I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm sorry. I'm 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. I'm sorry. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to get going in just a minute as soon as the rest of. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. All right. Good evening, everyone. The April 10, 2025, Loudoun County Planning Commission. Work session will now come to order. And as is our custom, we'll stand for the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, the nation and the country and the people for liberty and justice for all. All right. Pursuant to Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3708.3 and the Planning Commission remote participation policy chair Cliff Kieres has requested to participate in this meeting by electronic communication from a remote location that is not open to the public. Chair Kieres has stated that he cannot attend this meeting due to personal matter and will be joining the meeting from Chicago Illinois which is not open to the public. As required by law, a physical forum of the Planning Commission is present in the boardroom, and the commission has made arrangements for the voice of chair cures to be heard by all persons in the boardroom. Is that true, Mr. Cures? Is that true? Yes, it is. That is true. Chair Cures made this request within the timeframe required by policy and the county attorney has determined that chair here is meets the qualifications to participate remotely. The commission will record in its minutes the specific nature of the personal matter and the location from which chair here is participated remotely. Okay. Now we will move to review an adoption of the minutes. Has the commission had an opportunity to review the minutes from March 14th, 2025 work session. There's a motion by Commissioner Dailmire, seconded by Commissioner Combs. Is there any discussion? IE changes on the minutes. Seeing none, all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? None? Motion carries. Chair Kirsches, you were a yes? Yes. Okay. Yes. Okay. That motion will carry. I abstained as I was not here. Okay. That motion will carry 7-0-1-1 with Miss Jasper and Extension and Mr. Modereetti absent. Okay, and now we will move on to disclosures. We'll start from my right to my left. Mr. Barnes. None. Mr. Jasper. None. Mr. Combs. Yes. On April 9th, I had a video conference with Aaron Swiss-Helm, Anthony Vinoffro, and Rich Brittingham regarding the Luxstone Cochran Mill application before us tonight. And also on April 9th, I had a video conference with Molly Novotny and Max Weigard regarding the the Albin cat Application that'll be before us in the Dallas South Thank you at the end of April golf course. Whatever that's called Mr. Frank Thank you vice chair. I had on April 8th a meeting with Aaron Swiss-Helm and the applicant team regarding the Cochrane Mill application. Luxembourg Cochrane Mill application before us tonight and on April 9th I had a meeting with the applicant team for the Belmont Monapole application. Thanks. On April 10th, I had a meeting with Aaron Suishelman, the rest of the applicant team for the Luxstone Cochrane Mill matter which is before tonight. Mr. Bullen-Miers. I had a meeting on April 7th with the applicant, the representatives in regards to the application, the Luxstone for tonight and then on the ninth I had a meeting with the applicants representatives in regards to the application of the Luxembourg force tonight and then on The 9th I had a meeting with the group representing us tonight with the Greenfield farm rezoning then on the Fourth I had a conversation with my Romeo in regards to the hidden wood laying application. Okay, and on April 9th I too met with Aaron Aaron Swiss-Solom from Walsh, Haluchi and the applicant team for the Luxembourg Carcobale application. And on April 3rd, I met with the folks regarding, from milestone communications regarding the Bell Line interchange. Self-handsower and I also need to go to Mr. Kieres for his disclosures. Thank you on March 29th April 1st. I attended the American Planning Association National Planning Conference. On April 7th, I had a meeting with Aaron Frank and Matt Henning about the milestone tower that we're hearing tonight. On April 8th, I attended the Chamber Commerce Policy Maker Series Breakfast Meeting on the housing. On April 8th, I had a meeting with Denise Harover about the Greenfield FARM application. On April 9th, I had a phone conversation with Aaron Swisshelm about the Luxstone Cochrane Data Center for Application. That's it. Okay, thank you. All right, we're ready to move into our work session items. And the first one on the agenda tonight is legy 2023-0093, Milestone Belmont interchange, which also includes a commission permit and spec 23-0-0-0-2-8 . Welcome Christian and Marshant. The milestone group. I'm sorry. Good evening. My name is Christian Maldenato with the Department of Planning and Zoning. Here to present the application for Belmont. Interchange, the item was previously heard at the age of 30th, 2024 Planning Commission Public Hearing. Since publication of the staff report, staff has received eight comments in opposition to the proposed use. The subject property is located at the southeast corner of Landsdam Boulevard, Claiborne Parkway, and Route 7, Cloverleaf Interchange, and the Broadrun Election District. The applicant is proposing a commission permit and special exception to construct a one-to-fifty-two-foot telecommunications facility within a Virginia Department of Transportation right of way along Route 7. As a reminder, the proposed telecommunications facility will consist of a monopole centered within an antenna hub site screened by a 10 foot tall chain link fence with green privacy slats and 20 foot landscape buffer. The monopole will be co-located to support up to four carriers at varying heights, mounted with a two foot tall lightning rod and adjacent to the Aspen to Golden transmission lines. Since the July 30, 2024 planning commission public hearing, the applicant made only minor changes. These include shifting the monopole within the antenna hub site by two feet to the south to accommodate the future Dominion energy easement, increasing the width of the landscape buffer from 15 to 20 feet, and providing 12 additional evergreen trees to offer enhanced screening. At the Planning Commission Public Hearing, the Commission requested additional information related to alternative site locations and technologies. The applicant provided a response letter with this additional information provided in the staff report as attached for. At the Commission's request, staff analyzed the proximity of nearby conservation and scenic view shed easements. Staff found there is one scenic view shed easement, proximate to the subject site, located on the north side of V7. The commission additionally asked about the possibility of first-net co-location on the proposed monopole. Loudoun County Fire and Rescue indicate, indicated coverage is sufficiently available in the immediate area at this time. Staff recommend conditions related to design, including material and color, to blend in with the natural environment and landscaping to ensure that the facility is appropriately screened from nearby land uses. County policies support the location of the proposed four-carrier monopole to support continued growth in the suburban policy area. Staff support approval the commission permit application and a recommendation of approval for the special exception subject to the conditions as it was found to be consistent with county policy. Staff is happy to answer any questions. Thank you for the presentation. In terms of screening, are the, are screening criteria established in the facility standards manual? We wrestle with this regularly with with screening, with substations and other items, and 10 foot of chain link fence seems to me. I'm just wondering if there's some standard we have that states that that's adequate. The standards in the zoning ordinance and the standard differs depending on the location of the Tower the monopole so because it's centered where it is inside the antenna hub site it is subject to the antenna hub site buffering and screening only And if it wasn't centered it would be subject to a different criteria. The monopole tower would have its own, correct. Sorry if that was confusing. The tower in the monopole has its own standards. So does the antenna hub site. Because the monopole and tower are centered within the antenna hub site, the only restriction is with the antenna hub site. the monopole tower restrictions would not apply. And how did you determine it's consistent with the county telecommunications plan? The telecommunications plan develops a hierarchy of preferred locations, which includes this one located within the public right of way, which is, I believe, the second criteria. The first one is co-locating on new antennas or existing buildings and towers. Or within actually overhead utility transmission lines. At the current time, there is no transmission lines, but there's to be proposed, we can't really determine. That part of the feasibility to it, so it's the second one. So, but it also contains language that requires the compatibility with nearby land uses and mitigating negative impacts, etc. Is that under consideration as well? Correct. Thank you. Commissioner German Kierstein, any questions? I do not have any questions. Thank you. I do have a question. All right. Christian, you've got a chart in the packet that shows all the area, the different towers and such in the area. Number eight on there, it's called T-Mobile Belmont. Is that the one on the rooftop of the, we'll call it, we affectionately called the Tull Brothers Building. I don't think I wanted anymore. The office building's at the west. At least, how could you put up them? Do we know, so is that at its capacity, that it couldn't have another carrier or another thing on it? I understand the rooftops are different than a monopole. They don't always carry as much. Do we have any indication of that or is that more of an applicant question? That is more of an applicant question. Okay. All right, that's all I had for Christian. Thank you. If I could clarify as well earlier when I was talking about the antenna hub site, that is the support equipment that is used to support the tower that's located inside of it. So that's what I'm trying to understand. So you're, are you seeing, like I'm looking at, I'm looking at the page that has the, I guess it's the third page of the site planning all that you have here or fourth page on It actually shows where it shows the one here where it shows like the schematics and everything. Are you saying because they have this lease space where the equipment is going, that it decreases the amount of buffering they need to do to the monopole because the monopole is not setting their rights up. The monopoles please interrupt me if I'm not answering your question directly. The monopole because it's centered within the site, it's within the screen required, the equipment itself will be as well. So that's all kind of grouped together. And another factor to consider is that it's location on this public site in a public right of way. There actually isn't a buffer requirement for the antenna hub site itself. So by adding this enhanced landscape buffer, if you will, that adds additional screening to it. So they're exceeding the minimum requirements. If it it was just the hub and just the equipment on its own, it has a standard. If the poll was on its own and had very limited equipment, it would have its own standards. The fact that the two are combined, they're applying the hub standard, which is the buffer yard, the buffer, the required fence, and the supplemental plantings that are within it. But do we ever look at anything other than a chain link fence because I mean to me, it's not much of a buffer. I mean, it's not much of a screening. When you can see right through it, is this to pick? Absolutely. That's within your discretion. If in this context there's an interest in having a more opaque screen and certainly that's within the commission's discretion to say so. I think usually with the chain link is more of an industrial environment. We've had the same discussion to be candid. The slats, you can see through them. There's a maintenance issue. There's some other challenges with that. But building a development to your question, question or Jasper, that there has been acceptance of the chain link with the slats in certain situations. But we could do like we've been doing with some of the substations where they've out, it's almost like a concrete type of wall that we've seen them doing 12 feet high and stuff that makes it look like it's stone and stuff You could we could do that as a response if you wanted to make a recommended condition as part of the special exception to enhance that Fencing then that's certainly we would certainly carry that recommendation forward. Thank you Yes, thank you, commission. Good evening, commission. Thank you for having us back this evening. several months since we were back before you with this project. We have some updates and I'll try to quickly refresh everybody on the application since it has been so long. Christian explained the location well on that southeast corner of Route 7 and Claymore Parkway but as a background we are within OP zoned property and we are adjacent to Auto repair to the east we have the Dominion transmission line to the north the hospital and Then the Cloverleaf going to northwest. Our closest residential is just beyond the OP-zone property to the south. And we do have multifamily residential to the northwest across the clover leaf about a quarter of a mile away. And how we got to this location, you know, really it is a product of need. And in this area, we have tremendous amount of traffic volumes along Route 7. We have shopping. We have residential development. And through all of this, we have an increased need for our insatiable need of cellular service. We have more devices per person. And we have increased intensity of those devices. And as we are expanding our development footprint, just the way that we are expanding roads and sewer, we have a need here to expand our cellular network. So when we look at a location like this, it is somewhat in fill and we have surrounding development, we look towards the county's framework for where to locate a poll. We of course want to minimize the impact and proximity to residential development to the extent that we are able to. So we look at the county's telecommunications plan and zoning ordinance. The telecommunications plan expresses a preference as Christian was mentioning earlier for right of ways but also in areas with transmission lines. So we are looking to both of those and they have supported our location here in the root seven right of way. Furthermore, the zoning ordinance reflects some of that preference in the telecommunications plan to allow for monopoles within transmission line easements. This is somewhat of a catch-22, however, because the minion actually will not allow it within its easements. So we are two feet south of the Dominion easement. Should we be in the easement, then that would be a by-right use according to the ordinance. So that is just to say that we are reflecting the intent of the ordinance to locate these. Where there are transmission lines available as well. So here's a quick look at the site plan itself. I will just emphasize related to screening. We are proposing at this point the 10-foot tall fence with the green privacy slats and that 20-foot buffer that does exceed the ordinance requirements for an evergreen hedge, which is adjacent to the antenna hub. Of course, the antenna hub itself screens the monopole, which is why only that antenna hub requirement applies. So instead of just doing an evergreen hedge, we have expanded that landscape buffer to 20 feet. But we received a number of different questions from the commission and members of the community at our public hearing and we have a number of responses that I'd like to run through with you. We received a question about whether and adjacent or nearby property owner and user were signal jamming or using any blocking technology and that is prohibited by the FCC so we do not expect that to be the case. We also were asked about whether we have coordinated with ANOVA and yes we are and have been in touch with the hospital. They do not see this as a concern given its location across Route 7 for helipad access and particularly as we are going to be reduced height to the proposed transmission towers. Any helipad concerns would not address us but rather larger infrastructure, but they have expressed they do not have concerns with this proposal. Similarly we have coordinated with Dominion, which has its easement immediately adjacent to us. Following the SEC approval of the alignment, we have continued to be in touch with them, and they have shifted its easement two feet to the south So we have accordingly done the same with our poll As Christian mentioned there are no plans for first net or public safety to be on the poll at this time though the poll is built for co-location and Miles don't often does find that there is a need for additional users after the fact We've also reached out and we presented to lands down conservancy at its board meeting on September 11th. We received some questions about whether there were existing easements both within the site as well as nearby. There are no existing easements within the site and nearby as Christian overviewed earlier. There are no scenic view sheds within the subject site. Much of the time that we have had since our last public hearing, we have spent exploring a roof top location at the request of the commission. Just by way of background when milestone files and application, they also include a rule out document. And that document includes a list of tall structures or rooftops that could possibly accommodate a co-location and Milestone identifies whether those are viable. And in this case, the particular property was contacted at the time of when we submitted the application and the landowner and Verizon cannot come to an agreement at that time and it was ruled out as a result. Verizon, since reengaged that property owner and we wanted to allow for adequate time for those conversations to continue. And furthermore, we actually asked a third party leasing consultant to participate in those conversations as well. And they still cannot come to an agreement. So that location continues to be ruled out. Even so, that building, just for frame of reference, it's about a seven story tall building around 80 feet or so. The monopole proposal before you this evening is 150 feet tall. And that height is requested in order to provide that broad service to cover the coverage area that is needed. With a lower height, there's lower coverage area, reduced coverage area. So, even if that rooftop were to be pursued, that would only provide a much smaller amount of coverage and an additional tower request would still be before you to be able to make up for the remainder of that coverage need. In addition to some of these responses, I'm joined here by Paul Dugan, who prepared a report exploring alternative technologies such as weather small cells could be suitable for this sort of location instead of the macrocell or cell tower that is proposed. And in general, small cells, they provide a much more targeted offload in your higher density areas. Similar, it's kind of a stadium environment where often you might have controlled ownership. And you can have a sort of a network of panels. And often, it works for pedestrian traffic, but it doesn't provide the same type of coverage that we would need for this area. Whereas the cell towers, they provide the much larger geographic area, you know, a mile to a mile and a half. But that also gets not just your pedestrian traffic, but in building coverage as well as vehicular traffic. So we've also explored, you know, what would happen if, similar to the rooftop example, if we were to reevaluate the height that is being proposed. So we have proposed 150 feet to provide adequate service. But a question was asked, what would happen if we were to reduce the height to 120 feet? That would reduce the covered area by about 25% or loss of about 2 square miles. 120 foot monopole would still have a visual impact with that height, but 25% is a considerable deficit in coverage. Similarly, we were asked about how would a tower perform at an alternative location at the Route 7 and Ashburn Village intersection, which is further to the east. It's about three quarters of mile to the east. And that is, unfortunately, it's too close to an existing, it's called a Belmont, is the name of the tower to the east. And it doesn't quite hit the coverage area Belmont chase route seven clay borne Parkway intersection And the residential development surrounding that that is being targeted here And here's a look at the proposed coverage on the left the Belmont chase circled in red on the current proposed location and you can see the green and blue coverage area extending out from there and that gets the target area the coverage that is needed. With the alternative route 7 Ashburn Village location, we prepared this propagation map in order to see what would happen to the coverage at the target area and as you can see it really extends further to the east and we still have that coverage gap which is the reason why we're here before you this evening. Area wrap up. Sorry, thank you. Furthermore, just want to throw up the relationship to trail side park. This is what it looks like adjacent to the transmission towers. We have done simulations. We have seen these before at the public hearing. So we appreciate your time this evening. Ultimately, we're here because of the framework that County has because we know these are not easy decisions. But we rely on that for our sighting so that we can put this in a context really appropriate area and get the service that's needed in areas that aren't kind of your easier industrial areas. So we're glad to take any questions. Thank you, Erin. I have questions for the applicants. Ms. Polin-Miers, how about it? Is there, are any of you all actually reprised, affiliated or part of Verizon? We do have, yeah, we do have a Verizon representative with us tonight. OK, I'd like to ask a question to them. Sure. OK. Representative with us tonight. He can I'd like to ask a question to them. Sure Joshua Chacola consultant for Verizon wireless So you work for Verizon, okay, so have you been a party to like the discussions they've talked about about the rooftop and trying to put the antenna there? Yes, we have. And at this point, how much have you all talked to them? How close are you to think that you could do something there? We've worked with third party consultant for the leasing aspect of it, but they were unable to come to the financial agreement, as well as the increased cost of development of that project due to the height, due to the slant of the roof and the type of building, the coverage, it would be a much more expensive build and from a construction perspective, a lot more difficult to even make it work. So you're telling me that a tower, a whip or tower on top of a building is more expensive than building a 150-foot type monopole and the storage stuff that goes around it? Well, if you look at an existing building, we have to evaluate all the structural considerations of it. We also have to evaluate the pitch of the roof and exactly where the roof line ends and how far the antennas have to be set back or to be able to put you above them to clear the roof line. That creates some structural challenges as far as the mounting facilities that you would install there. And as far as some of the technologies, we might have to side mount or flush mount to the exterior of the building, which puts an additional structural burden on it. Then you also have the camflighting portion of it, which adds a lot more weight. And those costs for camflighting and for those type of mounting steel facilities can get very expensive very quickly as opposed to a sleeker structure like a monopole facility where those mounts are defined. So are you not bearing the cost of the monopole? The monopole is being built by a milestone. So that's why it's super few because you're not bearing the cost of, and they're going to pick that up because they're going to put other users on it. That is correct. But there is already an antenna on that building, so I don't understand why you're talking about the structural issues because T-mobiles already there and has it there. I was wondering if you could just go into that same area with spacing and cost from there. So there doesn't seem like there'd be any structural review that needed to be done. There's a- and has it there. It's my understanding that you could just go into that same area with spacing and cost from there. So there doesn't seem like there'd be any structural review that needed to be done. There's always a structure review that has to be done because all the mounts are performed differently. There are actually installed differently. The weights and the antennas, the cabling, the radios, all of that equipment has to be brought into account when doing that. You have to have a complete structure evaluation of the building structure itself that has to go through its own separate type of third party review to make sure it structurally sound. But also you still have the issue of being able to clear the roof lines and be able to affect the rate of power that you need in order to have the signal. And we find that the construction challenges for a rooftop facility there wouldn't be worth what it would take to do it. And we already know that it would be a much diminished service. Because you've got the economics that you're not buying the poll. Correct. That's correct. I understand. Any other questions? Mr. Jasper. I just, I thank you for going through and looking at all the concerns that we raised. I feel hamstring a bit because we don't have the expertise from an engineering perspective to actually evaluate some of the responses. We just take the responses as a given. And I do feel, and this is kind of just first of, in general, I think having an expert consultant who is in a position to evaluate some of these statements would actually be incredibly beneficial to us as we go through the review. So that's not a question for the applicant. For the applicant, I would observe that Innova did respond that they did have some concern. They didn't say they have no concern. They said it wouldn't be a major concern, but they'd prefer to go any place else, is what their letter said. And I'm a little bit confounded because as I, and I'm not an engineer and that's why I wish we did have some engineering expertise. As I read about, you know, macros cells and the big towers and small cells and 5G propagation, I read stuff that says that the standard is what you call HETNAT, right? Heterogeneous networks that are a combination of monopoles and small cells. And the monopoles do, as you say, that kind of very long distribution, but in terms of the density of signal carriage, that the small cells are actually what are recommended as the way to do it. So I don't pretend I know the answer, but even the fact that you could look at the building and consider the roof-mounted small cell there suggests that potentially, to me, that the monopole in this particular location isn't essential to establish the level of coverage required. So it's not much of a question, but you could answer why in this case, Hattnet doesn't work. Sure. Good evening. My name is Paul Doodian. I was here at the planning commission meeting on July 30th. I believe it was. And there were a number of things we were asked to look at, consider whether small cells would alleviate the need for this toller monopole. And I prepared a report to describe the, the how macro cells work versus small cells. Small cells have their place, but they're pretty much for spot coverage, capacity enhancement, and small pocket areas, not well suited for large outdoor macro coverage. You're not gonna get coverage inside the Whole Foods market with small cells along Route 7. It just won't happen. It had a very, very limited range, only four to five hundred feet from the pulp, from the small cell pulp. It would actually serve. So I don't recommend it. And I prepared a report I think is- I do. I prepared a report about it and I said in summary there are many trade offs with the alternative RF design solutions to serve a given target area. There's no doubt to me that what is proposed for this application, the MACRIS cell, which is what's being proposed, is the best fit solution to serve the target area of Asperger, Virginia and provide the additional coverage and capacity to serve the wireless needs of the community. Okay. All right. Thank you. Commissioner Cums. Thank you. Aaron, question on your propagation maps, you had a demonstrative that was showing the difference in propagation with the proposed location and then the alternative clayborne and root seven location. Which carrier are those propagation maps for a certain carrier? Yes, these are for Verizon. Okay, for Verizon only. So it's not showing propagation of other carriers with other nearby towers. That's correct. Okay, thank you. Matthew, if you could build something smaller, tucked away, it was just as effective or more effective for less money than this tower will cost, would you do that? Yeah, so almost certainly. Yes. Right, but the point of that is, as I've often said in these discussions come up, the three major carriers spend some of an area of $10 billion a year on infrastructure to support the network and if they didn't have to, they wouldn't. They don't do this because they want to. They do this because they have to because we have demanded that there is cell phone propagation wherever is we want to be and wherever we need to be. So I just want to ask that question for the record so people knew that we're not doing this just to make it up. Chair Frank, do you have a question? You want to make a motion? A question. Good. I don't forget. Chair Kierce. Aaron, do you have a map we talked about this the other day that shows, you know, there's the three or four right in there that we're kind of looking at that propagate this, but then also the trail side location that we discussed a few months ago. Okay. There we go. So if we're talking about a two-mile coverage spread that Blue Star is the trail side. Okay. So we're verizing to hang on that as well, which that was originally T-mobile, but it has room for others. Okay. You're still, that's what that, the overlap is what's there in our little hex diagram. I guess that's that little sliver where the circle's overlap. So we don't have a lot of overlap there. Is that an accurate assumption or statement? Yes. Okay. So even if that happens, we still have a whole where the yellow star is at the moment. Okay. All right. Thank you guys. All right. Seeing other questions, this is in the Broadrun District. Commissioner Frank, do you have a motion? He's good. All right. I move that the planning commission approve ledgy 2023-0093 milestone bell month interchange CM PT 2023-0011 subject to the commissionac dated March 14, 2025, and based on the findings of approval, provided as attachments 1 and 3 to the April 10, 2025 Planning Commission Work Session Memorandum, and I further move that the Planning Commission forward ledgy 2023-0093, milestone, Belmont Interchange Specs, 2023-0028 to the Board of Supervisors, with a recommendation of approval subject to the conditions of approval dated March 27, 2025. And based on the findings for approval provided as attachments to in 3 to the April 10, 2025 planning commission work session memorandum. Second. Oh, you said no, no, no. Motion made by Commissioner Frank, seconded by Commissioner Banks. Mrs. Frank, do you have an opening? Mr. Frank. Yes, this is one that last July I was not really certain I was on board with and I'm still wish we had what felt like a little bit better warm in fuzzy alternative. But at the end of the day, we're talking two feet. You know, this talking two feet. This was two feet farther one way or the other, which it can't be because of Dominion's requirements, but if it was, we wouldn't need a specs and we wouldn't really be here. And I know that would have saved the applicant a lot of time and money as well. So I just, that right there tells you to a different angle of Mr. Miller's point that if there was somewhere cheaper and easier to do this, I have to believe they would have done it. So given what we're working with and the need that is there, and it, you know, as staff says, that it fits with with the character and extent and we are in a right away, which is something that we ask them to do. I mean, the only thing that would be better in my mind and this is not something milestone can fix, but I did share it with them. As if we could find a better way to work along with Dominion. I think I said this when we had the trail site application as well. You know wants to co-locate. Whether it's a building owner who doesn't want to structurally reinforce things that they would have to reinforce. I think we need to look at folks and we're all in this together in different utilities and service providers and we got to figure out how to do better. But this is a corridor that's going to have transmission lines down it that are going to be quite a bit taller than this monopole. And I think if they were already there, we might not be having the same conversation. So I think that this is probably our best option and I would appreciate the commission's support. Thank you. Mr. Beals, Mrs. Myers. I won't be supporting the motion for approval. Part of this process, we're not supposed to look at their business plan, we're not supposed to look at their economics. Whatever it costs them, it costs them, whatever they make they make. It's not up to me to help them make more money to make sure that they can do it cheaper. It's unfortunate it might cost more money to go on top of that building, but guess what? There wouldn't be a monopole here and nobody has convinced me yet, it wouldn't do the coverage in the span. I do think it would work. So we could have co-location, but instead of forcing them or making them go back and work with that, we're starting here saying, but it's cheaper for them to do it this way. Well, I don't think my plan's going They're going to go down because their building is, their is cheaper. Fire and rescue doesn't need it. They said they don't need it right now. I think that this is not the right location. I think it's not the right size. I think the fence could be better. But more importantly, I think there is an existing place for it to go. And I understand, you know, milestone gets to make money because they'll go sell the poll to other users. You pay less money because you don't have to buy, you don't have to build, you aren't paying to build the poll. But I'm not in it to the economics of your business. I'm in it to what I think is the best thing for this county from both of you shed perspective and what's right. And I do not believe that this is in the right location and there is a better place for it. Okay, Ms. Jasper. I think I am also not going to support the motion. Although I do think it could be improved with a better buffer at ground level which would be nice to see. But beyond that, I have a similar view to Commissioner Myers. I believe that these towers are revenue opportunities. They're not just cost centers. And it is, in fact, not our job to make sure or make our assessment of what their profit and loss statement looks like. but in fact it is our job to look at the impact on residents. And clearly the having adequate cell coverage is significant in something we want to and are directed to support. But I am also concerned that we don't have all the information and it is going to be very hard for me to feel good about these applications until we actually have the engineering expertise on in our side that gives me a level of comfort that we actually have all of the facts we need to make these decisions. Mr. Combs. Thank you. I too am not going to support the motion and associate myself with the comments from Commissioner Jasper and Commissioner Myers. And would just add that, you know, in looking at the location character and extent here, I'm troubled by the location piece in particular. I know this corridor is going to be overtaken by by Dominion Lines and I think that's an okay place to be putting a poll but Right up against the Regency of Belmont at this interchange. I find that that aspect that piece of the location Analysis to just be too off putting In looking at the Claiborne Route 7 interchange we saw a propagation map that shows that it doesn't do a whole lot to improve a gap for Verizon, in for Verizon only. I don't love that we're entertaining applications that benefit one carrier without regard to the other carriers that are also providing sales service around. and building something as obtrusive as a monopole for one carrier when perhaps all the other carriers don't have coverage gaps just seems to me to be out of place so for that reason I just don't find this to be the right location for this tower. Care cares. Well, it comes to locations of cell towers. I think my three times on the locations of cell towers. My three times on the commission have heard many cell phone tower applications. And I don't think there's been a one that didn't come with a fair amount of opposition from residents. But when it comes to location, I find this to be an appropriate location. It's inside the call release of a six lane divided someday, maybe an eight lane divided highway. And this does seem like an appropriate location to put a tower and even with the fact that Dominion Powerline will be running through there as well. It would be nice if every company played ball together and they all shared towers and all shared the best locations for each other, but they don't. But when a new one gets built, it does have the ability for others to locate on them, which in the long run minimizes the number of towers built. So for those reasons, I'll be supporting the motion. Thank you, Mr. Banks. I will be supporting the motion. When I see these applications, I'm often reminded of one of the first principles we all encountered when we took economics 101 in college. That is there is nothing without costs. All of us as consumers want to have great cell coverage all the time for all of the devices that we carry. Yet we don't want to have the cell towers. And therefore, I'm not sure what it is exactly we seem to want here. What we really need to do is to look at whether these necessary facilities are in the appropriate location. Clearly, this is the right location. Right next to very busy roadway, other similar uses are around it. The evidence in front of us, as much as I would like to have additional evidence from other engineering, one of the things that I've always learned as a trial lawyer, is that you have the evidence in front of you that you have. You can't wish for other evidence, you can't make up other evidence, you can't ask for other evidence, it is the evidence that you have. The evidence in front of us is that this is from an engineering perspective appropriate and necessary in the location that it is. I might wish in hope for a whole bunch of things. I wish I was much taller, much more muscular, much more handsome, and my wishing it just ain't going to happen, okay? It is what it is. These are the facts that are in front of us. Therefore, I will be supporting it because the facts and the evidence that I have in front of me indicate that it's appropriate. Thank you. And I'd sell to be Justice Tall and as fit as Mr. Banks. I'm even behind that. I got no hope. Okay, Ms. Frank, you made the motion. Do you have a closing? May I ask the applicant a quick question? Sure. And is this tower have the ability to hold other carriers? Yes, it does. How many? Four. OK. And I know we're not commenting on the finances and the marketability of anything, but I would certainly think milestone would be incentivized to go find other tenants for their tower. Okay, all right, thank you. Okay, the motion before us is on the table. All those in favor? Aye. Mr. Kierce, you're an aye. Mr. Kierce, you're an I? Yeah, I don't know if my audio staff, but I am an I. Okay. And all those opposed? No. Okay. Motion will carry 5, 3, 1 with Mr. Mardi Gras. Thank you. Thank you, Rick Thomas. Thank you. Thank you for comments. Thank you. Okay. We are going to move on to our next application. 2023-0065 Greenfield Farm Resoning. I'll take you on. Go, go, go. Thank you, home. Are you? Yeah. It's a village. It's a village. It's a village. It's a village. It's a village. It's a village. It's a village. It's a village. It's a village. It's a village. It's a village. It's a village. It's a village. November 20th, November 26th. Okay, Allison, ready? Thank you. Good evening. My name is Allison. I'm with the Department of Planning and Zoning and I'm here today to present the application updates for Greenfield Farm Resoning. The subject property is 174.4 acres located east of Evergreen Mills Road, south of Shreve Mill Road, and north of Hogan Mill Road in the Catoctin election district. The property is zoned Agricultural Rule 1 and located in the Transition Small Lot Neighborhood Place type in the Transition Policy Area. This is a grandfathered application and was reviewed under revised 1993 zoning ordinance. Just to orient us, the applicants requesting to rezone the subject property from agricultural use to residential and commercial for the development of 518 total residential units composed of 496 single-family detached and 22 multi-family attached dwelling units and 44,200 square feet of commercial uses. the applicants are requesting three special exceptions to allow a gas station, a gas pumps at an accessory to a convenience store, a restaurant with drive through, and also an exception to Article 7 to reduce minimum lot width for certain lots from 40 to 30 feet. The applicants additionally requesting one minor special exception to increase the maximum retail area from 5,000 to 6,000 square feet in the commercial land bay. The applicants requesting a number of Z-mods primarily to reduce frontside rear yard requirements. There's allowances for units to be served by private streets and to exempt certain private alleyways from street planting requirements, reduce open space buffer between the commercial reduce I said open space buffers between the commercial and residential lambays and increase the total area devoted to retail. Here is the current concept development plan. Since the Planning Commission public hearing in November, the applicant has made a few changes to the application but has not changed the overall number of units. It was identified there was a bald eagle nest proximate to the site which necessitated site design layout changes and the applicants committed to provide a 660 foot buffer area around the EGLE nest site to accommodate this. The applicant also revised a few unit locations and reduced active recreation and public and civic amenities spaces accordingly. Additionally, the applicant clarified the proposed buffer enhancement along Evergreen Mills Road committed to provide a historical marker near the Greenfield Farm Estate and revise the commitment to provide to, it was previously two workforce housing units. It's now to provide two unmet housing units to be administered consistent with county policies and programs. And the applicant provided a commitment to provide an at cost option for fire sprinkler systems, detailed and provided more detailed information relating to the proposed road improvement costs and an analysis. Here on the left side with the red text is the previous CDP, on the right side is the current CDP, on the bottom right northeast corner you can see the bald eagle nest site and the associated buffer. And circle tier are two areas where housing units were on the bottom right northeast corner you can see the bald eagle nest site and the associated buffer And circle tier are two areas where housing units were relocated in response Staff continue to identify an impact to heritage resources as an issue for commission consideration and continue to identify outstanding issues related to capital facilities and transportation impacts. The subject property contains a significant heritage resource associated with the development of the Greenfield Farm in Hobel and Mill on Ciclin Creek. Generally the Greenfield Farm House is historically connected, was historically connected to the subject property and adjacent to the development area, though not included in the area of this application. The House has been identified by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources as an outstanding example of late 18th century through early 19th century domestic architecture has other historical significance significance. Staff acknowledged the house site is outside the limits of the application, but still recommend based on the proximity and consideration of the resource as a whole that the applicant commit to preserve the structure in place. The applicants proposing transportation improvements in phases to ultimately construct evergreen mills road and cross-strial boulevard to be four lane divided highways with turn lanes, median brakes, shared use pass and traffic signals as anticipated in the 2019 countywide transportation plan. applicants proposing to provide contributions for capital facilities, regional roads and transit facilities, consistent county policies, however the applicant has requested credit against these contributions for proposed transportation improvements. Staff has identified outstanding issues with these contribution amounts. Credit amounts. As a general manager, the 2019 general plan and 2019 countywide transportation and plan anticipate mitigation of development generated impacts to capital facilities and transportation networks. Credit against capital facilities contributions are supported for transportation improvements in recognition of a pressing need. Credit against regional roads are supported by policy. Provided the credits are to support improvements beyond those necessary to mitigate onsite impacts. And credit against transportation facilities is not supported by either the 2019 general plan or the 2019 countywide transportation plan. For those reasons, or I guess the proposed improvements to evergreen mills and cross-trail are both not identified in the capital improvement plan, the CIP. Therefore staff have not identified the road improvements to be oppressing need and cannot support credit against capital facilities contributions. Staff could support credit against regional roads contributions, however the current transportation impact study lacks detail required to understand what is required to mitigate onsite impacts versus what is beyond. And staff cannot support credit against transportation facilities. Staff cannot support plain commission approval and find out any issues related to capital facilities, transportation and for consideration heritage resources and find the application inconsistent. Staff are happy to answer any questions. We'll now open up the questions for staff. Anybody have questions for the staff on this? Mrs. Jasper? Thanks, Allison. So on the topic of heritage resources, the idea that the house, the historic house, is excluded from the application. Is that typical when you see an historic property being subdivided that the developer asks you to look at the development proposal without consideration of the historic asset that it's derived from? Do you have an idea of typical? Is it typical? No. Does it? I think each case by case basis. I do in the applicant's presentation will present this. They have another application that is meant to dispose of. Wrong term to use. Sorry. I guess. Propose an alternate use for that as part of a follow on application. But the challenge here is that the whole property was part of the, the, the, the, um, provenance of what the, the property was about, right? And then, when just the house, it was the other elements of it. So trying to provide that structure and the context is what the policies try to support. So is it common that they want to try to issue deal with these separately? Yes. Okay. So. Is the applicant's archaeological survey complete or do they do that at another? I think the application is complete. It is complete. I had one other question. I'll let the next person go for now. Thank you, Chair. Vice Chair. Mr. Bullenwears. In regards to which I find it innocent, I mean, you're saying that Evergreen Mill Road isn't a priority simply because we haven't put it in the construction in the CIP. However, I know that I've heard especially a commissioner up here whose acting is our chair tonight and actually he's also his board member Talk lots about upper Green Mill Road and how that road needs to be improved today not yesterday We've just put schools out there. We're getting ready to put another high school out there I mean that road does need to be improved so I find it a little illogical and I the point of it, that's not in the CIP, but I think just because it's not in the CIP because it doesn't have funding, I don't think you can, it's also correct to say it's not a priority. I mean, I would say if there's a road that's an absolute priority that unconnects Leesburg to the eastern end, it's evergreen mill and it's very dangerous. Did you all take take a look at all other, I mean, is it just because it's not funded or not put in the project? You're saying it's not a priority and so you don't want to count it or is it, did you really look at all the things that you've been hearing from the different board members, the actions that have occurred and everything that would change it to say no, this, they need to, this needs to be done now, not later. The staff analysis was like you said whether it is or is not identified in the CIP. But certainly it is an item for planning commission to consider. And the real improvements that are being done to Evergreen Mill are they really being driven by this application or they being driven by that the county wants this road improvement done? Part of the outstanding issue is that the transportation impact study lacks sufficient detail to determine exactly what is necessary for onsite impacts versus what level is necessary. and what is above and beyond being proposed. But okay, so when I, and maybe we get somebody from transportation here because I'm not pretending to be an expert, but the information that I've read on the studies and stuff showed that really the other improvements that they're doing with the amount of residential that they're doing, they, it can handle what they're doing. They don't need to do evergreen mill road for this application. And so that's why I'm like I'm a little confused about why we wouldn't give them credit for it, if really the needs for that road is coming from other sources in this application. I will defer to DTCI. I give you a name, Commissioner Myers, Lori Rackliffe Myers with DTCI. So you're correct. The traffic impact study shows that their development does not require Evergreen Mills Road to be brought up to four lanes and that's due to cross trail boulevard being a background improvement from the beginning. So what we're looking at right now in regards to being able to support the credit that they're asking for, they've given us additional analysis. We just got it last night, so unfortunately, we have not been able to analyze it, to be able to stand up here and say that we fully support the credit requests that they're asking for. We would need additional time to do that analysis to ensure that we agree with exactly what they're asking for, especially with the capital facility's credits. Regional roads, we did feel that we could support regional roads, but again, we would like to have the time to analyze the information that they've sent over. Okay. And when I looked at their numbers it looks like they're spending it's all about 29 million but they're only getting credit for 20 because that's the most they can get. So it's really not that they're not meeting it. They're really exceeding it but they're still paying the money to do the extra that they're not getting any credit for. Correct. 9 million. Correct. We had asked them for a cost estimates on the roads and they did send that over and we thought the estimates were reasonable. But again, it's just we want to make sure that we do our analysis correctly to ensure that we agree with everything that they're asking for in regards to credits. Especially since we don't have policy DTCI doesn't have policy to say about the capital facilities credits. So we just want to make sure that. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Mr. Meyer, in the applicant's defense, we had the timing that information was at our request and actually they turned that information around quicker than what we had anticipated in terms of the lane improvements to cross trail andil into Evergreen Mills Road. To answer your initial question, yes, there's higher volumes on the road. It does need to be widened. They're widening it to the CTP road. This will continue the improvements that- Clear springs. Clear springs. Not remember that name. Clear springs is to the north. What we're asking is if the commission feels it is a pressing need and then that's when the policy says that the credits appropriate. So we're asking for the commission's weigh-in, do you feel, and based on the conversations that we've had and the priority that was given to clear springs, yes, as additional two lanes would be of a safety benefit, not only a transportation benefit. Okay, well, and village at clear Springs, sorry, village at Clear Springs, their development solely relied on Evergreen Mills, and so they were required to install the two lanes to meet their requirements. And for DTCI, we didn't support credit for Evergreen, or excuse me, yeah, for Evergreen Mills, for village at Clear Springs. So village at clear springs is a little bit different because they only gained access to their development from evergreen mills where this development, since they have cross-trail in, that's why they don't need the additional two lanes per their traffic impact study on every mills. But just I just wanted to, yeah, just to share. And I appreciate that because that's really when I was reading it, what I was getting is that it seems like if there was an application where we would agree we'd give some credits would be this one because they're fixing a problem we have even though we haven't put in our CIP. And we've heard from the people that represent that area. it needs to be fixed yesterday, not even today. And we don't even have the high school there yet. The next high school's not there. and our CIP and I've heard from the people that represent that area. It needs to be fixed yesterday, not even today. Yeah. And we don't even have the high school there yet. The next high school is not there. So I was just a little conflicted when I'm reading $29 million worth of improvements, but we don't want to even give credit for the $16 million. So I appreciate your answers very much. So thank you. Okay. Thank you. I'm impressed that someone from DTCI has such intimate knowledge of the village of Clairschmann's application. I wonder how that is. Yes. Thank you. Any other questions for the app? And it's for Lori, so don't go too far. Cross-trailed Boulevard. Yes. Remind me, what has already done and underway there and what is being added by this applicant? So currently, cross trail that's shown there, there's nothing there. That's cross trail segment D. So cross trail segment C, which is on the east side of the dollar screenway, that in land acquisition right now so that's been delayed a bit it was supposed to be completed fall of 2024 looking at now spring of possibly 25 but still scheduled to be completed fiscal year 27 quarter four. Okay, so this entire thing to its final configuration. Is that in our CIP? I know we talked about every green mills not being. No. Or CTP? The CTP, yes it is. Yes, it is both the, both every green mills and cross trail are in the CTP, correct. But cross trail is not yet funded, this section of it, D? It's not, it is both the both Evergreen Mills and Cross Trail are in the CTP correct but Cross Trail is not yet funded this section of it D It's not it's not in the CIP it's not even on DTCI's radar Okay, at the moment So we really don't know It sounds like I mean maybe in 12 hours or 18 hours ago, but we don't really know the impact this development has on a road that doesn't exist today. And then the existing evergreen mills. All right. Okay, thank you. Mr. Combs. Thank you. And we received in our packet several resolutions from the town of Leesburg opposing the application largely for airport concerns. I know we've got our LDN contours and they're shown on the CDP, but do we have any sense of what the actual flight patterns are in and out of that airport? Particularly with respect to this application. I don't have that information right now. I know the spaghetti map is typically what we see, but I do not have that for this Leesburg airport. I can pull up. Yeah, staff received any information like the Sleezburg Airport. I can pull up. Yeah, staff received any information like that from the Sleezburg Airport other than. No, typically when we hear from the airport they do not provide the same flight path analysis that the Sleez Airport does. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Kier, do you have any questions for staff on this application? A couple. So the cross-trail, even though it's not in the CIP, it's on the CTP, in my understanding when the traffic analysis was done for this development, they were asked to assume it's built, as opposed to using Shreve mill to determine the traffic volume. Is that correct? Commissioner Chair Kierce, correct. If there was a little bit of, I guess, miscommunication because we did not know that they were asked to have cross trail as a background improvement during their scoping. So that's why we had an issue then trying to analyze all of this correctly regarding what the impacts would actually be and what we could say the credit. credit, but you are correct. It's the, their traffic impact study has always had cross trail boulevard as a background improvement. Okay, but just to get to the nuts and bolts of the numbers. So this application has about $20 million in contributions, capsilities, transit, regional roads. And staff kind of, I think you just mentioned you agreed that 29 million is probably a reasonable number for the cost to actually build all those improvements correct and the app in the same let us keep our 20 million and we'll build it all correct correct okay and so we're being asked do we think it's reasonable to take all of those contrabies, which is cap facilities, which is designed for things other than roads, and apply that towards building these roads? It's, I don't think it's arguable that long term this section of cross trail and the widening of Evergreen Mill is may not be funded now but it is everything I've seen a high priority to get done. But when you look at the pots of money this is all county money so you could say hey DTCI you know you don't have to spend the extra $10 million we can take that 10 million and put it back towards cap facility purposes and it still works. So my understanding is we're being asked do we believe that building these roads is priority enough to go ahead and say we agree with putting all these credits towards the road building. Is that, and this is going back to staff? That's what, in staff, that's what you're asking us to evaluate, correct? Correct. Okay. Last thing I have on the Heritage Resource regarding the house, you had mentioned that they come up with a long term preservation plan for the property. Staff would find that adequate to meet this concern. That's correct. Even though they don't necessarily have the authority with this application to implement it because they don't own the property. You're looking more if they put the good faith effort towards trying to do that. And if the property owner just flat out refuses, you feel they would have met their requirement. That's correct. Okay, thank you. All I have. Ms. Jasper, you had a third question you couldn't recall earlier. Do you have that bolted front of mind yet? It was kind of what Cliff asked. It was, what is the position of the Heritage Commission on this and have you heard from them and is it something that you can make a recommendation regarding? I have. The Heritage Commission provided a letter. I believe it is one of the attachments to the... I saw the letter but there wasn't a lot of detail in it. But they were talking about buffers, et cetera, around the farmhouse. So that's correct. The recommendations kind of ranged from designing away from the resource areas to buffering to at least preservation. And have you had conversations with the applicant about those? Yes. Okay. Thank you. One other thing I would like to add is that the applicant has had two pre meetings for that site To come in with an alternative Development proposal. There just is nothing submitted for For to go off of and is it true that it's separately owned? I will defer to the applicant on okay. I mean I can understand you know Separately controlled might be the better question to rather than separately owned. I'll defer to the applicant. I will. Thanks. Mr. Barnes. Yes, I just have a small question about staff. How close is the closest house built close to the airport where the runways are? How close are they? Because I know that airport is getting pretty busy. There are a lot of executive jets are coming up. There are quite a few come over my house. So I know they are coming down all the time. So that's important. How close is the, and a lot of people up there were, before use, this application come in, a lot of people live up there they were complaining about the noise. And we have, at leastburg has a noise information to everybody who buys homes up there that is close to airport and it's gonna be very noisy or whatever the decibels are, you know, to give. Did you look at that, see if the applicant providing that or they're going to tell everybody? And I want to know the proximity, you know, how close the house is going to be? How far are they from runway? Or are they on the runway path? You know, the couple of roundways up there that takeoff. So. This property is within the one mile contour buffer, so it's about a mile or two away. Mile or two away from there? From the airport? Correct. Okay, that's all I want to know. Thank you. Okay, and before we move on to the applicant, I want to use my comments time, question time for the to further what Commissioner Myers has said about the original proposal to say that this neighborhood was serviced by the small portion of Everreens in the North and Crossjail and not necessarily by the the portion of Evergreen to the South or asking to have four lanes. That came about because probably two years ago I met with Denise and Roy and I'm like he can't build 500 houses and not build the road that it's attached to your property. One of the very first applications when we came on the commission five years ago was about asking an applicant to build what widen the road off their property because the adjoining property when it was developed was not required to build the road to the edge of their property. If that were to happen here, then the next landowner that came in and wanted to do something on every mills road would be asked to build a chunk of road that's not adjacent to their property. And that wouldn't happen. And the county would then have to step in and cover the cost of that road. What's interesting here is the next segment south of that road is owned by the same people. So there's a bridge of holes in the middle that would probably need to be built and there's more of every mills road all the way down to almost the entrance of Loudoun County, not in country day school, that someone's gonna have to build as well. So that was the context of how it came to be that the applicant came in and said, we're going to go and widen every green mills all the way to the edge of our property under consideration. And that's how we got to that point. And of course, it was, we'll do that, but we don't need to, but we'll give us a credit for it. And that's kind of where that germinated from. Miss Herraver, do you have presentation? I do. Thank you, supervisors and chair Cliff. First of all, Allison. We appreciate the promotions, but we'll probably rather stick to commissioners. Allison, you did a fantastic job. There's a few things I want to touch on before I get to my slides. Commissioner Barnes, you asked about disclosures. We do have a proffer that requires us to make disclosures to all new home buyers. It's the same disclosure requirement that the county has, that we are agreeing to for the Leesburg executive airport as well. So that proper is in there. I appreciate everybody's time and I appreciate Alice and in particular going over giving you the background. I'm just going to hit the highlights based on the conversations that we've had with staff. As I meant, as she mentioned to all of you, we did find a bald eagle nest, which this is not the first one I've gotten to see, but it's the first one close to a subdivision project that we've worked on. We've already procured a general permit in doing so what we did is we revamped the site so that we could remove all houses that were within the 660 foot buffer Which is considered like a protection zone and then there's an inner buffer the 330 foot which is the second there, closer to the nest. The only thing that would be built within the buffer is a stormwater management pond and extension of utilities. We've already actually applied online and received the general permit from U.S. Fish and Game Wildlife Services, allowing us to do this work The work can only happen outside of the nesting time between December 15th and July 15th. So that is what will have to happen out here in that particular area. The Heritage Resource discussion with the House. This has been an ongoing discussion with staff. And we understand and appreciate staff's concerns, but as Alice mentioned, this House and this property are going to be addressed in the Greenfield Phase 2 rezoning. We have had a pre-application meeting with staff. Right now, the owners are the same. The owner of this land owns not only Greenfield, but they also own all the property. I don't know how to point with this. Okay, there we go. No. There we go. Okay, so this section right here is Greenfield Phase 2. We expect to have that probably filed sometime in May. But the real issue here is right now the house has been boarded up. The vegetation has been removed from the house. We are trying to keep all external, you know, weathers outside of the house as the family does come to, you know, decide what they are going to do with the home. There is still stuff in the house that needs to be removed. So the family is still literally working with the house. We are not comfortable providing any proffers on that property today, primarily because we are bringing it into an application that's coming in May. Capital facility's impact, we understand, and it's always been policy staff usually cannot support any credit to capital facilities that typically is a decision left to the commission and the board of supervisors. There was a question about AHUs and how they're administered. Of course the profit we use as Roy will tell you he has used for probably the last 10 cases. All are AHUs, UNUs and ADUs of course are governed by Article 7 and subject to Article 7 and its requirements. As it comes to the discussion with Evergreen Mills and Cross Trail Boulevard Commissioner Miller. I appreciate you giving the background as to why we came in the door with Evergreen Mill Road four lanes. As is and has been the practice probably from my perspective in the last 20 years. Anytime you had a development if there was an opportunity that you could provide additional road construction to help the network, the development community can do it better and faster than the county can and it saves the county money. Bamiro has built quite a number of roads throughout Loudon County on behalf of the county behalf of the county and we're happy to do so We looked at this project specifically with cross trail Of course being in its ultimate condition because that is what the CTP requires When we came to you at the public hearing Back in December, I believe thanksgiving the night before Thanksgiving break. We actually came in with what we called a fair share percentage. This basically breaks down what our site creates in terms of traffic compared to what the rest of the offsite traffic will be using on this road. The bottom line is it's a $29 million bill for all of these improvements. And on this particular spreadsheet, the county's fair share was going to be approximately 75%. Sorry, I need to put some glasses on. 75.61% and our share was going to be 24.39%. We had some back and force about the fair share and we did get some feedback that the signal at Evergreen Mill and Cross Trail was, you know, there was some consternation that we weren't looking at that as part of our required package. We went back and we looked at our numbers. At the end of the day, as mentioned, the traffic study has always assumed that this project could be built with just two lanes of Evergreen Mill road. The analysis that Groveslay would just asked to do. And by the way, Erin, thank you for being here. If you have any questions, Erin is here to answer them. The analysis that we did yesterday was to show, I'm sorry, Erin did yesterday was to show that two lanes across trail would be necessary to support our project, not all four. But what we did is we just decided, let's make this simple. We're going to look at the two additional lanes of Evergreen that we're being asked to do. That's on the counties. We'll ask for credit from the county for that. We'll split the costs across trail. We'll put two lanes and we'll take credit from the county for the other two lanes. And we will go ahead and the developer will take on the responsibility of the cost of the signals. This is about $1.5 million increase based on the information that we provided you at the last public hearing in terms of our contribution if you will or the developer's contribution to this road network. I do appreciate staff and DTCI. We have had many conversations about this trying to get our arms wrapped around it. We appreciate their support on the regional transportation contribution. And we also understand and appreciate they can't weigh in on cap facilities and transit. I would like to note, we are still making transit contributions. We are building bus stops and providing cash for the shelters. So we are still meeting some of our transit requirements. But at the end of the day, it's $30 million for the roads. We believe about 20 million of that should be credit. We will be on the hook for over and above our 30% share. But we're happy to do it. We did actually look at if there was an alternative to try to show how this site potentially could have been developed without all four lanes of cross trail. It was just an exercise to kind of look at how you can actually get to a place where you would only need a portion of cross trail and not all of cross trail. This is an alternative, but we don't believe it's necessary. We believe that we will probably come to a fair and equitable arrangement meeting with the commission and the board. I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. Okay. Any questions for Denise? Anyone? Robin Heath? Thank you. That was a great presentation, really helpful. My one question, and I do have kind of in the nature of a comment, the, Leesburg has asked for the inclusion of an navigation easement. Is that something that you are comfortable with or I'm not sure what an, I, exactly an navigation easement is. We actually have included language in the proffer that we are profaring to provide navigation easements if requested. OK. And then the other, which is kind of quasi question and quasi comment, I mean, if there were some sense about, you know, apart from just, you know, knowing that the house is being mothballed and protected right now, and knowing that it will be part of a future application. I mean, we often, when we approve concept development plans for projects that have future phases, ask for some more specificity on what would happen in those phases and given the importance of this particular asset from an historic perspective, is it have you considered what you might proper to knowing that it won't be as detailed as a site plan or whatever? What we do do at this point is we're not looking to rezone it. We would like to leave the zoning AR1 because that limits the uses that would be made available to that site. We are hoping that we would get lucky with maybe like a small winery or a local produce type market, something along the agricultural use or rural economics, I believe, is one of the terms. That's the intention. We've had quite a bit of discussion back and forth with staff. It's been healthy. But we are of the opinion that we really want to make this more inclusive in the neighborhood. We've been asked to do considerable buffering along the perimeter between the houses and that entire field, if you will. There are some existing bush stands and tree stands that will work to add some break between the house and the new development but it has been our experience in several communities, broadlands in particular, where we feel that you want to bring this asset into the community instead of isolating it from the community. The more you isolate, the more opportunity things can happen that you don't see. By bringing it into the community, if you go down Broadlands, excuse me, Wax Pull Road, you'll see that there's an old stone house that was brought in. And they actually, fan meter worked with the HOA, we helped board the house up, get it structurally sound, gave them some money to do some additional work. And they actually use that Building in the grounds for their Friday night, you know band nights So in our mind this house and these grounds at some point will either be part of the community in terms of Have some viability that the community will want to interact with or a third party that's interested in getting it because it does have the connection to the community that would help support a small business. So would you be willing to prefer to alternative uses that kind of stated that kind of those parameters generally? That is something that we can look at with the Greenfield Farm Phase 2. We're just not comfortable profaring to anything today since that property will be included in the next rezoning. We don't want to limit ourselves today to what we are planning for with the next phase. Nor do we want a hamstring or limit the family in the event somebody were to approach them tomorrow with an opportunity. Okay, thank you. Mm-hm. Before I go to Mr. Combs, an aggregation easement is essentially granting the airport air rights over the property. For those that didn't know what aggregation eased with us. Mr. Combs. Thank you. So Denise on that the Heritage Resource. So it's not part of the application area here before us. So that is just going to remain zoned AR1 right now. Correct. It is not part of the application. So subject only to the limited uses allowed under AR1. That is correct. Okay. With respect to the concept here, we've got the commercial land bay up to the Northeast. And I'm thinking a lot of the folks in the southern land bay may want to access that commercial land bay. Do we have any pedestrian crosswalks? I know there's a median divide there plan along on cross trail. But do we have any way for folks want to walk over to that commercial land bay? Is there any way for them to cross over cross trail? Yes, we actually have two. Well, that's not what we wanted here. We actually have two cross roads. And one is a lighted intersection that will have the pedestrian cross. I'm so sorry. Because I can't get this to work. I figured you do. I just didn't see it in the CDP. It's not called out on the sheets that we have in our packet. It would be at the signalized intersection at Shreve Mill Road and Cross Trail. We also have 10 foot trails on both sides of Cross Trail. We have a trail along Evergreen Mills and we have extensive pedestrian sidewalks and connectivity throughout the community. Okay. My concern was just the crossing of cross-trail. And so you have that at the signalized intersection right there. We do, and we also will have bus stops on the north side and the south side of cross-trail at that intersection. Okay. Helpful. Thank you. One last question. I see in the proffers you've got your proffering to a noise impact study with respect to the noise that that may be generated along the roadways. Given our conversations about the airport and not having the data on the actual flight patterns, is there a way to capture in your noise study what noise might be emanating off of the aircraft that are flying overhead? That is part of the study. It is the actual, they do, they go out and record the existing noise. And then, I guess, formulate from that what the additional noise would be with the additional traffic. So there is some science to it as well as actual. So- Okay, maybe you can reference in the proffer that you are capturing noise from the aircraft flying overhead, because it's only, in the proffer, it's only mentioned with respect to the travel on the roadways. That's all I have, thank you. Mr. Kierz, any questions for Denise? I do have one and I understand the, um, it's going to the house and it's part of the next application. But unfortunately we don't have that next application nor do we know what's all involved and whether it would ultimately be approved. So what we have before us is what we have to work with. My question to you is when I asked staff, is that it's just a very long-term preservation plan was come up with agreed to that you could submit to staff. And obviously you can't commit anything to the property owner, but working with the property owner to see if that they would agree to it. And staff would find that to be sufficient for this application. And then long term when the next application comes along, if other uses are determined, you wouldn't really be holding yourself or limiting yourself because all you would agree to at this application is a long-term preservation plan. And if by the time you get to your phase two we have potential use for it or some other thing that you want to propose with the house you would still be able to do that. Is that something that you could agree with tonight to work with staff to come up with? I've had some conversation with Roy Barnett and we have serious concerns about profaring anything on this particular site while we're going not only through this zoning, but getting ready to file the next.. In the event there was an opportunity for the family or a third party. We don't want to feel like we are hamstringing them and putting any conditions on this property. As we have stated, we are bringing this parcel in under Greenfield Farm phase two. It was intentionally taken out of this particular zoning when it became apparent that we were trying to still determine what uses or what could we do. So really we're just not comfortable at this time trying to proper conditions on a site That's a not part of this application and B we know is going to be included in our next submission Of an application so we appreciate whatever all the requests and like I said the family has gone out there They have boarded the. They have spent considerable money getting the vegetation off the house and doing what they can to preserve it at this time while they still continue to decide what their plans are. So, I guess I'm trying to come up with a way to make this work. I understand what staff's concerns are and you know, and I'll do respect given that this house is surrounded by phase one. It should have been part of this application, not a future one. And I get a little concerned saying, well, don't worry. We have it included in an upcoming application, but we don't have it. We don't know if we'd even support the upcoming application. And then we're back to, well, there's absolutely nothing. Any protection of the house or the property if this application gets approved and the next one doesn't. And. Bye. We have. Added several items that staff has requested, particularly in terms of the buffering and landscaping material that they requested along the border of this site, which as I explained, I was continuing to push back because I prefer to look at this as inclusive instead of exclusive of this site, which as I explained, I was continuing to push back because I prefer to look at this as inclusive instead of exclusive of this neighbourhood. I don't believe isolating this is preserving it. I feel like isolation is the opposite of preserving it and bringing it into the community. We've agreed to a historical marker. We've actually documented and had an archaeological phase one done and a structural analysis of the house done. And we've had the house secured. So I understand and appreciate staff's position and all of the commissioners position for that matter. At this time, the family is still determining future use of that site. and we are working with them on that with respect to Greenfield Phase 2. I can quickly go back to staff. I'm just wondering what it is that you would be looking for if they were to agree to something like they said they cleaned the vegetation that's been boarded and secured other other things that staff would be looking for as a preservation plan. I don't have the answer to that level of detail for you what details would be included in a preservation plan beyond boarding and otherwise securing. I can follow up. Okay. All right, thank you. Mrs. Myers, you have a question? I have two quick questions. One of them, well, to follow up on chair questions, I'm a little bit confused because to me, the abutting property is not part of this application. It feels like we're trying to reach off to bring something in that isn't in front of us to like but it's also not looking to rezone the property. It's staying as an agriculture use that can only do what's allowed today under the agriculture uses today, which is the farming, the agriculture, the things that Denise has talked about a little bit, the wineries and stuff. Anything like that would then of course require them to unbord the house and fix it up in order to use it for those. So we're, I'm not sure what we're asking them to commit to because even staff said we'll, you know, board up the house, secure the house, put the buffers. Well, all of those things have already been done. So I'm a little bit confused about what we're asking them to do that they already haven't done, that really can be triggered through this particular property that's not even part of the property that's in front of us tonight. So, I mean, I think the best thing to do is to leave the property alone, leave it as an agriculture use. Hope that you get some kind of winery. I mean, you know, maybe Commissioner Coms your guy down there. When the high school gets too busy, you might decide this might be a better spot because they're not going to build another high school down that far. But I just think that we're delving into something that we really don't even know what we want, which seems a little complicated or convoluted. My other question was in regards to discussions for tonight, which I forgot to ask when we were doing it. You pointed out that you wanted some kind of different wording or staff did, wording something as it related to the AHU units. What is it that are you wanting them to commit that if it's an AH unit that they will abide by the zoning ordinance and the LIGTEC program? I mean, what is it you're looking for to close that outstanding issue? That is a recommendation to provide more information on the types of AHUs that might be provided in lieu of ADUs. Whether they be home ownership or rental, that's one element. But any of that would be under the program which they've agreed they're going to abide by, correct? Yes, the applicant has. As it is profiled, it is consistent with the zoning ordinance. Okay. So again, what is it that you're looking for that's an outstanding issue in this where you say it's number four, the outstanding issue on page eight of your 11? What is it we're looking for that we're trying to clean up? It's fairly just for commission consideration to understand whether the types of age used to potentially to be provided would also continue to meet housing goals. But if they're profaring to the zoning ordinance and they're profaring to the Article 7, how can they do anything but that? It's just the additional detail. Correct. Is the Commission interested in the specificity of how that zoning ordinance criteria will be met or they're comfortable that it's at the applicant's election on how those AHUs are provided? Okay. That's what we're asking. But they're saying but it's not really up to them. and they've got to go by what the ordinance says they've got to do chapter 7. In terms of purchase, is it for rent? Those are the types of options that they'll have available to. provide. That's what we're asking. But they're saying. But it's not really up to them. They've got to go by what the ordinance says. They've got to do chapter seven. In terms of, you know, purchase, is it for rent? Those are the types of options that they'll have available to them. Is the commission interested in knowing what that is now? Are they comfortable having the applicant's election on how they provide that? Does that correct? Yeah. The other element is like the income ranges potentially to be served. But again, that is already in the ordinance. That is, the minimum is in the setting ordinance. We are just checking with you. It is a commission couple of more. to be served. But again, that's already in the ordinance. That is, the minimum is in the setting ordinance. We're just checking with you. It's a commission comfortable. I'm just trying to figure out what it is. I'm trying to help you resolve. It's especially, it's not already resolved. So the ordinance does give a broad range, I'm sorry, repeating myself. There's a broad range on how they might meet that. Are they comfortable at their election? or was there's more specificity of the commission's looking at, but they will meet the ordinance requirement. Okay, thank you. Okay, before I make a motion, I just want to clarify or mention one point of this that is not a intention at all for anybody doesn't seem. But I want to put on the record as to where we're going with this in the future. There's a specs for the commercial section to increase the size of the building from 5,000 square feet to 6,000 square feet. The code says that for convenience stores essentially at gas stations, we have a 5,000 square foot limit. It's my hope as we continue to clean up the zord and things of that nature, that we work to move change that to 6,000 feet. Because what the applicant is asking for, I do know a thing or two about gas station convenience toward development and the vast majority of new construction of gas and convenience toward especially those that are including food service with indoor and outdoor seating, not full service restaurants, but higher level of restaurants that many of you have seen and visited, are operating in the 54 to 5600 square foot range. And so I think that is a very appropriate specs request or change here. That would hope that in the future as the county sees more and more of these things, like we've designed ordinance, kind of codify what we always agree to change. That's one thing that would be very beneficial for our future zoning ordinance. That's all for that, and I will now be in this in the little river district, make or rather the talking district. The talking district. Yeah, I have that power. Yeah, in the district. And I changed who the commissioner, the district is all in one false swoop. I move the Planning Commission forward, ledgy 2023. DAZ0065, Greenfield Farm Resorting, ZMAP 2023, DAZ003. specs 2023-ting ZMAP 2023-003. Specs 2023-008, Specs 2024-0022, Specs 2024-0023, SPMI-2023-004, ZIMOD-2023-0012, ZIMOD-2023-0013, ZIMOD-2023-0014, ZIMOD-2023-0015, ZIMOD14 ZMA 20230015 ZMA 2020400009. To the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of approval, subject to the proper statement dated March 5, 2025, and subject to the approval dated March 26, 2025, and based on the findings for approval, as provided, the attachments for 5 and 7 to the April 10, 2025 planning commission work session memo. So motion made by myself and seconded by Mrs. Poland-Miers as an opening. So we spent many years revising the general plan to highlight this section of the community as well as the section to the north which came before us last year, the village of Clear Spring. For the need to move it from the rural policy area to the transition policy area. And doing so to allow for us to meet certain components of the general plan relative to housing to support the people that live here and work here and want to continue to grow here. This is application is seeking to do pretty much just that. It's a small lot transition neighborhood, it's what we've asked them to do. They are offering to build roads that while they do not exist in the CIP right now, I can tell you from daily experience, multiple times a day I drive through this section, I still take every ring mill to shrieve to sicklin to cross trail because I don't have to take Cochrane anymore, which is the next application. So I can skip that and go straight to cross trail that way. Every single day, and I can tell you from the conversations with neighbors and people I see on the road and how people park at the soccer facility and walk on the side of every Green Mill road up to heritage high school. This road needs to be constructed whether we build another house here or not. And the fact that the applicant has agreed to build those roads for us and a time and a cost that is much less than the county could do on their own is very significant. I can understand why some would say well we need to have some money for schools or some money for this or some money for that. But the cost of the roads far exceeds that contribution and if we did not provide the credit for those roads, the county would be obligated to build those roads at a much higher cost and a much larger time frame. Additionally, the commercial aspect of this site is very needed and will actually help reduce traffic constraints throughout this particular region. If you go today on Evergreen Mill Road from King Street to the North and head south, the first time you get to anything where a member of the community can go in and buy something for retail, assuming you have that you'd hop on the new extended version of Evergreen Mill through Brambleton, would be at Tropical Smoothie Cafe in Brambleton. It's nine miles of absolutely no consumer business in this corridor without having to cross the greenway. Additionally, there are no ways to get off of this road, other than sicklin' between Battlefield and Ryan. This does, these two roads do a tremendous amount for the community. It provides access to a daily need through the convenience store alone, and better access and safety to the greenway, as well as taking traffic off of battlefield, especially in the morning when there's a backup at Heritage High School, because everybody's making a left turn off of battlefield. Because the boundary for Heritage High School includes everything north of the greenway. Go figure that one out. When you consider that in the totality, everything that this application does and seeks to do with respect to the revised general plan, it kind of hits the nail on the head. You may want larger lots, you may not have rear-loaded garage town, the detach houses. Those are things you can quibble about, but on the whole, this application does touch all the bases and things that we've asked to do. And because of that, I think it's important and vital that we do support this and send it to the board with a recommendation of approval. Thank you. Ms. Myers. Would you accept a friendly amendment that part of our motion also include that we do agree with the credits for the roads that are being built as counted in their contributions. Is that? I think it's- I'm already- Well, it's kind of implied but it's not- it's just back on the findings because staff is saying they were looking for guidance. I think it's important part of our motion that we say that yes and we agree that the construction that they're doing in the road should be allowed to be given credit for contribution. Do you want to add that to the motion? Do you want to add that to the motion? Add it to the motion to add to the finding of the credit's being appropriate. Yes. Through the motion add to the findings. Yes, sir. Yes, I accept that, friend. Thank you. And you made the second, correct? Okay. Okay. Okay, any other comments? Mr. Comles. Clarification on the motion, I think you said based on the findings for approval and provided as attachments 4, 5 and 7. I think it's attachments 4, 7 and 9. And then I just wanted to add that small detail about the noise study, whether it will be inclusive of the airport aircraft traffic and whether that will be incorporated in the profits as they move forward. It's not part of the profits referenced in the attachment. That are friendly? Or is that a, I don't know if it's a friendly or just a clarification, that if that's something that the applicant is willing to do, as it moves forward. So we have the, we have airport overlay district standards that talk about noise attenuation as part of the structures. We have separate noise policies regarding road noise. Are you asking that their road noise study incorporate airport noise as well? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That might always be achieved through a separate proffer related to the airport. Typically it's, if you're within the LDNs and the airport overlay, one of the criteria is that you provide noise attenuation, but I can't remember what DBH. Or we've seen other proffers that say you will commit to whatever the standard is within that higher level or not. Do you have a generation based on the quality of the standard? Which I don't know if I thought my head would standard is. So. My question during the applicant's presentation was you have a proffer on a noise study that references collecting noise from the roadways. and we've got multiple resolutions from the town. Lee'sberg saying they oppose this project because of the proximity of the airport. We don't have data on the actual flight patterns. So it seems to me logical that, well, let's get some information about whether there is an impact that needs to be mitigated there. If you're doing a noise study on the roads and Denise correct me, I don't want to put words in your mouth that I thought the response was, well, our noise study will capture that anyway. So I just want to reflect that that's actually being done. That's all I'm asking. I will follow Captain Shen from the district of Gooddenmore, the study engineer, but you have to be a relic of the fact that you are capturing the familiar study of the familiar study actually stipulates to the predicted highway voice. So I don't know if they actually include anything other than highway voice. Yeah, that was my question. Yeah. Well, that's definitely something we can look into. I find out if it really is actually included in written right now depending on whatever you learn. Can you just include me on whatever it is that you learn and as this moves forward then be happy to work with you on how that might change. Understanding, right, your proper statement is a pretty fluid document. It hasn't even been reviewed by the county, but the county attorney's office yet, so. Has it? Okay. Typically not, so this is the exception, sir. Okay, so typically not. But not the last. I wanted that. Commissioner Cohns. What we can do is we can add this conversation to the summary of the Commission discussion in the board report. Okay. And if there's a solution to that we can include that summary as part of our description of the Commission discussion. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Other comments are going to Mr. K any other questions? Mr. Jasper? This is, are you, you've made your opening? I made the opening. Yeah, we're in discussion. So, if somebody could pull up the site plan one more time. I appreciate that the, I'm going to call it the little amoeba on the bottom. That's the farmhouse is not included in this application. I am concerned that at some point we are going to, and I don't know what the set of circumstances are, that we're going to have some heartburn over its intentional exclusion and inclusion in the second phase. And Denise, one of the things you said really brought home for me why I feel, you know, to underscore why I have this feeling. You said it really should be part of the community. And yet, you know, staff is asking you to buffer it. Well, but they can't look at how you're thinking about including it in the community, because it's been taken very intentionally out of what would be an organic plan that included it. So I'll support the motion, but I still, I have a little bit of heartburn about having, making a decision on something with a hole in the middle of it. When even the applicant said it would be better if this were integrated. Mr. Barnes. Thank you. To the applicant, you don't own the house right now, do you? The applicant does. Oh, he. You're just. Okay. You own the house. I'm in the applicant. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Kierz. Any comments on the motion? No, I'm definitely going to support the motion and. by Stuart Miller for the comments you made about the roads. It's to me this is a kind of a no-brainer of a good deal. Uh, the county knows these roads need to be built. It will cost significantly less for the applicant to do it. Regarding the Heritage Resource, uh, a lot of the, I, a Gareth Commissioner, Jasper's comments. Um, I will, again, support the motion. Some of you may know I work with the applicants for many, many years on the Broadlands Association Board. And the house that she's referring to, what was done. was done and it's now very, you know, even though it's not used, it's a very integral part of the community. And just just based on my experience with this applicant and many other applications, I don't have any doubt that they will follow through on their commitment and they've already taken some steps to meet what would be a preservation plan for the house. So the development itself, when we did the general plan, this meets exactly in my opinion, what we were looking for, single family homes, lots of open space preservation, and I think this will fit in quite nicely. Thank you. Okay, anyone who's not yet commented here too? Okay, I have no closing, so I will call for a vote. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. zoomed in. with Commissioner Barnes opposed and Commissioner Moder Ready absent. It's 806, let's take a 10 minute break before we resume the final application and then a lengthy administrative process. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm sorry. I'm 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. I'm sorry. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm sorry. I'm 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. I'm sorry. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm sorry. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to something about what's this data center? I've never ordered those. We had those before in this county. I'm not familiar with. I'm not familiar with those. I'm all enough to remember when Linda Artman did her infamous letter of determination of data centers being like office. We couldn't contemplate what data centers were. Right. It was this phenomenon. No idea. All right. Ledgy 2023-0060,embourg, Cochraneville, Allison, Europe. Thank you again, Allison Britain, here from the Department of Planning and Zoning for Luxembourg, Cochraneville. As a reminder, the subject property is 97.8 acres located on the east side of Cochraneville Road and Phillip Abel and Memorial Park to the west and north of Cycline Creek in the Leesburg election district. This property is currently undeveloped but considered part of the Luxone Quarry. The property is split zone joint management, joint land management area 20, general and industrial and primarily zone mineral resource heavy industry MRAJ. The property is located in the Leesburg JLMA in transition policy areas, specifically the Leesburg JLMA employment, Leesburg JLMA industry, slash mineral extraction, and transition industrial mineral extraction, place types. The applicant is proposing to reason the property to the general industry zoning district to develop up to 989,000 square feet of data center uses and a utility substation. The applicants additionally proposing increased building height up to 70 feet without additional sub-ex. Here is the current concept development plan with four buildings and a substation on the top right corner which is the south side of the site. The applicants proposing two points of access, one on Cochraneville Road, one along Stonewater Lane, and the applicant is proposing to avoid the floodplain in 50 foot River and Stream Quarter resources buffer on the east side of the property on the top part of the screen. And a reforestation area also located there consistent with the general plan. Since the Planning Commission public hearing in September, the applicant has made several several changes including revised development scope from almost 1.7 million square feet to 989,000 square feet of data centers. Reduced the utility substation footprint, increased the footprint of buildings 1, 2, and 3. The proposed maximum building height was reduced from 105 feet down to 70 feet and the applicant also provided simulations and cross sections, demonstrating the visual impact from surrounding areas. The applicant committed to providing six foot Birmingham along the frontages and 10 foot where the applicant's proposing an enhanced landscape buffer along Cockrode Mill Road. The applicant is additionally, they clarified the proposed plan mix for the enhanced buffer. The applicant provided an updated turn lane warrant analysis, demonstrating additional turn lanes were not warranted, and eliminated one access point previously proposed from Stonewater Lane. The applicant additionally provided detail of the proposed internal site circulation and proposed parking areas. Finally, the applicant eliminated the proposed encroachments and modification of the scenic creek valley buffer area and committed to increased reconservation and reforestation areas. There are just a few remaining outstanding issues of this application related to compatibility and natural resources. The applicant is proposing to construct buildings up to 70 feet in height. The 2019 general plan, however, anticipates a maximum height in this area of four stories equivalent to 48 feet. Staff acknowledged the reduced request and that it is closer to the policy recommendations of the 2019 general plan. However, staff continue to recommend the building height be lowered to be more consistent, set back from the roadway, and I'll touch on in a moment additional buffering. Here. The 2019 general plan anticipates extensive buffering and distance from uses anticipated in this place type. The applicants proposing an enhanced landscape buffer in some locations, but staff recommend the enhanced buffer be applied more uniformly and to screen buildings closest to the roadway, specifically buildings one and two. Here highlighted in pink is the proposed enhanced 60 foot landscape buffer with additional Birmingham. You can see here the buffer is fragmented along CockroMail Road where the buildings are closest to the roadway and staff suggest a more uniform buffer to reduce visual impact from CockroMail Road. The subject site is located adjacent to Siklin Creek and contains several stream channels. The proposed layout would significantly impact stream channels and waterways. The 2019 General Plan anticipates protection of natural ecosystems to restore water quality and to support the built environment through healthy surface and groundwater resources. In addition to being inconsistent with the 2019 General Plan policies for streams and channels, staff have identified this design may pose feasibility challenges at later stages of development and recommend relocating the buildings to avoid and minimize impacts to streams and wetlands onsite. Here is a graphic approximately depicting locations in blue are the streams that the buildings would impact. Staff cannot support planning commission recommendation or approval, and find the application to be inconsistent with county policies. The application does not adequately mitigate visual impact with building height and environmental impacts from the streams and waterways. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Okay, any questions for staff? Anyone? Anyone? Mr. Frank. Allison, we're mostly Mr. Hyte here. So what is the height that would be allowed with that use by right now? Because this is a grandfathered application, the answer is a little bit different. So to clarify, Commissioner Frank, are you asking what it was under the revised 1993 as this application was analyzed? Yeah, I mean if they didn't, well I guess both just for the context. But if they didn't have an application before us and we're just going to go do something today, they would be able to do that under revised 93, correct? So I guess that's the question. They would have to be under the current have to come into the new stuff. Okay, then I want to know what they can do under the new stuff. All right. The current zoning ordinance, can you just one second it has a little bit of a different Application essentially when it's located next to Building or other zoning districts that anticipate a lower Building height it's a little bit different, but generally it's about 45 feet Okay, so it's consistent with the 48 you guys are at and then under that what is the setback that they would have to have off the off-cocker mill? In the MRI zoning it's a 75 foot building setback. Okay. So would you guys I think you answered this in one of your slides, but the additional height you would be okay with that height if there was an increased setback on what's being proposed? In any case the building height proposed is not what the place types anticipate but staff recommend those additional techniques to help mitigate the impact. Okay, and then that gap along the road the enhanced buffer gap. It's not that it's more space, it's more planting in that space. Staff would recommend the same enhanced planting and the Birmingham. Okay, so there's no Birmingham there either. There is some, it's just not to the same degree. Okay, All right. Thank you. So your question, the width is the same across the entire day of the property. It's- No, the buffer is not. Okay. That's not true. Correct. Okay. All right. Objection. I'll ask the applicant. Ms. Myers. Under the MRHI, the use that they can do today, this property. So when they're out there and they've got the tall rocks and the stones and the stuff is they're high flim and on that and how high that can be. No. So it could be 100, 200, whatever, high they want to store stuff, It could be on that property without any applications from part of us. I'd have to check if the proper specify a height to that But as far as I understand no building height applies to buildings only So today with earth moving activity I'll call it to be more gentle of what it looks like That gets stored there whether, whether it's the asphalt, the rocks, whatever needs to be busted out. There is no height limitations on how high that can be. That's correct, okay, thank you. Jones. Thank you. Allison, with respect to the environmental, the NRT issue and the streams. If they were not before us on a rezoning and being in the Mr. High Zoning District, what if they wanted to use that property for quarrying, what would they have to do with respect to navigating those channels? I believe the requirement would still be the same. They would have to get the appropriate permitting from the wetland permitting and other such feasibility permitting. But I don't have the insight to exactly what that entails. And then if they're coming in to rezone as they are now, would they have those same requirements to get the same sort of permissions with respect to the streams? Yes. Okay. And so is that what's, I guess, the basis for your comment and the staff report that you would anticipate the current layout may result in feasibility challenges at the time of site plan and a delay in the issuance of a grading permit and may have required future revisions to the proposed CDP. Is that because of that process? Correct. It's a risk that staff have identified it could result in the worst case scenario in a revised CDP and an inability to obtain a site plan in the worst case. So staff have identified that as a risk but acknowledge that that process is not a county process entirely. Okay, in that risk being they try to get that permission but don't get it. Correct. Okay. Thank you. This is always a debate Mr. Chairman. Acting Chairman. So part of the nuance is yes they have the ability through the core of engineers, get their wetlands credits, they have the ability to do that through the development process. This being a discretionary application that's what we're bringing into the commission's attention. Not only is there potential regulatory complications on the back end, but it's just this is the time when we would bring it up to say, although in a by-right scenario, they may have the entitlement to go in and encroach those features. The fact that it's part of a discretionary application, that's why we're asking you to weigh in on. Okay, thank you. Let's help them. Jerk here, is there any questions for staff on this application? Yeah, I just wanna go back to the staff that you were looking for a longer building setback from the road. And I think I got the answer, but as it stands, there's a 70-foot tall building. Is it set back appropriately for 70-foot tall building? Are they asking for something to put it closer than what would be allowed? I believe I understand your question. They are demonstrating that they are meeting the zoning ordinance requirements. It is the 75 foot setback. But due to the increase in height while not required by the zoning ordinance staff still recommend that as one possible technique to mitigate the visual impact from the roadway of such a tall building. What a seventy foot tall building being set where it is meets the zoning ordinance. Correct. Okay. And the enhanced buffer. So there is buffering of some type across the entire frontage, correct? There is the road cord or buffer that would ordinarily be required. the right. There is the road cord or buffer that would ordinarily be required. Yes. So that's what's required. Where they have enhanced buffer is that required or just something they've agreed to do additionally above and beyond. The ladder. And can you go back to the map that shows where they're not doing the enhanced buffer? And I'm trying to get a sense in the, in the, the area across the street. The area across the street. The area across the street. The area across the street. The area across the street. The area across the street. The area across the street. The area across the street. The area across the street. The area across the street. The area across the street. The area across the street. The area across the street. The area across the enhanced buffer, what's in the area across the street? Yeah. Pardon me. Go ahead. They are proposing to do the enhanced buffering closest to Bowlen Park. The other areas are industrial and nature, a substation primarily proposed across the way. recommendation is to mitigate the visual impact not necessarily just from the surrounding area based on the use that's across the street but from the roadway itself. Okay. I think there are barrel fields across from buildings one and two as well. Is that where the enhanced buffer is? There's a secret practice field across from building four and then farther down across from buildings one and two are the baseball diamonds and then farther down from that is a substation. The baseball diamonds are arguably farther away from Cochrane-M than the Segris practice fields. Okay. And I believe. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for staff? Seeing none, Aaron, what you got for us? Just go away for her to get my presentation up. I promise I will try to be as snappy as humanly possible. And I apologize in advance for my inability to control my slides if it happens. So thank you very much. Everybody knows I'm Aaron Swassam. I'm here with Anthony Venafro and Rich Brittingham on behalf of the Luxstone Coffin Mill application. We thank you for the opportunity to talk with you this evening. Allison did a really good job of covering what we have updated. I did want to talk a little bit about what goes into that building height, that 70 foot building height. We're anticipating that the actual roof of the building, the flat roof, will be 63 feet and that additional 7 feet is to account for parapet wall that will be used to help screen equipment. Part of the reason we're including that in our height request is that historically that's been a bit ambiguous at site plan about what counts as zoning height versus not zoning height. So we're doing that in order to be as transparent as possible about where the top of the masonry is going to be and where the highest masonry structure on the building will be. I also wanted to talk a little bit about what we would be permitted to do by right on the property. So for Mr. High right now, the Luxstone Quarry is entitled to have buildings that are up to 120 feet. And as Commissioner Myers noted, there is no limit on the height of overburden storage on this property. Of course, it would have to be structurally sound. I think Allison did a really good job covering the rest of these things as well. So we're going to primarily address the impact of the building height and impacts to screen to streams. So we're going to walk through the updated cross sections that we have created as well as the visual simulations and then we'll talk a little bit about streams and of course answer any questions that the commission might have. So Allison also showed this graphic. This is just to reorient you to the property and where it is right now. It's in this area here and this area over here where we're providing that 60 foot buffer. And it's here where we're providing the zoning ordinance buffer with the addition of a berm. Under the revised 1993 zoning ordinance we're not required to provide berming but in consultation with staff and listening to the feedback that we got from the commission we did include that in our updated materials and we do think that that makes the application stronger and provides a better visual screen from Cochrane Mill Road. So we updated our cross sections to show what the visual impact is going to be from Cochrane Mill Road. So this is in the area we're providing the 60-foot type C buffer, where we're closest to the DC United Proxvis facilities to Segra Field facilities. So you can see here've got that 60-foot wide buffer, and then we're actually set back from the roadway, an appropriate amount for 100-foot building, not just that 70-foot building. So when we reduced our building height, we did not reduce the setback that we were already proposing and showing on the CDP. As you can see here, this red line is the visual sight line. You can see that the screening and buffering that we're providing here is doing a good job of screening both the face of the data center as well as the parking and the private road for circulation through the property. And this is in the area we're providing the zoning ordinance buffer plus the six foot berm. And again, here you can see this red line is the line showing what the visual line of site is going to be on the property. And that berm really does help lift up those plants. So you're also going to get good screening here. and this is the same type of buffering that the New zoning ordinance adopts for data centers. So it is Consistent with what the commission and the board have weighed in on for what is kind of the gold standard or or what they're looking for for screening from roadways Rich's team also did a great job of preparing some visual simulations of what the actual presentation simply because of time constraints. I want to include the key because Allison was very helpful in setting up a meeting with community planning where we picked these views in consultation with staff. So we picked areas on the property where the public would be and facing the property so that you could see what the impact was going to be. We've also got a rendering that shows the difference in the 105-foot building that was originally proposed versus these 70 foot buildings. So this first view is from the Segriffield practice facilities. We're sitting in the parking lot here because this is the publicly accessible space on that property. And you can see here, the data center buildings are visible, but they are kind of fading into the background here of the existing netting and some of the existing structures that are both on the property and surrounding the property include the light poles, the power lines, and they are reduced in scale in size at 70 feet. We're also a little higher as Marcia was noting on all areas of Bolin Park. And this property does, the property does slant downward towards the creek. So you're also getting some additional visual benefit there as well. The next couple are a comparison to this image which was taken in January. You can see in the key down here we are at the end of the asphalt between these two ball fields. This is about as close as anybody who is at the ball fields would be viewing the property. These are the batting cages, the only people that would be further into the property would be actually using those batting cages. You can see here in the distance some of the luckstone equipment on the quarry side itself. And this is the comparable view. So again, the buildings are visible, but we're about 700, 750 feet away here from the data centers, and we're getting that downward slope to the property. Again, we're kind of at the same level as the existing structures on Boulin Park visually. And on this next slide, Rich's team was helpful enough to prepare this rendering, which shows the difference in the massing. So that 35 foot height reduction is over a third of a height reduction over what was originally proposed. And you can see here that is a pretty big visual reduction when viewed from the bull and park site. And I do want to talk a little bit about the environmental mitigation commissioner combs you rightly pointed out that while the comp plan does make the health of the loud and counties water ways an issue of consideration, these wetlands and streams, many of which are not perennial but are in fact intermittent, so they're only there when water is there. Are governed by state and federal agencies with regulations about how they can be impacted, and making sure that applicants are mitigating those in ways that are environmentally sound. We've worked really closely with our environmental consultants, and are very comfortable and confident that these will be permitted to be impacted and that the mitigations will be part of the overall storm water and water management plan for the property. We'll also be doing some additional enhancements to storm water as part of the construction of Cochran Mill Road and the improvements to Cochrane Mill Road. So we're already looking at this site really holistically and we're anticipating that all of that water will then be outflowed into the creek as it's naturally occurring right now. I also wanted to bring up that we are doing additional environmental mitigations that do protect loud and counties waterways. So this comment and staff is right to bring it up because it is an issue for consideration. Does address the overall health of Loudoun's waterways. So we're doing a lot of things that do address the health of waterways. We are committed to enhanced E and S measures here. We're treating the creek as if it is a drinking reservoir to protect the health. We have removed the scenic creek valley buffer encroachment request and then we're including approximately 22 combined acres of tree conservation area and reforestation area and then the reforestation area didn't show up terribly well here but it's in this area of the flood plain where there isn't currently vegetation. So we're adding that reforestation in an area where it's going to do the most for creek health. And then we're also committed to LID measures and removal of 85% of required phosphorus on site before we purchase any off site credits. So I want to thank you very much for your time this evening. We are very proud of this application and we want to thank staff and Allison in particular for working really collaboratively with us. We think that this is a much stronger application than came to you in the fall. And we're very happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you, Erin. Any questions from staff? Mr. Barnes? I'm sorry, Mr. Barnes. Yes, I do. Last time I talked to you, we were talking about the generator being on the ground. So you're still putting it on the ground, the generator. They are, but they're going to be appropriately screened away from, so if going back to the, so here in the center of the property commissioner barns, this is where all of the generator and mechanical equipment yards are going to be, so they're actually shielded from surrounding properties by the buildings. So it's not going to be on the top of the building? No. And that actually helps sound not carried quite as far if they're down on the ground because they're not high up to others. But what I don't like, you said that actually the building is 60 feet. But go ahead, sorry. 60 feet if you keep it it at that 60 feet, that makes me very happy. So if you keep instead of 70, if you keep it 60, that will be pretty good for all of us here. Sure. So and I understand that. And I want to just clarify why we're asking for 70 as opposed to that 63. So the additional 7 feet isn't to add additional floor space to the building. It's because we are using a parapet wall that's above that 60 foot building. I understand what it is. But if that wall wasn't there, did you have to put that wall? We do because that's how we're helping to screen rooftop equipment so not our generators, but the mechanical equipment that goes on the roof. That's part of our screening. So it is necessary for the building. And I also wanted to note that we do have a particular end user in mind. So we've gone back to that end user with the commission's input on height. So we are committed to particular elevations and we're not doing this just based on spec. Okay, I have another suggestion. If you put the front building, the front right on the road, the 60 feet. And then you can do the back one behind it that you're putting the building at 70. So at least they will take away some of the height thing right at the road, you know. So it will make it better looking than you. You can do the second one, and keep the front one 60. I understand and I wish we could accommodate that, but unfortunately what we've been told is necessary for the end user is to have that screen wall be at 70 feet. So I understand and unfortunately we're just not able to commit to that this evening. You can't do that. I can't commit to that this evening. A lot of things we can't do either, you know, that's what I'm saying. But if you can do that, that would be very nice. You know, it will make me change my mind quite a bit. Understood. Yeah, okay. I need other questions, Mr. Pullen-Miers? Um, two. So, talk to us a little bit about the area where staff was talking about in the front where they were wanting to see more buffering. Sure. And why you, um, you're not doing it or what you are doing. Sure. Um, so I'm going to go back, uh, or just a couple of slides and then I've got a, a kind of overflow slide that shows kind of the distance and what's in between there. And I think that might be the graphic that you're referring to. So. of slides and then I've got a kind of overflow slide that shows kind of the distance and what's in between there. And I think that might be the graphic that you're referring to. So we are doing, you know, a landscape buffer and a six foot berm here. And this is the site line exhibit that we just saw. And then I'm going to just flip forward. Pardon me. And so this is the graphic I think you were talking about. And I apologize it's not showing up terribly well on the big screen. But we are, if you look down here, 644 feet from the face of the data center. And this is to the outfield fence on Bollampark. So part of the reason that we are not doing the enhanced buffering along the frontage with the ball fields is that we're simply a lot further away. By the time you get up to where we were actually showing views from, you're closer to 750 feet. If you get back towards the parking lot, you're about 1600 feet away. I don't know if you had any additional engineering constraints that you wanted to talk about here. So this bus up to exactly where we're talking about building one and two are correct? Yes. I just want to clarify for the record. Okay. You can go back to the plan view. Thank you. So the second part of it, one, is when we were figuring out how to mitigate impacts and having conversations with staff, the concern was about adjacent uses as Aaron alluded to. On the north side of the site, so page left here is the DC United Practice Facility. That facility is obviously closer than those fields that we just showed. And it's that area where we're proposing a 60 foot buffer, which is triple the zoning ordinance lengths, and we're doubling the plant quantities and installing a 10 foot burn. So by pretty much all objective measures, we are proposing an enhanced buffer that doubles in triples to different metrics, the zoning ordinance requirement of the recently adopted zoning ordinance, even though we're not subject to that. The area to the south, along Stonewater Lane where we have a substation, the same thing, we, you know, substations get a lot of discussion here about how they're screened. We have the 12 foot Mason re-wall. We are opaque screenwall. We have that same 60 foot buffer to that mirrors all those same planting quantities. That center piece in front of buildings 1 and 2, we don't, and it's for two reasons. One is if we're looking at really what are we mitigating against its ball fields that are 700 plus feet away. in between that is the zoning ordinance required buffer along the roadway. Existing vegetation on the west side of Cochraneville, the transmission lines that exist now and then ultimately those fields where there's really two fields. It's not until you get to be on 1100 feet away where there's another two fields. So that's reason number one. We're not really mitigating against a use that's directly adjacent. The second piece is if you look, there's a little floodplain finger kind of in the center of the site and that's a pinch point, right? It's pretty obvious graphically here and in order to do a lot of those things in the comp plan goals for water protection and other and all the other items maintaining the scenic creek valley buffer, the 50 foot management buffer, the tree forest station, all of those things that layer on one another. It creates a little bit of a pinch point. And because we have an end user with real plans that are being able to thought through and this is not speculative, we know that to just arbitrarily increase that buffer from the 20 feet that we're proposing to 60 feet, puts us in a pinch point where now all of a sudden we have some real engineering challenges. There may be to be walls installed that are not as environmentally friendly as we would like. There's other ramifications to an arbitrary addition of 40 feet of buffer width there because of that environmental pinch point which may make us so that we're now no longer as environmentally friendly as we really want to be with a lot of the other commitments. So for those two reasons, we feel pretty well justified that we're mitigating our impacts where there's uses directly at Jason with those enhanced buffers. And that one stretch along Cockromole Road, the zoning ordinance required buffer for data center uses specifically. It's in the data center use specific standards is applicable because it's been drafted by code and when you consider all those factors across the street, we feel that it's justified for the screening for the data center uses. Can I just ask one more? Sure. Erin, going back to adds request. This is a way in the wording that it could be that it's only, and I'm not that the height of the interior of the building is 63, 63 feet high. And then the additional spaces for things going on top of the roof. Sorry, I was listening and I was also conferring with Anthony who's the boss on this. So I think what you're asking is could we commit to the overall high and the flat roof height? We'd be happy to commit to the 63th foot flat roof height. That gets ad back where he went to. That would make it 660 feet. 63, but yes, I would be, 63 feet with a 7 foot parapet. 63. So what we're discussing commissioner Barnes is us clarifying in the proper statement that the flat roof will be 63 feet which is what the user has called for and that the additional height is only going to be for screening in parapet so that you're assured that the flat building roof is going to be where we say it is. No, 163 feet. But you're going to add the wall to it, then that will make it 70. We do need the parapet, yes. That is something that we need. That's just a screen wall. I don't know what that is. Okay, once everyone first. Thank you. You finished Bill. Okay. Eric was up. Eric from the Elk and the Year on. Okay, thank you. Back to the stream issue, I asked staff now. And Aaron, you had some helpful detail in your presentation. I'm wondering, Rich, if you can speak more to the process, right? Where you've got a CDP that's showing a building envelope that is overlaid where there are these occurring stream channels. You're going to go get a grading permit. You're going to submit a site plan. You're going to have to get Army Corps approval. Like, can you just walk us through how that works? So how, if this CDP is approved, how then it will be accommodated With redirecting the water flows and getting the approval and then getting that into your grading permit and site plan. Sure. So at a very high level there's a lot of different categories of both wetlands, streams, and the other environmental features that are governed by DEQ And ultimately the core, right? And animals every development project now in loud and you're having to do it. Wetlands report, get a jurisdiction of determination, understand what kind of impacts you may have and get a permit for that. There's different thresholds of permit depending on how much impacts you actually have, whether it's a general permit, an individual permit, etc. Waters of the U.S. streams are governed similarly through DEQ and's a lot of, again, variables about what kind of quality those streams are. Perennial streams, which are essentially the wet kind of at all times, intermittent streams, which are really only wet when it rains. The streams that are depicted there are all intermittent until they converge essentially in and around the floodplain. So they are dry, basically drainage swales, unless there's a rain event, right? That falls into essentially a lower permitting risk, lower permitting category at the DEQ level. To get, typically, on something like this, you would evaluate it all holistically with those waters and the wetlands. You would go to the core, after your JD, you'd show your impacts, you'd show different ways you tried to mitigate to still obtain the same development program. They say, yeah, how about this? And they work with, literally, will work with you, the core to say, hey, can you push this a little bit this way? If you could save this piece of the wetland, this specific 10-foot stretch is more valuable to us and this 30-foot stretch over here because of quality, because of you know the water that is capturing where it's outfalling, all these different nuances that are very detailed, and that's where that give and take comes during the engineering wetland permitting process. So again, it's all kind of very much in flux when you're doing that final engineering. But the reality is it's governed at a state and federal level, right, where we've had these conversations before. It's certainly relevant when we look at how we are, oh, well, let me go back once more piece. Since there is water, there's stormwater requirements that are extremely stringent in the state of Virginia. So every development application that comes forward with a site plan has to meet the Virginia stormwater requirements. So that's for quantity, detention, and treatment, and all of that water that's falling through those drainage swales, essentially those intermin streams. That's part of all that calculations. And so the water that's typically falling down those creeks, if it has to be diverted into other stormwater, where we must treat to certain levels, you know, certain criteria, and we must release it to certain criteria, which can't exceed the current existing conditions release rate. So the thing about stormwater is, by all measurable metrics, when you've installed a stormwater system, you are better than you were in an underdeveloped condition, because you are treating and you are releasing slower, less erosion, et cetera. That will happen here that happens on all applications. And so the hard part with an application here is, yeah, there's drainage soils, there's intermittent streams. There's intermittent streams and drain and soils on most properties that are developed. And there's a permit process that we all go through at all times, which is, you know, what we're all comfortable with. At the legislative level, it's hard to, all we can really do is take all the checkless boxes of how can we protect water quality and how can we meet the goals of the comp plan. And on this site, yes, we're impacting those intermittent streams. We're doing a lot of other things with the reforror station on site, the tree save on site. I think we have about 21% of the site in either tree save or reforror station over a course of a 97 acre site. So we're doing all the things that we know we can control at the county level and then we know that we have with environmental consultants and history and experience, we know what the process will be for permitting those, the impacts to those streams and to those wetlands later on down the road and that's's well-regulated, well-governed by other authorities. Does that answer your question? I was- I think it does. Can I ask him to follow up real quickly? So given all of that, Rich, and staff has identified this risk that maybe your CDP is going to have to change in light of those, right? In light of getting the discretion to get those approvals. And if you don't get them, is there a risk in your mind having better understanding this process than we do? Is there a risk in your mind that your CDP will change as you go to get those DEQ and core approvals? Sure. The wetlands here are such and the intermittent stream quality is such that in my opinion, the risk is extremely low. Anytime you're going to ask for permit, there is a risk, right? But I'd also say that that's not necessarily, I don't know that that's the county's purview. We're evaluating how we comply with the goals of the comp plan, mitigation of surrounding properties, current zoning standards, et cetera. And if the final engineering and design, and all that back and with the core and the other NDQ is such that they don't grant us a permit, that's sort of our applicant's risk. And we would be subject to have to come back and amend the CDP. But the straight answer to the question is the risk is extremely low that this CDP is in jeopardy of a denial of a permit to build as shown. Okay. It's helpful. Thank you, Marsha. Thank you, and I'm sorry. Can I follow up? And I'm asked to see because we're in work session. I'm going to be cynical about it. Is there some pressure? Once this is approved, and you take this to get your permit, is there some pressure on on the DEQ and the court to agree to this plan because it's already been now Yeah, they they're agnostic to whether this is a legislatively approved project by right project or otherwise They don't even know I do mean I mean if you're just snarky. I'm just sometimes we do run it sometimes where hey This has already gone through a legislative process. It's pretty much a done deal But if they they're agnostic to it, they represent the policy. No, I mean, in some complicated permits, you have to show multiple options of how your iterations of your layout, how you got to what you're presenting with final engineering. And those can be literally dozens of other options. And so, and the truth is, most legislative applications, including this one, has gone through those iterations already. So you're not faking it. It's like, hey, this is what we've kind of gone through, and this is what works best. And here's why we did this, this, and this. You all see sort of the little 10 minute presentation, but we've been, we've been, we submitted two and a half years ago, and that kind of history of the project will be captured back to the core about all the decisions that led up to this and that's all considered when they're evaluating permit. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jasper. So thank you, and I'm going to follow on with Commissioner Cums and ask you to educate me a little bit. In particular, you've mentioned, and I'm really interested in the tree conservation area and the role of that reforestation and tree conservation area in mitigating the impacts of, you know, run off from more impervious surface, et cetera. And when I look at the proper statement, I see that, you know, for example, there are no specified tree calipers in the proper statement. And then when I look at the, what you'll do if there's damage to trees in the tree conservation area, you So for every tree damage, you'll replace it with two trees of a one inch caliper. You know, my understanding is that older trees, you know, larger, more mature trees have a tremendously greater uptake of stormwater than, you know, something like a one inch caliper. I always worry with these little twigs that get pointed. Will they planted, will they survive, et cetera? I'm wondering, have you run into regulatory agencies that have a higher requirement on replanting or if you're kind of using some of your planting as an offset to your runoff. Do they allow you a greater allowance if you plant larger tree and could it be beneficial? You can do so. I'm going to start just with the proper portion and then I will turn it over to the person who is actually the expert on the technical parts of your question. So any time that we're doing reforestation, I just wanna point out the area that we're reforesting right now, doesn't have any trees in it at all. So we're not anticipating that we're removing trees and then reforesting. So all of that is reviewed by the county and there's like a reforestation plan that happens at the time of site site plan. That gets reviewed again during site plan and the county gets another chance to review it. The same happens with that tree conservation proper. First of all, we're using the county's typical template language for that. It's the language that NRT is really comfortable with. If there are trees that are damaged during the process and we're not anticipating that and part of the reason that we're respecting the risk and the scenic rig valley buffer is that we don't want that to happen either. NRT still reviews what we're doing there. And so that's kind of the minimum standard, right? And then if there are impacts of that tree conservation area, it's a meeting and a discussion between the applicant and staff on how best to address it. Sorry. And then. Sure. So your question, like in summary, your questions were how does, how does Loudon's standards align with other jurisdictions and similarly? So yeah. Sure. I mean Loudon is, I guess to answer the first part of your question are Reforestation proper commitments and our tree-save proper Proffer commitments are all consistent with county language the Reforestation is actually defined in the FSM the facility standards manual so You could we could argue all the nuances of the size of trees and everything that's but but that's the requirements and that's accepted, you know, from both industry and, and county staff. Tree-saved, the two-for-one planting on any just, two-for-one tree planting on any that are disturbed by accident is consistent with other jurisdictions and sort of industry practice. Are there other jurisdictions that ask for three-for-one maybe? But in the reality, as a Amalansky Architect, in reality, quantity isn't always necessarily better, you can choke things out. So even sometimes, we've had a lot of discussions over my career here about, hey, are these debuffers actually too dense for to encourage a successful, mature growth pattern? And I think in the tree conservation areas, in the tree-save areas, damage. It's a catch all to sort of incentivize extra the owner. Don't cut these down because you're going to have to find a way to put two for one in. It's not as much a scientific this is going to be better if you disturb it. It's like listen, it's going to get really expensive if you accidentally carve off you know 200 square feet of this tree stand because because you're going to have to figure out how to put twice as many trees in now. Does that make sense? It does, but it's not really what I was driving at. It's absolutely clear to me that two for one is not a benefit if you're replacing a mature tree with two 1-inch twigs. And there are jurisdictions that actually have significant financial penalties. That really also incentivizes a developer not to buy accident or an under construction company, not to buy accident, you know, to be more protective of trees. So that was kind of the direction, what was were there places, not that wanted. I wasn't implying that three would be better than one. I was actually asking the question, would one mature be better than two or one more mature? So anyway, sorry, it's down the rabbit hole and I won't. The only other thing that I'll say from a purely legal perspective is that if county staff determined as we were, it's God forbid something happens and we need to actually address this proper. There's a provision in all of the proper statements that gives the zoning administrator the ability to make amendments to proffers should there be engineering concerns or again should the county determine that hey I know it says two for one but we'd really rather you do one for one and here's why. There is that flexibility at the time of site plan or God forbid something should happen. Okay. Thank you. Of course. Mr. Frank. Thank you. Two kind of where I was going with staff earlier that break in the enhanced buffer right along Cochrane, Mill Road. Sounds like so we have 60 feet in the two enhanced areas. We have 20 feet along that road for an inch. Yes, that's accurate. I understand you don't want to go to 60 feet. Can you put a berm in that 20 feet? There is a berm in that 20 feet. There is a berm in that 20 feet. There's a two. I'm sorry. There is a berm in there, okay. Yes. So what makes it enhanced is the 60 feet back and additional plantings, which only work because you have an extra 40 feet? Correct. But the berming also makes the 20 foot buffer enhanced over what is required in the revised 1993 zoning ordinance. So that is an addition that we weren't required to put in, but that we think is a good addition in response to both commission comments and staff comments. I would, my highly technical super easy to measure term of softening, which you guys have heard. You know, adjacent uses is not just the buildings nearby. It's the corridor that people are driving down. And we often are very dismissive of, well, that's a road there. It's a road there. It's a road there that's filled with not just our residents, but visitors who are coming in and out of those facilities and parks. This is what they get to see of Loudon. So I do think it needs to be held to a higher standard. And in part, I know it may seem like it doesn't fit, but that ground view can soften the extra height. So I mean, I don't know what the magic number is if there's another. I'd like to see that closer, I know it can't get to 60. But if we're going to keep those buildings tall, I'd like to see that buffer there, right street side, look a little more like the buffer on the two ends of the proposal. I don't know, I'm just going to- I'm not interested. I do think, and again, I'm just going to go back to these simulations. This is the- I don't know if you have additional thoughts there. You know the the buffers that are 60 feet wide where we have more plant quantity not triple It's a triple width, but buffers that are 60 feet wide, where we have more plant quantity, not triple. It's a triple width, but we're not tripling it for the same reasons, like not really sure, professionally that tripling the plant quantities is gonna make for a healthier, better buffer. We're doubling the plant quantity. So yeah, that's fantastic. If we had the room to do it here, And there was direct users are right across the street. We would have done it. But the environmental considerations that we've been discussing with staff throughout the length of this application creates commitments on the rear which are saving trees not accidentally cutting down the trees, staying out of the buffers, creating ample environmental setbacks from the risk here. Hold on, I understand that and I mentioned that on our call that I don't want you to push back. What I'd like you to do is cut 10 feet off the front of the buildings. That's where I want you to find the space for the buffer. I understand the risk, I don't want you to push back farther into that. So, if you can't, you can't, but that's what I'm asking. Because we talked about that on the call and I get that but that's not what Yeah, I think when we went through the to reduce 800,000 square five whatever it was 600,000 square feet of Building from the vertical piece. Yeah, that kind of limits I think the applicants ability to to shrink the footprint of further so Okay more so well over 48 foot threshold that Is what we would have rather seen here here So it's we're trying to find that balance. That's nice offening. So Thanks This whole question about buffering has I thought I understood it, but now let me let me just clarify So this this middle port so we're talking about enhanced buffering on each end, but then the middle portion of the buffering is still above the minimum that's required under the ordinance, correct? Yes, and part of the reason, and perhaps what we should do is relabel things on the CDP to make note of that. And if that's your suggestion, it is well taken and we can absolutely make that change with our next submission. Part of the reason that we tried to leave things when we wanted to make staffs review easier. So we didn't want to go through and do comprehensive relabeling of things. And the buffers are, sorry, the Birmingham is a relatively new addition to that buffer. And is in response not just to staff comment, but to commission feedback that we got at the last hearing. Yeah, I think that that would be clarifying for the public certainly. I mean, I had heard this before, but then as we began discussing it, I thought I had not heard what I had heard. So what we have here is already in the middle enhanced buffering, and then on the ends, even more enhanced buffering. But I think you should just make that clear that what you're doing is meeting the minimum standard plus in the middle. I want to clarify, that's not true. Well, the data center performance standards in the revised 93, which were under require, all along the road, a 20 foot type 3 buffer with a 6 foot burn. They do not for the GI zoning district that we're going to. It's data center standards, it's all. No, if you look in the data center standards, it doesn't require it for GI. That's why we didn't have that. The only ordinance is confusing. Yes. Yes. So correct. So just to clarify, under the revised 1993 in OP and IP, you were required to have this buffer plus a six foot berm. For the GI zoning district, you were required to have this buffer without the berm. So the berm is an enhancement. Now this is also consistent with what is in the new zoning ordinance in the data center standards for, you know, under the updated zoning ordinance that was adopted in 2023. None of that I asked you to clarify back off because I don't think clarifying it will clarify it. So we will do a better job though of clarifying what exactly the commitments are in each of those areas. I think that's a fair criticism. All right. Okay. Sure. Awesome, good. It is required. The six foot berm is required as part of the type three road corridor buffer here for this use. No. It doesn't distinguish the zoning district. Then I apologize. That was inadvertent and I did not mean to misdate. Thank you for correcting me, Allison. Thanks. Richie be like. Come on, Zach. Okay. I'd like to just run a little, Chair Kierst does not have any comments. I'd like to just run a little bit long because it was very informative and educational, I think, for everybody to understate a good handle on all of this. Are there any final questions or comments for staff or the applicant about some of the, he has nothing to say, I asked already. Are there any other comments or clarifications with staff or applicant to better understand the complexity of what we just discussed today? Can we just see the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, one of the slides that you put up under the existing, what it looks like today. The existing conditions? Yes. Because I think it's kind of important. This one right here? No, you had a picture of looking at the ball fill where you could actually see. Oh, yes. What it really looks like today. Yeah, this one right here. Right. Yes. So you can't really see that well, but like I went out there and I mean today when you stand there, you can see the activity and it's higher than even the buildings that you guys are talking about that you're putting there of the conveyor belts and all that stuff that's out there. So what's out there today is actually kind of more intrusive of looks of going around than what you're actually proposing. Is that it's higher in height than either the hundred or the 70 foot that you're now wanting to go to. Is that correct? Yeah, so I don't offhand have the actual building height for any of those things, but there is a slope upward. So between this view and the view of the Luxdon Quarry property, there's a slope up from the creek. So you are at a higher elevation. So yes, visually it would appear taller. Yes. I don't know if, like from the ground. When I looked out there, it looks like it's already over 100 feet that the height of the stuff that's going on out there. So it looks like to me, we're going to actually get facades that are lower than what we're looking at today when you stand on that ball field. Yes, visually. Visually. Visually. Visually, yes. Visually, yes. Right. Rather than, right. because that equipment can be 120 feet and higher for core equipment. So. Right. Okay. Thank you for clarifying. All right. Mr. Barnes, this is Lee's work district. You have a motion? Yes, I do. In light of changes you have made and you said the building is 60 feet beside This is 63, yes. 63. Okay and berms and everything that changes you made, I'll make a motion. I moved that planning commission forward. LEGI 2023 0060, Luxstone, Cochrane, Mell Z, ZMAP, 2023 0060 Lexton, Cochrane-Mail Z-Map, 2023 001, and Z-Mod, 2023 001 to the board of supervisors with the recommendation of approval, subject to the proper statement March 25, 2025, the conditions of approval dated 26, March 26, 20, 25 and based upon the 20, 25, oh, this didn't keep changing on me. Based upon the findings of approval provided by attachment one, 10 and nine, to April 10th, 2025, planning commission work session memorandum. Second. Motion made by commissioner Barnes, seconded by commissioner Combs, Mr. Barnes, you have an opening. No, I think they have made quite a few changes in it, so I'm not very happy, but that's what we have. Okay. And I think it's much better than it used to be. Okay. Others, Mr. Combs. Thank you. Yeah, I'm happy to support this one, so I seconded it. We're going from one of our most intensive uses with the Mr. High Zone in district to a less intensive use. With a data center, that's going to be lower in building height than anything allowed by right. At least the maximum allowed by right in the Mr. High. The applicant has done quite a bit to further improve the application from where we were at public hearing. And truth be told, I was comfortable with it at public hearing. There aren't a lot of impacts that need to be mitigated here. I think we've vetted this environmental impact pretty well. I think we need to trust in our DEQ and core process. As well as your storm water improvements, your reforistation, your tree save all of these things that are I think going to improve what's on the ground there right now in terms of these intermittent stream channels. So I'm pleased with the application with the reduced building height. You didn't decrease the setbacks where they were with the 105 foot building height. You've removed some of the mods, you've enhanced the buffering, and again the tree save in the reforestation. So it's an application I'd be happy to support. I think I want to thank the applicant and staff for bringing us a better application than we saw at public Hearing, although I think a lot of it was necessarily called for. But that's just my opinion. Others comments? Mr. Kier, do you have any comments on the motion? No, I'll be supporting the motion. I'm very comfortable particularly with these revisions to the application. It would be much more compatible there. As we've seen that area developed, it's turned into kind of another mini data center alley. But again, it's an appropriate place. No, we're near residential, you know, and other similar type uses along that corridor. Plus, we get, you know, it wasn't mentioning it tonight, but the fact that they're paving topper and mill road is another huge stretch of road that the county doesn't have to pay to upgrade. So that's another big plus for this application. Thank you. Thank you. And I'll just say that, oh, I Commissioner Cures is in Chicago right now. He happens to be in the city that has, Here we are talking about 70-foot tall buildings overlooking baseball fields, and he's in the city that has, here we are talking about 70-foot tall buildings overlooking baseball fields and he's in a city that is renowned for the most famous seats in any baseball stadium being on top of a 70-foot building overlooking a baseball stadium. So it's quite the contrast of what you deal with in different cities and different times. Mr. Barnes, you have a closing. Okay, with that we'll call for a vote. All those in favor. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. Any abstentions? One, so that motion carries 611 with Ms. Frank opposed, Ms. Jasper of Staining and Mr. Monter ready absent. Thank you, and that concludes the legislative portion of our evening. As the staff and the applicants make their way, we Brian will join us down at the table and we will move into our administrative items. If anyone needs to take a quick breather, use the restroom or get a snack, please go ahead. I'll be doing our briefings first. Martianzka. Sorry if you first. Correct, correct. I apologize. You guys can go. Marchion has to stay. Okay. It's not an old apologize. Okay. Most of you have been approached about the, whoa, it's loud. The general plan C-PAM or the cleanup C-PAM. We're trying to do some immediate resolution of issues that have come up during the last couple years of implementation. Rebecca King, who is the project manager, has reached out to a number of you. I believe she said she has four meetings set up out of the seven of you. Four out of seven, breathing seven, schedule. Okay, so overall, talk about house cleaning, house cleanup, addressing any issues that came out of the zoning ordinance rewrite. Also, the board has talked about suburban compact neighborhood criteria that needed to be updated, especially with the unman housing needs. Also proper expectations for attainable housing. This is where attainable housing was being excluded from the capital facility impact. Makes sense. And then, Commissioner Polamiers, this also addresses building height. Stories versus height. So that is going to be applied to all the planning playstipes. So what she wanted- Our own hard part. But we're tired of talking about it too. But what she wanted me to emphasize, it does not change land use mix. does not change land densities, and does not change the mapping of the playstypes. So I want to emphasize that. So the staff report is listing by chapter each of the suggested edits. You'll have the detailed explanation. So happy to take any questions that you have now so that they can be prepared at the hearing. Otherwise the report will come out soon and you'll have that detail. That analysis. The strength. So the board initiative last summer didn't allow for them to address the mapping of place types. I will ask. I just curious why it doesn't do that if that was because the board initiative doesn't allow it or is because we just didn't do it. Okay, I can ask. Because I'd like to do it. Okay. And I have a briefing with her on Monday. Okay. It's bull and mars. The process for this, is it allowable, because it looks like we're open up almost all the chapters of this document. Is it going to be allowable? Somebody comes in with another idea that they want to do in those channels that we're going to be able to also look at that while we're doing this or we restrict it to only what staff's presenting. I think the intent was to do the low hanging fruit by this plan amendment, but if the commission wants to add to it, that's certainly- So we do have flexibility unlike when we were doing the data center no offense. But we do have the flexibility with this. If somebody comes in and says, I'd like you to consider this in this particular chapter of the general plan, we can actually add that as part of a review that we're doing without having to worry about. We have not able to do it because it wasn't advertised a certain way or something. Let me ask Rebecca about that. I understand it to be that way, but I'll ask Rebecca to confirm that. I think obviously we're trying to keep it narrowed so the more that you add to it, the longer it is to it, but I do not remember a limitation on- I just want to understand the guidelines. Yes, the guardrails. Yes. Yes. Yes. I could ask about the guardrail. Okay. Any other questions? Next. Okay, this is Jesse Cork. Most of you may know this is the recreation center on 28 with the volleyball courts. This is the pre-top golf before top golf. Driving range. There you is 22 acres. They're wanting to convert to the newest zoning ordinance. There's a zoning conversion on the new zoning ordinance. They are also wanting to expand the equipment sales and service. Associated, I just forgot the name of the use that's just above it. There's an existing- Catepillar dealer. Catepillar dealer, yes, with all their displays on the hills you drive up. They're wishing to expand that use onto this property. So that requires a special exception under the IP district under the zoning ordinance. So this is a graphic representation of it. There's a significant amount of environmental resources on the property on the southern ends, which will not be encroached. The limits of development are more or less around this red risk or buffer. This is the footprint of the proposed expansion, which is about 210,000 square feet. It would also be about 60,000 square feet of outdoor storage and display. And they're going to reuse the parking already associated with the rec center to serve this property. This would not exclusively be limited to this use. They are asking you to go to the IP district. So if they either discontinue this use or do we forward this use, they can fall back to the IP uses under the zoning ordinance, which would allow data center. But that data center would require a special exception. And there's other uses that they've excluded that will be listed in the staff report. So. Any questions from our shot? Okay, next. And lastly, this is the applications that have not come back to you since you've heard them. Hidden wood will be back to you on May 8th. Okay, that's all I had. Okay. Yes ma'am. Your May is going to be busy. So enjoy that. A lot of the hait is. Is there a schedule that's planned for work sessions for the general plan thing? Not yet. Not yet. Not yet. I mean, do we think it's like three meetings, four meetings? Do we have any concept? We want staff to dance with the ideas. What we're going to need to do. I think when Cliff is back, we'll go and Brian and figure that out. Okay. Right now the project plan has board adoption in summertime, but it's probably going to be the fall. That's the goal right now is summer of this year, but we anticipate it going to the board in the fall. Okay, so now we are going to, I'm sorry, one second. We're going to go back, Cliff had a question. Marsian, they're going to wear a cliff. You there? The Jesse Court. You said what is the current, is it in the 93 ordinance that it's governed by right now? Which Jesse Court? 72, IPN under the 72. The IP under the 72 and they want to go to IP under the current ordinance. Yes, sir. Okay. Okay. All right. Yeah. And that does so the current ordinance that they're under does not allow data center, but the existing ordinance that are now does not, but the if they would go to the current zoning ordinance and data center would be allowed via special exception, correct? Correct. Right. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Marshaunt. Now we are going to move into administrative portion where we're going to be discussing bylaws. way this will work, Brian will bring up each change that has been proposed. Then I will ask the maker of that or suggest the change to comment on that. On some of these, Brian will then comment in response. And after Brian's comment, if there is any, I will move to the remaining commissioners to have any questions or comments that they may have. If any of the commissioners have other comments or questions about that change in the by law, then I will also move back to the originator of the by law change for a de facto closing. At which time, if there is no comments, then we will skip the closing and go straight to a vote. The votes on the bylaw changes are a two thirds majority. So even though there are only eight present that still is six to pass a change to the bylaw. We will vote on each of these individually, and then at the end, those that have passed and those that have not will be reported up to the board. By voting on them individually in a formal fashion rather than a straw poll that will not require us at the end to have a vote on the total package. We will just be able to vote individually as we move through. And once we are done with that, we will send us up to the board and then they will consider it as part of their legislative process for our bylaw changes. With that, Ryan. Let's get her started. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Acting Chair. The only other point to make here is that we did discuss many of these changes last month. The changes that are highlighted in yellow are new, and those are the ones that I plan to bring up tonight. So the first two changes here are related. They both pertain to the annual report. The first change was submitted by Commissioner Myers and this has to do with a revision to allow the annual report to explicitly include recommendations on improvements to the land development application review process. So I would ask. Mr. Myers. Can you show me. I have a full of comments. I would further explain your rationale. I mean, it kind of, C and D kind of go together in all honesty. But the whole idea is that if you read the code and you read the way the boards flow and other planning commissions, The annual report is supposed to be a report from the actual planning commission not a roll call or an attendance record of the last year of our meetings. And that's if you read the one report that I've seen that we did, it basically said here's the applications we had and then here's the people that attended. It didn't make any real recommendations as to do we think this could have been done better. You know, when we've all talked about things that we wish the board would look at. But there was no, but there's nothing in those reports because they've just been prepared by staff that have that. So I think this is an opportunity, and I go back to this because again, Flintstone days when I was on the Planning Commission, this was one of the things that we really kind of took the time and we'd make notes about as the year was going on about, if I could do this again, I would suggest the board we do it this way or that way. And that gives us the opportunity to have a session to say, hey, when we send this to the board, it's not just a roll call vote again of who attended and who didn't. But here's fundamental things that we think could be better. Like the data center and having more time with it or having a meeting before it went to public hearing. Things like that that we could then make that recommendation to the board. So I think it's productive for both ends. Brian, do you have comments on this one or not? Okay. Anyone up here on the day us with comments or questions about this particular item? Mr. Kiers, anything? On it. Okay. Given that, I will ask for us to vote on inclusion of this change to the bylaws, all those in favor? Aye. Any Mr. Kieres? I'm an aye. Okay, motion carries unanimously. With Mr. Moderity absent, 8-0-1. Okay, next. Okay, the next change is paragraph D, right below that one. This was submitted by Commissioner Jasper, and it's pretty much saying something similar. Would you like to explain this change? Yes, Jas Yeah. So this one isn't wouldn't exclusively apply as Commissioner Myers does to land development application review process, but it could include additional content and recommendations. Specifically, this is lifted directly from the code language. There's no daylight between what's in the code and this language, so it was really an attempt to ensure that our bylaws were consistent with what's our obligations under the code. Ryan? No comments? Okay. Any comments from the member of the commission? Mr. Kieres. My question, the way it's written, it sounds like it could end up being a fairly laborious process in that it says that commission will review and decide what goes in. I just think it could end up being several more meetings or hours of time just to decide what we're going to put in the report. So that's my only concern. It just sounds like it could be a more time-consuming process. Now it does make more case that every member of the commission wants to be involved in the putting together that annual report as opposed to reviewing it and then providing comments kind of how it's done now, then this would probably be the way to go. Mr. Jasper. I'm sorry, do you guys have comments on this one? Yeah, I did. Okay, they'll go ahead. I mean, I agree with Commissioner Jasper. I mean, this is directly out of the state code. all it's doing is re-emphasizing in here what we're already supposed to be doing. I think secondly, it's important for the entire commission to have a voice in what the annual report says and in recommendations, not a couple people or whatever. So, you know, even to do the other, the C, it's going to take us all meeting to make that decision. So, all it's saying is that we're going to have a work session to do this and then we're going to have a report that we've reviewed and then we're going to pass that on to the board, which is really what we should be doing. So, I would support her motion. Mr. Frank. Okay. Okay, Mr. Jasper, back to you for any further hints? It'll only take it, it only wind up taking a long time if we make it take a long time, so I'm. Okay, yeah, famous last words. Okay, we will, the discussion is finished, we'll take a vote. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Mr. Keir? You're a nay? Okay. That motion will pass 7-1-1 with Mr. Keir supposed and Mr. Monaretty absent. Okay. Okay. The next change is on page three. This was submitted by Commissioner Jasper. This is eliminating a paragraph in Section B5, or a portion of a paragraph in Section B5. Commissioner Jasper, would you like to explain? Yeah. Sure. This was really just an effort to conform what's in the bylaws to our actual practice. It is not the chair who recommends stuff go to work session. It's our practice since I've been on the commission that items are designated to work session by the entire commission. So that's only that paragraph that sentence is coming out just to put that in conformance with the actual practice. That's what we're doing now. Yeah, it is what we do now. Brian, do you have any comments here? No. Okay, I'll open up to the commission, Mr. Holmes. I read that sentence a little differently just as to say the chair has a responsibility in concert with staff to set the agendas for a hearing or work session. Not to decide whether an application that has been to public hearing should go to work session. Ms. Frank. I read it the same way and that's the way we practice it. I mean, as Commissioner Jackson pointed out, the commission will send it to designated it. It go to a work session, but which agenda and the management of that process has always been a leadership and staff collaboration. Along with applicants, I mean, there's a lot of missing mark moving pieces pardon me. I did interpret it very differently, I think than what's being intended. So, I'm not- Could clarifying language be helpful? Let's get through everybody's comments and we'll go back and finish it up. Do you have a comment anything? Okay. Mr. Kier, is there any comments on this particular motion? Or does that pick or follow change? No, I don't see a change because it just, I just, Commissioner Cohns and Frank, I read it the same way they interpreted it, which is, it isn't the chair and the leadership kind of just sit and determine, okay, what's going to work session this month and what's going to public hearing. That's what I think that refers to. Not the actual work once it's been to the commission and deciding whether something's going to work session or not. Okay, and I'm going to comment in that I to agree that I believe this is deals with scheduling and I believe that the schedule should rest with the staff and the chair to figure that out. To the degree that I actually in loathe anytime we make a motion to send something to the work session that we do with a specific work session date. Like I moved to send this to the March 12 work session because there could be 13 things on that work session. And it's up to the chair and the construction with staff to determine the flow of that. And just because an applicant wants to be at a particular work session doesn't mean that it's going to work that way. Because staff may have constraints that don't allow that to happen for any number of reasons. So that's why I would not support that change. Commissioner Jasper, back to you for a rebuttal response for everyone to call it. I mean, it seems not, I hear what you're all saying. It just doesn't seem to me like the language is 100% clear that that is in fact. I understand that that's what now hearing this is what you has been the practice clearly, I agree with that, and what's intended, but the plain language seems a bit muddled about it. Once it's been referred to the commission, the chair, in coordination with the director, schedules for hearing or work session. I mean, if you would save for a place on the hearing agenda or the work session agenda, I don't know. It says schedules such items and it's after the sentences says establish the commission's agenda. I don't think that it's confusingly vague now, I guess. Are you seeing some sort of ambiguity in the language of something being referred to the commission? No, I mean, no, I think. But I'm fine. Okay, we'll go ahead and take a vote. All those in favour? Are you withdrawing? Oh, are you withdrawing? Yeah. Okay, we will do it. Okay, we'm fine. Okay, we'll go ahead and take a vote. All those in favor. Are you withdrawing? Are you withdrawing? Yeah. Okay, we'll withdraw. Okay, my apologize. We'll withdraw that change. Okay. Okay, move on to A4C. The next change is C4. This would change the minimum packet delivery date from three days to five days. This was submitted by Commissioner Myers. Yeah, I mean, it really seems to be more of our real practice that we try to get them at least that. But I really don't want to be in a situation where I'm getting something on Monday for a Thursday public hearing or work session. It's just not enough time. So I just think we need to establish it that it's got to be five business days. So we have the time to review it. Ryan, I know you have comments on this. We do have a comment on this change. So we do strive to get the packets out one week in advance. And I think we fairly consistently make that schedule. The reason why we have some consternation with this change is because it would constrain us in an emergency. And we wouldn't want to be in a situation where we're not granted that grace period. Did there be a need for a supplemental packet or something like that? So if you're happy with the current timeline, we would not recommend making any changes. Okay, comments from the peanut gallery. Yeah, Well, one of my questions was, would this then apply to, sometimes we get supplemental things? I mean, I agree that we don't want to get in the habit of, you know, assuming people can turn it around in a business day or two, because that's not always reasonable. But I know there are times when we wouldn't have wanted to hold up an item or an entire meeting because of whatever the supplemental is and it kind of gives the chair and staff the ability to do that. The other thing is we actually utilize this at three days, a couple of times during the SOAR process because we were adding some committee meetings and trying to get things done and it would have pushed that process out and we probably would have missed getting the things of the board before summer and that was actually a really big initiative. So I mean if it be different if you guys are routinely delivering them in two to three days, but I feel like leaving it there as the exception, not the norm, to be less than, to be three, is I think it's a helpful tool just from my experience. And I hate having to turn things around quick because we don't all sit at our desk all day day waiting for things to show up in our inbox so. Mr. Holmes. I do recall there were instances when we were in Zora and there were materials coming at the commission from staff and a pretty rapid fire fire hose type of style. And admittedly, it was too much, I think, for most commissioners to digest. Myself included. I like the five day turn. I think staff does a really good job of it. I can acknowledge that there may be circumstances, maybe exigent circumstances, where maybe there needs to be because of a scheduling snafu or some application sensitivity it needs to turn quicker. So maybe it's something like we set this general rule of five business days prior to any meeting except in exigent circumstance where such shorter time period shall apply but in no event less than three business days in that circumstance. So maybe there's some way to set this baseline but then allow for that very rare circumstance where there needs to be flexibility. I don't want, I guess what I don't want to replicate is that circumstance we had during Zora where we were having subcommittee meetings on top of regularly scheduled meetings and then supplemental work sessions. And it was too much material, I think for staff to get out the door, but staff did it nonetheless. And that was a be careful what you wish for situation because it was just too much. So I think this could potentially give staff that breathing room that I think they sorely need and we all need. So I like the five business day but I acknowledge there may be a very rare circumstance where maybe three would be appropriate. So maybe we can just. Exactly. At the, you know, at the discretion of the chair or something added to that. Some children, right, something like that. That would work. That still gives us a tool in the incase of emergency. Yes, I think we ought to leave it like it is because they've been pretty good. It also depends about the staff availability. You know, sometimes they have a lot of things going on and they sometimes three days, but not many, many times I have never seen it but I generally get it about a week before you know and my information or agenda I get about you know in time and I don't want to tie their hands that they got to do it you know within Certain times. Yes. I think it's working pretty good. Yeah. Yes. Jasper. Um. They have hands that they got to do it within certain times. I think it's working pretty good. Yeah, yeah. Jasper. I would support Commissioner Cone's suggestion that we have a clause that the rule be five days, but we had a clause allowing shorter period under exigent circumstances. Mr. Kierce. I mean, to leave it as is, and mostly the letter that Judy Berkett had sent to us and explaining why, and that, you know, the three days would be for an extreme circumstance and might help avoid pushing an application to a future meeting. So I was satisfied with that response so I was fine with keeping it as it is. Okay, we'll go back to Ms. Myers for the original make her a big further comment. Well, I'm a little confused because if staffs tell them that they always try to get it out to us a week ahead of time and We're having this big huge discussion about how we think I think it's a big question. I'm a little confused because if staffs tell them they always try to get it out to us a week ahead of time. And we're having this big huge discussion about how we think five days is going to put, is going to make it too short or whatever. I'm confused as to why there's a debate if it's already really kind of an established part that we're getting at that time. So importantly number one, and I'm one of them that read the 108 pages or 300 pages, whatever it is when we get it. And the idea that I could be getting five or six things and have three days to read it is just not enough time. But more importantly, it's the public. I mean, the public's only going to get it that three days also. So to me, there's a public process that needs to be protected. So for people to not to for us to say that, you know, we think that three days is enough for us to say that, we think that three days is enough for us. It might be, but I don't think it's enough from people I've heard from the public. And I just think if we're already establishing it, where we already are getting them seven days, five business that days is the same thing as a week. Because the other two days are your Saturday and Sunday. So I don't have a problem if we add a thing in there that says unless extreme emergency or whatever that other word is that goes in there but never any less than three business days because I think the norm ought to be five and people ought to be able to expect that to have the time to review it. I'll repeat myself. If you're happy with the current distribution timeline, there's no need to make any changes to this. I am concerned about staff being limited and having the ability to distribute packet items in five business days. That is one full week from the meetings, which is what we currently do. That's our current practice. But what if there's an emergency and we're one day late. So what would that language say exactly? That question would be by Jason just like. Okay. Well, I was going to just mention something else. Actually, the three business days, working days, syncs with FOIA. And the notice required for public meetings under FOIA. And when agendas have to be, agendas and the packets have to be made member, made the latest agendas and packets can be made available to commission members and the public. And then also regarding the public getting the materials, the public will have the application, or should have the application available to view when the notice gets published. They should be able to contact planning and at least see the application. The staff reports are going to be, I guess, that's the five working days if the public's actually interested in seeing the staff report. Can we make a change to our bylaws that differs from the corresponding rules of FOIA. Yes, if you're pushing it back. Yeah. Okay. And that was something else. It should not be occurring after the three days. I think somebody made a comment that it's, you know, we don't want to go any closer to the meeting than three days and you can't do that anyways. Okay. Okay. So, it sounds like there's a possibility of amending this by law to say five days with edgings circumstances as to be determined in consultation with staff and the chair or a straight up or down on the proposal. No, I said I was fine with the with their amendment to my motion. Right, we can. Yeah, but either way, it uptap. Let's just do it with the amendment. The amendment to say five days, except where? Except for edgian circumstances as determined by the chair and consultation with staff. All right, but no less than three business days. All right, but I'm just saying so that it's cleared both the answer. Okay. Okay. Okay. So yeah, I'm fine with that amendment. Okay. Then all those in favor of the change as amended, please let me know. Aye. Aye. Mr. Kieres. I'm fine with the amendment. That's fine. Okay. That you're okay. All right. That motion will carry 7-1-1 with me posed and Commissioner Moderati absent. Okay. The next few changes were all submitted by commissioner Jasper they primarily pertain to to was mine but that's I give it to that's fine that one was already discussed last. But we didn't vote on it. We haven't voted on anything. Mr. Jasper, would you like to talk about this? This is A5. This is A5. Marvel 5. We're on B1. B1. Yeah. 5B1. Marvel 5. So actually, we're reading this perhaps. I'm just going to ask that. I have that. Which area are you setting? I think it could be. Could guess you think we did some place other than what we are. What it turns to mean without any involvement of our committee members. That's the way the language is. The impact is, my guess is, that's just really a little moving change. But I mean, there's a couple of ways to address it. One is to you to, or such under a place, and we can then come to the center, and then we just take out the records to the room. One, bring me out of the little habit chair, and I'm going to have them in the separate area to decide to do a cross-site assembly there. So, you will be really well. Okay. Ryan, any comments from staff on this? Are you okay with, did you say you wanted to withdraw that or? I do withdraw or do you know, I mean, I would, you know, when we have directions from We'll get this stuff and give everything more adopted, set our eyes just like all the game on. You know what should we do? We'll follow the same thing. You know what should we do? Okay. So do you want us to go forward or do you want to? We'll keep it in and ask for any comments. No. So I will offer one comment that will carry forward to similar changes going forward in that the practice of the commission, at least when it comes to scheduling a location of meetings, has been that the involvement of the commission has always been appropriate. largely because most of the time we make schedules, it's at a meeting such as this where everyone who can't be present is present. The notion that we would change a by-law to say in consultation with the chair and all of the members of the commission, creates a logistical challenge in the practical application of things like whether at other events where the KIA administrator is going to close the building or something of that effect, in which case the staff along with the chair will make a decision to cancel a meeting or to reschedule for some future date. To have to have that conversation with the other members of the commission can create a challenge one for accessing those members of the commission. And should the other members of the commission not have been consulted, then that could create an issue for some applicant that says well, you cancel my meeting, but you didn't do it properly because of whatever your by-law say is supposed to consult everybody and you didn't. These are for, as we said for the previous item, edgigen circumstances where the chair has to make a decision on the schedule of a meeting. I'm broadening my comment to not just this one particular change to the by-laws, but the next few they're going to come up because it will be the same comments I have going forward. And that's why I think that we don't need this here to say and other members of the commission, which is the same thing I will say for other items that add and other members of the commission. So that is all. So back to Mr. Chas for any comment on that, as I said, I would do for each item. I would just, I would just say that the circumstances that you brought out is covered in detail in item two about how decisions are made about rescheduling for weather and other, you know, kind of unexpected circumstances. So, I do think that this would be outside of that set of examples, but it's kind, honestly. I don't care if it was just clean up. Okay. All right, so as long as it's staying in, let's commission or curious, did you have a comment on this one? Not in particular, I just don't think it's necessary. Okay. Alright We'll take the vote since wasn't withdrawn. All those in favor. I'm in favor of it. Okay. And all those opposed. Okay. So that motion. The smires you were. No, no, no. I just wanted to bring up a comment on the next one. On the vote, you were a- Okay, so that motion will fail. 17, zero, one's having one with Mr. moderately absent. Okay, move on to the next one, Brian. This is 5D. Yeah, I wanted to bring back up because you said you didn't have it on, but we didn't vote on anything the other night because as Mr. Banks brought up we had nobody had had it five days in advance so we were going to vote on everything at one time The next one number two in regards to public hearing is actually a suggestion I brought up because currently It only allows the chair and vice chair to cancel our meetings or move them Only for weather We We're not allowed to move them like we set here and we change them like because of Memorial Day or whatever when we all agree to it. This would give that flexibility that it goes outside of just the weather's moment and it still allows it to be the chair and vice chair but it allows more flexibility for them if we need to change public hearing or work session than what's currently in the bylaws. So these are the proposed the red lines that we see to section B2. Yes, okay Any comments on that Goods Jasper Sorry, I didn't turn mine off, but I would support. Okay, Mr. Kierce any comments on this one? It's giving you more power in case you don't have it in front of you. Okay, it just it makes sense because it's putting in things other than weather makes sense. Okay, then without need for a closing, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Goes. None. Motion carries 801 with Mr. Madeready absent. Okay, now we're going to go to work sessions, Article 5C1. Right, Brian? This was submitted by Commissioner Jasper. This just clarifies that items are sent to work session by majority vote of the planning commission. Staff does have a comment on this change. Yes, go ahead, Brian. Okay, I can give my comment first. There is one application type that bypasses the planning commission public hearing. That is the proper amendments that receive a public hearing waiver from the board like Atlantic Boulevard that we just acted on a month ago. So this, we don't recommend making this change. I just realized that today Commissioner Jasper, that's why I didn't let you know that. But this would present a problem, I think administratively. All right, thank you, Brian. I was not aware of the Atlanta Boulevard, I guess, application. But I would say if there's a specific type of application that goes directly, where did you say it goes? Directly to work session? I think it works, right. I mean, I think it might make sense to actually call that out specifically that there's a kind of inner bylaws set there. I mean, to the extent our bylaws are public notice of the way we operate if there's a procedure that is regularly goes directly the work session, it might be useful to call that out. But. Would that not be in zoning ordinance? Is it in the zoning ordinance? It is in the zoning ordinance. Right. That's correct. Okay. Yeah. Okay. We'll then all withdraw. I'm sorry, Jason. It was C1. Okay. Okay. So we'll go ahead and withdraw that. Yeah. Okay. I'm less Jason out of comment. Jason, you're coming on that. What's being withdrawn? R5C1. We're on C1. No, no, no. We're here. Where it says items are sent to work session by majority of the commission. On page four. for. I was just going to say I thought I saw that same clarification. Like in the minutes, there's another thing about the majority of the commission. The Virginia code specifies to 15.2, 2215 quorum majority vote. A majority of the members of the commission shall constitute a quorum. A no action of the local planning commission shall be valid unless authorized by a majority vote of those present and voting. So the code provides a different, it's a majority of those present and voting. The majority of the commission means- Well, stay there. Thank you. Okay, we're not. We're not. We're we're we're drawing. We're drawing this change. Okay. Yeah, put in case any of them stick. And does that carry on through the other portion of Article 5 section C or IMC section 2? Well, 2, I actually, this is the cleanup also. Before that, there's- You're one, I'll give you changes in it. Right, but you said two. Okay. Yeah, the second. C1, the second item, there are two items. Where it further says regarding work sessions are held, a lot of government center, this address, this six people are such a time designated by Chair and Secretary and other members of the Commission. This reverts back to the public hearings and B1, the same idea. The exact same change. The same change from B1. Failed and be right to the second part of C1. I lost it. Where? I know we lost it. I'll it. I know we lost it. Yeah. Okay. That's the same change you had suggested for public hearings in B1 that we wrote, we said no to. Did we withdraw it or was it. No, we it was 171 fail. I sense it's not going for it. I don't know that it man she can. Well, there's there were two changes that one paragraph. The first one was withdrawn. The second one is that change. We were down in minutes. That's where Jason was talking, right? No work sessions. C1. The top of page 5. C1 continues from the bottom of page 4 to the top of page 5. Okay. And there were two different changes to that one paragraph. Okay. And the second change. Yeah, it's just similar to the other one. Yes, exactly the same as the first one. It's just withdrawn. Yeah. Okay. That's withdrawn. Okay, now we're going to move to Article 5, Section C, Subsection 2, which has some things that were read line by Commissioner Myers and then some highlighted and new from the Brian and Commissioner Jasper. Mr. Jasper. Are the non-highlighted changes the same ones that we had just considered? Correct, this gives the chair and the vice chair the ability to change dates, other than just for weather. And this is for work sessions. For work sessions, I'll have to explain what's for. Yeah, so let's vote on that. Right, it's just a mirrored. Yes. Okay. Yes, and then at this. Okay, so we're going to do it. We're going to do it on the original change language. Okay, so we're going to do it. We're going to vote on the original change. Yeah. Language. Okay. All the commissioner here. Chair here. Are you there with us? I'm still with you. Okay. So we're voting on the red line section of Article 5, Section C, Subsection 2, which mirrors the public hearing section we just got to. So all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? None. One abstentions that carries 801, Mr. Monter, already absent. So that's a section 5C2, 801, pass. Okay. Now, the new portion of that, or as such, other time is maybe agreed to by a majority of the commission. Brian already said that was me, my submission. Right. You want to comment? Yeah, go ahead, please. Actually, I do recall we've changed one of the dates for a commission meeting in the past to a Friday. Yeah. And that happened fairly recently. I do think that, especially given that we have a mandatory attendance requirement, I do think that a majority of the commission should vote on change in the formal schedule. Okay. Okay. All right. I assume Mr. Commissioner Kierst is not going to have a comment on that. So we will move to a vote on that. All those in favor? Wait, hold on the second part. This is the yellow highlighted portion of C2. against just same comment. It's a, If you want to go with that, I think it's the voting majority of those present. I would look for a warm. You have a senior chair on those present. The majority of those present? Yeah, that's fine. Sure. Okay. So we'll do that. Or such other time as maybe agreed to by a majority of commissioners present. Yes. Okay. President voting sorry. President voting. Okay. Got that Brian. Yes okay. All right. Brian. Hi. Is that how we're practicing it now? That's no different. It's just codifying. Because we had a vote about the... Right. Yeah. Okay. All those of us. All right. Hi. I'm sorry. Good. Yeah, go ahead, Cliff. The only reason I'm not a fan of it is, you know, what if we have to change a date and we can't get a majority of them to agree on a date? the chair has the ability to say, well, this is the date and that's what we're going with. That's why I don't necessarily say the whole commission gets to decide because who knows? You can have a circumstance where you don't get a majority of agreeing to any other date. So this is then what you do. So I still think the ultimate responsibility rely on you know, with chair to set the date. Obviously by our up the way we operate, we don't do that. Or as I've seen it happen yet, but it's a possibility. So I just don't see a need to make a change to the bylaws. That's why he gets paid the big bucks. But I would choose not reason. I would only disagree in fact that if the majority is not agreeing to that that date, you're probably not gonna have a quorum. So why, why, why, why set something that you know, you're not, it's kind of like we've had too many that we did that and we barely had a quorum. And so I mean, I would say I'd like to keep it that way because if, if five people aren't going to come, that matter that he wants to have the date, that date. That's a fair point as well. Okay, let's take this to a vote. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? No. Okay. You're a no-machal? Yes. Okay. That motion will 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. That motion will pass 5, 3 3, 1 with commissioners Frank Miller and Kier suppose and moderately absent. I'll tell you something, you needed six to pass. You are correct. And I will change my vote. So that passes. 6-1-6-2-1. That was on the fence. But I get it. Okay. Okay. The next change is in paragraph G. Right below that. This was submitted by Commissioner Jasper. Before we get to that. I forgot E. Red lines and E. That we didn't vote on last time that were. Okay. That's actually one that I had recommended because none of us get, I mean the count does not mail us mail. And this is referring to that the secretary shall mail us about meeting. So I said, we should just cross it out to say either notify or email, but to say that they have to send us the mail, I mean, it doesn't happen. Have a comment on that. Ryan, do you have any comments on this first? No. Okay. Mr. Jasper. I certainly agree with the intent of Commissioner Myers. Suggestion and I'm fine with the language noted but I would all notify. But Jason I think the Virginia code actually requires snail mail. That's what it says. Bizarre is that maybe. Which we does, really. Speaking about. Not yet. We have a tool. Assuming we have the leeway to make the change and support of it. Yeah, me too. Because I know I've gotten a phone call. For example, from Stephanie in that, right, is sufficient notice for me. Okay. So this would allow that flexibility. I'm going for it. Mr. Cures, any comments? I've been fine in ways written unless it turns out it's legal. It's legal. I authority says it has to be written. Okay. Is your bank's chip coming? No. I'm fine with it as well. If it's permissible by Virginia law. Ten years is the attorney. You don't have every cost will memorize. Freed not. I've been eleven years you would have ten years. That's what I got. That's kind of off that. I'm afraid not. I'm afraid not. I'm afraid not. If it had been 11 years, you would have. For 10 years, that's what I got. That's what I got. Cut it off that. Just one year short. I did find the Virginia Code section, and I believe Commissioner Jasper is correct. It's third paragraph of 15.2214. Special meetings of the commission may be called by the chairman or by two members upon written and request the Secretary, the Secretary shall mail to all members at least five days in advance of a special meeting of written notice fixing the time and place of the meeting and the purpose thereof. Then it goes on to say written notice. A special meeting is not required. At the time of the special meeting has been fixed at a regular meeting. Or if all members are present at the special meeting or file a written waiver of notice. So I mean the following is every time we've done a meeting a special meeting and they've not made it to us we're in violation of the code. What's the code? What is a special meeting? Well, like when we've had the special work sessions that weren't on our original agenda. The Friday is that's a special meeting. Those are all special meetings. They're not- Like set committee meetings. Yeah, so they say anything with that. I think they all need electronic mail. That's what they all need. Now, Virginia code specifically, the difference between mail and email. Didn't Jason say that you did not have to mail it if the meeting date was selected during a regular meeting of the commission. Didn't you read that? It says written notices not required. If the time of the special meeting has been fixed at a regular meeting. Or a full. Here too, it says that right here. It says that right here. Yeah, this is word for. What Jason's reading from the code is what we were reading here. Before I change this. Well, I guess if it's going to be snail mail, it's going to be snail mail in order to keep it that, but it's just not the way we do it. No. So I'll just withdraw. Just real quick anecdotally about different parts of Virginia that have to probably still do mail things. Clerk Clemens once told me that while he has all his postings electronic, he told me that there are clerks in the Commonwealth of Virginia to this day that still post notice by paper, by pinning it to a board outside the front of the courthouse. this day. Not accountings, do they? The pressure still does it? Yeah, so it's, they haven't gotten here. So, okay, next is G. Pergraph G. was an action taken on e. Withdraw. The paragraph was submitted by Commissioner Jasper. This relates to the meeting minutes. All conforming changes all through. I don't think I put in the change for 30 business days though. No, we talked about that at the last meeting. County Administration wanted us to add that for administrative reasons. You added the yellow part. Right, which we was intended to give staff long to be able to do this. Well, I'm fine with. Let's withdraw that. I'm happy. Yeah. Do we need to vote on the business day? Yes. Yes. Okay. So all those in favor of the staff item changed to G. Please excuse me by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Mr. Cures, you're an aye on that. Yes, I hear him. Okay. That's I hear him. Okay. So that passes 801. Okay. This next change is not in yellow, but we didn't vote on it yet. I believe Chair Kierce submitted this change. This is regarding the rules of order for public hearings, and he's changing staff to applicant. I think it's just a typo issue that he's fixing here. Claire. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries 801. Looks commissioner, I'm already absent. OK, and then the next change is at the top of page seven. We didn't vote on this one either. I think this is also a chair curious change. This is rules of order for public hearing still. I remember our discussion on this one because it actually Mr. Banks had brought up if it's if it's your three minutes and you decide you want to ask questions of the applicant of the staff. Why can't you just ask those why is it mean? Let's first go to Cliff because he's the one that proposed a change. Yeah, so that was the three minutes. Let's go ahead. Yeah, so my original thought of putting it in there was simply because we have time ask questions, you know, staff, and then of the applicants. And then my thought was that okay, when we go to a motion and a motion is made, that's where the commission, you have to liberate and gives their rationale for supporting or not supporting a motion. Nothing with Commissioner Banks said hey it's my three minutes if I just if I want to use that asking questions why should I mean say you got me thinking otherwise on it so I would be okay with you know putting this forward but I also would be fine with withdrawinging it based on what Commissioner Banks said. It kind of makes sense to me that that's how he wants to use his three minutes. I guess that would be appropriate. So. Then I think with that comments and nodding of the heads up here that we'll go ahead and withdraw that change. Okay, I'll go ahead and withdraw that change. Okay, now go ahead and withdraw it. Okay. B. The next change is right below that. This was a Commissioner Jasper change. This would replace the word modified with increased and it pertains to the amount of time for presentations and speakers. And staff does have a comment on this change. Will that Ms. Jasper go and then Brian will go after that. Yeah, I was just from a public perspective and a public nervous perspective and a public comment perspective. I just want to avoid some changes we made last year made me feel like the limitations on public comment. They got a little bit, you know, they got so tight it was hard for people to actually come up, be nervous, get out their introduction and then say what they felt they needed to say. And so I just really feel like there should be a baseline that the public knows is how much comment period they have and it shouldn't be able to be diminished at the chair's discretion. Ryan. My comment relates to what Commissioner Dressbridge just said. So changing modified with increased with limit the chair's ability to reduce the speaking time of staff, the applicant, and members of the public should there be a heavily attended public hearing. Sometimes the sometimes the case that the three minute speaking time is reduced down to two minutes. Should you have something like a hundred speakers or something just to keep the meeting moving along? So we would just point that out for your awareness. I would just kind of to expound upon what Brian said, the public can also always submit written comment and I believe as long as it gets submitted timely into the record It's considered that the public body has considered it and its decision so it doesn't have to be spoken My comment this would be that I Doesn't happen much at here or the board, but it happens all the time with the school board. And the school board has routinely changed your speaking time, lowered it because the sheer volume of people and the means would go on for 24 hours. I think the difference in doing that to what Commissioner Josh was saying I believe is when we say you have three minutes but it takes you a little bit of time to get it out because you haven't started. You still have three minutes. You know that going in. This would be saying in advance of the meeting you have two minutes. Or it can say to one thing Brian and I talked about earlier today was, what if theoretically we say you can only extend something you can't modify it. I mean, you can shorten it. Let's say hypothetically the staff has a presentation for an item and they say we're going to forego our presentation. Well, in some ways that's the chair saying, okay, your presentation time is zero. You know, could someone come back and say, wait a second, they didn't take their time. There's different things. Yes, people can shorten their time. I have to take the full three minutes. But there's opportunity that there might be need for shortening it in the aggregate for everybody. And that's why I don't think that that should be taken away from discretion to chair. Let me tell you why I would not support it. I would support it going to increase not decrease because we and the board both did this where it used to be if you were an individual you were three minutes if you were a group was either five or six and we took that away so everybody only gets three minutes now. Being somebody that has set both up here and as we all call it, the peanut gallery, it is impossible when you put something together. And the reason why you're here is because you really care about it. And you've got your thing done and you've got your three minutes and you're ready to go. And then somebody sets up at the die and says, because we have 50 people, we're decreasing everybody to two minutes. All of a sudden you're just in it and I've seen this happen. People are just on a Tuesday because they can't figure out what they can take out because their whole thing is so important to them. So it's only three minutes and if a staff decides they only want to present two minutes, none of us are going to tell them they have to talk another minute. an applicant like the guy that was here when we talked about the prophet guy for the housing thing. I mean he said I have no presentation. None of us said please set the clock for two minutes so we can continue to talk. So I think if somebody chooses to not talk as long, like we've also had people say, hey if you wanted to say you agree with the last person, we tell them to say that all the time. But I think the idea that just because a lot of people show up all of a sudden we can tell them now they have two instead of three I don't especially with where we've gone to with the Tommy and I just don't agree with that Mr. Banks. Yeah, I would you know, I would humbly disagree with that I've been in too many public hearings in which we've had a hundred and plus speakers and I think the chair should have the flexibility and the opportunity to announce ahead of time that because of the volume, the number of speakers in order to make sure that we're able to, you know, get through the item in a reasonable period of time. Everyone's speaking time is reduced. It treats everyone the same. And it probably does not happen here very often, but I think it's still important for the chair to have that flexibility. So I would rather have the language that modified and not just increased. Barnes? Yes, I agree completely with that statement. Because we can sometimes we had the whole room filled up here. And the chair had to you know if everybody wants to speak and they all spoke three minutes We'll be here all night until morning. You know have a breakfast there. So that's a chair's It's up to the chair. What but they want to do I would agree that I think the chair needs the flexibility to modify up or down. Public comment and commissioner time to debate. We've had multiple instances where the room is filled and we've said hey folks you've got two minutes instead of three and commissioners you also have two minutes instead of, just so that we can get out right at a reasonable, by reasonable, I say a one or two o'clock in the morning, time frame. Without those limits, it would be breakfast time by the time we get out of there. And that's just, that's two burdensome for everybody. And I think the chair needs that discretion. So I'm not in support of allowing only an increase. I think that the chair needs that. Decrease flexibility. That's right. A different perspective on the public should be allowed to have their time to comment. We've sat here when we've had those very big, attended meetings. And people have to get up and leave, because they can't wait. Around for another five hours or whatever they've got child care, they've got something. And so there's people who don't get to talk because it goes so long. It's not just that we're sitting here for so long. So I think everybody getting two minutes is better than 10% of the people not being able to stay and speak at all. So I think that's from that perspective. And again, yes, we're not trying to get out of here at 8 o'clock every night. But I do think it gives more people, I've watched a lot of people have to get up and leave. And I'd like to do what we can to not encourage a situation that forces them to do that. Mr. Kiersch, any comments? Good, any comments? Yep, leave it as is. Okay. And we will go back to Ms. Jasper for a summaration closing issue. So we do have in our bylaws a provision that says the commission shall adjourn promptly at 12 a.m. So we should not in fact be here all night. We routinely extend that and I'm just saying that I understand that we do as a voluntary but we're not required. I feel strongly that I don't think when we do this, I think the public deserves notice. I think we need to have just like we have a script that the chair reads at the beginning of meetings. We need to script that advises the public. How long they have to submit written comments, what format, where to submit them to. I just I feel like that this is something that the board deals with as well. And it is important to me that people feel like they have a moment to have three moments to provide their perspective as residents of Lown and County. Okay. Yes, sir. Okay, with that we will take a vote. All those in favor changing Modified to increase Cinematography by saying aye aye all those opposed Okay, that motion will fail to 6 1 with Commissioner modder ready Absence and I would make a request that the commission seriously consider its obligation to the public in terms of announcing rules that will apply if they shorten public speech. We can do that for the chair's period in comments correct for public hearings. Yes. Okay. Speaking of the midnight deadline for work sessions it's 11 o'clock, so that gives us exactly 26 minutes to finish. No, let me finish and it gives us exactly 26 minutes to finish the last by-law change, which should not take 26 minutes. Brian. This was submitted by Chair Kierce. This has to do with allowing speakers at work sessions. The Chair would have to concur to another to happen. Okay. Mr. Kierce. Even though it's only 935 where you are, it goes by the time where we are, not where you are. Yeah. Yeah, I just put this in there just because to keep cognizant of having other speakers, particularly at work sessions. And I've actually seen it occurred where the committee were calling people up. They're opposed that had one point of view and people that had the opposing point of view. One guy just said up and said, Hey, if this is going to be a public meeting, then you need to announce it as such. People got very upset because all the sudden people from the audience were being pulled up to speak and not everybody had an opportunity to speak. So I just thought it would be in the case if there was some expert or someone that was out in the audience that could speak to a particular issue or question a commissioner had. That's great. I just think that it should be at the commissioner at the chairs discretion so that it doesn't get out of hand. That's all. Any comments on this one? As Mars. I disagree, in fact, it's interesting because I had brought this up to Cliff about I was glad to see this was in here because it would have allowed us more flexibility. You know, we had, and perfect example is we had the experts that showed up for that one work session that we invited when we were doing the data center. And then they didn't get to speak at the table. I think that if there's an expert here and a planning commission wants to ask them a question as it relates to the work session or the item in front of them, they should have the ability to ask them a question. I don't think it should have to be that you have to mother may I please father will you let me ask somebody a question? Because that's what it is. There's no contents that they have that the chair has to say they fill it so relevant or anything they can just say no I don't want to hear from them If you want to change it to I mean I just don't agree that one person gets to decide that all of a sudden you can't ask an expert a question. I don't think that's right. And especially right now the bylaws allow for that. Okay, can other comments? Mr. Barnes? Yeah, I think that's why we elect chair to give them all of these things, these tools to run run the meeting. And who, depends who invites the specialist or whatever it is, if the whole planning commission voted on it, that this guy should be coming down to talk about it, then it's one thing. But if somebody, just one person like invites, I invite somebody to say, hey, come down, you especially, stop to us. That doesn't work. It has to be all of us agreeing to invite, I don't know who it is, but I don't know, which whatever it is. So we all have to agree to invite any specialists that we need it. So you want to change the statement that you're in bed? And so that's the way it is. but I can't be and have ten specialists the same day. You know, we all of us started modding people, you know. They didn't work that way. So let's let him finish his comments. Okay, I think we have to give the chair the authority to do that if he wants to. Okay. She wants to. Okay. It's Jasper. I'm concerned that we're rushing to have a vote on this and there's not enough intentionality in the consideration. I think we our deliberations could benefit from expert involvement and advice more than we get now. But I do think that it needs to be thoughtful and that all sides need to be given the same opportunity to participate. I mean, we need balanced perspective. So I'm concerned about, I'm concerned about the way we approach this right now. And just chair concurrence doesn't make me comfortable that we've wound up at the right outcome. So, Were your comments neither for nor against the change? Your comments were we're not ready to make a change. Yes, I think a little more consideration of what the change is before we cast a vote on it. Yes. That's your okay. Mr. Cums. I'm not sure I see a problem necessitating the change right now. So, oh, while I guess I could foresee a circumstance where it could get out of control for multiple commissioners to be soliciting folks to the table to comment who are not part of staff or an applicant. I don't see that as a real risk. So, I don't see the need for the change. Thanks. I agree with Mr. Combs on this one. I'm not sure that this has been a problem, so I don't really see the need for a change at this point. And unless and until it does become a problem, I do sort of like the ability for a commissioner. to be specifically asked for an expert to come forward if needed. So. I will say we have actually to the example that was cited earlier where someone felt one side was represented and another wasn't and it was once before I was shared and once when I was shared. And we, there was a lot of fallout. And it, you know, I mean, it comes with the job. So fine, I'll take it. I'll justify what we did or what we didn't do. But when the chair is just fine with someone else did, that they don't necessarily think was the right thing to do. It puts everybody in a bit of a tough position. So I understand the desire to want to make the change. I'm not entirely convinced we've got it right to Commissioner Jasper's point. The free for all can very easily get out of hand. We have an instance where we ask three people to be present in 19 showed up. So no, I'm not going to let on 19 talk. I'm sorry. You gave up your evening to be here. You didn't follow instructions or multiple conversations had. So, you know, it's just there are tough situations and they're never going to avoid all of them, but I do think that, you know, I can see why we would want to make some kind of change here. So to chair Cures's point. Okay, Cliff, back to you for closing. Yeah, so this is a file I have actually been in a meeting where it was a problem. So it's been a while, but it has happened in planning commission meetings I've been in. And I'd also look at it as a responsibility of the chair to manage and run the meetings. It doesn't mean that if one commissioner says, Mr. Chair, so and so is in the audience that work as an expertise would be okay for them to come up and speak. Or so that that's kind of where I would see it going. Maybe another commissioner says, hey, there's so and so would be possibly a couple of them speak. The benefit of that is everybody here's who the person is, what their knowledge base is, and why they're asking them to come up to speak, and then the chair allows. So I just look at it as part of the chair running and managing the meeting. So that and the fact that I saw it happen before and it was a problem. So that was the only reason I put the request in to make that change. Okay. We will push this to a vote. All those in favor of the change? Say aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed? No. Okay. That motion will fail 261 with Commissioner Moder Ready absent. And while I thought that was the last one, in fact, it is not. There is a staff change to Article 8 section E paragraph 1. Brian. This recommends a change to add vice. So it would read vice chair rather than chair. The purpose of this change is if someone would allege that the chair is engaged in misconduct, you would report that to the vice chair, not to the chair. That doesn't make sense. Cliff so Cliff Cliff you're lucky that the board has to approve this first Otherwise you'd be in trouble tonight if people are chopping at the bit to tell me stuff about you You can just put it to that All right, all those in favor. Hi any opposed That motion carries 801. I think that's it. So thank you to Commissioner Myers. I want to ask a point of order moment. Yes. I'm just, I just want to make sure that I'm clear on this. So the time limits for us speaking at all are only in the public hearing. There are no time limits when it comes to work sessions if you read our bylaws. And we constantly get the three minute thing of when we're talking. But there is no time limits on work sessions and that's the way it should be. So allow for more fluid and it doesn't say can only talk one time to emotion. So I just want to put that out there that we don't operate on a time limit for commission input when we're in a work session according to our adopted by laws. And I remember that discussion specifically with staff back in 2020 where we didn't have. We never imposed any time limits during work sessions and there was a discussion with James at the time about certain commissioners sort of chronically abusing that. Yeah, and so we started just sort of implementing that on a case-by-case basis depending on the agenda, but it was never Expressing included in the bylaws I just want to point that out that they're actually not a time limit in the by-laws sessions. And still to allow the chair to actually adequately run the meeting and keep order and people can't interrupt and stuff like that. Ms. Jasper. I have one more question. I assume we're not going to take any action on that though. Maybe that was correct. I know there's no action to take. I was just pointing order of that. There was no time limit on us when we were- I asked Brian and Jason maybe he sent it on to you. I... There was no time limit on us when we're. So I asked Brian and Jason maybe he sent it on to you. When I read the Virginia code, it also states that the planning commission is supposed to make recommendations on the budget and finance and a number and other items that we don't do. And so I guess for another time, you know, Mr. Acting Chair, if we could actually get maybe a little bit of feedback from the County Attorney's Office on that set of obligations as well. Yeah. I can work with Jason on a response. Thank you. Any other administrative items, Ryan? I had one other change to the minutes. I don't think this requires a vote, but it's just that more of a heads up under amendments. It's not even part of the amendments. I think it's more just kind of a record copy test language. It says approved amended by a majority vote of the planning commission. I'm going to change that to two thirds vote just to be accurate. That's actually what's required. Okay. All right. That was fun. The else. You got 13 minutes left. Go home.