MINUTES October 8, 2024  PAGE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION  Members Present  Catherine Grech, Secretary, District 1 Jared Burner, Chairman, District3 William Turner, Vice Chairman, District 5  Chris Adams, District 2 Susan Kile, District 4 Tracy Clatterbuck  StaffPresent Josh Hahn Cassie Richards  Call to Order  Chairman Burner called the October 8, 2024 Page County Planning Commission Regular Meeting to orderint thel 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 ofAllegiance 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. Hahn noted that Ms. Grech's attendance would be addressed in the next item. Chairman Burner stated that Ms. Grech had notified him that she would be out oft the country and therefore unable to attend this meeting, inj person. Per our bylaws, we need a motion to allow for electronic participation. Ms. Kile made a motion to allow Ms. Grech to participate electronically. Mr. Adams seconded the motion. Chairman Burner asked all those in favor to signify be saying aye, and there were audible "ayes." He asked all those opposed to signify like sign, and there was no opposition voiced. Chairman Burner noted Ms. Grech was allowed to participate electronically. Mr. Turner made a motion to adopt the agenda as presented. Ms. Kile seconded the motion. Chairman Burner asked all those in favor tos signify by saying "aye,"and there were audible "ayes." He asked all those opposed to signify like sign, and there was no opposition voiced. Chairman  Approval of] Electronic Participation by Commission Member  Adoption ofA Agenda  Burner stated the agenda was adopted as presented.  Citizen Comments on Agenda Items  1. Susan Phillips: She stated her name. She lives on 275 Wynngate Drive in Luray. When her husband was living, they frequented Brookside many times a week, and it was like their home away from home. She always called it her Cheers ofl Luray, where everyone knew your name. She knows the Castles have been trying to sell this property for some time, and they finally have an interested party. Even though the venue will change, as owners oft the property, they have every right to sell, and the buyers have every right to change it from being a restaurant to af facility to. help people. She will miss Brookside as much as everyone else, but she is in full support ofthe Castles. She added that those who are opposing how the new owners want to use the property should pool their funds together, buy the property, and run the business as they deem fit. The aggravation and stress that this has unnecessarily put on the Castles and the buyers is beyond comprehension. If you didn't know where Brookside was, you would pass right by it without realizing. Not to mention the business that was right down the street where the owner was doing woodworking and then incorporated selling antiques and other miscellaneous items, including plants, and still did not make it. Iti is an eyesore. Why hasn't    Planning Commission Minutes- October 8, 2024  there been complaints about this in the abandoned building across the: street, where people cross back and forth over the mountain? [Regardingi issues with visitors comingi in)...thisj just doesn't fly. When you cross over coming from the mountain from Skyline Drive, and you cross over the knoll, you can'te even see where Brookside is. You only know it's there because ofthe sign. Again, if you didn't know that Brookside was around the corner, you wouldn't know it was there. You' d gor right past it, and wouldn'trealize ai restaurant was there. For the life ofher, she doesn't understand the grieft the Castles are being put through. She thinks ift they are listening - and she does hope they realize an owner should have the right to sell their property, and a buyer to use it as they want, as long as it falls under the countyguidelines, which this does. She thanked the commissioners for their time. She added that she has been a real estate agent for 34 years, retiring at the end of this month. She has never run into anything like this in her 2. Patricia Long: She thanked them again for another opportunity to speak. She stated their position is completely different than a buyer and a seller, because they have a lot more things ats stake. Everybody has a right to sell their property and do what they want, inj principle. But also, iti is [the Commission's]jobi to make sure everyone in the community benefits. And int this case, we don'tseei that. A group of us, next-door neighbors, already have the name ofal lawyer who can also give them better advice, but right now they prepared a little information = hopefully she can finish in her three minutes. We found that the Cox Property is supposed to bet the occupant for the recovery treatment center. The description ofthe services is toj provide housing to individuals who have or are at risk of harmful involvement with alcohol and other drugs. We're listening to what the management company wants us to hear, but in reality, what they present to [the Commission] really leaves al lot ofroom for questions. The SUPi isi intended for 50 years. What's scary here is that Cox Management Company and its assigns - we don't know ifl Recovery 180 is the umbrella. Who is the assigns? Cox Management or the other one. Int the assigns, for 50 years - it's scary for us. They have the right to lease, rent, repair, assign to someone else, or sell to someone else the property for a profit during the next 50 years. No further approvals would really be required, if [the Commission approves] 50 years. It's too much. The majority of the citizens, they are not here today, but we know that they don'tr really want this location fors such at type of business. So we: ask that [the Commission] hears what they feel are important factors ofmitigation. She stated she would quickly read some oft the reasons forrejection. Thej proposed business is noti in the Zoning Ordinance. That is whyt they are asking for a special use permit. It is not an easy thing to move along. [The Commission] has even rejected venues that are tourism-related that fiti into the capacity ofthe decision-making, so this is completely strange. Negative impact on current environment: that place can have potential adverse effects on the waterways, the wildlife. We're talking about special lighting. Scientists have proven that special lighting disturbs the wildlife in the natural environment. We can analyze a lot more. [Chairman! Burner: stated that her three minutes had ended.]Ms. Long noted that she didn'teven get to a third of what she wanted to say, but that she can provide copies of her comments, and hopefully the Commission can assess her comments. She thanked the 3. Gloria Hamilton: She thinks shel had spoken before. Pretty much her opinions circle around the type of facility it is. She has no problem whatsoever with treatment and recovery. She helped open the one in Stanley that we have now.. It's absolutely not about trying tol keep recovery out of this county. But the type and the location - she is concerned about it. She thinks we need more facts about exactly what is going tol happen there. What type of treatment? What type of residents are going to be coming in? She knows the gentleman explained some ofthat before, but she doesn't think there was enough information. When she read the thing, the 3.1 level facility under the behavioral guidelines, she is concerned about that, at that location, because oft the security. Herunderstanding is she noted: she may be wrong, and ifs shei is, she asked for  career. She thanked them.  Commission, and stated God bless you.  Page2of7    Planning Commission Minutes- October 8, 2024  someone to correct her - this isi not going to be court-ordered, which means anybody can leave there when they want to. These people will be coming from different places, not just Page County. Her preference would be, of course, because we have such al high drug problem here, people be from Page County. She understands, particularly if you are collecting Medicaid payments, you can't do that. You can't restrict it to just Page County. But those are some of her concerns. Ifyou're going to consider doing this, you need to have more: information about what the treatment and care is going to be at this facility. You can have aj jail - it's happened all over the State of Virginia = that's a secure facility...you still have drugs smuggled in and overdoses, and deaths. This can happen right there, as simple as can be. You' re right on 211. Shel loves Brookside Restaurant. She'se eaten there many times. Shel loves Cece andl her husband Bob. But she would be glad to help them find something else to go there, that they could make money off of. She doesn't think this is the place to be there. She asked ifa anyone had any 4. Bernie Miller: Hei introduced! himself, stating he is in District 1. He: stated hel has some questions about the Warrenton Wood drug facility that is going in the old restaurant. What is the normal capacity of patients, the maximum capacity of patients? Will the County's EMS and police services be needed a lot or a little, when they are there? Will the County need toi increase the budget for the EMS and police services for the facility? What is the facility going to look like from the road? Is it going tol look like ai retreat, or a drug commune? Remember, tourism is one of the largest incomes to Page County, and the tourists will be driving to and from to get to Skyline Park. What would be the reasons for patients to be removed from this facility? Where do patients go when they are finished? Do they go home, or do they linger in Page County? They have the legal right to place their business at this location, but 50 years [for the] SUP is too long for a business that is bringing in patients that could impact the County in a negative way. The SUP needs to be reduced to three years. Let the company prove they are a good neighbors. In three years, the Planning Commission will have a much better idea of how Warrenton Woods will impact the County, to be able to tweak the new SUP to better support the County and the provider. If one rehabilitation center is allowed in the County, and is profitable, you know that more is coming. Page County has the legal right to be restrictive to ensure Page County citizens are not negatively impacted by reducing safety, property values, or tourism. Once the company is allowed an SUP, similar companies may follow, good or bad. Please reduce the SUP to three years to allow the company to prove to the County that they are good, responsible neighbors. In three years, the company can then request for five or ten years. 5. Cece Castle: She stated good evening. She doesn'tk know what to say, because all of the things that have been said before her she thinks have been addressed, already..studied by [the Commission] in depth. People are making assumptions, presumptions, and wild notions. However, at this point, after working on this for over ay year, andi it being on [the Commission's) agenda for over three months, she simply wants to say thank you for [the Commission's) attention, for [the Commission'sl thoroughness, for [the Commission's] willingness to see to the needs oft the County, because [the Commission) is faced, she thinks, from what shel has seen here, endless tedium... she stated she would leave it att that. She thanked them very much.  questions - she would be glad to answer them.  He thanked the Commission very much.  New Business  A. Adoption of Minutes- September 24, 2024  Chairman Burner allowed some time for any necessary changes to be noted. Ms. Grech noted acorrection necessary on Page 4, second to last paragraph, the word "not" needed to be added to indicate that it was "not a free-for-all." There were no other changes. Mr. Turner made a motion to adopt the minutes dated September 24, 2024. Ms. Kile seconded the motion. Chairman Burner asked all those in favor to signify by saying "aye," and there were audible  Page 3of7    Planning Commission Minutes- October 8, 2024  "ayes." He asked all those opposed to signify like sign, and there was no opposition voiced.  Chairman Burner stated the minutes were adopted as amended. A. Brookside Restaurant and Gift Shop, Inc.- Special Use Permit  Unfinished Business  Ms. Clatterbuck referenced material that was included in the packet, including a memo dated October 3, 2024 from Mr. Janney. There was discussion at the last meeting on whether this qualified as a group home under the County's definition. She and Mr. Janney had talked about this before they had even applied, and staff is confident that this does meet the definition ofa Ms. Clatterbuck noted that staff had received feedback from the Commission regarding two conditions. She noted that there were no further changes to Condition 4, which addressed the patients being served. Condition 7: "The business owner and/or operator of the group home shall install and maintain an outward facing security camera system to monitor entrance and exit access points ofthe property. These cameras shall be set to record and: store all information onal locally stored hard drive, or cloud-based system, with all information to be stored, and not over-written, forai minimum ofs seventy-two (72) hours from the date ofr recording. The camera systems shall be regularly monitored to ensure the safety and security of the residents and the general public." Ms. Clatterbuck noted that the condition had been reviewed by the County Attorney, as well as the applicant, and all agree. She noted for the record regarding the last sentence of this condition, that the monitoring of security footage would not be the responsibility of the Zoning Administrator. The monitoring ift the security footage would be Ms. Clatterbuck read Condition 8, regarding the level of care: "This Special Use Permit does not allow the business operator to provide services at Level: 3.7. ASAM and Level 44 ASAM, as defined and set forth in Virginia Administrative Code (12VAC30-130-5140 and 12VAC30- 130-5150), i.e. the care provided shall not provide medically managed high intensity inpatient treatment for patients going through açute withdrawals." The County Attorney and the Ms. Clatterbuck noted they have received multiple comments from citizens. She reminded everyone that staff does not read these into the record, but the Planning Commission has received electronic copies, and hard copies have been provided. Ms. Clatterbuck noted that Mr. Janney and Ms. Castle were present. She noted that Mr. Rothstein was also available by phone. Chairman Burner asked the Commissioners if they had any comments, and they did not. He asked Ms. Grech via conference phone if she had any comments, and she stated she did not have any questions at this point. Chairman Burner stated at this point they've had this long enough, and he asked for a motion to proceed. Ms. Grech made a motion to recommend approval of this special use permit. Chairman restated the motion and asked if there was a second. There was. no second. Chairman asked again ifthere was a second to the motion, and there was no second. Chairman Burner stated that without a second, the motion could not proceed. He asked for an alternative motion, Mr. Adams made a motion to deny the SUP for Brookside Restaurant. Chairman Burner asked for a second to the motion, and Mr. Turner secondedi the motion. Chairman Burner asked ifthere was further discussion. Mr. Adams stated  group home. The applicant agrees, and this is what the memo addresses.  the responsibility oft the operator of the facility.  applicant's attorney have reviewed that language.  Page 4of7    Planning Commission Minutes- October 8, 2024  he has heard a lot of reasons, and he is trying to take his personal opinions out of this. He is trying to do what he thinks is best for this area and his district. He thinks 211, being a main tourist and county gateway, this is not a good use for that location. This is the main reason for Chairman Burnera asked Mr. Hahn to conduct ar roll call vote. The motion passed (4-1; Yes: Ms. Kile, Mr. Turner, Mr. Adams, Chairman Burner; No: Ms. Grech). Chairman Burner stated the Planning Commission has recommended denial to the Board of Supervisors.  his opinion and his motion.  B. Subdivision ofLand Ordinance Amendments  Mr. Hahn stated that per instructions from the Planning Commission, and the Board, staff reached out to VDOT, in particular Mr. Burgess and Mr. Nicely. He referenced some notes from that discussion int the packet. [There was al brief pause while some citizens left the room.] There were really two separate points: VDOT entrance approval for divisions before VDOT always aims to perform their review within a two-week time period. VDOT indicated 99 percent of the time it's within two weeks. They clarified that sometimes its stretches beyond that, but that's because, based on sight distance and other things they are looking at, they require further documentation from the applicant. That can be as speed study, a traffic impact analysis, or turn lane analysis. Some oft these have to be done by engineers, and that will prolong the process. A lot oft times they'll do a speed study as a service ifit's for a private residence. Ifit's commercial or something that is Some counties, like Rockingham and Augusta, will host regular or scheduled pre- application meetings attended by developers and VDOT engineers where al lot ofthis is handled ahead oft time. Mr. Hahn. noted that this is something Ms. Clatterbuck has been aware of for quite some time, and staffwill be attending one of these meetings in) Rockingham County's next meeting, depending on whether reviews are scheduled. Staff will report back to the Planning Commission after that meeting. Another reason it might take more time is during winter weather events when VDOT Staffa asked them, in their experience, how many other counties do not require approval for divisions. Page County was the only one they were aware of. They said there may be other more. rural counties that don't, but they weren't aware ofthem. VDOT just felt that ifit did go overt two weeks for any reason, those are probably the ones that need further review, and a default entrance approval is probably not in the Ms. Clatterbuck added that even with such delays, they still at least respond with Regarding functional rights-of-way, VDOT prefers new roads to be public roads in every case, but they think this is especially true for lanes that access three or more private residences. They cited a lot of reasons, some of which Mr. Hahn noted: buses aren'tallowed, inl Rockingham County at least, tot travel private roads, SO children need to walk or be driven to the end of the road; they don't do snow removal on private roads; and something Ms. Clatterbuck and he, as well as County Administration and  Mr. Hahn noted the following:  they are approved, and functional rights-of-way.  more complicated, they may require an engineer.  staff may be preoccupied with other tasks.  best interest of the safety of the County. something within the two week timeframe.  Page 5of7    Planning Commission Minutes- October 8, 2024  the Planning Commission, have experienced over the last several years, new property owners frequently push for private lanes to be brought into state maintenance aftert the lots have been sold. A lot oftimes they arej just assuming that it'sa aj public road. Specifically as it relates to functional rights-of-way, Mr. Hahn included some documents provided by VDOT. He summarized one ofthe documents:" ..in order for a street to become a part of the secondary state highway system, it must have a minimum dedicated width of40 feet OR in the event ofe extenuating circumstances, as determined by the Commissioner of Highways, have a minimum dedicated width of 30 feet. In either case, such streets must have easements appurtenant thereto that conform to the policy oft the Board with respect to drainage." This goes back to what Chairman Burner had stated at a previous meeting = it doesn't get much less than 40 Mr. Hahn referenced the draft amendments to the Subdivision ofLand Ordinance int the packet. He noted that the need for VDOT entrance approval for divisions seems obvious, though they may want to take. another look at it for 25-acre divisions. As for functional rights-of-way- that might be something they look harder at, with respect to decreasing from 50 feet to another number, with appropriate language regarding drainage, etc. He noted if this is done, they may want to consider adding language requiring that deeds state that this is not a public right-of- Chairman Burner stated this comes down to planning. IfVDOT says you have to have 50 feet, essentially, and you want to divide up a 200 acre parcel, but you don't want to put in a 50 feet right-of-way, did you just limit yourself on what you can do down the road, ifyou don't plan fori it ahead oft time? Don'tputy yourselfintoac corner to: not be able to sell: some ofthese parcels. He stated,, just for the sake of argument, they were to adopt something like sliding-scale, and you had a 15 acre lot and could only get three lots, ifthat's the number... a functional right-of- way would be okay with him in that scenario, because you're not going to go above the three lots, anyway. You're capped. But ifyou have a 200 acre lot and want ai functional right-of-way with 40 feet, but later you want to do more ofas subdivision process to get 8 or 10 more lots, and want to expand to 50 feet, are you going to be limited on that because you've already restricted your right-of-way? Chairman Burner stated this wasn'ts supposed to be a detriment - it's supposed to be a tool used for planning. It is okay to split your land up, but these are the steps you need to take. We are the only locality that does not have this requirement. What makes us any different? Mr. Hahn noted that staff didn'treally ask about the functional rights- of-way, as fara as how many counties have that. This might vary county-to-county. The entrance approval before divisions is consistent, though. Ms. Clatterbuck noted she didn't think VDOT would have much to say about the functional right-of-way. Chairman Burner added that there were concerns about the length of time it takes - if you allow functional rights-of-way, there goes your two weeks. It'll take ai month or longer for an engineer to come out. There was more discussion about aj path forward. Mr. Hahn expressed that this may need to be aconversation between the Board and the Planning Commission and staff. Chairman Burner stated that this is a difficult conversation when you look at this component, only. When you start to look at the broad picture of what's being discussed, it starts to make more sense. But we haven't had the opportunity to have that conversation with the Board. He can see where functional rights-of-way might makes sense with certain criteria, but he doesn't see that it would be used that much. There was more discussion. Chairman Burner noted that itjust boils  feet.  way and could not become one unless [they meet VDOT requirements).  down to planning.  Page 6of7    Planning Commission Minutes- October 8, 2024  Ms. Kile made a motion to request aj joint session meeting with the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Adams seconded the motion. Chairman Burner stated the motion was to request ajoint meeting with the Board of Supervisors to discuss subdivision issues. Chairman Burner asked all those in favor to signify by saying "aye," and there were audible "ayes." He asked all those opposed to signify like sign, and there was no opposition voiced. Chairman Burner stated the motion had passed. Chairman Burnera asked that we try and! have someone from VDOT at that meeting. Ms. Grech recommended David Atwood, who is currently serving on the Comprehensive Plan  Subcommittee.  C. Zoning Ordinance Amendments: Non-conventional Dwellings but not quite ready to be reviewed by the Commission. D. Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee Report  Ms. Clatterbuck noted that staff has been in communication with the County Attorney, as recently as today, regarding language related to tiny homes. Mr. Hahn noted that it was close,  Mr. Hahn noted the subcommittee had a second meeting, which went as well as the first one. They dived deeper into stakeholder and community engagement strategies, more specific planning issues and fundamental planning concepts. They discussed things they liked and disliked, including the organizational flow of the existing document. Staff is working on a marketing plan to bring to the full subcommittee. Our next meeting is Thursday, October 24 at  6p.m.  Open Citizen Comment Period Chairman's) Report Clerk's Report  Mr. Hahn noted there were no speakers. Chairman Burner had no report.  Mr. Hahn congratulated Ms. Kile and Mr. Adams for completing their Planning Commissioner  training and obtaining their certifications. Ms. Clatterbuck had nothing to report.  Ms. Richards asked for feedback related to an SUP application for riding stables. They reviewed the state code definition for agritourism, and discussed whether our definition of riding stables met this agritourism use that would be by-right rather than require an SUP. Chairman Burner expressed some concern that riding stables fell under the agritourism definition. After further discussion, he  recommended staff consult the County Attorney.  Adjourn  Mr. Turner made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Kile seconded the motion. Chairman Burner adjourned  the meeting at 7:47 p.m.  GllBen Jhred Burner, Chairman  Page 7of7