“There’s been just a colossal failure at the county level to the folks at Hiddenwood”—Eric Combs, Ashburn Planning Commissioner

By Sophia Clifton

At the March 25 meeting of the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, heated debates and detailed statistics underscored the controversy surrounding the Hiddenwood Assemblage project—a development proposal for properties along Hiddenwood Lane near Arcola that has become one of the most challenging cases reviewed in recent years.

The Hiddenwood Assemblage, a coalition of property owners, has long been pushing for a collective rezoning to facilitate the sale of their homes and escape the rapid spread of data center development. Once a quiet, agricultural community, the area is now increasingly surrounded by industrial construction. The group’s original proposal, which had envisioned three data center buildings totaling 756,024 square feet with a maximum height of 55 feet, was narrowly approved by the Planning Commission after a marathon three-hour discussion that included two failed votes and a 30-minute recess for negotiations. The idea was spurred by the fact that the group had secured a buyer contingent on a zoning change.

Today, the residents find their property lines almost touching a newly approved data center building, while within a one-mile radius there are already four data centers and one substation in operation, with an additional 23 data centers and two substations approved or planned. 

Last May, the Planning Commission narrowly approved the original data center application on a 4-3-1 vote. Notably, Chair Michelle Frank (Broad Run) and commissioners Madhava Reddy Madireddy (Dulles) and Robin-Eve Jasper (Little River) opposed the measure, while commissioner Mark Miller (Catoctin) was absent from the vote.

Following this, a four-hour public hearing before the Board of Supervisors led the Hiddenwood Assemblage to defer their application. The deferral was intended to allow further collaboration with county supervisors to address emerging concerns and refine the proposal.

In a significant shift during the March 25 meeting, the assemblage revised its application by eliminating data centers as a permitted use. The new proposal now permits 334,000 square feet of light and medium industrial as well as commercial space, with the maximum building height reduced to 39 feet—representing a 55.8% decrease in total square footage and a 29% reduction in height. This change not only lowers the development’s scale but also incorporates adjustments to previously agreed-upon mitigation measures designed to lessen the impact on Briarfield Estates. However, this change has not quelled concerns. Two votes during the Planning Commission meeting ended in deadlocked ties, with vote counts such as 4-4 on motions to amend and forward the application.

The meeting also highlighted community response to the application. While nearly 150 residents attended the session—a 30% increase from previous meetings—there was notable silence from Briarfield Estates residents, the neighborhood directly north of the Hiddenwood properties. Commissioner Dale Polen Myers (At Large) pointed out this lack of response to the Board, saying, “That is so different than last time we were around here and it doesn’t feel like anybody is even taking that into consideration.” 

In contrast, public comment submissions numbered 25, with an estimated 68% opposing further industrial development. Moreover, data from the session revealed that a recent petition circulated among Briarfield Estates residents recorded a 60% opposition rate, with 12 out of 20 households signing against the revised plan.

Concerns centered not only on the overall scale of the project but specifically on the easternmost of the three proposed buildings due to its close proximity to Briarfield Estates. Hiddenwood residents are also troubled by a separate data center project on the adjacent JK2 property—a permitted project that now threatens to transform open space into a multi-story data center, just across their gravel road.

Gem Bingle, speaking to the Board on behalf of the Piedmont Environmental Council, said, “We are sad to see Hiddenwood back before the commission because this situation represents a profound failure of local zoning to prioritize the residents it’s intended, first and foremost, to serve. The long range planning, smart growth planning over the years, it’s flipped back and forth and we all see the outcome here, for this neighborhood’s unfortunate current circumstances.”

Bingol continued, “We feel it is vitally important to address the northern buffer between the site and the neighborhood which will be the greatest impact by such a change in the underlying zoning.”

Project Manager Allison Britain emphasized that the revised proposal does not align with the county’s 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,” she said. 

Walsh-Colucci Land Use Planner Michael Romeo pointed out that while the group has made significant cuts, the proposed footprints remain inflexible. “Even though we cannot really have much flexibility with the footprints, we have reduced the square footage by over 55% and we’ve also reduced the building height considerably down to 39 feet,” he said. 

Romeo also stressed that the county General Plan prioritizes transitional areas between conflicting land uses, a point that resonates with many commissioners given the proximity of industrial plans to residential neighborhoods. “The transition between the data center on the JK2 site versus the residential on Briarfield through Hiddenwood in what we’re proposing is a transition that we’ve worked hard on and hopefully this is up to the standard of the commission,” Romeo said.

Former chair Michelle Frank offered her thoughts on the land use, “I don’t wanna just move the problem to another community. And that’s where I was last year on this, and that’s where I remain still today. I don’t think we’ve gotten there yet. I do think the right solution here from a land use perspective is going to be something that’s a transition between the uses. Because you know, you draw a line and Hiddenwood Lane was the line and here we are. It didn’t work so well.”

During the session, Commissioner Myers noted that despite the mixed votes, the board remains committed to providing the residents with additional time and collaboration to refine the application. Commissioner James Banks (Algonkian) was absent, but the votes cast by the remaining members reflected a deep division on how best to proceed.

Commissioner Madhava Reddy Madireddy (Dulles), whose district includes the contested properties, was particularly critical of the revised proposal. “It’s a worse application than it was before,” he argued, stating that some of the important commitments were removed in this new application. A motion by Madireddy to recommend denial of the application also ended in a 4-4 tie, highlighting the persistent split among the commissioners.

A subsequent motion by Commissioner Myers—to send the application forward for a future meeting with a clear mandate to address issues related to the easternmost building—passed unanimously 7-0 (with one abstention). Commissioners, including Eric Combs (Ashburn) and Robin-Eve Jasper (Little River), stressed that a comprehensive and collaborative approach is needed.

“There’s been just a colossal failure at the county level to the folks at Hiddenwood and we owe them anything that we can do to help them mitigate those impacts to the north,” Combs said.

 “I think that we can get to a solution that’s an appropriate solution, not a compromised solution. But we can’t do it if we accept this application and send it forward to export the problem so we’re facing the same problem again with regard to Briarfield,” Jasper stated.

While the revised Hiddenwood Assemblage application represents significant changes in scale and intent, the latest commission meeting underscores that both community opposition and internal county divisions remain high. The process now moves forward with plans for further refinements aimed at better reconciling the needs of local residents with the county’s development strategy.