MINUTES September 24,2024  PAGE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION  Members Present  Catherine Grech, Secretary, District1 Jared Burner, Chairman, District3 William Turner, Vice Chairman, District 5  Chris Adams, District 2 Susan Kile, District4  Members Absent None Staff] Present Josh Hahn Call to Order  Tracy Clatterbuck  Chairman Burner called the August 27, 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. Mr. Hahn conducted an attendance roll call. [Mr. Turner were not present at roll call, but arrived. just after the Adoption ofMinutes.] Chairman Burner asked ifthere was any discussion on the agenda. There was: no discussion. Ms. Grech made a motion to adopt the agenda. Ms. Kile: seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (4-  Adoption of Agenda  0). New Business  A. Adoption of Minutes - September 10, 2024  Chairman Burner asked for a motion, and Ms. Grech made a motion to approve thei minutes as presented. Mr. Turner seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (4-0). Mr. Hahn read from the packet: At thel Board of Supervisors public hearing, one speaker voiced opposition to the proposed amendments. Thel Board also voiced several concerns related to the need for and potential unintended consequences ofr requiring 50 rights-of-way for 25-acre divisions. During discussion, the Board recommended thel Planning Commission reconsider the concept of functional rights-of-way, including as it relates to family and non-family divisions, the latter of which currently requires a 50' right-of-way. Another concern raised by the Board was VDOT's timeline, with at least one. Board member stating that he had received feedback from citizens that VDOT entrance review can take well longer than two weeks. The Board ultimately sent this back to the Mr. Hahn also noted that he received a draft version of the Board's motion, will be appear in the draft version of the Board's draft minutes, which he read: Supervisor Guzy moved to send the proposed subdivision ordinance amendments back to the Planning Commission in order to provide time for additional research, consideration of the recommendations suggested tonight, and to allow the commission to contact VDOT while they are working on their revision of $100 Subdivision ofL Land in the Code of Page County. Supervisor Cubbage seconded and the motion carried by a vote of6-0.  B. Subdivision ofLand Ordinance. Amendments  Planning Commission to address these concerns.    Planning Commission Minutes- September: 24, 2024  Mr. Hahn asked the Planning Commission how they would like staff to proceed. Ms. Grech asked what the objections were from the speaker and thel Board at the public hearing, Mr. Hahn stated, in general, it was imposition on the original intent of the 25-acre division and that the changes would makei it more difficult to provide housing. He thinks the Board agrees that they don't want to see some ofthe 25-acre divisions with subsequent non-family divisions that are happening, but that [these amendments] go too far, and would take too much time during the review process. Ms. Grech: stated, regarding the original intent of the 25-acre rule, Mr. Hahn must have more information than she has, because she has been asking for the six years she's been on the Planning Commission what the original intent ofthe 25-acre rule, and they haven't been able to find the answer. Mr. Hahn stated he refers to it because thel Board seems tol have that same concept of the original intent, which they believe is the ability to, int times ofneed, divide larger chunks ofa property up, including for the purposes of dividing land for family. Ms. Grech asked for confirmation that the Planning Commission had considered these 25-acre divisions as an accelerant to other types of divisions. Mr. Hahn agreed, adding that it can be. Ms. Grech stated that the Board just thinks this goes too far. She asked about the functional right-of-way concept that has been brought up before. Mr. Hahn stated that this wasj just his opinion, but het thinks they might be conflating the work that the Planning Commission is doing with the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances with this band aid amendments that were proposed. Ms. Grech asked Chairman Burner to talk about what the Subdivision Subcommittee's findings with functional rights ofway. Mr. Burner: said that it was discussed, and they determined that you're never going to dropl below 40. Thei issue related to the Board's concern for rights-of-way is thati it's going to take longer to put ai functional right-of-way in than a standard 50 ft. right-of-way. You still have to account for utilities and ditches. It's fine ifyouy want to take al hundred acres and divide them into four lots, but the second you decide to build more than three houses, you're going tor need 501 ft. anyway. Ms. Grech described at typical process of dividing 100 acres into four 25-acre lots, splitting each by non-family division, and then splitting each oft those in another five years. This is happening al loti in Page County, and the public may not be aware. The farmland is being chopped up, which is what the Berkley Group described as nickel-and-diming our farmland. More than likely it's going tol be divided and divided into three, five, seven-acre parcels that can'tt be farmed. Chairman Burner stated that more than likely they are going to stop at 6 and a quarter acres so that back taxes can't be collected and you still collect the land use. Now you) have a mansion in the middle ofal big yard. The whole part oft the 50 ft. right-of-way is not because you) have a division with two: 25-acre parcels, it's that int the future if you want to divide again, you're already set up and don'thave to expand the right of way. It's just proper planning. Ms. Grech agreed, adding that wej just want' VDOT to have an earlier say in the process, and not wait until the lots are sold and the property owners want a right of way to thei road There was further discussion. Ms. Grech stated that the 25-acre rule is mostly, not all, used fori in this county is to circumvent the Subdivision Ordinance, which requires proper roads. Wel have developers that don't want to dot that, and now they don't even want us to go to VDOT ahead oft time. She seesa big problem with people from out oft town, out of state, thinking it's ultimately going to be approveda certain way, and it'si not. This is what we were: attempting to amend. She asked what ai functional right-of-wayi is. Chairman Burner answered that basically iti is when an engineer can cram all the things you need, ditches, utilities, and you get iti in 40 ft., they will give you a stamped engineered report that you can do that. Itmay be 35f ft. But you't re really never going to be able to get below 401 ft. But ify you' 're ever want to bring it up to VDOT standards, you're not going tol be able to do iti in 40f ft. Ms. Kile asked ifit was: subjective to the engineer whoi is doing the analysis. Chairman Burner answered that it was, in that regard. There was further discussion of functional right of way. Ms. Grech asked ifthe Board was aware that this was. just al band aid amendment and that the Planning Commission is still working on the revision oft the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. It's taking al long time. This was. just to address aj pressing concern brought to us by VDOT. Mr. Hahn  We can't change that - that's VDOT.  and there'sa aj problem, and VDOT: says you can't! have access there.  Page 2 of10    Planning Commission Minutes- September 24, 2024  answered that he did tell them that this was two different things, and that this was. just tweak ai few things, some ofwhich were significant changes. Chairman Burner noted that, regarding VDOT entrances, we are one oft the only counties that doesn'talready require this. Ms. Clatterbuck expressed agreement. Chairman Burner stated - this is just planning. Ms. Grech agreed. Mr. Hahn noted that one of the things the Board wanted the Planning Commission/staff to do is look at how longi it takes VDOT toj perform these entrance reviews. The reviews are free. There are fees later on when entrance construction is about to being. Mr. Hahn noted that he had already talked to VDOT, and they indicated they try to get thei initial review done within 15 days. However, in certain circumstances, it might take longer. He noted that this may indicate that there is a problem that VDOT There was further discussion regarding path forward. Mr. Hahn will get clarifications from VDOT, and perhaps reach out to an engineer to get more information about functional rights-of-way, if  needs to review further, and setting a cap on that is probably not great planning.  necessary. Unfinished Business  A. Brookside Restaurant and Gift Shop, Inc.- Special Use Permit  Ms. Clatterbuck discussed the packet contents.. Ati the last meeting, the possibility ofr requiring screening/fencing was brought up. She reached out to. JeffNicely at VDOT. She provided a copy of the email from him. She cautioned the Commission that if they considered any kind of condition regarding screening toj please take al look at Mr. Nicely's response. It would require an engineering firm and site plan, sO we would want to be very careful on any condition wording. She referenceda number ofa additional public comments, including through this afternoon. All of the comments were forwarded electronically to the Planning Commission members, and staff printed hard copies for them Ms. Clatterbuck reviewed changes to the draft of conditions. The applicant had indicated at aj previous meeting they would not allow clientele who were violent offenders, and soi forth. The applicant's attorney worked with the county attorney to develop Condition 4. The applicants are accepting ofthis. The code references refer to violent felonies and sexual assault felonies. Mr. Hahn noted that the clause in Condition 41 limiting to convictions within 10 years was something the applicant's attorney requested. The County Attorney agreed that this language was appropriate, but Mr. Hahn doesn't want the Commission to think that the County Attorney was necessarily recommending this be included, merely that this is what it could look like ift the Commission agreed to those terms. Ms. Clatterbuck Chairman Burner asked for comment among the Commissioners. Ms. Grech noted that she has quite a lot to say, but she would like her colleagues to go first SO that she doesn'tmonopolize the conversation. Mr. Adams referenced previous discussion about the floodplain. He checked the GIS and the floodplain map, and this doesn'tappear to be in the floodplain. He wanted the Commission to be aware that the property does flood. He did: see in the documentation: a contingency plan ift there is some type ofe emergency evacuation to get all 41 patients out into al hotel. He was wondering ifthere should be a condition for flooding, or some other plan. Het thinks the property has flooded twice in 35 or 30 years. When) he: says flood, he. means it actually closing the kitchen. Ms. Castle asked if she could speak to this, and Chairman Burner agreed, requesting she do so from the podium. Ms. Castle stated, as the owner fort the last 35 years, itl had not flooded at least in the ten years prior to when she bought it, according to the prior owners. It did flood on September 6, 1996, which was the occasion of Hurricane Fran. The creek did not rise onto the property. Thej property was overcome byat tidal wave that occurred up the highway at an adjoining property'ss small culvert that log-jammed. The 12 inches that fell in 121 hours, moving down the mountain, took out the entire right lane of211, and came across them like a tidal wave. It did not affect the gift shop or the cabins int the slightest. All the water  tonight.  noted that Mr. Janney was present to answer any questions.  Page 3of10    Planning Commission Minutes- September 24, 2024  drained back off. The restaurant was invaded by water because a log broke the back door. But the brook never overflowed on them. It washed downhill. And they have had no threat since then, and she wanted to correct that. Pass Run did not come out ofits banks onto their property. Ms. Grech requested she be able to ask some questions while Ms. Castle was at the podium. She referred tol Ms. Castle's letter to the Planning Commission that was included in the packet. She read portions of this. "I suggest the location is ideal -in a lightly populated area on a public corridor with natural barriers on most sides; al location that currently experiences much higher activity from traffic and customers." Ms. Grech thought this was very interesting, because Ms. Castle discussed the: safety along the highway, referencing where Ms. Castle: states that in "70; years ofl heavy commercial use at Brookside, no one. has voiced any concerns for the safety of our customers." Ms. Castle stated thisi is correct. Ms. Grech: stated this was interesting; families have come in with their children, and people who may have had a few drinks, we don't know. Ms. Castle asked ifs she's ever had any issues, and Ms. Castle: said she has not. Ms. Grech noted that some oft the concerns raised by the public were safety of the new clients oft the facility, and she wanted to stress that Ms. Castle has never had problems in the past. Ms. Grechi read: "Possibly one oft the most offensive and arbitrary objections is that future residents oft the proposed facility are suspected ofi nefarious criminal intent. There is nothing to support that suggestion. To the contrary these individuals are voluntarily seeking counseling and self-improvement to increase their future success in guaranteeing al life of sobriety." Ms. Grech stated she thinks this makes al lot of sense to her. Wel have seen in the condition that we are excluding violent offenders and sexual offenders, and we are told there will be no court-ordered individuals. These are people that aren't criminals. These are people who have made a choice at will, wanting to become sober. Ms. Castle stated that was her understanding, completely. She stated she is the legal owner of the property, currently, but will not run the facility. In conversation with the buyers, Ms. Grech noted that Ms. Castle states in another paragraph, "There is no actual evidence that public safety will be put at risk, and any such risk is further diminished due to experienced supervision and constant monitoring." Ms. Grech thinks that is something that we want to address. Ms. Grech continued reading: "While conversely, there is statistical data that the publici is at risk from others who are suffering active substance abuse without any treatment at all." Ms. Grech stated that she has lived int the county for 33 years, and shel has seen more people under the influence of drugs and alcohol in the community that are untreated and have no will to get better. Shel has had friends ofher children die ofoverdoses. We all have seen the horrible devastation. Our county is participating in the opioid settlement. At some point the county will get some money to help victims. This is something that would do that. She just wanted to echo some ofthe points that Ms. Castle had made in her letter. Ms. Castle thanked her, and stated that these were her opinions, only. Ms. Grech stated she understood, but she thought these were: interesting to point out, Ms. Castle noted that these were based on things that had been challenged. Someone from thej public requested to speak, but Chairman Burner reminded those in attendance that this was not ai free-for-all, tonight, and they will handle questions for the owner or the attorney. Ms. Castle asked if she was dismissed, and Chairman Burner stated she was. Chairman Burner asked ifMr. Adams wanted to continue. Mr. Adams said he wasn'tsure when Brookside was established, maybe 30 or 40 years ago, but ifhe took that property and put it in the same area with the same road conditions that they are now, the same traffic conditions..ifwe) put a dog grooming business in there, he thinks we would maybe take into account some kind ofs screening or privacy fence, or security fence. He thinks that things were al lot different 30: years ago. We did it for the dog grooming business on 340. We're talking about human lives, here. He stated he'd leavei it at that. He stated Mr. Rothstein, he thinks during public comment, had talked about medical authorizations at the treatment facility, and how patients will be required to stay on site 24 hours, 2- hour bed checks, and other information. He asked whether these should be included he doesn't want to over-restrict or police and make it difficult on the Zoning Administrator - but might we want something in the SUP that indicates that patients are going to be there 24 hours a day. Plus, he  that is her absolute understanding of what is expected.  Page 4of10    Planning Commission Minutes- September 24, 2024  mentioned that it was al low-intensity facility. There's nothing in here. he asked Ms. Clatterbuck, would she say a full-on detox facility fall under recovery treatment center residential care facility. There was further discussion of the uses, and staff pulled up the use definitions on the screen. Mr. Hahn noted that there would need to be: some kind of definition or reference to a state code for this. Mr. Adams stated that whether thel Board approves or denies this, he thinks we' re under the impression that this is going to operate as al low-intensity use treatment center. There's nothing in here that indicates that new owners can operate as a Ihigher-intensity) use, which this location may not support. There was lengthy discussion about the stated purpose in the application and on the conditions, as well as the possibility of adding language in conditions limiting the type of facility to a low-intensity use. During this discussion, Ms. Clatterbuck stated that we need to be careful, because these are all terms that are used within their profession, and what they licensed for, and she need to go by the definitions in the Zoning Ordinance. There was further discussion on various use definitions. Ms. Grech suggested adding a condition that this special use permit applies to al low-intensity facility, only; any high-intensity [facility), including a detox facility, are excluded. Ms. Clatterbuck: stated that she couldn'tanswer that, but she noted that code is flawed, and will never be perfect. For example, we use the word rehabilitation as a use, but we don't define what that use is. It is a by-right use. There was further discussion of various uses, and ultimately they concluded that this application fell under the "group home" definition. Ms. Grech stated that this needs be licensed under group! homes. Mr. Turner expressed concern that this would let mental health patients be involved, and Ms. Grech stated that this could be addressed int the conditions. Ms. Clatterbuck stated that this is ai fine line excluding mental health. Chairman Burner stated that residential care facility is al broad term, and Ms. Kile Mr. Hahn stated that in answer to the broader question, the purpose of conditions in an SUP are to mitigate for adverse impact, soi if you word a condition to that end, limiting it to al low-intensity facility, that would be appropriate. But ifit's not tied to mitigation, he doesn't think you can. Chairman Burner noted that the level of intensity is in Condition 5. It's not going to be more than 41 people. What they doi is al little bit different. The 41 people is capped by thel Health Department. Mr. Adams stated that hel had thei impression that the intensity meant thel level oftreatment. Ms. Grech agreed - not density of use. Chairman Burner stated he brought that up because if we try to address intensity, we have two different meanings, and we don'thave the definitions. Ms. Grech asked ifher understanding is correct that this type of facility is regulated above our heads, at the state level, with health guidelines, sO there's probably an amount ofd due diligence that is done at that level. Ms. Clatterbuck agreed, and she stated Mr. Rothstein had at one point mentioned the agency that licensed them. Mr. Janney came forward. He stated it's under 37.2-403, under Behavioral Health and Development Services. You're going to either bel licensed in the State by Social Services or by the special Behavioral Health and] Development Services, which is mental health. Addiction and alcoholism and drugs all come under the umbrella of mental health - you can'ts separate that away from mental health, and the State doesn't. Theyj just have to license them, and they will have to comply with the license. It's really not al halfiway house- it's more ofay group home. Hes stated with all due respect tol Mr. Adams, he thinks intensity means the density. 41 is the limitation oni it. And we will Ms. Grech asked Mr. Hahn ifthey could refer to the code: section that Mr. Janney referred to in the conditions. Mr. Hahn confirmed, but he doesn't know if that addresses the concerns that Mr. Adams has indicated. Mr. Janney stated that het thinks we can say it must be licensed by the Behavioral Health and Development Services. Chairman Burner asked ifthis is a state or federal regulation. Mr.. Janney answered that it was as state regulation. Chairman Burner stated that Condition 21 takes care oft this, then, since it requires compliance with all state and federal regulations. Mr. Janney stated that's why they put that condition ini there. Ms. Grech: stated that there may bes some misunderstandingsi that she has heard from the public that they think this isn't going tot be regulated, licensed, checked, or monitored. Iti is. And we. have placed conditions that there aren't going to be any violent or sexual offenders, and we've heard that there won't be any court-ordered. Mr. Adams asked ift there is  agreed.  be regulated by your code section, under the one classification that fits it.  Page 50 of10    Planning Commission Minutes- September 24, 2024  anything inl here that prevents them from selling the property and this becoming a full detox facility. Mr. Hahn said he'll let Mr.. Janney respond, but he does want to say that there has been some representation by the applicant that this is not a first-step facility, that this is a last-step facility. Mr. Janney clarified that iti is the intermediate between the first 30-day detox facility- = this is a 180-day program, which is a residential-type program. Mr.. Adams stated that he understands that Mr. Rothstein has the best intentions for low-intensity, second-step property. But there's s nothing in here that says they can'ts sell it. Mr. Janney stated that with all due respect, the special use permit regulates the use oft the property. Ifhe sells it, they can go back to running a restaurant, nightclub, bar, pub, bakery, and automobile sales shop - anything that's allowed in commercial. But ifhe wants to do anything int the mental health facility, that is going to bei regulated by the terms ofthis special use permit, unless someone comes and amends this special use permit. Ms. Grech asked: shei is correct that the only way to prevent this from becoming in the future a Level 1 detox facility is toi include a condition to that effect. Mr. Adams expressed agreement. Mr. Janney stated iti is, already, due to the group home concept, and it will be limited to 41. Ms. Grech asked ifMr.. Janney is saying a group home would not allow a detox facility, and Mr. Janney stated he thinks they are two different things. Ms. Clatterbuck stated that looking at the definition of group home, it doesn't matteri ifitisa a Level 1 oral Level 2. Ms. Grech stated that doesn't mean we can'tinclude iti int the conditions to exclude detox facilities. Mr. Hahn reiterated that it would need to be tied to mitigation. Ifthere is concern that a Level 1 detox center poses an additional risk to: surrounding property owners, and we don't want to see that, but we are okay with al Level 2 would be acceptable, you could doi it- but you have to accept Mr. Adams stated that the thinks most Commissioners are under the impression it's going to operate as a Level 2, and Ms. Grech agreed. Mr. Hahn stated that it would need to be defined in the condition. Ms. Grech stated that this was a very good point andi it would be useful tos specify that. Mr. Hahn stated that given that what we are discussing is new territory, he thinks iti is a matter he would like the County Attorney to: speak to. He wouldn't want to word this condition on the fly. Ms. Grech stated that it seems that this particular use, as we are talking about it tonight, isn'ta actually properly addressed in our ordinance. The general concern of! how we address the opioid crisis, drug rehab, and the problems we have in the county is not even addressed in the Comprehensive Plan, which is something we' re going to address in the subcommittee. She doesn't see any other remedy than to put something in the conditions. Chairman Burner expressed concern that ifv we tried to separate thet two, it would be thes same argument as signs, where you can regulate the type and size oft the sign, but you can't restrict the content ofthe sign. When you start restricting the content ofv what can actually be done in a residential care facility, he thinks we'res stepping into a gray area. Ms. Clatterbuck stated she agreed. Mr. Hahn stated you would! have to be very clear ini the condition and preferably tie it to actual state language. Ms. Grech stated that signs are free speech, and she doesn't see it to be an issue of free speech. But she agreed thati it might be a gray area, and sO it might be something the attorneys need to Mr. Janney asked for guidance on where they want to go, because it does seem to fit under the definition of group home, where it will not be providing ofa acute care, and it doesn't seem like there are any definitions forl Level 1 orl Level 2. Ms. Grech asked ifMr.. Janney agreed that al Level 1 facility doesn't fit under the definition ofag group! home, and Mr.. Janney agreed. Ms. Grech asked ifwe could confirm this understanding. Ms. Kile stated that we what we are calling it Level 1 detox for the purposes ofthis conversation can be done in an acute area, but there are also private facilities that are providing that function, but would probably ber more ofag groupl home. She doesn'tt think they are Mr. Janney thinks the special use permit as drafted and the conditions we' ve put forward are probably as good as they can possibly get with the status oft the code and the representations by his client as to what is going tol happen. He thinks they have addressed the issues oft the violent criminals and the sex abusers, and they've got the limitations on what they are going to do and the number of! people there.  that premise. Ms. Grech stated that this is what she meant.  work on.  mutually exclusive in this scenario.  Page 6 of10    Planning Commission Minutes- September 24, 2024  He would submit that this is ag good proposal that fits within the code. He urged them to approve it and Chairman Burner asked ift there were any other questions or concerns. Ms. Grech asked if Mr. Turner or Ms. Kile wanted to: speak first. Mr. Turner stated that his position has never changed. Ms. Kile preferred Ms. Grech speak next. Ms. Grech stated shei is reminded- - and Mr. Janney alluded tot this- - we are here to consider zoning matters. She knows that some members of the public have had concerns about better use of the property or alternative locations. That is not our purview at the: zoning level. We deal with zoning matters. We are not economic development - it is not ourj job. Another think she would like to stress - this is not ai rezoning. We're not rezoning aj property that might be in Ag to ai more intensive use. This is already zoned Commercial. She stated that Mr. Janney made a point which she was planning to make here: should this SUP not go through, another use, which may be actually more obnoxious to the neighbors, may be allowed by right, and not even go through a special use permit. Night clubs were: mentioned. There are al lot of other uses. It could become a commercial parking lot or al large storage unit facility. There are: a lot of things that would not go through this permitting process. It's only going through this] permitting process because of what is shown on the screen. We also have been told that this is a use that is al less intense than the restaurant use. There will be less traffic. It is what we call inz zoning al less-intensive use. That's already been established. There have been references made to the Comprehensive Plan in terms of protection tiers and environmental impact of the Comprehensive Plan. But since we're not doing ai rezoning, they are not relevant here. Many arguments have been made by the public, and she would like try to separate the wheat from the chaff. The applicants have submitted full documentation, responded to all oft their requests. She stated that they will acknowledge that she has personally made many requests of the applicants. The applicants have always responded to all our questions and concerns. They have addressed everything. They've offered a good neighbor policy. As far as her due diligence, shel has personally visited the location in order to visualize and consider the merits oft those concerns. She has personally consulted with professionals ini mental health, tourism, and law enforcement. Here are the conclusions she has come to. She doesn't think tourism will be affected. There is no signage that is going to indicate the use oft the facility. Therefore somebody coming in and out of] Page County towards thel Park or Luray Caverns, or whatever tourists do, are not going to know what's! happening at that facility. She doesn't see how that would influence tourism. Shel has consulted an expert int the matter and that what she's! been told, and she agrees. It is not al historical site. Shel has consulted with an expert on that matter. As they have heard, the septic system has been approved by the Health Department; it has been reengineered. And iti is not in the floodplain. The argument regarding property values - she actually read the articles and to her they are: not relevant. What is stated int the article that was referred to was in regards to an urban setting in a residential neighborhood. This is not an urban setting and it is not ai residential neighborhood, so to her this argument does not apply. Traffic is going to be no more ofa ani issue than when it was a restaurant and al lodging facility. There is going tol be no more traffic. She stated that when Ms. Kile brought up as strain on our resources int terms of health care providers. They have assured us that they have their own in-house health care providers and primary care physicians. We know that they have proposed an emergency management plan for the facility Culpeper, ofwhich we've been given a copy. So, we can trust that they will do the same for us. We have included conditions int the SUP to ensure there will be no violent offenders and no sex offenders, and we' re told there will be court-ordered facility. That leads her to believe that these people are going to be there at will. They are not criminals. They are people who have decided to be on the road to recovery. We're told that they are going to be monitored, and they are not allowed to leave the facility unsupervised. This is an at-will facility and will be monitored. and regulated by the State, in addition to the conditions we impose. Shel has been here for 33 years, and she has seen more drunk or people under thei influence in the community, at the parades and county fairs, and she thinks they pose more danger to our community than the people she sees coming to this facility. She sees people that are young, old, rich, poor, educated or not, and they die every day, nationwide. Including some friends of her children. Here we have ai real opportunity to make a difference and help those who have already made a commitment to sobriety. The County is participating in the opioid crisis settlement, and one  sent it on to the Supervisors.  Page 7of10    Planning Commission Minutes- September 24, 2024  day we will get some money in our community to help address this problem. This is aj perfect Ms. Grech stated that the only thing that she thinks will be a useful addition to the concerns oft the public about their safety- - she read in the minutes and inf the documents several times security cameras are mentioned. She would like to propose that we include a condition in the permit referencing security cameras. We could specify that they security cameras be installed and maintained, and the cameras would be directed to access points to the property and other areas as necessary. She suggested that this should be done in consultation with law enforcement. Law enforcement might be able to recommend how the security cameras would be placed, in order to ensure the security oft the patients and the public, ifanyone should leave the facility. She knows they are: not supposed to. They will be monitored, and ifthey leave, they are basically kicked out oft the facility. But if we could monitor that, andi if the Sheriff's Department, or whatever law enforcement we see fit, could be consulted regarding theiri installation and make: sure that the security cameras are: monitored at all times, she thinks this would go a long way to reassure the public as to the safety ofthe community. So, she proposed we Ms. Grech stated she doesn'tknow if the earlier matter regarding intensity has been resolved yet, but she is ready to make ai motion. She doesn't know ifiti is appropriate to make a motion, yet. Mr. Hahn asked ift the Sheriff's Office'si involvement would only be in consultation during installation, and they won't be regularly inspecting security. Ms. Grech referred to the minutes of September 10, where Mr. Rothstein stated as far as security, he referenced: security cameras. She just thinks security cameras are a great idea, and maybe we require safety cameras for the outside ofthe facility inside is not their purview to ensure that nobody leaves or enters the property without being monitored. Mr. Janney made a distinction that there are medical confidential information you couldn'treally! have camera view available to the Sheriff's Office as to the internal workings of what's going on. Ms. Grech stated that shei is just speaking to the placement of the security cameras to cover the road and the access to the facility, then there would be surveillance that would not interfere with the patients' confidentiality. The person who is monitoring the cameras can't be thes same person who is monitoring the rooms. She isj just suggesting that law enforcement be consulted into how to best implement that condition that shei is proposing toi include. Mr. Janney asked ifs she is talking about the placement and orientation of the security cameras regarding consult and the exterior, and Ms. Grech agreed. Mr. Hahn stated that this is specifically the Sheriff's Office, since thisi is in their jurisdiction. Ms. Clatterbuck asked ifMs. Grech had language drafted. Ms. Grech stated she has something that could be discussed: "The business owner and/or operator, or its assigns and/or successors shall install and maintain a video security system, with cameras directed at access points to the property and other areas, as necessary. They shall consult Page County Sheriff's Office regarding the installation oft this system... ." She noted shei is not sure about the rest:" 6. .and make every reasonable effort to adopt the recommendations provided by that agency, ifsuch are provided. The operator'ss staff will monitor the security feed at all times." She stated thisi is subject to discussion, and shei is not even sure it would hold. She noted that it has not been run by legal. But she is trying to address the fears ofthe public about their safety. She thinks quite honestly there has been a lot of fear-mongering. There are al lot of fears that she doesn't see validated. But she also doesn'twant the public tot think that they are not respecting their fears. That would not be right. She thinks that if, in consultation with the Sheriff's Department, we have some security there, that would replace thei fence and make the public feel safely. She has language, but she thinks it probably needs some work. Mr. Adams suggested language: "...to ensure patients do not leave the site." Ms. Grech suggested: "..to ensure the safety of the public and the clients." Ms. Grech referenced the earlier issues discussed, but said: she was ready to make a motion. Ms. Clatterbuck noted that shei is not comfortable as staff with any motion if we don't have condition language. Mr. Hahn agreed, adding especially if the county attorney has not seen the language. In this case, it's not minor. Ms. Clatterbuck added that this involves the Sheriff's Office, and staffh has not discussed this with the Sheriff's Office. Ms. Grech stated that shei isn'tsuggesting that we ask the  opportunity to put those principles in use.  include a condition regarding the proper installation of security cameras.  Page 8of10    Planning Commission Minutes- September 24, 2024  Sheriff's Office their opinion oft this SUP, just that we put a condition obligating the applicant to consult the Sheriff's Office in their design and monitoring oft the security system. Ms. Clatterbuck stated that thisi is why the wording is important. Mr. Janney stated they don't want to give al blank check to the Sheriff's Department to design the system, and he does not have any authority to agree to that condition, Ms. Clatterbuck stated shei isn't sure [the Sheriff's Department would want that, either. Ifai motion is going to be made, she suggests they determine the wording. Mr. Hahn noted that there have been two additions discussed tonight. He is not sure about the status of the first one. There is also the matter oft the VDOT letter that we received. Ifwe were to impose some sort ofs security fencing on the applicant, VDOT would need to have a new plan for that, with regards to site distance. That is three things that need to be addressed before we take a vote. Ms. Clatterbuck noted that the VDOT item would require engineering and as site plan. Mr. Hahn stated that essentially what VDOT has provisionally approved as part ofthe SUP process will have changed ifwei make that aj part ofit. Ms. Grech stated that in her opinion, any kind ofi fencing is not only undesirable, but really al bad idea. That is the rationale behind her suggestion of the safety cameras, pursuant toa conversation she had with law enforcement, and she thinks it would be a good substitute for ai fence. If you have as security camera that is monitored, and a security system - ift the public has the assurance that the security system is designed with the Sheriff's! Department having been consulted, she thinks it would go al long way to alieve the worries ofthe public. She will not acknowledge that all the worries she has read arej justified, but she thinks we need to honor the concerns that some people are afraid for Mr. Hahn asked Mr. Janney ifl he believed some kind of condition. regarding security cameras would be possible. Mr. Janney thinks iti isar reasonable ask. Mr. Hahn asked the Commission ift they feel this isas substitute for now: for security fencing. Hel knows the applicant has also discussed certain screening, but would: security cameras answer the concerns regarding security. Mr. Adams stated he does security for al living. He knows the habits of people who are supposed to be monitoring security. He expressed some skepticism. Ms. Grech noted that it would be monitoring people who are there by free will. They aren't criminals. Mr. Adams stated that he is not really concerned about someone leaving the site and wandering offi in the road. Hel highly doubts that will happen. That's not the Mr. Hahn stated that he thinks thei two options before the Planning Commission are we either word these conditions right now, or you) just give staff time to do what we've done before, which is take language to the County Attorney and Mr. Janney to work out the actual wording. Ms. Grech stated she doesn't think we can do that right now, as much as she would like to, and make a motion and move on. That was her intent, tonight. She asked Mr.. Janney and the Commission what they think. Mr. Janney stated it would be hard to work that out tonight ina a reasonable and rational manner, Chairman Burner stated there is no way they could do that in a correct manner. That language needs to be reviewed by attorneys, especially when you get into detox facilities, Level 1 versus Level 2. The security one isn't very complicated. Mr. Hahn asked ift there is anything else they can also take to the Chairman Burner asked if there was a motion to table. Ms. Grech stated she regretfully makes that motion. Mr. Adams seconded the motion. Chairman Burner asked Mr. Hahn to doa a roll call vote. The motion passed (4-1, Yay: Mr. Turner, Ms. Kile, Mr. Adams, Ms. Grech; Nay: Chairman Burner). Ms. Clatterbuck summarized the previous meeting and referenced redline version of the Zoning Ordinance included in the packet. The Commission discussed all oft the recommendation in detail. Mr. Hahn noted that staffi is starting to get al lot of applications or questions regarding domes, so this is something we. need toj progress on sooni if rule changes are going to be implemented. Ms. Grech stated she thinks iti is a good document. Staffjust needs to address some of the lingering concerns. Mr. Hahn  theirs safety.  concern that he has.  county attorney. There was nothing else mentioned.  B. Non-conyentional Dwellings  Page 9 of10    Planning Commission Minutes- September: 24, 2024  asked ifv we could send changes to the county attorney ifstafff feels they have made sufficient progress. Chairman Burner agreed. Staff was instructed to undo the combination of yurts and domes, reserve domes and temporary yurts to campgrounds, and find a way to allow yurts that are essentially stick- Ms. Grech stated that the committee is still trying to work on site plans. Itl has proven tol be al little Ms. Grech: stated they had their first meeting ten days ago. It was very productive. They have a good team, and goodi ideas. There is quite a high level ofe enthusiasm. People seem to be committed and enthusiastic. Wel have asked them to consider who the stakeholders might be and how we would proceed to engage public participation in thej process, which is a crucial point. We've asked the members of the subcommittee to familiarize themselves with the text, and we'll move on from there. Ms. Grech made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Turner seconded the motion. Chairman Burner adjourned the  built dwellings.  Zoning Subcommittee Report  more difficult than they thought, but we are getting there. D. Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee Report  Adjourn  meeting at 8:49 p.m.  Buyu Chairman  Aalc Jphred Burner,  Page 10of10