I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. Planning Commission work session will now come to order. And as is our custom, let's stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I'm going to just keep the flag. And to the republic, which stands for the nation, under the government, in the middle of the full, the authority and anybody is ready. Second second all right motion to approve the minutes made by Commissioner Meyer, seconded by Commissioner Banks, any discussion on the motion? All those in favour? Opposed? That motion will carry 9-0. Next is disclosures and I will start to my far right and work our way down if you have any just turn your light on Commissioner ready Met with micro me on the applicant team from hidden wood yesterday What's really thank you? Last year Miller on May 6th I Spoke with Mike Romney over guarding the hidden wood. Wait, no, yesterday on May 7th, I spoke with Mike Romney over guarding the hidden wood application. And on May 6th, I spoke with Bill Junda and representatives of the county regarding an application that we will see later this month as long. Thank you. Mr. Myers. On base six, seventh I had discussions with Mike Romeo regarding the hidden woodland application. Mr. Frank. On May 1st, I also had discussions with the applicant representatives regarding the hidden wood application on May 2nd. I spoke with residents of the Briar field community and on May 8th, I spoke with again today with applicant representatives regarding the hidden wood application. Okay. For myself, April 28th, I attended a pre-application meeting for Loud and Business Park, which is a data center substation application. May 2nd, I met with Mike Romeo regarding the Hidden Wood application. May 5th, I met with Malene Novotny Taylor Chess regarding an upcoming Cochrane Tech application. May 7th, I met with Malene Novotny Daniel Schlin and Samantha Mezzo and Colleen Gillis regarding an upcoming Prologist Data Center application. All right, there's effort to sclosures. We do have one item commissioners. It wasn't on the agenda. But staff wanted to give us an overview of I guess a new online zoning ordinance tool. So we're going to start with that and Ms. Birkett. Thank you so much. As I began, I'll just introduce myself, a Judy Birkett Deputy Director Planning and Zoning. I have with me Teresa Miller, who is the zoning administrator. So we're very excited. We've been working towards launching the online zoning ordinance for a few years now. And we're so excited to give you a just a brief preview because we wanted you to have just a courtesy viewing before we actually go live with the site. So this evening I will give you an overview of the home page which you're looking at right now and then Ms. Miller and I will walk you through the different tools across the top of the menu. To begin with I'll let you know that this will be the exact text that you see now that's the official zoning ordinance on the county website in PDF format. This online interactive version will replace those PDFs and will be found in the same place on the county website. When users first go to the website, they'll see this welcome message and have an opportunity to look at an informational video. There's multiple ways that a user can access the actual text of the zoning ordinance. First, you could select view the zoning ordinance right from the homepage. You may also select view from the main menu. The table of contents is provided on the left side of the screen and whatever section you choose will display on the right side of the screen. Another way to navigate the zoning ordinance is to use these four category panels right across the homepage. The 12 chapters of the zoning ordinance and the four appendices are divided into four categories just for ease of viewing. Chapter 2 is the zoning districts, Chapter 3 uses, use specific standards and overlay districts. The second tab is for our development standards. Chapter seven and chapter eight signs. Natural resources and attainable housing provide access to chapter six and nine. And lastly, the administration and Procedures is where you'll find the introduction to the zoning ordinance, all of the information about our procedures and boards and commissions, the definitions and the appendices. Also offered on the homepage are the zoning toolkit and smart search. And these are just links to some different tools that are on this site as well as to landmark. A smart search feature gives some quick links to zoning map tools and GIS data that a user can download and use offline. If you want to jump directly into any chapter, you can use these chapter tiles and that will take you straight to that particular chapter. Before I ask Teresa to actually show you the text of the zoning ordinance, I'm going to just jump into search. The ordinance does have a very robust search tool. If you would like to search a term, let's let's enter animal. You can certainly search the entire zoning ordinance just by selecting animal. You'll have results that bring back every instance of animal in this zoning ordinance. And you can select the header to see the full text and the term that you searched is highlighted. A different feature that this search tool has is you can narrow down your search results and only pull, for example, one chapter or one section. What if I wanna see you specific standards? I would only select chapter four. And the results that are brought back are only four that particular chapter. And like many search tools, you can use AND or or NOT to combine multiple keywords. For instance, you might want to search for animal, but not a kennel. That's a feature that I'm thinking is going to be pretty useful. And like other search tools, if you have an exact phrase, like limited brewery, you can put quotation marks around that particular phrase. The next tool I'd like to show you is called Land Use Lookup. And this is a helpful tool to answer the question, where is a particular land use allowed in the county? If you know the term such as data center you can enter it on the right side. The tool will bring back the results to show you where in the county which zoning districts allow that particular use and in this case they're all special exception. You can click on any of these zoning districts and it takes you directly to the regulations. Let me try that again. I wanted to show you also the mapping feature. We can view these zoning districts on the map and that shows us where those zoning districts are located. Here are the four districts and those are shown on the right side of the screen. At this point I'm going to turn this over to Ms. Miller and she will show you the actual text of the zoning ordinance. I'll turn my microphone on here. So I'm just going to go through and show you some of the features that the online ordinance will have being more interactive. For those who have used the ordinance now, you know it is a stagnant PDF. You may have noticed that there are some terms that are underlined or highlighted. Once the online ordinance is live, those hyperlinks will also become live for you to use. So for instance, if you come to a term and it's underlined and there's a definition associated, if you hover, the definition will pop up in the corner for you. You can also left click and it will pop up in a separate window. So you have two windows open at the same time. What I like to do is actually right click on it because then I can open it in a new window. And then I have two windows going so I can go back and forth between the sections. If there are sections that are hyperlinked within the text such as here we 103 it will take you, jump you directly to that section of the ordinance. You can use the back button to go back to your original or as I said if you right click on it you can open it in a separate window or a separate tab that way you keep both sections open at the same time. Let's see. What else do we have in here? Within the amendment history table this is another portion of the ordinance that is new and different with the online ordinance. When there has been an amendment to a section of the zoning ordinance and since we're talking about data centers, we know that we recently had an amendment for table within the office and industrial districts. At the bottom of the page, it will tell you if there's been a zoning ordinance amendment, you can click on it. And it will open up the documents associated with that ordinance amendment. It will bring back the copy test, the staff report, and the information that you need the draft text. So if you wanna see exactly what has changed with that ordinance section, those documents are now right there in the online ordinance for you to use. Dominic, go ahead and get into the calculators, too. Okay. Another feature that we have now within the ordinance is the ability to have calculators. If you notice at the top, across the top, as Judy started the search line, you just look up, there's a tab that says calculator. These are the different calculators that are there and available for use. Once you click on one of them, they all will open at the top so you can toggle back and forth. Each of these pages, similar to when Judy opened the line you just look up, there's an instructions where you can open up more and it'll tell you exactly what this tool is doing for you, what information you need, and what your results will pull back. So going into an example, if I want to know what my development yield is, I can pick, you know, I have the suburban compact neighborhood. It's going to drive you next to say, what use are you trying to develop? And then it will ask you some other questions like if there's a development type in case there was a cluster option. You can punch in your acres and then it will bring back the tabulation for you, telling you what your density is, your lot coverage. If you have affordable dwellings, what those are, and then some additional notes to help guide you. Oh, let's see. One thing that I think is really helpful in the ordinance is the ability to print sections. Again, this is designed to be interactive, but you can also print sections if you wanna do your own little mini ordinance on a section that you're looking for. There is the ability to print here that will open up a window where you can select which sections of the ordinance you want to print. There's also the way for you to export it into a PDF or you can share it through an email. On the side here, you can use these arrows to tab through one section to the next. And then there's a little icon here in the far right corner. If you open that, there's the ability to add your own bookmark if there's sections that you use often. And then for me, this lovely thing, this button allows me to zoom in and out to make the text bigger and easier to read. So again, these hyperlinks either take you to a different section within the ordinance. They could direct you to the code of Virginia, they could direct you to a definition, if you hover. And as I showed you the calculator tab within the districts themselves and the regulations, if a calculator is available, you'll find it there on that page as well. So lots of different ways to access the different features and functions within the ordinance. Okay, just a little bit more information. So thank you for bearing with us. The mapping section is largely tools that we already know. What is my zoning? That's a feature that we already have where a user can just look up their address and it'll tell them what their zoning is. Weblogists will continue to be the county's primary mapping tool with everything from election districts to the CTP road network overlay districts. And the new tool that works in tandem with the zoning ordinance is the interactive zoning map. And I just want to clarify it in no way is intended to replace the parcel level information that is available on Web Logis. This is a feature that allows us to use that WANUCE lookup tool and it's just nice to have it conveniently embedded within the zoning ordinance. But since it is a zoning ordinance support tool, it presents information for the zoning district. Parcel specific information is still gonna be found in webloges. Okay, resources. This is very self-explanatory, but we tried to link some of the tools and the websites that we would use most often. The codified ordinances, code of Virginia, the comprehensive plan, and of course landmark. The last feature I want to show you is regulations by district. And this tool allows you to select a zoning district while select town center and the system will compile all of the regulations that are specific or that apply to that zoning district. So this is like a mini ordinance for the TC district and as Teresa said earlier when you compile these regulations by district you do have the opportunity to print, say it was a PDF or email it to yourself. Thank you for getting anything. I don't think so. I don't think so. Do you have any questions for Ms. Miller or myself? Questions? Mr. Colmes? Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Theresa and Judy, this is awesome. Thank you. I know this was a huge lift. Question, I think it was under resources. Will there still be access to the revised 93, the LSDO, through NCODE+, so they can still be navigated electronically like this? Maybe not with all the interactivity, but at least they'll be the table of contents and you can access the provisions throughout. Is that going to be available through this platform? It is not available at this time at what we're doing at this point just so that we only have one document to maintain is provide links to the archived zoning ordinance. the revised 93, the 93, and the 72 is actually still current, but it is available. And what this does, it just links you to the county website. They're not available through the platform here. Okay, because I know those had previously been available through NCODE Plus. Some of them were uploaded like four or five years ago and the project began. They had not been maintained. All the energy was focused into the new one. So for now we'll just link to the website. But then again under resources not archival but the land subdivision development ordinance. That's also a link to the website. Okay, got it. They're hopeful that at some point they will pull more resources onto this platform. And that's why when you notice when Judy had done the search function, when you pull down, right now the only selection is the zoning ordinance. But we're hoping to get other documents also on this platform as we go so that we can use this search function for all of those. We're highly supportive of it. This is great. Thank you. I just wanted to comment that when Tracy mentioned about the great feature of raising the size of the font. The last five and a half years I've been sitting up here with members of this body and seeing scores of people sitting at that day Is the larger funds to be the default true very true all blind One and two is it true that in the secure search function duty if we type in What is the definition of a farm with the entire system will crash? I will say that when you type in a word in the search you will notice that the first things that come back are the definitions. That way you can quickly see which term is it that I'm looking for. And then the sections follow. We haven't tested it to see if it crashes. But... Anybody else? Okay. Thank you very much. Great. Thank you. Okay, Thank you very much. Great. Thank you. All right. Next is our one number of questions. We have a number of questions. We have a number of questions. We have a number of questions. We have a number of questions. We have a number of questions. We have a number of questions. We have a number of questions. We have a number of questions. We have a number of questions. We have a number of questions. We have a number of questions. Thank you. I'm Ellison Bretton with the Department of Planning and Zoning and I'm here to present the application for Hennwood Assembly. Publication of the work session, memorandum staff have received six additional public comments for in opposition and to in support. As a quick reminder, at the February 4th Board of Supervisors, business meeting the Board demanded the subject application back to the planning commission to receive staff review. Proper notice, any commission recommendation to the scope of proposed changes. The subject property is located east of what, Dolos West Boulevard, north of Hiddenwood Lane and southwest of our coal and mills are in the Dolos election district. It is 28.92 acres, zoned countryside residential 1, CR1, and located in the suburban neighborhood place type of the 2018 General Plan. The applicants requesting a zoning app amendment from the CR1 Legacy Zoning District to the PVIP zoning district to develop up to 334,000 square feet of industrial uses. This application is a grandfathered application. At the Planning Commission Public Hearing, the commission recommended the applicant revised the application with respect to uses, noise, loading area screening, building renderings and exhibits, building fenestration, foundation plantings, trails and a trailhead, landscape offering, office use, distribution facility use and traffic. In response, the applicant made several changes to the application, including changes in profit out uses, which I'll get into in a moment. A commitment to screen loading areas from the Northern Property Boundary with either a building, vegetation, berm, retaining wall, or fence of unknown specification. Provided a building rendering to in proper administration, provided additional line of site exhibits demonstrating conformance with buffer requirements, clarified proposed fenestration and other building design elements, provided a commitment to incorporate foundational plantings at building base, recommitted to provide a public trailhead, trail connection, and associated parking areas, and office and traffic generation to address transportation concerns. Staff found these updates consistent with the 2019 general plan, barring what we discussed momentarily. In addition, the applicant has committed to provide a one-time $10,000 cash contribution to be used toward landscaping for two residential properties adjacent to the site and recommitted to provide up to seven evergreen trees eight feet in height in the required buffer on the northern portion as well as one EV charging station. Here's the revised concept development plan on the right side or eastern side. You can see the location of the proposed drillhead and associated parking. The CDP was otherwise primarily unchanged. For comparison, here is the CDP presented at the public hearing and below is the current CDP proposal. Here is the building rendering committed. Staff continue to identify an outstanding issue for planning commission consideration related to the proposed land use and compatibility. The 2019 general plan anticipates the suburban neighborhood place type to develop with primarily single family housing, integrated in a walkable street pattern with no more than 15% on residential uses, such as retail and service commercial uses to serve the needs of the immediate residential neighborhoods. The suburban neighbourhood playstyped does not anticipate the uses permitted in the PDIP zoning district, specifically industrial uses, as ear core complimentary nor conditional uses. In addition for planning commission consideration staff continue to note the existing condition of the site as single family housing is consistent with the playstyped and removal of housing units from the county's housing supply may impact affordability in the county, the development pattern and uses envisioned for the area and may make residential neighborhoods more susceptible to conversion to non-residential uses through rezonings in the future. The applicant has proffered out some uses that are incompatible with the play type including some of these listed here and most notable data centers as was at one time proposed. In the first column here are uses that were proffered out as part of the application presented at the public hearing, as a first column. The applicant has since updated the language in the proffers to be consistent with the zoning ordinance to ease future administrations, since this is a grandfathered application. So the middle column identifies the equivalent used designation in the current zoning ordinance. So they are a one-to-one conversion of previous terminology and current terminology. And like I said, the list on the left-hand side is what was previously proffered out. And the last column identifies those uses that are still proposed to be proffered out. So there were a few changes beyond just the terminology changes. Those uses are no longer profit out. Staff recommend the applicant profit out additional incompatible uses such as contractor service establishment, outdoor storage, manufacturing, and wholesale distribution ware warehousing and storage. Some retail and service commercial uses that are permitted in the PDIP's own redistrict may be compatible in this place type, provided their complimentary to serve the surrounding area. So in addition, staff continue to find the proposed development pattern to be inconsistent with the suburban neighborhood place type and recommend The applicant increase the distance and landscape buffering from residential uses and reduce building footprints Here was the recommended additional buffering area in the northern portion Staff cannot support a recommendation of approval and find the application is not consistent with the 2019 general plan and software happy to answer questions and they do have DTCI available as well. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for staff? Looking to my right. Okay. Mr. Frank. You, the slide previous to this, you had a, okay, so you have a recommended buffering on that. How does that do? We don't have that side by side with what the applicants proposing do by any chance. Like, what's the big difference with what you're, that's the previous and the current, but what are you guys recommending as far as additional buffering on that residential side? have an identifying a specific number but I just recommend increased buffering in that general area that's boxed in red okay so we don't have specifics there. All right I was just curious. How much of the parking is for trailhead? I believe there are five parking spaces identified. Okay so the rest of that parking is, um, supposed to go to the buildings primary use. Okay. And then are there any restrictions at this point on noise and lights and hours of operation and all that or is that something? I know it's been discussed. I'm just trying to figure out if anything's been codified as far as what you guys have seen. The applicant is proposing restrictions on lighting beyond what those only ordinance would require, but there is not a noise commitment at this time. Okay, thank you. Well, yeah, so the restrictions on that is that the type of lights are also the hours of use. I would have to get back to you on the hours. I believe there is an hour use, but we may get to that, I think. All right, that's all, thank you. Mr. Myers. I just had a follow-up from Commissioner Frank. So are you talking about the red rectangular box is the whole area that you're talking about should be the buffer should be enhanced on? No, ma'am, that is just a general designation, a general area, like up in that northern portions just to identify north. Okay, because it's confusing because this extends beyond the property. I mean, this red box goes into Briarwoods and stuff, so that's what I'm trying to figure out. What is it? What is there, there's not a defined area that you're looking for extra buffering then. It's just north, the north or inside. OK. OK. But is there, there's not a defined area that you're looking for extra buffering then? It's just north, the north or inside. Okay. Okay. Anybody else? No, okay. Just a couple things. Just to follow up on Commissioner Frank, I'm pretty sure I read something that they did have a, I don't know if this was a new proffer about the hours of operation. That's something about, and within 350 feet of the property line, they were the only be activity between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Is that? There is a restriction for loading areas, yes. Okay. Right. And, second, remind me, because it's been so long since I actually talked about this trail head in this little parking area. What is that actually? There's no access to that trail head without going on private property. I just don't, what is it intended to be a trail head to? Is there a county land or park back there that they're building or what's the what's the trail head there are some existing routes to the east for trails. This would connect into those in this in this general broad run flood plain area and I believe there are it would be an extension of commitments for the property to the south as well would connect for future development of that property. Okay, so there is plans for like trails to go through here and have. I just couldn't remember what this was actually connecting to given that you can't access it without going across private property. That's what I thought was odd. That's what I was trying to remember what the intent was. Okay. That is all I have. I'll go to the applicant, would you like to make a presentation? Yes, I would, Chair Cures, thank you very much. And for the record, my name is Michael Romay. I'm a land-to-splanet with Walsh Kluci. And I'm here this evening on behalf of the Hidden Wood Residence, some of which are behind me today, and one of which will provide a comments to you in my presence. I'm a Laneish's plan with Walsh Kluci. And I'm here this evening on behalf of the Hiddenwood Residence, some of which are behind me today, and one of which will provide a comment to the end of my presentation. Thank you, Alison. I won't spend much time on many of these slides. Just wanna go over some of the high points that Alison mentioned. And by the way, it's been excellent working with Alison on this project. All the issues that she's referenced already that we've resolved have been a partnership with staff to get to that point so I just want to thank her for that. For the prohibited uses, Allison already mentioned these primarily the data so we need to use such as the lawyers who are back before you. We have agreed to profit that use out. And the other uses that we cannot profit out are the most viable uses for the site. What we've done instead of profit those out is to put boundaries around them in the proffers and in the concept plan to limit any sort of uses, any sort of impacts from those uses I should say. As a reminder, we have reduced the square footage from the previous data center version of the application by over 55% of 420,000 square feet less on this site. One of the things I did want to point out in addition to what we showed you previously, the loading areas on this side of the site are located away from briar fuel. And this was done on purpose. We put them behind the buildings so the buildings themselves would actually serve as buffers to the residents to the north. In addition to the loading area restrictions that you mentioned, Commissioner Kiers, we've also increased the building setback from the northern property line, from 75 feet to 110 feet. That will account for any source of central conformance. We need to shift the building a few feet or what have you then we wouldn't be able to do that because we'd be limited by the 110 foot set back there. The loading story of area, our restriction as you referenced chair cures is limited between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. and it's for any loading and forklift operations within 350 feet of residents within Broward Field. We also have the exterior lighting restriction to know higher than 25 feet on any ground mounted or building mounted light. Those are all inward and downward focused fully shielded lighting arrangements as well. We did have a noise restriction at 55 decibels at the property line, but that was already a county requirement. So we removed it from the proper statement. For open space on the site, we're over 34%. And there was a specific area that we discussed with staff, which is the area highlighted in yellow. All the other green areas along the northern property line include existing trees, which we have committed to preserving. Also along the eastern portion of the property you can see the darker greens mixed in with the lighter greens. The lighter green areas are existing tree conservation area that we've been preserving all along and we wanted to preserve those along with Ridge and Bishop Mead courts to provide additional setback and buffer in for those residents.idences there. In the yellow area where we have the section B buffer, we provided a more detailed cross section of this in our proper concept development plan sheet. We would have a six foot tall berm in addition to a six foot tall fence. So we'd have a 12 foot opaque barrier in that specific area and it would be a decent length that it would go through there. So mental landscaping, as I also mentioned, we provide a $10,000 direct contribution to the two Ash P.O. homeowners at the end of that cul-de-sac. In addition to that, we have a tree conservation area that is just south of those homes which we've committed to an additional, some additional width for a critical root zone. And we also are going to add supplemental plantings of evergreens within that area of, of budding those two lots. They would be a minimum eight feet in height when they're planted and they would be planted in direct coordination with county staff. For building height, we reduced the building height from 55 feet to 39 feet previously, as part of the removal of the data center approach. We added additional sections, which you see on the screen here from the three different sections where the buildings are located on our site and where how they compare to the topography on the bar field side. On the top image there, we have a 19 foot retaining wall. In the middle image, we have a 2.5 foot retain wall plus the 12 foot berm and 12 foot fence. We also have a 16 foot retain wall on the building C bottom image there. So in terms of what you would actually see from the site, it would effectively be the tops of the buildings. And I do want to mention here, we're not requesting any zoning modifications with this application. Everything we are doing is in conformance with the zoning district and everything that we are adding is in addition to that to help mitigate any sort of impacts with the use. In terms of, again, what you'd see Allison already shared this image, but this would be a quality building that you would be able to see. And again, everything that is of any activity other than parking of cars would occur in the backs of the building. So, it's unlikely the residents of Broughfield would see that. And they certainly would not have any interaction with the traffic from the buildings. The building designs, the offer is largely the same. We did have foundation plantings as Alison mentioned, but the ideas to commit to these proper conditions to arrive at a building design that is like the one on the previous slide. This is an image that we've shown throughout this project just to give again context of all the data centers and substations that will be located around this site. And just to remind the commission that there are many reasons as to why this is not an appropriate site for residential any more. Most predominantly this is effectively a construction zone now. And again also a reminder this is, this application is unique and different from every other application I've ever worked on in my time working with Loudoun County. There is a human element here that cannot be ignored. The residents here have been actually processed this application for two years as of next month. This is a very difficult position for all these residents to be in, to have to endure two years of not knowing what's gonna happen to your home. And with that, I'd like to introduce Ms. Patricia Cave. She's a resident of Hayden Wood Lane. She has a few remarks just on behalf of what the residents go through on a daily basis. So I turn it over to Patricia at this time. Kerman Kier, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Patricia Cave and I'm a resident of Hidden Wood Lane. My neighbors and I truly appreciate your consideration of our rezoning request. This is our fourth meeting before the Planning Commission. At each meeting, we have been proactive in presenting application changes in response to your request, the request of county staff, and the request of the Browfield residents. We have been sensitive to each request and have implemented improvements wherever possible. The reduction of the outstanding issues noted by staff is evidence of our accommodating approach in resolving issues for the betterment of our application and our neighbors. While our last application, while our latest application maintains the same number of buildings that the commission recommended for approval, we've significantly reduced the building heights. We've also increased the setbacks for all of the proposed buildings since the March public hearing. Construction is now closer than ever to Hidden Woodland. In the last few weeks, construction work began south of our Hidden Wood Lane entrance and the Dallas West Boulevard extension over the broad run is breaking ground in 2026. We've had no reprieve from construction since at least 2020 and will have no escape from additional construction over the next several years. Dallas West Boulevard has not solved our transportation problems and it continues to facilitate additional construction traffic that we must navigate on a daily basis. A positive resolution to this application will finally bring an end to this traumatic phase of our lives. From all of us on Hidden Wood Lane, we sincerely thank you for your efforts in helping us to leave the situation. Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. What's that? That concludes our presentation. Chairman Kieres. Thank you. Questions for the applicants. Mr. Frank. I guess I'll go ahead and ask the clarifying question on restrictions on noise and lights that we started with earlier. What are you guys, what have you committed to doing and is there anything that isn't on Allison's stuff that you guys are willing to do on noise and lights? So for noise and light, the lighting proffer in more simple terms is including the second bullet point there that does go above and beyond what the ordinance requires. The ordinance does require a lot of what's on there but the 25 foot height restriction is unique and that is something we talked about with Barrefield. It feels like years ago now but I think it was sometime last year we agreed to it. At that point for noise we did agree to limit the noise noise at the property line to 55 decibels, but staff informed us that was already in order to require them, and so we removed that profit. That could be where the back and forth was. Okay. Anybody else? Commissioner Holmes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mike, did I hear Ms. Cave to say that setbacks have been increased since what we saw in March at Public Hearing? That's correct. The building setback was 75 feet at the Public Hearing along the Northern Property Boundary. It is now 110 foot setback. God, okay. Thank you. Commissioner Remires. In regards to the, I guess it's building C, we would say. That seems to be the one that's the closest to any of the kind of the residents or anything. Is there anything that you can do or thought about doing in regards to pulling that bag, doing more buffering or something because that, you know, other than that particular building, everything is pretty far distance away from Brigha Field. Is there any consideration to looking at doing something in regards to that building area? You see. We would be open to suggestions, Commissioner Myers. We've looked at some options, and if the commission is of interest of seeing some of those options, or if there's anything that they would like to see specifically we're open to that. Well I guess I would just start by saying and I don't know if there's other commissioners that feel this way too but is there any way that building could be pulled back some or increased planning or buffering to something to kind of shield for the one because that's really kind of the one place where we've heard from the rest of it is like I said further away than everything else. Yeah, there's some leeway that we have in adding some additional buffer area there and potentially moving the building a little further back. We just want to know exactly if there's something of interest that, you know, what that could be. But I think we're open to looking at those things. The challenge with this site is that it's a different type of use, obviously than data center. But there's some loading areas in the back. We have to remain a decent amount of distance on, but if there's a request or suggestion, we're open to listening to that. Okay, Mr. Monauderite. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, some mic just based on what Dale just mentioned. We did have a conversation on this thing. In terms of the setbacks are increased, but it's not really the building, the orientation, the footprint is still the same as it was before in your plan. That's correct. Right? And number two, she mentioned about considering pulling back. I think we had the discussion to see if we can go back to that previously approved footprint. I will be willing to consider it and you guys mentioned that it might not work for you guys. The previously approved footprint for data center is probably unachievable, but maybe there's something that's in between that and more proposing now that the commission would consider that we could accommodate It was just a different it's a different use type so it's it's obviously has some different flippant requirements But if there are suggestions then please yeah, that's my suggestion though I mean that's my suggestion though if you want me to ask something That's what I would like to see. I mean I mean, can you pull it back to the original footprint that is approved? Because I think not just the planning commission, I think the board spent enough time for us to think this is far enough from the briar fields that something maybe neighbors can live with. But it got too close from where it is approved to where it is right now. And I would say there was a main, there was a primary reason for the enhanced sex backs for the previous data center proposal. The new section of the ordinance that covers data centers, 4.062 if I recall correctly. That requires 200 feet between a residential property line and a data center. We were even short of that on this site given the narrow width of our site so we tried to work as best as we could near the residents there. For the current use is there's no additional requirement that we're modifying as part of this application. Nor would we have to under the new ordinance. So there was just a difference in zoning requirements which is the main reason we had the additional setbacks for data center. But I don't know, I don't believe we can achieve what we had on the previous plan because when we dropped over half the density, we have to have some sort of return for the contract purchase and for the residents and that means adding additional footprint. As much as this was a good layout, it's not something we can achieve with the current uses. But again, if there are suggestions for that building see that the commission would like to see, I think that's fair game to ask. Just like you're asking. Thank you. Mr. Jasper. Could we go back to the thank you, thank you, Chair Curesk, thank you, Mike, for the presentation. Can we go back to the overhead that you've been showing where all the, it's a satellite image of where the data centers are located with your stars? Now, satellite. That's probably more accurate image, to be honest. Well, that's not helping me. I eats in my presentation. Oh. Oh, yes. It wasn't. Sorry. Oh, okay. Yeah, that's the one. So, and if you zoom in just a bit more. So, those are residential developments that are off to the right of the site in terms of the image there, right? The ones over on the other side are all residential. So the development that am I correct? I mean, I'm just checking. And have you had any contact with those neighborhoods or that would go to staff as well We have not had any contact with Windsbury West which is the neighborhood that's developed right there Our focus has been entirely on bar field Okay, but they Windsbury did receive notice of all of our public hearings Okay, and you haven't heard anything or and the county has. There's no requirement that they get notified about this. There is not a requirement that they get notified. And I have not had any public comments that have identified themselves. Okay. All right. Thank you. That was it. Anybody else? Okay. I get a question when it comes to additional landscaping and the proffer that you've committed to it's about, and I think it made more sense when we had the two building concept which was 10,000 landscaping for the two lots. What are the names of those lots? On Ashby, of course. Ashby, of course. But now that we have the third building in the parking at the end, there's actually one to four other lots that are now kind of adjacent to the buildings in the parking area. And one of those residents, it sent a letter and some viewpoints and was concerned about additional landscaping. My question would you offer that same proper to those four lots, same with the two at Ashby, O'Court if this was to be approved? Yeah, we could do that. I think a more beneficial solution would be adding more landscape in our property adjacent to the parking area between the tree conservation area and the parking area. But if the commission's direction was to do something different like what you referenced then we could do that as well. I just think there's the problem with contributing money to the offsite property owners is that there's no guarantee they'll use it for what the purpose is, whereas if we do the plan things on our site we will guarantee that those plan things would go in. But are there a vent you're willing to work with providing additional screening for those called to sex, which previously really weren't impacted with the two building concept? Yeah, we would. Okay. Last chance of any commissioners want to second round, Commissioner Myers? Yeah, I'd like to go back again to this building see. Because that seems to be the one that creates most concern for, I guess, people looking at this application. You know, one point when it was with the planning commission, we did have three buildings here. It's when it went to the board. It went down to two buildings correct. So I mean when the planning commission passed the sum with the recommendation of approval, it actually had three buildings and they were higher buildings. So today we're looking at there's three buildings and they're actually much lower than what the planning commission had approved our last go round. That's correct. Which I just think is important to point out for the record. I understand it changed when they got to the board, but what this planning commission looked at was there were three buildings much higher and had on the property. Now we're talking about buildings that have come down dramatically in size use. So in building C, what would be the, I'm not, I understand with all due respect respect the request of the elimination of the building C. I also understand when we're already down to half the density you had. Now, we're talking about cutting it by another third. At some point, the county wins and I guess, you know, Mr. LeTernogitz is way and we try to buy the property. But knowing that we need to be talking about this application and what's reasonable, what would we be, what is the most you could do in regards to pushing that building back away so that it's more than 110 feet from that a butting property line? So we've evaluated building C moving it back by about 10 feet and then adding to tree conservation area, butting the two aspect of of court properties going into the parking area, which would be effectively another 18 feet. So we could push your back 28 feet potentially, and then add in that areas, the tree conservation area, or some sort of buffer and critical areas. So that's one option we've looked at. So that area there we're building C is could go back to 138 feet. So we could have it a total of 180 foot set back from the building. And then I'm sorry, what could be the increase on the tree conservation of the buffer you're talking about? That area would be increased to 68 feet of just tree conservation buffer area. The actual distance from the house to the building would be 180 8 feet. So there would be trees in that area for 180 8 feet, 180 feet from the property point of the property line to the point of the the budding property. There would be trees within a 68 foot portion of that area. There would be 50 feet on the Ashbyot the just between the house and the property line and then from that area from the tree constipation area to the buildings there would be whatever is leftover there so that would be the 50 plus 68 so it would be another 20 feet to the building. Actually be a little bit further than that with the drive-yle but. But the whole distance would be 168 feet. Of tree conservation area. Tree conservation area would be 68 feet. So the buffering, I'm sorry, so buffering with it. The buffering is a better way to put it. Buffering would be 168 feet. It's 68. I'm sorry. 68. 68 or 168. 68 for the buffering. Okay. Okay. And you would agree to that. Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. Mr. Frank. It's just to clarify, I get the 68 foot. But we went from 111 to 168, and I'm trying to figure out how 20 feet got us there. So it's 138 feet. Okay, sorry, I kept hearing 168, so I was trying to figure out what I meant. 178 feet. 168 feet. And 168, 168, right? And that's the entire stretch of building, C, or part of building. It is the entire stretch of the two lots on Asheville Court. Okay. So where the two lots on Asheville Court go from east to west, it would go down that area. It would kind of go in on a portion of it, but the deepest portion would be the 68 feet for the buffer. And the least deep area would be? Give me one second. I needed the larger font, but it's 58 feet. Okay, so it's a 10 foot variance. Right. The majority of it is the 68 before it curves up. Okay. Okay. Are you good? Okay. Okay. The last chance. Anybody else? All right. This is in the dullest district. So, Maderite, you do have a motion. I move the Planning Commission forward, Legee 2023-0070 He didn't do assembly, map 20-23-004 to the Board of Supervisors with the recommendation of denial. Based on the findings provided as attachments for the May 8, 2025 Planning Commission working session memorandum. Second. motion made by Commissioner Moderati. Do you have an opening? Yes. I think we talked about long enough for this application. Thank you, Mike again. I think working through commissioners as well as your assemblage to make it better. But I think we had a discussion on this. I think it doesn't go far enough for me to get my vote on where we are going. I understand commission Myers argument about, it's a different use, we got to go back to the three buildings and we're still, that's what we approved, we got to make improvements and I don't think I believe in that kind of logic. I think we already worked on a two building solution that's far enough, that's number one. Number two is I still don't believe that taking the housing stock we have from the county, that's a bigger reason for me to have a positive vote on this application. I don't believe in that kind of development where we take the existing housing and start building an industrial park. So for those two primary reasons, I am making a motion for denial and I would like other commission to support me Thank you Commissioners have comments on the motion. Commissioner Jasper. I'll support the motion for denial I agree with commissioner moderate a that This is not the solution to the problem Clearly a problem a serious problem was created by other, the approval of JK2, and that this would export that problem to Browier Field Estates, and then also export it again potentially to other properties adjacent. And I do believe that the residents of Hiddenwood Lane have been damaged by the county's decision. And I do as we talked about in my very first conversation with you in the assembly representatives. Mike, I do believe that there's a remedy at law for that. And that remedy may be, you know, for them to bring a lawsuit about an inverse taking, based on the county's action that destroyed their quiet enjoyment of their property. And so I just don't think that instead exporting the problem to another community is the solution. I think there is an adequate remedy potentially and I think they should pursue it. Mr. Barnes? Yes sir. I think I will be voting for denial because I don't like the placement where it is. It's too close to the development. And it's a pretty big undertaking right next to the development. And I remember when people came down the first time when they were building the data sanctuary and all that, a lot of people came there, a lot of them. Not just 10, 12, a lot of them came. And they said this was their retirement place. And they thought they're going to live there forever. And some of them were crying because they were disturbing their lifestyle. And I still remember that. And I cannot support this application because it's too close to the housing housing project and that's all I have. Okay, Commissioner Myers. Sure to know when surprised I won't be supporting the motion. I think there's a lot of things that are unfortunate about this application and the way it's been viewed. I think there's a lot of things that are unfortunate and unfair about the way the residents of this area have been treated in this application. But more importantly, I think that when we talk about the application that's in front of us and the suitability of it and how it conforms to the zoning ornance and everything, I think there is an opportunity to write a wrong. It just takes some willpower to stand up and do the right thing. And unfortunately, I'm not sure there'll be five people here to do that tonight. What was the forest was three buildings? It wasn't two buildings, and that's what we voted on. So that's not a mistake. Number two, if you obviously haven't spent much time down there, if you think this property has any idea of adding to the housing stock of Loudon County, I can't imagine anyone going down there when the planes go overhead and when the construction traffic is going around them. And there is only one way out of this property. You cannot go through Broughfield. There is no way out of this property except down Hidden Woodling, which by the way most of the road is owned by the data center. That's the only way in and out, and it's a commercial, it will be a commercial road that they now get the enjoyment of. It is wrong what has happened. There is not gonna be any housing stock here. We have left these people no enjoyment to their property. When you talk about people that came here and cried about this was their place, their retirement, It was these people that came here and cried. It was these people that stood here in front of the previous board and asked them to not approve JKJ because this is what was going to happen to them. So yeah, you're right. They did cry. They were upset, but the county didn't listen. They let it happen. Briarfield on the other side has a huge buffer between themselves and this property and even the next property. Contrast also, all the emails we've got, these people talk about when they bought their properties 10 and 12 years ago, well do the math. That's pre-2019 general plan changes. When they bought this property, the general plan called for this entire area to be non-residential. They were buying in a non-residential area for their new home. They had to all sign the disclosures of the airport because it was in effect at that time. They had to drive by the PDGI yard, the GI yard, the nursery yard, they all pre-existed. They knew what they were buying into. On the flip side, if they came in a new home and they came 10 to 12 years ago, which is what all these emails say, that's the case. On the flip side, these homes have been approved back in the 50s and 60s and that's how long these people have lived here. They've endured a general plan that told them, don't worry, we won't push you out until you're ready to sell, but then you will be non-residential for your future. As long as you want to live here, you can live here. They've paid their dues, they've been patient, they've been respectful, they've waited two and a half years, and now we're just saying to them, sorry, but maybe somebody might come along and five board members might buy your property someday. That's not what this application is about. This application is about, does it conform? No, it doesn't completely conform to this general plan it did to the 2019 and it almost does if you look at the staff all the uses and stuff are in alliance. So I think that this is, I feel it's one of the status cases and I've been here since the 80s. And this is just, it's sickening the way I feel about this. But I understand and respect other planning commissioners for their decisions. Thank you commissioner Banks. Like Commissioner Poland-Miers, I will not be supporting the motion. I do feel that the residents of this area have been done and ill service by our county. I very much adopt the remarks of Commissioner Polman-Miers. If for brevity sake I won't continue to repeat them, but my lack of not repeating them does not mean that I feel any less strongly about them, because I do. And I sorely wish that we could find a way to give these residents the relief that I think we should I think we owe it to them and I am saddened that it appears we may not be moving in that direction Mr. Colmes. Thank you, Mr. Chair I similarly will not be supporting the motion I respect respect Commissioner Maderetti and his motion and his views on the application. I just seem to differ. I've said my reasons previously through the multiple other meetings we've had. And yes, there may be other options to solve this problem. But what we have before us is a zoning application. And if we look at it on its merits, I think the two big stumbling blocks are land use, comp plan, and then the other is mitigating the residential impacts. I think we can all agree that the comp plan got this wrong in 2019 when it made hidden wood, a suburban neighborhood place type. There's nothing suburban, there's nothing neighborhood about it anymore. So I think we can dispense with that pretty quickly. In terms of mitigating the impacts to the adjacent residential uses at Briarfield, I don't know what more we can do. This application has been worked heavily. You all have been over backwards to try to really try to address those impacts and I applaud you for it. You've been as flexible as anyone could possibly be in trying to address the varied concerns that you're hearing, both at the commission and the board and from staff. I think what we have before us particularly with your willingness to further set back that building and see and increase the buffer, what we have is really minimal impacts over at Brighafield such that I don't think we're exporting the problem that Hiddenwood has. What they were dealt was a data center that would own their road. They don't even have their road anymore. What we're saying to briar field is you're going to have a different use. You're going to have other IP uses that aren't data setter, that aren't the size of those halking buildings that hidden wood would be facing. And you're still going to have your buffers and your setbacks that hidden wood isn't going to have. So to me, it's not the same problem. It's not being passed along. The can isn't being kicked. I think the application that we have before us on its merits is good enough to recommend approval of it. And I hope others feel the same. to have a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a back to Briefield and those that know Briefield in County had its way wouldn't exist. In the sense that this area has not been planned for residential use. The houses on Hiddenwood were there before the airport even existed. That's how far back that community goes. Due to a loophole or the way that Briefield property fit between the contours of dollars airport they were able to Put the residential in there and as much as they have to sign disclosures on the noise and the rest of this area has in the long term planning been for non-residential uses I want to talk to people a briar fairly or even in their letters they complain about the data centers they look at that already exist, which I Absolutely agree with them. But the bottom of a cul-de-sac. There's this gigantic data center just sitting there. No screening. No anything They complain about the noise with the airport And then they're concerned about now something else getting built on the property adjacent to them, which until the 2019 plan was not to be planned for residential. And so when this was changed and the way staff explained it to me is that well, we want to change this portion to residential to protect hidden wood from what they knew was coming, which were the data centers. They said, well, if this is considered a residential property, we can get more concessions and better setbacks and better buffering from the adjacent data center community. Clearly, that hasn't helped the situation, and I just can't use that as a reason to say this application shouldn't be proved because in the 2019 plan it was changed from non residential to residential because the houses were there and staff thought they were doing the residents of service by making that change clear we're here so that that's not the case. So for those reasons, and this project itself compared to the data centers, it's hard to argue data centers would be a better use. But in this case with these three buildings, yes they extend over greater geography east west, but they're significantly lower in particularly the buildings that are the closest to the residential, they're below grade. I mean the tops of those buildings will be probably below the roof line of the houses that are adjacent to it. So it won't be an imposing structure that they're looking at. Unlike at the end of the other cul-de-sac in that community that's just looking at the large data center that's across the road. So I just think this is not a negative to the Briarfield community. What they'll see on their side is the front of what looks like an office building and the people that work there will be out of the parking cars there. And all the activity is going to be screened on the other side of the buildings from the residences. So for those reasons, I won't support the motion. Commissioner Frank. Sorry, I was late to the party. You know, five years ago, I didn't really know where Hidden Wood Lane was until I stood on it. And knew then that what we had in front of us then was a bad idea. And it's not a case where I enjoy being right. This area is a patchwork quilt. We have seen this for years as it changed before and after the 2019 plan. It was before we called it residential, it is after we called it residential. It's going to be a challenge. but just as what we now have on the ground happening to the people at Hiddenwood and we have what is going to happen to their south, what is being constructed, we have what is on the ground to their north and quite candidly not that very far to their east as well. Including some very recently approved residential development that includes a large portion of affordable housing. So, as this problem pushes, I think we need to be very careful about what we're pushing it to. I think the courage that is required is quite candidly not by any one of our individual votes. It's by the right people who mess this up in the first place, sitting down, taking the leadership and the ownership and fixing it. Fixing it with hidden wood, fixing it with briar field, fixing it with the neighboring folks, fixing it with the data center folks and the developers. This is not an easy problem to fix, but I think what we have in front of us well to Chair Curest's point is very good. I don't think it's good enough. I think there needs to be a little more done to mitigate the impact. We would not, you know, I can get over the use and everything else, but we've got it too close to the residential. So I can thank the applicant who worked with me extensively to try to find ways to do that. We tried to find a solution that wasn't just take out building C, but at the end of the day, I just, they can't take out building C and I'm not quite where I need to be on what they can do. But I encourage them to do what I know they will already do, which is work with the board and staff between here and the board vote to improve what they can and try to make it work for the folks at the next level. Again, I think this is a bigger thing than one application in 19 houses. I think there's an entire area that we've got to fix and that admittedly will be difficult. But I hope some people who have the authority to do so will rise to that challenge. I didn't support this as a data center years ago. I didn't support it as a data center last year with three buildings. I don't support it with three buildings now, so I will support the motion. Okay. Vice Chair Miller. Thank you. So I have some people waiting for where I'm going to say. I'm going to associate my comments with Ms. Frank. It's in a vacuum, it's an excellent application. I believe it's things that we need in the county warehouse base. I believe it's something that is certainly useful. Unlike Ms. Frank, I did vote for JK2 and I've come to regret that vote. I think that was a mistake and I think it moved the line that caused the situation we have here today. I don't think that pushing the line further solves any problems. I do believe, however, that the best possible solution here is for these houses not to be here. These folks be able to leave. But what comes in its place, I'm not committed to this being that answer. If my vote here today puts some impetus and some pressure on the board ofors to act in a manner at which can solve both the needs of the people of Hiddenwood and the county at writ large to have something that's more suitable to the residences that would otherwise remain and to the residences that are joining us to the south and the east. and perhaps this area becomes more dense residential to accommodate whatever needs the county may feel we have. I don't know what that is. Ultimately though, I look back to my vote on JK2, which as I said, it was a mistake, I believe now. And I'm not ready to cast a vote in a manner that would cause me to think that I made the same mistake again in the future. Given that, I'm going to support and deference to the Dulles District Supervisor and Commissioner. This is their district, this is the things that they think they can work on better. And given that, I'm going to support the motion. Thank you. Okay, Commissioner Mauder, you have a closing. No? Okay, so all those in favor of the motion to deny the application say aye. Aye. Opposed? May. And I believe that motion will pass 5-4 with commissioners, comb, mayors, banks, and cures in the proposal. All right. Next, the briefing on our May Public Hearing items. Good evening. I will give the briefing for the May 27th hearing as Martianne is currently out of office. Before I do that, I'd like to remind you all that the hearing will start at 5 p.m. We have a closed session training on how to handle emergency situations in the border room that will be conducted by the Office of Emergency Management and will ask about 40 minutes and then will break for dinner and then the regularly scheduled hearing will begin at 6 p.m. We currently have six items on the agenda. We have a Doam, a CPAM and four ledges. The first item is Doam 251. The genesis of this amendment is staff identified issues associated with maintenance of roadways over dam and banknets, and bankmets, maintenance of emergency vehicle accessways, and fire lane identification signs. This application would amend the facility's standards manual to adopt local standards for roadways over dams and establish platenotes regarding maintenance of emergency vehicle only accessways, and a fire lane identification along the private and public roads. The project manager is in the Department of Building and Development and I'm happy to let her know if you have any questions. Any questions on this? Nope. Okay. CPM 2024-6 would remove a planned portion of Gloucester Parkway between Belmont Ridge Road and Cochrane Mill Road from the 2019 County-wide Transportation Plan. The CPAM includes both MAP and text amendments to reflect the removal. A transportation analysis technical report supports the change and the board has endorsed the change. The amendment will specifically revise three or four of the maps and if you look at the gray area that's the segment that would be removed. Are there any questions on the CPAM? Brian, are we going to be talking about like the technical report itself on the meeting or just the reasoning, what points support the removal? Are we going to see that in the call? I can assume it will be an attachment. Would you like to see it? I would like to see at least summary of what are the primary points that support the removal. I'll tell you. So there's two planned crossings over the creek. There's either Gloucester currently, and there's Russell branch to the north that's planned and not yet completed. My question for DTCI is of the uncompleted portions of these two roads. What is the status of that, meaning are there proffers to build any portions of them? And if not, what is the county's cost to either complete Russell Branch or complete Gloucester? There's most discussion is in need for one crossing but not two. Russell Branch kind of looks like the most obvious, you know, it gives us the peril of one or one route, along Route 7. But just from the financial cost, and I'd be curious to see what the numbers show for these two. And the rest of the commissioners, they had a public meeting on this a few nights ago. I attended it and I think there was three members of the public there, all of supported removal of it So it didn't it didn't garner a lot of attention and I staff had to mention that almost all the all the online comments are in favor of removing it So this way of background All right, thanks Moving on to419. So this applicant is seeking a commission department, special exception and a minor special exception to establish a sewer service area, a wastewater treatment facility, and to modify buffer requirements. The establishment of the sewer service area would provide permanent sewage service to all onsite facilities. The area outlined in yellow is a 36 acre property, zoned CR4 legacy, CR1 legacy and AR1 and located in the rural historic village and rural north place types. The property is in the village of ofts, Easter root 15 and south of Luckyts Road and encompasses Luckyts Elementary, Luckyts Community Center, Luckyts volunteer, Fire Department Old Station 10 and Loudoun County Fire and rescue new station 10. The application results from a board member initiative to determine public use viability of old station 10 and identify a solution to provide a permanent sewage service to all onsite uses which was determined to be a public need. The establishment of the sewer service area would use the existing treatment facility, which is right here in Orange. Can you see my cursor? Yes. This was built in 2022 accessory to the school and it's available capacity would be used to service those other public uses. Are there any questions? Commissioner's question, Commissioner Jesper. Have you reached out to Luckett's for a tan? Has somebody, has that happened yet? Have they been engaged or any of the other Luckett's community organizations? I'll have the PM adjusted at the hearing. Thank you. Mr. Miller? She'll. Oh. So I just want to comment that this isn't already existing facility. All the properties are either county or quasi public facilities, the old station 10, the reason supervisor Kirchner initiated this was so we could actually be able to use old station 10. The treatment facility already exists and when it was built on school property, the schools specifically did not want buffering because it would eat in slightly further into their outdoor fields. What this is all about is basically allowing the county to take over ownership and have loud and water maintain the system. As part of that is going to come a need for a buffer that the county has the applicant to say, okay, we'll do that even though the schools never wanted it. And so this is, I would like to think that when we get to this is going to be a pretty simple thing for us to get through in that it is all there, it is all for public facilities, and it is already in existence, and everything about this facility is contained within the building itself. The old facility was an outdoor open-air sewage treatment facility, so just in comments to think about as it comes forward. And I would also encourage those who are interested to reach out to Bill Junda and the county for a little more information. That was helpful, thank you. Mr. Frank. This feels like Eons ago, but when we were discussing the route 15 North widening projects and the bypasses we were really dancing around this area and the fire station and everything else. I don't know if there's any impact or things that we should be right hand on left hand should be talking to each other when it comes to all of this but I guess I'd just like to know if someone has looked at what the current what the board approved finally when they did do that and and whether there's Anything we should be laying groundwork for here to make sure everything can coexist in a wonderful beautiful way That's okay like if something needs to be moved 10 feet now seems like the time to do it Okay, that kind of thing but again, you know, I there was a lot of discussion on this corner So that's it just somebody double double check if there's any impact. All right. Okay. Next. Thank you. Well, I just had some background and maybe Brian already touched on it. I did work on one of the agreements for this sewer pump station to allow the new fire station to use it and basically, this is just because of the old volunteer building that's there. And I think in working on the new agreement, we never really found the old agreement for the existing volunteer station. And then also because it's private property at the time and wasn't owned by the county. There was no mechanism to connect it to the new station. And so this would be necessary in order to allow that existing station. And again, I'm not sure if it came under county ownership ultimately or what, but I'm allow them some use. Because I think there was talk about once it was no longer the fire station. The new fire station came online. You know, they would want to use it as a community building or something for the area. Okay, thank you. Okay. Leggy 2443. So the applicant is seeking a commission permit and a special exception to establish a utility step station in the IP district and a minor special exception to eliminate the required buffers along the property's western boundary. This is a 37 acre property that's owned IP and located in the Leesburg Joint Land Management Area Employment Place type. If you know the Wegmans in Leesburg, this is to the south of that and on the opposite side of Cross Trail Boulevard. If you can see my cursor, this is the town. Oops. This is the town of Leesburg right here. This is a neighborhood called Tuscarora Crossing that the county approved. And this land bay right here is, I believe, profit as public institutional use. And the proposed substation would be right across the street from that, which you can see by looking at the specs play right here. So this is Cross Trail, and this is the WNOD Trail. Any questions on this one? I would just be curious what kind of fencing, Birmingham screening they have planned for it. As one who drives this road every single day to go home and stairs at that open field in those power lines every day. Whatever buffering they put will be a will be a sight for the eyes so I can show you. Make sure they Profford to a old farmhouse To cover the substation so that that when people look at it, it looks like it really fits in. There's an example up in Montgomery County of one of those in Damascus. All right, next one. Okay. Stonewall Creek Business Park Substation. The applicant proposes a zoning map of amendment to rezone, I'm sorry. Okay, so this is a 90 acre property, zone IP and GI, and the applicant is proposing a ZCPA to remove a portion of a committed tree conservation area, as well as a commission permit and special exception for a substation and a minor special exception to modify buffer standards. This is in the transition light industrial place type while the overall parcel is 90 acres. The area subject to the commission permit, special exception and minor special exception is 14 acres and the area of the CCPA is 50 acres. So if you look at the proposed CCPA CDP, the area in green is the TCA. This area right here that got cut out is the part that they're proposing to remove from tree conservation area. the overall area of TCA will decrease, they are proposing reforestation area over here and over here. And then if you look at the specs plat, you can see the outline of the proposed substation and red that fills in the space of the previously committed to TCA. Are there any questions? Questions on this one? No? Okay. No questions? Okay. This is the last one. ledgy 2024 to Concord Industrial Park. The applicant proposes a zoning map amendment to Reson 17 acres from the PDGI district Under the 72 ordinance to IP under the Current ordinance. The applicant also requests a special exception to Increase the flare area ratio from 0.6 to 0.8 for data center use and a second special exception for a utility substation. The property is in the suburban industrial mineral extraction place type. The site is currently developed with about 270 square feet of flex uses and four buildings that you can see on the screen. Aligned data center is just east of the subject property. This is the first of 10 prologues applications for data center to go to the Planning Commission public hearing. There are several development scenarios currently included in the application. For our specific, so I'll share them here with you tonight. Two of the scenarios are for data centers. One is for wholesale distribution and one is for flex building. I do want to point out that to the north of the site is the Sterling Boulevard Extension, which is sometimes referred to as a future Shellhorn Road, that's the area up here. So I believe that now makes this the front of the property. So this is option one which proposes a data center in pink and the back here is the equipment yard and then to the right is the substation. Option two is also for data center. Again, in the pink is data center to the left is the equipment yard. This starred area here is a proposed optional additional equipment yard and then to the right of the substation. Option 3 is wholesale distribution. Again, pink is the building and then in the back here is the loading and service area. four as flex, pink is the building is the loading and service area. Option 4 is flex. Pink is the building and then in the middle areas is the loading and service area. What questions do you have? I believe they want the option to do any of the four options. I believe they want the option to do any of the four. Some are more intensive than others, but and some are more likely than others in my opinion. So, Mike. Go ahead, Mr. Miller. Go ahead. So, my question going on? Mr. Miller, go ahead. So my question is a more request. A large part of their applications, the premise of all these applications to some degree is that the existing buildings on their properties, many of them are warehouses, that would need to go away in order to build whatever they want to do next. And one of the comments that I had to them when I met with them in the past was, you gave everybody these warehouse users, we don't want these people leaving the county where they're going to go. One of my comments during the Hiddenwood discussion was what I believe to be the need for more warehouse type facilities Can we lose some and still be productive? So my my request would be is it possible to have someone from buddy riser shop Come out to talk to us about the county's needs in these particular areas and and around it it to know whether or not there is that demand that why I believe there is for warehouse and more flex relative to what would be losing and things of that nature. I know Commissioner Jasper has talked about in the past about having experts, but we have those here in this case. And I think us being able to understand the warehousing needs of the county in this area will help inform our decision making on prologists repurposing some of their warehouse buildings for other things in the future. Okay. Mr. Frank. Is it? I struggle with how to even ask this. You mentioned there's 10 of these. Is it, can we get an overview of where they are and what the current uses are? Because while we look at everyone and individual them, evaluate each of them individually on their own merits. I would hate to look at, say, number two is okay. And then when we get to eight, go, geez, I would have approved this before I'd approved that. But now we've got zero inventory of this type. And, like, the problem is it is, I don't know but it 10 sites could be fairly impactful to the inventory of these other product types so it's you know if you're going to say well we could lose a few evaluating each on their merits might mean you pick the ones that weren't really the best ones for us as a county to let go of or to, again. It would help me evaluate it. I know that's a tricky thing, but they may not be so keen on that. What they will be? I had a briefing a couple of months ago with the logist and their representatives that, and I expressed at that time, one application at a time is not going to cut it. We need to know what your plan is. Are there to make decisions with blinders? Right, we have to look at one application at a time, but I believe it has to be in consideration of everything, which is why I made the request to have someone from economic development out to inform us of the needs for taking away and moving and relocating. To the extent that's not necessarily, that's partially related to this application. Prologists did acquire warehouse space along Route 50 to move. So that is going on, but that is a wide ranging issue and discussion that as planners and planning, I think is important for us, and they know that and they will be willing to make those. In fairness this afternoon, they asked me for a meeting, I haven't replied yet, because we had our hands full today. But, you know, yeah, I think a comprehensive look at it is helpful, I mean, quite honestly, it might make me more inclined to be supportive of some of it, depending on where they are and what they're doing and what the impact is on the overall inventory. So yeah, in addition to buddies data, and maybe it's not just their applications, but it's an application that's this flavor. It's warehousing that is very likely, has a CDP that has a very non- warehouse use associated to it. If I could amplify that request, I agree and I actually think when Buddy Riser comes out, if he could be sure to bring whatever data he has about pipeline as well as demand and supply, that would be great. Mr. Myers. To me what I'd also like to understand is what is the existing square footage, improved square footage on this property? What is the uses that are being used with that association so that I understand, I mean just because somebody wants to tear down a building and they have a reasonable use doesn't mean we have to grant them to tear down the building. So I think part of what I'd really like to understand is what is the condition of this building, what is the use on this building, how many square feet are being used on this building and how much of it is occupied? Because I don't know that it's our role to just like the quantum park as I talk about all the time. I don't think it's our role to make sure that if you're making $10 you can make $20 tomorrow. I think if there's a reasonable use already on the property and it's full, I don't know that it's our obligation to reason the property just because somebody wants to yield a higher return on their dollar either if it can form to everything else. So I think for me, before I get into all these different options I'm looking at, I'd like to understand the existing that's on the ground and is it full. Because that to me is part of the discussion about what do you look like in these options. I mean maybe the options are we look at none of them because they have a viable use on the property and it's a viable use that the county needs. Well, I think if we go down that road, we probably also have to look at the age of the buildings because yeah, yeah. So kind of along those same lines, I'd like to know the square footage of those four buildings and tent, right? Obviously, options one and two wouldn't apply, but option three, which is a large wholesale distribution facility, what's the square footage of that? And if they did the flex, the new flex, what's that square footage? Because you could compare what they're tearing down versus what they're replacing. And if they have any, if they can explain, if they can have any, if you have tenants in there, what the status is of those tenants and where will they go? The reason I ask that is this company is part of their, we'll tell you is, they're looking in their building and they're buying land to build more flex space. They're not just doing data centers, they are doing, looking warehousing, they're doing flex space in other parts of the county off of Route 50. So I'd like to know, I don't know if they you can get it from them, I can ask them when they get to them is where are these other areas that you're building that type of use, which is where these tenants could go, particularly if they decide to go with options 1 or 2, which are obviously data centers. And if I had to guess which way it's gonna go, I know it's one I'd put my money on. So as it pertains to options 1 or two, I'd like a lot of detail about the plan screening of the substation, heights of walls, Birmingham landscaping, because it's not open yet, but this road when it opens is gonna be a pretty major road. It's gonna take a lot of traffic of avoiding the greenway, getting from Loudon County Parkway to over to Route 28. Right now they all go up to Waxpool and cut across. When this opens up all that traffic is going to be cut through here. So it would be nice to have something look at looking at something to help screen the substations. So those are I think what my questions are for the applicants. OK? I've still got one more. Sure. Because you triggered for me. The transmission lines, where they are, and where they might need new ones, so routes of transmission lines and heights, et cetera. Okay. And, what's your columns? With respect to options three and four, right? The wholesale and flex. Can we just make sure that we have a clear understanding of what they can and cannot do with their current zoning versus what they can and what they will be able to do with their requested rezoning. I'm wondering I'd in terms of uses. Yeah, exactly. And those uses in particular, are they looking with respect to options three and four? Are they looking for a rezoning just so they can get more FAR? Or is it for other uses? I mean, I'm just a better understanding of where they currently are and what they're seeking to do. Okay, thank you. Yep. Anything else? Anything else? Nope. All right. And then in terms of application status update, we have three applications currently scheduled to return to the commission currently scheduled for the June 12th work session those are quantum park St. Louis village plan and the 2024 review of the 2019 general plan And that concludes the briefing unless you all Have any other questions? Let's do for that. Okay. Just tell March on to stay home. Brian, just tell March on to stay home. You got to cover. And the next item we had on the agenda is the draft 2024 Planning Commission annual report. That is also me. I am not planning on walking you through page by page, but I do have it here if you want me to have it up. So the commission received a copy of the draft 2024 annual report in the packet. I just learned recently that the annual report and the recently revised commission bylaws that you all approved have to go to T-Lock at the same time. So I have not yet taken those bylaws to T-Lock on your behalf, but I will shortly. The annual report summarizes the activities of the Commission for Calendar Year 2024. It lists all of the commission's recommendations on the various legislative cases that you process last year. In 2024 you all held 16 public hearings, 13 work sessions and acted on 33 ledges as well as four Ag and four steel districts, two zooms, two cpms and three Doe amps. So the commission can review and edit the report And hopefully subsequently approve the report. I believe All that's needed is a motion to approve and then I can Present it to T-Luck on your behalf. Then it will go to the full board for their awareness. For the T-Luck meeting, I will ask the chair if he or another commissioner wants to attend that meeting. The chair is always invited to that presentation, but it's typically pretty short. And at this time, I'll ask the chair if he would like to entertain any feedback or questions. Any questions or comments? Commissioner Jasper? So I'm reading from 15.2-222 one of the Virginia Code subsection five. which says that the duties of a commission, it's enumerating them, it says make recommendations and an annual report to the governing body concerning the operation of the commission and status of planning within its jurisdiction. This is certainly a report on activity over time, but it is not any recommendations concerning the operation of the commission and status of planning writ large. And so I think Commissioner Myers and I have brought this up before that the commission and should have an opportunity to discuss what things it wants to raise with the board as areas to be considered at a more conceptual policy level and I feel before this goes we should at least be able to have a discussion of that. As I understood, there are two separate things, correct? No, not really. They don't have to be it. It says there's the Plenty Commission annual report and we read that again. Happy to make recommendations and an annual report to the governing body concerning the operation of the commission and the status of planning within its jurisdiction. Okay. So those are, they can go together, but they are two different things, making recommendations that the planning commission would like to see changed. And then there's the planning commission annual report. I kind of look at that as two different things that we would provide to the board. Not necessarily they have to be, they don't even have to be submitted at the same time. I don't, I think that's a good idea. It's a matter of how we want to go about it. And I'm just thinking about how we could do this and maybe at the end of each, as we get to the end of a calendar year, maybe in December, anybody that has proposed changes that they would like to see go to the board and it could be submitted at the same time as the annual report. Because we would have to discuss that and as the commission say yes we'd like to for recommend those changes. That would give people time. By setting a date this is when we'll discuss it, people can plan for that meeting and have their recommendations to suggest a change then and and whether we agree right then and there, if we need more time to look at it or work on it, we can do it early the next year, so it's done in time in conjunction with the annual report to get submitted. Is that something? If not, yes, it makes sense, but if I might, and Brian and I have had some discussions about one of the issues that's come up and I've talked about with Supervisor Tachroni and staff and Dianne and everybody and the commission is the availability of technical expertise when we need it. If we're going to be making recommendations there's a benefit to be had that we align our, our submission of whatever they are, with the county's budget process. So that whatever recommendations we make are actionable within kind of a one-year time frame, right? So the county's budget process is April to, no, it's July, right? Is the fiscal year July 1? Yes. So it would mean that if we had recommendations to make, I think, you know, the end of the calendar year might not be the right time to make them, the time to make them would be so that it feeds into the county's budgeting process so that their action could be taken in advance of the new fiscal year that begins July 1. Well, but you wouldn't, yes, but you wouldn't, so the county's in the budget process now, right, Brian? Tell us when they're done. They're done. I think the budget process starts in January or February, like Commissioner Miller said, and it gets adopted three months later or so, and then it starts July 1st. So if we were done, you're saying at the end of the calendar year, that would be good, but then we would be waiting a full year plus to make recommendations with regard to anything that might get under take and for the benefit of you know the other commissioners there have been discussing the Department of Planning and Zoning's strategy for engaging consultants, which might be the way that we would gain the technical expertise if we decided it was needed from time to time. And that contract is being reviewed by legal now is my understanding and we'll go on the street. So I think we could get some benefit by not waiting until next December. I hope that wasn't too long way to say that. But well, so for the rest of this year, there will be no, there is, if you're actually looking to have a change to the planning commission's budget in order to afford expertise or whatever about that won't apply this year because the budget's already set. What we're saying is it'll be February, February, March of next year is when they'll set the budget for the following year. So as long as they have that information when they're doing their budget deliberations that it can be incorporated into the budget. The answer to that is yes if new budget is required but there's already budget identified this year for certain consulting services to Department of Planning and Zoning and that is a new thing. And so if we wanted to get task orders issued under those contracts this would we still have I think an opportunity to raise those requests this year. Right. But as far again that's a different thing than making what making requests or changes to the process that we would like the board to consider. And what I think what you're saying is if we actually do that process in advance of next year then if they board says it's a good idea let's plan it in the budget it's done. It doesn't prohibit us this year if there's an application that comes up and the commission feels we need access to that expertise we can still ask. Right. Yes, exactly and proactively, you know, it takes a little while to get that stuff done. So if we sussed out in advance, then it's a little easier to ensure that those, you know, resources might be available. Okay. So, before we talk about it, so I'd like to kind of do topic by topic. Does any other any other before we talk about so I'd like to kind of do topic by topic Does any other any other commission commissioners have any comments on? kind of adopting this concept of that end of the year Commissioners will have an opportunity to provide input to say I think we should recommend changes to our process So that we could review them and if we vote on them and move them forward. And is there any other comments to that? I've been waving for about ten minutes. If we remember back in March when we had this whole work session on this and I know people painfully went through me or listened to me. One of the biggest items I brought up was this item C as it related to prepare and present the Board's supervises and report each year concerning the operation of the commission and the status of planning within the county. We talked about explicitly that this means more than just simply a roll call vote of what we did. And that's all this report right now currently is. It's available in any public record. It's given to them every month when we do it. We talked about wanting to add to that that the planning commissioners talk about what we saw as things that did and didn't work and make recommendations to the board of things that could be done better. We made that we talked about the example of the data center and not be given enough time that there should have been a discussion between the two bodies about how do we see that working. We talked about presentations and do we think there's a better way to this? We had a very long discussion during that work session about things that we thought that could be added to this report that would be more than just simply a roll call of what the last year was. And that the Planning Commissioner should have the opportunity to put in their concerns or their thoughts of what would be added to it and then just like we did the bylaws that would come in, people could say I agree, we should ask the board to consider this. We've also talked about numerous times setting up and putting in here that we think the board should meet once or twice a year. This is a place where we could say that again to them in our annual report. So there was a lot of dialogue about this and that it needed to be more than just simply an accounting of the meetings of who attended and what the votes were. And at this point that's all it is. It's an accounting of the meetings who attended and what the votes were. There's no new information to anybody in this annual report. It's a summary report. Of information already readily available. But that's the idea. It's just a summary. But that's not what the intention is. I mean, I can tell you from past that's not what the intention was. It was to talk about what do we, what can we do to help? What do we see as improvements also? So that would be, would you see that in in line with Chris or Jasper's comment about recommendations? I see that as being part of this report in regards to brick, not a separate. I'm a little confused because she seems to be talking about putting it into the annual report. You seem to be talking about doing it at a different time. To me, what I'm talking about is this annual report now that's going to the board of supervisors should include recommendations from us of how to improve the process, concerns we have, those type of things. Whether there's another thing that comes up because of budgets at a different time is a separate issue. So I'm a little confused about are you talking about doing what she's recommending at a different time? Are we talking about doing it while we're doing this annual report? So my recommendation given where we are in the timing we're in to may already is whatever we just make a decision on would apply towards next year. Not this year. I wouldn't agree with that. Well, we can review it. We can see what the rest of the commission because that means okay, well then we have to delay the this report because then we have to give everybody an opportunity to put in their requests for changes, comments, whatever. Then we all have to review that and then we have to decide what we believe belongs in the report. So I don't want to get this process and then which also delay is getting our by-law changes made. I'm looking more towards if we're going to make changes. I mean with all due respect I'm not sure why they waited to make it to us. I mean, in the past, they've been done between January and March. I mean, I don't know why they waited to make it. But just because they waited to make it doesn't mean that we shouldn't have the ability from what we talked about last March to still put in this report. I mean, I believe it is important to put in that we'd like to meet with them. I believe that there are things that are important to put in this report. I don't think it needs, I don't think it'll take us another three months. I think you can say bring it back and send me your things in one week. And so when we have the work session in June, we can all agree to it. We're talking about a 30-day talk turnaround. Right, so my recommendation with this would be to continue with the annual report as it is. And I really would prefer to get Commissioner Frank and Commissioner Comments because at least as far as the annual report because they were chair in the vice chair when the annual for the year that the San you know, refers to, if you have any comments on making changes to it. Oh, mine was more on the conversation that's been happening than the comments on the document Historically and it has worked very well We make recommendations sometimes with Individual items be it a CPAM is OM or something and and I found that we had some pretty good success with that. But that is not quite as broad of a scope as what Commissioner Jasper was talking about, you know, changing kind of work scope and plans and budgets. For that, I wouldn't want to wait till December. I would think you'd want to be tackling that in October of each year so that we could get it to them. So that's in front of them when they start their January discussions if there's something in there and staff has a chance to look and go Yeah, this is a ballpark of what that might cost or how many staff hours that might take or That kind of thing because I think that's good. We kind of did that informally When it was when I was chair and Eric was vice chair and we sort of met with staff and we got a lot accomplished But it wasn't a big budget poll so So in some scenarios, October probably makes a lot of sense. Just otherwise we're waiting a whole almost year plus cycle. Now if we don't do something, and I think those are bigger discussions than we can have in the next 30 days. Now that doesn't mean there's not things that couldn't go in here. I will say I strongly suspect the reason it didn't happen in January to March is because we had some serious staffing changes and over People being moved around and Brian just came into this role and other people were leaving You know, I have to think that that impacted that and that's just unfortunately The world in the way it works. So I understand why we are where we are in May. Can we supplement a little bit on this without slowing it down dramatically, probably? And then do something that's more of like an October time frame that maybe encompasses a little bit bigger. And breaking it in half might make it more manageable for us and for staff. And I mean, this is still going to be the annual report. But what stops us from issuing another report that we decide to come up with, it isn't listed specifically in the code. I mean, not to cause more work for everybody, but it might, pulling them apart might actually be easier. I don't know. It's just my thought. I can respond to one comment that you made, Commissioner Frank. I was asked to delay bringing this so that the right hand column could be completed because we wanted as many of these board votes as possible and as you can see, two of them still aren't acted on. That's why you're just now getting it. So many of these got voted on like two weeks ago. So yeah, that's why you're just not getting it. If you want to get this in January, you can tell me that and I can make that happen next year. Mr. Chair, yeah, there's a couple of things. I think I'm in a position where I'm in favor of all of the above. In the sense that I think that the annual report is a logical place for us to have recommendations. And I think that that has at least been the spirit of the conversation that we have had around this day as on a number of occasions. so I'm really not all that concern that our annual report this year would be somewhat delayed by whatever is necessary so that we can accomplish that which I believe we have were leaning towards anyway. That certainly was my thought about it. So I would propose that, that number one we do, all have an opportunity however we agree. Perhaps it's we have a week or two to give send to you our recommendations that we would like to have included in the annual report this year. Then we review them and vote on them at some point in the future. And then whenever the annual report is ready, then we get it done. So I'm not really all that concerned because I don't recall that there's a statutory requirement that we submitted by a particular time. So I don't think that there's an issue with that. And then number two, I think the Commissioner Jasper brings up a great point. And that is we should think even more broadly than whatever recommendations We would like to include in this year's annual report But rather think about recommendations that may in fact have budgetary implications and in that regard I absolutely think it would be appropriate for us to begin that process probably in fall so that we can have those particularly budget-impactful recommendations have those before the board at the beginning of the year. Having worked and done this in a number of different cases, I know that if you don't have your budget implications, recommendations to the board early, you can just forget it. So if we're going to really think about it and I agree, I think it is an excellent suggestion. We should begin that process in the fall so that we can then make those recommendations in January. And that can be a supplemental report. or we could even advance have our next annual report be less than a year from this report and issue it you know in February or late January and include all of those recommendations and I'm open for either of those but that would be the direction in which I would like to see us go. Okay. Other comments? Commissioner Cbs? Yeah, I can't say it any better. Did I know exactly what Commissioner Banks just said. I would add, my thinking was similar in that we could do the recommendations piece of this annual report somewhat informally and I think we could do it relatively quickly. I would also add that as Commissioner Jasper cited the statute on duties of planning commissions not far below the make recommendations in an annual report is prepare and submit an annual budget. So a statutory obligation of a planning commission, prepare and submit an annual budget in the the the manner prescribed by the governing body of the county. I feel like that second piece that larger undertaking, that's incumbent on us to do. And I do like the idea of studying that in the fall. I think that can then get us in sync with the board's budgeting season. Right, so I know staff prepares a budget for the planning commission. We've pretty much, it's been pretty much transparent to us. We're saying as well, let's get rid of the transparency. And, Right. So I know staff prepares a budget for the planning commission where we've pretty much it's been pretty much Transparent to us. We're saying as well. Let's get rid of the transparency and have it something that would be the starting It's gonna pay. Yeah, I mean, we yeah, yeah, this way You're gonna need to talk. Don't look at this So yeah, it is what it is, but yeah, all right, so Commissioner barger lately, would you have to comment? Yes, I would just mind you just simple thing. I was going to ask staff why our report goes to the T-Lock first. I think in every jurisdiction, the chair takes the report that our annual report and present it to the board. That's what they do and I read the jurisdiction that our annual report and presented to the board, that's what they do and every jurisdiction that I know and we do in the town. The chair takes the board and gives it to the board or council, you know, that's the way it works. Not going, why does it go to T-Lock for them? T-Lock is the transportation land use committee. Why are we commission reports to T-Lock? Why are we reporting to that? The commission reports to T-Lock. That's the hierarchy. State code has it going to the board of supervisors. They've just selected a subset. The code does not call it out that way. The real way of doing it, the chair takes the report and present it to the board. Personally goes out there and gives them the- The last time I was on the commission, that's how every year, that's how it was done. It was presented to the full board at a meeting, not T-Lock. Maybe they've changed it. Yeah, I don't know why it's changed, because that was simple and went to the place where we were supposed to send it to. Yeah, the statute actually says it gets presented as prescribed by the governing body. So the board can decide whether it goes to them or to T-Luck, but that's not a staff decision. It's the board has to make that decision. Is that the board decided that? Brian Proffesson. Yes. I have a couple of comments. Sure. The first is that in Loudoun County, staff prepares budgets for all the different committees and commissions So your budget pays for your dinner and your iPads and things like that and that's pretty much it I'm not aware of you or me having the ability to change that I don't know what the process is to do that right now. I don't know if it is through Dan or me or Alicia. I'm not really sure, but I can check that for you. But that has always been how a budget thing is done in Loudoun County for decades. The commission doesn't have, you know, it's its own purse to pull from. Yeah, we don't have a problem. And then the other comment I wanted to make that, it is okay to include recommendations in the report but I would recommend that they be consensus recommendations so you would all need to agree on them for them to be in a report because this is the full Commission's annual report. Not an opportunity for individual recommendations. What I was asking you who decided to sign it to T-LOG for us. The board did? Yeah. Okay. So that's what you said. My understanding was just same thing. Any recommendation, the commission sense, the board will be a commission decision. So I agree with you on that. Yep. The only comment I had about the budget. So you said it covers the iPads. But it's also training opportunities. Is that come out of a planning commission? A budget or is that come out of a different budget? Correct. Yeah, that's your budget. So there are other things that go into that budget. And that'd be just because that's the way it's always been done. Doesn't mean that's the right way to do it. It's mainly common. I get that that's how it's been done. I think that's a great jumping off point. And it makes it very easy for us to start that discussion is here's your budget for next year based on how the county's been presenting them. We have that number to start if the commission makes a recommendation that something needs to be added to it, then we would add that to it and you'd still present it the way that you do today. Sure. That's all. Okay. I'm trying to get, so there's two different animals in this. One is the annual report and some recommendations that would go each year based on what the commission did that year. And the second one, and that one doesn't have a specific timeline, whether it's done in January, February, March, April, May, doesn't really matter. One is if we want to look at changing how the commission operates, which could be, affect the budget, that clearly needs to be done sooner. So we'd have to, that to me would be a separate report or something that we provide to the board that would be separate from the annual report and recommendations that came with that year's activities. Is that how people perceive this, how this would go? Commissioner Meyers. Two points. Number one, maybe two decades ago, instead of a decade ago, but when I was chair of the board as supervisors, the Planning Commission did look at the Planning Department's budget, also to be allies allies to them because the planning commission would look to say wait a minute we can't get all this worked on and there's ten vacancies. We support that we need that the planning department does need x amount of people more or there's an expertise that's missing but the planning commission did review the planning department budget as an adjunct to the board. We had them do it every time we looked at the budget and they made recommendations to us. They all said, we recommend recommendations. If they thought that, they needed more money for training. If they need more money for at-time security because we didn't have security all the time like you do have now. So there was an implementation where the Planning Commission absolutely participated in the budget process. I do think, Clip, to your point, that for this go round, I think we could actually do an annual report that has the first things that we want to have in which is recommendations. And in that report, we could say to the board for this year, we're going to do a supplemental report to them that will include budget items we'd like them to look at with the idea that then they know there's going to be a second part of the report coming so that you're not have to wait until October to do it. You could do part A now but then also tell them going forward. Your annual part will probably follow in October or whatever the time period you decide then it is to incorporate both changes we want to look at and suggestions of budgets. So it really for this year could be a two-part scenario, but then going forward just a one-part scenario of an annual report. Okay, I understand what you're saying. I'm just trying to figure out in my mind how if we're looking at the budget for next year, what you want to do, I mean generally, one just staff repair the budget, the planning department. One is that January. January. So we want to be done, we want to have that done prior to January. Starting October, like you just talked about it. Right. Now it's. So I'm just thinking that we need to have that report that is a recommendation, a budgetary. I almost think, look at it, as we have the annual report recommendations, and we have our budget report. It's two different, two separate things. Yeah. Yeah. So does that sound like a better way to go? And speaking for myself, I personally don't want to have any involvement in the planning department and how they budget and employees and I think I only want to deal with the. Okay. I was referring to all of a sudden we know we can see from the workload there are 40 more exaggerating but there's 40 more CPAMs coming and we know what the list of the other is but we know there are only 10 people and we know this is going to happen is the board is going to pick and choose who's going to get more people and who's not going to get anybody in order to keep the budget in line. We've had planning commissions make recommendations of hey looking at the workload that's here we definitely would support that there's an increased need for more staffing. It's that type of thing. It's not saying, I think there should be a plan or one and a plan or two. It's really being an ally to them of more work help they need. Right. Okay. Any other comments on providing? We're not done yet. All right. So for the first phase, which would be recommendations to go along with the Samuel report, how much time do folks need to provide those and how much time do staff need to review it and get it out to all the commissioners? Can we, you know, I'm wondering if it can that be done prior to the June work session? Or does it need to be, would it make more sense to have all the information for the June, so we could tackle it at the July work session? What's, what's, I'm checking, hold on please Mr. Chair yes in order to keep things moving I would suggest that that we impose upon ourselves an internal deadline of Submitting whatever we believe would be our recommendations that we would like to see in two weeks And then they can be compiled and then we can move from there Yeah, I just want to see if we did, if we, if you, well, I'm trying to get it, is it possible to do that and be able to get it into the June work session? Two weeks would work. Okay, so we're here at May 8th. So, so two weeks from tonight would be the 20 second, end of work weeks 23rd so submit any recommendations or comments for the annual report by to staff by May 23rd. Send those to. Just send them to me. Brian. And then the plan is to review that list at the June work session? Correct. And take action. Preferably. Yeah. And again, it's sort of like we've done the other recommendations is we'll have the list. Read them off, have the person recommending that, have an opportunity to speak to it, and then we vote on it. Okay. The consensus is not majority. Right, we're all on board with that. What's the system that everybody can look at? It's the, it's the, it's the, it's the, it's the, it's can live with. They don't have to love it, but if somebody is going to stand up and say, no, this is the worst thing in the world, then you have our time at Jevingt and Census. I think we'll get there pretty easily. Yeah. I'm more of a vote thing up and down and you have a vote and you're done. I guess. That's the way to do it. Up and down. So it doesn't, I mean, does that, the commission, If it doesn't have to be done by vote, I look at this as the end report has to be moved and voted on and sent to the board, I kind of would look at the information in it has to be something that the board or the commission voted on and approved to send rather than, well, this was sort of a consensus recommendations. I would rather be, I don't know. Right, the whole report gets not every individual. Well, if it doesn't have to be done either way, so I'll put it out to the commission. Would you rather do consensus or just vote up and down on each of the recommendations? Should we decide by consensus or vote? Yeah, I prefer consensus. Let's see if we can make a Achieve a consensus. I think this is it if somebody has something to do. Maybe we can have this question. Okay. And frankly we could do it in any way that we really wanted to. That is even if if we had, let's say, a recommendation that most of the commission does not really like or support, but two or three of us feel very strongly about it. We could still include that in the report and say this was supported by three out of the non-commissions. We could do something like that. So it's really just sort of how we decided to do it. But I agree with Commissioner Moderady. I think that to start out with, I would prefer for us to look at it as trying to gain consensus and absent consensus, then we default back to sort of a majority vote. But at some point, if that doesn't work, we can follow my third suggestion. We've got all. We've got all. So all those in favor of Commissioner Banks keeping his beard. All right so that's that'll take care of the first one and then we should plan if we're going to have a look at a budget and off making changes to the operation of the commission which could eventually affect the budget then we need to start that sooner than the end of the year. So I think was October, would that be a good? So that even if we took two months by December, we're done. And the only thing I would ask of staff for that meeting is to basically say, here's how we do the budget right now. And here's how the budget was done for 2025. And we can kind of see, do, do, do, do. And if it's start the process with staff, if they had recommended changes to that budget, we'd start with that number and then go from there. Okay. Okay. I just think it's important to reassure Brian and other staff. We're not looking to redo the DPC budget, right? We're really looking at potentially incremental changes to prove the functioning of the commission, not revise the DPC budget. Okay, anything else about the annual report? We need to discuss. Good. All right. I have a few other items. Brian, you mentioned you had an update on a county initiative you wanted to mention. Yeah. I have one additional thing to talk about. I want to let you guys know about a new county initiative that's currently underway. I don't know much about it, but I'm going to tell you what I do know. The county is undertaking and exercise to improve our application review processes. The county has hired a consultant to evaluate building and developments administrative processes and planning and zoning a legislative processes. We have done something like this before but this time feels a little more involved. I do know that as a part of their assessment, the consultant collected feedback from staff and developers and is forming task groups that will form recommendations to steering committees. I don't know how that's going to work, but I know what the task group topics are. They are administrative process, legislative process, organization and leadership, permitting process, proper management and bond release, referral process, recruitment and human resources, technology and landmark and staff training. My understanding is that the current direction from the board is to update T-Luck on this effort in July, so there will probably be a staff report in July that talks about what I just said in a little more detail. And that's all I know at this time. I can provide you all with updates as I get them. But I just wanted to know that that was going on behind the scenes. Is that a follow-on with the same consultants who were here about a year ago. They were kind of assessing the process. Amen. I'm assuming so, because I'm not aware of two separate efforts. So probably. Yeah, I mean, it was done and it was wrapped up in the board. There was a report out a number of months back. Yes, okay. This is that same effort. Did we ever get a full debriefing on that? Actually, I wanted to ask that to, because we also would like to get, because I, chair Randall was like, okay. This is that same effort. Did we ever get a full debriefing on that? Actually, I wanted to ask that to it because we also I'd like to get, because chair Randall was like surprised that we had never seen a copy of it. I'd like to get a copy of that. I think all the planning commissioners would. And then maybe after we have an opportunity to read it, see if we want to have a natural briefing in regards to it. she seemed surprised that we had never gotten the report. And that's the item had never gotten the report. And that's the item that went to the board. Dr. Speaking. Well, it didn't just go to the, I mean, several months ago, I think it went to the board. And they actually had a big huge meeting with industry and other people out at Hanson Park. I mean, it seems like everybody in the world other than us has had a presentation on it and has seen the report. because she's like, well, what are you guys thinking about? The things you need to improve for the planning commission and staff? I'm like, I don't know. I've never seen the report. Okay. Because she's like, well, what are you guys thinking about the things you need to improve for the planning commission staff? I'm like, I don't know, I've never seen the report. So I think definitely I think we'd like to see the report. Okay. Mr. Miller? I just want to say that if the consultants review of our procedures to get through an application takes more than 18 months, I don't trust anything that they have to say. Could we have an accomplished anything? All right. Brian, did you have anything else? No. Okay. One other thing I want to bring up and it's a slight change to how we operate at work session in June. And this relates to the St. Louis small area plan process that's been going on. And for most commissioners, commissioners, Jasper and Myers have been diligently working on that process and attending the meetings and working with the folks, working with staff. There was a bit of a misunderstanding of what the next step was going to be after the last meeting took place. I fur from the commissioners that they thought it was made very clear there would be another meeting with the residents to go over the plan so they would have an opportunity to comment on it before it came back to the commission for action. I know staff is set up a it's more of a drop-in type meeting on a Monday from 4 to 6 p.m. which I would think is not an ideal time to do such things as hard for people to get there that early. It's not really a meeting it it's a, here's the information, a few staff folks will be there if you have questions. In order to try to allow those residents to actually provide input is when we take this up in June, this will take step, I would like to, you made the residents, if they have input, they would like to speak prior to any action. They can come to the June work session, and I'll give them all, I'll afford them all. They're three minutes like a public hearing to make any comments that they have. So we get to hear from them prior to us taking any action on the plan. And so what I would need staff to do is ensure that at that meeting there's some kind of fly or something that lets the resident, anybody that attends and it can be advertised that you may attend the planning commission work session and provide input. So I think that's I'm trying to find a way to accommodate both things. So I, how many people will attend who knows but I wanted to at least try to honor what the the commissioners felt was Made a promise made to those residents that they could speak on The plan before decision was made on it and then I'll go to commissioner Myers and Jasper if you have any other comments. Yeah, my first question is, has the postcard actually gone out? Believe it went out two days ago? Oh, so it actually went out before you sent the email to us to see it. Okay. It went out that day, I believe. So that, well, I just got it yesterday, baby. Okay, I mean, one of my concerns is especially knowing in the past postcards are like a third class male type of thing typically when you go through a service. I'm concerned that some people may not even get them and they'll get them Friday in the meetings on Monday. So some may not even know about it until it's almost too late to attend. That is concern. In talking to Chair Randall this afternoon on my way here, she said that she had instructed that staff was going to be also giving out some kind of paper that there was going to be another meeting out there and that the next meeting was a meeting to discuss transportation and there was going to be a meeting to discuss the health issues and the well issues. Is staff actually setting up another meeting and are they handing out that information that this process is still continuing? I think a part of the confusion is there are two separate things going on. There's the actual plan which sets the framework for policy and future actions. And then there are two big issues with that community. One is traffic, the other is water quality, and there are two BMI's that I believe are underway or about to be underway, and I think people are conflating them. The plan is a separate thing with policies in it. The water quality and traffic improvements are separate. So I did hear Chair Randall mention or to Cronie mention that she's working on those issues and she's looking into grants and things like that for water filters and whatever. That's not a part of the plan. Okay, that is you are correct. That thing, it's unfortunate that the people that are making these decisions haven't been attending the meetings. Because yes, that is, but that's a totally separate thing she's been talking about at the meetings. What we're talking about is that there was no resolution or final decision made in regards to what people wanted in regards to the traffic, the traffic calming, you know, and the way we were going to reduce traffic and all. That is part of what Chair Randall said to me that she had instructed staff that this topic was not finished and that people were to be handing out at this meeting on the 19th a flyer that said there was going to be another meeting with a date set and she said she gave a direction that it was to be sooner than later where we were going to come back as part of this process to talk about the transportation. The issue of the wells and the drain fills out there are getting confused with all due respect with supervisors to chronize idea of like looking at filters and stuff. But there's another discussion about is it water quality or water quantity and what are the drain fill issues and can can some type of community system that already exist help to expand those those are things that are part of the plan those identify goals those identify issues and should be part of this small plan that haven't been finished and so we're sending it back to the commission without resolution to this and I believe that the community is going to be more upset than pleased that we're for some reason deciding that this needs to get to the commission now in June. I mean, no offense has been setting out there since last March. I'm not sure who decided to come off the plate right now because, first of all, we've only been having meetings once every three to four months. It seems like instead of right away. But she told me point blank today that there was supposed to be another meeting set up and that the people were going to get it at that meeting on the 19th of when the date was going to be and that there was a flyer and that it was to discuss the transportation that people still had the concerns about out there. So I would like to know, because there seems to be so much confusion with different people saying different things that don't set out there and I'm not confused. There's no reason for me to lie about what people say to me out there. There were commitments made about how the process was going to work and people felt forgotten and we told them that wasn't going to happen anymore. I'm still confused how it continues to be, is it the board directiveness or is it the belayn and commission, is it in our pervucy or theirs. But I do know this, there was a commitment made by her to staff that there were supposed to be additional information given out this meeting that I'd like to know. And she's asked me to request this tonight. They make sure that is happening. Chair Randall did a request in additional meeting to take place. I believe it was June. I don't believe it's actually related to the plan, though. It's one of those other two issues, either the traffic or the water quality. And I don't have my notes here. I wrote them there on my desk upstairs. But that is happening, yes. Mr. Jess, burning the ad? So I find myself actually a little bit confused because I've been having conversations with supervisor to corny. I have to confess I haven't done a really good thorough review of the plan. I do think a lot of the concerns in terms of policy around traffic were addressed. I have not looked at the water issue. But one thing I just want to caution all of us is that we're speaking a language that none of the residents understand. And so when we kind of parse through, well, this is, you know, an issue related to nuisance and grants and implementation, and this is an issue related to the small area plan. And, you know, and we act like, you know, that that should be obvious to everybody that when we put that into language and make explanations to people and documents that were really careful to make it so clear and apologize that we speak a weird language that almost nobody can understand if they haven't spent a ton of time, you know, sitting on the dius or working in a planning staff or something. So because it is, it's been really painfully confusing to the residents. Okay, Senator Myers, I did find my notes, sorry about that. I wrote down that the chair and to Croni are going to find a date for a future meeting that they lead to continue sorry about that. I wrote down that the chair and to Croni are going to find a date for a future meeting that they lead to continue talking about traffic, water, and non-village plan related items. We'll have a flyer to hand out on May 19th, like you said. So that is happening. Okay. All right, thanks everybody. I don't have anything else. Does anybody else have anything? We're all OK. All right. Thanks, everybody. I don't have anything else. Does anybody else have anything? We all done? All right. Meaning adjourned.