businesses and interest groups spoke during the public hearing. Speakers who favored leaving roads unpaved cited safety and recreation benefits for cyclists, horseback riders and hikers and urged use of the 2024 state rural roads law to fund non‑paving improvements. Residents who live on sections of Red Hill, Lena and Gulick Mill described safety hazards, frequent potholes and dust and asked the board to approve hard‑surfacing where local need and support are strongest. Stone Tower Winery representatives and some Hogback Mountain Road property owners submitted petitions and spoke in favor of hard‑surfacing the south portion of Hogback for better access.

Next steps and implementation: Supervisors asked staff and VDOT to collaborate on a county‑level set of criteria for when roads are programmed for hard‑surfacing versus enhanced maintenance, citing the 2024 state law that allows more flexible use of rural road funds. The county will forward the amended six‑year plan to the business meeting for final action as required by the board process, and staff will return with details about the maintenance options, recommended design standards for rural rustic surfacing (e.g., chip‑seal alternatives), and any proposed use of developer or subdivision cash contributions to offset costs.

Clarifying details from staff presentation and ballots: Hogback Mountain Road — approximately 2.0 miles long; VDOT traffic count 2023: ~320 vehicles/day; four crashes on the unpaved segment in past five years; staff said 18 property owners were balloted (13 responded in one count reported). Red Hill Road — ~2.0 miles; VDOT 2023 traffic count ~470 vehicles/day; 21 reported crashes in five years (including one severe injury in 2018); recent local speed study averages were within the posted 25 mph limit; ballot returns: 37 responses — 18 support, 19 oppose. Lena Road — ~1.6 miles; VDOT 2023 ~340 vehicles/day; three crashes in five years; ballots returned 100 sent (number of returns and split reported by staff). Gulick (Gulloch) Mill Road — ~1.4 miles; VDOT ~260 vehicles/day; no reported crashes in five years; 55 ballots sent, 36 returned, 33 support and 3 oppose. Funding bucket reported available for future projects: $10,266,015 (staff slide).

What the decision does not do: The board did not adopt a countywide standard for rural‑road maintenance or change VDOT’s statutory eligibility rules. Supervisors explicitly directed staff to develop criteria and consult with VDOT on how to use new state guidance and funding for enhanced maintenance and alternative surfacing techniques.

Speakers (attribution whitelist) Susan Glass — County transportation planner, Loudoun County Department of Transportation & Capital Infrastructure (first reference: 01:05:53) ; Sunil Toure — VDOT preliminary engineering manager, Northern Virginia district (first reference: 01:05:53); Supervisor Caleb Kershner — Board of Supervisors (first reference: 01:20:11); Supervisor Christine Tacrone — Board of Supervisors (first reference: 01:33:36); Supervisor Terry Letourneau — Board of Supervisors (first reference: 01:51:16); Representative Gary Higgins — Delegate, Virginia House of Delegates (first reference: 05:11:00); Multiple residents and business representatives (public comment). Quotes in this article are drawn from the board meeting record and public comments made during the June 11 hearing.

Authorities cited in the hearing: Virginia Code (remote‑participation provision referenced by the chair; citation not specified in the meeting record).

Implementation risk and follow up: Staff rated the implementation risk as medium — the board approved programming changes but asked staff and VDOT to sort out funding/credits, design standards, and how to apply the 2024 state rural roads law. The board asked that staff return with draft criteria and cost estimates for enhanced maintenance options and the proposed scope of the partial hard‑surfacing project for Hogback so that VDOT can begin preliminary scheduling and cost estimates.

Provenance: Public hearing record, Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, June 11, 2025 (staff presentation and public comment segments).