I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm going to do a little adoption of the agenda than approval of the minutes. Are there any comments on the minutes? Hearing none that'll take you into citizens time and then your public hearings. First public hearing this evening will be a special permit for Spatonis pizza 50th anniversary celebration. Ms. Marshall. Marshall. Thank you. Good morning. This is a category eight special permit for a temporary event for Spatoni's pizza's 50th anniversary celebration. It's two properties included on the application right off of Route 29 combined two properties just under three and a half acres. Part of the new Baltimore service district with the land use of commercial business and zoned commercial highway C2. Surrounding properties are also zoned C2, as well as RA across route 29. Predominantly commercial uses including 7-11, F. East Phores and Favorites, Northside 29 restaurant, McCray heating and air conditioning and metastorms nursery. The applicant's request is for a one day event May 31st,, from 11 a.m. to 9 p.m., which is their normal business hours. They're planning a temporary patio extension, live music. They anticipate a maximum of 100 attendees at any one time. They plan to provide two portable restaurant facilities and have an overflow parking area. The included conditions for your consideration that the event be authorized only for that day. It shall be approved by Fire and Rescue, Sheriff's Office, the Health Department and VDOT with copies of any approvals provided to the Zoning Administrator prior to the event. The grass parking shall be mowed and maintained prior to the event. No event parking or loading on Route 29 and personnel available to assist with traffic flood and parking. And they shall get a V out land use permit for special event signage. I'm happy to answer any questions. Any questions to staff? Chairman Meadows, under the guidance and advice with staff, I'll be recusing myself from this vote. Okay, thank you. She is recusing herself. No questions? None. Thank you, Ms. Maucho. Moving on. That brings us to special exception for a new Baltimore Fire Hall. Ms. Worley. Welcome, Ms. Worley. Hello, thank you very much. The application is two parts. You guys are welcome to stop me as I'm going along. If you have any questions, it might be helpful. The applicant is requesting a category seven special exception for adaptive use of the former New Baltimore Fire Hall building as a contractors office and indoor outdoor technical school. They're also requesting a category 13 special permit to allow a business office in the existing residential structure on the parcel adjacent to the fire hall. The properties are located at 5303 and 5317 Lee Highway in New Baltimore. The parcels together total 3.68 acres and are in the R1 residential zoning district. The parcels are generally surrounded by residential uses to the east, south, and west. There is village, commercial village, and commercial neighborhood zoning across the highway. Those parcels are in the village of New Baltimore and they include capital sheds, New Baltimore Animal Hospital, ABC Behavior Services, and other residential uses. To the Southwest, there is the Mill Run Business Park, which is zoned industrial and includes Pepsi Cola and other businesses. The designated land use for both subject parcels is office park within the new Baltimore service district. Do you need a moment? Yeah. Always. It looks like it's giving him access. Let's do this. Try this again. Okay. There we go. I'm not saved here. Thank you. The interwebs are struggling this morning. The service district plan for new Baltimore is included in chapter six of the county comprehensive plan. The goal of the office park area is to create a mix of business, education, recreation, personal services, and public and quasi-public uses. It calls for pedestrian infrastructure and includes trails and sidewalks and offers guidance for signage and dense landscaping to screen these businesses from Lee Highway. This highway is included in the journey through Hallow ground, National Scenic Byway. The comprehensive plan also calls for the preservation of such byways and state's development should not depreciate nor cause visual abtrujian along the route. As its name suggests, the new Baltimore Fire Hall was previously home to the new Baltimore Fire and Rescue Department until they're moved to their new Riley Road location in 2012. As a former public safety building, it is eligible for adaptive reuse with a special exception for the zoning ordinance. The applicant is associated with the existing businesses, brothers, mechanical services, and the Virginia Mechanical Trades Institute, which operates out of Manassas. They would like to utilize the first level of the building, which is the side that you can see from the highway, as a contractor's office shop and storage yard use for their existing business. The office would be open from 830 to 8 Monday through Saturday and have four full-time employees utilize the full area of that first floor which you can see on the bottom and have a small amount of outdoor storage. The applicant has proposed 10 parking spaces for this office use. On the basement level of the fire hall which faces Grey's Mill Road the applicant is proposing adaptive use as an indoor and outdoor technical school. The school would operate all days of the week from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., including two class sessions, one during the day and one during the evening. The proposed curriculum separates each class into a four-hour lecture and a four-hour lab. The applicant has proposed up to six instructors on staff with three present for each of those classes and up to 25 students per session, noting that this is their future goal and enrollment will be likely less in the early years. As shown in the submitted plan, the indoor classroom spaces would be on the entire lower level of the fire hall and also an enclosed area to replace the existing shed that you can see. Outdoor training would occur in the impervious area nearby the existing entrance on Graes Mill and outdoor activities would include brazing, cutting and troubleshooting of mechanical equipment. 23 parking spaces are proposed for this use. The applicant has indicated 315 passenger vans will be procured to provide transportation for students to reduce parking demand as necessary. The second portion of the application is for a category 13 permit to allow the use of the existing residential structure on the adjacent lot as a business office with six or less employees. The office would provide supplemental administrative and operative office space for the contractors office and technical school in the new Baltimore Firehold building. This home is currently owned by the applicant. The office would operate from 8.30 to 6 p.m. Monday through Saturday, the same days with the week as the contractor's office and roughly around the same hours. Per this owning ordinance, they could have a maximum of six employees, no equipment or material storage, and no retailer wholesale sales. The six parking spaces for this use are currently and will only be accessed through the fire hall parcel. This summarizes the associated site improvements associated with the proposed use. The two existing gravel entrances, the one directly off of Lee Highway and the one off of Grey's Mill, will be closed and re-vegetated to a natural state. The remaining concrete entrants there will remain and be brought up to V.Standards and a gate in Fencing will be added to the property. Landscaping and screening are proposed around the entire parcel and total applicant is proposing 39 parking spaces for all three uses. The Falkier County Water and Sanitation Authority has reviewed the application, the applicant would abandon the existing well-ant septic systems and then said utilize public utilities. This slide also represents the proposed improvements. You can see the proposed uses in parking, as well as the proposed landscape fovers and pedestrian easements around the edges. The applicant also provided examples of the five foot and seven foot high security fencing that that they will utilize. As part of the adaptive uses, ultimately the board must find that the proposed use is most appropriate, given the prior use and design of the existing building. The applicant believes the use of the basement floor plan in the fire hall would be useful as a training classroom space. The board must also find that the traffic generated by the uses will not cause an undue impact on neighbors or adversely affect the safety of the roads. Staff and V. have recommended the closure of the Existingly highway entrance because it's unsafe and it does not Meet the V. Standards. That means that the sole entrance will be located on Graysmill Road, which is designated as a local road, which is less than that major collector standard. Based on the applicant materials and V. Traffic counts, the applicant would be adding approximately 151 daily trips to that road, which is an increase of about 23% from current traffic volumes. Other items for the Planning Commission's consideration is that the zoning ordinance requires all adaptive use activities and storage be effectively screened from all public streets and land in a residential district. With the surrounding topography, the neighboring residents are higher than the subject property, with them looking down at the site, screening of the outdoor training and storage area may be difficult. The commission could recommend specific screening conditions recommended different location, or recommend these activities be prohibited. As you can see in front of you, the applicant has provided some response to the condition and is also recommending that a structure be used to help screen these activities. So you guys can look at that as you're considering the application. The commission must also make the determination that they're proposed adaptive use. It's compatible with the surrounding residential properties and that the items like the proposed site changes the hours of operation proposed staffing and class attendance are appropriate for the parcel condition should be recommended to address these concerns Staff has included conditions for your consideration and has separated these generally between each use The contractors office on the first floor would only operate in the fire hall property and would be limited to the first floor level. The condition would allow for the requested hours of 838 Monday through Saturday. I would also say that in the materials that you have in front of you, the applicant has requested that this be increased to six employees max. Outdoor storage would also only be allowed in the area shown on the plan and must be effectively screened for the applicant's request. Staff is recommended that only emergency lighting be used in these areas. For the technical school, similarly, it would only operate in the fire hall building in the basement level. The recommended condition would allow for the requested two sessions of classes, which with the maximum of three instructors and 25 students, with the minimum of 30 minutes between sessions to allow for parking circulation. The proposed condition would allow for indoor activities to occur during the requested hours of operation from 8 to 10 p.m., 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. all days of the week. However, staff has proposed that outdoor activities be limited to 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. with the requirement that all activities cease at or prior to dusk. There's the ones that have an outdoors. Staff has proposed that there be no outdoor lighting associated with any outdoor labs, classes, or activities. The noise generated by the technical school use would need to comply with the noise standards of the zoning ordinance. Proposed conditions for the business office and the residential home would limit operations so that it set to the requested 830 to 6 p.m. Monday through Saturday, per the ordinance it would only have six employees, no public visits to the office, and no retailer or wholesale sales or storage. The building must maintain its residential appearance, the property would continue to only be accessed through the new Baltimore Fire Hall parcel. Parking must be screened from the neighboring residents and no signage would be permitted. All landscape buffers and fencing would need to meet the zoning ordinance requirements. Existing vegetation is recommended to remain in place and be supplemented to improve its screening. The plant material along Lee Highway would need to meet the journey through howled grounds preferred plant pallet. The only entrance would be the existing concrete entrance on Grays Mill Road and the other two would be completely removed and re-vegetated. No parking, stopping or standing would be permitted on either roadway. The proposed security gate must be able to open and close while the largest expected vehicle is standing outside of the public right away. A site plan will be required. We received no letters of public comment. I'm happy to answer any questions. Any questions this day? Caitlin, can you on the applicant's request, the drawing, the last slide? Where is the existing septic and well? Okay. This property has been abandoned. Has not been in use for a while. And WSA has no problems with connecting. Okay, okay. So we connect both the old fire hall and the house. Okay. And then the security fence, the front parking lot, the 29 facing parking lot, yeah. That'll have the security fence and new vegetation. Yes. Because right now there is it's just a sloped hill. And then the I noticed in the aerial photos, there is a what appears to be either a runoff or a street like a run. I don't know. Is that a spring run or is that just a drainage, like when rain comes and everything? It is typically dry, it is, it is a wet weather ditch. Yeah, a wet weather ditch, okay. And they do not intend to do anything to that ditch, they will maintain it. Okay, so my second point, can you, because it's hard to see on the actual applicant request drawing how close the new store, the outdoor training facility gets to that wet weather drug ditch? Is it a good distance? I think that the intention is to put it where they have already proposed that they're outdoor training area which they were going to keep as gravel that shown in orange here. Okay. So right up against the driveway entrance. Yep, the existing cement driveway entrance. Okay. With the parking for the offices. Actually? Yes, it does. It says existing drainage did not to be disturbed. Okay. See that? Oh, yes. I just don't call it myself. Yeah, your eyes are seen. We need each other. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. The six parking spaces for the office, is there any way that could shift behind the existing dwelling? Or yeah? That does a great question. I think that the applicant is trying to keep it where there is a current gravel pad that is being used by the residential home. Okay. The goal was to reduce any disturbance as much as possible. I think that's all for right now. Thank you. Thank you for that. Some of us went on a site visit so we're familiar with this. But I would if you could show us where this structure is proposed is it where the gravel area is Exactly, it'll be here where it's orange and is it the same size is that I mean what's the the whole thing But it would be open-sided. It's just that would have a roof I believe that the applicant is proposing that one side be enclosed and the goal is to provide some screening from those houses that are up on the hill here because as you saw during the site visit they're pretty high and then be difficult to get it screened with just plants. So that's the solution? Yes. One side be enclosed meaning against Grays Mill Road? I believe so. But you would like to confirm that I take it. Yes, thank you. And the other thing was that when we were there to the left of the entrance at what is that? Yes, you were asking about those. We believe that they were existing for the fire hall for fuel storage. They're not currently used. The applicant is not intending to remove them because as I mentioned, they're trying to reduce the disturbance. If you would like to see them removed, you could add that as a condition. But what are the old fuel storage containers? Above ground, or on the below ground? Above ground. Thank you. Any other questions? The outdoor structure, to have one side sided, it just seems design-wise, I don't know, it just seems like we're going to put siding up on one side of a building and then three other sides are going to be wide open. I understand the main, like a garage, I understand the main walk-in but the back side and the side that will face the highway just, I mean, we're going to side one side, side the whole thing. If I can comment on that, this is an adaptive reuse of an existing structure and there is nothing in ordinance about adding additional structures for the training facility. This is no longer outdoor storage when they put it underneath the roof. It becomes coverage storage and it becomes another structure. The ordinance would permit them to do a 30% expansion on the existing building. But there's nothing in it that says additional structures can be utilized for the adaptive reuse. And again we just saw this last night so we really hadn't had a chance to delve into it to give you comments on it, but that's just the initial take on what they presented. Thank you for that. Did Georgia have thoughts on that? Huh? Do you have thoughts on that? Well, I have thoughts on them, but then yes. Okay. But I have a question as well. The enclosed technical school structure understood was going to come down. I'm wrong about that. The existing shed will be replaced in kind. But not expanded? I do not believe so. So that could potentially have a 30% increase. Am I right, Amy? Not each building, the entire site can have a 30% increase. All right. But the point is that instead of having this additional structure, there's one structure now that could potentially be used. Its use could be increased by some factor. What percentage, sorry? Amy, what percentage does the outdoor structure, that's the image that's here? What does what percentage not have a high chance? I have an high chance again to that. Okay. It's 2730. It's 2700 square feet. What's? It's 2450. Okay. Length and width. Do we know? They don't say. They don't say. I will note that. I was returning an area of 2,250 square feet. No, I want length and width. And height. I will note that the proposed structure is supposed to just encapsulate and kind of replace that gravel area that is shown on the plan currently. They're really just trying to address the screening concerns. So 30% of the fire hall structure would be about 2,239 square feet. Okay. then that puts this structure out of compliance. Well, again, it's not an expansion of the structure. It's a new structure. New structure. Okay. That they're proposing. And that's not allowed as an adaptive reuse. Well, it's not adaptive reuse if you're adding a new adding any shots. I know, I'm asking, I just want to yes or no. That's not allowed if it's an adaptive reuse or ask what they're asking for. Thank you. I got a question, Kate, about the business office. The business office is currently residential or it is okay. Yep. Does that help? And still just a special exception. That will be the special permit part of this. It's a special permit, okay. And related to that, the, um, it talks about, um, and I'm not looking at the language right now, but not having public, client, or student visits there. So what are they going to be doing in it? Supplemental office space for the technical school. I would assume like admissions and things like that. So no students could go to the admissions office? I mean that's what I'm trying to understand what's being requested. The intention of the condition is not to allow public visits to this so that it is any reduced impacts the students would primarily be in the school in the Basin of the Fire Hall. We can certainly adjust that if you want to. Thank you. Any questions that we need to get answered before this evening? So I'm sorry, I just keep going back to the Southore structure. So if it is not permitted under the adaptive reuse, then what does it become? Is that another special exception? Is that a special exception? It's just not allowed. Again, they can have outdoor storage. They're proposing instead of outdoor storage, a covered storage building as part of the technical school. But the technical school is the adaptive reuse in the building. So again, if they want to expand the building by 30%, they could have an additional addition to the building to use towards that outdoor component. But they're still calling it outdoor, but it's still covered in a still structure. Right. So then technically this outdoor structure cannot be included in this special exception request. Correct. And then they haven't shown it on the plat. They've just done a letter requesting it as a change in condition. Thank you. Thank you. Moving on. So it doesn't look like we lined up the agenda very well to give Ms. Warley a break. The next one is special exception for the Bridge Church expansion. Thank you again. I'll give you a moment Mr. Freeman to get your slides. Okay. I'd like to begin by saying that there was an air in the public advertisement for this application so the commission is unable to act on this item this evening. The vote will need to be postponed and the item can be added to a future meeting agenda. I would recommend that we that you will choose to vote to keep the public hearing open and you can choose to move it for at least 30 days. If the applicant agrees to it, they can postpone for longer. Okay. The applicant is working to address our staff concerns on this. So we are asking the commission to provide appropriate feedback to the applicant so that they can have your input and direction for how to make these updates for future submittals. The Bridge Community Church is requesting a category 13 special exception to allow for the expansion of a major place of worship. It is located just south of Oranton on James Madison Highway and the subject parcels total 33.78 acres. It is split-zoned agricultural and rural residential and the designated land use is rural. In rural areas, chapter 8 of the County Comprehensive Plan calls for the protection of environmental, cultural, and visual resources, open space, and scenic beauty. The use must be found compatible in scale and intensity and not pose any harm to the public health safety and welfare. The bridge is surrounded by agricultural and residential zoning and Trinity Baptist Church is located across the highway on a rural residential zone to parcel. The bridge also owns two adjacent residential parcels and there's an open space conservation easement on the west. Back in 2010, the bridge received BZA approval of a special permit permitting an 18,900 square foot church with the 250 sanctuary and 150 parking spaces. This project was put on hold and never constructed due to changes in church leadership. In 2015, the church received approval of a new special permit with a slightly increased footprint in parking lot. Another special permit was approved in September 2018 to address to add additional parking and to add new conditions addressing lighting and screening the visual impacts of the church from surrounding properties. This was amended three months later to revise conditions related to that parking. The requested category 13 special exception would allow the applicant to expand the existing church building by 7,800 square feet to total approximately 28,000 square feet. This would be achieved by adding a 39-foot wide addition onto the southern portion of the building. And a 34.5-foot wide addition to the north. The applicant is also proposing a port-causher on the eastern face. Sorry, can you, what is that? That is where cars can drive under, and it will covered. Okay. It's Carport. Thank you. Yeah. And and the height on that portico port, whatever port, Cousche. Here is the provided elevations by the applicant. So it looks a little bit less than the okay. That is to provide covered parking to get people out of vehicles on Sundays and during events. The additional space would increase the seating capacity of the main sanctuary from 394 to a potential 499 and it would increase the children's classrooms and youth spaces to allow for 160 people. The additions would create new classrooms, restrooms, a media room, storage areas and would expand the white box youth meeting area. This proposed expanded minstery center building would allow for the existing three Sunday services, which happen at 830, 1015 and noon, for a combined total Sunday attendance of 1875 people. In addition to Sunday services, the applicant is requesting children in youth activities twice a week, regular adult activities such as immense breakfast or women's brunch one time a week, and worship team practices once a week, special events like weddings, funerals or fanquets would be held as needed, typically no more than once a week. The applicant indicated that when special services are held for Christmas or Easter, which are typically very well attended, then no activities are typically held during those weeks. The applicant is also proposing a new barn style multi-purpose building for maintenance storage and overflow activities. Based on data from the septic report, this building would have up to four grounds keepers and maintenance personnel, no more than four days a week, not on Sundays. Other instruction training events and other overflow activities would have a maximum of attendance of 150 persons per day, or 450 people per week. To accommodate current and future growth, the church is proposing 148 new parking spaces to bring the total to 333 for both the existing building and new proposed barn building. They believe the proposed circulation would create multiple routes for parking, reduce congestion and remove the current dead end parking bays. Additionally, the church is proposing to shift the existing entrance of the property, just shown here, to the north a little, so that it can raise an elevation and improve sight distance for vehicles exiting the property. There are proposed septic expansions and improvements onto the existing Ministry Center building system. The septic system is proposed, a new septic system is proposed for the new barn building. The stormwater management of the site will need to be updated to account for this additional impervious being added to the plan. When making a recommendation to the board, the planning commission should consider several aspects of the application. The wastewater characterization reports that were submitted with the application materials provide an in-depth analysis of the number of individuals and the resulting amount of waste water that's generated. But it did not provide information to demonstrate the proposed drain fields or reserve areas are feasible. The applicant has indicated that this information has been studied and it was inadvertently not included with the submitted materials. Additionally, with the various documents and reports submitted, there have been some inconsistencies and ambiguities about the proposed frequency of events and number of attendees and the height of the proposed barn building. The applicant has indicated that they will review and verify the materials in recent min. B.Dot has commented the shift of the existing entrance as shown does not demonstrate improved sight distance because there is missing information. The applicant will provide a comparison between the current sight distances and the proposed site distance with the improvements and also provide this information. The property is surrounded by agricultural and residential properties. The commission should evaluate if the proposed intensity of this expansion to the existing major place of worship as well as the scale and the design of the structures is compatible with the surrounding properties. It should be noted that with their previous approvals of the special permits, the Board of Zoning Appeals did determine that its use at its previous scale and intensity was consistent with the comprehensive plan. The included conditions for your consideration restrict the application to what has been submitted by the applicant based on the provided materials and as I mentioned they will be trying to address any of our concerns with their next submission so we would love your input on these. The proposed expansion is limited to what is shown on the plan. The buildings may only be used for activities all out while under the major place of worship designation. The main ministry center building is limited to the square footed shown and it will have a maximum of 2,440 visitors per week total based on the data provided in the wastewater characterization report. There would be a minimum of 30 minutes between services to allow for parking lot circulation. The new barn building would be barn-like in its in-style and limited to a one-story with open loft. Any changes to the main driveway entrance would need to meet the V.O. requirements. The applicant must also verify that the lengths of the turn lane into the property and the turn lane south of the property where many of the church members you turn in order to travel northward on the highway are sufficient. The Ministry Center's septic field would need to be expanded and improved, they handled the proposed number of occupants during the week. Additionally, any resort areas would need to account for this increased square footage, and a new system would need to be installed for the barn. Additionally, the parking would be limited to the area shown on the plan, and the church would be required to provide parking attendance on Sunday services, which they currently do, and for any activities with 250 people or more. Buffering and screening would be required for the zoning ordinance. These, the included language is generally what is shown in their previous special permit, and it uses the language of fast growing evergreen trees, 15 feet on center with a mix of heights. Staff has recommended lighting conditions consistent with the last special permit. Placing restrictions on building mounted lights. A maximum of 14 foot tall parking lot lighting and the use of pedestrian scale ballered lighting along the pathways. I mentioned that the subject systems would be expanded and improved and must be sufficient for the church needs. Emergency access would be maintained and the church must demonstrate adequate water for firefighting purposes. A site plan will be required. We've received letters of comment from a nearby property owner. I'm having to answer any questions. Ms. Warfield, any questions? Yes, I have a few. So first of all, the barn-like structure, it says it's described in several places as one story plus a law. But the activities listed for that are many activities involving people. So I assume it's actually a second story because it's basically an event venue. Is that your understanding? It is unclear based on the submitted materials. They've indicated that one fourth of the building will be used for maintenance and storage. Okay. Well, they do less in their activities, weddings, funerals, and appreciation banquets. So, and that is for those who listen for the new space, the barn space. And so they have not submitted anything yet to resolve the insistencies and inequities on wastewater. No, man, we met with them last weekend. They intended to hear your thoughts and then we submit. Okay. The, and the height, and we know the height of the barn and the height of the additions to the existing structure. We know the height of the existing structure additions. Those will be the same as what is currently there so just an expansion of those heights and then the barn building we are unsure of the height. What's the height of the current building? That is a great question and I don't have the immediate answer I could look at my materials. Yes you can generally see it. What's the max height on a data center? 45 feet. This would be the R.A. zoning which is 35. 35. I would imagine that the team building thinks that the additions would also. Sorry, Jenny. That's fine. The architecture is sewing 21.5 feet. Okay. Thank you, Amy. It says that this additional, the barn like structure is going to have a maximum attendance of 250. That's just for the barn like like structure right because the church existing structure has a much higher maximum. Yes. And are they currently conducting events other than the church services that have that many people? Yes, but those happen in the existing building as no other building is currently on the site. Okay. I know we have proposed conditions for the screen landscape screening, but I understand there has been some issue since this was initially dealt with the maintenance of the landscape screening. Can you speak to that at all? It is conditioned in the plan that it be maintained and that all Dead plantings be replaced in kind Ultimately, I would defer to the zoning administrator on how those are up kept and how it is Maintained yes maintained and Monitor enforced there you go. Thank you. Yes. Is there a time limit from the time that the landscape you guys offer and have to be replaced? There is not a time limit. Again, it's the responsibility, the property owner, to maintain the landscaping. If we're made aware that the land savings is dead and we will go out and do an inspection and cite the property for a site plan violation for allowing it to die. But we don't regularly make site visits for that purpose. The D language puts the onus on the property owner for maintaining landscaping per the site plan approval. And if I get the correction, the maximum height of that building is 29 foot 10 inches. One part of it is 21 and a half feet. Okay. Thank you. And just had a question. Oh. So this new structure is that going where now there was a utility building and now they've I've added without a permit of some sort of cardboard two-story size cardboard. Yes, staff is in communication with the applicant. We are hoping that they can loop that building into this application so that it can be properly permitted as they go through this process. Well, so it would stay and then the barn-like structure would be in addition to that? No, both of those existing buildings would be replaced by this barn structure. Okay. But there was no permission sought for either those structures. I noticed the name and gravel and so those buildings that this work builder speaking about is back here. The aerial is actually not showing them because it happened more recently. So just to get this into black and white, if this application is denied, then what happens with the illegal structures that are there? They would need to be properly permitted through our office or they would need to be removed. Okay. But they would have to be approved to be permitted. Is that correct? Sorry. We'll'll speak to the The structures that need to be shown on the special permit plat and a site plan in order to be permitted and they are shown the one structure the smaller structure is on the previous special special Special permit plat however the use of it is not identified on that plat It does look like there's been some renovations to it since that time The additional gravel pad was not shown on the site plan, so all of that would have to be removed unless there are approved with another special permit plot. I apologize. She's not there. That's okay. I would appreciate it between now and tonight we could be shown on their proposed site plan where these un permitted buildings stand right now. I agree. I mean we have two un permitted buildings that as I understand it on this property right now. I want to see them on the site plan. You're correct that they're not shown. I can try to track them in. Thank you. As far as parking traffic, I didn't notice V. says that they don't expect that the moving of the driveway increases the sight line in any way or doesn't improve the traffic. Based on the materials that were submitted, that is true. Okay. So that's presented as a reason for, as a supporting reason for the moving the driveway and allowing the extra traffic with 78 extra trips and extra parking. But if it doesn't improve the sightline then that is invalid. And I see that they've allowed for more parking then our regulations would require is that because they expect there to actually be more traffic than they're projecting. I do not believe so they would be limited by the building capacity and that's generally in compliance with the parking that is provided. With the church having three services on Sunday they do experience a lot of overflow. People leaving church and people coming in, it's not one for one, it takes a while for people to leave. So that is why they requested this. That's all I have right this month. Sorry. No, go ahead. Am I correct in understanding that the original in 2010 never came before the planning commission? Correct. And it would have gone to the BZA at that time. Okay. Was in the historical records, is there any mention of future potential plans of expansion from 2010 to okay do we have what was said at the time or what back in 2015 and 2018 it was mentioned that they could have this secondary entrance I wonder the applicant has been through a couple submissions us. There was a secondary entrance exit that was proposed with the third submission that has gone away. That's the path I wanted, the historical path I wanted to head down. Yes. If, may I enter? Absolutely. I yield the floor. In that period of time, there was a second exit that was proposed. And if memory serves me right, it was down a V.O.N.Path. And then in their knees. Mr. Chairman. The second entrance went to the south through two residential properties owned by the applicant and then a third residential property and would have lined up with the median break. Correct. When we started this discussion with the applicant, that was the first path we explored for the entrance improvements. The southernmost property owner did not wish to have that entrance or onto their property, so that can have us taking that off the table for the time being. We did, there is a V. our county right of way in between the church building and the two residential properties owned by the church. That becomes problematic as it is public right of way. We need to be directed to a public street standard. It could never get off bond because it would only really serve two uses, not three. Would it ever be extended to the back? We don't know. We explored it vacating the right of way. That becomes problematic because there are other properties that ideally could use that for access should that road ever be constructed. So we came back to the modifications to the existing entrance and just to clarify, it's not that V.Dot has said it doesn't improve the site distance. They said it hasn't been demonstrated how much it improves the site distance. As of when we did the approvals in 2018, they went through and added another layer of asphalt to the existing entrance to bring it up into the intershow. It is just barely meeting the site distance to the north at the existing location. with the proposed location, the elevation changes to a couple feet higher. So in theory, it would improve that site distance to how much or to what standard has not been adequately demonstrated at this time. Well just for the consideration of the commission, that second entrance exit that was proposed to be sought was a reasoning for the church expansion. And in my opinion, without that, with that being eliminated as a possibility, it really affects what happens with the single current entrance. So that's kind of my thoughts on it. Thank you. And the reason being, a lot of that traffic has to come out, go south and use the median to make a left to go north. And that proposed second exit would have put the traffic in line with that median. So that was a huge concern at that time. And also you cannot make a U-turn at Lover's Lane. Those that are going north that want to use a U-turn to go south, then they can't use that. So. It's really bad sighting there. It's horrible. It's just coming up from the, where the light at the college used to be. It's just terrible. Another question I had. What is the smallest square footed, what is the smallest square footage data center we have in the county right now? We don't have one in Wellington yet. Be the OVH in Bent Hill, which is 83,000 square feet. Okay, all right. I was just trying to do comparison between 28,000. Okay. What is the exact number of people at each and every single service time? We've had difficulty clarifying those numbers. The best that we have is what is submitted in the statement of justification. Adult activities, I know how many times per week does each one of those happen? The male groups, the female groups, the children's groups, each and every single time. How many times? The statement of justification provides a little bit of background. Typically, say that the quarterly, it is quarterly for the men's breakfast and for the women's breakfast. And those are the only, and then there are youth events that happen weekly and the worship service practice, worship team practice happens weekly. Do we have numbers for each of those? Provided in the the Okay. The I saw a number in here Caitlin somewhere of a potential maximum of upwards of 600 people at one time is I don't know where I saw that and I lost it and now I can't find it. It could be that so the number of people that are in the main sanctuary that is proposed to be up to 499 those are typically adults and so when you add on the 160 children in the Children's Ministry Center. Okay. Okay. At least 100. Obviously the larger services would be Christmas and Easter services. What are the exact head count numbers of the past that they have had? They provided some input. They said combined attendance of 1100 on Christmas, I believe. Those were provided in the statement of justification. But 1100, there would never be enough part, then where would you? 1100 divided by three. Divide by three. Divide you divide by three okay which I would note is lower than the 499 seats that there okay I did see something about okay the multipurpose building are they're going to be offices in that? And they're not indicated. Not indicated. Would this also be a building that allows? So if there's a wedding in the church, will the reset keep it all on one piece of property? Will it be a reception in the multi-purpose building? It is unclear based on the materials. OK. Other retirement parties know. Will there be how many restrooms will be in this multipurpose building? I do not know. That was not submitted. Will, is there an intent? I notice there's a large space next to where they have multipurpose building as proposed outdoor activities, outdoor fields, has there been, are there outdoor activities now? That was not mentioned in the statement of justification. Okay. And we don't know the length and the width of the building, we don't know the height of the multi-new multipurpose building. What materials will the new driveway going all the way back? What will be required in the site plan? For the driveway, the one that starts on lane all the way back around. Yeah. It'll be ashtalt. I would assume it is asphalt to meet the existing. I think not gravel. I would assume no. Okay. And then, I answered the question of the existing maintenance buildings. I did have a question about emergency vehicles and their ability to navigate this back to the barn, the new barn. Yeah, I guess there's no cul-de-sacs in the new parking lot. But the new parking area does end up almost even with the building, even with the building. Sorry, I'm now at the church building. I'm back up. So all it dead ends go down. Currently yes, it dead ends. But it, oh, so will it connect? Now they are proposing a convention. Okay. Then the other question, there were several concerns in the letters with regards to the sight lines and also additional properties that the church is acquiring as far as expansion to additional plaps that have been acquired. Is there anything about that? The church currently owns the two residences that are to the south of the property, so this one and the one that is adjacent. Okay. They're used for residential purposes now for visitors and pastors. Okay. And the lighting, it does seem like if lights are added to any of the new structures, it will be all of the residents behind the church will have blaring lights into their property consistently in the evenings. Per the zoning ordinance and the standards we are trying to reduce the height to 14 and they would be required to be inward the relief. I believe or not Go down they would point down so that they don't like down like me to be shielded and down and facing Sorry, I have a lot of questions I'll stop for right now until I can find the other one if somebody else wants to go. If this were to go through one of the conditions, I think I should be that it's a non-reflective roof on the barn. I personally like metal roofs myself standing seen, but I don't know even if you get it in ammo like black it's I think it's still shines so it shouldn't be something maybe asphalt or something like that shingles that that won't shine won't reflect rather so that was one of the concerns of one of the neighbors. Look at how that wording is a condition. If I can go back to lighting for a second. The way they have this rendering right now, they are not showing all the way around the building circulation. I am sure that they're going to have a emergency exit or something on the backs out with maybe a sidewalk. But there doesn't seem to be any reason for them to have any building-mounted lighting except for maybe over-the-doorways for emergency purposes. So you could conditions something about effect that there shall be no building mounted lighting except for that on that side of the building. Which would help on the other side not seeing building lights. All right. The water, are they on well or are they on, okay, are you on well? Yes, well in drain field. Where is the drain field? Can you show on the, so the existing drain field is here? The purpose expansion is just north of that, west west of that okay, and then the drainfield for the barn building will be up here And now they are they require to have 100 200 to 300 percent reserve 200 percent reserve to 200 200 percent reserve But that is one of the elements that we don't have clarification on yet. Yes. Our soils staff has mentioned that they did not receive the required materials to understand if the reserves and proposed ring field are adequate. Any other questions? You had some more. Yeah. It's okay. It's okay. Go ahead. No. Any other questions? Just remember we cannot we will have a public hearing but we cannot act on this tonight and I'll ask you if you want to leave it open Yeah, I'm sorry about it. I do want to ask one more question the The drawing shows an existing drainfield and the proposed drain field expansion. Would that bring it up to the required 200 percent? It is unclear. Pardon me? It is unclear if it would, based on the cemented materials. Thank you. And what, sorry, back to the septic, what are the requirements to be in compliance with the scope and size of what they're proposing? What needs to? I have learned a lot about wastewater. There's a wastewater characterization report that you can read for both buildings. So that provides the numbers that are being generated based on the proposed number of people. Okay. And that's our package. It is. Okay. Waste water characterization report. Thank you. And the open space is off limits, correct? Like it's not purchasable. It's not touchable. I'm not familiar with what you're referring to. The adjacent parcel to the list. The adjacent parcels, those are not. They would not be able to be used for this purpose if they were to purchase them correct. And they could not be, if one of them was purchased, it could not be used for traffic routing. Correct. They're not in common in space to the border supervisors. They're only permitted to be agricultural uses that are found in 3-318 Would not be be able to use for traffic purposes for a commercial use or industrial use I'm sorry if I'm just in the materials, but the the county holds the easement on the land to the west Yes, they're non-common open space. Yeah, yes, the county is the counties. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank you Okay, any other questions? Moving on. Thank you Ms. Worley Okay, that brings you to special exception for weaver'sville road and supplies Good morning. Welcome. The property is located at 11003 Weaver'sville Road in the Beilton service district and the Lima Lee district. It is one acre in zone row residential with a land use of residential. The applicant is requesting a category 20 special exception to allow the installation of a private individual sewage treatment system which discharges into an open ditch to replace an existing field drain field. The surrounding properties are owned, rural residential and agriculture, and have residential and agricultural uses. The home was built in 1960 and has been fully renovated it with the last five years. Property currently has a conventional septic system installed in the 1980s that has since failed. The Virginia Department of Health issued an intent to deny a permit for a conventional replacement system as there was found to be insufficient area of suitable soils for a new drain field in the required reserve areas on either the subject property or any neighboring properties. Although located in the Beilton service district, the public sewer connection does not extend to Weaver'sville Road. The proposed system has a treatment capacity of 450 gallons per day, meeting the requirement for a three bedroom home. The system will be equipped with a treatment system alarms and remote telemetry for communication with the service provider, well as an event counters and flow meters to ensure that the system remains in compliance with discharge limitations. The system will undergo all required formal startup testing during the first six months of operation and ongoing compliance testing thereafter. The property owner will enter into a maintenance and monitoring agreement with the licensed operator. The applicant has stated that installation will result in improved groundwater quality and allow the continuation of the existing residential use. The quality of the effluent released into the environment will be comparable with that of recreational waters. The effluent exit the home to a new 1,000 gallon septic holding tank for settling then passed through an aerobic treatment unit for initial treatment and filtering and an ultraviolet disinfection unit to eradicate harmful bacteria. A pump line will then move the treated epilogue across the property to an aeration chamber, and from there it will be released in two and approximately 260 foot, five foot engineered discharge ditch, which extends to a natural spoil at the property line. The applicant has stated that it is unlikely that the treated water will ever exit the property given the length of the proposed discharge ditch. The included conditions require that the system will be designed for discharge at an average flow of less than or equal to 450 gallons per day, serving the maximum of three bedrooms. All septic systems, septic tanks will be abandoned for VDH requirements. All water fixtures including washing machines will be connected to the new system. The operation maintenance and performance and monitoring of the system will be in accordance with all regulations and a maintenance and monitoring contract will be retained at all times. A water effluent meter and remote telemetry alarm device will be installed on the system. I'm happy to answer any questions This is in lead district and I finally do this a it's a necessary remediation for this dwelling So I've got at this point the zero issue. I got zero issues with it Any questions Thank you Moving on. Okay, Mr. Chairman, that brings you to a special exception for Deer Ridge LLC, Ms. Marshall. This is a Category 29 special exception for Deer Ridge LLC. The property is just over 53 acres located off of Courtney's Corner Road in Sumerdock. The waiver of the public street requirement will be for a five-lot subdivision. The property is owned RA surrounding properties are also owned RA and then RR2 to the east and to the south. Predominantly residential and agricultural uses all served by private wells and drain fields. The private street will serve three new residential lots in a residue. There is a previously approved administrative division access that will be accessed from the new private street and then an easement to the stormwater management lot from the private street as well. Zoning ordinance, typical private street section, the proposed private street will meet the private street section found in the zoning ordinance. It will be approximately 800 feet in length with a cul-de-sac turnaround at the end and a 50 foot wide easement. It's an 18 foot wide road with one foot shoulders and six inches of compacted aggregate base with two inches of stone asphalt tar and chipper and other similar surface. The included conditions for your consideration are all very consistent with other private street special exceptions you've seen. The entrance designed and constructed to meet all applicable V.O. standards. The street shall serve a maximum of five residential locks in the stormwater management lot. The design shall meet all the zoning ordinance standards. A private street maintenance agreement shall be recorded. Add a quick ingress and egress for emergency vehicles shall be maintained at all times. The private street easement recorded for the previously approved administrative division shall be vacated prior to construction plan approval of the new subdivision and then the use shall require a construction plan and final plan. I will note an outstanding issue that was highlighted in the staff report that V.O.X. fresh concerns at the pre-application meeting regarding the proposed private street and its ability to meet the V.O.L. volume commercial entrance standards The applicant did not demonstrate the ability to meet these standards, but their special exception materials. V.O. to concerns have been reiterated, and you all may wish to have that information demonstrated to ensure the private street can be constructed as proposed prior to making recommendation. I'm happy to answer any questions. Any questions? We didn't go bad. I'm sorry, I think. So the rest do a lot. Is the big blue one? Yeah. Well, it will be able to be able to have a left. Yes. It will be able to have a resident and then we'll be put under a non-common open space. That's where you get your resident. Yes. And B.Dot has a concern and it's not been addressed, but in the conditions we have made allowances for that, that this can't happen unless they meet all V.O.T. standards. Is that correct? They would have to demonstrate that with the construction plan approval. So it's whether you all want that demonstrated prior to approval or if you are comfortable making the recommendation if the board were to approve and then it just be down and treated. I have any problem because we have the conditions that it can't be done unless they meet them so I don't know how anyone else feels about that. Well I think being consistent with what we've done in the past is important. So yeah, great. Okay. Maybe we go on. Any other questions? I'm sorry. Okay, that will take you to what will be your final public hearing this evening. And that is a special exception for Vint Hill's self-storage and his wife. Thank you. Welcome again. Thanks. The applicant is seeking approval of a special exception to allow the construction of an indoor self storage facility in excess of 50,000 square feet in the PCID district. The properties are located at the corner of Kennedy Road in Edmore Court in Vint Hill, approximately four tenths of a mile south of the intersection of Kennedy Road and Vint Hill Road within the new Baltimore service district. The two properties total over just over 7.8 acres in our zone into PCID in an area of Vintil designated for commercial and industrial development. The surrounding properties are zone PCID in agriculture and have commercial and industrial or agricultural uses. The property is subject to the Prophers and Codive Development Associated with a rezoning amendment approved in 2018. The Vint Hill Conservancy has reviewed the proposal and provided a letter of support. Last year, the Board of Supervisors approved a zoning ordinance text amendment requiring special exception approval for any new structure or group of structures serving the same enterprise with an aggregate footprint exceeding 50,000 square feet in the PCID district. The purpose of the special exception is to evaluate larger scale proposals prior to development and if deemed appropriate require conditions to minimize impact on surrounding properties. The applicant estimates the business will consist of two employees and serve an average of 20 customers per day. Oops, I skipped a page. The proposed indoor self-sourge facility has an aggregate footprint of approximately 170 square feet, a total of six buildings, including approximately 31,300 square foot building, which is building number one on the site area, housing the business office and climate controlled indoor storage units with an adjacent 5400 square foot overhead canopy. An additional five buildings housing exterior access units which range a size from 3,600 square feet to 3,600 and 540 square feet. Access to the property will be from Edmonds Court via two gated entrances with a gated storm water management access on the north side of the property. The perimeter landscaping will be provided in accordance with zoning ordinance requirements. The applicant estimates the business will consist of two employees and serve an average of 20 customers per day. The proposed office hours of operation are from Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. and Saturday from 10 to 5 p.m. for customer rentals and limited retail sales of packing materials. Customers will have 24-7 access to the building's gated area in individual units via a touchpad code or electronic key card. It will be an estimated 44 vehicle trips per day including employees, customers, and delivery vehicles. In lieu of the existing stormwater management, easement, a new easement will be dedicated to provide access to the stormwater management lot to the north. According to the applicant, the largest proposed building, which is approximately 3,600 to 540 square feet, is scaled to accommodate larger storage items for tradesmen and other such users. However, the zoning ordinance limits self-storage to personal property and household goods only. Accordingly, staff has included a condition limiting storage to these types of goods and included another prohibiting indoor or outdoor storage of RVs and motorized vehicles or equipment, which is not unproduced in the PCID district. The Planning Commission may choose to recommend additional conditions related to the size of this proposed building as it deems necessary. Also, the main building housing the business office on the southwest corner is intended to simulate a 20-foot tall office building with double-storey glass storefronts. Given the height inside of these windows, interior lighting may impact neighboring property owners in the county's dark-stay objectives. Staff has included conditions for your consideration requiring a glazing in the upper-story windows to prevent light pollution and limiting visible interior lighting to the proposed hours of operation. In the zoning ordinance limitations, it says only personal property and household goods, but it says it's scaled to accommodate larger storage items, for tradesmen and others such users. So a business can't rent one of these. Is that correct? Yes, according to the zoning ordinance, that is what is permitted. We are just stating what they proposed in their statement of justification for the size of that. As you can't operate a business that of a storage unit. Well, I'm not talking about operating a business. A business can't store anything in there. So what happens is they're operating out on the storage unit. Because if they are bringing supplies back and forth from a storage unit, they're offering their business from it. Okay. Did you clear that up? That would be prohibited, right? Okay. So an office can't store files that are not needed any longer in one of these units. Can't put an extra cash. That's not a contractor or tradesman. That's not a contractor or tradesman. I'm thinking about the personal property part of this. Extra office furniture. So that, you know, whatever. I'm just... That's different. That's office supplies. Like, that supplies. That's not, again, what we have is, like, contractors using these as places to repair their trucks. Or, at one point, we had someone that was a, um, seems, seen guy that made, um, awnings and things. He was operating out of a storage unit. He had a generator out there and he was sewing up onnings in the so it's Things like that. So again, it's storage of items Can't be mechanical So again, I don't think we're gonna question office supplies or something that's a personal property That's where this language in the in the staff report through me a personal property? That's where this language in the staff report threw me because personal property can use everything from my eyeglasses to my cot. So where I'm struggling now is an outspend some more time on this this afternoon. Is the, it seems to me that what we really are wanting to condition is the use versus what can actually go in the building. And I don't know if that's constructive or just not maybe naive. I'm sorry, I asked the question. I think that's a good question. The proposed condition is based on the language in the definition of a self-storage unit. And the restriction on motorized vehicles and equipment and RV storage is also based on that. The applicant has been informed that they may seek an additional special exception. Should they choose to want to store RVs on the property? But that is outside of this approval. Unfortunately, they cannot ask for that special acceptance, it's not permitted in PCID. Oh, yeah. Okay. So, if I am a personal property owner and I own a 1986, 560, SAEL Mercedes convertible, I cannot rent one of these storage units, outdoor storage units, to store my convertible Mercedes. I'm not motorized. Okay. That changes the use of the storage unit because of the flammables that you have inside of it. And so it's a building code issue as well as a zoning issue. What if I'm an interior decorator and I store a unit and I store all my fabric samples, all my drapery samples, all my carpeting, all my rug samples. And only when I have a client and I go to pick up the wallpaper samples or whatever is that operating a business out of the storage unit? I don't consider that operating a business out of the storage unit. OK. But again, we have. So again, I, you guys are asking me hypotheticals. We were not going to know what is going in there. So we had to go and plant about it. The big thing, of course, is RVs, motorized vehicles, things like that. And actually, again, operating, we have, again, we have people doing mechanical work inside of these things. We've had them turned into man caves. You know, where there's a bar set up, and that's not the purpose of a storage unit. So we're trying to limit what's gonna happen based on past indiscretions, I guess. I was so innocent. What are you saying? And I, you know, I don't want to scare everybody to death, but you know, in the environmental community, we know that sometimes people put barrels and barrels and barrels of hazardous waste in these facilities and then walk away from them. Just saying, you know, these especially ones that are like at how we interchange and that kind of thing. And I don't think that this is a danger here, but we, the zoning administrators' concerns about what activities are we talking about. You know, we know that that's a real issue at the same time. I'm struggling with the notion that, and I'll look at the language again. I thought when we had a very good site visit out there, that I felt very good about the proposal. I haven't had a time to spend as much time on the written materials as I'd like to, but to the language around what can and can't be stored there is something I think we all need to think about. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. In addition to the limitations proposed conditions related to what may be stored and the interior lighting, we've proposed the conditions limiting the office hours of operation to those proposed 10 to 6 Monday through Friday and 5 10 to 5 on Saturdays. The gates will need to be designed and located so that traffic can enter and exit without stopping and add more court and emergency vehicle access will be maintained at all times and access boxes will need to be installed at all gated entrances. Any other questions? I had a question. I looked at the architectural runeers and the ones that further down that had the trees. I thought that looked really good. But then when you take a left on head more court, the trees basically stopped. Because it's somewhat because of the configuration of the office building right there. It kind of sticks out closer to head more court, so there's not a lot of room there. But anyway, I'm just thinking about loud. It got real good trees on the front, but then once you go down the head more. And I was looking at not this at the buildings, Dan Blower, and then went to the far end of that, where there's a road that goes between two buildings, and they had some large trees between those, which I thought was good, but anyway, not the architectural renders. I don't have them all. So this is the one on the left is from Edmore Court looking at that larger storage building we were talking about. I don't know that, well, the top one, you can see there are some trees that wrap around the corner on to add more port in front of them. Maybe a little too big of a second to be good to have the tall trees won't further down. Okay. Some of that is limited by the location of the parking area and the existing entrance and the entrance into that area. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions? I do. I have two really quick. What is the black fenced area behind this proposed, the two fenced? What are those? I couldn't. I'm not sure which. On the back side. Part of the wastewater. Oh, okay. Yeah, there are two storm water management lots. Okay. One to the north where you see the octagonal pond. Yes. And then one to the rear. Those are existing storm water management facilities. And then the, what is the line of sight from the Macintosh? There's a small housing development off of Macintosh and then whole parkway. What is the sight line? Did they sit higher? Did they sit lower than this proposed? Still land rises behind this property across the drainage area. That is up there at the corner of Vint Hill Road and Vint Hill Parkway is the proposed site of a new data center. Okay. So I don't, I'm not aware of any residences off McIntosh Court. Oh, no, I'm sorry, I'm just looking. What is the existing structure? Those existing structures were, I've been Hill Parkway and McIntosh Drive. This are federal government buildings. Oh, okay. Oh, so they don't care about cyclists. No, and then the data center will be between these self-storage units and the Veterans Center across the street, and then there's residential housing. Got it. Okay. Thank you. Okay. You have other questions? Thank you. They're the white, but so that's the FAA, that building right there, that's the FAA building, then across the street, Cadi Corner from that. Nope, that's OVH. That one right there is a federal building. I'm probably about that far the top corner. That top corner. No. Top right hand corner? Yes. Right here. Keep going. Right. Right. Go right. I'm sorry, I'm not talking about you. Listen, right there. That. This is the... No, no. There. To the right. Right there. That's the veteran center. Okay. That's the veteran center. Okay. That's the veteran center. Okay. That's the veteran center. Okay. That's the veteran center. Okay. That's the veteran center. Okay. That's the veteran center. Okay. That's the veteran center. Okay. That's the veteran center. Okay. That's the veteran center.ations were withdrawn so the appeal and that that was the better battery storage in Morrisville Oh those applications that was withdrawn the appeal and more as well. Oh. Those applications that were drawn, the appeal and the special exception. Slated for you all next month. We did have a break for several months, so this month is busy and next month is looking to be busy. Of course, you'll have anything that you don't act on this evening. You cannot act on the bridge, but it sounds like they need to make some revisions anyway. Then you will have ag and forest addition applications. And potentially a zoning ordinance text amendment as it relates to boards and committees. The board initiated this text amendment several months ago just asking staff to look at boards and committees that aren't required by the Code of Virginia. So we're looking at those. With me, I have the names written down, but I don't know what the applications are. Oh, here, I paid them. Oh, I'm sorry. George Brown property item you want to jump in? Yeah that's a private street waiver. Two lots of division. Where is that? We have another discharge system. Great marsh. Great marsh. The event facility that you all had approved a few years back is back for an amendment and to increase their number of events and extend the time limit for renewals. And then you all have received an email that we will have a work session introduction to the Remington Data Center, also known as Gigoland, that set of applications that will be ready for public hearing in June. In Great Marsh, we'll just expand and remove time limit. Or yeah, they've asked for additional events beyond what was permitted the last round. And then asked that the time limit be perpetual or potentially either longer term than what was granted in the past. Have they corrected? Yes. We'll wait. I'll just have a box. As of right now, I mean they did complete all of the items that they were lacking the last time they went around. So they have put in their drain field, they have built their parking lot, they have done all of those things, they had not done. I need to check on compliance with, whether we've gotten a list for this year to see that they're compliant with notification. But as of right now, they have done everything they're supposed to do. Okay. That concludes my announcements. And would you just a work session on Gigaland? Yes, just an introduction to the set of applications. Okay. I have just a comment about, I don't know, Chairman May. Just may I please? I have a comment or concern or thoughts about recent statements that have been made with regards to this Planning Commission passed members and just the three of us now that were part of the denial of the Aarrington property and the implied most recently at a town of Warranton meeting, it was implied that there was something fishy that we did by denying that application and I'm just curious if we need the county attorney to review each step that we took. Elected officials made the implication that we did something by delaying the approval. And I just, I take issue issue I think everything that we did was Absolutely by the book we followed the comprehensive plan we followed all of our Guiding documents and Take issue with that statement that this commission did something untoward And I don't know if there's anything that can be said or done I I would have to say, I would have to know in what context it was, whether it was something that was set as part of a social setting or whether there was really an allegation where they are questioning the judgment that you all have made. It was in a public meeting. It was in a public meeting. Correct. And they were questioning the choices and or judgment that the past commission made. I can say that it's my recollection that everything that you all have done has always been according to the code and the law and it has always been above board. Certainly if somebody has an issue that there is an opportunity I believe to express those concerns before the board of supervisors, you all, if it was a comp plan review or I don't remember which but the style of the application was, but typically the planning commission acts provides recommendations you don't remember which style of the application was, but typically the Planning Commission acts, provides recommendations. You don't vote on anything, so you don't have the capacity to change anything. You can certainly make your beliefs articulate them before the public hearings and such, but it is ultimately the Board of Supervisors that has that power to make those decisions. I think if somebody would have had a concern that they could have brought that up at the Board of Supervisors, but again, you're an advisory body recommending the thing. So I don't know. I'm happy to look at it if you want to give me some additional information to look at it further But again, it's my recollection that everything you all have consistently done has always been according to the law and a book board and You don't think there are any questions that They should question your judgments Mr. Chairman just to elaborate on that this body I heard that proposed comprehensive plan amendment associated with Aarrington twice. The first time you all postponed action, primarily due to some concerns from the town not being aware of the application moving forward. When that came to staff's knowledge, we looked through, we did notify the town as required by the state code for the public hearing. We did later by hand but not within the timeline allotted. So whether intentional or unintentional was appropriate to postpone that action so that we were surely to have advertised or notified the joining jurisdiction appropriately. The second time when you all did recommend approval of the comprehensive plan amendment, that daytime was properly notified. And then later when you all recommended denial of the rezoning, that also was properly notified. In all this has to do with the air and the application, correct? Correct. The town council who was sworn in in January has wavered on their support from the previous council. I believe there's a special meeting next Tuesday to further discuss their pitch up on July adjustment. Thank you for bringing that up. Yes, you're. Anyone else, any other commission, say anything like to share? Then we are adjourned to this evening. Thank you.