I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go 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 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. Everyone, the December 12, 2024 of Loudoun County Planning Commission Public Hearing and Work Session will now come to order. As is our custom, please let us stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands under our individual liberty and justice overall. Thank you. Just a little bit of administrative items tonight. Actually, we'll go ahead and start with an announcement before we get into the outlining the process of our meeting. I did want to pause for a moment and share some news that I know a couple of you have heard. It's fairly late breaking that Ms. Jackie Marsh will be departing the Department of Planning and Zoning and will not be supporting the commission in her new role, but thankfully she is staying with Loudoun County. So I'll let her add if she wants anything, but I will say that we have benefited from her good council support and leadership with the DPC staff over the last two years that I've been sitting here and many years prior to that as a project manager and if you remember when we started five years ago, Jackie always had the thorny cases So that's one big indicator on her abilities and the trust and faith that people had in her. So she will be missed, but I'm glad you were not going too far. And thank you. Thank you. I will be starting as the director for the real property asset management and planning office. It is an office newly created under county administration. My last day with the department will be December 30th. I will start officially on January 6th, 2025 in the new position. And I'd like to thank this commission for all your support and working with you over the past nine years. I started it loud and nine years ago and it's been my pleasure to serve as Yorliazon and the assistant director for the past two years. And thank you. Please. One of the six Catoctin Circle. So I won't be in the government center anymore, but I'll be. Yes, yes. Yes, so thank you. We'll have to have a really good dinner and entice you to come back and join us sometime for old times sake. All right. She's like, sure. Yeah, OK. See ya. No, thank Jackie. Thank you. I know when Eric and I found out there was a little bit of disbelief and we're thrilled for you and the opportunity to be more sad for ourselves, but we'll get over it. So it's, I'm good for you. All right, well, back to our business at hand. Just for the process and procedure of the evening, members of the public who wish to comment on any item on the public hearing legislative agenda may do so. If you're in the boardroom, please fill out a speaker slip and hand it to the Assistant Deputy Clerk of the Planning Commission. At the end of the day, it's to my left. If you're participating electronically, please call the number on the bottom of the screen. If you signed up to speak after 12.30 p.m., please confirm your name is on the speaker list as public comment sign up closes after 12 noon as indicated on our website. Indicate your name and agenda item you wish to address. Each speaker whether speaking on behalf of an organization or as an individual will have three minutes per the commission's updated bylaws. Written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Deputy Clerk who will make copies for the Planning Commission. The commission may vote on applications tonight and send its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors or may vote forward the item to a work session for further consideration before taking a final vote. Our procedure for public hearings are as follows. We'll have a ten minute staff presentation followed by commissioners questions to staff. Tonight each commissioner will be given three minutes to ask questions. Ten minute applicant presentation when applicable will be followed by additional commissioners questions. Hearing is open for public comment. We'll have three minutes for each speaker. After everyone has had a chance to speak, the hearing is closed. The applicant and staff will have an opportunity to provide any responses to public comment. Finally, there will be a motion, deliberation, and a vote by the commission. All right, before we get into our legislative items, are there any disclosures for members of the commission? Commissioner Moder ready. Second, sorry. I met with a gift for the Hampshire and the applicant team regarding the race field substitution applications yesterday. That's it. Here are the dates. Commissioner Banks. I spoke with Colleen Gillis on December 10th regarding the CPAM and Zawam matters that are on our work session for today. Excellent. Vice Chair Comes. On December the 11th, I had a phone conversation with Aaron Swisshelm of Walsh Kaluci regarding the data center C-Pams. Commissioner Meyers, I need to find the date. On December the 9th, I had a phone conversation with Bill Junda regarding the data center C-Pams. Okay, great. That's it. We will go right into our public hearing items. Our first item up tonight, Legee 2023-0090, Racefield substation. I believe Christian knows. Wait a minute. Nope. No. Are shot or are you doing? Who's up? No. Sorry. Yeah. Oh, you get both of them. Lucky you. How do you are you doing separate presentations? Are we going to combine them and I need to read them both? We're going to do each light one. Okay. All right. So we are also taking up item number two, ledgy 2023-0109, Novx South Fork substation. So you'll brief us on both of those at once. Thank you. Always appreciate efficiency. Okay, good evening commissioners. My name is Christian Maldonado with the Department of Planning and Zoning here to provide a joint presentation on item one, Racefield Substation and item two, Novak Southwark Substation. Each item was proposed and analyzed separately. Two separate motions will be required for each item, one specific to the commission permit the subject property is located in the Arcolla area north of fruit 50 and east of stones brings boulevard. Both sites are zoned industrial park and the suburban policy area, the suburban employment place type in the Dulles election district. For each application, the applicant is proposing a commission permit and special exception to permit a utility substation in the IP zoning district. The applicant is also proposing minor special exceptions to modify buffer requirements specific to utility substations. For Racefield, the site can be accessed along Racefield Lane and would approximately be 4.7 for acres and size. The proposal seeks to upgrade the existing substation initially constructed for proposed data center uses by connecting it to the existing transmission corridor along the west side of the site. Screening will consist of a 12-foot-tall security fence around the entire substation. To meet the buffer requirements of the use, plant units will be installed along with additional fencing. This fencing consists of a 6-foot tall 95% opiate requirement. The minor specs request seeks to eliminate this fencing on the south side of the substation highlighted in gold. For south work, the site can be accessed along Route 50 and would approximately be 5.6 acres in size. The substation has not yet been constructed and the land remains undeveloped. The same 12-foot tall security fencing will screen the site and surrounding tire substation. The six-foot tall 95% opaque fencing associated with the buffer requirement will only exist on the west side of the site, as the buffer requirements for the south differ due to its proximity to Route 50. And the minor special exception associated with the substation seeks to eliminate fencing on the north and east sides. Staff recommend conditions for both applications related to landscaping, buffering, and screening to mitigate visual and environmental impacts. And conditions related to trails consistent with the 2019 county-wide transportation plan. For Racefield, staff recommend additional conditions related to the modified screening to the south of site, which includes the installation of an additional 24-plant units per 100 loaner feet of required buffer yard. For South Fork, staff recommend conditions related to river and stream corridor resources impacts, tree conservation area, and stormwater management to mitigate environmental impacts. Additional conditions reference site access along route 50 and rights of way reservation to accommodate the future route 50 North Star Boulevard interchange. Staff support planning commission approval of the commission permits and a recommendation of approval of special exceptions and minor special exceptions to the Board of Supervisors subject to the conditions of approval. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with the Loudoun County 2019 general plan. DTCI and NRT are available remotely. Staff is happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Christian. Any questions for staff on either of these applications? Nope. All right. We'll go ahead and go over to the applicant. Okay. He just pressed the button. I should be. Oh, okay, great. All right. Okay. Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chairwoman, members of the commission. I'm Gifford Hampshire with the law firm of Blackin's Ship and Keith, and I represent Novak, Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chairman, members of the commission. I'm Gifford Hampshire with the law firm of blanking ship and Keith, and I represent Novak and have for some years been before you before. I have separate power points anyway for these two applications, but can talk about, preliminarily, about them together. With me is Jake Holmes, who is the Novak representative, but Jake is also a professional engineer and before he came to Novak was with Dubar. So he's wearing two hats tonight as the engineer on the project and also the owner representative. As Christian said, a good way to think about these two applications is together. together and I think that's significant because the county quite understandably encourages the co-location of these sorts of facilities in places where they belong in this sort of industrial corridor so they are not in other places and certainly co-location next to transmission lines that can serve them with the power. Both applications, as Christian said, involve a commission permit. And as you all know, that is Loudoun County's term for a 15.2, 2232 review, which determines substantial consistency with your comprehensive plan in terms of location, character, and extent. And also a special exception that is needed to allow a utility substation at all in the IP zone. And finally, a minor special exception in both applications to eliminate a six foot fence that would otherwise be required in the buffer. And the reason for that is as Christian stated is because it really serves no purpose to screen the data center in the south fork on two sides and also on race field. Excuse me on south fork, we have, as we'll see in a minute, we have an environmental corridor along the eastern side and the last thing we want to do is put a fence in there to remove the very screening we're trying to preserve. So let me just take them very briefly one at a time with Racefield. The thing to remember is that this is a substation that already exists, and it was allowed without a commission permit because it was dedicated to the existing sites. So if you go out there today, it's existing. As Christus said, the purpose of this application is to allow, at least with respect to the Commission permit, is to allow it to serve other properties outside the current parcel. And again, here are the three permits that are requested. It's going to provide capacity not only to the data center on the current site, but also shifting load outside the parcel as well. Was again approved as a dedicated substation. Loads are going to increase or allow loads to increase. And in so doing, it's going to comply with the New Zoning Board and standards. It's accessed interestingly, which is significant from Racefield Lane, not Route 50. And as we'll see in a minute, it's actually going to be shielded by the South Fork substation that is next to Route 50 by the buffers, including the Gateway corridor buffer that's required there. Here's a picture of it, which, and you can see Race field laying there to the north, you can see the transmission tap on the same parcel to the west. Again, access from race field, not Route 50. And we have a 75 foot maximum height structure on the parcel. This is a view from Route 50, and as you'll see, you're seeing there the existing substation in the distance. You can see it's about 900 feet from route 50 to use your imagination a little bit in the future. You won't see that because you'll see the buffering for the Southfield substation in front of it. And as I'll say in a minute, we'll have also a significant addition that I'll tell you about in a minute through conversations with the Commissioner. Today is the addition of a decorative screening fence that will screen both substations even more along Route 50 and also to the West. These are the things that Novak will do. Of course, it will maintain the buffers and it's going to have security cameras and lights, underground circuits leading the substation will be underground, and it will drain towards the east of the site. It's, as Christian said, community benefits were going to have additional plant units there from the adjoining South Fork substation that we'll look at in a minute. And for both substations we're going to have the dedication of land for both for two trails, both to the east and the west. The north south trail is to the east. Excuse me, I think that's to the west and the south fork trivitary trivitary triv trail is to the east. We'll go through this environmental corridor that we're going to talk about a little bit more. And so let's see here. Do we have the next one here? Here's just some more slides of it. Now we have to get over to the South Fork. I don't know if we have that one. There we go. So here's the South Fork presentation. Same permits are requested. Only this time we want to remove the six foot fence on the northern side, because remember the existing data centers to the north, where it was to the south of the race field, and also on the east, which is where that environmental buffer is, which I'll show you in a minute. And it's going to, the purpose is to provide more capacity, which we all know is needed. Here's the location on North root 50. A significant thing here, as Christian mentioned, is it's going to be near about a thousand feet west of the root 50 the future root 50 north star Boulevard intersection. And of course some of the concern about screening and other things that we'll talk about are because of the proximity of that future intersection. We want to protect the traveling public with respect to the view from root 50 coming off that intersection. We want to protect the traveling public with respect to the view from Route 50 coming off that intersection. Here's a picture of it. Down the bottom you'll see the corridor buffer there in the bottom. You'll see the transmission tap again just like with racefields off to the west that's where the power lines are. The same 75 foot structure height. Here is a cross section from Route 50, and which is going to be modified significantly just based on conversations with Commissioner today. On the left you see the Route 50 corridor. As you move to the right you see the various elements that are there. A little hard to see there. We have deciduous trees. We have a linear element, which is a small wall. We have the gateway width at 100 feet. But we are also going to add a 12 foot decorative wall along the root 50 similar to other substations in the area that will screen the traveling public. And we're also going to put it on the west. The same sort of things we're doing with race field, we're doing with South Fork. It drains towards the south of the site, and we're gonna have low impact development stormwater there. Some of the other things we're doing, we're having the low impact of BMP. There's a tree conservation area in the risk-ar buffer. We have the same two trail easements that we're going to dedicate. And this is going to be a right in, right out, entrance a thousand feet from North Star Boulevard and the closure of the existing entrance. And I'll show you that in a minute. And as Chris just said, a reservation for the Route 50 North Star interchange in the future. You'll see the, this is a little hard to see, but you'll see the buffer I'm talking about over on the east, which is plan right. And that will in tail both tree conservation area and a re-vegetation area. And the effect of that will be to protect the people who are going to be using that trail on that side, the South Fork Tributory Trail, from viewing the substation, and we'll also perhaps, to some extent, the traveling public, traveling on Route 50 as well. Some other shots of it. So that's basically what we have to present to you. We think that the substations work well together. They're co-located. They're going to provide the additional power needed without compromising the protection of the traveling public and also the people using the trail from a view shed point of view. And also using low impact development stormwater techniques. Available answer any questions. Thank you. Do we have any questions from the commission? Commissioner Maderetti. Thank you, Mr. Hampshire. Thank you for working, consulting from the beginning to just work on this application. So I do certainly agree with many of the changes that's been made from where you started. I definitely appreciate this two additional screening walls on I know there is a tree-saver area, but there is also a trail. So I know there will be a 12-foot security fencing around the actual utility itself. So I just want you to guess two things. I'm going to ask you to look at the I know there will be 12-foot security fencing around the actual utility itself. So I just want you to guess to walk through me. Do we have enough shield in there in terms of the visibility if I'm driving west 150? With the tree-saveria, is it still visible? Or is it going to be visible driving vest on 50? I don't believe so with that tree-saveria and the vegetation, of course, the height is going to be 75 feet, so there may be some structures to stick out over it. Mr. Holmes, do you want to add anything to that? The effectiveness of the tree, the tree-say area and the re-vegetation for screening for the traveling public from the west. Yeah, I will say that the trail that's proposed in there is going to be proposed on top of a sanitary easement. So there's no tree clearing involved in that trail construction. So we are committing to save as many trees in there that's shown up there as well as the blue areas that we are I'm designating as re-vegetation areas. Right, but the public traveling west on 50, are they going to be able to see the substation given the tree conservation and vegetation areas? With the mature vegetation, because we're not talking about day one plantings, that tree conservation area will be all mature plantings and trees. So I feel that the tree conservation area and the tree saves that will goopy, condition, will screen that side of the substation pretty well. Not to give point that there's structures that are going to be taller than the tree canopy, which quite frankly would be taller than any sort of wall that would be on there. So it's not going to protect it 100%. Just because of the height of the structures that would be within the substation. How big is the treeonopy right now there? On the east? Yeah, I don't know off the top of my head how tall it is. I know we had to do a tree study as part of the special exception. I believe probably Christian or Martian or ourselves could probably send that study to you. If you wanted to take a further look at it, but as far as mature height, I do not know the answer to that. I mean, just I want to get an idea. If they're really tall right now, obviously we don't need a six foot wall to cover anymore, right, but if it's really small or not tall enough, I just want to understand it. So. Madam Chair, if I may add so that the two elements that they've described this evening are not in the application materials. If you're supportive of the Mesa Drew Wall, that would need to be a part of your motion. If should you move it forward this evening? With a positive recommendation. In terms of the screening, this is a special exception. If the commission feels that additional mitigations necessary to offset that fence being removed on these side, you can certainly make recommendations on what you feel is an appropriate standard. Just to confirm, you're using existing vegetation and then you'll have to augment some of it with the buffer requirements, right? So when you are allowed to use existing vegetation, they that counts toward the certain elements, you know, you have your buffer yard width, add the types of plantings that are in it. So anything that that existing vegetation can't meet, they'll have to supplement with new vegetation in amongst the tree conservation area. Right, and that's what the plant shows. It shows the additional reagitation in there. How much readagitation, like, is it some kind of a unit to be talking about, or how do we ask, even if we need more vegetation in there? Masha. So the condition is I'm actually going to defer to NRT. We have NRT on the line who can describe that for your vegetation condition. A lot clearer. We could have Mr. Kyle assist us with that. Hi, good evening commissioners. I just want to be clear, was the question regarding how staff assesses the applicability of existing vegetation for buffer use at time of site plan? That's what I described, Kyle, but also to the, what are the components of a re-vegetation condition? How is it planted? What's involved? Okay, excellent. So the re-vegetation condition for this application is going to be Reforce station per the facility standards manual for the risk reduction that had to Curve there'll also be additional Reforce station for the permitted use encroachments and that'll be tree tubes and seedlings planted and Required square footages on that site. That makes sense. So they'll take the acreage, the tube planting so they'll have a certain amount of plants per acre or a pile of per 100 square feet or how does that determine? Is it number of plantings per square footage or? For the to use for buffer requirements, I think they have to meet the calpere specifications, but that when we assess if we look at how much of the buffer area is served by the tree conservation area and then everything else that is lacking because there may not be able to see through it. This will provide some density to it, but there will still be, there will still be, there's some deciduous trees and there are types of plantings in there that you'll be able to see somewhat through it. I think, Ma Shant, that's exactly what's in my head like. Okay. I feel more comfortable having it like a little denser so that it will not be like visible for anybody who's in that area So that's what again, how do we put that on on my Condition of approval so what I would suggest is if if the idea is to try to recapture some of that loss fencing the opacity we can work with NRT to work with the applicant to come up with a condition that establishes that. I couldn't tell you tonight five evergreen plantings, 10 evergreen plantings. That's exactly it. I can't tell you, I don't think we could recommend that tonight, but if you're interested in having more of a evergreen screen for a sort of a 365 sort of screening. We can work with the applicant to figure out what's reasonable. I think you heard my mind. Thank you. Commissioner Myers. So if we're not going to do the fencing, I mean the reality of it is there's a staging in the growth whether it's five, eight years or whatever before you're really going to get any dints of anything that we're talking about. So in day one, you're going to see through this until you get to the point of growth. But even when you get to that point, it's probably going to be a 12 to 20 foot tree, I'm guessing, not, and these structures are 75 feet tall. So anybody going on that path is still going to absolutely, there is no such thing as making it so when you're walking you're not going to see it. I mean the only way to make it so that you're not going to see the base of it would be to do some kind of fencing that's not opaque but is like the decorative that you're talking about but the reality and then you can't plant the trees and the underbrush but so close because then it strangles each other and you get it looks even worse because now it has no root to grow and expand so I'm not sure in this case that doing more is going to give you more of a coverage and if it does I think you're talking five to eight years down the road you're not talking about when this gets built that all of a sudden you're going to walk down this trail and you're not going to see the structure. Is that correct? So I agree with you. It's like telecom towers, right? The screening is meant to screen the ground equipment, not necessarily the structure. Same here. The power structure is the backbone you're going to see them. It's more of the ground level. I think with this, what we're talking about on this side is there is some existing mature vegetation that already exists where it's thin, does the commission want to see a more robust replacement buffer that may take a little bit longer to achieveuous, is there something that the commission would like to recommend to supplement that existing vegetation to get some of that screening back? And I guess I'm trying to figure out what is it we're trying to screen because I don't think and what's on the stick and there's not a butler building or any kind of building close to where we're talking about the nontensing going, correct? So we're talking about screening is the very large polls, I'm just going to call them for a better word. So I mean you're not going to, you're not really sheltering any view from there because there's not like we're trying to shelter from seeing the construction building or anything like that by doing the increased plantings. Correct. So the purpose of the buffer today is the width of the buffer. There's plantings and there's the wall for substations to again to screen the ground equipment. If you're coming westbound on 50 without that fence, you're going to be able to see through into the ground equipment is the commission comfortable with that. The real reality is if you really don't want to see it, then you don't want to give up on the fence. Because that's not just the fence, but more of the decorative fence, because even the chain fences and stuff that we've also seen, I mean. Slides you can see through this. You know, until the grass grows up through them and the weeds grow through them, you mean you still see them. So I'm not sure your plant, if you're intent, and you don't want to see it at all the bait for 10 feet going up, the only really way not to see it at all is then to require some type of fencing that it doesn't allow a view shed through it. Yes, ma'am. Commissioner Cares. Yeah, I'm just my economy. I do think there needs to be some additional screen on that east side. I probably would be more inclined to go along with the additional evergreen type of landscaping, you know, thickened it up as opposed to if you require a wall, you're going to put a wall through there, you're going to go digging in there, you're probably going to end up killing a lot of trees that are there to install the wall. So, and given that there's an existing visitation there, I think maybe just a little heavier evergreen buffering would be sufficient. Vice Chair Comes. Thank you, Madam Chair. On the South Fork substation, do you have the distance for the setback from the right away at root 50 from the building envelope? Have at least the 100 foot corridor buffer there. I know it's at least 100 feet It's over 200 feet apparently Okay shows on the cross section, but it's's 200 feet apparently. Okay. Thank you. Okay. No other questions? Then we will open the public hearing on this item. I don't have anyone signed up to speak on either of these items. Is there anyone in the room who would like to speak on item one or two on tonight's agenda? Seeing none, do we have anyone joining us online for these two items? We do not, Madam Chair. Thank you. All right, last call. The public hearing is closed on these two items. We are in the Delas district. Is your mod ready? Do you have a motion for us? Actually, you have two separate motions. Two motions, yes. Well, yeah. 22. You do in the first one first. Yeah. Each motion has two parts. Yeah, two parts. OK, now. Yeah, I got it. OK. So I'll start with the race field anyway. So I Moved at the planning commission up roll ledg 2023 0090 race field substation CMP T2022 007 subject to commission department, plat dated November 21st, 2024, based on the finding for approval provided as attachments 193 to December 12, 2024, planning commission public hearings staff report. And I have further sorry and I further move that the Planning Commission forward led to 2023, 0090, Racefield Substation, SPAC 2020, 0008 and SPAC 2020, 0018 to the Board of Supervisor with the recommendation of approval subject to the conditions of approval dated now on 28th, 2024 and based on the findings for approval provided as attachments 2 and 3 to the December 12, 2024 planning commission public hearing staff report. Commissioner Matt are ready with the one caveat that the conditions be amended to include the decorative screening described by the applicant today on the south and west. This is only a race for you. I'm ready to get done with these two applications. All right. Motion is made by Commissioner Matterello. Seconded by Commissioner Barnes. Do you have an opening regarding the race field application. Anything Commissioner, Madam Ready? No. Oh, no, you're good. All right, any comments? Okay, we have a motion on the floor. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The motion carries 801 with Commissioner Jasper absent. Do you have a second motion for the second-set of motions for the second item? All the second, do you need to be able to do the same for the previous question? That is your discretion. I think it's up to, it sounds like there's two things going on. There's the commitment that they offered with the Decatur of Wall. There's also an interest in some additional plant screening. Is that the two? Okay. That's one we haven't yet figured out exactly what it looks like. Or that the applicant is indicated whether or not they'll commit to that. So I guess take that into account. Madam Chairman, we can indicate that we will commit to that. Okay. And we will commit to working with staff between here and the board to do so. Okay. So if you're comfortable with it, you can make the motion you want. Are you comfortable working with them to put the language in there? Is this, since I think we're comfortable with it, we can certainly follow up with you Commissioner Matt are ready with what we come up with and then you can brief that to Mr. Lutorno. Perfect. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. I, second motion. You're Okay. I second motion. You're ready for the second motion. I move that the Planning Commission up roll, LG 2020-03-0019, NOAA South for substations, CMPT-2023-0015, subject to the Commission permit, plaque date December 4, 2024, based on the findings for approval provided as attachments 193 to December 12, 2024, planning commission public hearing staff report. And I further move that the planning commission forward, legit 2023, 0109, Novak South for substation, SPEC 2020-4-033 and SPEC 2020-4-034 to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of approval, subject to the condition of approval dated December 4, 2024 and based on the findings for approval provided as attachments 2 and 3 to December 12, 2024 Planning Commission Public Hearing Staff report. I think that's with the caveat of adding additional language to support additional plantations. And the decorative staff. Yes, and your decorative fans. And the decorative fans, yeah. Okay, do we have a second? A second. All right, motion is made by Commissioner Maderetti, seconded by Commissioner Myers. Do you have an opening? No. No, we're good. All right, any comments or questions? Do we have a motion on the floor? All in favor? Aye. All right. Did you vote? Okay. You were prepping to vote. No, I was going to say something. Okay. All right. All in favor. We'll try that again. Aye. Opposed? Aye. All right. Motion carries. 7-1-1. With Vice Chair Combs opposed. And Commissioner Jasper absent. All right. We're done with those two items. So we will. And that means we're done with you for the evening, Christian. We'll see you next year. Thank you. All right. Item number three on tonight's agenda, CPAM 2024-004, World Historic Village Classification. I'll shuffle people around a bit and Heidi, you'll join us for that presentation. I'm sorry. All right. Good evening. Commissioners, my name is Heidi Siebentritt from the Department of Planning and Zoning's Community Planning Division and I'm with you tonight to present CPM 2024, 004. This is the rural historic village classification comprehensive plan amendment. And with me at the table tonight is Teresa Stein. She is the division manager for community planning. The Board of Supervisors initiated the CPM in January of this year as part of the Board's approval of the Department of Planning and Zoning's overall work plan. In April, the Board approved the CPAM Project Work Plan with a relatively condensed timeline anticipating that the CPAM would return to the Board by February 2025. The purpose of the CPAM is to amend chapters 1 and 2 of the general plan specific to rural historic villages or RHBs. The general plan anticipates that small area or village plans will be created for communities that have the rural historic village place type designation within the rural policy area. The CPAMC is a precursor to the initiation of individual village plans that will happen at a future date. And the CPAMC seeks to create a set of criteria to define a rural historic village, to evaluate the current list of 12 designated historic rural historic villages to evaluate the current list of 12 designated historic rural historic villages to determine if the list should be amended, to evaluate other rural historic communities that are identified in the general plan, to update the list of rural historic villages and associated maps in the comprehensive plan if warranted, and finally to make recommendations on how rural historic villages should be prioritized for future planning efforts. The scope of work and the associated condensed timeline are reflective of the fact that the CPAM only results in an update to a place type in the general plan that has no associated regulations with it. This CPAM in and of itself does not initiate village plans. The current list of rural historic villages has not changed dramatically since the county's 1991 choices and changes plan, though there are some differences. The 2019 general plan designates rural historic villages as a place type that is unique to the rural policy area. So, communities such as Ashburn and Arcola, which are in the suburban policy area, are now considered legacy villages and not rural historic villages. And this on the screen is the list and the associated map of the existing rural historic villages. And this on the screen is the list and the associated map of the existing rural historic villages that staff has evaluated. The general plan also specifies that air-mont, Bloomfield, Howard'sville, Morrisonville, Unison, and Willisville be evaluated for a rural historic village designation. And staff also consider the communities of Storttown and Watson, like Bowman Town and Howard'sville. Storttown and Watson are identified and mapped as historically African-American communities in the rural policy area. Regarding Stort town, prior to the 2019 plan, Stort town and Bowman town were represented as one village, the village of Aldi Mountain. But in the 2019 plan only lists Bowman Town as a rural historic village, during staffs outreach to residents in both Bowman Town and Stort Town it became clear that residents consider these as two separate villages that are separate but historically and culturally interconnected. Therefore Stort Town was considered as part of the CPAM. The existing and potential rural historic villages were evaluated using a set of criteria, which includes both physical and social cultural characteristics. So we looked at, is there a current and or historic mix of uses in the community that is represented in the built environment today. Is there a core of at least 10 buildings with some community gathering space in a settlement pattern that is discernible from its surrounding area? Does the community have historic significance? Is it eligible or does it have any historic designation because of its built environment or because of its cultural affiliation or cultural continuity? And is there a community of interest, a group that advocates for this community? And we also looked at the issue of equity and asked questions like what communities have been considered significant in the past and where have resources been allocated based on past community assessments and the question of equity also comes into play when we looked at how to prioritize villages for future village planning initiatives They stated earlier the board adopted work plan provided for a relatively short timeline for the CPAM, and the project scope lays out targeted public outreach. In addition to the state code mandated and vacations, there was consistent outreach to and coordination with the Loudon Historic Village Alliance. They are major state colder in this project whose organization represents a majority of the currently designated rural historic villages. Deaf also met with residents and organizations in several of the other communities. In October there was a public input meeting in Perseville with approximately 40 attendees. In addition, there were two press releases associated with this project and the office of public affairs and communications created an online platform as another way to garner public input for this project. We do anticipate robust community outreach when actual village planning initiatives occur. Regarding public input, three consistent themes were present in the public input. That it's important to identify and map the many villages and communities existing and vanished that characterized the county's settlement history. So that our understanding of these places is not completely lost to history. And in response to have created the map that you see on the screen. This map contains the general locations of all villages and communities in the county, whether east or west existing or vanished or historically black or white, that we have been able to document through various resources to date. This map is really offered as a parking lot, if you will, and can serve as a jumping off point for future research. Secondly, smaller communities that do not meet the criteria to be designated as rural historic villages and may not need an in-depth village plan are still important county assets that may benefit from future more targeted initiatives. That might include something like a traffic study or a historic survey, historic preservation effort. And lastly, there was overwhelming support to include Village, Unison as a rural historic village. In previous planning documents, Unison was considered a village, but the 2019 plan does not include it in the list. There was a lot of support for bringing UNICE back to the list. Using the criteria that we established in the public input, staff evaluated the 12 existing rural historic villages and eight additional communities. And while not every village met the evaluation criteria, none are proposed to be removed building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building, building and Aldi Mountain Planning Area. This mirrors the boundary of the village of Aldi Mountain found in previous planning documents. Loud and heist and near-sville, smaller but distinct communities are combined to create a between the hills planning area bounded to the north by the Potomac River, to the south by Route 9, and by the Ridge lines east and west of Harper's Ferry Road. So, this is the existing and proposed list of rural historic villages. Newly proposed villages are highlighted in yellow on your screen in the asterisk to note the villages that are part of the two larger planning areas, all the mountain and between the hills. To the left is the amended plan map showing the new list of rural historic villages and the two planning areas. The other two maps are really just zoomed in to show the boundaries of the proposed Aldi mountain and between the hills planning areas. The existing 12-world historic villages have already adopted village boundaries and village conservation overlay district boundaries. So the villages that are in the plan today have those boundaries that have been adopted. The proposed boundaries for the newly added villages of Unison and Willisville coincide with the national registrar historic district boundaries for each of those villages, as those are boundaries that the county has previously recognized and mapped. And staff anticipates that all of the village boundaries may be amended, as each village goes through its own individual planning process and residents within the villages, help to define the boundaries of their communities. Regarding the smaller rural historic communities, those that are not to be designated as rural historic villages, created a new map that has been added that identifies their locations, these communities do not have adopted or proposed boundaries and are not anticipated to have future formal village plans, but they are considered county assets that might benefit from future targeted county and community supported projects. In summary, the proposed text amendments include updating chapter one to bring the list of rural historic villages from 12 to 15, adding a reference to the other rural historic communities, chapter two, to define rural historic village referencing the criteria, to amend the list of rural historic villages from 12 to 15 to reference the two proposed planning areas to reference the other rural historic communities that are not designated as rural historic villages and to add a strategy for those rural historic communities under the rural historic village policies. We also define what a rural historic village and a rural historic community are in the glossary. And then we've updated and added maps in the 2019 comprehensive plan. Specifically, we added the all historic villages and community map. We added a rural historic communities map. We updated the all historic villages and community map. We added a rural historic communities map. We updated the rural historic village place type map with the planning areas and then we updated the relevant countywide transportation plan maps. Regarding prioritizing future village plans, the village plan for St. Louis is already well underway and the board has determined that Luckets is the next in line for a plan. In addition, staff is recommending prioritization of Pianist Springs. As plans for a shared drinking water and wastewater facility with waterferd are moving forward and the availability of utilities will increase the number of available lots and the overall development potential in the village and this could have a big effect on the community of Pianne and Springs. Staff is also recommending the historically African-American village of Willisville pre-prioritized. Over the last few years, Willisville residents have raised concerns about demolition by neglect, about loss of their historic buildings, and a variety of zoning issues. Willisville is the only historically African-American community that is currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places, and allocation of county resources is warranted, we believe, to preserve this community. This is the end of my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. All right, any questions for staff? Mr. Myers? First of all, thank you for taking the time you guys did to set with me and go and give me kind of a presentation before tonight. I really appreciate that and gave me some time to do some research. I want to ask one question. It may not be a lot of people feeling like it's remained tonight, but for me, what does it mean that you're a legacy instead of that you're a role village? So, I will tell you, I don't know where the term legacy village came from in the 2019 plan, but they are meant to note villages that are not in the rural policy area. And villages where in the suburban policy area as you are noting, where development and redevelopment is anticipated. But there's no place to find it. It doesn't exist. As far as you've seen, this is it, and this is how things should develop or not develop because of it, in the general plan currently. So you're saying that I'm sorry, the definition doesn't exist for legacy village? Okay, and I promise 30 seconds on the sub-box and I'll move off of it. But I live in the old village of Ashburn. My family's been there since way too long, some people would say, but we go all the way back to 17, 1800s. And until from 91 to 95, when I was on the Plum Commission, we worked hard on old Ashburn, old Sterling, old Arcola, and even Aldi, because they were significantly areas that needed to be protected, because they were significantly areas that needed to be protected. Whether they were seen to be in rural, modern, or in western, eastern London, we didn't care about that. They had a rural character and a village concept of them that should be protected. I mean, we still have the old one-room school black house. School house still there. The black church was allowed to be torn down with nobody looking at it. We lost the railroad station. It just was dissolved and now it's, I feel like it's a song. It's been paved over for parking lot for the regional park authority. And the old pool hall that was there in the 1800s has been allowed to just go away. We now have three story townhouses that no more confirmed to what the people that have lived their forever look like. And that was never supposed to happen if you looked at what predated 2019. And it's like because it's not in rule, the rule policy any matter, it doesn't matter. And it just when I was after I met with you when I started reading even my blood pressure got so bad, it wasn't funny because I'm it's that's not a fair thing to do it to just be sad because you're no longer in Western Lodin that village concept doesn't matter anymore and absolutely should I mean that's where the railroad station came through that's where President stayed in that hotel that was allowed to be torn down that's where the farmers went to to drop off the flower that went in the train that went to DC and that mill still is there. But to decide just because it's not in Western Lodden, it's not significant and it's a legacy that doesn't even exist that even is worthy of a definition. And I still don't have, and you know, that does my neighbors, we don't have public sewer. We don't have public water. We have a 12-foot wide road. Where as much as a rural village is a lot of the places that we're trying to protect. So that's my soapbox because I just can't believe that it has just vanished when years were spent working on old sterling which needed to be preserved, old Arcola, you know, and old Ashford and they just, the definition of what we're supposed to be doesn't even exist today. So that's my, and I was never even notified. As an owner there, I was never even notified of the change. But that leads me into my next point about this is I think it is so important to make sure that citizens out there understand the process. And I understand you did a press release, but when I look at these communities out here that we're talking about, I don't think a lot of them probably read a lot of press releases. I don't think they come to the government center to look at a lot of stuff. And I think before we move forward with this, not us, I'm saying, but I would like to include in our recommendation to the board that a actual written notice go out to these potential owners so that they know that they're about to be brought, part of this process before it starts. So I would like to see us include that we ask that we think that in these communities that written notice should be sent to the affected property owners. So they're aware of the public here. And I mean, I find it interesting that we have 12 villages being looked at. Look at the room. Nobody's here at all. I mean, willsville, none of them. So I'm just, well, we have one person out of 12 villages or two people out of 12 villages. But like I said, to me, it's just like when we did St. Louis to have an application in St. Louis and have no one from St. Louis except for the task force here. So when it comes to the time, I would like to amend the motion to include that we make sure and notice this setting out because like I said, with all due respect, I just think that that extra element in these CVs because the communities that we're talking about just like I told you in Old Ashburn, I don't get to Leaseburg today. I don't necessarily read all the press releases. I don't come to the county building. So if I'm not knowing it's going on, there's a lot of people that we may think they want it, but they may not, and we put them on the priority, and they didn't even want to participate in the area. So thank you. Commissioner Cares. I have more of a commentary than a question so I'll defer. We'll hold that for motions. All right that works. Vice Chair comes. Thank you Madam Chair. It's a question born from Commissioner Myers, comments, and soap boxing. It sounds to me like when the 2019 general plan was drafted, it determined that rural historic villages belong only in the RPA, yet we have these other old villages elsewhere in other policy areas that are now called legacy districts. So in addition to what is very thoughtfully and well put together here, is there some way to, as this moves forward, to define the legacy districts and give them some similar sorts of protections or benefits that maybe it doesn't rise to the level of the rule historic village designation in the RPA but something to give them the protection that it seems like may have been lost when the 2019 plan came about. Is that something that can be included as it moves forward? So I would point out that I think certainly we could define what a legacy village is. I was also surprised in looking at the older planning documents that we've never, we have never defined in the glossary what a village is or rural historic village or any of those terms have none of those terms have been defined. So I do think it's possible to add a definition for what a legacy village is. I do want to point out though that having the definition or even having the designation as being part of that place type or rural historic village place type, it doesn't come with protections. It doesn't come with anything except rural historic villages as they are now in the rural policy area would be eligible for community plans. If the community themselves wanted to initiate that process, if there was interest in the communities. But I think- Yeah, fair enough. I guess I would say it also does provide the protection of perhaps protecting against some of the development that we've seen in Old Ashburn that perhaps wouldn't be consistent with a rural historic village. So there may not by giving that designation, there isn't comp plan support for doing something that may be contrary to it. So I think there is a little bit of a benefit there, but I think defining legacy village is a great place to start. And if there's some way to weave some of that into this effort as it moves forward, I think that'd be a great benefit. Thank you. Mr. Miller. Thank you. The further Vice Chair Comes's question, would it not be, is it not possible? We call them rural historic villages, not rural historic. So it's rural because of its location. It's historic because of its type. Would not Ashburn be suburban historic village. Some type of historic, just because it's rural, doesn't mean, just because it's rural, doesn't mean it has to be rural. So, could we not define it? Could we not define places like Old Ashburn as historic villages, just with some other than rural and be afford the same comp plan protections? I believe that the intent of calling them legacy villages is to be able to denote that they are historic. They just don't happen to be in the rural policy area. I can defer to Theresa on this, but I would think that doing any more than defining what a legacy village is might be beyond the scope of this particular C-PAM. If that is of interest, then that would have to go to the board. So I would just think that if we called them, if we were called, legacy historic villages. something that ties the two types of locations of the villages together, I think would be helpful, and if that can be done at some way along the line, I think that would be useful. I would like to say that Heidi did include a map that's going to be included on our plan that will show all of the villages, whether or not they're in the rural policy area or not. So that's already in her proposal. Thank you. Is Ashburn on that map that you just referenced? Ashburn is on the map, yes. Okay. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Any other questions? We do have a public hearing to open up on this item. So we'll go ahead and do that now. Public hearing is open. I do have folks signed up. We will start with Madeline Skinner. And then Phil Daley, you can be standing at the ready your next Good evening chair Frank and loud County Planning Commissioners my name is Madeline Skinner and I am the chair of the loud and historic village Alliance first and foremost LHVA supports the approval of the staff report for the CPAM 2024-004. The staff report has successfully met the goal of providing policy direction, applicable revisions to the general plans chapter 1 and 2, including policies, actions and updates to mapping. The approval of the CPAM will allow villages to kick off small area plans starting in 2025. Small area plans will produce unique community agreed upon approaches that will include specific goals and the detailed implementation plan to meet the immediate and future needs of each village. In addition to the community outreach by county staff as they followed the standard procedures by completing a county CPAM, the London historic village alliance has worked to educate the village procedures by completing a county C-PAM. The Lawn Historic Village Alliance has worked to educate the village residents by sending out emails with related articles, status reports, and session invites to keep residents informed. We have conducted numerous village meetings since July, where residents of all villages, slash communities, were invited to discuss the rural historic village C-PAM and small area plan overview. Multiple new contacts were made through LHVA's website and we talked to residents and identified historic communities like Morsenville, Bloomfield, and Watson. The Unison Preservation Society sent out a mailing to inform unison residents of the upcoming Rural Hist historic village classification. Providing with staff discussion points at the Willisville Foundation meeting and circulating the CPM document with a follow up reminder to LHVA members of all villages and newly involved community members. We agree again on the need to preserve the legacy villages and all of the villages preserve their history in some way. And that is something LHV has always been dedicated to since we started six years ago. It's time to move forward to finally begin the work with the villages, the individual villages, and their communities on small area plans. It will provide much needed protections for the future of these beloved treasures. The villages are informed, enthusiastic, and ready to go. LHV asks that you approve the CPAM. I also want to express our gratitude to the TPC, ZAT, the DPZ staff, who went above and beyond to research and prepare for these findings. Thank you very much. And I do want you to know we have been, LHV has been really busy trying to inform all of the villages, even some of the ones that we have met as some of these newer communities and it's really been a goal of ours to make sure that everybody understands not only the rural historic village classification CPM, but what's gonna be involved in the small area plan process. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Daley. Madam Chair and commission members, appreciate the chance to come and talk. My name is Bill Daley. I live in 18194, Sands Road, Perseville, which is really in the village of Lincoln. Lincoln was known as Goose Creek until 1865. It was really established back in the 1740s. It is historic. We have two black churches, one active, one not active. We have the loose gold meeting. There's lots out there. I've been, did all everything Madeline said, okay? And we'll start with that. She's been wonderful. The reason there aren't 16 or 14 people here is a lot of us have just relied on Madeline and the LHBH people to do our work for us. So I'm coming here to support her and let you know that I am now the Senior Advisor for Lincoln Community League and I will speak for the community league that we support this CPAM. It's just a first step. We've been waiting for this. I've been waiting for this since Pugamp, personal urban growth management area, was created. We found out that they came down and took over part of Lincoln and that. And finally, I had to talk to Mayor Marsh way back when, and he said, no, Phil, don't worry. We're not going to come that far. We'll stop. We'll do it. So that's Lincoln sign is in the Poo Gamp when you come in the Lincoln down 287. Okay? So I just want to let you know, I sympathize with what's going on in Ashburn and Old Ashburn and all those villages. We don't want it to happen to our village. We invite any one of you or all of you to come out to visit our village as well as the rest of the little villages out there to learn. What it's really like and what we're about to lose. Lincoln is designated, was designated back in the early 200s, is one of the 10 most critical or endangered villages in the nation, or at least in Virginia. And it's still in danger. We're only a mile south of Percival. The only thing that's protecting us right now from further encroachment is the last dairy farm in the Loudon County, which we ought to find a way to protect the Potts dairy farm. And we're only a mile and a half south west of Hamilton. So we're, I wish we were number four or three on the list, but we're willing we've got a lot of strong people in the village. We have the Lincoln Community League, the Lynch and Preservation Foundation, working to preserve it, but we need to go further. We have to get this CPAM done so we can start on small area plans. It's really needed. We have to define our buffers. We're part of the Goose Creek Historic District. That's what we used to be. Then we became Lincoln when we got our post office, way back in 1865. There's a lot of history out there, if you haven't been in the, I've lived here since 1980 and I would hate to lose it. So let's get this one on the way so we can start work. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have anybody else here in the audience who would like to speak on this item? Seeing none, do we have anyone online joining us for this item? We do not, Madam Chair. All right, last call. The public hearing is closed. One of my favorite nurseries is, I don't know if it's technically Percival or Lincoln. Now you have me wondering, but I always thought it was Lincoln. Is out that direction and is a lovely place. All right. This is countywide. Commissioner Mars, do you have a motion? I move that the Planning Commission approve and adopt the resolution provided as attachment six to the December 12, 2024 Planning Commission Public Hearing staff report. And I further move that the bill is of luck its peonies, springs and wills for the prioritized for the village plans. And I further move that staff's and written notices to propose rural historic village destinations to property owners within the proposed boundaries of the community proposed communities to be added to the list of the rural historic villages to include Stewardsound Unison and Willisford prior to the Board of Supervisors Public Public Hearing on this item and further I move that we seek to do the definitions of the legacy village, rural village and historic village during this process. That's a second. Motion is made by Commissioner Meyers, seconded by Commissioner Kierce. Do you have an opening? I think of, then on my soap block enough. Okay. Any other comments on the motion, Commissioner Kierce? So I'm happy to move this forward and in my discussions with staff. My only concern was for not the existing villages but new ones that may be incorporated into villages and that they're aware of this action going forward. And the reason being is being designated a rural historic village doesn't necessarily change anything. But what it does do is allow that area to have a small area plan done and that does affect the residents that live within its boundaries. So based on that, I just felt it should be necessary that some kind of outreach to every property owner in these districts. I don't think that some of these I'm guessing it's fairly small. Besides the efforts the county makes to reach out and the committees that are out there representing rural villages. There's still a chance that there are people that live out there that are active in these things that aren't aware that some changes may be taking place. So that's why I support the motion that added written notification be sent out prior to the board. So all potential residents in these new incorporated villages know what's happening. And I feel much more comfortable knowing that every property owner was reached out to, it had an opportunity to participate and have their thoughts known. So with that, I can change the language. I fully support the motion. Vice Chair Comes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank Heidi and Teresa for all your work on this and other staff. It is a big piece of work and I think it is very thoughtfully put together. I'd like to thank LHVA for all their work as well and I appreciate the urgency of this. I wish we had this and some of the small area plans done before the route 15 widening issue came before us and luckets with all those folks who came out looking for a small area plan is that that whole proposition was put before them. So with that, with all the effort that's already been undertaken here, I'd love to see this move forward with utmost haste. All right, any other questions, comments? Okay, do you have a closing, Commissioner? No. All right, we have a motion on the floor. All those in favor? Hi. All right. We have a motion on the floor. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? The motion carries 702 with Commissioner Jasper absent and Commissioner Miller has stepped away temporarily. So we will be returning. All right. Thank you so much. Last item on our public hearing agenda. ZOM 2024-003, manufactured home regulations. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. Okay. Commissioners, if you're having any issues with your iPad, it appears the public internet may be having problems go ahead and you should have first the first cellular options where you can keep everything up and running so if you get a notice I think we're all starting to get them hopefully it doesn't become a bigger issue but if we look a little confused because we're trying to get to something and we can't that we may have lost our lifeline up here temporarily but I think we can model through. You'll have the option to, when it pops up, it offers the option to go to cellular to have your internet connection. Or you can go to your, I'm really not the tech guide person here, but okay, Jackie's going to jump in and save me from embarrassing myself publicly with using the wrong terminology But you can go somewhere in your settings and pick your internet and Tell it you don't want to try to use the COL public one anymore All right, I think with that small interruption crown. We are ready when you are sure Good evening commissioners. My name is Juan Patel. I'm here with DPC I have Ryan read here with me our zoning team leader. We are here to present an overview of minor tax amendment to zoning ordinance regarding manufacturer homes. Of course, after presenting our presentation, we'll be here to answer any questions if you have any. So, November 7th Board Business Meeting, the Board directed staff to address ambiguity and zoning ordinance adopted in December 2023. This proposed changes are straightforward adjustments to clarify existing regulations for manufactured homes. The purpose of this amendments is to clarify that in zoning districts permitting both manufactured home and single family dwelling detached as well as attached. Only one principle use can be developed on a single lot. Additional manufactured homes on the lot must comply with accessory use standards such as caretaker or tenant dwellings. Walking you through text changes in the zoning ordinance, so proposed text changes will chiefly be in chapter four, use specific standards, definitions of zoning ordinance. What we are removing or relocating is section 4.2.4A applicability section 4.2.4 applies to manufactured homes. We are relocating what is crossed out here on the slide to further section, which I will point out in a second. And for section 4.2.4 B, we are trying to be consistent with other sections in this chapter four view specific standards. Just re-naming it to intensity and character. For the redition in the same section, 4.2.4B, we're talking about clarifying that only one manufactured home or single family dwelling can serve as a principle use on a lot, as well as ensuring additional manufactured homes meet accessory use requirements and adding that basic design guidelines for manufactured homes outside rural zoning districts. And coming back to what we relocated from 4.2.4A is going to be part of now 4.2.4 B is going to be under design section of this section, particularly of manufactured homes. The following standards will apply to manufactured homes located outside of the directed zoning districts. And with that, that is all I have. And thank you so much for the attention I have. I'm here if you have any other questions. All right, thank you very much to Commissioner Myers. Just have a quick question. Manufacturers, how was it not allowed in the C.R.1? Is it not allowed in the suburban area? I thought it was, and this explicitly is just dealing with the AR districts and the TR10. We can certainly check that. I mean, I know in the suburban area that there have been manufacturer houses built. And in the CR1 in the Arcola area, places like that. So I was just wondering why it only references the AR123-10 and the TR-10. What I would say is I believe that those, that's one of the use specific standards. And I think that just refers to design limitations on manufactured homes in those districts, not necessarily the use permissions for them. But I guess what I'm trying to verify is there's nothing in this that prevents or all of a sudden says that you know what my concern is that it just calls out the role policy area places. I just want to make sure whether it's, you know, there's places in Sugarland, Starlan, again, Old Ashmore, Arcola and places where in the past you've been, you know what I'm talking about, Mark, in places where we've been allowed to do manufacturer town because it's not trailers. I mean, that's one thing that needs to be made sure. It's really the way the house comes and the components of it. And it's structured the same way to the ground. So I just wanna make sure, but the way this is done, it's not saying now that all of a sudden you can't do it in those areas. Correct. This amendment isn't really changing the permissions of the use. It's just clarifying essentially that Essentially that you can only, if you're using a manufactured home as a principal dwelling, you can only have one per lot. That's really the basis for this because in the past that was the case because manufactured home was tied to single family. When the new ordinance was adopted, it was added as a separate use. And so, according to sort of separated the two, the definition of single family detached is clear that you can only have one as a principal dwelling per lot. But since we added the manufactured home as a separate use, that definition doesn't say that. So, the purpose of this is just to make sure it's consistent and these areas, let's just put that way. That's not the intent that after this, she will only be able to do manufacturing housing in these areas. I think it's just as Jason was pointing out that it's just the standards that are applicable in those districts. That's why that was separated out for the AR. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? All right. We'll go ahead and open the public hearing on this item. I do not have anyone signed up in advance. Is there anyone in the room who'd like to speak on this item? Seeing none, is there anyone joining us online for this item? We do not, Madam Chair. All right. Thank you. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing on this item. We do not, Madam Chair. All right. Thank you. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing on this item. This is a countywide. Commissioner Myers, do you have a motion? I move the Planning Commission for 0AM2O2403, clarify regulations regarding Manufacturing House, provided as a testament one to the December 12, 2024 Planning Commission Public Hearing staff report to bore the supervisors with a recommendation of approval. Second. All right, motion is made by Commissioner Meyers. Seconded by Chair Frank. Do you have an opening? No, okay. Any other comments on the motion? All right, we have a motion on the floor. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? The motion carries 702 with Mr. Miller and Ms. Jasper still not with us this evening. All right, thank you so much. Don't you wish they were all that easy? I know you didn't say, Mark, just for that. All right. I know you didn't say mark just for that. All right. With that we will transition from the public hearing section of our evening on the work session agenda, CPAM 2024-001, and ZOM 2024-001, data center standards and locations phase one. Welcome back, gentlemen. It's been ages since we've seen you. Thank you. Okay. Bearing this for a second, we're just trying to. Absolutely. We're ready when you are. We moved so quickly, I think we caught folks off guard. All right. Good evening commissioners. Again for the record. My name is Abdul Jaffri. I'm the project manager. I signed this project with me here today. His Teresa Stein manager of community planning. Mark Holland with zoning and also Mr. Ryan Reed's deputy zoning administrator and our director, Mr. Daniel Indo is joining us virtually. So we will be briefly summarizing the past commission meeting dates for tonight. Again, it's going to be a shorter presentation as well. And also discuss the or summarize discussions from December 5th meeting. I recap the proposed amendments that is in front of us. And also the summarized commissions recommendations for board for the board's considerations. And also staff recommendation. So in total, we've met six times in September. Very great discussions throughout those meetings. This is our seventh meeting and then we're not. We do not have any additional meetings planned on this item. At the December 5th meeting, the county attorney provided an overview of the vested rights and grant following. The commission voted to recommend denial of the proposed amendments, the CEPA and the ZOM, and directed the staff to prepare a resolution of denial for submission to the board. Additionally, the commission provided several recommendations for the board's consideration, which I will address in the upcoming slides. To recap, the proposed amendments for the phase one include designating data center as a conditional use in a 2019 general plan, replace the urban employment playstyle with the urban transit center playstyle, redesign it, or cola area to suburban neighborhood playstyle, redesign it, goose creek club to leastberg GLA main residential neighborhood playstyle, and designate designated data as a special exception in the zoning ordinance. In addition to recommending denial to the proposed CPAM and the zone, the commission conducted several straw poll votes and made five recommendations for the board's consideration. The details of each recommendations are outlined in the staff report. First, the commission recommended that the board adopt a ground fathering resolution when they act on the proposed amendments. The second recommendation is that the effective date for the ground fathering resolution should be the board's public hearing date. Third, the commission recommends be the board's public hearing date. Third, the commission recommends that the board consider a future Roya to provide greater flexibility for existing data center uses that become subject to a special exception. This would allow limited site modification without the need for a full special exception application. The commission recommends including additional guidance to to establish specific criteria under which a data center application would not require a special exception. Examples of these criteria can be found in the title in five of the staff report. And finally staff supports a planning commission recommendation of approval to the board of supervisors. As promised, that was a quick presentation. That concludes our presentation, staff, is here to answer any questions we may have. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Kieres. So, I think you summarized it all, everything we had done and what we're looking for. But the package I got for this meeting doesn't reflect that. And that's, I don't know if it was intended to, but that's where I got a bit confused. Like attachments one and two have the language and the red lines as if the commission voted in favor of the conditional and special exceptions where we didn't. The place type for the urban employment disappeared and it just says urban transit. And so that recommendation seems to be missing from the package we have here. So I'm just a little bit confused what this was intended to tell us or is there a, are you going to, is there a one that's going to be upcoming that mirrors all of the recommendations that we just made because I haven't seen that yet. Thank you commissioner. is designed the way it is. Assuming that this might be our sort of final, somewhat final conversation on this. We, as a summary of our package, we just included attachment one, which is the red line proposed text amendments to the 2019 general plan. The attachment two, also the map changes, the three map changes that we talked about. And then also the table for the Zoom text amendment, just the standard practice to include those proposed amendments. The intent of that is to just sort of summarize all our conversation to this packet. Additionally, our slide was very brief a summary of the recommendations, but I think the staff report does outline in detail the recommendations that the commission made last in last meeting. So we hope that our attempt was to capture the commission's recommendations. And if that's not the case, if there's some modification and language, happy to modify that. But again, to answer your question, why we added those attachments, one to three, that's just a practice for us to sort of. That's what was being proposed. It doesn't necessarily say that we're agreeing. That's not correct. Okay. And so the resolution then, was the commission voted it down and that would make that moot. But I don't, I'm trying to find in here where it talks about the three individual place types and what we recommended on those. Yeah, that's something. Is it in here somewhere? No, it's, well it's not, I mean we have the five items from the last meeting but that one did get dropped off. It seems where we recommended two of the three. Like the Aldi's, the our cola one we recommended changing the place type, the goose creaky when we recommended changing the place type and the urban employment we recommended not changing it. So Commissioner Cures. Yeah. Again, the recommendation was to deny the entire packet. And then we have identified on page three of six. We've identified the decisions that was made, that the commission made on those three map changes. So the additional five recommendations was something that was introduced in a last meeting. So I think the way they staff report, I think it's structured, it looks like that your recommendations were not included, but is if you think they're included but I don't know why they're not why aren't all the recommendations in one place. I mean that's I think you know I think that's I was hold on. Commissioner Kierce go ahead. I was just I was because there's a motion you know the motions and I was expecting the motion to reflect all of the things that we had agreed on. And I was expecting to see that here, but I don't. So I guess part of what I'm saying is that, I'd like to see the complete package of what we are forwarding to the board in one place and one, you know. So Commissioner Kieres, in the last meeting the commission denied the entire packet. And that was basically a denial of the CEPAM text amendments, CEPAM, MAP amendments, and the ZOM text amendments. That was the, and the staff was directed direct, and we were, staff was directed to draft a resolution of denial to reflect that. However, staff was also directed to document the straw poll votes for the three map areas. And that is, that is outlined in on page three of six of this staff report. Okay, so that's not something that I was, I'm looking at the work session item for tonight. And I don't see it in there anywhere. It's in through page three. Is it there? It is. It's in the summary of the past meetings, but it doesn't show up on the next page. That's probably what right past that because it was done pre. Okay. I just want to yeah, if it's in there. If it's in there, come here. If it's there, I see that now. I just yeah, because I went through and I was just looking at the motion and what it included and I looked at the attach. And I just, I want to press the pre-restate. So that will all be part of it. Yeah, that's correct. OK. So I am good with all that. The only other comment I was going to make was the actual motions if we get to that point tonight, I'd like to separate 1A and 1B and do them separately. So that was mainly the comment on it. Okay, Commissioner Meyer. So, following along a little bit under Commissioner Harris's comments is, I understand the way you've done the attachments that reflect the staff's position at the board sent to us. But they don't reflect the position of where this body ended, other than just a simple motion at the end. I mean, the proposed 2019 General Plan amendment should also reflect the planning commission decision, which wouldn't have a red line. If we're going to separate these out because we have six pages about, not six pages, we have a lot of pages about where staffs that and the board was at. We have a few little paragraphs about the planning commission, but I think it needs to be clear that I think the motion should be there for the planning commission. The proposed attachments then go with that if you were to go with it so that you would not have these red lines that say the data center goes out in that. So that there is a part that's reflected for the staff was that and it's reflected of where the planning commission is that you've got to pepper through the six pages to figure out what we're thinking. I'm also concerned because we kept saying when we were doing these votes not necessarily minds changed we were saying consistently these are straw votes and that there will be some vote at the end. Well I don't see anything that's here that says we're going to go through these motions that were passed to confirm that this is where the Planning Commission now is. All I see is this draft motion a and b. So I mean, ward these are votes and this is what's getting forward to the board. Are these not going to be forward to the board because they were just work sessions on. I'm really, I'm a little, I'm a little, I think there should be a package that says here's the planning commissions votes. Here's the plenty of commissions. addendums that you would do if you agree with this, and then you can definitely have the staff. But I feel like there's this disjoint. I also have two things I'd like to bring up. I know we, and I wish Mark would say, because we had the discount, but I understand you'll probably just do it for tonight. We had a lot of discussion about when a site plan, if it's protected or if it's not protected, the envelopes, the not envelopes, then there seem to be a lot of discussion that was going around about that. For me, and I went back and I've read a bunch of stuff, but for me, I would like us to consider some wording like this. Any site plan for a data center approved prior to either the adoption date of the data centers OM, or whatever grandfather we come up with, maybe revised either via a site plan amendment or replacement site plan that does not exceed 5% of the previously approved Rose 4 area or a maximum floor area ratio for the district without the need of approval for special exception. Applications notwithstanding this amendment, building permits and other related subsequent plans and permit submissions may be accepted and approvals may be granted consistent with such revised plans, centers and site plans. This was a lot of discussion that we had the other night when Bill Jonda and they were talking about the idea that all of a sudden if you had to flip a building, if all of a sudden you had to do things because of new technology, there was an ongoing discussion about the near the end about, well, if you flip it in that part of the building was on another part of the site plan, there was a debate about whether it could or would or wouldn't require then a special exception. To me, I think this is something I'd at least like us to have a discussion about or a motion about that then makes it clear to the board that, and I've heard other board members say that it was never their intent to, I don't know if the right word is, the word is not harm, but to prevent already existing data centers from being able to expand on the property they had. To me, this is something that we heard a lot about that said, then this kind of clears out that anivity that was starting to occur, but like near the end of the night. So that is something that I would like us to at least bring up. And then the second one, can I bring up the second one now? Just a quick, so what you're proposing, so on our package for today on page four, under the December 5th meeting, data center campus modification that we took the straw poll on. Thank you. You're looking to replace this language with that language to be a little more specific. Right. Okay, thank you. Then, and then in that same regard when we're talking about special exceptions, well, not so much in that but we did a separate motion when it talked number five criteria where a special exception could not be required. In going back and relooking at the board's intent to amend and looking at that section 3.0.0.0.0.0.0.1, when you look at all those tables, a lot of at all those tables, there are footnotes. That allow you to have flexibility or give direction in other ways. Could we not, until the Board decides it wants to do another row? Could we not, in that section, also put this in as a footnote of, then these are errors that could be looked at with the below modifications where you could do these and not require a special exception because this was part of what was advertised for the public hearing. And that's a zoning question, not a plan question. Director Gleendo may have some comments on that online if you're there. I'd like to ask it's a zoning question. I'd like to see if we can get. It is a zoning question, but it's also a question that we've been discussing today as we were aware of this might come up. The issue is, I think potentially, and you can ask Jason there at the desk, that it is within the Roya so it is a possibility to add that. It is not something that staff would recommend doing. It's not the way that the entirety of the ordinance is formatted. The footnotes that are at the end of the use tables are in many cases one line or they're referring you to others process process, referencing other sections that provide a bit more information. They do not go into anywhere near the length of the kind of detail that we were discussing on the commission's recommendations at the previous meeting. Well, with all due respect, I mean, there are some of them here that when you go down to them, like when you go into the one that's dealing with organization use of tables and stuff, I mean, that particular one is from A to H with ideas when you go down to other ones. So there are footnotes that are very detailed into this table. So I mean part of it what I'd like to do is see us to take and add this as a footnote to that area that they would allow the board the same thing we just did. It would simply go in under the footnotes and wouldn't require another roya. If the board chooses to do it they can do it if they choose not to but it does it in here where it gives them the flexibility to look at these areas that they wouldn't have to have a special exception and doesn't require another roya and it allows the flexibility in the county attorney and said it was part of what was advertised. And I understand because staff also doesn't recommend us not doing anything other than just saying it's by special exception. You know, so I don't know if you want me just to make a motion to that regard at this point. Not at this point yet, Jason. I've asked Leah what was said and he didn't come down with a position as to whether or not it Was within or without or outside of the scope of the original Roya He only had a con he only had conversations with certain members of industry my feeling is it's kind of a Substance versus form. I mean technically does adding footnotes keep you in chapter 3 of the zoning ordinance? I guess. Do I think that those footnotes exceed the direction of the board? Personally, yes, the board said make it a specs or not. It didn't say add standards into the use tables in chapter 3 in the form of a footnote. So that that my position is I don't support that. I think that exceeds the scope of the royal. But that's up to what he just said that Leo said. If you're referring to me, I did not claim what Leo said. I said to ask Jason, I was just saying that even if it was, Leo, it's not what I would recommend as far as good practice in how we would organize the zoning ordinance. Well, I'd like to, okay. Well, I think we're going to take up some motions. I think I've seen a herd of you already kicked around. So hang tight with that if you're going towards a motion. Hold that for a minute. But if you have any other questions, please go ahead and ask. Okay. Did you all have any other comment besides what Jason and Dan have shared? I would just say there's only administration aligns with both my director and county attorney's office. Okay. All right. So the various departments and responsibilities are all in concert. That's always a good thing to know. Okay. Any other questions or discussion. Okay, I will take the suggestion I believe that we should separate these 1A1B. I would like to quickly gauge the sentiment. I'm almost cured of ever wanting to use a straw poll again after this experience, but I would like to quickly gauge the sentiment of the commission if you would like to separate each of the items underneath one B. To address them separately that was mentioned I believe. Is there any interest in doing that? No? No? Okay. All right. If there are things we want to change under there or add to it per some of these discussions we just had, let's do that after we vote on the commission. Okay, all right. If there are things we want to change under there or add to it, per some of these discussions we've just had, let's do that after we vote on 1A. But I would have an amendment to 1A then, based on what we just talked about with adding this, because 1A is part of the zoning part that we talked about is the... So, I mean, I don't know if you want to call it a friendly moment. I don't know if you want to call it a minute motion before you go to the main motion. What you want to, or separate it or? There's no motion. Yeah, it's a go ahead and to raise what it is. So we'll figure out got to look back to figure. We called it motion number. That's one. No, but I'm talking about what motion we had here. I wanted to move it to. I think it's very in. Commissioner Mars, that would be the data center campus modification, is that what you're looking for? I think that's the last one on page six. It will start with the attachment five. Yeah, which is criteria where specs would not be required. We had that a future royal, what you'll understand are right. You said rather than make that a future royal, let's go ahead and make that a foot go to the table. Correct. Okay. Okay. Okay, so that would be under 1b. B1a. No, so what you would want to do is you want to take B1a and then you want to bring number 5 criteria where that's not required. You want to make that part of your motion. That's what I'm saying, yes. Yeah, so you want to come and so do what you need to do is you want a and then add to it criteria. Okay. So I think if I complicate that because motion 1a, if it goes the way I went before, that's denying the board's requests. And if that, if you're denying it, then why would you attach language that says, here's how you can, you know, I mean, it seems like 1A is denying the change to make them special exceptions. So why would you attach language in that denial that here's what you do to possibly get a approval without being a specs? Because if 1A is basically saying we're denying making them specs. One B, I think was more given the reality that there's a good chance the board's going to go ahead and approve this. We have some language in there in the plan that might make it less not conditional or language, which was what we have originally, what to consider if an application comes in these criteria and the meets the criteria, it doesn't need to be a specs. That's where I get confused about adding this to something we're denying in motion 1A. If I may, you could probably just go ahead and do motion 1A to deny. And then when you're speaking about 1B, add your additional language about the footnote. That is the cleanest and simplest way to resolve what you want to do. And then is that the same place what we would do with the request I had about the additional wording? We would do that when we talk about grandfathering then? About the site plans and stuff? Yes. Okay. Right. And again, because that's listed in our December 5th discussion, the data center campus modification, we took a vote on the language and what you're suggesting, let's change that language to what your motion is going to be what I was then talking about was the first thing I talked about so I guess we would do that under grandfiling which was the site plan information. You see I'm saying it's two separate things. Vice Chair comms. Commissioner Myers are you suggesting that with those footnotes you would be recommending approval of the ZOM? No. Okay. So then I think what's being proposed in making those your suggestions adding them in the 1B then. Yes. Okay. So that if the board moves forward with what they would do, at least that's in the footnotes that they could use that. And then we wouldn't have to go back and redo another row because it would be setting there. And they could pick different things. But it would be in there for them to look at. I think what Theresa suggested would be the cleanest matter. Okay. So do we have a motion for the first part? I'll move that the Planning Commission approve and adopt the proposed resolution recommending denial of the CPAM 2024001 in ZOZO 8M 2024001 data center standards and locations Phase one provided as attachment six to the December 12, 2024 planning commission works session memorandum Motion is made by Commissioner Meyer second by commissioner banks do you have an opening? Okay. Any other comments or questions on the first motion? Vice Chair Combs. Do and I'll put this to the commission. Do we think it would be appropriate to add any language to the resolution of recommending denial that it's, I think, what the commission is saying is we're recommending denial based on the narrow scope of the Roya and that we're further recommending the board adopt a more expansive Roya that would include in its scope the amendments that are amendments along the lines of what we're suggesting in 1b. Is that appropriate to add to a resolution or is that not necessary? Hold on, hold on, hold on. I'm getting a lot of head shaking. So logistically. Okay, but can that go in a resolution or does that? Is it? I would defer to Jason but I do not believe that that would be the appropriate place to add additional language. The resolution should just be to deny. The recommendations that you're going to be doing in 1B could be the further items. I don't think you should modify the resolution to do that, but I'll leave that to Jason. I'm, and the reason I'm, I'm raising this is I'm not sure the posture of all of this as it gets passed on to the board and the resolution being really the only thing that, that captures what we're doing. The rest is just a motion and it's not embodied in anything. And so I'm wondering if we want our resolution to be a bit more inclusive with its detail. And if that's not appropriate, I don't know whether it is or not, but if that's not appropriate, then it's not appropriate. But I just raised that for folks to consider. Vice Chair Corms, I would take the position that whether staff agrees or not, the resolution is the mechanism by which we speak to the Board of Supervisors. And we can put in additional language if we think that that more appropriately reflects what we want to say to them. Jason. You're digesting, I can see. Do you want anything you want to add to this conversation? No. Is there a technical reason why we couldn't? No, and I was going to say it. Okay. That's all I want to convey. I agree with Commissioner Comes and Commissioner Banks. Okay. Commissioner Kieres. I don't have necessarily an objection to putting it in the resolution. I find resolutions not the most easy thing to read personally. What I was hoping would say, if we have the resolution which basically says we're denying it and it's based on our because of the narrow scope. However, here's a whole bunch of recommendations that we have that would immediately follow the resolution. And this is what the Commission grandfathering protecting can existing campuses, possible to change to the language in the plan, change a possibility of allowing, if it meets certain criteria to not need a specs, have all that information immediately following the resolution. So the board will see not 80 pages later in the document or opinion. It's like here's the resolution, here's the rest of what the board wanted to weigh in with you. Whether it's in the resolution or not, I don't care either way. I just, from reading, I think it would be better to be a separate list right after the resolution. But if the commission thinks it's better to put it in it, I'm fine with that. I just be an exhibit to the resolution, right? Yeah. And we could add language in our resolution, saying the board not approving to climb to adopt C. Pam and Zoham, but that we encourage the board to adopt a more expansive Roya that that includes in its scope amendments along the lines reference to an exhibit air is something to that effect Just a way to get all of those things captured in the one written document. We have that carries forward I agree and I know that Commissioner thinks and I had a little bit of this discussion because I said to him part of what I really don't like about this resolution is I feel like what it says is we're in the sandbox and we don't like you because it doesn't really say anything other than we just want to deny what you've asked us to do. I think having some substance in the resolution that says why we're not approving what they wanted is a better way of communicating to them so I wholeheartedly would support doing that. I also would bring up that and I don't know if it's in this resolution when we finish it. I know I talked to Commissioner Megs about this is If you go and you look at even the phase two, the phase two only has us having 30 days with it. So maybe this is also the part where it's whether it's in the resolution or whether it's in an exhibit to the resolution or whatever, that we also make our concerns known to the board also that and we would hope when we get into the phase two, that is, if you look at the timetable, it's 14 months, but we get it for a month, and it's through December again, that they would extend that time to give us some subsistime to work with it. So I think whether it's in the resolution or it's an exhibit, how will we do it? I would definitely like us to go and put that also so that we're not back in the same sandbox going but we only here we are again it's Thanksgiving and it's Christmas and we get the phase two. If I may jump in. Yes please. The commissioner combs and the rest of the commissioners concern in terms of the rationale for denial, the staff report to the board of supervisors will capture in terms of why the board, the piece or the commission recommended denial. So in the body at the front of the staff report is an opportunity whereas where we can just highlight some of the rationale behind that if that helps. Yeah, and I can appreciate the staff will capture a lot of that in its report I think for us to decide is whether we want our resolution to also address some of that since we don't have control over the staff report. One thing, I don't know if it's worth putting in one more, you know, where he is before we didn't say if we were denying it is the very limited nature on which we were directed to respond to this is the reason we're denying it. And that could be one additional part of the resolution so they know that, well, it's this very limited scope of yey or nay on the one chart and that's all that we're looking for you to do. Well, based on that limited scope, that's why we chose to, by majority, deny it. So we could still have those additional recommendations that would then follow. So Commissioner Kiersch, you're essentially saying the additional language that the vice chair is just discussing that you put that in, that we put that in, consider putting that in as a final whereas clause before the resolution itself. Okay, I mean I can support that. I can frankly support any of the notions in which we further indicate why we're denying it and that we recommend a more broad or royal. I don't think that that's necessary. I agree with Commissioner Kierst. It's probably cleaner if we simply deny in the resolution and then have the additional recommendations further on. But I can support it either way, I don't really feel very strongly about it. I agree, I think that at some point within the staff report our reasons for denial are going to be pretty clear. But I'm willing to go with whatever the will is of my colleagues in this regard. But my thought on the additional areas would be very simple just saying that due to the limited scope, that's why it's being denied, and then all the other stuff could still just be the next. It doesn't need to be part of the resolution or be the next, and here's all the recommendations that we do have. And then all that would be right after the resolution not you know picking shoes through different parts of the package it would be right there for the board to see. So fucking just jump in the draft motion that you have in front of you is exactly that and it combines them together so there's no separating a resolution to deny plus your recommendations voted on always one those are spoken to as a whole vote So it keeps that together if that's what you guys are making sure that happens So if we want to make changes to the resolution we need to do that now because it's part of the motion Correct right which which is what the discussion is we're having right now right so it sounds like I mean I agree with Mr. Banks. I think that the sentiment get in there is the most important thing. I'm not sure it needs to be in the formal resolution, because as Mr. Kier said, that's not always the most readable document and sometimes it's scanned over. I would prefer it be captured more in the recommendations section. And I think that's But as long it needs to be in there. That's where I would put it I don't know commissioner Barnes Recommendations section it should be put in leave that motion like it is So don't change the resolution but add it to the second part. Yeah. Commissioner Madden ready? I guess, I mean, we, we, on a data to the business, we do move on with motions. I mean, there are many denials actually we, we discuss, I mean, we pass. I don't think we give the reasons in the resolution itself like why we are denying it. I believe what the staff written here is very clean. I mean we can certainly add on the part B, the commissioner James said. I mean we talked enough for supervisors to understand where we are coming from. I mean, yes, when we combine the A and B, it makes sense to me. I don't know why we had to add it again in A. I think this is not clean in my mind. It makes it more complicated. That's clean. I'm going to move to the draft mentioned. Provided as the attachment 6 to the, how about if we said, understood the comma, we said, due to the limited scope of what the planning commission was able to, the wording where we would say that, it's due to the limited scope we were given so that it's very clear right in there why we are also doing that. It's not part of the resolution but it's very it's part of the motion that we're all agreeing to. And it makes it very clear. Almost like a findings for denial. Right. But I'm just saying to me that it gets you out of where do you put it, how far down does it go to somebody see it? We just simply do, due to the limit to scope that the Planning Commission was allowed to look at. And then it goes on, then it goes on to provide it as attachment six to data, data, data. Can we see the motion? I mean, I think that's fine as well. I just want to make sure that we've had a lot of deliberating. Right, a lot of this is captured in the motion. I didn't see it in the resolution. I want to make sure that somehow all of that is captured moving forward. Whatever the mechanism. And until right now it's not even in the motion that we say that's why. But if we add that to the common that said due to the limited scope the planning commission was allowed to look at, then that makes it clear why we're basing all this on. Teresa and then we'll go to Commissioner Banks. I was going to say it sounds as though so we have motion 1A is on the table right now. It was made and seconded. It sounds like we're talking now about an amendment to that motion. It's my motion. I can do a friendly amendment. That's one of the things being decided. I'm trying to get clear on that. That what you're now asking, now what you're saying is you want to amend that to state the reason, or the reason why you're denying is because of the limited scope or something. Yeah, your language. The general just of it. Yeah, Commissioner Banks? I was just going to ask Madam Chair if we could simply allow the maker of the motion to restate her motion with her amendment to it. Certainly. I think we can do that. Go ahead. I move the Planning Commission to approve and adopt the proposed resolution. Recommend you, Nile, CPAM 20240001, and ZOM 20240001, data-synced standards and locations phase one, due to the limited scope, able to review by the Loud and County Planning Commission, as attachment six to the December's 12, 2024 planning commission work session session memorandum. Second. All right. Motion is made amended, remade by Commissioner Myers and seconded by Commissioner Banks. Sorry, if Commissioner Myers, if you don't mind repeating that due to the limited scope of, I just want to make sure I can get into the five commission by the board of the City of屈. I'm going to take a moment to let Commissioner Paul and Myers work with Jason to make sure the wording is correct. Do we need to do that? And I think that captures the summary. I think we got it. Okay. Jason said I said what I the target. I think we got it. Okay. Jason said I said what I wanted to. That was his advice to me. No, we got it. Thank you. And I'm on his bad ear. All right. Do we have any other discussion about the new motion on the floor, Commissioner Barnes? No? Commissioner Banks? Commissioner Kierz. Yeah, same opinion of the last time we looked at it. I feel that we could make the recommendations of change to the language. I would have rather gone forward with a motion to approve the amendments with the adoption to the Language changes that we've recommended for the plan and to allow a data center to not need aspects in the future for met certain criteria. I would have preferred to move that as a motion to the board rather than denial and then add these things afterwards. That's it. Okay. All right. We have a motion on the floor. Do you have a closing? All right. All right, we have a motion on the floor. Do you have a closing? All right. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Nay? Nay. All right, that motion carries six to one. Was, Abra, were you in favor of denial? I'm with the gears too. You're with, okay, so you were a, you favor of denial? With the gears you you're with clip okay so you are a No, you're opposed to the motion. Yeah, I like the but originally written up that right okay So the motion was to deny that so you would be against the motion that was made To deny the change to make them conditional or special exception Yeah, I don't like the addendum that added to it. Okay, so the language, the language change in there. He's just voting now, so yeah. Okay, so 531 with commissioners, kiers, barns, and Frank opposed and commissioner, Jasper absent. All right, now we're going to get into 1B and I think we have a couple of things we want to address. I'm going to start with the, we need to add a recommendation that moves those, the three map changes. We need to capture that as I guess. This is part of being. I've started the discussion about B. But before we get too far and lose something, I wanted to get in there. So there would be, I guess this would be recommendation number six. You're on five and six. Recommendation number six would be that the commission recommends that are cola and the leasework. Yes, we're going, I'm moving, I'm moving what's on page three to a recommendation. I'm just, I'm relocating that we just want it captured where everything else is captured because even though it happened a few weeks ago it was a straw poll I think it's the same sort of recommendation that we're making so it belongs with the rest of them even though it didn't happen last week. So yes you can take what's on page three and say you know as far as what we did on the November 14th meeting, the commission agreed to recommend that the board specific areas, okay now. The commission, all right, the proposed, regarding the proposed amendments to the 2019 general plan, place type maps, the commission recommends Our cola and goose creek club Changes be made as drafted But did not recommend the metro station area Urban employment place type change be made. I'd like those separated so I can Vote with them separate all three of them Okay, cuz we just a minute ago everyone said you didn't want all five of the things on there separated. So now we're separating the level even farther. There's five. I don't think the chair is proposing that the recommendations from the came out of the November 14th work section be part of 1b as number six under 1b. Correct? Correct. And so you're saying you do not wish it to be number six? They can be six, but I'd like to be able to vote on each one of them separately, like the metro station, Arcola area, and the Goose Creek. Or we can just simply separate the metro station out of the other two. Because I'd like to be able to vote in favor of the metro when against the other two, just like I did during our work session. Well. So here's the thing with the recommendations. You're not going to get all 6, 8, 10 having a radar and a being perfectly the way you want them. We're voting on them as a block is what we just indicated we wanted to do. So I'm not sure, you're going to have to make a decision whether you're willing to subscribe to them if there's something you don't want or abstain or vote against them. Madam Chair, if we, and frankly, if we make number six reflective of what we did on November 14th, the fact that you supported or opposed one or more of those three, they will be adopted as our official position. And those votes will move forward then. Correct, so yes, so I think what the chair is proposing is that essentially the language on page three that begins at in November 14, 2024 and then ends with the Goose Creek Club. Simply that language be lifted out and made as number six under 1b. And so if that's, if that is what we do, then your opposition and support will be fully reflected. Yeah, I mean, I give staff a little bit of flexibility to make that fit the format of the other five. Hop, you know. But yes, that is essentially what we're trying to capture as a number six item in the recommendation. That would be one B6. That sounds like what I was trying to do. Okay, all right, so because I know that came up earlier in the conversation a couple times. So that one seems like an easy one, I thought. We'll start with that. From there, any other changes, amendments, additions to that one be list. Commissioner Banks? Okay, Commissioner Barnes? Yeah, I'm sorry. Okay, Commissioner Myers. So I have two changes. Do we want to deal with, let's go with number three, first, the data center, Christian Myers. So I have two changes. Let's do we want to deal with let's go with number three first the data center campus modification I would move that that gets moved to 3.0205 dash one as a footnote with those criteria being used at the board could then use on it was our attachment five then use it was our attachment five. Attachment five is the item five, doesn't it? Well, it's not. I'm just looking at what it says attachment five so that's what I was just referencing in the report for just clarity. So to make sure I understand what you were asking is that attachment 5 essentially be amended to be a footnote as to table 3.0205-1. So that would be item 5 in the recommendation list. Where criteria where respects would not be required. But instead of it being where we required. That item 3. So it doesn't fit under item 3. Maybe you met chapter 3 when you were mentioning the footnote, but you said item 3. So that was where the confusion I think was so you're wanting to add it after five With the recommendation that So are we saying we want staff to pursue adding that as a footnote? Yes, and if in the event that can't be done You know, but so I go back to my original concern. So we just voted to not make them special exceptions. We voted to leave them as they are. So putting that footnote into the table wouldn't make sense unless you were going to change the table to make them specs. Which is why I don't think you can actually, to me it doesn't make sense to make it a footnote to it based on our vote. That's why I think it should come in later. As information that should the board go ahead and make them specs and conditional, here's language that could go on the plan. Here's a potential where you could make one not require a specs of a met certain criteria. I just don't see putting an amendment to So where we have criteria right now where it says the board should consider a future Roya that would adopt these things we could say criteria where the special Reception would not be required the board could consider adding foot notes to 3.0205-1 that would allow these items to be used not requiring a special exception for data centers in office, park, general, industry, and zoning. It's the same thing. It's a future recommendation. And it's saying instead of them having to go back and do a royal, they could do it through a footnote if they should choose. So we recommend that the board consider directing staff to work, you know, I mean, yeah, is that what we're doing? We're recommending that they look at that as the tool to do it versus a royal. Correct. Okay, Commissioner Banks. Yeah, the way that I'm conceptualizing this in my mind is one A we're essentially saying we don't recommend that you do this stuff One B if you decide to do this stuff and these are the things that we make that you consider Right, and so that's why I think that fits here and so if it be in a royal it could be done We think it could be done through footnotes Well, do we okay So what language exactly are you proposing be added to the end of that? Well, is it language? Because I think what I understand you to be saying is, and this recommendation five under 1b says the board should consider a future roya that would adopt specific criteria. And you're saying, or consider a footnote to table 3.25. We're dead, vote to 0.5. That's one. Right. Similar, right? Correct. So it's consider the royal or adopt a footnote. And I think that's, you just adding a, that's all I did. Yep. It's not at the end. It's consider future royal or adopting a footnote or adding a footnote, adopting specific criteria similar to those in attachment five. Okay. All right. So, or add a footnote is essentially what we're adding. It sounds like that. I got that. All right. Sorry. I'm going to have to at the end of the day, I have to write this thing. Yeah, I know. I totally understand. Please, please email me. I don't want to be scolded for not getting get right. So the board should consider a future Roya or the addition of a footnote on table 3. I'd actually like to footnote first and the Roya second because to me the easiest way to do this is to do it They decide to move forward they could do the footnote part right now we think If they don't if they can't do that right now, then they've got to go back and do a whole new process So to me I'd rather put the footnote before the Roya because one is sooner than the other. That's fine. Yeah. I don't know. She should consider. So it would be the board should consider a footnote to section 3.02, or a future. Or a. Adapting specific criteria. And I think we gave them ideas in this attachment with the attachments we used. Yes. Yes. I understand the location of it, but if you can elaborate on that footnote to the table, three point, two, right after that is something that I'm looking for. And then you go back to the original future or every day to the Roya. I got it. Adopting specific criteria similar to those in attachment 5. Yeah. All right, thank you. So we're asking them to consider another tool to get that done in addition or instead of a Roya if they are so inclined. Recognizing that the jury is still out on whether that's really possible. But we'd like people to look at as an option. So I think that's captured in there. Commissioner Myers, did you have another? What do we want to vote on? That one because my another one is totally separate to a different one then. No, because we added a six. We added that. I think we're going to work on these on a block. So, okay. So then? We're making any other. Where we have the one that's above where it says data center, campus modifications, and it talks about the board should consider future royas. This is where I think we could fit into put that the board should consider any site plan for data centers approved prior to the. I don't know if we want to put adoption of the ZOM or pursuant to the grandfather resolution. Maybe revised either via site plan amendment or replacement site plan that does not exceed 5% of the previously approved gross floor area or maximum floor ratio for the district without the need of an approval of a special exception application Notwithstanding this amendment building impairments and other related subsequent land plans and permit submissions may not may be accepted and Approvals may be granted consistent with such revised data center site plans. Okay, question Jason. We went through a lot of this last week with Mark and Leo and they were here so. Can I make a suggestion? Yeah, go ahead, vice-ericombs. Cause that's pretty specific language that I don't think folks have had an opportunity to review. But what we do have in our packet is before the motion, we have a recounting of those five further recommendations. And the one that you're mentioning right now, Commissioner Myers, number three, is more elaborate in that staff report. What page do you on? Then it is in the motion. Okay. It starts at the bottom of page four and then spills over to the top of page five. That's a more, it's a beefier recommendation than what's captured in our motion. And it sounds like, after listening to what you were suggesting, it sounds like a lot of that is captured to a certain extent in that description of recommendation three better than it is captured in the draft motion recommendation three. So perhaps it's just as much. My only concern is in number three is that it says we've got to do another royale to do this. But I'm trying to figure out and we've heard a lot of discussion about this. The concern is today when this gets approved and you have an existing site planning, you need to flop that building and stuff. How do you do it? This says the commission recommends that the board consider a future Royate which means it's not going to help anybody that's there now. It's going to take a future Royate. Now, you know, and maybe we take out the idea that it's a future Roya. Maybe we just say that the commission recommends the board provide additional flexibility for lawful data centers and uses that become subject to us. But you know what I'm saying? Maybe we take out the Roya. And then that makes it more broad best. But then we've taken out the tool which was kind of put in there last week, because it's not in the scope that the Roya would be the tool under which they could do this. We don't have to give them that. But this was one of the things that came up last week as outside of the scope of the current Roya. So we can recommend anything we want. We really can't. We can recommend they go paint something purple with orange polka dots. But at the end of the day, if it's not in the scope of the Roya, the mention of a future Roya was because that was really the only mechanism we have given the task that's in front of us, which is what I know a lot of us were frustrated with and Commissioner Banks articulated very well last week. So I mean we can take it out. I don't really care. Mayor, but it was very intentional when everybody put it in last week. I mean, I think it was mine. The whole idea here is this again doesn't help the today person is awaiting for the next 14 months to end because it takes the future of Roya to do it. This was also a separate discussion and everybody was concerned about and was going around. So that's why I was just, I mean the board can decide to do it or not. But I just think maybe we put in there that the board consider to provide additional flexibility for lawful, now they can decide at the end of the day they need to do a royal to do it. They don't. Our idea is that we want them to try to do something and address it now because that's what we've heard a lot about, the existing uses. So I'm just simply saying strike out the word, Roya, and leave it in. The board consider to provide additional flexibility for lawful existing data centers. So we can swap that description of recommendations three that's in the staff report. Right. Move that over into the motion but delete a future Roya. Correct. Okay. And then that really takes care of this. Or you could just keep what we already had there and just take out a future Roya. That's what we just said. That's what we just said. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Just the board should consider to provide, the board should consider providing additional flexibility for a date. So you're that number three. Which is a little reads a little different from the last item in the motion. Which is what Mr. That's right. Which is there. Yeah, it is there. So we just need to swap it out in the motion. Correct. Where we're saying you've got it. Jason. Well, so I'm fine with the suggestion for. I'm sorry, my motions aren't numbered so I'm just kind of I know that's why can't have a good back page third bullet um I'm wondering I'm not to rehash anything but could that fifth bullet be treated the same way It's the fifth bullet that you're the Err, is that Yeah, the fifth one the one that we just talked about the board board adding a footnote. Instead of saying the board should consider, we've already done that. That we're done. Yeah, let's say that. I was just saying the board should consider, adopting. All right, yeah. Commissioner Kieres. So, I like this change, so I just, from reading it, should the commissioner recommends that the board provide additional flexibility, blah, blah, blah, delete the words, consider a future. Right. Roya. Correct. To provide, just the board provide additional flexibility. So consider a future, Roya. Is that okay? Two, the board provide additional flexibility. Right. Okay. Because I was comfortable with when Mark was here and explained, to me this just puts in writing what he said they already do. I think this just emphasizes that and by doing it this way, the board could just give direction to, well, it won't be Mark, it'll be his replacement. This is how we want, this is what we want you to do. Consider these same flexibilities or say not to, that'd be their choice. But our recommendation would be to be provided, continue to provide that flexibility. And I think then we're done with it. Okay. We're clear on that. Thank you. Awesome. Good. One thing I would like to just ask because Commissioner Myers said more than what some other people were saying. For that bullet where it talks about data center campus modifications. The board should provide additional flexibility for existing data center uses correct. Gadi, gadi, gadi, without requiring a specs application. And then you want the additional language that's- No, no, no. Okay, just take the language and- Got it. And number three, move it into the motion, take out the- All three moves and we just- Because that's- That's a future rule, yeah it into the motion. Take out the mirror. All three moves and we just cross out. They future roll you. Everything else? Yeah, I've got it. All right. Okay, because that language is something we've all had the opportunity to look at versus have it read to us for the first time tonight. Well, this was in our pack. Okay. All right. Any other changes to what is now six pieces of motion 1B? So it wasn't in here and we didn't change our resolution and I don't know if we want to make it to be a seven or something, but how do we convey in part of this to the board that when they move into phase two, we're requesting more time for evaluation. Because we didn't change the resolution to say anything like that, minor statement is. But I really want to, now that I mean, I've really read that, we're going to be in the same shape we're at right now. We're going to have 30 days and that's it. And we've all learned, and they're supposed to be going to be a lot more detail in this phase two. And that's just not, we need to be brought in earlier. And we need to convey that. Can we defer to our planning commission leadership when that's coming down the pike? No. And we've already, I thought we've already expressed that sentiment earlier during our previous work sessions. And I thought that was captured in the comments. And I'm not sure. We didn't have anything. We didn't have anything. I think they know. Having watched the boards presentation on this, I don't think there will be any issue with them wanting to bring us in sooner or even meet with us to discuss it. I just want it on the record. If you look at the phase two, it's the same timeline. Okay. Any other change? Commissioner Miller. Be clear, bringing us in sooner doesn't. Let me clarify, I don't mean, I don't mean bring us in sooner. Please let me continue, thank you. Bringing us in sooner, that's just an opinion of the board to start with us. It's state code that gives us a certain amount of time with this, is that correct Jason? Yes, but- From the public. So we would need to simply ask the board to allow us more time than as mandated by state code. Which they can do. Bring us in early is just bring us in early. We still want our own time with it. I obviously spoke. I did not mean bring in sooner as and sooner in the process. What I meant was bring us in to where we have. Because we didn't even get the time that we have by state code. We haven't been given the ability to even use the whole thing. We've been pushed every step of the way. What my real comment meant to me is to make sure we get to phase two. We're given longer time to look at it. I didn't mean necessarily that we need to be part of the board of supervisors public care. And I agree. And so what I'm saying is that we need to ask the board to make an exception to how they are governed by state code and will allow us to have optimal time to do our job. Okay. So we are currently at six items under 1B. I think we have clarified them pretty well because I suspect strongly that when we make this motion we may garble a little bit, but I think you all staff knows of what our intention is. I'm going to go ahead and take a stab at it. And we will see how this goes, because we're going to have to jump between pages a bit. So I move that the commission make the following recommendations to the board. Grandfathering the board should adopt a grandfathering resolution. At the time the board takes action on the proposed C-Pam and ZOM amendments. Grandfathering effective date, the board should establish the board's public hearing date for the CPAM and ZOM as the effective date for the grandfathering resolution by which an application must be officially accepted. Data center campus modification. The commission recommends that the board consider providing additional flexibility for lawfully existing data center uses that become subject to specs. This flexibility could allow such uses to expand by limited amount, relocate buildings within an approved site plan at desired accessory uses for data center operational needs, implement county desired site or equipment changes that provide a benefit to the environment or general public and make other minor changes to adapt to changes in the data center industry without undergoing a new specs process that appropriate provided that appropriate thresholds are established. Additional guidance for CPAM, the board should consider adding guidance in the general plan to aid in the evaluating data centers as conditional uses in suburban employment, suburban industrial mineral extraction, transition light industrial transition suburban industrial mineral extraction, transition light industrial transition, industrial mineral extraction, Leesburg JLMA employment, Leesburg JLMA industrial mineral extraction, and urban employment place types. The board should also consider adding long term aspirational language in the urban employment place type. Criteria respects would not be required, the board should consider either a footnote amendment to section 3.0205.1 or a future Roya that would adopt specific criteria similar to those provided as attachment 5 to the December 12, 2024 Planning commission work session memorandum under which aspects would not be required for data center in the office park general industry and mineral heavy industrial zoning districts. And item six, the commission recommends. All right. Page two, six. Yeah, page three, isn't it? Yeah, page three. Yeah, hold on, my eye patch just went back. Yeah, no, I'm grabbing where we need to pull it though. That whole thing is not pertinent to the point we were making there. And we recommend that the proposed amendments to the 2019 General Pan Place Type maps that the changes be adopted to the Goose Creek Club in our COLA area. But we do not support the change, the adoption of the change to the metro station area at this time. I said our Cola and Goose Creek, yep. All right, did I get it all? All right, do we have a second? Second. Okay. All right, I'm going to let somebody else make an opening. Friendly amendment? Sure, Commissioner Kierst. Item four, additional guidance for C-PAM. Just like the note that the language to be used is indicated as footnotes 1 and 2. To the December 12th, 2024 staff report page five. If you notice at the bottom, he's got the language listed as the footnote. So I just want to get in there, that's the language. Absolutely, happily accepted that. So Commissioner Cares, here's basically from the footnote into the actual recommended. Right, and Dan was going to look at, he thought rather than he might have a better way to do it than put it in each of the place types. Whichever way is fine, but as long as that language gets in there to refer to the place types that are allowing data center. Whichever way makes the most sense, I'm fine with either each one individually or if there's one place he could put the one statement that would cover it all, that would be better. Okay. Yeah, for sure. Thank you. All right. So that friendly amendment is accepted by the motion maker. Vice here comes accepted, so he's seconded so he accepts as well. So friendly motion is made. I'm going to let you guys go ahead and start. Commissioner Myers. Oh, for comments now. Yep. Oh, okay. Okay. First of all, I want to thank the staff for all the many hours that you've put in and you've endured me, including the county attorney, Mr. Rogers, who's not, forever he's going to be the song to me Mr. Rogers from. I really appreciate all the information that's been provided. I appreciate all the hard work you've put into this in the time. I don't want you to think I didn't recognize it. I absolutely did. And I really appreciate the dedication that you've put in to giving us the information we needed and more than a timely matter. I mean you guys basically had no thanksgiving in order to get this complete to us and I want you to know that I truly do appreciate that and all that you've done and the way that you've presented it to us and the relationships that we've been able to have back and forth and have an open dialogue. I very much appreciate that. I think it's I think that what was given with us in the time period that we had to give with it which has nothing to do with you all. It has to do with the directive given to the board. I think we've given them some good, solid ideas. Should they choose to adopt that policy? That's their decision to make, not ours, ours is to redo. What we think is the best as given by the state code planning commission and the documents that we have. I think that we've listened to all the sides. I think some of the things that we've tried to be hearing up especially in the protection of existing data centers while we're looking at the scope of what's going on. We've made some really good solid recommendations here. I want to thank all the planning commissioners that also endured me in my calls and my discussions and stuff. I think this is a good product. We could have probably gotten some better stuff if we'd had more leeway to do it. But I think for what we had, I'm very pleased with the outcome of where we're at. And I just want to thank everybody for all their hard work. Mr. Banks. I've spoken a lot about this already, and I simply adopt the comments that I have made previously throughout the other work sessions, and I do not now feel the need to repeat them. Thank you. Okay, Commissioner Kierst. I fully support this motion. I would have preferred that the first motion would have been a motion to approve the special exception conditional as it was presented to us with this attached to it. I think it would have been, I think it may have been maybe better received and I think it would have been a better way to present our position. But so be it, I will fully support this motion. Mr. Miller. Thank you. I will support the motion. I've said this many times before I said during Zora. This is just a bad way to do planning. And I think that that boards off out with the first motion. The only thing I want to say about this particular motion is a, just my own personal principle for the record. I think grandfathering is a political decision, not a planning decision. So in general, don't support recommending, I believe it's our role to recommend to the board, how and when, to adopt grandfathering. But other than that, it's just a personal preference based on what I think politics are versus planning. Other than that, I will certainly support this one motion one being. Commissioner Mader ready. Thank you Madam Chair. Again, I would probably go with everyone what you guys are saying. I do agree with the general sentiment that combining these two motions we have today, why we are denying, I mean, that was not the intention when probably boat centres to us to work on something, but again, because of the narrow nature of what's been asked, that's the reason for our denial, but at the same time, the second motion basically expresses where we are going with it, why we are doing it, what's the reason behind it, and also kind of giving the recommendations. And obviously we can't tell them the tools, but at least giving them the recommendations with the footnotes, what it would have been if the scope would have been defined on a broader race to start with. So I think between these two motions, I think we capture the planning commission sentiment that we are sending back to the board. Thank you. Vice Chair comms. Thank you Madam Chair. I'm happy to support this motion one B. I think it does fairly capture where we've ultimately arrived on the subject that we've been tasked to address. I won't repeat some of my further comments from previous meetings. I'd like to refer back to them. And then I want to align myself with Commissioner Myers statements to staff. This was a tall task from the Planning Commission. I think the Roya was pretty narrowly defined and staff saw that well before we did. I don't know that you all envisioned we would be asking so much in this short amount of time to get to where we are. And so thank you for your indulgence and all of your hard work on this. It really did help us, I think, get to where we finally get to. And so thank you for your indulgence and all of your hard work on this. It really did help us, I think, get to where we finally did get to. And I think more of this when phase two comes around will be sorely needed. So look forward to working with you all on that. Thank you. So I will echo those sentiments and also direct him to some folks who aren't in the room with us lucky them or not I'm not sure but you know it took the the four of you and and then quite a few to get us to where we are so we are we are very grateful for that I'm going to throw a curve ball at everybody I'm not supporting my own motion I felt confident that I could get it the pieces there the way everybody wanted them to but I have fundamental issues with items two, four and five, and I think four and five are incredibly important. As far as the items that are being recommended, I don't believe things belong in all these place types. I don't believe that we should be, I'm concerned based on some of our experiences since the 2019 general plan that when we adopt a list of criteria and integrate it, it has led to confusion, misinterpretation, differences. We kind of end up creating a whole in the comprehensive plan in the zoning ordinance that ivory unintentionally provides either unobtainable criteria because this is an industry that is changing so rapidly and their needs are changing so rapidly or we've quite candidly made a very easy hole loophole for them. I don't think we're ever going to be able to nail that down so I'm hesitant to put criteria in there because I know we had that with a place type when we did the 2019 plan when we actually had to administer and live with it. There were a lot of headaches and problems. So I just don't recommend that we do that again. And, you know, I think this use can be in harmony with other uses in our residents if it's done properly. But I just don't see this set of recommendations, right? They're getting us where we need to be to create that harmony I think it's still a little too means a little too far one side So for that reason I am not supporting my own motion. I do not have a closing So we have a motion on the floor. Yes Commissioner Barnes. I apologize didn't see your life. I'm not gonna be supporting this motion for the reason some of the reasons you already mentioned. And I think this is not what the supervise wanted. And we told them, but they're going to do it the way they want to do it. And so that's all I'm saying. I'm going to vote against it. Okay. We have a motion on the floor. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Nay? The motion carries 621 with commissioners, Barnes and Frank opposed and commissioner, Jasper absent. All right. We got through that. Look at that. Thank you all again. Have a wonderful holiday break new year. We'll see you next year. Chair Frank, just before we- Oh no, what would we forget? Sorry, I just wanted to say thank you for the planning commission for working with us, giving us the directions. I guidance on some of the questions that you asked. Actually prepared us for phase two and then kind of really provided us some really good direction and doing the last few minutes. Meetings and I also want to thank our management for leading us. We look forward to working with all of you in phase two. It is going to be fun. It's going to be a lot of work. Then this one, it will be just going to be policies, regulations, very detailed work. I just want to say thank you and then we'll look forward to working with you all on phase two. Thank you. After our earlier announcement, I've told Jackie there's no more administrative items tonight. There's not anyway, but I'm afraid of what else who else might leave or throw something at us. So with that, we are done and we are adjourned until next year. Is there a water and hold that serves Sassarillo that Jackie would join us at? Both of them closed the tent to get some peace for our slightly creep.