I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm sorry. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm sorry. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm sorry. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm sorry. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. So these are all one everyone. Yeah. Yeah. So some would you share it? I guess we are. Yeah. Yeah, we're sharing. They're sharing. So if your partner is talking talking you have to be quiet Good evening everyone. The December 5th, 2024, Loudon County Planning Commission special work session will now come to order. As is our custom, please let us stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you all. Pursuant to the code of Virginia section 2.2-3708.3 and the Planning Commission Remote Participation Policy Commissioner Jasper has requested to participate in this meeting by electronic communication. As required by law, physical quorum of the Planning Commission is present in the boardroom and the commission has made arrangements for the voice of commissioner Jasper to be heard by all persons in the boardroom. Commissioner Jasper made this request within the required time frame and the county attorney has determined that commissioner's request meets the qualifications to participate remotely. The commission will record in its minutes that commissioner Jasper participated remotely from her residents and loud and due to an illness. Okay, we have one item on our agenda. We're going to jump right into it. Work session item number one, CPAM 2024-001 and ZOM, 2024-001. Data center standards and locations phase one. I am going to take a moment to give you guys some procedural thoughts before we start our discussion. We do have a couple of extra seats at that end that can be filled either by staff who need to come up to answer a question or if we call folks up from the audience, those seats will probably, those people will rotate and change so they're not permanent seats. But there is a microphone and an end spot there for someone. If we are not having any presentations aside from staff. We are going to ask everyone commissioners and our attendees before we start the discussion just especially with the shared microphone situation as well. We're going to ask you to keep, commission, keep side conversations to a minimum. Please don't interrupt each other if possible. It's a little, I think it's a little more prone to that in this environment and setup, but it is important that we not talk over each other for those who are participating remotely and at viewing at home as well as for ourselves. So please keep your microphone off unless you've been recognized. Feel free to give me a hand signal. I'll try to keep an eye out for those, and I will recognize folks. If you're in the audience, we're gonna ask you to practice some discretion if there's statements you don't agree with or you're concerned about. In past meetings, we've had some rumbling in things, and not only is it disruptive to us, it's picked up on the recordings and staff and everything else. So if you could, if you need to have a side conversation, please leave the room to do so. And so we can try to get through this evening with this little distraction as possible. Okay, our goal tonight is as it's been at the last couple of meetings where we've taken up this item. We are not going to have a finalized motion at the end of this today, but we are going to have a lot of discussion to continue to build the framework that will guide staff as they put together that motion for our future review. So again, really the focus tonight is information sharing and gathering for the commission. So all right. I think we are ready whenever staff is ready. I'm told it's all you. Chair Frank. I'm just thinking one second. I just want to recognize Mark Stoltz tonight. We know that he's going to be leaving us soon and him and I have shared 29 plus years together and other buildings in this building. And I just personally wanted to take him in case I don't get to see him again publicly to tell him. He's thinking so much for all his dedication and service to the county and to the citizens of Aladdin County. Thank you, appreciate it. We couldn't resist one last stop. One last opportunity, yeah. Good old retirement. Yeah. Yeah. Good old retirement. Much, much deserved retirement. And we. Command in the waters fine. So we couldn't resist one last opportunity to spend some quality time with you. As a commission so thank you for indulging us tonight. We're ready. Good evening commissioners. Again my name is Abdul Jaffrey and the'm the county's project manager for data center of CPM and Zoham. Tonight with me here is Mr. Dan Gilinder, director of planning and zoning. We have a very short presentation for you tonight. We'll have a presentation from our county attorney's office. There will be some questions for our industry partners. And then I'll provide brief summary from our last meeting, which was November 26th, Planning Commission work session, and also decision points for planning commissions the year. We have a meeting with the Government on November 26th, planning commission work session and also decision points for planning commissions that is that staff is seeking. Very briefly, again, when we met last time on November 26th, executive director from the economic advisor was here. I spoke about to the commission. We also stopped provided that meeting digital and printed maps that displayed land use distributions in each playstypes and zoning districts. The meeting, the commission endorsed the proposed amendments to redesignate Goose Creek Club from Leesburg, GLMA, employment in playstypes from Leesburg, JLMA, employment in place type to Leesburg, JLMA residential commission also requested additional time to evaluate proposed CPAM and so on. Text amendments were and commission discussed the possibility of providing additional recommendations to the board of supervisorsvisors, which was included in the staff report. For tonight's staff, this is for some of the decision points that staff is seeking, is for commission on the CPAM Tech Amendment and the Commission recommend approval of the proposed Tech Amendments to design designated data center as a conditional use in all playstipes or recommend denial to retain them as a core use or complementary uses in certain playstipes. On the zone tax amendment staff is seeking the commission recommend approval of the proposed tax amendments to designatedate data centers, especially the exception used in all permitted zoning districts. I recommend denial to keep them by right in certain zoning districts. So those are the outstanding sort of decisions. The staff is seeking that to conclude my presentation. And now I pass on to you if there's any questions. We are just one thing I will ask is as we're going through the items on your agenda, I think the input from others is probably going to be woven throughout the discussion versus its own separate item in the between two others. So we'll just, there's no formal place for it, but, uh, I think it'll happen organically. So just to set expectations. We are certainly ready. Thank you. Commissioner, if you'd like to check your email, you do have a copy of this presentation that was just distributed to everyone as well. In case you'd like to follow along that way, although it's a little easier to see the screens tonight now down here at least. Yes, it's just yeah, about 10 minutes ago. Good evening. Excuse me. Previously I was requested to briefly or to provide a presentation on vested rights and grandfathering along the lines of what Courtney presented for the adoption of the zoning ordinance. I am just going to try to quickly present background information on vested rights and grandfathering. I ask that we hold off on questions until the presentations over and then we can open this up for discussion with both Leo and I. And this presentation is just intended to be a broad overview. I'm not going to, I'm going to try to avoid delving into specific some particulars at this point. Briefly, just to open this up, the terms vested rights and grandfathering unfortunately are seem to often be confused and end up being used interchangeably in conversation. However, vested rights and grandfathering are two separate and distinct legal principles. Vested rights are legal rights that result from an approval obtained prior to a zoning ordinance amendment. Vested rights are statutory and the two main provisions dealing with vested rights that we're going to discuss tonight are Virginia Code 15.2 to 307 and Virginia Code 15.2, 2307, there are three criteria for a land owner's rights to be de-invested in the land use. The first criteria is the land owner is a beneficiary of a significant affirmative governmental act for the development of a specific project. A lot of time, significant affirmative governmental act is just abbreviated as SAGA. That's the first criteria is you've gotten approval of a saga for a specific project. Second is that the developer or the applicant has relied on good faith on that approve on that saga. And then the third is that the applicant has diligently pursued the specific project that was approved or that was the subject of the saga. Virginia Code Section 15.2-307B deems several actions that are basically conclusory sagas. The first two bullets here deal with basically any kind of preferred approval of any kind of preferred rezoning. So that's going to be a Z-MAP or a ZCPA. The third bullet, special exception approval. Fourth bullet is approval of a variance. That's probably not going to be too relevant to our discussion. Fifth bullet here is approval of a subdivision plat or site plan. The subdivision plat's probably aren't going to be too relevant to our discussion, but site plan certainly will be. And then the last saga set forth under 15.2207B is a zoning administrator determination that can no longer be modified or reversed under 15.22311c. And that basically says that after 60 days, unless there's been some kind of fraud or misrepresentation that the zoning administrator can't change their previous determination. The determinations are typically going to be z-cores, but I think in the past we've also been held to be issuances of zoning permits. The second statute that deals with vested rights is 15.2 to 303B. This section deals with proper conditions. And essentially what this section says is that approved proper conditions or applications, I guess it's going to be ZMAPs, ZCPAs, with approved proper conditions that deal with the dedication of real property of substantial value or substantial cash payments for construction of substantial public improvements, the need for which is not generated by that application itself are provided protections under the law. Once an applicant has vested rights in their development proposal, the county does not have authority to restrict or impair the land owners' vested rights. In other words, they can develop pursuant to their previous approval. In order to determine whether or not vested rights apply, typically applicants work with staff to hopefully resolve an issue for one of these applications that has obtained Asaga prior to adoption of the zoning ordinance amendment. If a, well, it goes both ways. Sometimes if a resolution can't be achieved, the applicant will ask for a determination. The determinations are issued and consult by the zoning administrator in consultation with the county attorney. If the applicant doesn't like the determination of vested rights, that can be appealed to the circuit court. Sometimes however, applicants also just want the determination issued. Everything works out with staff or with the zoning administrator, county attorney, everybody agrees, but the determination is issued just as kind of documentation of that result. That ends the discussion of vested rights. Now we move on to grandfathering. Grandfathering is a discretionary action by the Board of Supervisors at the time it adopts an amendment to the zoning ordinance. And the discretionary action is to exempt certain categories of pending applications from the requirements of the zoning ordinance amendment. Note, importantly, grandfathering applies to applications that were pending at the time of the zoning ordinance amendments approval that meet the criteria of the board's grandfathering rules. Grandfathering does not apply to an entire projects or applications submitted or accepted after the zoning ordinance amendment is adopted. Grandfathering or the ability of the board to adopt the Grandfathering resolution is set forth in Loudoun County zoning ordinancemore in Section 1.102G and I'm not going to read it, but also importantly the board is not required to adopt grandfathering rules for every or even any zoning ordinance amendment. The decision of whether or not adopt grand fathering rules solely at the board's discretion. If the board chooses not to adopt the grand fathering resolution or if an application falls outside of the rules that forth in the grand fathering resolution, these pending applications would be governed by the new zoning ordinance regulations, and that would be unless they have separate vested rights that they've achieved, or there are some other statutory protections that they are able to take advantage of such as the RU 28 tax district regulations. If grandfathering doesn't apply, the applicant will need to modify any pending applications that have in order to satisfy the new zoning ordinance requirements. And in some instances, the applicant may even determine that those new requirements render its development proposal no longer feasible or attractive and basically abandon their project. So in summary, vested rights and grandfathering are two distinct legal principles and the terms, please try not to use the terms interchangeably. Bested rights, again, are statutory. They arise according to state law and are based on approvals obtained prior to the adoption or the saga obtained prior to the adoption of a zoning ordinance amendment. Grandfathering is a voluntary action by the board that allows applicants to continue processing certain applications under the regulations and effect prior to the adoption of a zoning ordinance amendment. I'm also going to touch on some other zoning ordinance, well not just zoning ordinance, state law, Virginia code and zoning ordinance and other county ordinance provisions that are, I guess, germane relevant to this discussion and these other provisions deal with prior approvals. The first one is Loudoun County zoning ordinance section 1.102, I'm sorry, 1.02 E1 that deals, it's titled existing special exceptions and variances. This section of the zoning ordinance deals with the first part, subsection E1 deals with development, or how development in accordance with an previously approved special exception is treated. The second subsection E2 deals with lawfully existing uses, or these would be permitted uses that have obtained the necessary approvals that become special exception or minor spectrum use as a result of the adoption of the zoning ordinance amendment. Section 1.02.f deals with development in accordance with zoning permits that were approved and also I believe site plans that were approved prior to adoption of the zoning ordinance amendment. Section 1.02J deals with development pursuant to previously approved applications involving profit conditions. So that's going to be your zoning map amendments and zoning concept plan amendments, ZMPAs. Section 1.02M deals with previously approved development in accordance with previously approved site plans and basically kicks you over to the code of Virginia. Code of Virginia provides a period of five years of validity for a site plan. You can get extensions to site plan that five-year period are authorized both by Virginia code and as well as the LSDA, Vlian subdivision development ordinance. And this would also provide some protection from, to a previously approved site plan, from an amendment to the zoning ordinance. Lastly, oftentimes, I guess, once a use pursuant to vested rights or grandfathering rules, once that use has been, I guess, developed, they're administered as a nonconforming use. And so section 103 of the zoning ordinance deals with nonconformities. The two sections under the under 103 that I think would be, again, most relevant to the conversation is 1.03.02. That deals with nonconforming uses. I just put up here some bullets dealing with how the expansion and discontinuance of nonconforming uses are treated and then the other section is 1.03.03, which deals with nonconforming structures. And this deals with the ability to repair or replace a non-conforming structure. And I guess importantly, it does provide, so you can increase, or I guess, expand in large and non-conforming structure as long as, generally speaking, as long as the degree of nonconformity is not increased However, you know, there is a distinction between the nonconforming structure and the nonconforming use Just because you can increase the size of the nonconforming structure doesn't necessarily mean that there's a corresponding increase permitted for the nonconforming use that might be located inside and That concludes my presentation overview. Happy to answer any questions that you may have. All right, thank you, Jason. All right, commissioners, we're gonna go ahead and I'll let kind of questions and discussion happen freely. I'm not going to firmly adhere to three minute time limits unless we find that that's necessary to keep us moving tonight. But I am going to try to avoid going back to the same people ten times. So try to be a little organized and thoughtful if you can with your questions and comments. I know we have questions and comments on this topic. Does anybody want to start? Mr. Barnes. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. On grandfather, in fathering provision, what about a business exists under the grandfather laws, whole business that are existing before the town even or the county even had zoning ordinances and all that and the business exists. And they are trying to pass it on to their son or trying to sell the business. How does that grandfathering applies to the new buyer if he continues the same business at the same place. Okay, so to start off, I'm going to assume that the business was legally established to begin with and either predates the zoning ordinance or met all zoning ordinance requirements. 70 years ago, yeah, no county had some businesses that old or longer and they pass it on to the children or sell it. And but it's not approved. It's no zoning ordinance has been passed on it. So how that works, if they sold it, and the new guy comes down and keep on doing the same thing. Well, I don't necessarily think that grandfathering would apply in that instance. And also, generally speaking, I think that the new owner can continue the business. Won't deal with vested rights or grandfathering unless there actually is a change to the zoning ordinance. An amendment gets adopted. That new owner should be able to continue their business. I guess it would certainly, if there was an amendment to the zoning ordinance after that new owner, or even prior to that new owner taken control of the business, I don't need, again, I'm not even sure vested rights or grandfathering would apply. If that business was legally established by that point, they would just continue as a nonconforming use. I'm talking about some of the stores in small towns like Round Hill and on that area outside. Commissioner Barnes. That's going to be outside of the scope of what we're doing tonight. But I mean, I think it's a- I think the relevant question that Jason answered is, you know, the business can be sold. It can change hands without that impact in their status. Okay, excellent. Commissioner Myers, go status. Okay, excellent. Commissioner Myers. Come on. Okay. Okay. A couple of questions. Is this okay, close enough? Okay. A couple of questions is one is in the past I've worked a lot with the other side with the downed zones and different things we've done, zoning ordinance and rewrites. Has the county really ever not done some type of grandfathering when they've redone elements are parts of the zoning ordinance? There have been a number of amendments without grandfathering implemented. Usually the larger like the county wide ones that we do, there's usually grandfathered associated with it but there have been a number of them. Can you give me a couple, just a couple examples? I'm just trying to figure out the grander, I guess, to the implementation of it because to me, like if I follow the sudden, you know, this is an entire use that we're talking about to me. That's a whole, almost sub-chapter of one of the parts of the zoning order. So it's more than just a use or a non-conformity type of thing. So I'm trying to get a grasp of what was the element of when we didn't grandfather something. From my recollection most ordinance amendments don't have grandfathering. The ones I can remember is like the remapping and resounding or the ordinance amendment we did in 2003 and then the one we just did in 2023. Now the board on some occasion has delayed the effective date of ordinances to give like applications that are in process, chances to get through. So there have been some of that done. And that's not considered grandfathers? No, that's not grandfathers. That's just delaying the effective date. So one way to look at this is kind of, I guess, like they did with the cluster that they just did. They may not really take effect until March of this coming year in order to give people that were in an opportunity. So you could either look at it where you delay the effective start date, or you could look at grandfather either one as potential options. Is that- Yeah, I would say that. I don't know if Leo wants to end it. It looks like I'm in a way. I do an easy distinction between vested rights and grandfathering is you vest to a use. You grandfather an application. And the thought is that an application has gone so far along in the process that when you're making a substantial change to your zoning ordinance, like when we did the Zor, you would have a grandfathering resolution. Most zoning ordinance amendments don't. And you look at an application that has gone far enough along that the board's going to allow that to proceed under the law prior to the change. And so that could be done by some objective standard. That objective standard could be the application was submitted prior to the Roya being adopted, trying to a public hearing before the Planning Commission prior to the public hearing before the board. I've even seen grandfathering to say it has already received subdivision or site plan approval. Why would you say that would be grandfathered, well then you don't need to meet the other vested rights tests of substantial alliance and expenditure substantial funds. So grandfathering is really a legislative decision when you're adopting an ordinance to decide that so many applications have reached a point in the process where they should be able to proceed under the prior ordinance. And I appreciate that. And I guess the real thing here that I'm trying to deal with maybe it's just me is, you know, there is no real, in some cases today, the way that ordinance exists. People don't need a legislative act because it's a by-right use unless they're doing certain things that require that. So how do you then look at this that there could be, and we've seen there are, there's ones in the pipeline right now that would be by rights or there wouldn't be necessary a legislative act at this point, but they could have invested lots of money based on the criteria that's here. So, you know, in that way is that where you look at then delay of an effective starting date or is that where you look at if somebody's been, if somebody's been accepted under the permitted use and they're in the process, you allow them to continue under that. If I'm asking it correctly. I hear you. Let me first express the concern about delayed effective dates. And there's a court case out there that it was overturned on other grounds. But if you delay the effective date, it calls into question the public purpose for making the ordinance change in the first place. Why would you delay an effective date for a year and let all those applications come in? That's why you use grandfathering. Those applications are already in and there is a public purpose to adopt the ordinance at this time. So I would use grandfathering rather than delayed effective dates. And then with grandfathering, the Board of Supervisors makes the call as to what point in time or at what point applicants have spent enough money and reliance under the old ordinance that they want to say they can continue to proceed under the old ordinance. And I would say make an objective. It needs to be a date. It needs to be an approval. It needs to be an approval. It needs to be an acceptance. It has to be something that you can document objectively because the worst thing is a subjective test. I agree, 100%. Two more questions. Can I ask or am I out of time? When we're talking about again because right now there is many cases unless they're looking for increased FAR buffers and those type of things. A lot of these cases can be done by rights. Again, the data centers we're talking about in certain areas except for PDOP. So, and a lot of these are done in phasing. So you could have a particular part of a site plan that's been approved, but not gone to the next one because your development and you're developing it in a phased approach because it's also more cost effective to do it that way. So what happens in that particular case where it's kind of the same bubble but only a third or half of the bubble's been approved, you know, does that next one then become a special exception because it didn't get the site plan approved even though it was part of the overall project if that makes sense. Okay, so this is where vested rights do come in as opposed to just grandfathering. If you had a rezoning application that indicated and there's substantial reliance on the rezoning application where you spent funds, cash proffers, dedicated land, mates improvements that aren't directly related to your development. Then the use is provided in that rezoning would be vested rights. They would have to then be approved under the then existing ordinance in place. So even though you may be developing in phases and had maybe one data center approved under the the 93 revised and then you could have one be approved under the the ZOR. You can continue to develop and the ordinance that's in place at that time with control your buffers and the other amenities and features on the site. That part I completely understood, I'm talking about a piece that was by right. So there is no proper, there is no rezoning. It was a regulatory kind of process that occurred that didn't require a public process because if you're not in the PDOP and you're not asking for a different general of the buffers of those type of things, you could be developing where you're doing that also in phases because it's more cost effective. So what happens to those applications that don't have necessarily a legislative public approval, but have an approval from the county for part of a whole project? So the law that is adopted, repeals and replaces the old law. There's only one law in place. We no longer have a 1993 revised ordinance. We only have the one that was adopted in 2023. If you have approvals, the significant affirmative governmental act, then you're vested to continue in your development. If you have land that was by right, but now requires a special exception, then that law is the law that applies. You would need a special exception. So you have 100 acres. Just make this easy. You have 100 acres, and it's a by right development. Out of that 100 acres, you've broken it up into three phases just to make this easy. Each one's 33, 33, 33. So you've got your site plan approved and record and everything on your first one-third. It's all part of the same track. But you haven't processed yet because you maybe don't have that end user. You haven't put that building in but it's not a public process. But you've got this building two and three that's all based on the overall plan that you had. So you're telling me now that this building two and three that's all based on the overall plan that you had. So you're telling me now that that building two and three, even though it's on the same property, would now require to have a special exception? Yes, based on a by-right use that would now require a special exception. And if you didn't have an application pending, then there would be no grandfather. I would say I'm not sure just for clarification. If those other phases were part of the crew site plan, everything was shut. Then they would be under the same significant governmental act, the Westine protections. But we understood you to mean they got the site plan for one phase. Right. And then came in later, needed a new site plan. That would be needed aspects first. But if they got later, needed a new site plan. That would be needed to specs first. But if they got everything done on the original site plan and showed everything, then that site plan would be the governmental act that would be vested. So as long as it showed all of the phases. Okay. And then just one more question then I'll stop for a while. I promise. An example would be we had an application here not long ago for a data center that came in. The real reason why they came in is because a road had been relocated and it made sense that they had to move buildings around to make the road work because it was on our transportation plan that shifted. So in this case you're saying because now they would actually have to come back for special exception instead of it being a by right use even though originally it was because we because now they're shifting they're having to shift a road in a building but they're example for data center like you say and that we use those by right at the time and the ordinance changed and that use is now a special exception. But the ordinance says is that use is deemed to have special exception approval that existing use. So it's on the ground it's existing. It says you're deemed to have a special exception for what you got to prove for. The ordinance does allow a section in there that does allow minor changes to approve special exceptions, where it does address things like needing to move circulation, different considerations based on topography or engineering. So there is a, so any administrative approval administrative process that does allow some minor changes to that plan without having to come in for a new special exception. So it just depends, I think it allows up to 5% expansion and floor area of a building. Does allow moving buildings and parking within the building envelope? So it does allow flexibility with that process. And would that also apply, I'm sorry, I promised last time. I'm not gonna promise. Would that also apply to, as we're asking for new technology in new ways of doing things and we tell them we want them to do whether it's on site generation, I'm not saying that, I'm just saying, I'm just an example. But they say okay, we get it, we hear you, this makes this a better environment. So they agree to come back and make that change. Would that be deemed as one of those things that they can do or is that going to be deemed one of those things that now they need a new special exception for doing something that we're actually encouraging that we want them to do to make it more energy-effective, efficient? I would probably say if they're switching their energy type and again the ordinance in terms of that flexibility administratively it doesn't really speak so much to other than building and parking expansions but I think there's enough flexibility in there to look at it but it would probably have to be a case by case to see what exactly are you doing what changes does it have impacts there are more noise or so forth or is it in an area that's going to have more impacts really where it should require a special exception. So I think we'd have to look at that to really. And you look at the 5. So I think we'd have to look at that to really. And you look at the 5% threshold. I heard you say. Well, there's the 5% expansion of of of building that you can be allowed to do through this process, but it doesn't really speak to other things like mechanical equipment yards and things like that. But I think interpretively we may be able to look at that on a case by case basis and see if that would apply. Okay. Thank you for indulging me on stuff for a while because I have another page. Okay, Commissioner Miller. Let's have through that. I'll come back to it. Okay. Commissioner Kierz. Thanks. Just to follow up on, and you went through it quickly, some of the different dates or where to process could be used for a grandfathering. Okay? Obviously you don't want to just pick a date out of Santa Ehr because there's no justification. It doesn't have anything to support it. What would be some, probably going maybe going from the most lenient to more strict, what would be the points in a process that could be used for grandfathering that would stand the, somebody's wanting to challenge it? Absolutely, the most lenient is what the board did with the 2023 Zora, which is that an application has been accepted by the planning staff prior to the adoption of the ordinance, which means it comes out of the planning commission. It's gone through the board's public hearing, the board's considering it, but if you submit an application the day before the board adopts the ordinance, that's grandfathered in. That would be the most generous grandfathering that you could have. I'd say the least generous would either be none, or to say that you've already received your significant governmental approval, and we're not going to make you show detrimental reliance and significant expenditure. So those, that's your parameters. All the way up to the time the ordinance is adopted or the most restrictive would be you've received your site plan approval and we're not going to make you show the other factors of estad rights. Are there any points? I've heard it mentioned the date that it went to a public hearing or either at the planning commission or at the board level. Are those objective enough that they would be an acceptable date to use? Absolutely. The first one I mentioned is the date that the resolution of intent to amend was adopted. I mean, at that point, there's notice that the ordinance is going to be amended. So you could use that date. That would be pretty early in the process. Later date, the date it went to the first one to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. Could be the date it came out of the Planning Commission, and there would be a Planning Commission approval. Or the date it went to the planning commission and there would be a planning commission approval or the data went to the board of supervisors It's a judgment call to say how late in the process do you want to make grandfathering apply? Okay, so those those that that referred more to this discussion about changing it. I'm looking at more of We have applications in the pipeline for data centers. And some we've had public hearings on haven't made a decision yet, or we've maybe the planning commission already heard it made a decision and it's gone to the board but they haven't had their public hearing at the board level date. Can you use those dates for a particular application? For a particular application, meaning if you have a data center application that has already had its planning commission public hearing, then you would be exempt from any change. Can it also be done that way? I guess I should have drawn the distinction between administrative applications and legislative applications. And what you're referring to as a legislative application, it could be the date as early as the legislative application was accepted as complete by the planning commission. That would be the earliest date. Okay. I would not run for an application that's received in approval because you don't have to meet the other tests. But yes, you could come up with some other date between the date that it was accepted by the planning staff and the date of approval for grandfathering on legislative application. Okay, thank you. Before we leave that line of thought, could you use something like a milestone in the process that's maybe not a, you know, you are, you have gone in for a second round of referrals. So it's not a date of acceptance. It's not a planning commission public hearing. It's somewhere in between there, right? But I mean that's under the thought being that you've invested significant dollars in time into the process at that point. Absolutely. What you're looking at is that milestone date where you say they've invested so much money in this process. It's more than the basic application, it's gone through the first round of referrals. It's been resubmitted and accepted back to the planning staff. As long as we can say that's a date certain, then that would be acceptable. Okay. Mr. Miller. I think it's mine. Oh, it's you. Well, it's a shared light, I don't know. Thank you. Mr. Maderetti. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick question on the timing of this grandfathering. Is it a distance reaction by the board? So is the board, when does they decide whether it's going to be what milestone can, for example, now we are talking about data centers? Is the board is going to give them some kind of a guidance at any application that's already in processing before this case is in front of the board? When does this happen? I'm a little confused over there. A grandfathering resolution. If any is ever adopted by the board because it's discretionary needs to be adopted at the time of the adoption of the ordinance. Okay. So we cannot really get, you're understanding guidance right now that what will be the grandfathering rule? Absolutely. You can absolutely provide guidance and you can provide a recommendation, but the actual resolution itself needs to be adopted at the same time. The ordinance is adopted. Thank you. So what the board did at Zor is they basically agreed to that date early in the process and then continued revising the ordinance throughout, but they had sent a message to industry that that was going to be the date ahead of time, so they had some for warning. That's our requirement, but that is what they chose to do then. Yeah, okay, thank you. And to be clear, that's a resolution solely that the board can make. That's, I mean, we as a planning commission don't make resolutions. This is not anything that we have within our purview and ability to speak on, except to make a recommendation to the board that they can see. Yes, as a formal resolution, there would not be something for the commission to adopt. You could make a recommendation that they do or do not grandfather and if you want to throw a date in there, those kind of considerations, you can do that. Thank you. No one are moderate already. So question for Leo and for Dan, figure out how to answer this. The Zora resolution included things that the grant file resolution for Zora, made it, could have made it challenging for applicants if a board member came to them and said, we'd like you to do this. Now the board member, now the applicant can't, can only do that if they go to the new zoning ordinance. Can that happen here? And if that does happen, does that not put an added burden on Danstaff, if everything becomes specs on the day that everything is approved, the word proves it. Is that going to bog you down, Dan, and staff? Because now everything is legislative process, and then maybe with the board once, I don't know, to stally with that, as their excuse for a stay all takes too long because the staff is overwhelmed. Are we putting ourselves in a position where we could burden your staff and or Leo, are we doing something that are we going to have an overlapping grandfathering issue with things that were grant applications that were grandfathered with Zor. Now we're laying a ZOM on top of that for something else. How do we balance that out? Or can we balance that out? One, Dan Staff, with everything to become specs. Two, balancing out what was grandfathered in or vested in because of Zor that things are now moving through their process under The 93 revised because they were grandfathered in but now we're gonna throw a zone in on top of that if that's not grandfathered in Then what happens so regarding the staff workload if If it is already a legislative application and something changes requiring it to become a specs in addition to, then that's not substantially increased the staff workload because it might be another round of referral that would not have otherwise happened, but if there's already some sort of legislative process happening, there's already staff engaged in it. What would, what will, if the use goes to special exception period, it will increase the number of applications we see, just it will. So if something is in that grant fathering, qualifies for grant fathering, and then meets one of these things that then pushed it to being excluded because it's a substantial modification, it would be another application for us to process. Thus far, even through Zor and the variety of things we changed, there have not been very many that have went that route. So it has not really shown to be a lot of additional work for the previous action. It's hard to say on this without knowing how many we might expect that we need to do that. I think the potential issue with having a board request be something that is a substantial modification to move it out. It really depends on what the board's seeking for a lot of data center applications. It is buffering and landscaping and things of that nature. It's not a change of use. It's not a substantial increase in size. And it's more the latter kinds of issues that would push it to be a substantial modification that would require respects. Just if a board member wants her to be more landscaping for example on something that's already coming through legislative process that won't automatically push it to a specks. Commissioner Miller, I think you're referring to paragraphs 6D in the grandfathering resolution where it talks about a request of change being made by staff. I know there's been a proposal to say requested by either the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors or staff. That's a very common sense change to it. We as staff would think the same, get the Planning Commission or the Board, want it to see something done. We as staff would then request it to make paragraph 6D apply. But for sake of clarity, yes, you could say Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission and staff. It is very confusing when you have grandfathering under the 93 revised. And then you have application under the 2023 ordinance. For instance, you're going to go through a rezoning where your grandfathering the legislative application under the 9th of the revised ordinance but when you come in for your site plan approval, you're under the current ordinance. So that's just a challenge that we as staff are going to have to deal with. I don't see a problem with grandfathering this change, which is under the new ordinance and say applications that were received between the time the new ordinance was adopted and this change requiring a special exception was implemented. Those are grandfathered in because if it's already grandfathered under the 93 revised, you don't have to worry about this change. Why not? Because if it's a legislative application that was grandfathered under the 93 revised, it would be considered under the 93 revised ordinance without this change that we're considering at this time. But only if- Only if you're along the lines of what Commissioner Myers was saying if- And then, Marca added that they already have a site plan approval. But if they have land that they haven't come in for anything with yet, they just have- like she was saying, was saying one third of their hundred acres that they may have started the process under 93 revised but haven't gotten to site plan yet. If site plan is under, for this day, it's under a new Specs Where it was once by right their grandfathered by right now they're coming for a site plan under specs even though they've already developed a portion of their land I think we're There are not layers that can't be it that we can't solve in other words it becomes everything becomes the fact those specs Even even if the board says certain things can remain by right, because they're a grandfather under 93 revised, they won't be able to because of site planning. Just remember that what we're grandfathering in is an application. And under Commissioner Myers example is that, and thank you for clarifying Mark. If it was a site plan for the whole site, we'd be talking about something different. Okay. If it was a site plan for a third of the site, and the remainder of the site does not have an application pending, then there's nothing to be grandfathered. You're adopting a new law. The new law applies to the remainder of the site. Okay. Okay. Okay. And a follow-up regarding some of the things that the board is seeking and that industry is seeking also on some of these sites, battery energy storage. Hypothetically, if someone comes in and the applicant comes in says, we can, we have a buy-right data center site plan. We're already done, but we want to add battery energy storage. In order for us to do that, which achieves a board goal, we have to modify the site plan. Does that site plan, does that modification to that site plan is that grandfathered, or does that fall under the news-owning ordinance in which case, that building that they want to modify is no longer in conformance, and they can't either go through a spec process or not have the thing that the board wants. I will start to try to answer that. I think it, again, it depends on the extent of what you're looking at for battery storage. If because the ordinance does have, as I mentioned earlier, the flexibility to administrative additions or whatever. So typically, the battery storage would be a component accessory component of a data center or solely used for the data center. If it was like in the building where they needed to expand the portion of the building by 5%, I think that would be allowed. So it would depend on what exactly that would entail in terms of the changes to the site plan. The degree to which it might trigger is facts or whether it would be able to proceed under the approved site plan. It would have to, we'd have to look at that, but if it fell under those administrative change parameters, we could do it that way. Okay. Thank you. And not just under the administrative change, but this results mentioned that it's an accessory use. So we're making the purpose of the Roya is to make a special exception requirement for a data center. If the data center's already a permitted use and battery storage is an accessory use that would require a site plan amendment and we would just make sure that those sufficient land on the site for the battery storage to be allowed to a site plan amendment. Okay. Thank you. Question. Because you talked earlier about if there is a permitted use, it's already permitted use, if a new application were to come in, it would require a special exception, but under Virginia law that permitted use is now deemed to have a special exception under the new use, under the new ordinance, is that correct? If you have a, yeah, if it saved the data, we're using data centers, so say you have an existing data center that was put there by right, you know, got approvals. Yes. And the ordinance changed and now that use on that side is a special exception use. That use as it exists is deemed to have a special exception. So nothing would happen unless they wanted to come in and expand it and then would depend on whether they, you know, what they need to expect. Commissioner Meyers, I'll try to be just one follow. This gets back to the table, the 3.02 table where we look to find permitted uses, special exception uses, where we talk about the data centers. If we want to, I'm not talking about OP because it's already special exception in the OP, okay? But if we want to come up with different criteria where we might think the board want to look at in certain cases making it by right. Would we then change that to like I've seen in other tables where it says S slash P so that people know it could be either by special exception or permitted based on additional criteria. Just like we have the performance standard now today that says even though you're by right you've got to do these two pages of stuff. If we wanted to create another table that said, if you can do these ten things, you could be deemed to be by right if you don't, then you're special exception. So part of what we would recommend would you then recommend that part of what we do in that section 3.02 is that we would change that to then to be an S slash P for the not talking about the OP but talking about the other districts where it's loud right now and by right. In what word do you have? Yes, I think what you're referring to is like the additional use regulations we do have. So like in some cases I think the way it would work more often than not is the ordinances by right but it is subject to additional use regulations. But if it can't meet those additional use regulations, they can modify those. They're a minor special exception, so it's still legislative process. So that's been done before. I guess the one thing there is that this advantage of doing that rather than a full specs is, whether or not you can cover all the concerns or potential impacts through those additional use rakes. Because if you can't really put them in there to cover all situations, the benefit of the specs that it allows you to look at more things beyond those additional use rakes. And let me correct myself. I'm not talking about being a minor special exception. I'm talking about, say, just theoretically, let's say we come up with 10 additional things that we say because we want you to do these 10 things. If you can do these 10 things, then you get to skip the special exception line. I'm just doing the down and easy to reversion, okay? If you can't do these 10 things, then you are a full blown special exception. So in that case under the 3.02, we would change it to be S slash P so that you would know you could be a special exception or you could be permitted, but you would only be permitted if you could meet the criteria which was laid out. Yes. So we could, the functional problem is going to be in the way that we put this before the board and with their motion to break it apart. The resolution of intent to amend that they approved is limited to the table itself. So if we were to make it P slash S right now, none of that detail would be there to show what triggers it to become special exception. So we would need to have the board amend that Roya Earth or do a new one that would authorize us to make that change and we'd have to do another public hearing. So we can do it but there will be some cumbersome things to jump through in order to make it functional. Can I kind of protect them? Didn't we advertise the table correctly because we didn't advertise the table, we wouldn't be able to make it go from a P to an S. The table, yes. So I'm saying if you, but if you're right now because we cannot amend the use specific standards that show those 10 things that you were talking about, we can't do it under the Roy that we have that we're operating under right now. So we'd have to go to the board, get approval to make those changes to do it all at once. So you're telling me that the board left absolutely no flexibility in the public caring for us to suggest additional conditions of approval. For the three components, are part of phase one, yes? Right, the. Yes, they didn't or yes, they did. No, they did not. We can amend the table from the resolution of intent to amend, and that that's as far as the zoning ward is concerned, without going back to them to revise it. So we could make things SP and then we could suggest that table content and then they could decide they want to adopt that table content with another process. You could make that recommendation but functionally the way there will be nothing that will show when it becomes a special exception if we do that right now. It's my point. That makes no sense but I I'm paying the bill. You're talking about 10 things that they'd have to meet. There's no ability to put those 10 things in the ordinance. Yeah, it's a procedural problem as much as anything else. The board has adopted a resolution of intent to amend, which is the triggering to start a zoeOM under the state law. The Planning Commission can have a resolution of intent to amend. It would be a separate ZOM. So is there a way that you could do that? Yes. The way you'd have to do that is, would be a motion or a resolution of intent to amend by the Planning Commission. That would be a separate ZOM that could go at the same time Concurrently with this one and that you would then say we want to have the option of performance standards As opposed to having it be a special exception But are no what the board has currently done in the resolution of intent to amend We did not advertise it. we did not give notice, that would have to be amended. Or initiated by the Planning Commission. Okay, hold on, hold on, hold on. I'm gonna go to your commission or Miller just because you were waiting. But go ahead. Thanks. I think the answer to Dale's question is, that's what phase two is supposed to be about. Right, to have the language that would, I'm not saying I agree that that's what phase two should all be one phase. But I think that's what the intent of phase two is is to make it so that there's, here's the ten things and make it P or S. Is that? So it could be the way that the way that the board perception of this is, based on how they broke it down, was that there wouldn't be no P option. So it would be potentially looking at use specific standards and other things related to data centers. But we were not originally contemplating the need for a threshold that would have to be met in this fashion we're talking about now. Which is a problem. So it could. It's just a problem. Which is the problem that the board essentially is saying to the planning commission, rubber stamp this crud so we can go ahead and run. It would have been helpful had we known about creating our own resolution of intent to amend and had done that three months ago. So we could have done it in concurrence and actually done proper planning to present something to the board that they could consider or not consider at their own, but we at least would be doing something useful to provide them something like that. But we know the timing wise doesn't exist anymore for us if we at our meeting next week Approved a Roya For ourselves to incorporate what Commissioner Myers was saying. The timeline for us to act on this for the board would long since have passed and the board would just deemed it to be done and they'd taken it up. So we're kind of just sitting here, rubber stamp with the board wants or not. More of a statement in question. Well, Leo, I guess, can we dig for a minute into the idea of a planning commission initiated Roya? Or Dan, you can answer that. Whoever, what does that process and timeline look like? Obviously, there's advertising required in a public hearing. And we wouldn't have to necessarily wait for the board to instruct us to do it. So the state code permits the zoning ordinance to be amended by resolution of the board or by motion of the planning commission. I would recommend that the planning commission use a resolution because you're putting in writing what you're saying you want to do. So the planning commission can initiate an amendment to the zoning ordinance by state law. Now you initiate that amendment that amendment needs to be approved by the board. Right. Right. And I can't answer the other part of your question. Just as, just as, hold on. Just as they have to approve whatever we send out of this process from their initiated Roya. So I mean it's, it's the same approval at the end. It's just cuts down the front end. Is that a correct interpretation of the timeline, Dan? I think it may be. I'll have to admit that I've never experienced the planning question doing a Royal. So this would be new to me. So I have to do a little bit of research to give you a firmer answer. Okay. Again, Commissioner Myers, we're just on. Hold on, thank you. Commissioner Banks was waiting, I thought, before your lights off now. The only thing I would make there is that if we initiated it, it would, in essence, start the whole process all over again. The only part of the process that had not, that we would avoid is the initiation by the board descended to us. But other than that, a zoning ordinance amendment is starting from a fresh. And so our initiated zoning ordinance amendment would be weeks, months behind the boards initiating zoning ordinance amendment. Is it possible to, I'm not going to use word concurrently, but is it possible for say the planning commission makes recommendations and a vote on the board initial Initiated Roya in front of us today and then also initiates our own Roya for So say we we move that we change the chart right and then we need the 10 things that go with the chart and The 10 things that go with the chart become our Roya. And it will be following, but it will be following much closer behind than a phase two or a board initiated Roya in between phase one and phase two. Is that possible for them to, they're not going to move together because we're already behind the eight ball on that. But can they work at the same time. What you're saying, if the planning commission were to initiate a change to the zoning ordinance, that would be a separate zone and it would operate on a separate track. You could still make your recommendation based on the boards initiation of the zoning ordinance change. And you could somewhat concurrently, but you're behind you're behind schedule, a process, your zoning ordinance amendment as well. Okay, but it, obviously making some assumptions on how we handle something like that, but it would move quicker than waiting for another separate board initiated, Roya, in very it could, because we could take it up on the next public hearing if we wanted to. We just have to hold a public hearing. We have to advertise it. Have the public hearing. You don't need a public hearing to initiate a change to the zoning ordinance. You need a public hearing to consider the change to the zoning ordinance. Right. So we could initiate it then have a public, then advertise, then have a public hearing, then take our action and send it to the board to take their action. That's correct, Madam Chair. Okay. Thank you. So I'd like to step back for a moment to reality, because even if we think we want to initiate this, it's only going to happen if the board agrees with it. Because they won't put it on the work plan and nothing will happen. And that was never part of my intent for this discussion. My thought was I understand the board, just like when we had, I've had discussions with a lot of the board members. I mean, I'm not sure they know where they're at today at the end of the process with this. There's nothing I think that prevents us as we move forward as one of the recommendations we make to them is that they consider looking at this holistically and looking at reasons why we give them is to why certain areas should stay by right if they meet this criteria. That's where I was trying to get to, not all of a sudden going off and thinking that by any stretch of the imagination, I mean we'll be in our third year probably and the phase two will be done because of the staff timing and the issues and attorneys and everything else. I was simply trying to say, even though they didn't necessarily ask us for us, we have the right as the Planning Commission to make recommendations that we can supplement what we suggest to them they do at the end of the day They can decide they like our idea and grandfathering they don't they like our idea about looking at incentives to create by right or they don't and then they can Decide initiate another war that would move much quicker just like we've got a rule village and stuff moving much quicker because that's what they wanted That's what I was trying to get at. Not saying we're doing this today, my idea was as part of our emotions, we make a recommendation to them that they consider this. That's where I was going. And that's absolutely right. That's what I was talking about. Especially at the end of our last meeting on this topic was providing the recommendation on the three components themselves, But then yes, you can provide as much additional commentary in your additional recommendations, so thanks to consider that the commission would like. Commissioner Bents. I guess that gets me back to my original comment or follow up to Commissioner Pullen-Miers. And that is yes, we can always make any recommendation to the board that we would want. We can do that at any time, whether something is pending before us or not. We can make a recommendation to them. But the task that has been given to us by this intent to our own ordinance is very narrowly construed. And we are confined to the four corners of that very narrow intent to amend. Isn't that correct? Absolutely. And the board itself, if you make the recommendation for performance zoning, would have to adopt another resolution of intent to amend to give notice of the potential change. It's going to Commissioner Jasper. We've not forgotten about you. I don't know if you're current. I'm still here. I don't know if you can see me. We can. Yeah, I think everybody has covered all of my questions. I was, as you know, and maybe some others on the commission. No, I'm particularly interested in the grandfathering issue. I feel like the leniency that went along with the ZOOR has had even in this case the impact of exacerbating the problem of people going out and speculating and trying to get in before the last day. And so picking some other points in the process where it really is true for applicants that a substantial investment has been made in this, you know, and nothing really other than an intent to get in under the wire. My other feeling just based on all of the conversation that's gone on is I agree with Commissioner Myers. I think we've been going through these exercises and really understanding what's being asked of us so that we could make, you know, we could take action on what's been put before us by the Board of Supervisors and make recommendations for their consideration as opposed to taking independent actions, the planning commission. So with those comments, I think I've been happy to just listen. Otherwise. Okay, excellent. Commissioner Miller. I'm going to go back to the comment that Mark and I think Dan made earlier about, Jason, about the 5% expansion rule. Is it 5%, or is it 5,000 square feet? It's 5%. It's 5% of any thought of the building is 300,000 square feet, it's 15,000 feet, if it's 10,000 square feet, it's 500 square feet. 9%. And I will say, you know, the, the, this process, the minor change, it is an administrative, so there's any ministerial has the authority to review it. It's not like rubber stamped. If, if you were within that 5% you're going to get approved, but that is the correct, the criteria to submit that request. So it would have to be reviewed case by case, but the limit of expansion is 5,000 square feet for that process. I mean, I'm sorry. 5% for that process is the maximum you can do to that. So not 5,000 feet is a percentage. Right. Okay. Thank you. Sorry. Okay. I have one other question. We've managed not to dance around. We've seen a number of applications that have come through for legislative action, so these are not by right. And with, I'll call them bubble plans, right? Here's, we don't know exactly where a building's gonna be, but there's gonna be two buildings up to this FAR up to this height in this general area. So if somebody wants, and that's been approved, gone through the board if they've got a legislative approval, they go to change it, to do a site plan, whatever it is. As long as they are staying inside that building envelope and not changing a use or an FAR beyond 5% increase, they should be able to do that under that administrative review process, right? You mentioned dry vials and landscaping and I mean they can change the orientation of a building because we didn't really have an orientation of a building. Right, I think, I guess the process I was talking about is changes to a minor special exception. So that would be the case if you had an existing data center that was by right and the use becomes a special exception use in that district where that existing data center is. That existing data center is deemed to have a special exception, meaning any changes to that site plan that was approved for that data center, you could look at that to see expanses whether they would need to come back in for a new special exception. I think what you're referring to is bubble plans as part of a rezoning application. That would probably, it would depend, but in something like your description there, that they're not really committing to a data center project with that rezoning. So when they come in, unless they've done that as part of the rezoning, they would have to get a special exception if the ordinance now requires a special exception. It kind of depends on the degree of the detail that was approved with the rezoning and the commitment to do a data center as to whether or not they'd be vested to do data center by right based on the rezoning. But if it's just a bubble and they didn't commit to the data center, they could do any use in the district. That wasn't enough for them to go by right if it now requires a special exception. So if they're legislative approval and or any site plan that's approved does not clearly committed to data center use They they are not grandfathered Right now more often than not a site plan is gonna gonna specify Parking all that needs so more often than not that's gonna be fine It's the rezoning that you kind of get into how much detail That you did you show on that because you're basically vesting a specific project. So if they're not really, if they didn't really develop a specific project as part of their rezoning, then and again, so we'd have to look at that case by case, what did you commit to? Did your professor say you're only going to do data center here or, you know, is it just any use in the district so it depends on the detail of that rezoning as to what they'd be allowed to move forward with by right or overdrive car special exception moving forward. Probably not being overly clear about that. No I'm I want to make sure I'm really understanding this. Okay you have a legislatively approved rezoning. Right. If they didn't specify a use and they want to build a data center, that may not be grandfathered. Vested, I'm sorry, vested, yes. Correct. It's not vested. It's not automatically vested just because they got a rezoning. How often do we get, I mean, I think it's significant. It's just my own off the cuff recollection, but we get quite a few plans that don't necessarily specify a single use. That come through the legislative process. Right. Right. Okay. What qualifies as a specified use? In other words, if someone wants to build, if the zoning district allows for data centers and flex and warehouse, and they want to build three buildings that are each 700,000 square feet with an equipment yard. How we, I think what, what, in other words, what specifies that it's data center versus just warehouse and the equipment yard is where they store massive HVAC units that are there for wherever's purpose that some future business may operate out of those warehouses. I think again if your rezoning for an example would be if they would proper to data certain maximum square foot of data centered use for the as part of that rezoning, then that use could probably be then allowed to go forward by right or not by right, but vested to that rezoning application because it specified a percentage of data center that it would be developed as part of their resounding. My question though is, what determines that a use is data center use? Is it just someone says I'm making a data center? Because we've had this discussion before about percentages of a building being a data center, an accounting office that has a five by five closet with a racks of servers is a data center. So what do we determine that a specific use is a data center? Is it someone just saying it's a data center? Building with computers in it is a building of computers in it. The zoning ordinance defines data center if so we would rely on the zoning ordinance definition of a data center and whether it meets that definition. So that's what we would look to is the definition section. But in terms of whether or not a data center that was a pretty spot of a rezoning would be required then to get a special exception. If the proffers were pretty specific for that rezoning that it's for data center and gives you maybe a square footage or whatever, then they can develop that without getting a special exception. Because that data center use was specifically approved as part of the rezoning application. We have just three bubble plan for three eight thousand square foot buildings. With computers in them, that's not a specified use. Right. I just have one other thing I've seen is there will actually be proffers that prefer out uses. So you are limited to data center plus X number of other uses. Would it be reasonable to say in determination between administration and council that if a plan is legislatively approved and has not yet done a site plan, but their proffers include items such as adhering to the 2023 standards for data centers and fenestration requirements and setback requirements that all line up with the data center use. Is that enough to say clearly it was a data center intended data center use? Or do they have to have crossed out every other use and made it very clear? We're only going to use it for this. I mean you're getting into actually, that's what we get asked in a vesting determination. Okay, that's what I thought. But I will say generally just referencing, you know, that all the uses in the district are allowed and it will conform to this section of the ordinance. That's not enough to say you're vested to a specific use. You'd actually have to provide more detail, more design to kind of, because what we look at is after the rezoning, you are subject to the new ordinance except to the extent that it's conflicts with the rezoning or the proffer. So you have to meet that new ordinance, but if you're proffer or you're, and I'm not just talking about referring to a section of the 93, but you'd have to actually specify and show it on the concept plan to create that conflict with the new ordinance for that rezoning to supersede the new ordinance. If you will. I can follow up. There's actually case law on this point and the case indicates that it has to be specific in your rezoning. You could have more than one use specified and show it on your concept plan. But if you rezoned to a district and in this case they rezoned to a district, they struck certain uses. We're not going to do these uses. The court said that wasn't specific enough. It has to be specific and I don't want to say specific to a single use, but specific in what uses are allowed. And then it could be not- It could be not. It could be beyond just the use. If you show a concept plan with setbacks, those setbacks, if they change later in the ordinance, and you've approved them in a concept development plan, then you're vested to those setbacks, if they change later in the ordinance, and you've approved them in a concept development plan, then you're vested to those setbacks, even if the setbacks change. Okay, so in theory they could have multiple uses listed, as long as data center is one of them explicitly listed. I don't want to say that. Like you can, you're going to say that there's multiple uses. You have a concept plan that shows multiple uses on the concept plan. You're vested to the data center where it's shown on your concept plan. You're not dated, vested to data center throughout. You can have multiple uses on a site. And then you would be allowed to do those multiple uses as shown on your concept development plan. Okay. So it has to be on the CDI or CDP. Has to be specific. Okay. Okay. Any other immediate questions? Mr. Myers? Just following up on what you were just saying. So you know, I mean, I've only been this go around almost a year. But I think everyone, every special exception or rezoning or ZMA that we've had, I mean, the title says, data center. I mean, it's not hidden on what the public hearing is all about for that particular use. But the majority of them are really what most of us call bubble plans because they don't have an end user. But they're very clear in that they talk even though they don't have an end user, they'll say how they're going to treat what's going to be a front for sod. It faces a road. They talk about the generators not being on the roof and those type of things. With those kind of elements as being part of that special exception rezoning Z-Mod public hearing, wouldn't that then kind of pass your smell test? Obviously this was the legislative approval for a data center? So some of these issues have to be determined based on the facts, but in what you're describing the rezoning was to a zoning district with the use of data center and a bubble plan. So the data center use has vested and you need to comply with the current ordinance for all development criteria, setbacks, access points, parking, so forth. Okay. Commissioner Jasper, we've gone on a bit, but I know you had something if you still want to interject. Yeah, I just want to appreciate the comment that Commissioner Myers made. I don't really think I, in my time and we started for this round for her at the same time. time that I've seen anything that didn't actually designate that it was potentially a data center, even if it considered in its bubble plan that it might be data center or flex. So I think everybody who is putting these in is trying, is indicated at least a planning commissioner, planning commission that they're looking for data centers. I was wondering if I could ask about the administrative changes and the discretion of the zoning administrator. I know that these are kind of laid out in chapter 10 of the zoning ordinance. And I was wondering as people kind of have talked quite a bit about, well, how my mayor could just a change need to be and what kind of change could it be? Is this included? And is that included? I mean, I was wondering whether there's an opportunity to amend that part of the zoning ordinance. If we find there are certain kinds of changes, we want to make sure that the zoning administrator has the discretion to entertain without there being a legislative application. I would say that would be, that is something you could recommend. I think that that goes much broader than because that section applies to every special exception you use in the county. So it depends on if you want to recommend that. Is it something you want to recommend more flexibility just for a data center or would that be a broader, in either case, like I think we've talked about, unless it's been part of a resolution intent to amend or directed to do so by the board, it's definitely something you could recommend that the board look at and consider, but I don't think it could be done with this, this is a way and that's in Brussels right now. Okay. So just a recommendation and I hear your admonition that it might not be good to put anything in there just for data centers, but I think it certainly might be worth considering when we go down the road toward, you know, thinking about battery, energy storage systems and other things that the board is indicated they might want to support. So, okay, thank you. that was it. Commissioner Hears. All right, so, correct me if I'm wrong in any of my understanding that I understand now that I ain't quite realize prior to now is when it comes to zoning ordinance, the only change we're talking about making is to that table. That is what was put before us, that's what we are asked to weigh in on. If we wanted to try to create a use specific standard for data center that would allow them to be by right, we just talked about, we can't do that. You'd have to do a separate resolution of intent to amend. Would I be correct in saying to make any change to any other part of the zoning ordinance that would require a new resolution of intent to amend? Yes. Okay. In the plan, if we decide we're going to make them conditional uses, Special exceptions are conditional uses in those seven place types. That's we're being asked, correct? Yes. Okay, in addition to the mapping. In addition to the mapping. As you have, mapping ones aside. Do we have the ability to insert language into the comprehensive plan that would go along with our, for example, what I'm looking at and what I was crafting towards is make them conditional uses, but put some language in the place types that allow data centers to give them some idea what those conditions might be, what the county would be expecting to see to meet that conditional use. So that would require or require inserting a paragraph in those playstipes in the plan. Can we make that recommendation to do that or does that require a separate resolution of intent to amend? Does that requirement, what do we have to do with the zoning ordinance also apply to the plan? So for the comp plan, it's going to deal with what we have advertised. And the language that's in the advertisement right now is to establish new and clarify, revise, and orderly certain existing terminology pertaining to data centers. Terminology is so too. Sounds like we could do that then. I think you arguably could under that for the contemplation. But not for the zoning ordinance. Yes. Okay. All right, thank you. No, okay. I don't know. Commissioner Banks, did you guys say comments please stop? Mr. Banks. So it's clear that we have been handed a very, very narrow mandate when it comes to the zoning ordinance amendment. Very, very narrow. We can't do anything other than essentially desigate data centers as a special as a specks or not. And we're confined if we want to do anything other than that under the zoning ordinance then we've got there has to be a new intent to amend correct. Yes. And to be perfectly frank, it sounds like we were the board's intent was to similarly constrain us when it comes to the CPAM, but there may be some wiggle room there that we don't have under the zoning ordinance. Is that correct? I would agree with that. So, and just to provide, I think I've said this before, but the context is that staff's original proposal was to look at everything holistically. It was the board's choice to make a motion to separate this first part from the second because they wanted quick action on these three components. Okay. Commissioner Cures. All right. So I was kind of set with a couple of things. You know, I was ready to move forward with basically making them conditional and making special exceptions. My intent was to provide some language in the place types that would say here's the conditions we're looking for. If you want to put a data center in these place types and that would kind of, in my mind, give the guidance to within the plan of what the county and we haven't looked at these are voted on these are discussed them but assuming the commission went along with it that that would cover We'll make them conditional when we'll insert this language, okay Going it was looking at doing the same thing with the zoning ordinance Bacon special exception however provide some use specific criteria that would allow data centers to be by right, which we can't do, we would have to do that with a separate resolution of intent to amend. Correct? So could we not, from the last letter I saw from the board, they want an answer from us by the end of January. Could we not, again, if the rest of the commission is along the same agrees with this plan, could we not put in a resolution of intent to amend in our January public hearing, have that public hearing, and then we could make a formal vote on moving forward with this as well as our resolution of intent to amend. And that way when the board gets it, they have the whole package. Here's what we wanted to do with the plan. Here's our vote on what you specifically asked us to do. However, here's a resolution of intent to amend that we want you to consider to go along with it. Would that or is the time, or can that not timeline not be met? So you do not need a public hearing on the resolution of intent to amend. You don't. Okay, misunderstood that. You, what? My recommendation is that the commission, when it feels comfortable, but if it's, if it's such a use of tonight, to give us the guidance to the y'all straw polls on the three components that the board's put before you. That will allow us to prepare the resolution that has to accompany context on what the board should consider in addition to your recommendation to approve or deny those components. Part of that frankly could be you could recommend to the board that they do not take action on Phase one because you recommend to them to consider all of these things that you were obviously trying to address right now. But once you do that, the board can ignore it and they can take action. No matter what we do, the board can do what it wants you to do. I understand that. I was just trying to find a way to package this so the board gets it the most. They understand that we're supporting the conditional inspects with these other language insertions in there to create some flexibility for the industry, so they have some guidance, because that was one of our main concerns, was making them conditional and specs with no guidance. And we were trying to find a way to provide the guidance, or in the case of the zoning ordinance if they can meet very specific criteria, then they could still be considered by right versus aspects. So, that's, I'm just trying to make sure that it doesn't look, and no matter how we did this, the board could choose to ignore or implement whatever portion it wants. I was just trying to find a way that the board gets from us. This is what our intent truly is. And I think that those secondary motions would be your way of expressing that and communicating to them. That the majority of the commission believes X, Y and Z, whatever. Okay. Okay. So that's not as okay. I misunderstood. I thought to do a reference, to do a resolution of intent to amend the zoning law, we had to go to a public hearing with that and you're saying we don't. No, the one thing to make clear though is your additional emotions are just recommendations. The board will not be able to functionally amend the ordinance using that information unless a resolution of intent to amend. Right. Either amended or anyone's created. Right, yes. Right, no. If the board said, yeah, we love your language and we like your intent, then they could then move forward with that. Yes. All right. They always have that ability. Michelle. Okay. Okay. Before I get to far administrative clarification questions, there was one Roya adopted in July by the board, correct? Yes. Did that govern both phase one and phase two? No, just phase one. Just phase one. Okay. So. Realizing that this is amend section 3.02.05, table, principle use table for office and industrial to require specs for data centers in IPG, MRI, MRI, as phase one of the amendment. Then we have the same section, same table, I'm reading the Roya in case anyways trying to follow along at home. And such other chapter sections, tables and provisions of the zoning ordinance as otherwise necessary to fully implement the objective of this resolution to maintain consistency with the foregoing amendments to incorporate input received during public hearing process, correct typos, section number informating. Okay. So I think the instance we were talking about where you don't change because we are pretty narrowly says it's a specs. There is no p option. That one does seem like it is not under the scope of the Roya. That's right. I'm reading that correctly, right? Yes, at least so. Okay, all right, because it's not to do to mend that. So even going into other chapters to add those standards, it's not going to fall into it because it's not one of the intents of the Roya. We only have the upper down option there. So clarify that. Okay. We'll go back to that maybe later on some other things but okay. What about and such other language? Sorry. And such other chapter sections, tables and provisions of the zoning ordinance as otherwise necessary to fully implement the objective of this resolution. And the resolution is to amend sections 3.0, 2.0, 5, table 3.0, 2.0, 5-1 to require a specs for data centers. So we can amend tables if we're going to require a specs. We can suggest anything, right? But I'm just hearing it on the scope of what we really get to weigh in on. Does it mention anything about section 10? No. So sections 3.02.05, table 10. And other such chapter sections, tables and provisions. Table 10. It does have 10 in there. Did you just say 10? It does not have ten, specified. We have the, there's language that allows other chapters to support that single task. So were we to say yes, make them all specs? That's our recommendation to the board. We could also then recommend, we could also amend other sections, tables, chapters, and provisions to implement that particular thing. Not necessarily to implement making some aspects, some not aspects, some of these. But my question then is, do we have the ability then to make recommendations under what the specs follow? Because right now it's just the section 10 which is very broad and it can basically ask you for anything. Could we make recommendations for the data centers that are not going to be specs that say, okay, they're specs, but this is what they're going to be reviewed against in order to get approved. So it depends on what you mean by recommendation. You can make a recommendation across the board. But if you mean to recommend specific language to be inserted in the ordinance, that is not covered under this is our opinion. So if you're talking about amending chapter 4 with the use specific standards. No, I'm not. I'm talking about word, talks about special exceptions, which is what she was just talking about. You know how the, when you get to this section and I can pull it out, section 10, where it's just a very broad based thing that doesn't really, it doesn't really give you. Plies of all special exceptions. Right, just a plot. language in that one because it says in or others as it deem for the special exception where you could say okay it's special exception but these are the things that special exception should be judged against. So I will defer to Mr. Rogers. I would say no because that's not the content that we have advertised that we have presented to the public as things we would be changing. It says or other things to do the special exception. The intent of language like that is whenever we're making a change, if there's other provisions in the ordinance that conflict now because we're making this change to make those corrections, not to make additional changes in addition to the scope of whatever's within the Roya. But again, I guess I'll defer to Mr. Rogers. I'd, yeah, the problem that I have with what you're suggesting is that there's no notice, and that's the whole purpose of a resolution of intent to amend. We're only identifying this one area of the zoning ordinance to be changed. Right. The other changes are to implement that sole change. So I don't believe you, Roya, is sufficiently broad enough to do what you're suggesting. Even if it's part of the implementing of that special session they want. I understand what you're saying. I just don't think we've given notice to the public that we're even considering that. Okay, so good. By the Roya. If we made that recommendation to the board when they do their advertisement, could it then be covered? If it's not broad enough, I just heard Mr. Panx and I agree with him. I think the board would have to go back and initiate another zoning ordinance change to bring it enough to do this suggesting. Okay. Well, we could make a recommendation regardless. And at the end of the day, all we do is make a recommendation to the board. We don't actually take an action that is binding on anyone. So I think, okay. Thank you for going down that line of thought with us. We may not be done with it, but Commissioner Miller. I was just gonna ask a general question. There's some folks sitting in the audience that came here because they have some, they have a knowledge of what's working on from a different perspective than that of a director of planning and zoning and that of a county attorney. They are landage attorneys and developers and engineers that may have interpreted some things differently. Would it not be helpful since they are here to ask them to come up to clarify some of the differences that they may think have are being discussed? No. I'm going to be honest. I, Leo, can jump in if he doesn't agree. But I don't know that this is the time or place for us to be debating legal interpretation. We have our council. Yeah. I'm not sure that it's a prope. I mean, one lawyer can say one thing to me and one can say the other. I don't know who's right. At some point, you have to stick with your council. Now I do think we might have a couple more questions that may get to some of this. But I don't know that we need to do that in these ranks. No, I agree. I think that what we're now, and maybe for the first time we as a body, are now beginning to understand the exceedingly narrow tasks that has been given to us by the board. And it was, they are exceedingly narrow, essentially to answer two, maybe three questions in the yes or no. That's it. That's what the board has asked of us. And frankly, if I were to, you know, opine even more, I think it's creeped to me that their intent for the comprehensive plan amendment is just as narrow as what they requested of us from the zoning ordinance. It's just that the, there's a potential statutory wiggle room within the language that may allow us to do a little bit more, but they gave us a very specific and narrow charge. And frankly, given the follow-up letter that they've provided to us and the time frame that they're looking for, the only thing that we can do to conform to that time frame that they've given to us is to say yes or no to these two or three questions that are being proposed to us. You're right. And so, if we're willing to talk about what we want to say about, I can tell you where I would but yes or no on those questions right now because honestly I'm feeling more than a little frustrated that our hands have been so very clearly tied. And so if you want to ask me very, very narrow questions and you're not going to give me the room to exercise the experience and expertise for which I believe I was appointed to this commission. Then I will give a very narrow answer to those questions. And at this point, my answer is going to simply be, no? Got some other questions? Ask them of me, but right now, no. And our vice chair comes. No. Vice Chair comms. Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree with virtually everything Commissioner Banks just said. I have a question regarding the Roya though. And it's really whether what's captured in the recitals has anything to do with what's in the resolution. Because as I read the recitals, it's actually giving a fairly broad purpose. It's saying to establish policy guidance and use specific zoning standards for data centers that address land use compatibility, aesthetics, infrastructure, and natural environmental resources. And then as I read the recitals, it's one, again, requires specs. But then two, and that's the language we were talking about before, amend such other chapter sections, tables, and provisions of the ZO as otherwise necessary to fully implement the objective of this resolution. So my question is, what's in the recital sounds like a broader objective to the Rorya? What's in section oneital sounds like a broader objective to the Rorya. What's in section one of the actual resolution is more narrow. Do we give any credence to what's in that broader recital, or is it just the recital and is not actually part of the resolution? That's a great question. Judges ask it all the time. Reciples are intended to lay the groundwork for the now therefore, the now therefore is the operative sections. It would be like the sections of the contract. You wouldn't put specific provisions in your recitals to the contract. You'd put them in the operative sections of the contract. So that's an interpretation question on your part. But I would say the operative sections of the contract. So that's an interpretation question on your part, but I would say the operative sections come after now, therefore. CM, let me lawyers have a, I know, we always go. All right. I was predicting that answer coming from the county attorney sitting in a public here. And this is why judges have job security and the precedent changes. Okay. Commissioner Barnes. This is the only thing they want us to do. And I think we go on through circles and all around for no reason. This is all they want to do. Yes or no? And that's what we have to make a motion. We should have made that thing the first meeting we had. Just on that. Commissioner Miller. I would agree with what Commissioner Barnes is saying. But also in the same vein as what Commissioner Banks is saying. And that is I think all of us recognize that. But we're trying to make this better. Because I think I'm just guessing from what I'm hearing is that the majority of the commission doesn't necessarily support what the board is asking us to do on a very, very narrow scope. So I think some of the reasons for our questions and the reasons that we're trying to find ways to do things is because we truly want to do something that's thoughtful and considered of all of the larger questions rather than just the very narrow focus of what the board is asking us to do. And Mr. Miller, I absolutely agree with you. I think that you hear amongst all of us a desire to use our background and experience to do make this as good as we possibly could. That's not our charge though. And I have, maybe I have come to that conclusion late in the game and most of you have already understood that, but I am increasingly realizing that that was never our request to make this better, to do it well. We were simply asked to very narrow questions. And at this point, I'm almost ready to make the motion myself, but I don't want to get ahead of myself, but let's cut to the chase, I guess, was what I would say to get ahead of myself. But I'm, let's just, let's cut to the chase, I guess, was what I would say to my fellow commissioners. I think we have now come to fully and clearly understand the questions that have been posed to us. I think we have now fully and clearly understood that the charge given to us was not accidentally narrow, that it was intentionally narrow. And I think that most of us, I believe, have come to the conclusion that we're not really being asked to do what we would normally do in these kinds of issues. So I would encourage my colleagues, let's respond to the questions that have been narrowly posed to us. And let's get that out of the way. Before we do that, Commissioner Jasper. Wow, that's hard to follow Commissioner Banks. I understand your frustration. I do, you know, I have a couple of questions. One is to us as a body. You know, so it's a question of interpretation about what we're allowed to do under the mandate that we were provided by the board. You know, we can either read the recitations as important and the language of the second clause as permissive or we can read it narrowly as is suggested by the county attorney and director Gullendo and that's a choice we're able to make. But my sense is that this conversation and that's a choice we're able to make. But my sense is that this conversation in some measure, and I'd love to hear my fellow commissioners talk about it, has been about what kind of nuance do we think, given our backgrounds, it's appropriate to have applied at the time we take action on this, you know, on the request for the CPAR, the zoning ordinance amendment. And I think that the thing that people have really wrestled with is the concern that if we make them all specs with no standards, how does that affect people moving forward because they won't have any guidance until about what they should be doing until we actually take that phase two action. If that's the problem, is there, I do think our recommendations are potentially important, rather than just saying, well, you don't want our opinion on anything other than yes or no, and we'll just give other than yes or no, and we'll just give you a yes or no. And I think that's what we've been working toward. And I don't know even if the language is, the language, I can't imagine that even the language of anything prevents us from, as we've been discussing, providing recommendations. So I don't know that we've been engaged in something that's meaningless. And I do appreciate the perspective of the board at some level that when we get down to some of the really hard engineering questions, et cetera, space utilization, the things that are in our purview is land use planning commission. That actually may take some time, and that's probably why they wanted to limit our discretion. But we, in our knowledge of the way the business works, do not want to send it forward with nobody having guidance. Am I articulating some of the tension that people are feeling? I think so. I think it makes a lot of sense. And I think I've got to sketching out some ways we can go with this here in a moment. Did I think follow what you just said Commissioner Jasper, Commissioner Cares. Yeah. So if we're just going to look at the two questions and ask from it. If we say yes, make them conditional special exception, move it on and then that's in the majority of the commission votes away. It goes to the board. Board is going to see what they want. Great. If we vote no. And that goes to the board is going to see what they want. Great. If we vote no, and that goes to the board, they're going to look at, why did they say no? I mean, we're not providing any context to saying no, because quite frankly, if I'm put to us, I have to answer those two questions. My answer is going to be, I'm going to vote against it. But I believe it is our job to give them our thoughts on this. And I kind of come myself to get, I thought you'd have Wolper, I'm ready to go, conditional and special exception. But I believe there just has to be some language in the plan that let's somebody know this is what we're expecting. There has to in my opinion there should be some language that says, hey, if you can meet a certain criteria, you can still be by right and not require respects if you meet these specific criteria. If we provide that kind of, and how do we want to do it, if we provide that information to the board, then if we voted no, we're voting against the motion, but here's language that we would be looking for that, with this language, we would be okay with it. That's kind of where I want to go, is to say we can support this, but with language in the plan and the zoning ordinance ordinance that gives some ability for flexibility in it. And then that way the board kind of knows what we're thinking about this whole thing rather than a simple yes or no answer. I think they deserve more than that from us and I think we as a body should give them more than just that. Okay. I think we've got a, I've got an idea on a path forward if you guys will indulge me. I will comment just before we leave this particular line of thought per Commissioner Kierzen, Jasper's comments. When we did the zoning ordinance rewrite, we made a recommendation to the board. Again, wasn't part of the up down in the task about a separate CPAM effort. And when it was first briefed to board members, one on one, when I talked with them, or when I initially got brought publicly to their meeting last summer, there was a whole lot of raised eyebrows. And why? Why do you, why does the commission think that doesn't? There was an initial, not very favorable response to it. What I will say is they ended up adopting it and doing exactly what we asked. You know, they've taken on the real out and initiative and that is going through a process. We recommended that it be separated, pulled out and prioritized. And initially they were resistant. And we got there when we provided that additional color and background as to why we thought that was important. So I don't want anyone to feel like recommendations are completely disregarded and never heated. So obviously it's sports progative to do what they want. They got elected, not us. So with that said, I don't want anyone to leave because I do think we're going to make some recommendations and we may need a little guidance from folks who are sitting there now, folks that are sitting in different spots in the room. But what I would like to do is take us back to the two main items that are on, I think, one of Abdul's slides. The language for the ZOM and the language for the CPAM. And we can take an upper down vote on that. Because I think how folks where that lands is going to inform some folks on where they want to make sure they're making recommendations or how they want to recommend things. If that makes sense to everyone. Yes. Okay. Yes. Well, I will tell you, Madam Chair, and maybe I'll just cut to the chase. I will put a motion on the floor. I move that the Planning Commission forward, CPAM 2024-001, and ZOM-2024-001, data center standards and locations phase one, to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of denial. So you've got both of them in there together. Yes. Okay. Second. All right, we have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Banks, a second by Commissioner Miller. Do you have an opening or just a conversation? I would. And Commissioner, here's, I took your comments very, very much to heart. And frankly, I would, under most circumstances, that's exactly what I would want to do as that is provide recommendations. But I think what we have now heard is that one, I just believe, I'm not sure that those recommendations would fall on Receptive years. But in any event, even if they did, we would have to restart this whole process. There would have to be another intent to amend that would come down from the board if we were not going to do on ourselves. And then we would have to go through this whole process all over again. And so frankly, I think if we send this up with a recommendation of denial. The next logical step, frankly, would be if the board were open to hearing other suggestions, would be for them to come back to us and say, what are your suggestions? And that would be the logical. That's what they say. But again, I think that that's in many ways the cart before the horse, but whatever analogy you made me choose. But so that's my motion and the reason why at this point, I think it is most appropriate to for go any other recommendations and simply vote on the issues that were before us and see where the board wants to go. Because I am more than happy to engage in that process of going through it, talking more to the business community and coming up with other recommendations. But I'm not sure that's what the board wants us to do. That would be my opening. Commissioner Miller. Yeah, so as a seconder, I would agree with everything Commissioner Banks said, one week I would think maybe we could do is if after this motion would say it succeeds. If we wanted to make another motion saying to tell the board what we think we would have done otherwise,, perhaps. And while I agree with you and with Commissioner Kier said about notifying, letting the board know what it is we want to do, how to make it better. Mr. Rogers' interpretation of paragraph two suggests that that's not a possibility. That the board could include that without starting from scratch. Additionally, what Chairman Frank said about the conversations that we brought to the board regarding the Zor and the list eight things that we said we wanted to tackle, and the board came around to letting us tackle them. However, and this is the challenge we're faced with phase one and phase two is it can potentially paralyze a sector of our economy. Is that yes, the Board came back and said go take on the Western Loudon, CPM and ZOM. Absolutely. The work plan schedule will have that finished three years after the adoption of the Zora. Three years. And given that timeline, I can only imagine when the board will come around to giving us, letting us come back and work on phase one even and still get the phase two. It is potential that their goal on phase two is to not do a Roya till after the cows come home. For all I know, and that is a problem also. And so, that's why I support the motion because, given the scope and the interpretation of paragraph two, there is no opportunity for the board to include our recommendations now. So I think the only thing we could do after voting no would be to say, here's something to help you think about why we voted no now, as opposed to them having to come back to us in a few months asking us why we voted no. Here's why we voted no under another motion or another resident we have, we want to do it. Here you go and then let them go from there. But otherwise that's the only difference I would take with your comment is when to let them know, either to proactively let them know why or wait for them to ask us. That's the only difference, otherwise yes, I support your motion. Mr. Galinda? Yeah. I was just going to note that procedurally the issue we're in a face with the motion that was just made is that the commission needs to make its recommendations the more for the 12th with that resolution so then you could take action on the whole thing all at once. That would be ideal. You beat me to the action in a later date discussion. If that's a friendly amendment, I accept it. That's a friendly amendment, yes. Okay. All right, Commissioner Kieres. Mr. Pants, Mr. Pants. I'm not convinced that the board doesn't want our opinion. Supervisor Turner sat in front of us and gave us his briefing. And he was asked, I think Commissioner Meyer is. I know somebody asked him, Drick, are you looking for more empire? Are you looking for different suggestions? Are you looking? Absolutely. We'd like to hear what I mean. I thought he made it very clear he was looking to hear what we thought. And far more broad base than what we're being presented. Two questions, yes or no, that's it. I don't believe that's what the board's looking. I wasn't sure if that's what the board was looking, but he made it kind of clear that the board was looking, or at least he was, he did say he was speaking for himself and not for the entire board, but as a member of the board as supervisors, I thought he made it very clear, he was looking for input from us. Not just yes or no and move on. And it's in that spirit that I was, I thought we were trying to move towards something that we could, with recommendations, provide our answer to the questions with recommendations, whether it be denial, but here's recommendation, or yes, we support it, but here's language we'd like to see. And at the end of the day, the board can choose to adopt or ignore whatever we send them as they always can. But I really believe they're looking for more from us than just yes or no. Even though it may appear, legally in the language what we can do is kind of restricted, but it doesn't mean our thoughts and ideas are being restricted. And that's what I think we, as a commission should try to give them more than just yes or no. Commissioner Barnes. Yeah, see, but I was going to say that the other jurisdictions have already done changed to special exception on all data centers. I think that's where the county wants to go. And that's what the jurisdiction have changed already to make it a special exception. And that's what I was going to say. Commissioner Myers. And that's what I was going to say. Commissioner Meyers. You know, I'm sure just like a large majority of this commission, I mean, I've spent so many hours studying and researching and driving and trying to figure this out and reaching out to people to explain to me the difference between the lead goal and the lead silver and regular lead and understanding what, you know what submerged things are so that I can make solid decisions and recommendations to Mr. Turner based on the information that he provided us to say this is what we want. What's unfortunate is they don't want it right now. With all the respect being shoved down my throat. So you know what, sometimes you have to just decide you have to live for another day. So maybe what we have to decide is that we hope they take this up in phase two, if they don't. You know, we've done everything we can to try to get the information. I apologize to all the people in the audience for all the hours. I've made you spend trying to help me. But I am better educated, I will say in this matter. I do agree with the statements that were made. I think that at this point in somebody once I do not see the health welfare issue that makes every data center have to be a special exception. That's the only question before me tonight. Do I agree that there's a reason why only data centers, every other, the manufacturing, the livestock, the print shops, everything else can remain by right. But we are single-handedly picking out only data center and saying it's a special exception. I fundamentally don't believe that the cause has been made to show me why I need to do that. So for this simple vote that the board wants, I have no problem voting no, because I don't believe it's the right path to take. I do think it is right for us to then after we make this motion and the resolution to give the ideas of things that we think could make this better. If they want to consider going back and looking at certain areas by right, but that's separate of, do we agree with this being a special exception because that's what we've been given to us tonight. We really haven't been asked do we want to look at different land news areas which was my misunderstanding to talk about should they be in the JLNA, should we change that around. That's really not what we've been asked. So I will absolutely support the motion tonight. Unfortunately for denial to come back with the resolution to be done. But I would like to see a further discussion with some ideas that I have in regards to where I can see them warm by right. And other people have ideas that I think are separate of the up and down motion of do we support this sound to be by special exception. Thank you. So just to clarify, the amendment or the motions that we are voting on is not whether we make a separate recommendation. It is simply, do you support the text amendments to the CPAM and the ZOM and want to direct staff to craft the necessary motions and referrals? Okay, I know. I'm just going to make sure I realize this. We're not voting at this moment on. We're recommending to send it up to the board. Right. This is the, well, I know, but everybody talking about whether we should or shouldn't provide additional recommendations, I just wanted to clarify, those are gonna be two separate decisions. Correct, that's what I'm saying. And further after this is done I could see a student separate motions to give recommend a Did you have something else Commissioner Miller? You're late salon. Okay Anyone else to my right? No, there you go. Those lights are already on. Thank you Adam Chair. I think you know the issue and I think a lot of us who are sensing this for moment one It's the issue with the phasing and it sounds like a lot of what we're trying to do and perhaps more misguided in doing it right now, is we're trying to get some of the phase two specifics, the further direction, the things that are somewhat protective, the things that allow some flexibility, the things that are more granular or finely scoped, to make this phase one stand on its own. And based on the interpretations, I think we've kind of fared it out tonight, that to me seems like that's not the call of our question. And that's unfortunate because I think where we're going with a lot of this is to a fruitful place, to a place where phase one could stand better on its own. So if the point of the motion is to expedite the board in redoing the Roya to give us better direction to better do that in a phase one phase two construct or to say let's ditch the phasing and let's do this holistically in one phase then if it's if this is a mechanism for us to get there quicker then I'm supportive of that. Commissioner Jasper, did you have anything you wanted to add? I have a question. The question is for Director Galindo. Director Galindo, I think you already have a work plan for Phase 2. Yes, we do. And how long is the plan expected to take and when would you expect final action? By the board. 15. The, the, what, let us still verify real quick. Yep. Thank you. I know we've seen this chart before. By the way, while you're looking, I want to thank you and the team there who's been working on this for all the incredible work you've done with mapping and responding to all of our questions. I think as you know, we've just you've done a great job and it's been really helpful. Unfortunately, probably minutes ago, it'll say 13 to 15 months. Slide we had up to 14 from the end of phase one to the beginning of phase two. That's essentially our intention. That's what has been put in front of the board to this time. To the beginning? From the end of phase one to the beginning of Phase two. No, it's for the end of Phase two. Okay. So once Phase one ends, pick up Phase two quickly thereafter. I lost my train of thought. Oh well, so let me ask one question relevant to this before the vote. So I believe the motion, unless I missed it, was not specific to the text. When we bring back the resolution, do you want to include the previous mapping decisions as they were made or just blanket denial to them as well? I believe that's going to be part of the recommendations. Would that be the appropriate, that was my thought, but we obviously haven't had a chance to discuss all of this. I mean we can finalize that as part of the later discussion. I just wanted to understand the intent for you all to vote if your original intent was just to say blanket the aisle to everything including the maps or I think it's a it's a straight-up or down and then the recommendation to support it That was the intent of the struggle Okay, and then if I could move on to my sense of the mission um I believe that the board needs the help of the planning commission to constrain and rights-sized development of data centers in the county. And I believe very strongly that the residents of the county are desperately asking us to take action that would enable them not to be subjected to fundamentally different types of functions that were imagined in any of the place types in the comprehensive plan that were part of the envision loud and process. So it's more than 72% of the data centers in loud and are in place types that prohibit them. I don't know how that happened, but we cannot. We really need to give the board all the help they can in slowing this frame wreck down. The county is suffering, both in terms of land use, affordability, excessive fiscal reliance on data centers, et cetera. And so I would not be supporting the motion. I would prefer to vote it up and then come back and have the industry have to wait for the standards. Commissioner Kier. I just want to clarify. So the straw poll we took on the three different areas. That's all being denied as well. Or is that we look at those separate? No. With the what's being proposed right now, those would be denied. And then the feedback that we provided via the straw poles could be confirmed in the recommendations that go to the board. You are voting for it exactly as it is right now. Both C-Pam and ZOM without any additional color commentary or edits from the commission. So with that said, do you have a closing, Mr. Banks? I do have a closing. My closing is that I agree with many of the things that Commissioner Jasper said. I do believe that the board needs and should have the best thinking and recommendations from this planning commission. I think that we as planning commissioners owe that to our fellow residents of Loudon County. I believe all of those things, and I believe that we should tackle this issue about zoning for data centers in our county. And we need to address it in a way that's acceptable to both the board, the planning commission and the citizens. I agree with all of that. And I believe that this motion and sending this back to the board with a denial is the fastest way for us to get to there. Because I believe that we need to address this in a comprehensive and not in a piece meal way. And the only way that we can do that is to deny this particular effort. And to restart it, let's do this in a more common sense, open, fulsome way. Thank you. Okay. I went ahead and let Mr. Banks make his comments without making mine, but that's fine. Yeah, yeah. It's hard to take this 100% exactly as it is. Though I will say I think there's more right in it than wrong, but I do think there's some clarifications and suggestions that are extremely important to be made and hopefully adopted by the board as they can as they fit the Roya, particularly regarding things like grandfathering. And I do think we still have a place to make those recommendations. So I hope that that's the will of the commission when we get beyond this vote. We have a motion on the table. All those in favor of recommending staff prepare a resolution and motion that recommends denial. All those in favor aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Nay. Nay. The motion carries 5-4 with commissioners Kier's, Frank Barnes and Jasper opposed. Is that correct? That's right, you go to the against the answer. Yeah, yeah. Mark was questioning. OK, all right, that motion carries. The next item then would be, is the will of the commission, we're going to go back to a bit of a thoughtful format here, to provide additional recommendations on various items that haven't have not been discussed. To the board with that motion that is coming forward. So if you want to provide that recommendation, raise your hand. All right. So it looks like we are 7 to 2 with Commissioner Myers and Kier supposed. Oh, sorry. You just want to provide additional? Yeah. Do we want to go down that path of providing additional recommendations? Sure. Okay. All right. Then we are all in favor 9 to 0. We will go down and we will start. I have some items you all may have. Some you want to add in there and this is going to be the narrative that goes with What we're looking at Possibly next week before it goes to the board. I mean we'll look at it before it goes the board We're gonna work with staff on the timing I'm gonna start with grandfathering since we've got our our experts up here and Quite candidly it's it's not an issue that I think falls outside of the scope of the Roya. At least no one has screamed at me yet that it does. Does the commission is the commission interested in making a recommendation to the board regarding grandfathering? We'll start with that. All those in favor? Yes. Yes. Commissioner Jasper's and I. Okay, so we're all in favor of that. I'm starting at the very beginning and working my way through, so bear with me. First question is, we get to the terms or any other conditions that we want to discuss, but do we recommend that the board provide a grandfathering resolution when they pass this take action on the CPAM and ZOM? If you think they should provide a grandfathering resolution, raise your hand. Well, I said do we want to talk about it? We said yes, we do. Now I'm saying do we tell the board yes or do we, we could sell the board? No, we don't think they should provide a grandfather in resolution that would be a no. So yes. Commissioner Jasper. Yes. Okay. Mr. Miller, did you vote? Okay. All right. So we are going to provide a recommendation. We are recommending that they issue a grandfathering resolution with their action. Does anyone want to get into specifics such as recommending that objective date or time frame or anything else that I'm failing to come up with? Commissioner Miller, did you have something or just a light on? Okay. Commissioner yours. So, going back to what we talked about this earlier, probably the most lenient would be an applications accepted. Correct? Officially accepted. Going another step down, and I think you said like, I don't know if these things come with a date certain, but first round of review and comments, which means that's actually, to me, that means the application's being worked, not just hurry up and file it before this thing changes. I'm looking at more of whatever that next level would be after application accepted. And is that like something? I wouldn't ask a question. There's going to be a lot of discussion I think. Yeah, so we were debating I think maybe that there's been a second submission provided. Okay. Yes. Yeah, that would be your next logical step. And at that point they would have already received all the referral comments. And when they submit their second that would have a date on it. So you would say the date second submission. Correct. Okay. Okay. Sorry. Yeah. Can I send close? I would just add though that I feel, and I think this is reflected in the grandfather and resolution, that there does need to be some kind of, I don't know how to quantify it, but affirmative, positive action by the applicant and actually addressing the first submission comments with the second submission as well. Why can't we stand for Zora? Pardon. Why wouldn't we be adopting the same grandfathering resolution that we adopted for Zora? We aren't adopting a resolution. No, why would we recommend the board? Could that be a recommendation? The same resolution they adopted for Zora. Could that be a recommendation? Yes. Otherwise, we're really confusing people. Well, some people may not like that recommendation, which is what's being discussed. recommendation? Yes. Otherwise, we're really confusing people. Well, some people may not like that recommendation, which is what's being discussed. What other points in the process could be in that? Because that recommendation had the first option that was described, which was, or that resolution pardon me, had the first option, which was the anything accepted by this date when we adopt this change. And my intent was to go one step beyond that. Not just Russian and get your application accepted. It's actually something being done and that application being worked at some level. And that would be the next look. That's what I was discussing. So I think that's where we are at the moment is openly discussing and asking questions about those options and then we can Put us through our poll forward and see where the support is. Okay, Commissioner Myers. I'd like to ask a question of I think Bill Junda in regards to timing. Seeing how he's an engineer and doing those applications. So come on up, share your expertise with us. If you're not the right one, you can tag team somebody else. First of all, I'd like to have you just give us an idea of what is the time table it takes you to actually get an application not submitted but officially accepted. And then number two, what's the time table that it takes you from that point to actually get to second submission? I think there's two answers whether we're talking administrative or legislative. On the administrative of a slight plan, usually an acceptance occurs within a week or two of submission. And from there on the administrative side, when you receive comments, maybe you're talking two to three weeks after you receive those comments that have the plan back in for your second submission. So about 30 days from the time you submit. And then if it's a legislative, would the comments be 30 days plus or minus? And then another couple of weeks after that to make your second submission, if that is the milestone. So again, how many days is it from the time you're officially accepted to you've got your second comments? Is that what we said, second comments submitted? Is that what you said? Second submissions. Second submissions. Second submissions. What would you say is the realistic time for a period of that? Any, anywhere from six to eight weeks, it really depends on how fast comments are issued on the first submission. Okay. And then if it's legislative? So legislative, the acceptance process is longer you submit and that could be 30 days between submission and acceptance. And then again comments usually take about 30 days. And it depends on what the comments are asking for, how many different studies reports, applications need to be revised to address those comments. It could be a couple of weeks as well. So it could be another, you know, say, two months from acceptance before you have your second submission back in. So, so in the best case scenario you're talking about in average two months. Best case. For both cases, both really cases. That would be the county staff working really quickly and the applicant working really quickly. Okay. Okay. But that could also be four months, yes. It depends on what, so if you're, if you're, if you're the intent of your question was to say can we study timeline, that probably wouldn't service. If the goal is second submission, it just has to be second submission. Whenever that point in the future that the applicant makes their second submission, that's time. I'm just trying to, I'm just trying to, because I know we're talking about two different things there, whether it's officially accepted or if it's second round reviews. I'm just trying to figure out like does that mean that then somebody basically today better get it in because by the time the board if we decide it takes it becomes effective with the board's public hearing and it goes back that 60 days or whatever. That means you better be in today because you've got no time. So that's what I'm just trying to figure out. That's the time table I'm trying to figure out is what is the time table that somebody needs to make sure their application is in to understand what rules they're going to get. That's why I was asking the question. That makes sense. I think there's also a concern that maybe there's one or two agencies that don't provide their comments in a telling manner and a lot of times that's not even the county. It's V dot which could be two months, three months, maybe four months. And if we have to wait for them before we can resubmit, those are things that are outside the control of the applicant. So then the- Yeah, it's a very arbitrary and there's no side is under control of it. So if our recommendation is second submission, it would have to be solely on the items that are under the county's purview. No, are you good? Well, you could. People have submitted without complete feedback from a department in the past, right? I mean, it has been done. Yeah, if we know that we're not going to receive V.comments for two months, and we have an idea that it's going to be very late, usually project managers will work with the applicants to say you can submit without V.comments. Right. Normally we wouldn't extend that to internal reviews, but again, v. It's at the project manager's discretion. We've done it. I've done that. Right. Commission. More project tomorrow. I'm sorry. I think you should let me. We do. We do. Yeah. We officially accepted as one saying. That's fine. I sure barn. I don't want to give them a time limit because sometimes we don't have enough staff. They have to work it. And so I don't think we can tell them how much time the staff should take. You can talk to applicants all you want. But one thing I would want to do that is put it on the staff, extraordinary load, demand too much that they can't do it. So that's where I would be, I don't want to. Chair Frank, can I ask you because I wasn't here for the zoning or saying, what was Joel's recommendation on the resolution? For grandfathering we didn't make one. We made a conscious decision not to give the board our input on that. Okay, because I thought you guys said you did make one. Okay. Not on that. Not on grandfatherfathers specifically no We made it on other items okay mr. Glendo so I was going to Suggest that another way of looking at it as well that the official submission is a simpler act shall we say whether it's administrative or legislative there is a checklist that must be met once it's met one staff member deemed if we We issue the the notice that's accepted. Getting into a second submission, hopefully everybody's hitting their timelines and referrals, but those don't always happen. We don't know what the workload is a different. So you could make it official acceptance and push the date back by comparison. So instead of waiting two months for what second submission might be, pick one of those certain dates for only acceptance earlier, just as an alternative way to kind of get to the same goal perhaps. So, so instead say. So instead of when the board adopts it, the board's public hearing or something of that nature, just an earlier date certain. Okay. All right. Yeah. Hold on a second. Okay. Commissioner Jasper, you've been waiting. Let me go to that and then we're going to pop back over. No worries. This is along the same lines. I mean, I think we could have, we could pick a, in the scope that was described by the county attorney. I think we're trying to pick something that's midway, not the most lenient, as was done with the Zor, or not something as prohibitive as going back to the day in July when LaRoya was issued, right? So we're really trying to find that sweet spot. I'm not sure I understand how the mechanism being described by director Gullindo would work, but it sounds like you know it was filed and accepted and another certain amount of time has expired. I just didn't really understand that. So under the Zora resolution, the date was the boards adoption. And so an application, whether administrative or legislative, had to be officially accepted by that date of adoption. But it could be officially accepted by an earlier date, whether it was the boards hearing, the commissions hearing, the commission's recommendation. One of those other definite dates was my point. Just as a different way to potentially look at this if the commission is concerned about kind of finding a middle ground that's maybe earlier than what the original resolution was. So you, by reference to a commission date rather than or a board date rather than by applicant action? Yes. I would just add to this is Jason. I would just add to that it could also be the application has achieved a certain milestone by that earlier date such as by adoption of the board's Roya, the second submission already has occurred. Yeah, that's even a stricter. Mr. Jenda. I was just going to, Dan brought up a good point and Fairfax County adopted a similar change to special exception use this year in September. And when they made the final vote, they actually said that if you were submitted and accepted prior to their public hearing back in July, then you're grandfathered. And so it wasn't like people could rush in, it was already too late at that point. Right, well that's what we were just comparing notes that were you to say if you were submitted and accepted by the date of the Commission's public hearing, that pretty much gave you more than 90 days from when the Royal was passed by the board in early July to when we took it up on September 24th. So it kind of buys you about what that window would have been, that three to four month window. I mean, that might to give us a firm date, not a point in the process. That's an option. I guess we could tie it to the action that we take in the coming weeks as well, when the Planning Commission made a recommendation. We could make that recommendation to the board. They tie it to that. So that might be a couple other ways to get a similar result on the spectrum of, you know, grandfathering loosely and tightly for lack of a better word. You know, where we land on that spectrum. So that's just a, I think that would get there and it sounds like that's a doable way. So that's one thing to keep in mind. Any other questions or thoughts before we start trying to figure out what the will of the commission is commissioner Myers? To begin I'll put I'll put a motion on for Not making motions. We're gonna get strong polls. Well, I'll do a motion for straw poll We can figure it out there's five four. I mean it's a motion for a straw poll that everyone will call it I would move that the board supervisors considervisors consider recommending to the Board of Supervisors a grandfathering proposal which would be that any application officially accepted by the time of the Board of Supervisors public hearing would be considered to be deemed to follow under the existing policies or whatever that final word should be because to me then that's clear that when the Board is there here and you're done You can't make a quick turnaround because You know they're gonna be working on it for another According to them 30 90 days whatever till you know, so you basically got to get in by the intergur done Okay, we've got a suggested straw poll. Just everybody understands what was being so it would be based on the date of the board's upcoming public hearing. It would be the marker. Okay, all those in favor of that being our recommendation to the board. Okay, so we have all those opposed? Nay. Nay. All right. That motion is going to pass five to five to four. Yes. That recommendation is going to pass into our suggestions five to four. I think it's helpful too if as we make each of these recommendations, and this is something Mr. Myers raised earlier in this process. There was a little parenthesis that shows the vote count when it goes to the board so they can see it was 9-0 or 5-4. Right, I do think that's helpful, is that narrative? Because I know when I'm having the discussions with leadership, that comes up a lot. Was it a close vote? What was the thinking? So let's make that real easy for them. I would also encourage individual members to discuss with their supervisor because the four of us that voted no just now. You don't know what? May have done so for dramatically different reasons. Either too lenient or too tight, one or the two, I mean, excuse me, anything. All right, agree. That's always good practice. Are there any other recommendations regarding grandfathering that the commission would like to make to the board? So that they do it and that that be what it's based on? I didn't have anything else. You can go return to the pews as I call them. We'll bring you back if needed. Thanks, Bill. Okay, so I'm going to say we're moving on from grandfathering. It doesn't mean somebody can't throw it out again later, but. We already took straw poles on those three map areas so you can with the recommendation of denial to the board and you can capture our recommendation was that two of the three probably were appropriate and the one was we did not recommend go forward. Okay. Good frame. Yes. So that means PC recommends approval of two and denial of one. Yes, we recommended approval of our cola and what's our least for goose creak, thank you. And not the other. And this is where the narrative of one or two sentences as to why we didn't recommend the one might be important. I have some notes on that if we need to compare notes between now and that drafting to get that captured. Do we take other straw poles that are still relevant in the context of the up and down vote? We need to codify. Okay. I had a portion of a motion to help focus discussion, but I think a lot of that discussion has changed tonight. It could be. I think if we've covered what came to my mind immediately and what staff has on their list so far that we've done, I think we opened the floor to anything else that anybody else wants to make a recommendation on realizing that some of it may not be in the scope of the Roya or phase one, but that we would like the board to be aware that this is our sentiment and recommendation. So I'm going to open that up and folks are welcome to put something on the table. We'll just try to finish one at a time before we jump to something else. That's my request. Mr. Miller, did you have something else? I don't have it in front of me right now. I'll actually thought Mr. Kirsch was going to bring it up. Does Commissioner Kirce have any? No? I think the earlier discussion indicated the need for, in my mind for the thing that I brought up last week. Okay. You guys can have a couple minutes if you want. I don't know. I think we still want to make a recommendation motion clip in regards to the protection of existing campuses that you had worked on because I think that's an important thing for the board to consider as their. If they're going to move forward to make everything by special exception. Well, so, I had kind of work on a motion to put, but again, it puts language and zoning ordinance. But, and this is 1.02 E2, that's the paragraph. And, Dan, do you have a copy of these motions or no? I have a copy of some motions. Well, this one in particular, it's relatively small. This was included in the... And I'm trying to figure out if based on the language here, and what Mark had said, how they review these, investing is if any change in the language is really necessary. And I would, if somebody from industry can explain, if staff doesn't think so and something that can explain why it needs to change, I'd like to hear it because after hearing the discussion tonight with the staff, I don't know that that language changes needed. Mr. agenda, you're welcome to join us again if you would like. I had similar thoughts, I think having clarification, unfested and grandfathering in what those cover and what administrative decisions cover and such answered a lot of my questions, but I would be interested in hearing if there's still things that are of great concern to the folks who operate in this world. I think there are. Thank you for letting me chime in on this. I think where we're concerned is more on the administrative side where you have campuses that have been partially developed. Maybe there's a site plan in for one or two of the ultimate four or five, six buildings. Maybe that initial site plan showed some information about the future buildings and whether that provides some vested protection. I guess that's a question that we're also asking. But I think the motion that Commissioner Kierst is looking at. The wording on that we're hoping protects those campuses that they can continue on as they originally planned, even if they don't have all their slight plans in for all their buildings. By leveraging that chapter 102, E section that says that once you have an approved slight plan and a use established, that becomes the special exception for that use and that should allow you to continue developing the entire property, not just that first building. So, let me understand the concern, is that the way this chapter paragraph is written now, it refers more to something that is already in existence, the intent of this language for something that has yet to be built. And staff, would you concur that that's sort of how that paragraph is designed? It's designed to address an existing use that's in existence as opposed to. Correct. Okay, then I would go ahead and move forward with the recommendation of the change to this language to protect Applications that are in the process but have not yet been built but have been approved Can I ask a question on this yeah if the as bill is suggesting if the intent is to address a concern where For example a site plan is in on phase one, but not yet for phase two and three. Is that something we can address with ZOM when we're talking about bested rights that are conferred by statute? Is that something we can address with this language here? Is your question whether this language would get incorporated into what the board takes action on or as part of the law? I think I think I can address this. Are you saying that are the laws for vested rights would that cover an application as opposed to that being correct? Sort of. With the protections you're looking for here be covered under vested rights. No. It's not entirely what I'm asking more. Can we even touch something that's subject of state statute with respect to what rights are vested? Can we expand that with this OAM language? Because the concern I'm hearing is we're trying to protect phase two in this hypothetical phase two and three, which don't yet have a site plan. We're going to say, well we want, I think in this motion, you're saying, well we want those phases two and three to also be protected even though they don't have a site plan. But from my understanding, they don't have that significant affirmative governmental action. And are we allowed to even do that if they're not going to get vested rights in that? But I don't think only by statute we can't create that by. I don't think this says on an approved site plan. So that would be if you had planned three phases and you had an approved site plan for one, that's what this would apply to. If you have not gotten a site plan yet for two or three, it wouldn't apply to that. Yeah, no, no, I know that it's saying, showing on an approved site plan in the language, but as I'm hearing the concern, the concern is about that hypothetical we discussed. Phase is two and three do not yet have a site plan yet we want to protect them. I'm asking can we do that even? I don't think we're trying to protect something that hasn't even been applied for yet. If it's by right and they haven't taken the action, then that's correct. You would not be able to create a vesting where there was no application or approval in a site plan. But I'm not sure that's what you're suggesting with this change to 102E. Well, my understanding, this is again to protect if there is an approved site plan, but hasn't been built yet. Okay. And if they've, this language change, if they may not make some changes, you know, tweaks to it, they would be, they wouldn't have to come back for a special exception. That's what I think believe the intent of this language is trying to cover. That as long as they, it's built, they're within the, the by right density and regulations that were in use at the time it was established, then they would be okay. That's right, I think that does apply only to one where you already received your significant governmental act. I will also tell you that this is not going to just apply to data centers. Yeah. Okay. The one thing I would add to is under this language, you could have your original site plan for one building, but then amend your site plan and add to buildings two and three, which I think is kind of the situation you're afraid of. And then I was also going to make the point that this language applies to all uses in the zoning ordinance. It is not limited to the data center discussion. So this motion would open this section up to every single use in the zoning ordinance. So I don't think it would apply to two and three that don't have a site plan yet, but it would allow you to take that one site plan if you built an FAR 0.5, but 1.0 was allowed. And expand it all the way up to 1.0 without getting a special exception. So even though that's not what's been contemplated thus far, this language as written would allow you to make that level of expansion without any legislative oversight. Which very well, you actually, that was on my notes. So where we may have, or the board and or the board may have very consciously said your FAR is this on this parcel for these reasons, we will have undone that. Not necessarily, not if it's tied to the proffers or legislative action. I think going back to a lawfully existing use that becomes a special exception, or are you so on a per-site plan that becomes a special exception? So the intent is going more towards buy right than legislative. I don't want to over speak if you see an issue with. What the idea is- Please, please. And I think another issue here is that you'd have to constantly identify zoning ordinances at particular periods and time to say this was the allowable by right use when this was approved in 2011. And so we'd have to have multiple readings from zoning ordinances to determine what was the maximum allowable use. And I think it's really important to say this isn't just going to apply to data centers and I don't think we can make this data center specific. I don't think I have anything to add. I do agree that the way I saw this is it's opening up more flexibility for more development that wasn't shown on an approved site plan without getting a specs. So I mean, that's the way I read it. It's to allow that more flexibility, which I think is troublesome to try to implement the way it's written here. So I guess my question, Mr. Kieres, is sometimes I had to do this with parts of Zor. Go back and go, okay, what are we trying to accomplish? Because I don't think this language seems to have some concerns that are being expressed. So what are we trying to accomplish and just staff or anyone else have another recommendation of how to accomplish that, maybe not? Or can we work on that as a recommendation? Is that something we can work on and bring back to the commission to say yes, we recommend that, no, we don't recommend that. So this is purely hypothetical, but I think if the concern is about allowing by right use that's been approved lawfully all the way through up till now, to have some ability to expand that going back to the permitted slash special exception kind of concept. One of these specific standards would be that anything above 10% of flora expansion or above a specific square footage would make it a special exception. That way anything below it allows you to put it through by right. Something like that potentially could work. Not that I've talked to legal or anyone about this, but it just says a concept is a little idea. I think something like that that kind of got a threshold that underneath remains by right to capture some of these concerns. I don't know what that threshold is at the moment, but something like that. And as you pointed out, it would have to be a threshold that applies to all uses, because we can't, this isn't specific. Well, not necessarily so if we make a data, so ignoring, it would not go here. It would go into chapter four. So it would be something as one of the use specific standards specifically for data center that allows, essentially allows things under a certain size to be processed as a permitted, just purely administrative, and anything over that to become, to require special exception. And not specific to size, but we have some triggers like that in other specific standards in the ordinance already. But it wouldn't, it would not go here. So basically you ignore this, but it's to try to capture the same, to address the same idea in another. Some more else, right. It's an interesting thought. Mr. Miller? Okay. Yeah. Mr. Miller? Yeah, Mr. Rogers. In given the parameters and how you interpret the Roya that you wrote. Any of the things that we are recommending at least from this particular motion that Commissioner Cures was talking about. If we recommended this to the board and the board wanted to do it, could they under the guidelines, under the guidance of the Roya for phase one? No, they could not, they'd have to come back and do a separate Roya to do it. Exactly. So right, but my point is though that we're asking questions of Leo and the industry and Bill in the industry about whether or not this can work or not. Well, it doesn't matter. It matters what we think, not what they think, because we're saying, these are our suggestions. That we know that cannot be incorporated in the board's final vote on phase one. So to what granular level do we need to get on this topic in order to provide a recommendation to the board. But we can inform the new royal that might issue and I think that's what we're trying to do with our recommendations. Say, if this can't be done now, we're expecting a new royal to issue so that it can be properly stoked and we can inform that now. I think we all identified the royal as constructed. I didn't really contemplate all of this. So maybe we should have done this before that Roy was issued. Well, we're doing it now. Okay. That's the whole goal of it. I like that idea. And I think this is where Commissioner Myers was going with this earlier on is maybe it is in the table in Chapter 3 three a P slash S and the P has additional types of performance standards, right? And maybe it is, right, an expansion of less than 10% or something that's sounds a bit like the discretion of the zoning administrator already has. I have another question though and it's back to that hypothetical where the site plan is in for phase one but not yet for phases two and three. Is there anything we can do to protect phases two and three? There is that investing issue that we just can't really touch. Are there tools we do have to protect the campus like that? I don't see how you could do that because you don't have a vested right. There's no application that's before you. It's really an expectation that a property owner may have. Okay. Bill Jeffs of the room. I did. Just to further elaborate, if we're not talking about phases two and three, but we're talking about 10% or whatever it is for the change. I think what we're also concerned about is that you have an approved plan. You need to make a significant change that is way outside the bounds of a site plan amendment. We're still in that 5% or 10% range, but the building moves from one side of the site to the other, and is that protected? I think that's what we're concerned about as well, especially if you have to make that site layout change to accommodate adding battery storage or one of the other incentives we've been talking about. Yeah, the minor change that's allowed administratively does allow for moving up buildings and parking within the, it says within the building of the loaps of it's within the designated area. You know, within, I think it could be done through that minor change. There's flexibility to ask for it that way. Okay. Mr. Banks. To follow up on the point that Commissioner Miller was making earlier, that is since whatever we, any other recommendations that we're going to give tonight are probably going to be beyond the scope of the current Roya anyway. I'm not sure how granular we need to get in those recommendations, but rather identify concepts and principles that we think should be considered. So for instance, I think the concept that Commissioner Kieres was talking about is development of a campus that has all only been partially approved and not even going to any further detail about it. But to then put that notion in the heads of the board of supervisors for them to further discuss with both planning, zoning planning and legal staff as to what if anything was available for them to be able to do that. I'm sure Miller's chips something else. Sure Frank. Yes sir. So I was going to ask my two points and actually that was one of them so thank you. I agree. The second thing I was going to mention is that under the timeline we've laid out four phase two, formally it's not mentioned that we would come back to the planning commission until the typical process like we have now. But what we could do is during the stakeholder engagement, public engagement portion, we can come back to you at that point, which is relatively early on and have some of these discussions then. Because all of that was going to occur before we went back to the board for a check in and then produced the Roya which is about halfway through that process. It's not something on the front end so all of your concepts we could ensure get captured for phase 2 then it gets put in front of the board and then whatever action they take on the Roya whether we go as expansive as staff recommends or not will all get it will help avoid some of this getting it on the front end. I think that's a good suggestion and a good thing to do. Going back to the earlier question about timeline, if you asked me to come back four months in a row, realize it's going to expand the timeline. While being sensitive to the timeline, I think the commission would like to have input earlier in the process if that is something that staff can incorporate. I'll speak on behalf of next year's chair but we would welcome that from the sounds of it. Yeah, I think it could save. At least we'll know we've had the input whether it was taken or not as the boards program. Okay. Okay. That's one more motion. Did we want to, where did we land on the motion or the thought we were just discussing about not having the approved site plans in place? Well, from the front. We want to capture a sentiment. Well, the first act of capture and a recommendation. Because I thought, where we thought, Daniel, you thought we could go with this is find another place where we could capture that sentiment as a recommendation. So I think Commissioner Banks is the point he was making. Is it, rather than identifying it should go in chapter 4, chapter, if we just say that one of the things that Bortra consider are this sort of issue, this potential loophole we see where there's a portion of a campus that has been constructed, that they'd more to think about the effects on the remaining campus as part of their action on phase one and or as part of the phase two discussion. To get them thinking about it that way we make sure it you have a site plan, forget about phase two or three. You have an approved site plan but now I've got to make some changes to it. I want to either, I want to do bad restores. I have to find a place. I have to move the building to accommodate that or something else happens. And I need to move the building. Those are the kinds of things I was trying to protect in this language. Mark, you said that those things would already be protected? Is there some kind of language that just firms it up a little more? There is, you know, the section I'm talking about is section 10.11.01H, and that's where it talks about the minor change after approval. So that's where it spells out. It's basically built into address things like, you know, if you need to make a change due to topography or requirements of the other government agency, where you need flexibility to do that. So it would have to be reviewed based on what's the basis for the change. And then the ordinance also talks about addition of an accessory structure, re-alignment of principal building and parking areas within a group building envelope, or minor additions to principal buildings and additions to parking provided. The total all building additions need to exceed 5% of the grocery store area, or exceed maximum amount permitted by the zoning ordinance. So that's kind of what that flexibility is built into the ordinance form. I think the draft here, though, again, we're looking for something that's been sharing on an approved plan that's existing. Once it becomes special exception, it's a team to have special exception as it exists at that time. So this would be looked at as to what's been approved or what's been existing when it became a special exception use. So I think this change is looking for more flexibility to not just say the existing use, but if you have a site plan maybe that hasn't been built, that you should be allowed to proceed with that. Which you would be undervesting, but if you're going to go above and beyond what was shown on that plan, to say up to the maximum amount of the district, that's what they're looking for with this, which is beyond what this section of flexibility that I would have or the Zodium Ministry would have. Yeah, well I think we kind of will pull it out of this section, but in put it into something data center specific. Yes. All right. So I think depending on how broadly you are comfortable wording is it could be something like that the commission recommends that the board consider consider instances where previously by right uses need to make certain limited changes on site and that the commission recommends that those should not require a special exception. Something like that to convey that concept without getting too detailed. And that it only applied to data centers? Yeah, because that data center said that removes it from here. Okay. Okay. Can we just make sure that it doesn't have to? One of the things that I keep here about is like, so the battery charging things and other things that we're talking about may not have been shown on the existing site, but it's something now they want to add as an accessory to it. I want to make sure that that's also covered under this language we're talking about, that it all of a sudden doesn't, because we actually want them to do this on site. They're trying to do it, but in order to do it, and they don't go above their FAR doing it, because they're doing it now there's special exception. So I want to make sure we capture that both ways if that makes sense. I don't want it shouldn't be that it had to be shown and it had to be a use and accessory use. It should be able to be looked at as yes. You know, here's the things the board wants to see for saving energy. We want to do these on site. Here they can do it in this area. That can be viewed as if it's still a buy-write use not all of a sudden because they want to do the battery storage or whatever on site. Now they become a special exception because they're trying to do something we ask them that we encourage as an incentive. Was that part of the, would that be covered currently under the accessory use discussion we had earlier? Yes, I have, the scryteria than it would be, but it may be difficult to meet the scryteria depending on the scale of what they need to add. Okay. So it could be that you might want to build some more flexibility in. Okay, build. I think that's our concern is that chapter 10 does allow flexibility, but again, if it has to stay within the original building envelope and we need to shift it from one side to the other or grow it significantly to add that extra use. That's where we move outside the balance of chapter 10 and if we can add some language there that helps us with that additional flexibility, I think that would be super helpful. Good night. Sean. Bill, is it the building envelope constraint itself? That is the most challenging, is that? It is, if you have a slight plan that's approved and you have a building that's this piece of paper here and you need to move this piece of paper over it over it here. Now it's no longer in conformance with that building envelope on the original plan. Commissioner Miller. As much as I trust Bill so much so that my dog goes to the same day here on his recommendation, I trust Bill explicitly. We have folks in the audience that represent industry in a different way than Bill does, some are developers and related attorneys, and perhaps if we're going to consider these things, perhaps one or two of them could come up and give us an actual real-world example of the problem that the unintended consequences of the things that we're talking about they could face. If we're going down the path of making recommendations to the board, maybe we should understand a real-world example perhaps or two of the challenges that we're faced by this conversation we're having right now. Okay, well here's the concern with that is we're not having another public hearing. And so I can't just open the floor to open up, you know, five people want to get up and give me their scenario. What I mean, I don't want to put Bill on the spot. I don't expect him to know everything about everything. But I do think he's given you a scenario or two where there's a concern. So I think that's enough. We don't need to know there's 20 concerns. I'm sure there are others. But we better keep this a little controlled and I don't want to spend the next hour going through this. So, because we're not going to get through everything else. So I'm going to trust that Bill has given us a fairly adequate, accurate picture of things. That's just part of what we have to do in this situation. And I think if I'm not opening up the public hearing again, we did not advertise that. We're not delaying it that much to do that. So. I'll just send it to you. Okay. We had asked people to come in case we wanted to hear from industry and now we're saying we don't. I don't need to hear from ten industry. Then they made that we've had these conversations, I have multiple conversations with them over the last couple of weeks to sort of give them a scope of what it was going to do. So, okay. This is not a surprise anyone. Everyone is welcome to attend every public meeting. Does we make it to speak? That is the process. So, moving on. Do we have, then do you feel like, do you want to or to somebody else want to put forward a statement similar, I guess, to what Mr. Glendo did a moment ago, that we take a straw poll on whether we support and want to direct, make direct staff to draft something that we recommend to the board. But they keep this in mind as, you know, do you want to go forward? You, since you initiated, I'm going to look at you, Mr. Kierst. Yeah, absolutely. I'd like to go forward with something that would be data center specific. And obviously this isn't the place where it belongs. I would agree with that, but I would like to find something that we could get. And again, that would be super, super specific, but at least points to some providing for some flexibility or approve but not yet built facilities. And or by right? They have to be approved. Okay. So it doesn't necessarily require legislative action, right? Okay. So it's not approved, but it's- Okay It doesn't necessarily part legislative action Okay, so it's not approved but it's like that we were also talking about by rights centers that need to make a certain change Without triggering aspects right okay Do you have is that enough to incorporate into language to read back to us or do we need to get that gathered up? Read back to you, absolutely not. I was not trying to do that, that one word for word. I can if you want to say it again. I was trying to, the last portion of what you said, can you repeat it to the last, you kind of said one thing and then and something else. Do you remember how to phrase that? I'm sorry, I know that's very vague. I'm sure I didn't take notes and listen at the same time and fail. So you want, because you want to capture if it's by right, then the movement, the- Right, if they haven't approved site plan, but they need to make changes to that. It could be, they want to put a battery storage on site, saline in accessory and they have to move the building or in the case that we dealt with road moved. It said to significantly make a change to it because they county road moved so they had to move the building. Things along those natures that if they're not you know not coming back saying oh you were approved for 500 thousand square feet We changed our mind we want a million now That's not what we're talking about we're talking about they wanted to be ostensibly keep the same facility But for some reason they have to change that approved site plan In some minor way that Under the new regulation may have triggered. hey, it's a special exception, but in this case, it would be grandfather. So I think Mark's earlier point is that if they're making a change, a minor change in reaction to something that's being imposed upon them essentially, that the, that can be handled administratively. But I think what Mr. Junder was saying is that if the if the user wants to flip the site, everything else still says the same at all should would have would have been approved that way before but wasn't because this is how it was laid out. Right. That they're looking for the flexibility to do that. Right. So are you comfortable with that kind of? Okay. Yes. Okay. So. Or again, I also am concerned about something that has a language that they need to put in accessory building on or when you think it's a building. Whatever structure you need to for the desired accessory, put a battery back. If you want to put battery. Okay, so now I have those concepts. Okay. Okay. Vice Chair comms. Well, it's along the lines of what Commissioner Cures was just suggesting, but I think, you know, the demands on these data center campuses are somewhat dynamic with technology changes and whatnot. So they may need a change to their campus. That's not because of something that's imposed on them, but it's just something they need to do. And I think what we're asking the Board to consider is some sort of threshold that allows that existing campus to, right, that's already there, that allows it to change as circumstances require, not in a massively substantial way, but a way for them to address their need for change. So in a way that doesn't trigger aspects. And now I understand that's a very fuzzy concept and that's why we're punting it up. But I think that's kind of what we're talking about, I think, to an needs to reflect the dynamic nature of technology advances in the data center industry and permit, I'm going to call them here, incidental changes that might not be the best language in the end, but incidental changes that is that enable the operator to take advantage of advances in technology that mitigate the center's impact on environment, community, you know, or operational efficiency. It's not all there, but I think the elements of changes that created benefit to the operator and the community and that they're incidental to existing you. Mr. Gullindo. So I understand the sentiment. And I'm trying, I think the issue we're going to run into for a simple recommendation of the board of the kind of concepts to consider, easy enough to capture and push forward. Functionally, how to achieve that is going to be potentially harder, but that's not a concern for now. I was going to say since this isn't really in the Roya, this is, we've got time to figure it out. As much as Rogers that if anything's blatantly illegal to jump in, but otherwise we would try to capture these concepts and present them to the board. I know, I know. This is his neighborhood after all. All right. So generally speaking, we're deciding whether to recommend to the board that they allow existing data centers to make certain changes and include desired accessory uses Without triggering a new specs I Was there I okay, so no I wasn't I was still thinking so yes, no but I'm good. All right, I. Okay, so is anybody opposed? All right, we're going to add that recommendation in 9-0, yes, Abdul. I just wanted to see if that was 9-0. Yeah, 9-0. So I will try to count correctly for you since I've asked you to record it. Are there any other recommendations that we would like to discuss providing to the board? Mr. Gears? I had one other. Although this is only applies if the board goes ahead and makes data centers conditional, which I think they're going to. But what I have under motion to, this is fairly simple, I think, and straightforward. I inserted one paragraph in each of the seven place types that allow data centers to basically, you're going to make them conditional. Here's kind of what we're looking for for data centers. And the only other one I made, an extra paragraph is the first one, urban employment. And as you remember, I gave him a speech on that and we voted to leave it urban employment. But I just wanted to acknowledge that long, the staffs and the board's concern is long term. They may look towards redevelopment of this area and that put up extra statement in there about just long term we may look at these areas for redevelopment but in the short and near and mid term data center uses our appropriate and urban employment. And again, if each of those, the other first paragraph is the same in each of the place types and it's just providing, we're going to make them conditional. Let's provide some kind of language in the plan that direct somebody towards. This is what we're looking for for data centers in these place types. So are you following this? This is motion 2. That commissioner Jesser. Chamber suggested I'm trying to. Yes. Please manage them to. Yes. I'm the one on the email I distributed on Tuesday. Yeah. Okay. I think we are a little closer to the scope of the Roya here, right Dan? We are. So the recommendation I would make is that I think you could instead of insert it into each individual place type, you could put this language elsewhere to achieve the same purpose. If you could, I was trying to find a one place to cover them all. I couldn't come up with it, but if you can, absolutely. Okay. But I think it's a concept for providing additional policy guidance. This makes sense. Yeah, I have two things I'll add since there's not a lot of lights yet. I'm sure that will change. Well, it's regarding that or my comments. So I don't, I'm not, I won't sign off to this exact language, the sentiment, yes. But I do not want whatever recommendation we make to be exactly this language. And I have a question as well for staff. I'm a little concerned that we've got a half-told story here because if we do this here, we don't have the specifics. We don't have the tool in this. This doesn't mean we don't have the specifics, we don't have the tool in this, this doesn't mean we can't make the recommendation, maybe this is coming. We don't have the specifics to deal with this aspirational language in the zoning ordinance. I mean, what is near a transmission line corridor? What is adequately buffered and appropriately set back? I mean, the zoning ordinance and use standards and things tend to give us that. And today's exercise, we can't make that change right away. So I'm a little hesitant to make these changes without having the other half. That's how I'm looking at it. But because I think this is a little more than in the scope of what we can do just because it's chapter two, although we put it somewhere else. Perhaps it's no longer chapter two and not in our room. Am I? Well, so I'm taking, I'm, and correct me if I'm wrong, I was taking this as yet another recommendation so that you will, that will be the formal resolution. Right, I know. I'm just making sure that our recommendation isn't this exact language without a second part. That's my, I guess I'm staying, I'm not nuts. That's my, I guess, just my discussion points to the rest of the commissioners. I think if we do this, we have to look at the other half of it as part of our recommendations. You have to have the zoning ordinance piece. Yes. Yeah. Okay, so my other question is, if we take this and put it somewhere else, does it automatically apply to every one of these place types that is listed currently? So I don't know if I have not worked through where the appropriate place would be and how it would be kept. Right. But if you had this kind of language in one location referring to essentially all data centers, then yes, it would apply to all places where data center is considered appropriate in one of the three categories. So that would be my simpler way of capturing the same idea. Still be reference and referrals moving forward would still be considered for rezoning for special exceptions. And I would prefer that. I just when I took a run through, I couldn't find one place where it made sense to do that. But if you can find it great, I think that would be good. If I may add, just starting to direct your glenders off. I think we can find, because we looked at some of the languages are the same in most of the playstypes except urban employment. But I think the urban employment concept can stay in that play type. The rest of them we can find a common play that can apply to all data centers. We can definitely. Right. Because there's additional language on that. Okay. I hesitate to even after our last meeting. I think to address your point. So there are certain things in the plan that we desire that we cannot require by ordinance. So this would not be the only thing that's establishing guidance that we're for things we're seeking that wouldn't automatically go into the zoning ordinance. So having this here without it being the ordinance, even though depending on what the board wants to do, this wouldn't necessarily be in there right now, but that would not be completely unheard of. We have plenty of things like that. Well, not unheard of. I know we lived through a few years of having a conference, a plan that was updated and not having a zoning ordinance that was updated, and that did cause some growing pains and headaches for I think all parties. Sure. Commission staff, applicants, you know, trying to figure out how to bridge those two at times. That's what my concern was is that we've created another small version of that problem by doing this. So if we do one, I think we have to do the other, I guess would be my suggestion. The other thing though is, this assumes that we think this does not make it a specs. No. Right. It's a good idea. It's a good idea. It's a good idea. It's a good idea. It's a good idea. It's a good idea. It's a good idea. It's a good idea. It's a good idea. It's a good idea. It's a good idea. It's a good idea. It's a good idea. general about a use period. But even if the board makes it a special exception in the ordinance and a conditional use in the plan, despite the commission's recommendation, they could still put in language like this in that instance. Without having matching zoning ordinance. Yeah, they can. Right. Okay. I just want to, as this is currently put in front of us though, it applies to all seven of those. So you're, we're making the decision that we're okay with all seven of those continuing those playstipes. Yeah. All right. Comment. Mr. Miller. So I think that I understand what you're saying about being more specific here. I think the broad based nature of this, the notion that we're presenting to the board is here's some guidelines through which staff can judge the specs, and then that industry can know what the specs may be. My concern about not doing this because we haven't done the supporting zoning and the challenges it creates is frankly the reason, the primary reason why I'm generally opposed to phase one and phase two of this, because phase one is going to say it's all specs. And then at some point in the probably distant future, and I say distant only because it says up there by our time, that there won't be any guidance for making everything in specs. So the challenge that you see as why we wouldn't, maybe not running through this language, is the challenge that the larger picture, which I agree with you. So if the board is OK with that, not having matching zoning, then I think it's important that if we're going to make a recommendation that we do recommend something broad based like this to say, hey, if you want to have guidance, want to make it in respect, please include some guidance. And I think this does that broadly. I think narrowing it would make it even, that would come under some zone of futures, if we wanted to narrow it. Dan. So the ordinance does give guidance on what to consider for respects. So those six larger factors that I've mentioned recently and have been in staff reports. But one of those is consistency with the general plan. So if language like this were inserted into the general plan, then as part of the evaluation of that consistency, we would look for these, we would ask for anything relevant to these kind of issues or point out issues that they are not close to a electric transmission line, for example. So this would be helpful to the overall consideration of applications, the specs that would come before you. In close to, we'll be determined at some future point. All right. OK. Any other discussion on this one? All right. How do you want to structure your motion, or not your motion, or your sentiment for a straw poll? Well, I just again. That these this paragraph is it relates to all the place types that allow data make them conditional, I think we should have some guidance in the plan for what somebody could look towards if they want to build data centers. And obviously the plan is guidance and zoning is the law. So I don't see a real conflict with having this kind of guidance in the plan. And I think at some point we're probably going to recommend some zoning language that would help the facility actually match this a little better. Okay, so the sake of everybody who doesn't have in front of them what we're looking at, I'm going to read it. There's two sections one that then would go into, it would apply to all place types. We have this and then I'll read the second part that only applies to urban employment. So proposed data centers should be located with similar uses and near electric transmission line corridors. Data centers should be adequately buffered and appropriately set back from residential uses, park schools, and major roadways. Data centers should be encouraged to adopt innovative carbon net zero power strategy, sustainable building design, and water efficient and low noise cooling systems. So that would apply to all seven of the areas we've talked about and then just for the urban employment. While data centers are in existing use in this place type long term development, should be encouraged to enable transit oriented office educational and institutional uses in areas proximate to the metro station. So all those in favor of capturing that and adding it where identified here or where staff believes it, it better suits. Commissioner Jasper, are you and I? So that one carries nine to zero. Wait, did I miss it? Sorry, the only thing I'm on the urban employment, I feel like that it's impossible to make that language operational. So I'm a little concerned about that one. Can I vote yes on everything but? If you want to do something I think you need to do it and I don't think that there's nothing that that language enables or prohibits. Sorry I don't know if that's a friendly amendment or not. So you want to separate the questions? We can do that. I want to just mark the data's 990 for all the districts of the urban employment and 890. Okay. Well, okay. So since it's a straw poll, we can be a little looser with this, I guess. Is it fair to then say we vote 990 in favor of recommending that first piece go into all the place types and 8-1. One complication is if Dan finds a place in the plan to cover data centers and all the place types and that won't work anymore. Correct? I'm not. Except urban. My intention for the 12th, my intention would be to bring back the resolution and then a motion that tries to capture all these, I would not get into exactly where I would look at that point. Okay. Okay, so we are 9, 0 in favor of the proposed data center of language going in all seven areas and then the urban employment specific sentence, we are 8-1. Okay. All right. And what was the, which part of it you didn't feel fit in urban employment just to understand? I just feel like the language, the extra language does nothing and it isn't implementable in any way. I mean, you're talking about a future condition. There's nothing to gauge it against, at least in the other, you know, the other six or seven of the place types. There's, you've got specific guidelines that, you know, that are big at this point, but can be made more particular in the zoning amendments. The other language is merely aspirational about a future condition and it's not implementable. So it just feels odd to me and it's a state-manifiture policy. Okay. All right. Any other recommendations for the commission's consideration to be formulated for future final vote? Commissioner Meyers? We had the one in front of us and I think everybody has the copies which had been called motion for criteria where a special exception would not be required. I think we can still make recommendations to the board whether they want to do another rule, whatever it's called or not, where we could agree that there are certain areas that if we want to create incentives that these would be. I've made some changes to this. Basically where it says it's down on number four where it says meets and I have changed it to meets 12 of the following sustainable practices instead of nine. I also change number seven or to say that that achieved lead has to be a silver certified, so that it's quantitative not just lead certified. And then I actually deleted number 14 because, yes, they should be installing water that's efficient with their landscaping material. I don't think that should be something that gets out of a special exception. And then I deleted number 16 because, again, I think the shower facilities and the back rikes should be something they do that doesn't get them out of a special exception. But then I also used supervisor Turner's ideas that he had given us about what we should be looking like for in the future for data centers. And I added microgrid on site power production as number, what would be the number 16 and then I added in rack slash in row cooling and then submerge data racks. So there would be a total of 16, 15, 16. There would be 18 bullet points. So it's microgrid, on-site power production, in rack slash in row cooling, and some murbs data racks. So those are things that were both in this and I, and I, in all disclosure, had a conversation with Bill Jonda today about are these things that can be done today? Are we putting things in here that aren't obtainable that could be done and felt like these could be done? But to me, it's like if we, if we want these, we want them focused, we want to make sure they're doing what we want them to do. If you do all of these, then here's your chance of being an S slash P, because if you don't do 12 out of these 18, then you're an S. Again, this is just a recommendation to the board outside of it for them to think about when they do the next one. But I guess I would make that in the form of a straw motion. Is that we're calling it? Yeah. So, is it fair to say, Commissioner Myers, that a lot of this is identifying criteria where respects would not be required that are pretty consistent with those things that were in supervisor Turner's last. Yes. I took it off his slide. So that's kind of the guidance is, right, create some places where we're trying to incentivize that exact behavior. And in fact, there's more here than was just on his slide, but what I made sure of is the things that were on his slide that we can do today are also, like, we had talked about the gold and really the gold's unobtainable right now for the lead, but the silver you can do. So that's why I changed it to silver instead of gold where he had it. But the other stuff that you see here are stuff that was in here plus more stuff from research and reading in from the chamber. Phil, I'm sorry. I just wanted to add, it's a good list. I think where are we getting to very specific technologies that you're adding? Those are technologies that are emerging and they could be popular or six months from now and then 12 months from now they could be replaced, they could be obsolete. And so calling out very specific technologies is, you know, me not less. That's why you'll have to do 12 of 18. And we're supposed to update this how often? There's only ordinance? Oh, no. No, the general plan once every five years. So only ordinance whenever you want. So I mean, if these are the current emerging and if time goes on and the new things, I mean, we think this list could be changed to incorporate whatever's. Exactly. Yeah. But it does give the guidance that's very explicit about the things that we want to see. And if you can do these and there's a criteria that would allow to go by writing to the special exception. For at least the board to have a list if they want to look at it. Mr. Miller. Oh, I'm going to abstain because I need an opportunity to discuss that with industry. Additional changes. Yeah, I'm. And since. Well, these, this is from the change. I understand you had a conversation with them. I have not. Okay. And we didn't have it together to have that conversation. We're going to have a final vote on it too. We are, but I don't think that- So I'm going to abstain until I have one information. I mean, I've loved for more industry to come up tonight, but since they can't, I'm going to have to wait to get that information. Just to set expectations, we're not going to redeliberate every single recommendation and vote that we've taken when we do take up the final stuff. I think we're going to correct and readjust if needed. But just as we didn't, we didn't go over entire, every single thing the use of subcommittee did. It was presented, it was discussed, but we didn't pull every single item out separately and vote on them again and discuss them again. So I don't want anybody to expect that in the next few weeks. Okay. Can I ask for a clarification? Yes. So is your desire as a recommendation to the board for this to be captured in the ordinance? Has it's written or in the plan? In the ordinance. Any ordinance, okay. Thank you. That's the only way this would work is where you would be doing the uses and it would go to that section that we talked about. Which I understand would be the next worry, but at least it's given them the information if they decide they want to do it. Because it doesn't make any sense for us to do it on our own. Right. So as what we're looking at in front of us was written, this isn't a change. This we were saying that a specks is not required if you meet certain criteria in all of OPIPG and Mr. Regardless of whether it's jail-a-may employment or jail-a-may transition or- Well, let's build up the lower than- Let's build up the lower. It says that. It says suburban industrial transition. It says that. Okay. But it does say no, it lists all of them. Right, it lists all seven. Okay. Yeah, I'm not supportive of that. Okay. I also think and I know Commissioner Jasper, she looks like she's still there. Oh, she is still there. Okay. And I'm going to let you say what you were going to say instead of trying to speak on your rehab if you have if you've wilted and had to log off. Go ahead, Commissioner Jasper. Thanks, I know I need to log off. I do apologize. Good. I think we're way ahead of ourselves. I appreciate that Commissioner Myers has done it. A good bit of research that we've heard from, supervisor, Turner in general terms. I do think that what Bill Jundas said about the speed at which technology is changing in the industry is, you know, we've already shown our inability to keep up with it. So I don't think making something this prescriptive is really the best thing for us to do at all. And it actually frightens me that we'll be committed to all technologies. We'll be having people do things that are less meaningful than what comes long in six months. And that, you know, even as the chips change the kind of cooling, whether it's, you know, submerged racks or cooling next to the chips or whatever, that's all changing. So I don't feel, I guess, just like Mark said, Commissioner Miller, that it just doesn't, I don't feel ready to take this up and eliminate the specs requirement based on that. Okay. Commissioner Myers, did you have something else? I mean, I'm more, are we going to allow motions on the 12th? I mean, I'll be glad to have this held to the 12th so that Mark and other people can talk to the industry people that couldn't come up and to know that this is the format of what we were looking at. It's a straw poll, right? It's fine. We'll vote, we actually have a vote on it next week too. Mr. Banks. I mean, at this point, this is simply a recommendation because it's clearly beyond the need. Okay. Okay. Do you all want, I guess the first question is, do we want to make a recommendation today or do we want to? Now, if we punt this to the next meeting, we're going to need slightly, I don't want to say we're in fine language, but we're going to have to capture the. This one is notably much more detailed than the others. And there's been some changes that were just presented here real time. So my concern is that we come back with that and then it's like, well now staff go craft another thing. I don't want that piece to be the only thing. And it may not be, there may be 26 other things. But the only thing that keeps us from being able to take an action if we're ready. So I've been when I be discussing it. It's possible if the majority recommends the inclusion of this tonight that the motion captures these concepts may refer to an attachment instead of requiring you to recite all of this verbally as part of that eventual motion. But even if we prepare 3, 4, 5 concepts from everything that's discussed tonight and then there's just 6th and 7th presented that night, we can work with the commission preferably ahead of time, prepare motions that would kind of make everything mesh well together. Right, which is what we tried to do with SOAR. We had a deadline on motions, so. Okay. Mr. Burns? No, I'm just saying that this is going to be a dead line on motion. So, okay. Mr. Burns. No, I'm just saying that this is kind of a pretty big deal. They're trying to tell, to an applicant, that what kind of power they're going to use, but they're going to build. That's what you were talking about. No, that's what you said. I told them they had to build. No, no, no. I said you were talking about suggestions on different kind of power system that they talked about nuclear and all that kind of stuff. They're gonna build, but it never includes in that. What you just said. Nuclear? No. Yeah, I mean, remember that that's what Sephirovart Turner talked about it. I didn't include that and that wasn't included in his recommendations. Okay. That's okay. Well again, we did. That's the trouble. I mean, I'll be more than happy to work with staff between now and the 12th to clean something up and bring it back up. People would like. I mean, maybe for our purposes tonight, straw poll purposes is the commission comfortable further Making a recommendation where we're asking the board to consider Certain criteria whatever they might be where aspects might not where aspects wouldn't be required for data center use generally speaking I think that's that's a concept. I think I can embrace tonight in straw poll and say yeah, that is and we This brings us back to our earlier discussions on this when it first came to us is Specks the most appropriate thing in all districts or are there things we want to incentivize and Perhaps by taking the specs away we can better incentivize certain things so generally speaking for straws Straw poll purposes like I'm comfortable addressing that here tonight for sure. I would agree for purposes of a straw poll, I would certainly be in favor of supporting a concept to recommend to the board that even if you generally require a specs, consider that their a spec would not be required under certain criteria. And then maybe even leave the recommendation that general, but then say criteria such as and refer to this as an attach. I'm fine with that. I'll accept that as a friendly member. Permission to ask for? I'm a no unless we remove I think suburban employment is a good thing. I'm fine with that. I'll accept that as a friendly member. Permission to ask for? I'm a no unless we remove I think suburban employment is a good thing. I'm fine with that. I'll accept that as a friendly member. Permission to ask for? Permission to ask for? I'm a no unless we remove I think suburban employment, urban employment and maybe those are the only two areas. Because I think it should always be aspects there. I actually agree I might add Leesburg JLMA employment to that list. Okay. But the mineral extraction industrial transition, light industrial, all of that I think is something I'd be willing to entertain with certain things being met. But I'm not comfortable doing it in those other three areas, the three employment areas. So the current poll on the board, the general concept of allowing, of creating criteria where aspects would not be required. It's currently written with those seven placed types. With those criteria to be, I think we can make some suggestions but not define them all strictly. I'm willing to accept as, like I said, friendly amendment that these are just simply suggestions in regards to the 18 things that they could look at, that they're not requirements. So they were an attachment of suggestions of ideas of what could be looked at. Right. Okay. I mean, again, I'm with you for example, I'm thinking in this list can we change? All these first-president reasons. And parliament types can be changed also for example. I want that flexibility. I'm saying yes for that. Not only this 15 in the list, I should be excluding suburb and employment in the future. No, I'm not signing off on the 7th place, I'm seeing here. You're not supporting those necessarily, so I'm going to start. Okay. You're not supporting those necessarily. So, okay. So, you generally support about the concept of... The concept of suggesting them with the flexibility to offer subreddit attachment. I have a suggestion. The more bigger the list gets, the more liable they're not going to look at it. Because it's going to be just a lot of things for them to go through. They're going to say, oh, it's one other list they're given. I think we ought to be a little bit limited and short what we are suggesting to them. But anyway, what you want to do, there's a commission there. Well, keeping in mind, as we mentioned earlier, this is not in the Roya, so this is a recommendation that would not be acted on. Everything would be coming weeks. Right, right, but this isn't even one they can do. Yeah, everything you've written in your term. We don't give a many concrete thing anyway, but we can't do anything. Okay. This is a suggestion. Everything. Okay. Suggestions, everything. Okay. So we have that on the floor, all those in favor. Opposed, nay? Nay. Nay. Okay. That motion carries six to three with commissioners, barns, Jasper and Frank opposed. There's just too many things that aren't looking for it yet. All right. Any other recommendations we want to discuss for staff to incorporate? Mr. Barnes? No, I'm just, I'm just, Mr. Barnes, did you go to the next floor? I don't know if it's recommendations or what we categorize this as, but one of my concerns is, the idea is the idea that supposedly we're taking a final vote on this next Thursday night, the 12th. Because I'm just going to speak for myself. That is not enough time for me to review this. Also knowing that we have a public hearing stuff. I mean, I know when I talk to Chair Randall today, she had told me as long as we get it to them in January, they're fine with that. So I just want to set this up where we're sending staff out to try to figure to turn this around basically in the next three days. And even if they do that, that gives me one night to possibly review it. That's just not the way I want to do this. So I'm just hoping that we're not looking at the 12th of some final vote and we get we're seeing it and that's it. Not necessarily, but we've not necessarily ruled it out either. As a discussion with staff earlier today, we were going to assess the situation after tonight and see how much work need to be done and how when they reasonably thought they could turn it around because we do need adequate time to review things. So that is a consideration we're going to see where we are. And I think we'll go from there. Can we give other fun pictures to people that like that even in the next two days to review? What's two days to review? You're assuming when we're getting it? What's hard? What's, you said two days to review? Does you mean you're assuming we don't get it until Tuesday afternoon? Today, yeah. Because I mean, I don't know. That's something we were going to discuss. But if you want to set a minimum, you know, days to review, if that's something the commission wants to express a sentiment on. That's. I mean, we've got public care and I believe it's a change in the stuff. I just, this is too important to just get to the, to the, to the, to the, to the, to the public. Okay. Your opinions noted commissioner cares? I just, here, here, from staff to staff have any idea when they think they have it. I don't know after, I mean we were unknown as of this afternoon. I'll give staff the opportunity if they want to pipe up, but I do think it's putting them on the spot, because I think they may need to go back and assess what they've got to get done. Yeah, I mean I don't know. We're Mr. Galinda. I'm sorry. So yes, there was. I guess the question is, and I gave you a get out of jail free card if you don't feel like you need to do some assessment for you can answer this question. The question was when might staff be able to turn this around for commission consumption? So our intention would be to provide materials to you by Monday. Now, as you said, we're looking over this and trying to draft up these concepts if that proves an issue. Well, as such, you know I'm Monday and we were skeptical to talk, but our original intent coming into the night was that we tried to craft all of this and provide something to you for your review starting Monday. Because again, the recommendations, as we've generally agreed to, are not super detailed. They are high level. They capture the concepts. And we've discussed all of them. Yeah. Okay. I will say that we've a days and that. The three business days? Which one day would be for Thursday meeting? Yeah, that's three business days. So we would be meeting that. We had actually since Eric and I took leadership work with staff to get things with a lot more lead time than we used to. You used to always be three days. So not that that's great, but we can go to three days if we need to. So we'll see, as you can probably tell, I speak with staff frequently these days about where we are on this and what's reasonable. So if it's not going to be Monday, I don't know that we can take it up. But we'll see how far we can get in the next 48 hours. Thursday. Thursday. We'll see how big it is. I mean, that's the other thing. It may as they start to draft it maybe quite extensive and it may not be. It may be pretty simple. We'll see. I suspect it's not as complicated as we're making it. Now that we've gotten this far. I think we have been doing that. I think we have been doing that. All right. Commissioner Jasper, as you may have seen, did log off. She is going to go get some rest and hopefully feel better. Yes, she hung in a long time. Any other questions on this item? Thank you all again, Mark. You may have been your swan song with us. I'm sorry, it may have been so memorable. Thank you for joining us and Leo and all of our staff that was here and our folks who joined us from the public and sat through all of this as well. Do we have any administrative items or anything we need to do? Okay. Seeing none, we are adjourned.