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. 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 now come to order. as is our custom, let's stand for the pledge of allegiance. All right. All right. All right. It's in'll make announcement that ledgy 2023-60, Luxstone, Cochran, Mill, ZMAP, 2023-1, and ZMOD 2023-1 has been deferred by the applicant. First thing we have is review and adoption of the minutes for the January 9th work session and when anybody like to make a motion. So moved. I think they wish your Myers was that you? Motion. And I have a second. Second. And a second by Vice Chair Miller. Any discussion on the minutes? All those in favor? Say aye. Aye. Opposed? Because that motion will carry 702 with commissioners barns and Jasper absence. All right. Let's go through disclosures. If you have disclosures, just hit your light and I'll start from my left. Commissioner Myers. On February 25th, I had a virtual team meeting with our discussion with Micromia regarding Hiddenwood. On the 13th of March, I had another virtual meeting with Mr. Romeo and also Matt Rogers, Chair Randall's aide, again regarding Hiddenwood and then also on the 13th. I had a virtual meeting regarding Belmont Grove and then on the 21st of February, both Commissioner Robert Nees and I attended the St. Louis community Sharet meeting. Thank you. Commissioner Bob Reading. Thank you. On March 11th, I met Voucher Livick and Mike Romeo on the hidden assembly also on the Belmont Co application. On March 14th, I... No, no, no, no, no. It's only one. Okay. Actually, I met with Edo Harvey and applicant regarding the quantum park last Monday. Thank you. Mr. Coles. Thank you. On February 21, I attended a virtual meeting with Chair Kiers and Roy Barnett, Denise hair over Jackie Martian, her team regarding potential development of shellridge park. And on March 13, I had a video conference with Micromo and Jake Ballard regarding Belmont Cove application. And that's it. Okay, thank you. Vice-chair Miller. Thank you. On March 13th, I met with Brian Winterhalter, Tony Calibri, and the group from DLA Piper, along with representatives from AREP, regarding their quantum data center project. And then today I had a phone call at Mike Romio regarding Delmankov. And then for myself on February 20th, I met with Mike Romeo about the Hiddenwood Assemblage application. March 21st as Commissioner Cohn was mentioned, attended a meeting about Shail Ridge Park with members of staff and members of Van Meter. And on March 4th, I had a phone conversation with Kim Hart about the Atlantic Boulevard Proffer that we're really talking about momentarily. March 11th, I met with Howie Edo, Brian Winterhalter and Elizabeth Nicholson regarding the upcoming application for it called Quantum Park. March 13th I met with Mike Romeo and Jake Ballard about the Belmont Cove application. And today I participated in a meeting with staff and the applicant for the Hiddenwood application. And that is all I have. So let's see our first work session item for tonight is is ledgy 2025-6 Atlantic Boulevard Proffer Amendment as ECPA 2025-3. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Allison. the Department with the Department of Planning and Zoning and I'm here today to present the Atlantic Boulevard Proffer Amendment application. The subject property is about three acres located east of Route 28 in the WNOD trail on the northwest side of Atlantic Boulevard in the Sterling Election District. This property was recently res to the R24 ADU Legacy Zoning District to support up to AD multifamily-attached residential dwelling units, provided as attainable units with the approval of LEGY 2020-0101, Atlanta Boulevard residential rezoning approved in April, oh no, June of 2024. The applicant is proposing a modification to the approved proper statement to provide consistency with the Virginia housing development authority policies for funding. The proposed proper textment would change the income tears served in the event of a foreclosure. The board approved on March 4th at the business meeting, public hearing waivers for this application consistent with zoning ordinance regulations, which allow strict proper text amendments, limited in scope, such as the subject application, to proceed to a Planning Commission work session. Staff find the proposed amendment to remain consistent with the 2019 general plan and recommend the Planning Commission for the application to the board of the recommendation of approval. Staff are happy to answer questions. Any questions for staff? Commissioner Maderite? Sorry. Place Chair Miller. So was this just something that was missed when the application came up through proper review or something? This is a consistent practice with other similar applications offering affordable housing and seeking Virginia Housing Development Authority assistance. It was- It's formulating language that should have been in the Proffer and we're just adding it here. Correct. But because the state has certain rules as to what can be administrative and what has to go back to legislative process This falls on the rules that say legislative process Correct any amendment to the proffer semen generally is a zoning concept amendment. Thank you Any other questions for staff? Okay, does the applicant have a presentation? Cherkierce we do not have a presentation, but just to clarify that last question Mr. Hart has some comments. Vice Chair Miller we didn't miss it. Virginia housing changed their policy. From the time we wrote the proper until now we're in the process of getting our site plan approved. They changed the policy so we're and it's actually the one in blabr it but it's to the benefit of the county actually. For many many years, Virginia housing would not allow any income restricted units to survive for closure, although for closures highly, highly unlikely, they wouldn't allow it. Just in the last two years, or just since we wrote the proffers, they've changed that policy to where now the Virginia House will allow up to 20% of the affordable units to survive foreclosure at 60% of AMI. So that's really a great benefit. The proffers written would have been five units at 50% of AMI this way it could be up to 20% of the whole project at 60 units at 60%.%. So it's really quite a benefit. Okay, any questions for the applicants? No? All right, this is in the sterling district, so I will go ahead and make the motion. I move that the Planning Commission forward, led to 2025-6, Atlantic Boulevard Proffer Amendment, is ECPA 2025-3, to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of approval, subject to the Proffer Statement dated March 5, 2025, and based on the findings for approval provided as attachment to the March 14, 2025 Planning Commission work session memorandum. Second. Okay. Motion made by Chair Cures and seconded by Vice Chair Miller. I don't have any opening, any discussion on the motion? Okay. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? That motion will carry 702 with commissioners, barns and jasper absent. Thank you very much. All right, our next application is a Ludgy 2023-74. Belmont Cove Resoning and Belmont Cova Pendage, Zimab 2023-6, Zimab 2023-32, Zimab 2023-56, Zimab 2023-57, Zimab 2024-8, and ZCPA 2024- report. The report is on the report. The report is on the report. The report is on the report. The report is on the report. The report is on the report of Planning and Zoning. I'm here tonight to present the application for Belmont Cove Resoning and Belmont Cove Appendage. The subject property is 14.6 acres located west of Russell Branch Parkway, east of Belmont, Manor Lane, and south of Route 7 in the Ashburn Election District. This property is on office park under the Loudon County Zoning Ordnance. Property is in the Superroom Policy Area and the Superroom Mixed Use Place type. Belmont Covary Zoning is outlined in yellow and Belmont Cova Pendogen Pink. The application requests the zoning map amendment to rezone approximately 8.19 acres from PDOP to our 16 ADU to permit 78 single-family attached units, additionally a zoning concept plan amendment to reduce the required building and parking setbacks between residential and commercial. The application requires zoning modifications to reduce setbacks and landscape buffers along Russell Branch Parkway, permit townhomes to front on the open space, to permit fewer than one tree per 50 linear feet along roadways. President on screen is an annotated excerpt of the concept development plan. And a depiction of the building and parking reductions. Following the January public hearing, the application has been revised to include the following changes. Thumbnail co-verizoning parking tabulations have been revised. Commitment to offer fire sprinklers to initial home buyers at home buyer sold cost. Electros have been included to depict the distances from residential units to Russell Branch Parkway right away. The setback reduction request, additionally, is consistent with approved modifications along Russell Branch Parkway. revisions were made, however, to the Sormar Management or shared soil volume proffers. Staff continue to identify residential unit size as an outstanding issue. The general plan lists single-family attached units as a complementary use within the suburb room makes use playstip. However, the playstip anticipates specifically small lot single-family attached units. The commission requested the application be revised to reduce unit sizes. Application no longer includes distinct unit sizes. Instead a commitment that a minimum of 50% of all units will not exceed 27,000 square feet of livable space. Staff continue to recommend the application commit to reduced unit sizes. Look, I'm sorry, it's a little better. The 2019 Countywide Transportation Plan anticipates sidewalks along both sides of all streets. However, the application does not provide sidewalks along all streets. Application provides an exhibit depicting nearby residential developments, omitting sidewalks in a similar pattern. Staff recommend the application commit to providing all anticipated sidewalks. Residential unit sizes of factor in the proposed layout constraints. President on screen is a graphic with the omitted sidewalks noted in pink for Belmont cove on the left of the screen and Belmont park on the right. All Belmont park omit sidewalks in a similar pattern to as proposed in Belmont cove rezoning. Belmont park was approved legislatively with sidewalks in that same location indicated in pink. Sidewalks were requested to be removed at site plan due to the slope along the frontage of those units. Those specific units exceeding effort. indicated M-PINK. Sidewalks were requested to be removed at site plan due to the slope along the frontage of those units, those specific units exceeding FSM standards. The request was approved due to the provision of additional curb ramps with Belmont Park, as well as crosswalks and the shared use path behind those specific units, being providing alternative pedestrian connectivity. The general plan anticipates 5% public and civic space. The revised materials have labeled the active rec space additionally as public and civic space. Staff continue the recommendation of additional public space, public and civic space to be delineated and tabulated within the concept of an element plan. Regarding the amount being provided and the amount being provided to the amenities being provided. Application proposes reducing buffer requirements along Russell Branch Parkway within three zones of varying widths. The revised materials provide illustrious with measurements between residential units and the edge of the right away. The zoning ordinance establishes criteria for approval of modifications as proposed staff finds the modification is not innovative and instead appears to maximize development potential contrary to the criteria of approval. Staff recommend the application materials be revised to provide further justification and or reduce residential unit size as the larger unit size as a factor in site constraints. President on screen is an annotated excerpt of the provided illustrative with distances between single-family attached units ranging between 59 and 71 feet. A general plan establishes design guidelines for development and encourages architectural site and landscape design. The Commission requested depictions of the units proposed and additionally requested universal design commitments at no additional cost to the perspective buyer. The application was revised to provide commitments but does not address all commitments from staff to include a minimum percentage of units, timing revisions and affordable housing commitments. Staff recommend units designed, unit designs be provided and committed to for staff review. Additionally, revised universal design commitments to align with staff recommendations. Based on the identified outstanding issues, staff cannot support a recommendation or approval at this time. Staff are available for questions. Thank you. All right, thank you. Any questions for staff, Commissioner Myers? Erby, great presentation. Just a couple questions. Going to page five of eight of your report. You have been here that staff continues to recommend a commitment that 50% of SFA units be below the county's average of 2600 consistent with the place destination of small lots, SFA and continue to recommend more diverse unit types to achieve affordability by design. The applicant was to agree tonight to go to that 2600 thing with that resolve this issue. I mean, I'm just reading exactly from your comments what you said you wanted. Correct. So specifically the application is proffering to 2700 square feet of livable space. Staff is seeking for the entire unit size and additionally the small lot would be beneath the 2600 square feet. So how are you and I want to understand how are you measuring a 2600 square foot townhouse? It is the entire unit size So it doesn't matter whether it's living space or not so in your eye the garage would count so in the 2024 CIF That the board approved or I believe it was June I can check that real quick It was specifically 2600 square feet of entire unit size was the county average for single family attached. Okay, but did that include the garage? That is correct, yes. Well, that's unreasonable. I mean, because now all of a sudden you're saying if the two thirds of the first floor is a garage, you've got to basically have, I mean, So you're saying 2600 included the garage. That's correct. I mean, that's not by any kind of assessment value. I mean, the county doesn't even include that. Are you sure they were looking at garages or are you sure they were looking at three story townhouses that don't, or houses that don't have garages? Because we have both. We have townhouses that have garages and we have townhouses that don't have garages. Are you sure they made a difference between the two or they didn't? I don't have that information specifically if it included garages in that. But I can get that distinction additionally. If the aggregate of the analysis included units with garages and also units with how? Because I mean, I'm not trying to get picky here, but that's really not what your sentence reads. I mean, your sentence just says you're looking for it to be under 2600 feet in there at 27. It doesn't talk about a difference in definition of how you measure the space. Correct, the applicant has provided an additional point in the revision that they added livable space. Okay, so what I'm asking here, Darby, is your... You've... an additional point in their revision that they added livable space. Okay, so what I'm asking here, Darby, is you've made in all these hundreds of pages of red. There's never been anything where I've seen that there's a differential between the county and the applicant and the way you calculate square footage. It's been the county wants 2600 because they adopt the plans and the applicant is at 27. I've not seen anything that says and here's how we measure the square footage because that is a completely different debate. The general plan includes unit sizes. It does not make a distinction of livable or not. Has it read staff interprets the plan to include the entire unit size? You just didn't put that in the report. Okay. I guess I'm- I understand what you're saying. There's two different measurements. So the livable space, the question last month was, was it two months ago, was grudges, outdoor living spaces, rooftop decks, being included as part of that livable space the way, the way they're defining it, is that the revised progress commit 2700, a livable space which excludes garages. Right. So, to the 20, I understand your point and I apologize for the confusion. Our understanding was that the county's, the CIF standard, did not include garages as part of the livable space. So, if the 27 is down to 2600 and resolves the issue for purposes tonight that should be fine. Okay, thank you. Thank you for pointing out that distinction. When we take this to the board we'll make sure that we're clear on the two definitions. So if they go to the 2600 the way they've read it then it clears it for tonight. Yes ma'am. Thank you. Okay. And then I just have one question in regards to the sidewalks on both sides. As you go around that area and the residents that have occurred pretty recently, there are several different occasions where there aren't sidewalks on both sides. This case in particular, I noticed that there's been an ongoing discussion and concern of the Abundi-NHWA where they don't want an intrusion any closer into the setbacks areas and stuff. If we were to put, my understanding is if we put sidewalks where you want them, then we're getting into where they made a commitment to the HOA to not intrude into. Did you all take that into consideration at all when you were looking at one in this additional couple town, these two sticks where you want the additional sidewalks? I'll have to defer to DTCI staff that is present today. Where you're wanting the sidewalks where they're not there, the two like, I call them two sticks, maybe that's the wrong word to use, but that's what I call them. Also in that area, there's been an ongoing concern with the about in HOA that wants to make sure they're not doing anything that goes into the setback areas or the open space areas where the two meet up. So when you guys were looking at you wanted you wanted them here. Did you take that into consideration and all that if they do this, there's the opportunity that we may be getting into a situation of actually doing the opposite of what about the neighbors of assets to do. You're thinking that we would be pushing the buildings further back to a sidewalk. Well, if you're putting the sidewalks where you want them so they butt up. Mine is in, correct? We want sidewalks along the road where they don't currently have them on both sides. OK, but that would then force them to go back to get closer to the town to the, the buddy neighbors, correct? They'd have to move something out, correct? Correct. So the applicant is trying to honor the previous proffers, which anticipated commercial. But it's sort of self-imposed constraint, right? So they created the building envelope. They're putting the number of units to get the unit size for their proposal. They had to eliminate sidewalks to be able to fit their unit size in that constrained box when they maintain the proffers or maintain the previous buffer yards to Belmont. So that's a function of the unit size that they want and it's a function of the number of units that they want in that reduced space. And that's what's leading to the sidewalk issue. In this example, what the sort of suggestion was that we were being inconsistent, that you were suggesting that. But there was some suggestion that we were being inconsistent in our analysis. The other Belmont case did have sidewalks provided. It was a design feature at site plan that was determined that there had to be an alternative way to provide that pedestrian access. So we were being consistent in our recommendation, but you're right, this is the tradeoff for the number of units and the size units that they want and to observe that buffer yard to Belmont're having to push closer to Russell Branch Parkway and it's also reducing the number of sidewalks that can be provided. So that's what we're asking the commission. Are you comfortable with the constraints that they're trying to accommodate to not have sidewalks along every single front edge, which is a CTP recommendation? But it's not necessarily inconsistent because it's been done before. The policy remains consistent. How it's been negotiated. How it's been negotiated in different ways. In this example, there was sidewalks plan or in part of the plan per the CTP policy and the CTP. those were removed at site plan because of a constraint that we were not aware of. I guess I'm getting to the policy versus the reality of what's happened, the reality of what's that happened is there have been episodes close by where those, because of site plan issues and commitments of a buddy neighbors where that's not been done. Correct. I wouldn't say that we've consistently applied the policy. What the commission and board have accepted have not always been fully implemented. It's been an adopted practice that's occurred. Whether you supported or not. Yes, I'm sorry. That's what I was trying to get at. We're recommending policy based on consistency. We would fully expect if the commission feels some understand it's appropriate. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Comes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The western buffer, the buffer along Belmont, Manor Lane, they're preserving the 50 foot buffer that I think you indicated was in place when this was originally anticipated to be commercial. We know from Belmont executive that the folks at Belmont really wanted to preserve that buffer, even if Belmont executive was going to develop as residential. So they're keeping that intact. What is the required buffer there? Currently has the requirement of 50 feet. I don't have the specific CEO requirement off hand. I believe it's a type C, but I can, let me check that. Okay, yeah, if you can come back with it later, I'm just curious as to. It would be less. Do your question, it would be less. It would be significantly less than the 50 feet. Right, that 50 feet is voluntary, I think. Right. That was a negotiated mitigation at the time. Yeah, okay. And then with respect to universal design, is staff looking for universal design features in all units? Is that what staff is looking for? So staff recommended language that universal design commitments are to be applied for all affordable units, but it is would remain as a elected within market rate units. Okay, so be a, be included for all affordable whether or not someone wants it and then be an option for market rate. That's, is that, I just want to understand what's, that's current recommendations are that. That's correct. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Miller. Thank you. In that, the Belonin Executive Plasma one where we, as site plan removed the sidewalks, you mentioned that one of the reasons we accommodated that change at site plan was because there was a shared use path that ran behind through the buffer. That's correct. On screen, presently, the town home sticks identified in blue are part of Belmont Park. The frontage of those units identified in pink are where they all admitted the removed sidewalks removed at site plan. Behind those same town home sticks is a shared use path that provided alternative pedestrian connectivity that weighed into the test plan. Okay. To the approval. If the applicant provided a shared use path for Belmont cove that ran behind and through through the buffer and connected to the front of the sidewalks. Could that be considered something that might be acceptable to staff? I would defer to DTCI staff, those present. Yes, Commissioner Miller. I think as long as we had an alternative route, the pedestrians could use to circulate through the site that would meet our request. Okay. Hopefully Mike and Jake heard that. Even though it wasn't up yet. Okay, thank you. Marie. On this question of size. It's probably be questioned also for the applicant. We've removed 16, 20, and 24 foot units and just said we're going to have an average at 2700 staff once average 2600. To me, if we didn't remove units with and said we're going to have this number of 16s, this number of 20s, this number of 24s, we could pretty quickly figure out what the average is going to be because the 16, I think it's going to be 42 feet deep. This is merging into a question for the applicant also. But the depth of these is going to be probably 42 feet. Not j, that right? Okay, so 16 by 42 times 3 is 2018 or something like that. So the 16-foot-wide units would be 500 feet on average below the 2200 number with or without garage spaces. And if you went to a 24 foot wide, 24 times 42 times 3 times 42 times 3 is 33,024 feet, there's your 2300 square foot average. So I'm wondering if that's not a better way to go about getting to an average unit size By actually delineating how many 16 20s and 24s will be there and Then we can pretty easily figure out what the average unit size is and Is that something that Am I thinking out loud in a way that doesn't make any sense or does that mean it's plausible to get to an average Unisize happy to discuss that as well. It sounds like the applicant was willing to make the commitment to 2600 and we can work out The math on that if the commission is comfortable with how the applicants describing it. Okay. Thank you That's the reason why I'm an urban planner and not an engineer. So got you. So all right. Thank you commissioner I'm out of writing. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can you guys explain me the civic and public areas based issue again with the, what do you guys think of the Monday? Currently there are two amenity areas that are active rec spaces. The applicant in the revisions between public hearing and work session added the label of public and civic spaces but did not revise the rest of the proffers. Currently the amenities provided within that proffer would account for active rec space but by themselves would not count as a civic space. Civic spaces are communal gathering spaces, they are constructed locations, think of a library, think of an amphitheater. Currently in the Proffers, there are two tables and four chairs, I believe, that they could potentially pause at that as a communal or gathering space. However, the uses currently Proffers cannot count entirely as a civic space. Some of them can double count in unique instances, but as it is, none of them count entirely as a civic space, as well as currently, it is both spaces together. So it is identified as active rec and civic staff is requesting the specific civic uses are identified for communal gathering as well as having distinct locations identified for both. Is the first time an applicant done that? Is this pretty common? The applications? We usually have a more definitive division between the two spaces. So this is definitely out of not, not, not, right now. To fully meet the policy that would be more distinction between the two elements, but the act of rec space and the public space. This goes back to the constraints of the site site You're doing a lot on a small piece of property and what it what's being compromised is some of these these public and civic spaces So if the commission is comfortable with the with the breakdown as they've done it, then that's fine But we wanted to point out that it's not fully meeting the the elements Describe by the plan What I heard is basically that double counting it right now They're double counting counting the location but they're not profaring to use is that would be considered a civic use. They're only providing active rec use is currently in the proffers. Thank you. Okay. A couple of questions. Along Russell branch, the current buffers and setbacks from Russell Branch is that consistent with development across the street and the development on the other side of the office building? The setback reductions are consistent as seen in other in the across the street as well as in Belmont executive. The setback or the landscape reductions had the other locations within the place have had reductions, but without additional justification, staff can't determine if it is for a density purpose and therefore don't support the modification request. Okay. And then you're going back to the issue of the sidewalks. If we ask them to put in the sidewalks, it doesn't mean they have to push into the buffer area, they could just reduce, take off a couple of units and then provide the sidewalks, correct? I think that's what staff's looking for is provide the sidewalks. If in the current configuration, I don't believe the applicant said we can't do it, but I'm looking at a couple of those yellow units that cut off one or two at the end. Now you can move those, decide the road over and you got room for the sidewalks. Is that more what staff is looking for in order to meet the sidewalks, is not encroach on the buffer, but if you have to reduce the units in order to fit the sidewalks in. Exactly. Go back to another question for the size units that they're proposing to options. Either reduce the size units that are fronting the sidewalks or eliminate the units for your suggestion to accommodate that sidewalk. Okay. All right. Thank you. And now we'll go to applicant. Do you have a presentation? Do you chair cures? I think we'll give you 10 minutes. I'm sorry. I can go get started. I can go get started. I'll work on the clicker. Thank you all for coming to us To this evening. You can go to the next slide. So I just want to kind of bring us back to why we're proposing the application and all the positive features of the application. I think this kind of gets lost in some of the my new details that we're talking about and a lot of questions have been asked about already. But the idea is to provide more housing in Loudoun County including affordable housing units and attainable housing units and these are for sale units. These are not going to be rental units. So you're providing the ability not only to have additional housing in a location that's consistent with the comprehensive plan, but you're also providing more affordability for residents of the county. Next slide please. So in regard to the square-ed restriction, we did have restrictions on each of the, thank you very much. We did have restrictions on each of the three units that we were proposing in the application. We replaced those with a 2700 square foot limitation on no more than 50% of the units in the development. And this was based on what was profit of Belmont Park, which was a staff supported application. They had multi-family stacked and single-family attached or town home units. And the town home units in that development were kept at 2700 square feet of livable space. Their livable space definition is almost identical to the livable space definition that's in our profits. So we felt that was an appropriate comparable. And that's why we proposed 2700 square feet. If based on the discussion that occurred earlier, if staff is agreeable to resolve in this issue if we do drop the 2700 to 2600 feet of libelable space as defined in the Proffords, we would be agreeable to that revision. And hopefully that would result the issue. And again, on permanent executive plaza, there was no square footer restriction for the multi-family stacked or the town home units. For the sidewalks, we have again, tried to preserve the 100 foot and 50 foot buffers we don't need to provide those the only requirements in the zoning ordinance against the golf course are I think a 15 foot setback in fact I think it's even 10 feet in some areas so we're adding significant space to be in conformance with the approved constant development plan from the early 2000 so we're trying to preserve that at all costs. I don't think we'd be opposed to a trail of some sort, but we want to preserve the trees as well. So if there's a natural surface trail option, maybe that would be a solution there. But we don't consider this to be an unsafe condition. We have sidewalks directly across what will be a very low volume traffic street, which connects directly to the active recreation and public civic space on the property. As Darby mentioned, this does correlate with what was at Belmont Park. The town homes that are there, the front loading town homes do not have sidewalks directly in front of them, but they will still function and just fine in terms of pedestrian connectivity and circulation. For the active rec and civic space, the conference of plan does not distinguish between providing separate public civic space and active recreation space. There's no policy that says your active recreation space needs to be separate from your public civic space. Public and civic space defined in the conference of plan as in many ways, but it's all it's primarily defined as gathering spaces. There are certain levels of gathering spaces. You could have libraries. You could have some sort of civic facility, but it also accommodates outdoor spaces. Areas that we have that we've committed to, we provide a very defined spaces such as a play lawn, botchy court, hammock, swinging area, and a seating area. You can make an argument that all those are considered gathering spaces of some sort. So there's not a hard and fast definition for those types of areas. And we thought providing more specific examples of what we would provide would be appropriate and would resolve the issue. We're open to having more flexibility in that language to add additional uses like taught lots or other things. But one of the things I did want to point out on this, we took a look at Belmont Park, which again received a staff recommendation approval, and where they had their public and civic space. Their public and civic space is against the setback or it's within the setback facing Route 7 and Claymore Parkway so it's really not a A public civic space you would normally think of and if that's the case Then we can certainly identify a separate area on our site within the 100-foot setback as public civic space and Have a potential trail connecting the rear active rec space with the Pau and Intergarten. So if that's something that we can do or would be preferable of the commission, that's something we could help to lineate separate space there. And I think it would receive the intent. It would achieve the same intent that Bill Mott Park was trying to achieve with their public civic space. So the images you see on the screen here are the Billmont Park, Belmont Executive Plaza, and Belmont Cove frontage landscape plans. And what they I do want to point out is on the bottom, which is Belmont Cove, you see a lot of dashed or hatched red area. That's all the utility easements that are within the landscape buffer along the frontage of Rostromatch Parkway, which we're requesting the zoning modification, which is that issue with staff. We have in our most recent submission added additional plant units in the area that we can plant them to exceed the zoning ordinance requirement. So even though we have areas that are more narrow in planting with, we are providing more plant units in those areas. So we are exceeding the plant unit requirement. I'm not entirely sure why this is still an outstanding issue, but we've tried our best to make this as palatable as possible and exceed the regulations as much as possible. Knowing that we don't have nearly as much buffer space along the frontage as the other two applications do. I would point out both of those applications do have areas that are more thin than what the buffer would normally require. I would also state that we are not doing this to achieve additional density. In fact, our density is just over nine units an acre. It's relatively small in terms of density and comparison to other applications that have come through, which are normally nowadays over 20 units an acre. This is not a density push in fact it's quite the opposite. So we are not trying to achieve a maximum density with this site. Derby did a good job of pointing out the distances between the actual back of curb and the building units. Even though we're requesting a set back to 35 feet which is consistent with Belmont Park, Belmont Executive Plaza. We are actually 59 feet and 71 feet depending on where the turn lane is located from the back of curb to the buildings. And it's a good buffer. You can see it already taking shape or Belmont Executive Plaza is located. For universal design, we changed our proper commitment to provide these at purchasers cost, I'm sorry at purchasers option at the builders cost. We originally had it at purchasers cost to install these features. We changed that. We have said repeatedly that not everybody wants these but if they do want them we'll provide them at builders' cost. So that's the position we've had. We added the fire suppression, proper further requests of the public hearing. We provided buffer widths, not as an architectural design feature, but just to provide a understanding of what the widths would look like as part of our resubmission. And for parking, this is not an outstanding issue, but it's something that we did address in the most recent submission of the CDP by effectively showing what we showed at the public hearing. And we do exceed the current parking standards in the Zoning Orons, or the revised 93 parking standards. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. All right, thank you. Questions for the applicant, Commissioner Myers. I appreciate the presentation. One of the things I wanted to- I guess I should get close to one of the things I wanted- I'm reading the Varsus Special System proper that you've agreed to. In all the other applicants that have agreed to this, they've agreed that it's- It will be done at Builder Cost. That is missing in this. It leaves it kind of blank as to it, it looks like it's going to be your typical option pricing which I know includes can include a pretty good hefty markup. But I don't see the language in here where it actually says it will be done at builder cost. And then the second thing that we've had people agreeing to is far and rescue has a really good pamphlet that explains the benefits of why to give a sprinkler. We've had the other applicants agree that they would as long as they can get them provided by far and rescue, they would also hand them out to them at point of contract so that people understand also why they should consider this while they're doing their homes. Is that a change that you guys would agree to in this, in this, proper? Just as a point of clarification, when you say at-builder cost, you mean the purchaser to purchase it at the cost that the builder would incur? Is that so the purchaser is paying what it costs the builder to install. Right, without markup. Right, right, we'd be open to that. Yeah, that's no issue whatsoever. As is the pan flip. Okay. Yeah. Okay, thank you. And then in regards to the discussion about the sidewalks and the budding HOA and stuff. Can you expand on that a little bit of why you all, what the relationship is going on there and also? Could you clarify the question in terms of? When we were talking about the sidewalks and the H.O. A buddy in H.O.A. in the concerns about a buddy into that space. When I was talking to you, you were talking about that was one of the reasons. Oh, yeah, yeah, sorry. I thought you were referring to the other project. So yeah, so we've done everything we can to keep everything out of that 50 foot and 100 foot setback areas. We don't want to add anything there. I think maybe a natural footpath, a natural surface footpath would be acceptable. The out of that 50 foot and 100 foot setback areas. We don't want to add anything there. I think maybe a natural footpath, a natural surface footpath would be acceptable because you're not really paving or grading anything. Beyond that, I would be hesitant to add anything like a sidewalk or a shared-use path or any structures whatsoever in there. We've tried to preserve the trees to the greatest extent possible. On the 100 foot setback side, side there's not as many trees, but the ones that are there we're trying to preserve. The ones that are outside of easements on the western 50-foot setback we are preserving those. Okay. All right. Thank you. Commissioner of Outer Reading. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Mike, I heard that you guys are willing to open to adjust the design size to 2600 to make it work, right? Yes, if it results the issue from the staff perspective, we would do that. And also in terms of the public and civic space, I know you ideally don't want to have something in the 100-foot setback, but I would have it there, because especially if we are double counting, I know there is no stipulation like you mentioned, but I rather see the more public space available for the residents rather than just a setback. Yeah, and we were thinking about this before the meeting tonight and we did it identify the active rec space as public civic space because it is a gathering space and there's no prohibition of doing that but after reviewing the Belmont Park CDP it became apparent to me that they use their whole setback area as their public civic space really so good chunk of it so if we were to use that for 100 for the 100 foot setback area and have a natural footpath going through there, that might be a good resolution to that issue. Because we have a pollinator garden towards the front of the property. We have the hammock swing bench area in the back. There could be an opportunity because there's not as many trees in that 100 foot setback to provide some sort of path through there which could also help with pedestrian connectivity. But again, I'd want to keep it natural if we could, but you could still consider that public civic space. I would like you to work with the staff to do however it needs to be, but I rather see them than just leave it blank and double counting it, so. Thank you. Commissioner Cones. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So just to clarify, Mike, would you all commit to doing that natural surface footpath behind those front loading units and then perhaps run some similar type of path through that 100 foot setback, just so there's connectivity that's congruent, is that something you all are prepared to? We haven't looked at it from an engineering perspective yet, but it's something I think we would like to take a look at to see if that would result the issue, because I think there is a logical connection that could be made from the pollinator garden back to that back act of area. And that will go through the 100 foot setback, which would then open it up for petition connectivity and potential gathering in that area without adding structures or anything of the permanence. Okay, so that is at least something you're open to explain provided it engineers find that's something staff can hold you to. And then with respect to the you did confirm I think in your presentation you all would be willing to commit to the 2600 square foot average livable space throughout the development and I think we heard from Marsha that that would resolve that issue. So is that something that you all are just clarifying for the record? Yeah. Correct. Thank you. I was going to follow up. Does that solve the concern from Scott's perspective? Reading back to what Commissioner Myers and mentioned in this. So in the report we look at the way they've accounted for it, you exclude rogers in the 2700. The way we were evaluating the 2600 was including rogers. That's a difference of about 500 square feet. So we can work on making sure we're using the same definitions in terminology and we move this forward. 2600 obviously gets us closer to what we're trying to accomplish. So they that tonight, we'll work with them to better define what's livable and what the average. We were looked up the capital intensity factor where it references 2600. It does not have a definition in that document. So for tonight's purposes, 2600 I think gets us out of here and if we have to further define what those spaces are, we can do that on the way to the board. So, I'd like additional point of clarification. The path in lieu of the sidewalks along those townhome frontage should be a asphalt at a minimum. No. No. No. No. I think it depends of what the intent is. if the intent to provide a walking trail which gives you what you call that civic respect. I don't know that it means it's a replacement for the sidewalk. It's a compromise, but I don't agree with you. I don't think that replaces what staff would consider the need is for a sidewalk. I think it's being offered, I could be wrong, but some commissioners think that would be a compromise that they'd be willing to accept. I think that's the way it's being intended. Just wanted to add additional clarity of what staff would be seeking in that instance. Commissioner, thank you. Yeah, back to our 2600 square foot discussion. It sounds like at some point in this application, the word livable was added by the applicant. Why? Why not just use the language that we already used? It was. So the cap facilities language, I haven't even seen that. The livable space language has been used in many properties before, including Belmont Park. The language that we're using for livable space is almost identical to that, and they committed to town homes that know or know where to the 2700 square feet. So we thought that was a very good example to follow. We had the livable space language in there even before we came into the 2700 square feet. So it's been in there for a few iterations of proffers now. And it's not good. It has not been in there multiple iterations. The livable space with 2,700 was added on the latest iteration. No, so I would disagree with that point. And I could provide proper examples and submissions. The change in the most recent submission changed the 16 foot, 20 foot, and 24 foot maximum square footages. That changed to no more than 50% at 2700 square feet. The level of space definition has been in the proffers for a couple iterations of review. So again, in terms of the 2600 square feet, I just want to clarify what Mars now was saying, we would be agreeable to that if it resolves the issue. If there's a still 500 square foot gap there, we cannot agree to that. And we would just keep it at 2700 square feet. So that's where we can resolve it tonight. That would be great. And then we can move on. But if there's still a considerable 500 square foot difference there, we cannot agree to that reduction to 2600. I wish everybody would just use the same word like taxable above grade, a grade whatever. Those are my words because of my day job. I do want to point out that's a good point though. Commissioner Franks, I looked up in the zoning ordinance definition of what is habitable space. Garage's are not habitable space. It specifically says that gross floor area does not include garage's based on the definition. So if you look at those definitions, then livable space is entirely in line with those definitions. Right, I'm just wondering why not just use those definitions, why we created a new one. It's just been run before. What was trying to make sure we count in there or not count in there, it's what I'm getting at. It's a part of the challenge. was adopted, it said smaller units in the comp Plant and define what that size was. CIF comes along and last year and decides to create an average size. But what was not defined in that document was what that square footage related to. We looked up the same definition, Mike just looked up. So this is something we're going to have to resolve. And I can't say definitively tonight that it will., other than I think what I think Michael here you're saying you're willing to talk to us about it some more if we can track down the Yeah, I think we all kind of get the spirit of the garage discussion that that isn't counted And we don't want people to count it because they're not supposed to be finishing it and living in it But there's supposed to park their cars in it which they don't do that either. But we are seeing a lot of things in the attached development, single family and stacked units and everything else where we have these little co cutouts and carve space and balconies and covered porches and rooftop decks and things like that which are great amenities for folks but is that counted? I mean, I mean, I'm wondering, now we start to have different words in terminologies and different definitions, and it gets increasingly painful and impossible to become consistent. So I guess that's my concern. I think, well, most of us agree on the spirit of the garage in that counting. I don't know where we all are on everything else. And maybe that's something that needs to be cleaned up back there. If I could just add, I strongly agree that we should use gross floor area which does exclude parking areas and I am completely support of, I'm completely in support of using that consistent language in proper documents so that we can implement it as we go forward. So I would be in support of the gross floor area. Which is the definition of the zoning ordinance. But when you say gross floor area in a townhouse concept and the first floor is 90% all garage, are you including that garage then? No, because the definition in the zoning ordinance specifically excludes parking areas, parking structures, whether they're detached or attached. So there are 2600 you're saying, should or should not include garages. should not, should not go based on the way we define it in the zoning ordinance. So by your earlier point, if that's the case, that meets how the livable space definition and the difference of a hundred square feet would resolve the issue. So. I apologize we're having this policy debate in front of you. That's okay. We'll be fine documents as much as you are. The overall question for the commission, are you comfortable with the unit limits? We have townhouses in the county that are quite large and we have some that are less. So is the commission comfortable with adding these housing stock to the county at this square footage or is there more discussion or more diversity in unit types that you're looking for so that's really what we're at right now. Can I follow up just? I'm the one You've had your turn. You went pretty long. Let me go through. I didn't realize it works. I'm going to get three minutes I'd like to talk about I think that's what we're doing else You mr. Frank you Okay Vice-chairman Miller. Thank you. So I'm going to continue on this size discussion, because 2600 square feet, the smallest width townhouse that can be accommodated with 2600 square feet is a 20 foot wide townhouse, which means we would not have 16 feet. We started this conversation last time, 16 feet wide townhouses were part of discussion. And well, there are challenges with 16 foot wide townhouses. If the goal is affordability by design, there's no attached product we have that's more affordable by design than a 16-foot wide. If we had 16-foot wide, that three stories of 42 feet deep, that's 2017, 16 feet, 18 feet whatever it is, with a garage space included in that space. So the level area is 200 square feet less, so it's one car garage is 200,000 meters square feet. If we go this route of average being 2600, then we're not getting 16-foot-wide townhouses. Are we? Yes. You had a question earlier about the revision and the proper square footages. That was really clean up. It didn't change anything in the programming of the actual units in the community. There's still 16 foot units, 20 foot units, and 24 foot units. What we did is we went and we looked at what Belmont Park had done with their language, and we thought this is a way to simplify things. So we effectively took what I think is predominantly Belmont Park's language, or pretty much 98%% their language and we adopted that instead of everything else It was current that was actually in the previous iteration So I think what I'm hearing from staff is if we were to take the 2,700 square feet in our current Proffer and reduce that to 2,600 square feet with everything else being as is They they're comfortable with that. I think I'm hearing that and if that is the case We are willing to commit to that but that's still get us a specific number of 16 20s and 24s a specific number of individual units right What if you're getting an average you have to that you can't have 24 24's. Right. So it's not an average of all the units. It's per unit 2600 square feet and that is a 50% minimum requirement that 50% of those units cannot exceed that amount. So it's not like we're averaging across all the units. It is 50% at least of those units has to be 2600 square feet or less. Okay, so then 2600 square feet can be accomplished with 20 foot wide. It could, but we have 16 foot wide units as well. Programmed in the community, if that's your question. It basically it is. Yes. I think there's challenges with 16, just so we think there's challenges with 2 over 2. But if the goal of the county is we want to have a 4-abilit by design, we need 16s. At 2600, at 2700, there's all 20 feet. Within the 50% that would be 2600 square feet or less would be multiple 16 foot wide units that are in that average and that 50% if that makes sense. Right, it would have to be. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, so there will still be 16 foot wide units in this community and there will be 24 foot wide units and there will be 24 foot wide units. Is there a way to know what number of each with type unit there will be? There's one way that's right on the screen right now, which is parking. I can tell there's one car garage as we have at least 12 of those. So that's at least 12, 16 footers. 16 foot units. Because the 20s can be two car garage. They are. Exactly. Yeah, they would be. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I just have just a couple things that we had talked about previously. So you're not willing to commit to a sidewalk in front of those units, correct? Correct. Correct. And as far as building smaller units, you're not willing to commit to build any certain number of units that have, say, 2000 to 2200 square feet of living area. We have not made a commitment like that. Okay. All right. That's all I have. Commissioner Myers, did you have something to follow up you wanted? I'm a little bit confused about the trail things now because I know that we have what we call them chip Walking trails natural walking trails. I mean we have them all over ash in the Ashburn area Why why are we saying now that we that if something has to be as faulted in order to be counted as a natural trail? I think it's back to Commissioner or sorry chair pierces to fully meet the policy, to meet the CTP policy, there's a road surface requirement for that if it's as recommended tonight It's a compromise of providing some sort of recommendity that could be passive recreation is part of the hundred foot buffer And I think you know the trail would be appropriate So the purpose of the referencing the the material type is based on the countywide transportation plan. So if the commission is agreeable to how they're describing it, then that's fine. That's what we'll take for. There's not a policy against it. I guess that's what I'm trying to figure out. There's not a policy against it. The statement was made that it had to be asphalt. So I just want to know, am I, are we just creating another thing that creates another problem because we think we saw something and all we've done is make another problem. I think we're good for the ceiling. I'm not worried about just the evening. I'm worried about the debate that occurs up to the board. So if we're looking at this being a non-assault trail, is that going to continue to be an issue and we should just leave it alone and not have a sidewalk or is it if they're doing a natural trail a natural trail that can be and it's something that's looked at in regards to that it supplies and takes care of the outstanding issue. The way we would describe it if you were to recommend that the recommendation is night to the board. We would describe it in the board item. Board your CTP policies would recommend sidewalks along the frontage. We brought the issue to the commission. They felt that the intent of the policy was underwise provided with the multipurpose trail. And we'll to the commission. They felt that the intent of the policy was otherwise provided with the multipurpose trail. We'll ask the board to decide. We'll still raise it as a to fully meet the policy. They'll need to provide the sidewalk when we'll describe your deliberations and why you felt the alternative was appropriate. And then in regards to civic open space, I mean, are we saying that there has to be a structure associated with it in order for it to be could you now we're using the word double count. I mean, I've never seen there's many small areas right by this property as an example where there's signs that say civic space and there's absolutely no activities. In fact, there's one that just got approved by us, glibotid against it over there in front of the quarry, and there's no structures with it, and it's got public and civic space. No activities. In fact, there's one that just got approved by us. I'm glad I voted against it over there in front of the quarry. And there's no structures with it. And it's got public and civic space that they say got approved with it. So is there a requirement that there has to be a structure in order to be counted for civic or active recreation? The general plan specifically, Dillonie, it's quote unquote constructed to accommodate gathering of the community. Okay, so but constructed simply can be benches and greeting areas. It doesn't constructed, does not mean have to mean. Where does it say it has to be a building and enclosed? It includes examples such as libraries, churches, schools, community centers, amphitheaters, and similar uses. But those are things that are on much larger rezoning. I mean, you'd need to take almost this entire property to create those things. Correct. We are not recommending they build a library on the site. So you are not recommending they need to build a structure of the library. Unless or not usually see gazebo's or other types of records. Deliberate public meeting spaces. If it is just simply open space used for past a wreck, that is active wreck. If they're wanting it to be civic space, then there needs to be some sort of deliberate effort to construct some sort of public meeting space and usually that sounds like a gasebo or benches or other elements. So they've got the benches. So now you need a gasebo. Figure out the gasebo before you get to the board. Thank you. Excuse me. Excuse me. So, this issue, and I apologize, I don't know exactly how it was delineated. If they had an area, say, with a top-lotter. Excuse me. So this issue, and I apologize, I don't know exactly how it was delineated. If they had an area, say with a taught lot or they have a botchieck court, right, and they're saying that's our act of rec, and right near it we have some seating benches and a gazebo. You could say this piece of it is act of rec, this piece is civic. That would be more in line with what you're saying now is they're showing the one space and saying this is active rec Slant civic. That's correct. Staff is requesting a specific distinction between the two. So would that be difficult? Could you do that distinction? In the spaces this is active rec, this is civic. So I think there probably wouldn't be enough space within those spaces to do both. So what we would do is expand the public civic space, similar to what happened at Belmont Park, where we'd include some of the 100 foot buffer to be a public civic space. And you would have a trail, natural service trail connecting the pollinator garden to the rear active rec space. And you would then have two separate spaces for that purpose. And what are you just described that would beat staffs? That would be closer to meeting the policy. So to your earlier point, can they be blended? Yes, but they have to be deliberate. Okay. You're deliberately incorporating those elements in the same space. Okay. So. Okay, thank you. Mr. Combs, this is in the Ashburn District. It is, thank you, Mr. Chair. Bear with me. I move that the Planning Commission for Lege 2023 is 0074, Belmont Cove Resonine and Belmont Cove Appendage. ZMAP 2023, triple 06, ZMA 2023, 2, ZMA 2023, 0056, 57, ZMA 2024, triple 08, and ZCPA 2024, triple 04. To the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of approval, subject to the proper statement dated February 4, 2025. And based on the findings for approval provided as attachments 1 and 6 to the March 14, 2025 planning commission work session memorandum and is further modified pursuant to the discussion tonight to include the average unit size for 50% of the units in the project in the development to be 2,600 square feet of gross floor area to include the applicant exploring with staff the possibility of including a natural surface footpath both behind the front loading townhome units and within that 100 foot buffer to include the fire suppression construction option at cost equal to the builders cost. But I think that's that it for our revisions tonight. Second. And was there something about the pamphlets? Make sure that they're provided. The pamphlets. The pamphlets. Right. And then did you want to put something in there about the open space around the pollinated garden to be used as open space? Additional open space. If activated with the natural surface footpath. Yeah. I know we had the trail, but the open space you were looking for also that gives them the staff wanted. Correct. So I'm just doing an audit. We landscape buffers you're okay with. There was no changes to the landscape buffers. Architectural design. There was a question about universal design for the affordable units. Was that resolved? Any changes to that? Okay, you're comfortable with how it's presented today? That's all we had left. Okay. Okay, okay. So the motion to the main of the Commissioner Cohn's second to the Commissioner Modeready, Commissioner Cohn's do you have an opening? Yeah, briefly. Look, this is a small infill cited at eight acres and at the risk of beating a dead horse. In these situations we're really balancing what I think are three competing needs, open space, density, and parking. And here we've got roughly 30 some percent open space in light of the enhanced buffers on the west and north. We've got parking above the new zoning requirement and we've got density at nine units per acre. I think the applicant has done a good job of trying to balance these competing factors and they've shown that they're willing to work with us on the remaining concern. So for that reason, I think it's an application that should move forward and I hope folks would support it. Thank you. Any other discussion or comments? Commissioner Ramada writing? Just many of the same comments Commissioner Combs mentioned. And also I like willingness of applicant to just work to the issues with us and come to a reasonable meaningful solutions for these things. So that's the reason I will be supporting the application. Mr. Frank. Unfortunately, while we have made some progress, I'm not going to be supporting this motion. It comes back to the, the, the word we sometimes cringe at, but innovative. Quite honestly, there's just nothing exceptional or innovative about this product or design that overcomes the lack of the setbacks that should be there, the tree reductions, the missing sidewalks. We seem to have fixed the unit size commitment, but I do encourage folks to be realistic with the market controlled, you know, size controlled market rate unit kind of thought process. There's, we mentioned a couple of other developments right there joining this parcel. One of them sitting at 2800 square foot town homes is priced at a base price of $860,000 right now and most of them are selling over 900. So to think that we are putting in a product here that is going to be what most people would consider as affordable, I think we need to be very honest with ourselves. You know, their condos, sure those start at 600, but that's not what the product is here. So and nor are we really Encouraging that to be the product here. I want to make that clear but of the 12 16 foot townhomes I'm speculating that most if not all of them are going to be the affordable units Yeah, so we don't have a market unit that will be 16 feet and on the smaller side We're going to have market units that are closer to or above that average So I just think we need to be really realistic about that when we're talking about generating affordable market rate units this just isn't this isn't there more 16 foot units is what would do that and Again, there's conundrums with that, but this is all about trade-offs. And I just don't see the innovation there to want to make the trade-offs that we're being asked to make here. So. Mayor Ler comments? Mr. Miller. So I think we're making progress. I think we've resolved some things. We're iffy on some other who are making progress. I am generally low to send something to the board that's not as complete as we could make it. And I think we could continue to work on this to make it what we all agree on that we can send something to the board that we've agreed on. Not something that we're saying something to the board of. We agree on this, provided the applicant does these things as before it gets to the Board and there's absolutely no requirement that the applicant actually does those things and takes it to the Board. It's just we hope that they get there and they show up without these things being done, then we've sent something forward that isn't what we'd intended to send forward. So I'm going to vote no right now only on the basis that I think we could continue to work on this so that we as a body have given our full recommendation to a full package to the board. Not we want to send a forward provided they've done these things and then it's out of our hands. So that's the reason that I'm going to vote no now if someone has a substitute motion which I'm not going to make to go to work session to continue to resolve these then I would support that. But in light of that I'm going to, for a point of us doing a full or complete job, fortunate and the enforced I'm going to vote no for this application. Commissioner Meyers. I will be supporting the motion for this to move forward. I think it's in a rest room where each only given three minutes to talk about this but they think we can get everything resolved in one work session to start with. We have completely reviewed this. We've made our recommendations and we've said that the applicant has agreed to move forward to the board. I don't see what we would discuss at another work session that we haven't already resolved tonight except that everybody might want to see the pretty picture of the ending of it. So I think everything that we've asked them to do, they've done. I want to thank the applicant because I did ask you to consider the 2600 and you did that. I appreciate it. I asked you to also consider the FAR because it's very important, the fire to me, is and you did do that and I also appreciate that. And I want staff to also know, I really appreciate the level of the detail in this report and that's one of the reasons why I was really looking at the 2600 because I took it serious that what you were looking at and it was the policy. So you all did a very good job in the report and making it so that it was understandable and that I really felt like I knew what I needed to do in the research. I want to thank you for your work on it also. All right. For myself, I won't be supporting the motion. My two reasons, one are the sidewalks. I get you all they can cross the the street and there's sidewalks there, but you have to cross the street or putting a walking trail through the common area behind it to me, doesn't meet the purpose of a sidewalk. Living in a community that was approved back in the 80s in Loudon County, they used to only require sidewalks on one side of the street. So that's what most of my community has. And having lived in a couple different streets and having served on the HOA Board for 20 years and had to listen to lots of neighbor wars, there's problems when you don't have sidewalks in front of your units. For example, when you have small children and they want to go out on their tricycles or their little bikes, if you have a sidewalk in front of your house, they can go up and down the sidewalk. They don't have to go on the street. And there's a degree of safety there. What I've generally found is people that live on the other side of the street without the sidewalk. Ten more to pull the lawn chairs out, sit in the driveway and the kids go riding up and down on the street. And that's led to issues with neighbors. I want to belabor the point, but there's, I think, a reason why, and rightly so, the county changed their policy, and if you're building communities, you put sidewalks on both sides of the street. And because the applicant doesn't want to shave a couple of units off, to do that, that's not acceptable to me. They could accommodate it without having to go into the buffer they want to preserve, which is great. Adding the walking trail is a good thing. Serves another purpose with the Civic and Active Reck space. But it doesn't solve the lack of a sidewalk issue. Second is also unit size. I first saw this application and as the county's been converting more and more commercial space to residential. I thought this is one that makes sense to leave for commercially. Got an office building next door, better chance of getting something maybe down the road being built next to it. But if somebody wants to come in and reasonate to residential, then in my opinion, they need to be providing more of the type of housing the county is looking for, which is more affordable. Yes, they meet the requirements for affordable housing, but the unit sizes as commissioner Frank pointed out, this is not affordable. And the applicants for their reasons would not commit to building smaller units, which I think in the 2000 square foot range. Several units at that size would provide a different degree of housing stock and get more of the end of the housing stock the county's looking for. So for those reasons, I can't support it. All right, so what are just a comment? All those in, oh, I'm sorry, Think you're reminding me closing Commissioner Colms. I appreciate the support that I hope will follow. I don't know that we need to go back to a work session. I can understand where folks are coming from in terms of how they're balancing the competing elements here, but I do want to think the applicant for attempting to work with us to get to an application that can move forward and I want to thank staff for all the work on this as well, so thank you all. Okay, all those in support of the application say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. Okay, so that motion will pass 432 with, I got Commissioner Combs, moderate, ready, Myers and Banks in support and commissioners, Miller, Kieres and Frank opposed. All right, thank you very much. Thank you. And that concludes our legislative work session. All right, thank you very much. And that concludes our legislative work session items and now we'll go on to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm. I do appreciate the candid discussion here. It keeps us on our toes, especially before the board. So thank you for pushing on the 2600. We'll get our information squared away for the board. So, Alicia, I wound up amending the item after you've already posted it. So I'm going to grab it real quick. Okay. Okay. I... Okay. I would like to say we're in somewhat of a hiatus. You're off in February and in our April meeting is light so hopefully that doesn't jinx this for the rest of the year. So two items for April. Hidden wood assemblage. You've seen this before. I'm sorry. Mark. I'm sorry. Mark. I'm sorry. Mark. I'm sorry. Mark. I'm sorry. Mark. I'm sorry. Mark. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. March, that I'm sorry, from March. I'm priming you for the March ones you're right. OK. I'm sorry guys. These Friday's work sessions are so, yeah, I wish we could. OK. So in May 2024, you moved this application to the board. When it got to the board, there was a number of amendments made to the application at the board level. The extent of those revisions, the board felt it was appropriate to remain it back to the commission for your review. So what it comes to you now, so this is the site that you reviewed, prior field of the states of the North, you have North Star and Delas-West Boulevard on the west side, the JK, former JK projects or data center projects or to the south. So this is the amended concept, and the staff report will have the previous iterations for comparison to be able to see. But what this represents is a reduction in height from what you previously saw. Buildings that were 50 to 55 feet are now at 39 feet. Reduced FAR from 0.6 to 0.27. That drops it from 750,000 square feet to about 334,000 square feet. Removed architectural design commitments, removed noise studies and mitigation, and removed previously proposed, a previously proposed trail head and trail network. So this application is now for 334,000 square feet of light and medium industrial commercial uses that would exclude data center. The layout here you see in purple are the parking areas, three building areas in blue, and then the equipment mechanical yards in yellow. So the commission or the board remanded it back to you for republic hearing, re-review in a revised recommendations should you choose to make one and then it will proceed to the board supervisors for a final final vote Any questions Quester bill one question. I'm gonna going to have Is that middle building that property that property slopes down. One of the conversations was when it was with potential data was that the height of it is the height of the building, but set down into that lower land area would reduce the visual height from other areas. So I'm curious at 39 feet, what the, what the height, visual height is if that building will actually be set lower or if they're planning on raising up the grade to keep it equal across, I don't know, but I'd be curious, that's one thing I'll be curious about is asking either staff or the applicant what the grading will remain there and how that building will be above sea level as opposed to just height of the building. I will say that they do continue to provide retaining walls to lower the visual height from Ryerfield. They'll have the specific graphics for you to review at the hearing. Mr. Mudder ready. Thank you, Mr. Martin, is it a way that we can get all the current construction status of things that are building, being built around in Woodwright now? Because I know last time when it was in front of the Planning Commission, the biggest, the complaint the residents were having for this whole project to come to this place is because of the challenges they're having. I know that airport noise is there, but besides that there are a lot of construction that was causing a lot of issues. So if possible, I would like to get construction status, building status, anything that kind of thing that can help us like to see any of those issues got resolved and it got better from the last time we met. Understood. And even this graphic is someone outdated. North Star believes already opened. This still shows it under construction. So yes, we can get an update of the status of all the perimeter projects. Perfect, thank you. All right. Anything else? Next. How's it? OK. OK. Quantum Park. This is some of you may have been until you know this as World Com or UUNET or the Verizon campus over the years. Was it UUNET? You're UUNET drives, yeah. That was before. I guess I'm dating myself now. No, as before WorldCom was UUNET. UUNET then will come, then MCO. I had a college buddy that his first job was at UUNET out of Virginia Tech. So, okay, so quantum park. In the late 90s, the overall campus was approved for three. What's that? Back in the 90s, I just graduated high school. The overall campus was approved for about 3.3 million square feet of office uses. They have come through several times to reprogram the campus. So you'll know the area in yellow is the area that's subject to this zoning concept plan amendment. Essentially, they want to build over top the retention ponds. The retention one is decorative. The other one they're going to put underground. But essentially it would add 500,000 square feet or 550,000 square feet of data center use and office use over top those two ponds. Still under the 3.3 million square feet threshold that the original project was approved, there's simply wanting to move the chess pieces around the campus for lack of a better description. So this is the, so you see sort of several shading. the area and white underneath is the original campus. These, the area and darker shade of gray was the last application that came in in 2017, which changed the uses within the land base to allow data centers on the rear and data centers to the west. Again, the area in yellow is these zoning concept plan amendment area. They're also offering a substation across the other way at Loudon Center. I'm going to go back to the picture. This is currently a substation. They're proposing a similar sub or a sister substation right here. That's located in this area. They would still have the promenade that will come into the property. probably still use some of the on-site parking, but these buildings would be data center buildings. So, they're also modifying along this portion, the setback along Loud County Parkway is 100 feet. The district also allows or requires the stepbacks, what 100 feet you can go 60 feet high and then you can step back and get up to 100 In this area sort of this half moon area at 100 feet. They want the ability to go up to 100 feet Rather than doing the step back. So that would be for that portion of the property Design commitments when match the buildings of the existing campus Marsha, you clarify that again. You said They don't want to do the step back. They want to go, but my understanding is they're meeting the set bet to require to go right up to 100. Is that as opposed to going up to 60? Right now at 100 feet off the Lawn County Parkway, you can only build up to 60 feet. Okay. And then to go to 100 feet, there's a ratio that's back to get to 100. At 100 feet, they don't want to be limited to 60. They want to go to 100 right off the bat. 100 feet high. So they're trying to get a height that isn't basically approved? They want to skip the step back. Yes, yes, for that portion, they want to skip the step back. They said yes, they're right. So misunderstood them. I said so you're meeting the setback requirement to go to 100 feet and they said yes. That's what I was told. They're meeting the minimum building setback. So you have the heights and then you have the setback. So the setback, I'm sorry, we're beating myself. The building has to be set back a certain distance before you can go to 100 feet, correct? Correct. Okay. Are they meeting that? Is where the building goes to 100 feet? Is it meat that that distance set back? Not with what they're proposing, but that's what they're modifying. They told me the opposite of that, which, because I thought I made it very clear, I said, So you're meeting, you're going 100 feet and you meet, oh yeah, we meet the setback requirement. Yeah, maybe in a nuance between a meeting the building setback the horizontal. They're meeting they're not asking to come the buildings any closer. They're just asking to build the full height sooner. Okay. Okay. For us worth Brian said the exact same thing to me said to you which is exactly opposite of March. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Now, on this side of the property, they will meet, they're not asking to meet the exception, they will meet that step back requirement. Okay. So. Okay. They are, they want to go to 100 feet, but they meet the initial 100 foot setback and then the additional step. Correct. So on this portion, 100 feet set back from the road, the building height will start off at 60. And then to get to 100, they'll continue to have to step the building back up. On the right side of the moon, they're not going to start at 60 feet. They're going to start at 100 and not do any additional setbacks. Oh, so they just minute on the one side, Cliff. Yeah. You misunderstood. So there's also the apprentice drive, Lockbridge Road project that's along the west side that this is we've had to talk with the applicant extensively somebody because those construction plans are underway And we still an unresolved issue over in that that area because they were at one point using that As there I don't know if it's their tca or whatever else knowing that it's all gonna be torn down because the road is going there Yes, we did we were able to resolve that with the application. Yes for the most part there's some detail that we're continuing to work with the applicant on regarding architectural design, open space, screening of the substation, defining some of the stormwater management techniques, and some dedication for the Lock Ridge Road Improvement Project. But we are expecting to resolve those issues with the applicant before the hearing. Is the substations coming? Sorry. Mr. Afrey. Thank you, sir. Is the substation screening what we're doing to mitigate the fact that the substation is on the road frontage to begin with because is that an exception to policy? That no, but they are. They're matching the proffers that were for the substation on the other side, which was the 12 foot Masonry Wall additional landscaping along Loudon County Parkway, which is also an exception. Like, what is the, in this, I know we are in a weird little odd space here. So I'm trying to recall exactly what where substations are and are not allowed. I thought they weren't allowed technically, they weren't supposed to be on that road front edge. Is that still an issue? That rings a bell, but I think. Is that across the street? We've had a lot across the street and a lot right there and I know there's some lines that run through all that. A lot of the discussion we've had. It doesn't mean I want more. One wrong doesn't make a right. Or two wrongs don't make a right. So the law and center project up here, when applicants would come in and say we don't know where we're going to put it, the negotiation was where you won't put it. So you would negotiate it, it won't be on a road frontage. I think I remember with this conversation, the substation here was rather than being up here. That was sort of the choice to make and it was presumably was going to be buried between these two buildings. Yeah, not that road. So it's the other road. Correct. So and down here you'll notice there in the back. Right. There's the other substation you just looked at for. So the one is essentially the corner parcel has two roads to deal with. Whereas a single road, major road frontage has one, which is what this property is. So is there any reason they couldn't put it behind the 100 foot building they're trying to put on front of the road? Certainly something to ask. Okay, all right, all right. Just anything you can do to maybe I'll work with staff and get clarified on that. Because yeah, we've had some, the exceptions are becoming the norm and I'm trying to get back to what the core policy was. So, all right, thank you. Yes, we would typically recommend it not beyond a prominent road frauds. Or if it is, it's heavily screened. Mr. Mott, ready? I'm kind of stuck even before we get the building design standards. So, it's a general question. Maybe I should ask that, now I don't know. So, but much on how common is this that say, I have a 10-acre lot and I did the site plan. I put like a three-acre ponds in there for the stormwater and all those things. Build the remaining seven acres. Now come back after 20 years and say, you know what, I don't need this ponds anymore. I'd build something else. Is this kind of a development very common around here? As land values continue to go up and certainly the proliferation of data centers, before a storm scepter pond, which is the one that's usually buried under the parking lots, that was a very expensive enterprise. And so at the time, there just wasn't probably the land values for that. And so now, as development has increased and the densities increased, people can absorb that cost. They can now put those storm water facilities underground and increase their development potential. So it's just sort of a evolution of development within the county. It's not really uncommon. It's not uncommon. We're starting to see a lot more of it now with these underground facilities to be able to capture additional building area. Okay. My other count would be like, Michelle mentioned about the substitution being on the Lord and County Parkway. Just because we have an exception before, I don't know whether we can do the same thing again. Even though with the 12 foot, I guess substation is going to still be bigger than 12 foot over this. We got to see if that was an exception or how it was done on that. I'll appreciate any more details that you guys can provide. So the rationale is to wear these. Exactly. Yeah. Richard Myers. So my recollection 30 years ago, there was a pond that already existed on this property. So this was in a drainage flood plain area. So now we're going to pay, I mean, I know the one was created for stormwater detention management. The other one was a pre-existing, which I'm a little bit confused about, now we're taking, are we altering, maybe, are we going to go through and change the to pot, how are we gonna take it to where this swale no longer exists that was natural in there before? And now we're gonna do something that we're gonna take away this natural swale that was there. I mean, I understand the stormwater one and how you can fit, but this wasn't made, this was God made, not man made. So I'm a little bit confused, especially on the one. And then the other thing is, I believe weren't these areas used for calculation of open space? Good question. We can look at the proposal. I mean, I'm pretty sure that these were calculated for open space against the density they got for the original rezoning. So I definitely would like to know in doing this now, are we without realizing it, allowing them to decrease the amount of open space that they'd agreed to originally with this? Because I know back then, this predated loud in County Parkway as we knew it today. But part of what the deal was, we worked with the state to help get this road started. And we knew the setbacks in the open space it was going to be there. I'm very concerned about, I'm pretty sure these were supposed to be open space. This was the old keynote employment corridor. Right. And these were supposed to be open spaces. Large open spaces in front of the large corporate offices. Yes, that was all part of the industry time. I'm pretty, I feel very comfortable in that I think that this was supposed to be calculated against open space. And if it was, I'd like to understand where are we now shifting that open space. And if we're not, what are they going to pay for giving away that? I mean, I personally don't find a way that this is going to be, that I just don't think I can support this at all no matter what they do. Because it's just too close and it's too with all the respect ugly. And I don't see how you make this pig become a beauty pageant queen. So I think they got a lot of work to do. And I haven't, I have not met with the applicant. But like I said, my first thing is when I look at this from just being somebody that was actually where I think Cliff is setting when this went through, this was open space. And it's one thing to shift around density. It's another thing to take away what part of the deal was and what that was supposed to be, especially on Loudon County Parkway. So I definitely need to get that in search. Yes, we'll make sure the applicants prepare to answer. And we'll we'll we can revisit what the open space standards were at the time of the original approval. And definitely I want to understand how we're altering something that was it wasn't created for the subdivision. It was here. It was here back when Mr. Brockett was here farming that land and we were cutting the hay. Thank you. Just some else? I have one question from Marjant. You just said something to Dale that we'll check what the open space requirements were back then. With this rezoning. Right. But not what the requirements were back then, but what was done back then, what was done back then, regardless of what may have changed the open space today, that carries forward in perpetuity, right? If the open space guidelines today have changed- Yes, the comp plan has changed for the vision for this property. What I was agreeing with back when it was keynote employment, there was a large office corporate park, a lot of open space. I'll open space. And so there were profit open space at the time. open space at the time. Right. So I guess my question is, the way you said that, it made me think that if they met the open space requirement back then, but today are in our zoning orange and our general plan says you can have less open space in this type of marketplace that they could lose open space and still be in compliance with two days zoning. Correct. offering that as sort of of context and background You're saying you don't you don't want you want to see if they had open space requirements from back then that should still be today Which I agree with right but and to clarify anymore what I'm saying is when we approved the rezoning the rezoning was based on X amount of open space right and that's what I want to know is are they still abiding what they were approved by? Regardless of what the general plan says today or it doesn't say. Correct. There's an approved rezoning. Exactly. If we do this, are they still in compliance with that open space that they got with their deal when they did this rezoning? Which I agree with you. That's what I'm saying. It sounded like it was a possibility exists that even if what they left with today is less open space but conforms with today's zoning ordinance that that would be okay. Correct. We evaluated under the current zoning, the current comp plan which they are meeting the open space requirements of the current comp plan. Okay. And that's where Dale and I would have a concern is that sure you met it then, but now you're taking some of it away, it's okay today, but we're saying it's not okay. It should be carried forward in perpetuity. Okay. Okay, one other note just for rest of you, when I did talk to him yesterday, and of course, since I know I know that they were telling me have truths. I did bring up the buffering of the substations to say no more 12 foot walls that look like Shawshank but berms with walls and trees and they should be more universally appealing than just prison walls. So hopefully we'll come back with something like that as well. Okay. All right, Mr. Myers, you done? Yes, thank you. Okay. Miller to comment, so when I met with them, I did ask them, after you made the comment about how that facility, there's a heavily over-. If they could find a way to push that substation farther back, where you can see to the far right that it cuts back, actually there's parking there. Is there a way you can, since you just told me that this thing is heavily over parked, can you push that substation farther back away from Loudon County Parkway and increased the buffering landscaping in front of it. I was also curious about the, I know it's a called Lockridge, where it hits Waxpool Road, there's a different name up there. Is that Lockridge that comes down? Prentice and Lockridge, the name's interesting. Whatever they are. I was just kind of curious, because they said they're not profaring anything towards the construction of road. And I was just kind of curious over time, you know, when this thing was approved for LMCI World Com in this all this office, I got to think, I don't know what was negotiated back then. If there are any proffers, we're getting from the developers, is there now developing this? Or if that is something that we could ask, I'm just curious what the status of that road is. Do we have proper money for it? I'm pretty sure it's in the CTP but there's a county already have the funding for it. I'd just be curious about that. I also question the viability of that road because when they created this road, this is again they thought they were going to have thousands and thousands of employees working in here and that's why they wanted the other, this to connect across the creek. And now we've got shellhorn across on the creek and now we have data centers almost exclusively through here with very little office and not high amount of employment Is it really even necessary to keep building these roads that were designed for something that's not there? So anyways And as far as the lips it's a pretty good look and pig if you haven't seen the design yet for the building So they'll probably meet with you eventually. But as far as what data centers look like, they're pretty decent looking. But as was mentioned, I had the same thing about just taking what looks like a little bit of open space left on this parcel and building on it. Can they do that? So you've already heard enough about that. Much of the majority of Lawn County Park, we was built through the proffers of a lot of these regional resonings. They have given the right away for lock ridge along the western side. There is county monies that are already being put into that construction but we can give an updated summary of the timing. Just to quick update where it's at. Okay. Okay. Quickly you had asked, the commission had asked could we update on those projects that have languished and not come back to you? First is Belmont Milestone interchanges. So why am I forgetting corner of Route 7 and Clayborn? Clayborn, thank you. You had seen this last summer. We'll come back to you next month. They were awaiting the SEC ruling about above ground versus underground installation. There's also some discussions of perhaps relocating that facility on adjacent buildings. So they will be coming back to you in April. Hamilton Safety Center. This has come to you in November. This has been processed under the revised 93. They looked at the new zoning ordinance and determined that fire stations could co-locate these facilities without the need for a special exception or a commission permit. So they are seeking approval under the new zoning ordinance. There is a special exception that was required for the original fire station to be established. There was some question, what are not this facility would impact that special exception? The applicant will get a response when they submit their site plan, what are not that original special exception needs to be modified. If it does, then you'll see it. But that is the status of Hamilton Safety Center. Can I ask a quick question? Sure. I don't understand, and maybe I need to have a meeting or whatever with the zoning people. How in the world we've gotten away from that a monopole is no longer a utility and a utility is always required with the commission permit So whether it's a by-right or not we should still be seeing the commission permit for that monopole because it is a utility There's no way it's not a utility So I'm confused how the zoning administrator has made a determination I mean Ashburn had to have a commission permit and a special exception Phil Amont had to have both I mean I've gone and looked at at least six different fire stations that have got polls. And all of them had to have not just special exceptions, but also had to have commission permits. It's just like when we look at schools right now. We don't look at schools for special exceptions because they're by right everywhere in the world now. But we still look at them for the commission permit because of the public use. So I really have a very big concern because if there are now no longer under commission, does that mean the schools no longer can say no? Because it's a by right use. Or they were trying to, I mean I realize they self to be an accepting landowner. But to me, everybody loses the ability to give an opinion about that, or if it's right, because the one in Hamilton is in the wrong location. And all they've done is they've gone around it because they knew they weren't going to get it, because the town of Hamilton was ready to work with them. So I really want to have an understanding from the zoning administrator of how a monopole is no longer a utility. Yes, ma'am. We had had the same question. The language and the ordinance specifically referenced the commission permit requirement, but That it was, it was, um, what's where I look for it? It was determined that it would not be required for specifically for fire rescue facilities. But yes, that, that we're trying to track down the history of why that was recommended during the zoning ordinance read right, and we can follow up with you and give that explanation. Okay. I can explain it a little more in more detail for you if you'd like. So I, I'm sorry, the whole thing. I don't know if everybody gets my phone there, so they said we wanted to get it on that. Okay. Okay. Okay, so I hear your concern, but it, it, a, Okay. So I hear you're concerned, but it applies on a more limited basis than that. It's not as big as what you think. So in chapter four, it says that a monopole is by right when co-located with a fire rate and rescue station. Then in Chapter 10, it exempts monopoles from any a commission permit if the monopole is a bi-right use. That's all it says. It doesn't talk about parks or schools or anything like that. And the reason why we did that in the Zora is because we have a telecommunications plan that probably retires and expedites co-locating monopoles at fire and rescue sites. So that was because we needed more better cellular service in certain parts of the county. So that change is consistent with the county policy. Thank you. I mean, feel far, you saw this in November. After the hearing, it was discovered that there was a nesting site on the property, so there had to be some CDP changes. I think it was not a adjacent property, not on the property. But it did. Well, enough of an impact that they had to change. It's the distance. Yeah. There's a protection zone around that nesting area, and so that was investigated and addressed. There was also some continued work on the credits of the applicants asking for cross share boulevard and to Ever mills road that's taken some back and forth so that will come back to you in April as well. And the last that looks to on cocker mill you were supposed to see that tonight they had pulled it to be able to continue to work on the project. They're doing visual depictions of from adjacent roads and also some other studies that they were waiting to get to. So you'll see that next month as well. So those are the only four items that you have yet to have seen again and you will see them soon except for Hamilton. Thanks, Pashant. Thanks, everybody. Next we have an update on the Freedom of Information Act and records retention. I know we've all been waiting for this one. Hey, Mishan. Well, he's coming down there. Is there a way that the public has notified that the Hamilton the station's away and that there is no public process left to it? Because they were all, that night the public hearing, we had asked about, they had asked and requested like a community meeting and all this other stuff that we told them that would happen. Is there any way that they're notified that it's now a by-right, I mean, because there was an expectation created with the public hearing. How do they get notified that the application has gone away? Mr. Cursor, do you forward me an email that the applicants said they were going to do some sort of community meeting about it? Is that a ring of mail? Well, we got an email that they sent regarding these two applications that I forward on to the quid, so people knew what was going on. I don't remember the specifics of what was in. I'm sorry to put you on the spot on that. No, I can't remember. I can't remember. I mean, I have it here. I can look. But there was, we did receive the same feedback that how is this going to be messaged. We did get some inquiries from the adjacent landowner asking about it and we did provide that response. I'm drawing a blank. I know there was some intent by the applicant to message it, but I'm forgetting the detail. But we can follow up and but I'm forgetting the detail. We can follow up and send that out to the commission. Yeah, I think it's important for those people to know. Understood. Because especially if the poll starts. No, we had the same concern. Yeah. The email does say that they plan on hosting an informational meeting in early April. There you go, yeah. Yeah. Cool. Thank you. And they'll provide back to us the time and date once it's finalized. So we'd ask them if they were going to have another, so even a community meeting. So even though it's no longer in front of us, I guess they're still honoring that commitment to let us know when they're having a community meeting. Okay. Thank you for bringing that up. Sorry. Do you want me to just scoot everything over for you? I'm going to go to the other side. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. Good evening. This is a follow-up presentation to the previous FOIA presentation that I provided at the January 9th, 2025 Planning Commission work session regarding the new FOIA standard operating guidelines that were issued for the Planning Commission. At that work session, commissioners had several requests and questions regarding the new FOIA SOG. SOG is what I'm going to just call the standard operating guidelines for short. Since that work session, we followed up with County Administration and made revisions to the SOG that were permitted by County Administration. A copy of the new revised SOG was included in your packet for tonight's evening and it should have been up on the dayus for you prior to the meeting. And for this presentation, I'm now just going to walk you briefly through the revisions to the SOG and responses to the questions that were asked. Under the SOG, County Administration provides commissioners with greater assistance with responding to FOIA requests than provided to other advisory bodies for the county. Notwithstanding this assistance from county administration, commissioners must remember that as a member of a public body, commissioners still are personally responsible for responding to FOIA requests. This personal responsibility is the same for any other county advisory body and is not changing under the SOG. One of the primary purposes of the SOG is to address the personal responsibilities of commissioners under FOIA regarding when requests for public records have been received. This slide lists some of these personal or the personal responsibilities. And remember that these listed personal responsibilities are just some of the many personal responsibilities that are an inherent part of being a commissioner. Regarding requests for public records under FOIA, commissioners primary personal responsibilities are to maintain their records and respond to FOIA requests. Under the SOG commissioners will receive some assistance from the FOIA officer, assistant director of DPC and the county attorney with their responsibility to respond. However, the assistance provided is pretty much limited to helping with searches of county email accounts. Secondary review of retrieved public records and correspondence with a requester and providing the official response back to the requester. Regarding document retention, I need to correct and clarify some information that I provided during the last presentation. After the last presentation I was reminded that under the Library of Virginia's document and retention schedules, commissioners must maintain their records for three years after the end of the calendar year. So contrary to what was discussed at the last presentation, or maybe the missing, I may have misrepresented and inadvertently commissioners having account settings or rules regarding the automatic deletion of emails and texts would be an violation if that rule was not compliant with this three year. Three years from the end of the calendar retention schedule. And I think the correction is if it was a staff member that didn't have specific provisions applicable to them under the retention schedule, such settings probably would be okay. And also, relatedly, remember that the leading emails does not exclude those emails from FOIA to facilitate compliance with FOIA commissioners should only use their county email and team accounts for communication regarding public business. And if you do so, the county's servers do store emails indefinitely. I believe team's communications too, where we're working on it. And so if something does inadvertently get deleted, at least regarding those emails and messages, they can be retrieved if necessary. Moving on, we're gonna provide some to questions that were raised during the last presentation regarding FOIA and the SOG. Question of whether handwritten notes are subject to FOIA was raised. And the answer is yes. Handwritten notes fall under the definition of public records and therefore must be maintained in accordance with the aforementioned document retention schedule. Question was received. Specifically the question on the slide was received pertaining to receipt of verbal informal or seemingly informal verbal FOIA requests. And the answer is yes, such a, I guess, seemingly harmless request impassing would be considered a FOIA request and for such situations immediately inform the FOIA officer and assistant director in accordance with the procedure set forth in the SOG. Regarding searches, email searches for requested public records. The SOG does provide a process by which the FOIA officer will provide commissioners with assistance in searching their county email accounts. Once the emails are received, remember that you must make your best effort to perform an initial review and sorting of those retrieved emails and the SOG provides instructions on how to do so. And importantly, the FOIA officer and county attorney, it is not our role to perform that initial function. We will come through and basically do a secondary review once those initial review and sorting has been performed. And remember, again, that the email search only applies to the county accounts. And so if you are conducting public business on private email or by private email or instant message or any other communications, the county will not provide assistance in searching those. And regarding emails and regarding emails, some examples of public records that aren't immediately, well sometimes they're immediately obvious, sometimes they're not, but that may be subject to withhold, to being withheld either in whole or in part are emails to or directly to or from the county attorney's office or sometimes buried in that email chain. There is correspondence, something attorney client privilege from the county attorney buried in there. Additionally, it's occurred that closed session materials sometimes have appeared in email chains, especially if they're being, I guess, distributed to advisory body members. Other times, aside from attorney client, emails sometimes memos end up as attachments, and that's a point too, is just remember to always, it's not just the text of the email itself, but also review the attachments attached to the email because a lot of times. That's true. We have a ask a question. Are you expecting us as commission members to do that review for attorney client privilege materials?-client privilege, it probably, yes, the short answer is good luck with that. I'm sorry. What's the concern specifically? I'm not going to review for attorney-client privilege for the county attorney's office. I mean, if the county attorney, because as far as I'm concerned, if I have most of my emails, I don't care. It can be disclosed. But if the county attorney wants to review them and apply a privilege, then that's appropriate. But I should not be able to do that review. I know when I was with the city of Alexandria, that's exactly the way we did it. And so I personally will not do that. But I think what the SOG wants is for those to be put in the pile for further review, rather than just put in the general pile for nothing to be withheld and okay. On that same thing, it says that about these folders, I mean, because I've been through this, with these are you guys giving us, well, you're going to give us folders to like put the emails. So yes, once we do the email queries, we'll create those folders for either responsive, non-responsive, or if you believe that some of it may need to be redacted or withheld in part. And you can just drag those emails into those folders and then the county attorney's office would review those. Okay, so where's the option of I don't need a folder to give them all? I mean I don't want to take if like the last go around I had several hundred emails. I said let them all go. I don't want to take the time to set there and drag 200 emails into a folder that I can just say let them all go. I mean is there an option to just say release them all without having to do this thing where I'm figuring out these folders and stuff? No, under the SOG you have a responsibility and as a commissioner, according to county administration you have a responsibility to perform the initials. I'm saying I'm sorting. I'm saying I'm made the decision that all of them can be released. Why do I then have to take those 200 emails and actually put them into a folder? When I'm just saying, you found these, release them all. Why do I need to create? Because I'm not deciding anything gets redacted. I'm not deciding anything gets with health. I just say, let them go. Why do I need to take a half a day to take emails and flip them into a folder on the iPad? That is the responsibility of the Planning Commission members under the SOG. I believe that- to take emails and flip them into a folder on the iPad. That is the responsibility of the Planning Commission members under the SOG. I believe that was communicated to everybody when they signed up to be appointed to this body. And it is the same responsibility. It absolutely was not to be very clear. Absolutely was not. No, it was not. Honestly, Dale. You know, frankly, what you should do is you just, you click on number one. And you should click on number 200. You can take it. Thank you. I think the real thing is, let's see something to foyer in our discussion on data center standards, right? They're going to do an initial review of our emails. They're going to flag anything they have something to do with data center standards in the text or in the title. And they're going to give them to us and say, do the, do, I'm like you, I'm like, there's nothing in there that's privileged. Go ahead and send them all. so I will do exactly what you said. I'll move them and say, go ahead and send them. And that's the answer. Because. I'm like you, I'm like there's nothing in there that's privileged. Go ahead and send them all. So I will do exactly what you said. I'll move them and say go ahead and send them. And that's the answer. So I don't think what there is, it's not that difficult to do. There's just, there's a requirement in the process that says we have to make that, we have to do that step. Not, it's, it turns out. Yes, you do have privileged information that may have come from the county attorney's office. It doesn't happen very often but sometimes the planning commission does go into closed session and so if there were any closed session documents that were disseminated through your email or if you received any memorandums from the county attorney's office, those should definitely be put in a withheld. And so that's part of that initial review that we're asking for you to do. The quality of it is that we, none of us up here are the county attorney. And therefore, we do not know what the county attorney has determined. He is not going to waive privilege on. Because the truth of the matter is, an attorney does not have to exert privilege over everything that is possible to be privileged. So the county attorney may have already made a decision that county members between commission members and the county attorney under discussing topic why. He is not going to assert his privileged over. He's made that discussion with the county administrator. They're not going to assert their privileged over it. We don't need to know that, we don't shouldn't know that, and therefore we as commissioners should not be involved in making that. I will tell you, not only did I do that with my own jurisdiction when I was the chief attorney for the jurisdiction, I did it as a private attorney advising other clients of mine. It is not something I would ever have asked them to do. Because in my mind, that is a trying to delegate my job as the chief lawyer to them. And frankly, even if I had asked you to do that, I wouldn't have trusted it. I wouldn't. I would have gone by and made my own decisions on it anyway, so I'm just telling you I'm not I will tell you I that's I will sit here right now and tell you I'm not going to do that That's not my job. I'm gonna do it Again, I will say under the SOG the expectation is a Best effort to perform that initial search. We are going to review everything, nonetheless, but again, it is to pull out the obvious. You know, if... I hear... And I've already described what my best effort will be. Okay, fair enough. Move on. Fair enough. Moving it... Do we another question raised at the last presentation. Can the commissioner themselves respond to a receive fire request asking that the search parameters be narrowed and while that is a response, no, the commissioner themselves should not respond. The FOIA officer, under the SOG, the FOIA officer handles all responses to the FOIA request and so theers should not be responding directly to the requests themselves. Under the SOG, FOIA requests received by commissioners directly must be forwarded immediately to the FOIA officer, so that the FOIA officer will make this determination. And allowing the FOIA officer to make this determination is important because the making a request for clarification will toll the statutory period for providing a response. And commissioners, if you receive a request from the FOIA officer, you may presume that if any clarification was needed that the FOIA officer has already received it and narrowed the search accordingly. This is the email of the person we're going to get. Who is the FOIA officer that we're going to get the email from? I'm the 4-year officer for Ly officer for the county it's Jennifer Gramell but you can send it to me or you can send it to the assistant director of planning and zoning. I really he's on to the planning commission and they will forward it. No, I just want to know who are we going to get an email from? You're going to get it. Like the last time this happened to me, it was the girl that was, here's our, is our, not Jackie. Oh, Stephanie. It was me. Jackie, well Jackie. Oh, Stephanie. It was me. Jackie, well Jackie sent it to me first telling me I was going to get something and then you sent it to me. So I'm just trying to figure out who, but it'll always be coming from you. It will, it will either come from me or it will come from another clerk in our office that is designated to assist with for your request. But we did put in the SOG that when a request comes in, that we will automatically review for clarification. And if that's needed, we will get that up front. So we wouldn't send it to you until that clarification has been received. And the request is ready to move forward. OK. Next slide. Another question raised was whether commissioners make charge or submit, I guess, charges for their time-performed. Time spent performing a FOIA search in their review of the documents. And the answer is no, commission members cannot charge for their personal time. Spent responding to a request. However, the county certainly will charge for any charges time spent incurred. time spent or charges incurred by staff who assists the commission members with their email queries, photocopying and other compilation of the requested records. Just a few more questions that were raised. The question was raised as whether the commissioner can automatically request an extension of time to complete the request. Remember again, the commission members should not be directly responding to the FOIA request. And the FOIA officer will provide the appropriate response. If the FOIA officer, if you do feel that you don't have enough time to provide the requested records immediately notify the FOIA officer and assistant director of planning and zoning. They will respond to the requester that it's not practically possible to provide the requested records and that will give us an additional seven work days to complete the request. Now, importantly, even if commissioners are aware that this response has been or will be provided, please diligently continue to perform the next, the necessary search and review because we need to really make this time one. The question came up about what if commissioners are going to be, you know, that they're going to be away from, for extended period of time, extended time periods and will not be physically able to access their electronic devices and or physical documents. Just remember that as a member of a public body, you do have a personal duty, responsibility to respond to FOIA requests. So if you are aware that you are going to be out of communication, or I guess maybe not out of it, well, I certainly had a communication or not able to access your electronic devices or physical records for an extended period of time. Please notify the assistant director that you will be on leave, how long you will be gone for, and how to contact you, I guess, immediately should a FOIA request or other urgent matter come up. Here that, Dale. Make sure Brian knows your number in the Rubo next year. Okay. And this also ties into what I mentioned previously. I'm sure everybody's well aware, but conduct your business using county email and team's messaging should such a situation arise that will greatly facilitate the county being able to provide a timely response. And then final question that we had was regarding notification by the county that the response has been sent or that commissioners satisfied all duties for the FOIA request. The answer was that, well, the answer is provided on the slide and basically such requested notification is not something that is provided for other advisory bodies and it's not provided for under the SOG either. And then final slide. Just final slide is again just a reminder that duties under FOIA are personal responsibilities and the commissioners will be personally liable for what could become potentially pretty hefty monetary penalties if they are found to have willfully and knowingly violated FOIA. So just please be very mindful of FOIA and its requirements. That's it. One, only because I've lived with this particular situation is where is the point in this process where you get something back to us that tells us we've met all of our obligations? Because in the incident I was involved in, I called and called and called because my concern was it was already past the five days and I wanted to know that under what you just read I was released of any potential liability because I had done everything I needed to do. So where's going to be the communication from the county attorney's office that says you've done everything you need to do move on my child? You're not going to get it. So what we've added is that yes, the assistant director for planning and zoning will let you know when yes we've received all of your relevant documents and also let you know if there's anything further that is required or needed from you. But I'm asking for the next step. I was asking for when the four-year response is sent to the director. Correct. Because that's where you get into when you read all this stuff. That's when you get into and you can be, you can have the opportunity to participate in fines is if you're not, I want to know when it from Leo. You're going to get it from the deputy assistant director. Thank you. Next, I'm going to review the bylaws. I think there's been a few suggested changes, not a whole lot. So if you should have found out your deaths there, this Loudoun County planning documents and I think it's blue line, not red line about suggested changes. This one? Yeah. First changes on page 4. So what I was trying to do is as we go through each of these, as we get to the change, the suggest change, you know, we'll read what it is and then the person making that request can, they want to, they can explain why they think the change should be made and then we can discuss it and decide if we want to make a change. So I received three changes from chair cures and I received a number of questions from Commissioner Myers and I did go in and on her behalf, recommend edits to address two or three of your questions. And I can project those on the screen for you to see now. And they're also in your printout. Staff also recommended to edits for clarity. Before we start, I would like to say that I, Chair Cures, I think it was your intent to discuss and vote on each change individually tonight and that's fine. But there is a provision in the bylaws that says that revisions need to be sent to the commission five days in advance and while we did email all the changes or most of the changes to you the changes from Commissioner Myers weren't in that version. I just I just incorporated them this morning so I would recommend that you vote and approve the edits at the next work session. If that makes sense. Okay, so just discuss them here but actually vote on them then or do you want us to hold off, take this back home, people can review it then we'll discuss it in April. Let's review and get a consensus and- Okay. not actually vote on anything till. Yes. Okay. It does. So yeah, the process, remember the last meeting I'd ask folks if you have requested changes, provide them and have a red line. So here's what I'd like to see changed, right? So I had submitted a few and I've submitted them in that format. Commissioner Myers had several questions that'll address some of these. So I'd ask Brian, can you go to the sections what she's talking about and try to insert those in here? Now whether he, Mr. Myers, whether he caught everything you wanted or even in the intent you intended, I don't know. If you think there's more than if you want to take the wait till next month and provide them in that format with specific recommended changes to the language via red line, then we can wait and review them then. because if it's going to be a long discussion about things that everybody doesn't have in front of them with requested changes, language wise, I don't want to go into a long discussion about it. I'd rather have specific or wester changes, we see it, and we as commission decided we want to make the change or not. Mr. Chair, I feel may. Yeah. Yeah, I would absolutely agree with that. Because as I understand it, not all of the proposed changes are in the document that's in front of us tonight. And if that's the case, then I would propose that staff ensure that we have a document that has all of the potential changes and that we can review, digest, be prepared to discuss. And as long as it's five days ahead of time, be prepared to vote on for the next dawn. Just to clarify. So what I'm projecting right now is the same thing as what's in front of you in paper. And it does include all of the changes that I was aware of. What you're projecting does, but is what you're projecting, I dentist called, what we have in our hands. It should be, yes. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. We can review these changes and get a consensus and then hear what else. Okay. What's the address? Okay. Okay. So if you look at B2 and C2, this is about the meeting schedule, Commissioner Myers brought up the fact that it says that we can adopt an alternative meeting schedule for inclinement weather. But as you know, we're meeting on a Friday because the word room was booked the other days. So the language was clarified to reflect reality. And that is proposed for B2 and C2. Did Commissioner Myers have any? that meet with what your intent was in your letter? Dale. It was basically, we had a circumstance that didn't meet what was in the bylaws, it required us to change it. Now this language would cover other circumstances. We've done, we've got several things like that where we're changing dates in October, we're changing or November and stuff that we agreed on and they don't meet the calendar that was put out. And by these bylaws, we supposedly shouldn't do that because we don't know that there's going to be bad weather and the only time it allows us to change this once it's been done is due to bad weather and basically the county's closed. Okay. So B2 and C2 are okay. All right let's go to paragraph E. This is also because of I'm sorry. Did we have five days notice for that first change or not? No. Okay. That's why we're we're not going to vote on him tonight. Correct. Paragraph E was also revised to address Commissioner Myers' question. This has to do with notification for special meetings. The current bylaws say we have to mail the notice to the commissioners. I'm not sure that we mail anything to the commissioners, and so we're just clarifying that we need to notify the commissioners in whatever format works. And I would ask Commissioner Myers if this addressed her question. Okay. Good. Section G is in a different color, but this is the change right here. This was recommended by staff, and we are clarifying when meeting minutes get forwarded to the commission. was suggested by county administration to reflect August break and holidays between meetings to allow staff time to review minutes before being distributed and without having to send them in a single item separate from the rest of the packet. Okay with me. Okay, so that's okay. These next couple of changes are from Chair Kieres. It has to do with the flow of the public hearings and when commissioners ask questions to staff and the applicant. Did you wanna explain these two things? Yeah, I mean, the article 65B, I think it was just a typo. It's when applicant presentation and Bill of questions to the applicant not staff. In G, this goes to the point that once we're debating the motion, instead of there including questions or staff for the applicant, I kind of, I took that out because we have questions for staff, we have questions for the applicant. If it's public, we have discussion. Usually a second round of questions have needed. It's my thought that once we've made a motion, now we just debate the motion and it don't go back to staff for applicant for additional questions. Everybody's okay with that? The only thing I would bring up as a perfect example is tonight when we were having Eric make it in the motion in regards to Belmont and he wanted to go back to them to ask them would they agree to certain things. Under this pretense he couldn't do that because he was trying to clarify after he made his motion that they and he wanted to amend it to make sure that they would agree to the 2600 and they would agree to the wood stuff. So with this that you've done, it would take out the ability for that. So all those agreements were made before he went to the motion. I think because he was adding things to the conditions, he just wanted to clarify to both step, do we catch everything? That's fine, that's a clarification. I want to, you know, someone wants to ask another question on another point and just gets into another debate, I just don't think it's appropriate when you're at the motion stage. What I heard Eric do is he said that and he just clarified is, did we capture everything? And the answer was, you know, yeah, and to me that's not asking questions. Well, we ask questions about them and we ask questions of the staff of if we do the 2600 that he's done does this take care of it and that was a whole new debate after the motion was made about what 2600 was. I mean that wasn't after that was long before the motion. It occurred again after the motion if you remember because then that's when she when you know we got the determination of what other people think goes for it. That was all after the motion. I'm just saying, I don't understand what's big deal. I don't think any of that was after the motion. I just understand is if somebody has a question they want clarified during the motion, what's the big deal about allowing them to do it? It's always been allowed why we're taking it out now. Okay. Well, my reasons we have plenty Any of times for questions for staff in the applicant? And it's in my thought that we don't need to do it after the motions are made. So. I think that's my rationale. If you guys want to leave it in, that's fine. I just want to keep things moving once we get to a point where motions made. In my five years and almost three months on the commission, the chair is always given difference to ask to extend beyond three minutes to any question period. And that's going to continue. So I just don't agree with the chair that we're very liberal with our ability to ask questions and the time again before motions are made. even after emotion is made, as long as I stay within three minutes, do we really care what I do with those three minutes? Because to me, because actually as you've, I sort of read this the exact opposite, that is, I get three minutes. If I want to debate with you, if I want to ask somebody a question and they give me an answer, but I stay within my three minutes, I get three minutes. That's how I read this. Okay. I don't just, just my time in different boards and committees. Once, once emotions made, the discussions amongst the members of that commissioner committee and not with the athlete, that's just how kind of how I look at it. But if you guys want to leave it, that's fine. I see your point. I get three minutes. If I want to spend my three minutes to ask another question. I can't say that I feel strongly about it one way or the other. To me, the operative part is the three minutes out. But my thought on that is we have plenty of time for questions and answers and usually go well beyond the three minutes. There's a point, we've had lots of chance to talk and ask questions and let's once we get to the motion let's talk amongst ourselves and vote. That's how I look at it. But if you guys want to leave it that's fine with me. I will say I feel that sometimes if a question is asked within the motion, stays the fourth or fifth person down the road that asked a question, it could theoretically leave a, create more questions for someone that didn't have a chance. It just gets into, to me, it gets into a, a never-ending cycle. So Brian, my suggestion on this one, let's leave this one kind of open. And next meeting when we have hopefully more folks here. And we'll get it because we're obviously got different opinions on it. So I'd rather hopefully have more commissioners here when we make a final decision on it. Okay. Okay. Sounds good. Yep. This was also a change proposed by Chair Cures. This has to do with people wishing to speak at a work session. This change would require the Chair to agree that the person is allowed to speak. Yeah, this is under Article 7B. Just to clarify this doesn't relate to an applicant or staff. It's a member of the public. Right, we should just be- And my thought on this is I've been at commission meetings where they start letting people from the other, they call on people, but they didn't call on other people they had an opposing view and they actually stood up and said, hey, if you're going to have another public hearing and you need to advertise it as such, because it got to the point where lots of's certain people were being called to discuss something. And I don't mind if there's an occasion, maybe one or two, that's the only reason I put in the chair concurris because the way this is written at any time all nine commissioners can call half a dozen people up. And there's no control on that, the way it's written now. and then you've just turned your work session into a public hearing So I just put that language in there just to have a so the chair would have a little control over it And then there was a question from Commissioner Myers about training options. The bylaws encourage commissioners to receive training. And Commissioner Myers, you just asked like, are we? Like what are the training options? And so if you could elaborate on your question? I know, right, our first night we had the planning going back in that January. Rady, I think you and I both made the comment of, hey, where is one? What's the opportunity to go to one? I've never received any information from anybody that says, hey, there's something in Alexandria. You might, I mean, again, going back to the Flintstone days. I mean, we had both American Planning Association had ones that were going on in Alexandria. They told us about them. They paid for if there was a cost to it. They also made recommendations of bringing people here for training to help with it. But now we're starting our second year, and I have not received anything from anybody that says, hey, here's the latest that's going on. Here's the FOIA, things that have changed. Here's a good thing for you to go to. Nothing have I received from anybody of any kind of thing that says, here's some things that we think would be good the planning commission to think about or go to or learn about it. Okay. In addition to that, I asked, I talked to Marshaunt briefly about if there's obviously the planning course that most people are familiar with. But if there are other opportunities that commissioners can attend, Marshaunt was going to look into that. There's the state course, the one in July, that's why we moved the meeting to the last Tuesday. Our commissioners able to attend those. So he was going to look into things like that. If there's opportunities there, then we'll bring that forward. And does the- Sorry, Mr. Chair, yep. Does the county pay- Well, that's where I've looked into. Okay, see if- That would be my question. What ones in the county pay are that's where I've looked into. That would be my question. Yes. What one's the county pay or reimburse us for? We can look into that. I believe there's a training budget. We'll look into how much is in there and what some of these opportunities would cost. And when they are, I know there are available. And would you be able to just follow up by email or something about us? Yes, of course. That'd be great. Okay. And I believe this is the last change. This was a staff change. This has to do with violations of the standards of conduct. Any apparent violation gets reported to the chair, but what would happen if the chair was in violation? It's just below, sorry, it's an article eight, E1. So if the chair is found to be in violation, someone would report that alleged case to the vice chair to investigate. I can't investigate myself and say I'm innocent. All right. You don't give the world court an union. Unless you elect the President of the United States. Are there any other changes or questions, revisions? I had several. Okay. So what I would ask is that if you could provide those to the Chair by Shem Brian and in this kind of format? So you want me to redo what I already did. Well, because we don't all have it. No, but I'm just saying I provided it to you guys, but I'll do it again. Well Okay, I got your email and it appeared to be questions not proposed Provisions and I responded to you with answers to your questions. Did you see my email? I did and you also gave your opinion about what could be done like that. Like you agreed on the one where I said it doesn't seem right that we right now it only requires you all to deliver three business days before a prior meeting. I personally don't think that's enough time. And so I put it in there, I'd like to see a change. That wasn't really a question. That was, I don't agree with this. There were several other things that were like that. Where it was like, I didn't agree with them, but, you know, and this whole thing with just coming, I mean, the thing that you brought up as a change was from actually, was actually from something that I actually supported about being able to speak. So I asked him to the extent that he could try to put your questions in the form of the changes in here. It came in well after that, I think I gave three and a half of weeks to provide it. I knew you're out, but if you still want to, because of the timing of this, if you want to provide them, but just put in this kind of the same format here. Cross out, write in what you'd like, and then it can be distributed to all of us, so we'll all have a copy of it before we discuss it at the next meeting. So the next meeting is. Next work session is April 12th. So what's a date you would like to have it by Brian? April 10th. 10th, I'm sorry. So to get sent out in the packet, I would need it a week and a half before that date. Yep. So April 1st. So if anybody else has any changes, you'd like to just provide them. If you can, it's not too hard. You can cut and copy the paragraph and then just write in your changes and cross up what you don't want. Instead of that to Brian and then he'll compile it again and we'll kind of review it like we did in this format. I think that makes it go a lot quicker when you have the specific language you're looking for in that paragraph. All right. So Brian, next is the work plan. Yeah, this is me. So I will stay here at the staff table. We wanted to share some information from the most recently approved planning and zoning work plan with the planning commission. We're providing this presentation just for your awareness in case any commissioners are not familiar with the work plan. So what is the planning and zoning work plan? It is a schedule that's adopted by the Board of Supervisors that lists planned zone ams and CPAMs and other initiatives that are managed by my department. The director and deputy director of planning and zoning presented to the board once a quarter and ask them to affirm or reprioritize the schedule and possibly add any new projects to the work plan. So if you look at the PowerPoint where it says work plan in blue and in underline text, that's actually a link that you can click on that will take you to the most recently approved Work Plan from the January 22nd Board Business Meeting. And I would encourage you to do that and look at the Work Plan if you're curious about any of these projects that I will just quickly touch on. So the plan is organized by ZoAIM and CPAM and I'm going to start with the ZoAIMs. Again, the purpose of this is to let you know when certain projects will come before you, just for your awareness. The middle column tells you when you'll get the project. So let's start. We have Phase 2 of the Data Center Standards and Locations Project. It's scheduled to come to you in spring of 2026. That project involves reviewing and amending design and use regulations for data centers. The Western Loudon Rule Uses and Standards Project is a CPM and a ZOM, and that would potentially revise policies and regulations for rural economy uses, such as farm, wineries, and equestrian events. That is scheduled to come to the commission for hearing sometime in a winter of 2026. and T-Luck is currently receiving public input on that project. This fall, the commission can expect to see a plan that staff refers to as the cleanup zone. It's called zoning ordinance rewrite adjustments number one. And that project staff identifies minor changes to the recently adopted zoning ordinance that we view as just fixing or correcting inadvertent errors and inconsistencies. So just minor changes. Brian, when you said the Western Rod and the Law and Rule and the Standards, is that the same thing that the board has the works like I attended in March? The T-Lets. So they think that we're going to have that by February? Well that's what this is. I have a deli here. 2026. Next year. Why? It's just this, well it's not next year, it's coming February. February of 2026. How quick we move. February 2026. The next item is the floodplain overlay district. That would change the floodplain from an overlay district to an environmental resource which would move it from chapter 5 to chapter 6. Primarily for administrative reasons as well as to address any new or revised FEMA policies. This will come to you all in spring of 2026. Source, water protection would include a CPAM and a ZOM that relates to a board member initiative to establish a permanent protection along certain rivers and streams. That's a question. Brian, for day centers and centers and locations phase two, I know the board took that phase one up at a very recent meeting. At that meeting did they vote to proceed with phase two? I think that's happening at the next meeting. Next meeting. It was the public hearing was the last meeting so they're going to go to the business meeting where they'll hopefully move phase two forward. I think that's right. Yeah, okay. Because they could still choose not to move it forward. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So let's move on to the CPAMs. Those are all the ZOMs that are in the work plan. The first two projects we already covered because they have accompanying ZOMs. The third line down says 2024 general plan review. That project includes consideration of several minor cleanup items as well as several relatively minor policy changes. That is a schedule to come before the commission this spring. Gloucester Parkway, CTP is also scheduled to come to the commission this spring. That CPM would remove Gloucester Parkway from the countywide transportation plan west of Belmont Ridge Road The 20 this general plan review is it like Anybody can say anything to us at this public hearing So if there's no parameters or there's parameters there is parameters because I'm fairly certain that the board set them when they approved the project plan. But this would constitute the five year review of the comprehensive plan, which is required in the code of Virginia. Staff was aware of minor cleanup items that needed to be clarified. I think there were some policy changes to pretty minor ones. But yeah, I think that's coming to you in May, if I recall. So you'll see it, you'll see it then. So the electrical infrastructure CPAMs, those relate to mapping and policy changes on the location of high voltage transmission corridors. Phase one would identify existing and approved corridors and a preferred location for the development of future lines as well as other policy updates. Phase two would focus on proactive mapping for other potential routes. Phase one is scheduled to come to you in fall of 2025. And Phase two would come in winter of 2026. And these other CPAMs listed on the screen do not yet have a schedule because they've not yet started. But they can be expected at some point in the future. Brian, the electrical infrastructure CPAMs, is that essentially the county memorializing where we would love to see, would prefer to see electrical power corridors go should Dominion ever even care to what we think. Basically, it's like, hey, as a community we've, as a community, we've agreed that this is where we think they should go, Dominion, if you'd like to consider that. It's to help guide the location of the lines, even though Dominion doesn't care that we exist. Yeah. Thank you, sorry. I'm sure that was you. This is the final slide. So the same with these three projects, there's no timeline for these because they've not yet began. These three projects pertain to specific resources and communities that would need additional documentation and or preservation. So I can provide this update to you once a quarter, which is how often the board actually updates it. just so you know what projects are coming down the pike. I did wanna... Remind. the bike. I did want to remind you that if you click on that link on the second slide here, the blue link, this should take you to the actual, yeah, this is active. So this will take you to the plan itself. If any commissioners are curious as to how to add projects to the work plan, I would recommend you speak with your board member to see if that project would align with the board's priorities for my department. And if you have any questions about any of the active projects, just send me an email and I can send you a link. Each of these projects has an active website. And... Questions about any of the active projects just send me an email and I can send you a link Each of these projects has an active website and all the staff reports are there Okay, are there any questions? How often we We revised just I mean that the supervisors have a schedule on this one Every quarter. Every quarter, the board sees it and decides whether or not to update it. Many of these projects take years and years to finish, and so there isn't that much change, but as there are changes, once the quarter, I can update you. Yeah, I missed that part because I see next because I see next three, I'm not quite ready to repriate it. First of all, I want to be helpful, especially for the ones that are coming sooner than later. If the board already has a timeline of expectation of the time weird to happen, that would also be helpful. So like an example is we know that supposedly the data centers are coming to us in spring of 2026. You know, their plan is we only have it for hopefully more than 30 days. But I'm just saying it would be nice to know if they've done a schedule. And I'm sure you guys got some kind of schedule behind the scenes. Yeah. But especially like in the fall of 2025, things that are coming here soon, or even the Western love to know what the time table expectation is that we have it to work on versus then it needs to go to the board. Or I know in some cases like I think ZOARC thinks they're going to get an opportunity to also look at some of this stuff in between. So it would be nice to know what's the length of expectation that we will have to work on these issues. That's a really good point. I will bring that up to my department's leadership. I do review all the staff reports, so I'll make sure that there's a schedule put in there. Because it would be good to know what we found out with the data center, all of a sudden we realized to make their timeline, we needed to meet more. It'd be nice to know ahead of time if this is coming and their expectation is, we only get 60 days, but we think we need four work sessions, then we can look at our schedules ahead of time to be planning that ahead instead of all of a sudden debating. Who's willing to give up a Friday night? Thank you. Okay. And then I think we're done with this. So lastly, the zoning ordinance committee annual report, which I think everybody had a copy of the letter. Can I just say before I leave and go back up there, I included this on the agenda because it was addressed to the commission. It's also addressed to the board. The planning commission does not need to endorse or accept the letter. I understand that it might go to T-Luck on April 24th. So any recommendations that would need to come to this body would come from them or the board. Chair. I actually served on this committee now. I know one of the things that they were really and I brought it up two or three times now. They really wanted and hoped that what happened is an up here at a time that we would set a meeting for them to come in and talk to us about what they're working on how they feel like they can and ask that and things that they feel like aren't being looked at that could be looked at. So I know even though, and their by-law say they're supposed to be in advisory to us. So I know one of the things that they were really hoping that would occur, and according to them they've asked before, would be an opportunity to come to a work session and set with the commission to go over. I think I'll reach out to Mike and talk to him and the staff and see if we can find a time. I just... I'll reach out to Mike and talk to him and with staff and see if we can find a time. I'll be curious to hear what he says because I look kind of like at the planning commission zoning or you know the get the board, you got the planning commission, you got zoning. We don't make recommendations to the zoning committee which should be done. If we see something that needs to be changed, we make a recommendation to the board, the board then gives it to the zoning committee to work on. So I don't know if there's a direct correlation, but I do like knowing kind of the things they are working on because over the years, we'd see the same things over again and we'd recommend, hey, tell the board they need to change this and then give it than they do. So it's just I don't see it as a direct correlation it's sort of a we go both of us go through the board to get done what we want to see get done. But if you really read their bylaws and what they got started with the idea is they're supposed to serve as an advisory to us. And so that's why I'm going to talk. But I'm just I'm just they would like to be. We see that the data centers are coming up. Here's what we've got to give you that information. We see that you're going to be because sometimes the board doesn't even ask them. They meet and meet every month. I can tell you for two hours. And they do have a lot of suggestions and ideas and stuff. But they feel like there's no conduit really for them to make that recommendation until after the boards finished. So in their bylaws and in their thing that sanctioned them or whatever the right word is, you know, they see it as that they should be making recommendations to us. And so that when we're going, whether we agree with it or we don't, there's another group of resources that we should be reaching out to. Okay, just to be clear, the Zoning Ordinance Committee was established in I think August or something like that of 2020, this current board, two previous boards first year, to replace the longstanding ZOAC the zoning ordinance action group. And at the time, Mr. Vider Turner was chairing T-Lock and his rationale was make it an advisory to the planning commission, which is why we have a liaison from the committee, from the planning commission to the Zozoc now. It was the the old zoo act and that's also why the term came up in September because it was the four years of September from when the when the zoo act converted to the zoo so yes, they are Technically under us, which is why we had and we always had a liaison to the commission last term John Merrathathieu, if you ever created someone to be on a commission, a planning commission that should be the liaison to a zoning ordinance group. It was certainly John Marathieu and then me and then Dale. So that in John periodically would give us updates. So if Dale wants to give us a base periodically, we should certainly hear that. And if they want to come and speak once a year. I mean, I think you. By all means. So, just a little history. All right, that was the last thing they had on the agenda. Only the other comment I wanted to make on, if you remember at the end of last year, we got the letter about from the board, saying they'd like to meet with the planning commission, a joint meeting. But the data centers, they got moved on. I brought it up with Chair Randall and she's very much in support of that. She has of nothing else, at least the board members can see who all the planning commissioners are, because a lot of don't know each other and she said if nothing else, that would help facilitate that. But it should obviously through budget season, they don't even want to contemplate it. But she thought it was a good idea. And I suspect at some point, it'll happen. And her one or only concern was that, well, we don't want to make it seem like we're telling the planning commission what to do. And so I don't think with that. But when a big item comes to us, such as data centers, you know, having that face to face, what do you think and why are you sending this to us? I think it would have helped us a lot as we started the process. So if we have any of these other big ones coming, I think that would be very helpful. So we'll see. But anybody else have anything? Staff, anything? We good? All right, we are adjourned.