MINOTES July23,2024  PAGE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION  Members Present  Catherine Grech, Secretary, Districtl Jared Burner, Chairman, District3 William Turner, Vice Chairman, District 5  Chris Adams, District 2 Susan Kile, District 4 Michelle Long  Staff Present Call to Order  Cassie Richards  Chairman Burner called the July 23, 2024 Page County Planning Commission Work Session to order in the Board of Supervisors (BOS) Room located at the Page County Government Center, 103 S Court Street, Luray, Virginia at 7:00 p.m. The call to order was followed by The Pledge of Allegiance and a Moment of Silence, Chairman Burner reminded all commissioners and speakers to please turn on and/or speak into the microphones. Ms. Richards conducted an attendance roll call. Chairman Burner asked ifthere was any discussion on the agenda. There was no discussion. Ms. Grech made a motion to adopt the agenda. Mr. Turner seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously  Adoption of Agenda (5-0). Public Hearing  A. Hills and Valley, LLC- Special Use Permit  Ms. Richards noted there was: no public comment. Chairman Burner opened the public hearing at' 7:02 p.m. Given there were no speakers, Chairman Burner closed the public hearing at 7:02 p.m. He asked ifthere was any discussion. Mr. Adams referençed Condition 10 - he would like to see something in there where the [code] oft the State of Virginia is added. Ms. Grech commented that Condition 2 states: "Hills and Valley, LLC, ori its successor and/or assigns, shall bei in compliance with all county ordinances, the Uniform Statewide Building Code, and all state and federal agency regulations." She feels this is already covered in number 2. There was some discussion and general agreement that this Ms. Grech stated that the Commission and subcommittees have had discussion about the duration of SUPS. For many, many: years, we. have applied. 50 years blanket for all SUPS. We've started to have conversations about how these may need to be adapted depending on the nature ofthe SUP, and especially thei investment ini infrastructure. She is wondering if 50 years is a little too much. Maybe we should bring this down to 30. She referenced the floodplain issue. She thinks fora a temporary structure, this is rather long. Chairman Burner asked if there was any other comment on Condition 1. Mr. Turner stated this was fine with him. Chairman Burner noted that the other commercial parking facility was 50 years. Ms. Grech noted they were noti in thei floodplain. Mr. Adams stated 30 years is a more reasonable time period. Chairman Burner invited Mr. Good to the podium, and he asked Mr. Good if30 years was a sufficient time period. Mr. Good answered this would be fine. Chairman Chairman Burner stated for Condition 6, he doesn't see the point in screening due to the land elevation. He stated we could remove number 6, and there was consensus. Ms. Grech thanked the Chairman for the reminder of the previous commercial parking facility. She recalled that the Commission had said they could park vehicles there, but they couldn'twork on them  was covered in Condition 2.  Burner stated this would be changed to: 30 years.    Planning Commission Minutes- July 23, 2024  there. We were trying to be conservative about oil changes and things like that. She asked ifwes should have a condition like that. Chairman Burner: stated that the other application was strictly a commercial parking facility, but this one and all of the things that are going on with the property, there will bea gray area ifyou say: you can'to doi maintenance on vehicles. [Technical difficulties on streaming/audio. Chairman Burner stated there are three different business ventures, and ifone oft them wants to change oil for their business, he doesn'tthink we: should limit. He understands what [Ms. Grech] is saying in terms oft the commercial parking facility. Ms. Grech noted that as long as it is understood that itisa parking facility and that is it, she doesn'thave: a problem with that. Mr. Turner stated he doesn'tthink Chairman Burner asked if there was any other discussion. Ms. Grech asked why the application includes both parcels - 93F and 93G. Mr. Good answered that the parking was, just on one lot. Ms. Grech asked ifhe had any plans to consolidate the parcels, and Mr. Good answered yes. Ms. Grech asked ift this was thei reason both parcels were included, and Mr. Good confirmed. Ms. Turner made ai motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the special use permit. Ms. Kile seconded the motion. Ms. Richards asked ift the Planning Commission was okay with the change on Condition 8, which had new language based on discussion from aj previous meeting. There was agreement, and confirmation on changes to conditions from earlier. Ms. Richards noted that the back portion of the property is in Zone A. She did al little bit of research on that, and Zone. A means there are no base flood elevations for that area, and iti is a 100-year flood, with less than a 1% Chairman Burner asked Ms. Richards for a roll call. The motion passed unanimously (5-0).  iti needs to be changed.  chance of flooding in an annual timeframe.  New Business  A. Adoption of Minutes- J July 8, 2024  Chairman Burner allowed time for the Planning Commission to: review the minutes. Ms. Grech noted that on Page 9, at the end of the second paragraph, the word: should be spelled "counsel.", Chairman Burner asked if there were any other changes, and there were none. Chairman Burner asked fora motion, and Ms. Grech stated she was happy to make the motion [to approve the minutes as amended). Mr. Turner seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). Chairman Burner  noted that the minutes were approved as amended.  Unfinished Business  B. Brookside Restaurant and Gift Shop, Inc. - Special Use Permit  Chairman Burner noted that the conditions, and we can take a few minutes and go over those. Chairman Burner noted Condition 1 though 3 were standard language.  Discussion included:  Regarding Condition 4, Ms. Grech stated that normally, standard language is that all Health Department requirements have to be completed. She doesn'tsee the utility ofr narrowing it down to specify the "Jim Davis letter dated July2 2, 2024 (copy attached)." Why are we restricting/tying the hands of the Health Department, ift they should issue any other letters in the future? We don't want tol limit it to this one. Chairman Burner asked staff why this was changed, and Ms. Richards asked Mr. Janney to come to the podium. She noted that Mr. Janney is here to speak on behalfoft the applicant. Mr.. Janney stated they went through al lot oftrouble to get that Davis approval, including preliminary engineering, in order to get the application fora a permit. Het thinks Mr. Davis has said this is acceptable to thel Health Department ifthisi is put in place. They always have to meet any requirements that come down the road later that thel Health Department changes. He thinks [the Planning Commission) is covered with that, because the permit requires compliance with the federal, state, and local ordinançes, and it would require specific compliance with the. Jim Davis letter.  Page 2 of4    Planning Commission Minutes- July 23,2 2024  He noted to Ms. Grech that this condition is subject to modification in writing from the Health Department. Ms. Grech thinks the specification of the letter is unnecessary. Mr. Janney noted that he isl happy to strike it- - he thinks it benefits the landowner. Ms. Grech stated it could say including but not limited to the letter. Mr. Janney stated that this was fine. Ms. Grech noted that ini the minutes at the last session, Mr. Janney stated they would be happy to comply with the regulations oft the department in order fori it to be an acceptable condition. That's why she was surprised to see this having been changed. Mr. Janney noted Ms. Grech asked where this property was in regards to the floodplain. Ms. Richards passed out a map generated by Mr. Hahn. Ms. Grech stated she knows there is one located across the road, and she was. just wondering where this is situated, since they were talking about floodplains previously. She knows that water comes down very fast from the mountain. She doesn'tknowi ifit has ever flooded before; she just wondered how close it was andi ifitisin the floodplain. Ms. Richards noted that it was noti in the floodplain. She explained the map Chairman Burner asked why "upon reasonable notice" was added. Mr. Janney answered that it was because wel have ai residential facility, and just to come in and say "comply today" would be al hardship. He thinks this is reasonable under the circumstances. He stated he has full: faith that the staff would try to give reasonable notice under the circumstances. Chairman Burner: stated his argument is - what is reasonable?. Ift they call an hour ahead of time and [the facility] says no, reasonable to us is two days, or one day. Mr. Janney stated he guesses that reasonable people will come to a reasonable. resolution. He doesn'tthink this is as strange requirement. Chairman Burner stated he just wants to make sure everyone is on the same page with regards to what is reasonable, so there is no question ini the future. Mr. Janney stated if [staff] said they were going to come out at 3 in the morning, [the facility] would probably consider that unreasonable. Ifthey said they were coming out at noon and tell them at 9 o'clock, he thinks that is reasonable. Ms. Grech: noted she doesn't think staff works at 3i in the Ms. Grech noted they need to be careful when they look at conditions that have been changed from conditions they have previously used, that they are not accused of treating applicants unfairly. Mr.. Janney noted that that was the nature ofa special use permit. Ms. Grech answered she understood that, but she asked if we were going to create a precedent. Chairman Burner asked in what regards. Ms. Grech answered, fori instance the reasonable: notice or the specific letter of the Health Department. These are things that are not usually there, sO what shei is saying is that these are things they might want to ask legal ift these are changes we should adopti in ai more standard way, or is ite exclusively to this permit. They need to put a bit oft thought intoi it. Mr. Janney noted that this is just the advertisement oft the special use permit, and we will arrive at a conclusion after the public hearing here and after the public hearing at the Board of Supervisors. Ms. Grech asked ifthis was set for public hearing on August 27th, and Ms. Richards and Mr. Janney confirmed. Chairman Burner asked ifl legal has reviewed this. Ms. Richards answered no. Chairman Burner asked her to send it to legal for review. Ms. Grech asked staff to inform legal that these are not the conditions we Mr. Turner noted that this is for 50 years. He stated that we don't even know ifit's going to work or not. Mr. Janney stated that this is at two million dollar plus project. In order to get the financing through, they really do need that length of time. Ms. Grech stated that in their past discussions on the length/duration of an SUP, and they had talked about this in the subcommittee, as well, they proposed the length of the permit needed to be subject to certain criteria, and one of them deemed the most important in the amount ofi investment. This can be anew structure, or renovations, and we need tol keep that in mind. Here there isn'tnew building, but there is cost for renovations and bringing septic into compliance. Mr. Janney confirmed. Ms. Grech added, and general permitting fees and the purchase of the property. Mr.. Janney stated that they are purchasing a valuable property, with structures already there,  that this was a: staff recommendation language that he agreed with.  provided. Ms. Grech: stated it does not appear to be a concern.  morning.  normally use.  Page 3 of4    Planning Commission Minutes-. July23, 2024  with a cost. There has to bes some period of time to be able to pay for that cost. He remembers years ago when we first started doing SUPs, there was a church that came in, and they were granted an SUP for ten years or SO. And they were going to build ai million dollar church. It was going tol be impossible for them to get financing. Wel know that SUPS are: something that we're saying is possible in a particular district, but not everywhere. That is why we. have terms and conditions, and 50 years is a reasonable time to recover the cost ofthis particular project. Ms. Grech stated that int this particular instance, she would agree. Not necessarily in otheri instances. Mr. Janney stated they agree on that particular letter ofthe law. Mr. Turner stated he disagrees. He thinks they could doi it in 30 years as well as 50 years. They could do iti in 20 years. Chairman Burner asked for opinions from Ms. Kile and Mr. Adams. Mr. Adams preferred: 50 years. Ms. Grech asked what the basis was for what he was saying. Mr. Turner stated for two million dollars, it doesn'tt take 50 years to pay fori it. No banks are going to lend money out for that long. Chairman Burner stated he is okay with 50 years. Ifyoul have a3 30-year mortgage, that only gives you 20 years to actually have profitable years. Ms. Grech agreed. Any facilities we' ve had with significant infrastructure, we've allowed 50 years. She doesn't have a problem with that. It's when there isn't that investment she has aj problem with Ms. Kile wanted to circle back to Condition 8 and reasonable notice. Regulatory agencies generally do not give reasonable notice when they are coming on for a site visit. She thinks it is prudent that we discuss with legal what that means for us. Mr.. Janney stated he thinks iti is this special use that this definition applies. What is reasonable for a used car lot or storage facility may not be the same thing that is reasonable for an inpatient facility. He expects the County: is going to give them the notice they believe is reasonable under the guidelines, and if [the facility] object toi it, they'll tell [the County), and they'll go to court and get their inspection. He stated he doesn't: anticipate aj problem, but he understand her concern. Chairman Burner stated that staff can just have legal review it, and ifchanges need to be Ms. Richards asked about language related to the Health Department. Mr. Janney stated that ifthey want to add "included but not limited to" that's fine. Ms. Grech recommended language: "... .all health department requirements, including but not limited to the. Jim Davis letter dated. July 2, 2024 (copy attached), must be completed." Mr. Janney stated that was fine with them. He noted hes speaks without a client present, but that was fine. Mr. Janney asked ifthe public hearing was still scheduled for August 29, and Ms. Richards  it.  made based on legal review, they can do: SO.  confirmed.  C. Zoning Subcommittee Report  Ms. Grech they met last week and had a very productive meeting. They have finalized and taken out most of the comments and have ai few more to go. They need to talk about site plans, especially. The next meeting is scheduled for August 14, which is a Wednesday. Normally we meet on a Tuesday, but Mr. Hahn wanted to get to it as soon as he returned from vacation. The meeting will be at 4 p.m. Ms. Grechi made ar motion to adjourn. Mr. Adams seconded the motion. Ms. Grech adjourned the meeting  Adjourn  at 7:29 p.m.  BedObune ptred Burner, Chairman  Page 4 of4