I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. Very I'm going to go to the next floor. Good evening everyone. The September 24, the 2024 Loudoun County Planning Commission public hearing will now come to order. As is our custom, please let us stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the Lionel Roy and the United States of America and to the Republic of Michigan, Washington, and the United States of America, and to the United States of America, and to the United States of America, and to the United States of America, and to the United States of America, Thank you. We'll go ahead and run through how things are going to work tonight for those of you who are fortunate enough not to join us on a regular basis. Members of the public who wish to comment on any item on the public hearing legislative agenda may do so. If you are in the boardroom, please fill out a speaker slip and hand it to the Assistant Deputy Clerk of the Commission at the end of the day as to my left. If you are in the boardroom, please fill out a speaker slip and hand it to the Assistant Deputy Clerk of the Commission at the end of the day to my left. If you are participating electronically, please call the number on the bottom of the screen. If you signed up to speak after 12.30 p.m. today, please confirm your name is on the speaker list as public comment sign up closes after 12 noon as indicated on our website. Indicate your name and the agenda item you wish to address. Each speaker, whether speaking on behalf of an organization or as an individual, will have three minutes to speak per the commission's updated bylaws. That's a little different for those who are here regularly. And I'm going to ask both public comment, presenters and commissioners to adhere closely to those time limits as possible tonight. We obviously have a very busy agenda and plenty of folks here to participate and I'd like to make sure our rate gets their time fairly and equally so forgive me if I cut you off. It's just going to be necessary tonight. That's the going to be necessary tonight. That's the commissioners too. Written comments may be submitted to the assistant deputy clerk Cool make copies for the planning commission. The commission may vote on applications tonight and send its Recommendation to the board of supervisors or may Forward the item to a work session for further Consideration before taking a final vote. Our procedure for public hearings are as follows. We'll have a 10 minute staff presentation followed by commissioners questions to the staff. Tonight each commissioner will be given three minutes to ask questions of staff. We're going to try not to go back and do repeat question periods. We will have a 10 minute applicant presentation when applicable also followed by commissioners questions. The hearing will be open for public comment and there will be three minutes allotted for each speaker. After everyone has a chance to speak, the hearing will be closed. The applicant and staff will have an opportunity to provide any responses to public comment. Finally, there will be a motion, a deliberation, and a vote by the commission. All right. Before we get into our legislative items, we do need to review and adopt minutes. We have the July 30, 2024 Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes. Do we have a motion to approve? Yes, Madam Chair. I move that the Planning Commission approves the Loudoun County Planning Commission Public Hearing minutes for July 30, 2024 as presented. Second. Motion is made by Vice Chair Combs. Seconded by Commissioner Madhuretty. Any changes or comments while we have those? Seeing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? The motion carries 9-0. Before we get into our legislative items, are there any disclosures from the commission? Go ahead and turn your light on and I'll go down the row. Mr. Miller. Thank you. On September 18th, I met with Aaron Spiron and Morgan Hadlock from Washglue G, along with representatives from the Luxone application team. And on the 20th and 23rd, both dates of September, I met with Morgan Hadlock and Micromio from Washglue G, along with various members of JK Land Holdings and their associated applicant team. And on the 20th of September I met with howie a dayo and Elizabeth Nicholson howie dayo from D.L.A. Piper and Elizabeth Nicholson from A.R.P. to discuss our Cola Grove application as all. Commissioner Moder ready. On Friday, September 13th, I met with Javier Dyer, Brian Winterhalter, an applicant team, our color-grow application. On September 16th, I met with Erin Svichel, Morgan Hadlock, and an applicant team on I'm a member of the board of the committee. Morgan had a team on the local application on September 17. I met with a loud and chamber of data center meeting with their chamber of commerce. Yes. That's it. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Meyers. Yes. On the 19th of September, I had a meeting with the applicant and the representatives in regards to the RGOL grove rezoning that's before us tonight and on that same date, I have a meeting with the applicant and the representatives in regards to the Cross-Mail Center application that is before us tonight. Excuse me. Go ahead. Madam Chair, on September 23rd, I met with the applicant group for Luxstone Cochran. That group consisted of Aaron Swishelm, Morgan Hadlock, Anthony Venefro, Polkett Parik. On September 23rd, I also met with the applicant group for the Cross Mills Center Resonant, including Morgan Hadlock, Mike Romeo, Charles Yud, John Cox, Anchor Walea, Tushar, Awar, Ryan Goldler. On September 23rd, I also met with the applicant group from Clark's gap. That consisted of Matthew Penning and others. On September 23rd, I also met with the applicant group for the Arcola Grove rezoning. That consisted of Hawaii, Adal and others. Thank you, Commissioner Banks. Commissioner Kierst. Thank you. On September 11th Kierst. Thank you. On September 11th, I met with the applicant representatives for the Luxstone Cochran Mill application. September 18th, I met with the applicant representatives for the Cross Mill Center Data Center application. September 23rd, I met with Louise Zicker regarding an upcoming Sterling Motorcar's Sign application. September 23rd, I met with members of the PEC about the data center C. Pam and Zoham. September 23rd I met with the applicants regarding the Clarks gap tower. Thank you. Commissioner Jasper. Thank you. On September 18th I met with the PEC representatives on the data center C. Pam. And so I am. Vice Chair comes. Thank you Madam Chair. On September 19, I met with applicant representatives for the Luxstone Cochrane-Mail Resoning Application. And on September 23, I met with representatives for the Arcola Grove Resoning Application. Okay. representatives for the Arcola Grove Resonant application. Okay, I'll round it out. On September 16th, I met with applicant representatives from Walsh Glucy and J.K. Land Holdings regarding the Cross Mill Center application before us tonight. Okay. All right. We are going to go ahead and start our legislative items. Our first item on the agenda, ALEGY 2024-004. Go ahead and we're ready when you are right. So I know these are pretty routine so we probably can take the abbreviated version. I'm going to do it on the table. I'm going to go to the next room. We are ready now if you are sorry for that delay. One of these years I'll get used to all this. Good evening Chair Frank and commissioners. I'm Rachel even check with the Department of Planning and Zoning here with to present the 2024 interim additions to agricultural and forestal districts or AFDs, ALIG 2024, Chippell 04. The purpose of AFD program under Virginia and County law is to provide a means by which agricultural and forestal land can be protected and enhanced as a viable economic segment for the county and a major economic and environmental resource. Virginia Code and county direction of the board of supervisors provides applications, predictions to AFD must be received each year by June 1st and the board must act within 180 days or by November 28. To be eligible for addition, parcels must be generally contiguous to a 200 acre core that each AFD must have at least one of within one mile of a core or meet a proposed finding by the board that all parcels contain agriculturally and farastily significant land. There is additional criteria provided by Virginia Code to evaluate applications, includes judging the agricultural and forestal significance of land covered by an application and adjacent lands, the nature and extent of land you saw there then farming or forestry within districts, local development patterns and needs, the comprehensive plan and zoning regulations and the environmental benefits of retaining land for ag and forestal uses and any other relevant matter. In total there were 10 applications submitted that would add 86 acres to the five AFDs. Three of the applications are for land in the new Kotalkton South AFD. Three applications also for land in the new Mountville district. One application each for land in the Lovitzville and Biverdam Valley AFDs. And two applications to add land for the new Blument AFDs and two applications to Edland for the new Blument AFD. Maps on the following pages show the generalized locations where the districts are with red arrows pointing to the parcels where applications have been followed by the New Catacombs South District is located to the north of the town of Leesburg. New Mount Phil is located on the east of the town of Middleburg. The new Love It's Hill District is west of Love It's Hill. Beaver Dam Valley District is located northwest of the town of Middleburg. And finally, the new Bluemont District is located on the Blue Ridge west of the town of Round Hill. The 86 parcels that would be added to the districts represent a very small part of the 40,512 acres that are currently in all the AFDs as of June 30th of this year. And as shown in this slide broken down by planning sub areas. currently in all the AFDs as of June 30th of this year, and as shown in this slide broken down by planning sub areas. The Agricultural District Advisory Committee met on August 12th and recommended board approval of all 10 parcels for addition to the AFD program. Staff supports a commission recommendation of approval to the board for the 2024 interim editions of 10 parcels to five districts and amendments to the district ordinances that completes my presentation. I'm available for any questions. Thank you, Rachel. Do we have any questions from the commission? Commissioner Miller. Rachel, as you are aware, is included with our applicant, the item, was a letter from a concerned neighbor. Are those concerns justified under the code? My understanding is that it's related to primarily to a private covenant for the neighborhood, which is independent of the Ag and Forestal District Act. And similar to what we have childcare homes, the county does an enforced private agreements. Okay. So, we don't, so we, as the county, we look at it as does the property, does the land fit the criteria for addition? Yes. What the neighborhood agreement is, is outside of the scope of our ability to use this decision making process. That's correct. As I stated on, I think the third slide, the evaluation criteria is relates to agricultural and forest-ally significant land, the comprehensive plan and zoning regulations and relevant matters whether land has been historically in agricultural and forestry. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Jasper. I'm sorry, so I kind of have a follow up to that which is that letter that came in states that the parcel is three plus acres in a subdivision and so I'm looking at the criteria and I just I understand that the county doesn't enforce private covenants but what was the you know land use that justified inclusion in your estimation what with which of these criteria. Well as I believe you know you're aware most of Western Loudon has been in historic agricultural and forest still use. The parcel is at the corn is a corner lot it adjoins a rural unpaved to lane road. There's an active farm over 100 acres across the street to the north. From this neighborhood looking through the houses, a couple hundred feet, there's also an acquired facility that can be viewed. It's a very agricultural area. Okay. And that, so the local development pattern, the Virginia Code criteria relating to local development patterns and the one relating historical use, or those are the ones that you're relying upon in making this recommendation. That is correct. Land that has been used in agriculture and forestry or can still be used for agriculture and forestry. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and open up the public hearing at this time. I do have one speaker signed up. We'll start there. Anyone else wants to come up to the front? We can queue you up as well. Gail Pumphrey. And I'm going to ask everyone's forgiveness if I mispronounce names today. Oh, either of those. I'm not used to doing this. Madam Chairman and members of the Planning Commission, my name is Gail Pumphrey and I reside with my husband at 21508 rose down court in Middleburg, Virginia, which is located in the Fox Snow sub-division, lot number four. We built our first home in Loudon County in 1973, not too far from where we now reside. Our present home was built in 2008, and we were the first family to move to the Fox and Old subdivision. We basically put our life savings into our home, and I felt I would reside there for the rest of my life and since I am now in my late 80s that may still be true. Fox Null was subdivided by Barber and Ross in the year 2002. Subsequently acquired by Mitchell and Best. Rose Down Court has nine lots ranging in size from 3.28 acres to nine acres. Covenants were also written to ensure that uses within Fox Null were consistent with a single family residential community. The covenants run with the land and I recently verified this with the clerk of the court for Loudoun County since there has been some concern expressed about the validity of the covenants. I realize that the county does not enforce covenants and that this is the responsibility of the homeowners in Fox Null. However, I think the application you are considering has serious land use implications, which is your responsibility. Single family homes have now been built on the nine lots that access rose down court. So much for the background on Fox Noel. Now, please be aware that I fully support the goals and the objectives of the new Mountville Agricultural and Forestry District. One, preservation of open space, agricultural use, and preservation of forestry cover. I have no objection to Mr. and Mrs. Tom Killian, lot number one, having a small garden in their backyard. This is perfectly consistent with the Covenant. Ma'am, you're running out of time. Can you wrap up? I'm sorry, your time's up. However, what I do object to is the ever increasing size of the garden and what they state they would like to do with the application is approved. Fox Noel is not a farming community. It's a residential neighborhood, single family homes. The agriculture uses now in the Killion property for exceed what was ever envisioned by the original developer of Fox Snow. The application to include the Killion property in the new Mountville agriculture and forestry district is in no way, hand and hands is the district, but severely impacts the residential quality of the neighborhood. Thank you, ma'am. In summary, I do not see how placing this small 3.8 or lot, which now contains a large home paved driveway, patio, garden shed, two story barn, green house, mulch piles, et cetera in the mountain till agricultural district. However I do see how it will do irreparable harm to a single family residential community. Ma'am. Ma'am, I'm sorry. You've gone well over your time limit. We're going to have to have you stop. I didn't want you to know that I was born and raised in Fairfax County, Virginia, and my grandfather had an 85 acre farm, which he had family members and paid people to come in and helped harvest everything he planted. Thank you very much. Thank you. Do we have anyone else here in the room who would like to speak on this item? Do we have anyone joining us online on this item? We did not, Madam Chair. Thank you. Last call for public comment. All right. The public hearing is closed. Staff, do you have anything to add? Or we said it all. We're good, Marsha. Just that with the previous discussion, that the approval of the AFD or not approval of the AFD does not remedy the covenant issue. There is other remedies through the use of permitted use in the zoning district and the covenant would be the appropriate mechanism to address the concerns of the public. Thank you. Commissioners, I'd like to entertain a motion and open it up for any discussion and final questions for staff or applicant. I know we've got a couple districts covered here. Do I have a motion? Commissioner Miller. Thank you. I move that the Planning Commission recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve only those 2024 interim additions to the New Catacombs South, New Malfill, New Lovis, Phil Beaver, Dan Valley, and New Blumont Agricultural and Forestry districts that are listed as numbers one through ten. through 10, in attachment one to September 24th, 2024, planning commission and public hearing staff report, and that the individual ordinances for those of agricultural and forestal districts be amended to include such approved 2024 interim additions. I further move that the planning commission recommendation be based on the finding that all parcels recommend for addition to set existing agricultural and forestal districts containing agricultural and forestry significant land. Thank you for your motion, Commissioner Miller, second by Commissioner. Here's to you have an opening. I do. So in deference to the speaker and I can appreciate where she's coming from. The enforcement of covenants, however, is not by code and by process what we are able to consider. And I am confident that Rachel and staff have done the necessary work to determine whether or not these parcels and this particular parcel, those of concern do meet the needs for agricultural and forestal district inclusion and based on that and that alone is why I support the inclusion of that parcel despite what the speaker heard concerns were thank you Thank you Commissioner Myers I have just a quick question. I'm a little confused on so this ended up parcel is only 3.28 acres and that already includes the house and everything. Correct. So typically in the old days you would take out the house like it would be one acre subtracted out. I mean, how does this parcel 3.28? What is it they're actually coveting to put in the agriculture and force it because they already don't meet the minimums today. That refers to the land use assessment program run by the commissioner of the revenue. Ag and forestal district program is a similar but completely distinct program then land use. There is no minimum or maximum number on the acreage of a parcel. And I know that there are some parcels enrolled for several years now that are as small as one quarter acre. But they get the benefit of the tax reduction because they're- No, do not. Well, the parcels have to be five acres to get- Right, so I'm confused about what are they getting by going in this district? I would, that there would be the psychic benefits that they could get, that, you know, that they're doing something because, you know, this program is considered as stated in Virginia code, a joint effort by localities and land owners to conserve and protect agricultural and forest of land and open space for now and into the future. Okay. Any other comments on the motion? Do you have a closing? I do not. Okay. We have a motion on the table. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The motion carries 9-0. Thank you, Rachel. Marciani, I know you're not really departing us. Second item on our legislative agenda. Ludgy 2023-0092. Milestone Clarks Gap. Second item on our legislative agenda, Ludgy 2023-0092, milestone Clark's gap. I'm going to have to go to the other side. I'm going to have to go to the other side. I'm going to have to go to the other side. I'm going to have to go to the other side. I'm going to have to go to the other side. I'm going to have to go to the other side. I'm going to have to go to the other side. I'm going to have to go to the other side. I'm sorry. We do have people on this one. They're going to put me on the button. Okay, one button. Okay, one time. Okay. I'm going to put it in the middle. I'm going to put it in the middle. I'm going to put it in the middle. I'm going to put it in the middle. I'm going to put it in the middle. We're ready when you are, Derby. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Derby Maccalfe with the Department of Planning and Zoning. I'm here tonight to present the application for Milestone Clarkscap. The subject property is approximately .13 acres located north of the Route 7 travel lanes south of the exit ramp to Route 9. The site will be accessed by a gravel driveway from the Route 7 exit ramp in the Cotaccan election district. The property is zone agricultural rural 1 under the Loudon County zoning ordinance as are all adjacent properties. The property is located in the rural policy area and the rural North Place type. The site is currently undeveloped. The applicant is requesting a commission permit to permit a 100, 152 foot tall telecommunications facility and a special exception to permit the proposal within the AR1. Present on the screen is an annotated specs plot depicting the proposal and a depiction of the proposed facility height. The proposed facility will provide a 10 foot fence and a type sea buffery yard on all sides, indicated in green, and red dashed line for the fencing. The general plan anticipates wireless connectivity to support the rural economy and residential within the policy area. The strategic land use plan for the telecommunications facilities establishes a preference for locating on existing public facilities, such as the Virginia Department of Transportation right away. During the work session briefing for tonight's application, commissioners had several questions. Commissioners asked to see a depiction of surrounding telecommunications facilities. President on screen is a depiction of facilities within a one and two mile radius. A distinction of note is the public staff report depicts approved telecommunication sites and science presentation depicts existing facilities Indicated by the map on the right side of the screen Commissioners inquired about fire and rescue although a need has not been I indicated by fire and rescue first net coverage will be included with the AT&T service Additionally the commission had questions related to proposed facility height. Staff evaluation of height is based upon the proposal with accompanying propagation maps provided to validate the need for the height. Staff did not evaluate at varying heights. Present on screen is the existing coverage and the proposed coverage. Conditions have been recommended by staff to mitigate impacts of the development. Staff supports a planning commission and recommendation of approval. Let me phrase that. Planning commission approval of the commission permit application. Additionally staff supports a recommendation of approval of the specs application to the board of supervisors, subject to the conditions of approval and staff are available for questions. Thank you very much, Derby. Chris, do we have questions of staff? Chris, mayors, just one quick question, Derby. Technically, is this a nonconforming law? It's because it's in the right away. It's not as good to consider a lot. What is it considered then? What's it considered then? A piece of land? I mean it's got to be considered something. Well it's in the boundaries of the established right away and then they so that's we get a fight in the land use system as a parcel but it's the length of the entire of that right of way. So it's not one acre, it's what? It's one acre portion, section within the right of way. The point one three acres was the land subject to tonight's application, not the total encompassing acreage. Correct. But I'm just saying technically, if anybody else was doing this, it's really a nonconforming lot because it doesn't meet the base and we're putting in a special exception on a nonconforming lot. Technically. Nonconforming lot, like two. It's less than the base density required in this area. It's less acreage than the required based density of a lot in the zoning district. Because the site itself is on there. Most communications facilities are co-located on an existing lot and typically are a portion of. Right. So this is not its own parcel. This would simply be an area designated for that facility. Okay. Okay. Any other questions for staff at this time? Vice Chair comes. Darby, do we know the distance from the nearest residents? Yes, one second. I can we're going to have to do that. Yes, one second. I can come back to you. Thank you. Last call for staff. Just approximately 300 feet or 0.06 miles. Thank you. All right. I think we're ready for the applicant presentation. Good evening, Planning Commission. My name is Aaron Frank. I'm a Senior Langes Planner with Coolie. I'm joined here this evening by Matt Penning, the Director of Development of Milestone as well as Garof Bell, Radio Frequency Engineer. We have been before you very frequently. I promise we are not going to keep up this pace. However, it is emblematic though that there are needs for improved cell service across the county. So tonight we are discussing a site further west than a previous applications. The goals for this project are to increase coverage, add capacity and to offload and improve the performance of surrounding sites. This is also going to provide a fixed wireless home internet option for around 500 residences, farms and businesses. Approximately 91,000 vehicles a day traveling on the surrounding route 7 and route 9. That number has been increasing and increased vehicular traffic also translates to increased cell traffic. But we also have the WNOD and different events in the surrounding area. So you have a number of different features that have contributed to a need for this and that's been corroborated by AT&T and Verizon who are looking at this site. They have partnered with FirstNet, which provides service to first responders and in particular, Loud and County Public Safety and Public Schools with over 2000 devices. So we're happy that they are going to be using this tower as well. So how did we get here? Actually from a few different prongs. One of them was actually in the same room a few years ago. Milestone was before the commission to request a commission permit special exception for the former animal shelter site to the northwest in Waterford. And much of the conversation that evening actually focused on this intersection and how there was an absence of service in this area and folks anecdotally had been dropping calls. Similarly during that time AT&T in Verizon looked into this and through much more detailed analysis corroborated those findings, but also we've been in direct contact with Loudoun County Fire and Rescue and they have also long identified this area as an area of significant concern. The first responders are dropping connection in this area and that's something that nobody wants to see. They also have a similar concern that any public, members of the public who need first responders for emergency service would be unable to be able to make phone calls. So here's a look at the propagation map. On the left is existing conditions and on the right are proposed conditions. Cell service strength is measured in decibel millawatts and we have this color coded from red to green, poor coverage being less than negative 105 and excellent, which is what we're striving for and certainly what anybody with a cell phone is looking for is in that green coverage. On the left you can see a plethora of red service area focused around that star which is the intersection of Route 7 and Route 9. And what this cell site would do is change that red in very simple terms to green. It would also turn some of those other colors to improve the coverage categories. And that's important because it demonstrates how this would reduce some of the stress and bandwidth from other towers in the surrounding area. So it's not just the focused area, but it relieves the use of those other cell sites. Those are for AT&T Verizon, performed a similar exercise. They use a different color scheme, however. The same pattern is shown where on the left surrounding that star, there is no green or blue, which are those excellent or good coverage bands. However, on the right, that coverage is improved to an excellent service level along Route 7 and up Route 9 as well. So here's a closer look at the tower location. Part of the dance to try to figure out where cell sites should be most preferably located is to be sure it's contextually appropriate. So we look for wider areas of right of way. In this case we are able to distance it from the residents to the north as separated from a roadway as well as existing screening in about 300 feet. And we're also pleased to have the support of this property owner. This is part of the overall intent of the telecommunications plan and ordinance policies about where should these cell sites go. And we do look for areas that are on public property. So this has been the area here on this screen shows a green landscaping buffer surrounding the mechanical and electrical equipment that is shown in this blue rectangle. It's 150 foot tall monopole that allows for space for four carriers. The equipment compound is co-located, and it will be served by a driveway on the off ramp coming from westbound Route 7. There are several other examples of towers within interchanges in the county among them reaching 190 feet in certain locations. The proposal here at 150 is certainly within context and at a reduced height that is already existing elsewhere in the county. So as part of milestones, engagement and application process, it does reach out to the surrounding community and in particular it does set up a website and mail postcards to recipients within a half mile radius that exceeds the county's requirements because frankly there is a unique visual impact and that's something that we can't ignore with a cell site. So, milestone held a couple of balloon flies as well as a town hall. Mao Stone also prepared photo simulations on this slide. This slide shows in green where it's visible. It is not visible to the south, but of course it would be from Route 7, as well as certain locations to the north. Here's the approach on the off ramp coming from westbound route 7, and then from a further distance away. This is the approach on eastbound route 7. This is a vantage point from the roundabout on the north side of route 7, as it enters onto route 9. And as you can see there are existing light poles. Of course, they are not nearly the height of the monopole. But nevertheless, it does represent a visual, a vertical obstruction and illumination in the area under current conditions. Here's a view of the pole from the north, about 2, thirds of a mile away, and again from about Miloay. So overall, you know, in summary, you know, what we did was we tried to find something that of course would be supported by staff and by V. and meets the goals of the telecommunications plan which provides different areas where cell sites are preferred. One of those preferences for industrial commercial areas. Another one is for existing tall structures to co-locate. Of course, there's cell needs at varying locations across the county, but there might not be industrial or commercial areas. Or existing tall structures for which to co-locate cell facilities. So what we look at is another one of those recommendations, which is in the public right of way. That allows us to set it back further, but also provide the cell site and area where both serves the surrounding residences, but also the immense vehicular traffic on Route 7 and the very clearly stated need for public safety. So this is a gap coverage in critical communications infrastructure. By virtue of it being in the right of way also, we don't have natural soil, so we don't have environmental concerns about the specific location of the poll or any adverse impacts to air space for example. So we're pleased that staff recommends approval. With that, I wanted to try to leave a little time on the board and I'm glad to take any questions that you may have for me. Thank you, Aaron. Any questions from the commission for the applicant? Commissioner Jasper. I have three questions. So my concern is you talked about other poles of similar heights that are in other locations but I don't think any of them were in the rural policy area if I'm The imposition on the view sheds is what concerns me while I completely appreciate the, you know, the need for the vehicular traffic, which is substantial and certainly the first responders to have access. The question that comes up for me are, is are there other alternatives to providing? So when I look at the propagation maps that you provided, they actually expand way beyond the roads there. And so the question for me is, can you address the needs for first responders and people driving by the site with different equipment that would not be as much of an imposition on the view shed, including whether it's the V. traffic polls and I understand you might need more antenna to cover it, but if they were antenna located on existing polls and that would seem to be a real benefit, or alternatively something like a stealth pull which I know can't get quite that high but might also not be as much of an imposition on the view. Commissioner Jasper, thank you for the question. To respond to the first part of your question, I would have to check to see exactly where those other poles that I showed were but I'll take your word for that they might not have been in this area. However, with that being said, the Waterford site that I referenced a couple miles north, I believe that is 150 or maybe 160 feet. The second part of your question is that the applicant does provide a rule out basically study in anticipation of filing the application and ideally to preclude filing the application. To figure out are there any other towers that may be co-located within the surrounding area. So they look at, for example, that tower, you know, two miles to the northwest, I believe there's another tower, a couple miles to the southwest, and are there any other tall existing structures and through that process they were not able to locate unfortunately any that could provide service without a new tower and that's part of the balance in terms of providing a new tower can offer greater coverage if that tower and I'll let Garov expand on the city if he needs to but provide when smaller or shorter towers are provided it might not provide that same amount of coverage and might need to more towers so that's kind of the dance that we're trying to find is what is that height? Okay, I mean that doesn't feel responsive to me, right? The question I'm asking is, you know, I understand that it's to the carriers benefit, to do a single tower and have the broadest possible coverage and satisfy the customer needs of the broadest possible. But if the problem statement that we're solving for is need for first responders and vehicular traffic. There, it seems like a smaller solution might, I don't know whether, you know, might not require additional towers. That's the question I'm asking. Yeah, good evening. My name is God of, I'm the AT&T RF engineer. So we have looked at this location at 150 feet and then we also looked at going lower. So we looked at 125 feet for example and that does not connect the gap. So right now what we have is Route 7, there is a gap and we have a site one mile to the northeast, the annual shelter site. So we want to have a sort of overlap between the two so that there is, once we build this, we don't come back and ask for an other site. So 150 feet is probably the optimum height which will ensure that we live with only one extra site rather than asking for one more. And my question was about existing structures in stealth towers that could provide coverage. I guess when you say existing towers, I think Erin alluded to it earlier, but we did have a rule out document that was submitted that looked out the existing sites in the founding area, but in terms of the actual street lights to mount and tend on those. Those are maybe 30 feet max height, in that range of coverage. I mean, if you try to mount equipment on it, you're not gonna get much further than the tree heights. I think you'd be pretty limited by the surrounding. You'd really only be serving, I think, that change. Right. The wrong. Right, you wouldn't get, because it's line of site technology, you wouldn't get, because it's line of site technology, you wouldn't get, you know, anytime you have a signal blockage by trees or buildings or anything like that, it's not gonna propagate very much further out than where you are. You have to be above the tree line to be effective. Well, I thought the goal was to cover the rared and the enter change, so perhaps I'm mistaken. The goal is to cover the road and be joining neighborhood as well. Okay that's helpful clarification. And there's no possibility of a stealth tower rather than a monopole. Can you give an example of a stealth tower? They're all over. They look like, you know, they would, jurisdictions often require them to look like trees. They don't really look like trees, but they don't look like poles. Right. Well, I guess in the context of this location, and generally, you know, we start with a monopole in these, these areas, we do have some transmission lines further down and the existing poles. So we thought a pole would be appropriate in this location. Given that we're in sort of the V.O.T. right of way with existing infrastructure to match that look with the galvanized steel and the, really we're painting the antennas. But sometimes I drive down Fredericksburg and there's a tree pole right off of Route 3. If anybody's ever been down by that way and you can see it, you know, a mile and a half away. So it doesn't really achieve the goal of concealing it more in my opinion actually stands out. So I think a tree would probably accomplish the same thing in this setting. I guess my point is that we default to the tallest monopole that gives the broadest coverage in all cases. Every case that's come before us, and I've only been here nine months now. But it seems to me that there are other options and nobody's giving them any consideration at all. And they are effectively used in other jurisdictions. Any other questions from the commission? Okay. Seeing none at this time, we'll open up the public hearing. We do have a couple of speakers signed up. I'll call you both up. Please feel free to queue up at the podium so we can move through efficiently. I have William Stiedley and Michael Taylor. And there's anyone else in the room who wants to speak on this item. You may also line up and we'll keep going. Good evening. My name is William Stiedley. I'm representing Bridgeview Christian Church as a member of the Board of Deacons. We just learned of this cell tower and we're 275 meters to the north of it. We're not in favor of the tower and we do not want its antennas near our property. Last year we bought and renovated the entire building. Had we known that this tower would be there, we would not have purchased the property. We're concerned about the effects of these towers on people's health. We appreciate that there is FCCA compliance, but the data on people's health is really mixed. There are studies showing negative health effects, including three to four times normal new cancer rates within 350 meters. And again, we're 275 meters away. And consistent with Commissioner Jasper, we suggest an alternative. The on the applicants rule out lists, item number two, does mention the power poles that are along Route 7, the nearest one being four tenths of a mile to the west. The applicant says that that's too close to existing AT&T sites and too far west to meet coverage objective based on their coverage map objective there on that central part of Route 9. I doubt that there's much loss of coverage significant to the east. And with regard to being too close to AT&T sites, I would imagine that antennas could be faced in the AT&T site. antennas could be faced in the AT&T site. antennas could be faced in that direction and their power reduced a little bit so they didn't have a cellular conflict. And if there is some subsequent future need in the east, there's the golf course that a monopole could be in. That's consistent with monopole could be and that's consistent with a monopole. I think I've seen it the 1715 golf course. Again, we don't want these cellular antennas at the proposed site and recommend that the existing power pole 410th or something else. 410ths of a mile to the west be used. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Taylor Madam chair, I remember the commission's money is my tailor. I am Mr. Combs the closest resident to that you can use that map to call a air strike on if you need to We've had a dorth of coverage up there forever I am dead center in that red zone that has no coverage. Even with special antennas, I rarely get above that minus 100 dB signal strength. We need this. Anybody that's driven west on Route 7 knows that as you go through Clark's gap, you better tell the person you're talking to, I'm going to drop you because you will. This has been an ongoing problem. That's my only source for internet is cellular because both Verizon and Comcast have been allowed to abandon this whole area where the street right behind us has their choice of either as does Beacon Hill. So we really need this in deference to the to the deacon of the church. The other two neighbors on Bridgeview have no complaints about this. You know they're not coming out and saying they're in favor of it but they're also not in opposition. I spoke to them today. This is something that we've needed. We don't have the coverage. It's unsafe sitting in my house. I have to have boosters just to get a connection. Now I've heard people say not in my backyard, and I'm on board with that because this is in my front yard. You know, and when the balloons are flying, I couldn't see them. And I'm looking right up at it. Again, we need this. I've heard a lot of people say we need to put it at the fairgrounds. Well, the fairgrounds would put it in competition with the Cambie Tower, which is what I connect to and can't provide service anyway. So putting two towers next to each other that I can't talk to doesn't help. As far as the RF factor and exposure, that cell phone you're holding up next to your head is giving you more exposure than this tower does because when your cell phone is having trouble connecting, it keeps turning the power up until it connects. If you have a good signal from the tower, your phone turns the power down to conserve battery. All the while you're sitting in your house running multiple Wi-Fi devices, Bluetooth, everything, you've got all this RF, and again the power poles that are running down my side yard, and on Route 9 have more EMF than what this is going to do. So the signals are already out there. Sitting in this room, we've got multiple devices going. So it's not like you're not exposed to this stuff anyway. If we get the tower up, the exposure for that will be even lower than what you're holding up next to your head. So I'm five seconds out. Thank you for your time. I kept it under the wire. Good evening. Thank you. Do we have anyone else in the room who would like to speak on this item? Come on up and I will ask you to stop at the end of the table to my left on your way out. After you speak and fill out a speaker's slip, please. Thank you. Thank you. All right good evening my name is Kevin O'Dell my wife and I are here. We both reside just a quarter mile down Route 9 and obviously use this exit multiple times a day, we can see this from our house. I also feel like I have a, I could speak on this because I've been an AT&T user for 15 years. I've lived in this location now for five years. So I have a lot of experience going in and out of this area. And I think that this has somewhat been exaggerated. I mean, you do get a little bit of maybe you get a drop call here and there. I work from my phone, so I'm going literally always on taking Bluetooth calls. You know, it's not the best, but it's also not the worst. I also think that given the coverage, the benefits don't outweigh the risks. There's multiple risks for this. One, just the visual impairment. It's, you know, we live in a nice rural area. The reason we moved out there was because of the sunsets and the landscape and the trees. And to have this big ugly tower is obviously not something that we want. We also think that it could have property values in our area just as, and aside my wife and I were, and we were looking to move into this area, there's another location across it can be drive or it can be road. And one of the reasons why we didn't buy there was because there was one of these towers directly across the street from the house that we were going to move into. So it deterred us from buying. It would deter other buyers. The other thing is, like the gentleman pointed out before the health risks, there hasn't been comprehensive studies on this. I also want to address the comments that the gentleman made before. I understand that he has some problems with reception. However, he has argument that, well, we have RF all over us and who cares. I mean, that is sort of a straw man argument because that's like saying, you know, you have to eat and you get 2,000 calories so why don't you see 10,000 calories. I mean, the more RF you're exposed to, the more potential risks. And so, you know, I would like to see a comprehensive study of exactly how much EMF this outputs compared to how much you have. Also, nobody holds their cell phone up to the ear anymore. So that's also not a good comparison. People put on speaker friendly poem Bluetooth. I also want to comment about the lack of transparency. I'm very disappointed. We feel like they've just tried to like sneak this under. They sent these terrible little postcards that didn't have any good comprehensive pictures on them. We had to beg them for comprehensive pictures. They took weeks to do that. They kept postponing the balloon fly. Even the balloon fly was terrible because it's a tiny little string with a balloon that is nowhere near what a tower would look like. They do have good pictures now and I appreciate that. But even getting here tonight, like getting the information, it wasn't on the website, it wasn't easy to find, like it's like we had to jump through hoops. And I don't think that's right because there's something we put in our community that's going to affect our daily lives, potentially affect the health of us and our children. We have a right to know about it. And also one more thing on the FCC, I think it's great they're following FCC guidelines. However, these FCC guidelines haven't changed since the mid 90s, but the technology has. And so I don't think that's a fair comparison. Thank you, sir. So anyways, we speaking for myself and my neighbors that I've spoken to that are right in the exit of Beacon Hill. We do not want this thing here. So. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. If you would fill out a speaker slip, please know applause. Guys, we do ask that we don't have a pause in here during the public hearing. It'll just slow us down further. Sir, go ahead. Mr. Adele, I believe it was. Can you fill out a speaker slip before you leave? Go ahead, sir. Okay, ma'am. And commission, Mike Costas. I'm a homeowner in the area. Yeah, the county's primary responsibility here with these decisions is to preserve the rights of the homeowners and specifically the investments that we've made. Having an unsightly tower like this 300 feet from the closest residence doesn't make a lot of sense. Ma'am, I think you came up with some great options that need to still be entertained rather than having this solution jammed down our throats. It's unsightly, and if the developers and the providers of this equipment were willing to pay homeowners royalties for the lost equity that they'll have in their properties as a function of this system being adjacent to their homes. I'd like to see that alternative put on the table so far that hasn't been an option. How much expansion is allowed with this equipment? When you talk about these towers and the studies that have been done, the towers can be expanded further, further contributing to the potential health effects that were noted by Mr. O'Dell. How much money is the county making on providing this solution on public lands in an area which is just off the road there. And if you know the road there is traffic transitioning from the seven to the nine, it moves at a pretty good rate of speed. So the department of transportation approved the setback of this location at that juncture within the roads. When you take a look at the photographs that were provided, I think it was disingenuous by the developers to provide photographs of systems that were installed in areas that were not located adjacent to home. So why would they even put that in the presentation? Specifically, when they call out in their presentation that the best area for these types of services are in dust real land. Fire and rescue emergency services, that statement made within their presentation was also disingenuous and the county employee that evaluated that and ran that by the fire and rescue services and emergency services folks felt that that was a red herring and that was not an issue. You know, I can't speak to the other gentleman's challenge but I tell you I live not too far from that site and I have zero problem with reception with both Verizon and AT&T. And the last thing I would say is that these three developers that are here, I wonder if they would have a monopole located 300 feet from their homes. Would they buy into that? Okay, so I have to say, thank you. Thank you If you would fill out a speaker slip before you sit back down please sir Can you fill out a speaker slip over there at the end to my left go on up? Thank you I'm Patricia Paul Sado and I'm we live in the area on the hill and I don't think that the consideration of the area on the hill. And I don't think that the consideration of the area of the community is taking an effect of what the cell tower, because the facts are written, documents are written, what the cell tower, the radiation, and different other, they have written statistics on the website than anybody can read. And as far as the community with the children, with the animals, with the forestry that we have, how this cell tower will affect. And this is not the first time that my family has had a cell tower go near them and the effects of it is just nobody can see it unless you see it for yourself. Let's just say that. But in consideration, this cell tower should not. If you've got four carriers already that are going to go on the cell tower. It's just going to grow and that is going to affect everything in the community from the views to the animals to the humans that it's going to affect. If you guys see Shreev Mill Road of 267 right now, that cell tower is just growing when you go up and down the freeway. And I have never had, my family has never had any problem being connection with any of, you know, as far as fire safety aid units, nothing in the area. There has been no problems. So please consider the cell tower not to go in for the community. Thank you. Thank you. If you could fill out a speaker's slip before you sit back down. Yes ma'am. Hi, good afternoon. My name is Lindsay right now. We're, I just wanted to plead with you because as a refugee from a different country we've worked really, really hard to get to this place that we're at right now with our children and worked really, really hard and I really feel that we don't know enough information to make the right decision for this tower. I believe that there are other options that we can definitely use to consider, you know, the best way to accommodate both sides. I know for my family we suffer from seizures and stuff like that so everything that we put in our body regarding foods, regarding everything, we are very, very, very careful with it. So I just don't have enough research and information from it to make sure that this is safe for my family. And also just how close I am actually the first house right there. So it's just to work so hard and to have that be there and to not know what will happen to my family, what will happen to my children, what will happen to my children is a very big concern in mine. And I really, really plead with you that you would please, please, please consider just moving it down so that we could rest in peace just knowing not that we don't have to worry about our children. This home that we could rest in peace just knowing not that we don't have to worry about our children. This home that we bought is long term so you know we really are hoping that that will be the case for us so thank you for your time and I just wanted to respectfully ask that you would reconsider this. Thank you. Thank you. We've filled out a speaker slip before you sit back down. That'd be great. Anyone else in the room would like to speak on this item. Do we have anyone online to speak on this item? We do not, Madam Chair. Thank you. All right. We will go ahead and close the public hearing on this item. Before we let staff and the applicant respond. Jason, I'll put you on the spot. Can you give the quick blurb you often remind us of where our purview is and isn't in this type of a discussion with the FCC what we are allowed to weigh in on what we are not? I think that would be helpful for folks in the room to hear again. Generally speaking, the Planning Commission can consider land use effects. I think the code, my recollection is the code of Virginia does. And also the FCs, there's an associated FCC order that governs this issue or the consideration of telecom facilities that are, I guess, special exceptions. And we're not supposed to get into consideration of business decisions and also of technology use. And I think that latter part ties into the health effects. All right, thank you. The applicant and staff do you have any responses or information like to add after the public hearing? No, okay. We are in contact in, Commissioner. Oh wait, sorry you do. Yes, I hope in address just one or two items. Did you want to start with anything Aaron? Yes, Chair Frank, just a few items to respond to some of the comments that we heard to hopefully provide some clarification that the monopole will be limited to four carriers. So there will not be an expansion beyond those four carriers. As many of us know, cell service is increasingly a utility. We all use this and many of us are using cells devices in lieu of our landlines. That's a phenomenon that's happening here as well as elsewhere. So we know that there is a service need here. We've heard from the adjacent neighbor. We haven't heard from the 91,000 drivers who use this as well. I do want to confirm I'm glad to speak to the individual afterwards we did here directly from fire and rescue that there is a stated need here. So the need here is one that has come from different sources. As far as community engagement goes to respond to the gentleman on behalf of the church, we're glad to talk with you looking at our mailing radius. The church was in our mailing radius, so we're not sure why we weren't able to connect. However, nevertheless, we'd be happy to do more outreach and let Matt discuss a little website with we try to keep parents and I do have to share my frustration about the balloon flies We had a I think Schedule and reschedule I think five or six times due to poor weather, but we would send out mailers and then Update the website and try to reach the people are actually following the project that way as well So we do have pretty good engagement on the website and try to reach the people who are actually following the project that way as well. So we do have pretty good engagement on the website at last check over 220 visitors and 470 page views. So people are getting the information to come to the websites. After the community meeting that we had, we did listen and we added people who had asked about adding additional vantage points from the rights of way. And so we went and added those additional four or five vantage points and updated the website with that. So to the extent that we can with the feedback we get and that we can do something about it, we try to do that. We take that seriously and try to respond to any concerns or questions we get. So we also posted the results of our study, which looked at how much rate emissions would be given off by the facilities, looking at not only one carrier, but also up to four carriers and all within the FCC guidelines. And I know the World Health Organization also just published a study looking at over 20 years of research and affirmed that there is no causal link between cell phone or cell towers and cancer, brain cancer. So that just came out this month. So we'll be sure to get that on the project website as well. Okay. All right, Commissioner Miller. You ready for a motion? Yeah. I am. I moved the Planning Commission approved ledgy 2023-0092 milestone carcskap gap commission permit 2023-0092 milestone Clarks cap specs 2023-0027 to the board of supervisors with a recommendation of approval subject to the conditions of approval dated June 2024 and based on the findings for approval provided as attachments two and three to September 24th 2024 Planning Commission public hearing staff reports Most motion is made by Commissioner Miller seconded by by Mr. Banks, and do you have an opening? I do, I do. So I try to come up with something different to say every time we have one of these. But it's a strong point to remind people that the three main carriers spend $10 billion a year on infrastructure, which they only do that because there is a need to do so. Otherwise, they spend the money on other things that would be far more pleasant to have to go through. I do want to comment though that years ago on this commission, we had an application for a cell tower that actually failed someone in Western Loudon. And I called in, I was not in the meeting, I called in from the road to be on that meeting that day. We're dragging back from North Carolina, I understand 81. And I was taking the call while we were driving through the Great Smoky Mountains, the irony. That was able to make that call into this room. I love Loudoun County, there's no place I'd rather be, I'm not leaving this place no matter what. But nothing that we have, nothing, compares to the majesty in the grandeur of the Great Smoky Mountains. And the 13.4 million people that visited that park last year did so lovingly, wonderfully, and in spite of the fact that there are cell phone towers all across the top of us, so I could actually be on the phone while we're driving on 81. I appreciate that they're unattractive things I do. But as I think Matt said, my Benarian, it's utility. Our cell phones are a utility. It's the world in which we live. It is provide safety. It provides security. And at the same time, while I recognize that sometimes, there already is coverage there. And some people say, well, we have coverage. It's not the best, but we have coverage. The coverage you have is going to get worse over time. We get worse over time because we're going to continue to add devices, not just at any houses, but every household is going to add more devices. There might be another kid that has another phone. The phone is getting more powerful. It's 5G. It's this feature. It's that feature. You can stream on your phone wherever it may be. The needs of what they are providing is continuing to grow without adding people. Plus add people. 19, 21, 31,000 cars drive through the intersection every day. There are people sitting in this room that drive through that intersection every day that lose cell phone coverage as they go to that intersection. It is a six lane highway. It's an off ramp with two roundabouts on top of it. This cell phone tower is not obstructing any sort of majestic view from that intersection and that junction. This is the right place, the right height, to maximize the coverage in the area without having scores and scores of smaller towers. Because of that, because of my position on this every single time, I'm going to support this application I hope others do as well. Thank you. Mr. Chair, is there any other comments on the motion? Mr. Myers? I actually had two questions if I could go ahead. The first one is I just want to understand because there was a complete contradiction here. Staff reported that they had talked to foreign Rescue and that Foreign Rescue did not see a need for this particular cell tower at this time. Is that correct or not correct? Staff did not identify or Foreign Rescue did not identify the staff a need related to their service. Okay. So that's correct, direct contradiction of what? And I'm not saying who's right and who's wrong. I'm just saying there's two very different distinctions here about this. Secondly, I'd like to ask because I drove out there a lot this past week while I drive through there every day. But I wanted to know did the applicant look at all if you go down dry mill road going west and you only go maybe less than, not even probably a thousand feet, you're actually up higher and there's, it's either a V dot or it's a dominions yard that's there today. That's actually further away from all this residents. It's a higher poll might be able to be lower. Industrial area, did you all look at that side at all? If you look at the map, well, it's right, see the asphalt that you can barely see in the corner of this map, this up in the wall, up in the whatever we call this. You can barely see it. That is a huge industrial area that's right there. And it's actually a higher point than where you're at over here. And there's no residents around it. Did you look at that site at all? Commissioner Polenmayan is we're going to have to check our rule out document to make sure I understand correctly. Is the location you're identifying on this map or is it off the map? You see the asphalt area that you can be right there. That whole area that's you back up to there is all industrial. It's got overhead lines, everything going on it. There's no residence around it and it's actually a higher point than what you're looking at going up this ramp. Did you all look at that at all? I believe that it was too low for a co-location effort. But it's higher. It's actually higher than where you're putting a pole. This sets up at the same height as the top of that interchange. It's actually a higher point than this is way down here. I mean, the bottom line is you didn't read you didn't look at it is what you're saying then. Not for development of a new tower. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Jasper. So I won't be supporting the motion. I certainly understand what Commissioner Miller says when he says that there's a need for, you know, that cell coverage is a utility and that people need more, you know, are getting more devices and need more stuff. But I do think that it is a land use issue that we are well within our purview to consider to come up with the least intrusive way to provide the coverage for the case that you're making, which is that on this road we need better coverage. And so I think that this is clearly within the bounds of the special exception criteria to ask you to go back and rethink whether this coverage can be provided with less imposition on the surrounding area, the natural environment, et cetera. So that's why I won't be supporting the motion. Any other comments or questions on the motion from the commission? Seeing none, Mr. Miller, do you have a closing? I do not. All right. We have a motion on the table. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. All right. The motion carries, I believe we had three nays, right? Vice Chair Comes, Commissioner Jasper, Commissioner Myers. All right. There you go. We are done. Thank you, Derby. Don't go too far. You'll be back. Third item on the agenda, Luggy 2024-0015, Aldi Water Storage Tank Upgrade and Relocation. I know Zach will be presenting this and you guys are gonna get our presentation up and running while everyone is shuffling seats. I'm going to go ahead and move on. I'm going to move on. Good evening commissioners. My name is Zach Golden with the Department of Planning and Zoning. I am here today to present the application for the Aldi water tank. I'm going to move on to the water tank. I'm going to move on to the water tank. Good evening commissioners. My name is Zach Golden with the Department of Planning and Zoning. I am here today to present the application for the Aldi Water Tank Storage Tank Upgrade and Relocation Project. The subject property identified on the screen is developed with and surrounded by residential uses. The site is located east of Route 734, North of Route 50, and west of Route 15 within the rural policy area, rural historic village playstype, and zone countryside residential, or CR1. The approximate location of the existing water tank is shown by a yellow star on the left, and the proposed tank location is shown by a yellow star on the right. The applicant is requesting approval of a special exception or specs to allow a major public utility in the CR1 zoning district. The intended use is a 10,000 gallon above ground water storage tank. The applicant is requesting a second specs in order to modify the road corridor buffer type one requirements along Aldi road the applicant is also requesting a minor special exception or minor specs to reduce the number of plantings required for a type C buffer Here's a picture of the applicant's specs plot in red you will see the location of the proposed 17-foot long by 10-foot wide by 11-foot-high water tank. The landscaped area is shown in green. The proposed fence is shown in orange. The road corridor buffer type 1 requires a buffer with a 10-feet with 20 planting units for every 100 feet. There are existing trees and vegetation around the perimeter of the proposed location of the water tank. The applicant intends to utilize the existing trees to meet the required buffers. 0.23 acres of existing vegetation will be preserved to meet the road cord or buffer type one requirement. The 2019 General Plan supports the preservation of existing trees within required landscape buffer areas for screening of uses. A type C buffer provides the greatest degree of screening and includes a buffer width of 25 feet and 120 planting units per 100 linear feet. The 25 foot tree buffer will be provided outside of the proposed eight foot tall fence. The applicant intends to provide plantings in areas where continuous vegetation screening does not already exist. The applicant is proposing to reduce the number of plantings required for type C buffer from 221 units to 110 plant units. Existing vegetation is to be used to compensate for the 111 unit reduction. Staff recommends that the commission for the application to the board of supervisors with a recommendation of approval subject to the conditions. As conditioned, the proposal conforms with the criteria for evaluation of special exceptions, uses in the Loud and County zoning ordinance. The proposal's buffering and screening standards are appropriate for the use on the subject property that are otherwise consistent with the rural historic village playstyle recommended by the 2019 general plan. And the overall site design and visual impact of the proposed water tank are in conformance with the rural historic village design guidelines. With that said, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Zach. Commissioner, do we have any questions for staff this time? Commissioner Meyers. I just wanted to follow up from our meeting on Thursday Friday, whatever it was they run together now. This is only a different location on the other location. Did that one have a commission permit? The previous water tank. That water tank was over 100 years old. So it's pretty old. So there was no commission permit on the other one and we're not doing a commission permit on this one even though it's a utility. So commission mar I did it follow up on with the director of planning that the determination was made to the service area was identified in a comprehensive plan and that was sufficient enough to meet the commission permit requirement. Commission permits are when that facility is not otherwise identified on the land use plan. So I was reminded that because the service district was there that it would not require the commission permit but would still require the special exception and the modifications to evaluate that specific facility. And part of this application, the county's help into supplement this with funds to build this from what I was reading. So is that correct? ARPA funds are being used to pay for part of the project. But this is one of those few entities where there's no oversight from loud and water, even though it's public, even though it's drinking water. Like at the Alby wastewater treatment, the wastewater has a governance where the lot of water has a purview over it. When we go out to St. Louis, there's a sanitation has a purview over it. But this particular one, there's no purview of oversight with the sanitation authority. Not with LCSA, but the applicants here can talk about. They're part of a water board. And they are subject to the state and you know health requirements for water distribution But I could have them provide more of an answer during their presentation. Thank you. Thank you Commissioner Jasper. Hi Hi, Zach. Hi, Mochamp I'm wondering if you could describe the requirements for both the type C and type 1 buffer just as we consider this and also the personal application I think would be helpful to have exactly what those are. Sure, so on your screen you're going to see the required buffer types, buffer type I buffer with is 10 feet, plantings 20 units per 100 or they're required to be 13 total units with their calculations. Provided 10 feet, it's actually 10 feet plus plantings existing vegetation for that 13 unit requirement. And then sorry I have to move something here. Type C required is 25 feet wide but plantings 120 units per 100 or 221 total units per their calculations and provided 25 foot plus Plan things 110 new units plus existing vegetation for the 111 unit reduction. So my question is My recollection is that there is in the facility standards manual specific description of what those plantings include, that they include some number of evergreens and other types of vegetation. It isn't just anything you want. And so I think that that's the question I'm asking. Sure. I can pull up their specs and they actually say exactly what they're going to plant with that help No, I want to know what the buffer requirements are a table that talks about the distribution of those plant types Yes, we would it would take a second for us to pull that up and you can we can get back to it later You don't have to answer right now. Thank you And I guess what I would add to this was so the existing vegetation We've had another conversation about this to using vegetation, the county arborist will have to review that at site plan to validate that those existing at the existing vegetation is healthy and can meet the standard. If it can't, they'll have to switch out with new plantings to achieve that buffer. Thank you. Jason. And that's in the, so that happens at site plan. That's restudy was actually already done. It's in the specs plot. That's what I'm trying to pull up right now. That assesses it today. It will have to be reevaluated at the time of site plan to make sure those conditions still exist. So. Jason. I was just going to add the chapter 7 of the FSM is where the species that are suitable to meet landscaping plantings are listed or required landscaping plantings under the zoning ordinance. I don't think the buffer yards work or our buffers, buffer standards get into the specific species maybe with the exception of the root 50, I forget what it's called. There's a specific type of buffer yard along, I think some arterial highways. But other than that, it just kicks you over to the FSM. I think it specifies a number of plant units. And for example, canopy trees, under story trees are assigned different values. As long as you get up to the required plant unit value, you meet the planting standards, but the species are listed in the FSM in Chapter 7. So if you had a deciduous tree, there's a list of 20 different deciduous trees that the applicant can pick from to use. Right, I understand I thought that, and it has understory trees and large trees, I mean, this is standard stuff And I just I assume it is prescriptive about the mix of those Yes, each buffer type and various as you mentioned earlier, right more opaque will have more evergreen plantings You know less opaque will have more deciduous and shrubs and those Commissioner we pulled it up. So there's going to be ten large deciduous trees, six evergreen trees, five small deciduous trees, two shrubs, and then the grass. 80% has to be Virginia-based native. That's every 100 linear feed. And that's in the facility standard manual. that's where you're getting that from this is in particular is within the zoning ordinance Okay table seven oh four oh seven one. Okay. All right. Thank you All right, any other questions for staff Okay, we'll go ahead to the applicant presentation Turn on your microphone, please. Yeah, push Good evening. Can you turn on your microphone, please? We have a pressure button. Thank you. Okay. Good evening. My name is Jeff Kappness. I'm with Arcane Kay, we're the design firm that is helping Aldi Water with this project. I think Zach did a nice overview just showing the general components and describing the tank project. I basically provided a few supplements to that, some recent photos, and a few, I think Commissioner Jasper requested a few visuals of what it might look like when we put the fence and the plantings in. So, Zach, do you know if, do they have, do you have a PDF that you can pull up? Yes, I'm going to put it over here. Thank you. These visuals are going to give you an idea of the tank and the fence. Please know the landscaping isn't perfect. We put those together just recently, but it is to give you all an idea of what this will look like size-wise on the plantings and the project in general. Okay, so this is the site plan just to orient you. It was just shown in different colors. The first page here on this just to let you know the site is where the tank is going is approximately a 50-foot by 50- foot square there in the center. And around that is the 25 foot buffer that we've added to this project to meet the county requirements. It is a 17 foot long tank that will sit right in the middle. It's approximately, it is past 35 foot required set back off the street. There's a set back line going in there. So that's right in the center of that drawing. Again, a fairly small site that will be fenced and it is a little further from the road. Then what we'll do is show you a few pictures here on the next slide here. If someone could. So this first one I wanted to show you this is the approximately 100 year old existing water tank that is just to the left of this site off Old Snickersville Parkway this is the view as you drive up on it you can see the top of it it is mounted up it's approximately 3500 gallons in size and it has been providing the water storage to approximately 40 customers down in Aldi for over 80 years now and it's reached its useful life. The next picture shows the top of that tank. So it really is something they are trying to address very quickly with the county and the health department to get this new tank in operation. This tank will go away, it will be removed when the new tank is online and it'll just be returned to grass so that this resident and everyone won't see this, this in the future. The next picture is basically, as you drive, just past that tank, we just showed you, and you drive to the End of Snickers Viltorn Pike, which does end. This is as you're approaching the tank site. The tank site is just the left of this. As you drive up, there is one resident on the right-hand side immediately crossed from that site. If you go to the next picture and I took these about three weeks ago so they're pretty current. This is actually a little bit zoomed out but it does show the resident on the right which is shown on the drawing and everything and you do see the existing tree line on the left that we are trying to maintain as much of the existing trees that's allowable to provide some natural existing buffer, you know, supplemented. So just wanted to kind of give you that view as you come up on it. The next picture here is, this is, now we've gone into the tank site and we're looking back up the hill towards the road. And this is the back of that 50-50 by 50 square I draw. I described the new tank will be from this direction looking towards there. It just gives you an idea of the openance to the site where we will do the grading and put the tank. It just gives you a current present day with the stake in the ground of where one of the corners that the lot is and we'll use use, again, do all the supplemental planning required around this site once the tank's in. Next picture please. And then this is a, okay, so we're switching back. This is the first visual as you come up are professionals that do the renderings took this view as you come into the tank site. There is a slight power line, a sliver of trees, and now what we've done on the next slide is added from this angle. If you hit the next one, it should come up. So this is how the summer would look with some of the new plantings in addition to the Evergreen. Again, this is not perfect. So every tree that is on that map, but it's to give you an idea. Right now, this is what that area would generally look like. When we add the tank, the next picture with the same view shows the 8-foot high wooden fence. You can see the tank is 10-foot tall. It's actually 11 to the top because it sets a foot off the ground. You will see it just slightly over the fence. There will be plantings all around it, but this should just give you a view during the summer how it would generally look. So it is very low profile. I also want to point out this sets back further than what it might imply from that road. It's about 35 foot back. So it is again to give you a general visual look of this just to help with the process. We've got a couple more from this angle just to show you in the winter with more ever greens and the other ones go endormant that we're hoping to still maintain some green, but again, you'll have the fence, the privacy fence, and the plantings as we work through the final process. And I think that's the last one I had in there. Is there one more after this? So there was a request to try and show some visuals for height and how that might look in this surrounding area. This tank, we are hoping to get approvals to construct the tank and get it online as if all the approvals go through with the planning and the board to continue the process of building the tank and the landscaping would probably go in next spring once the tank is online. So we're happy to work out those details with the county on getting everything the way if it doesn't meet their requirements. Now I'm sure Aldi Water will work with staff to do that. So that's all I have unless you have questions for me. I know Aldi Water has some things they wanted to mention too. Thank you. Any questions from the commission? I will ask why not underground this one like the current tank? We typically like water tanks to be above ground so you can see them. The health department likes to be able to inspect them that way to make sure there's nothing going along. A lot of times there is potential contamination when it's buried. There has been health, health department concerns with the current tank, but it is currently safe, but there are some concerns when it's underground. You just can't see it. That's the main reason we'd usually do put them above ground well things change over a hundred years that makes sense that's allowed any other questions right now okay you do have two and a half minutes left I can give you mentioned Aldi water did you have something you wanted to say or so Aldi water is the owner of residents I think have signed up to health be all right they're part of public comment wonderful okay I just wanted or- So all the water is the owner and the residents I think have signed up to help speak. Okay, all right. They're part of public comment. Wonderful. Okay. I just wanted to give them a chance and I was going to use your leftover time if needed to do that. All right. No other questions. We'll go ahead and open up the public hearing on this item. I do have a few people signed up. Again, if you would just queue up at the podiums and help us move faster. We would appreciate it. Tucker Withers, Gene Mathena, and Malcolm Colum. Tucker Withers, President of the Alley Water Company, Madame Chair, and members of the Planning Commission. Pleasure to be here tonight. I do want to point out that that site is 100 feet above the heart of the village, where the post office of the mill and the meeting house wrote it. So it is not visible from the historic village of Aldi at all. I'd like to start off by thanking Susanna Brady and Liz Genovo, is that her name? Who works with the county? They have been more than helpful with my phone calls, returning phone calls, and answering my questions. And I think in the position they have, they don't get enough praise. So to those two employees of Loudon County, the Ollie Water Company, thanks you very much. And we wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for a gentleman in the back row. His card says environmental program specialist and that's Scott Finchham. Scott, would you please, you still there he is right there. Scott has held our hand through this whole process. It seems like 15 years, but it's probably only been four years. And we're so thankful for somebody that likes Scott that helps the small community in like all of the. You all have a history of the Aldi Water Company in front of you that we distributed early. And it talks about an operation that goes back 200 years, and for the most part is all volunteers. And you don't find many utilities that run like the Aldi Water Company. Tonight we have a group here and if you rely on the Aldi Water for any way, shape them for them. If you have a mill, if you have a business, if you live in Aldi and use the water, would you please stand up? Or raise your hand, stand up, it makes more of an impact. Thank you very much. So the Aldi post office with 500 boxes, they rely on Aldi Order, the Aldi Mill, which is a $2 million renovation, which was the focal point of the village back in 187. It's still the focal point of the village, a great visitor site. They rely on Aldi Order. Several businesses do, and we have two food services business coming to the village. One was the former all the country store that will be a small restaurant. Another one will be a cheese shop, a bakery, coffee shop, and so on. And they obviously are going to rely on all the water. We have two churches that rely on all the water. The methods of church and the Presbyterian church. We have a bed breakfast that's been there for 42 years, one of the first in Lawn County. They rely on all the water. And with that, I am through and I thank you for your time and whatever assistance you can be we do appreciate it. Otherwise we have a tank sitting in Pittsburgh that we have to do something with. Okay and we thank you for all standing up versus signing up to speak. Well we love public input and comment. We appreciate bribery to Gene. We appreciate brevity too. Jean, I believe you're next. My name is Jean Matina. I'm the Secretary Treasurer of the Aldi Water Company. My husband and I moved to the village of Aldi in July of 1974. So we've been there more than 50 years. When we first moved to Aldi, we found that Aldi had its own local water system. We came from Leesburg, so we were used to city water. At that time water was actually supplied from two mountain springs and it was strictly gravity fed. It went through gravity from one end of town up to the other end of town and then back to the residences in town. Over the years that's changed considerably because of development in the mountains we had to stop using the springs and drill wells. We also have had to install water treatment equipment because of the requirements of the state. We had reserves at one point but all of that has drained our reserves and we're to the point now where we need some assistance which fortunately we've been able to get from Loudon County in this state. We operate kind of on a shoestring, as you can imagine, with only 40 connections and with everything handled by volunteers. We all spend a great deal of our personal time trying to keep the water company running and trying to make sure we continue to have potable water for our friends and neighbors. We do have a licensed operator but he only works a couple of hours a week and we don't pay him very much so fortunately that doesn't add too much to our expenses. Our reservoir has needed replacement for years and we've worked on ways to do that but we haven't been able to get the resources to do it until we were able to get grants from Loudoun County and from the state. However, in order to move forward with the project we do need these special exceptions and so that's why we're here today asking you to please grant them for us so that we can move forward and ensure that our beautiful community of all day will continue to have potable water for the future. There have been all kinds of talks about loud and water taking us over and things of that nature but nothing has come to fruition. So at this point we're still relying on ourselves and what we can do to maintain the water for our friends and neighbors. We were lucky enough that Gail and Tommy D'Alasma were willing to give us a right of way and easement on their property to locate the new tank. Otherwise, I don't know what we would have done. But anyway, I apologize for rambling, but thank you for listening. And we do hopefully request that you grant us that special exception. Thank you. Mr that special exception. Thank you. Mr. Colum. All right. Nothing brings a community together like a need for clean and safe drinking water. I'm just here to reinforce the notion that this reservoir is badly needed. The existing reservoir is in terrible shape. I do want to thank the delashments for offering this corner of their property. It is in the ideal location. It's about the same elevation. You don't really see this on the map, but the elevation is critical to provide the adequate water pressure. And as far as the delashments site being a historic property, at that location, I mean, you feel like you're out in middle of the woods. So as far as the impact, the visual impact from the road, which is practically defunct, I think some of the illustrations maybe gave the false impression that it's really an active road. It's really more like a driveway to a few homes back there. The fact that none of the historic properties on that site, the reservoir will not be within view of any of those properties. And that's about it. Keep it short. Thank you. Is there anyone else present in the room who would like to speak on this item? Do we have anyone signed up online? We do not, ma'am. All right, last call. All right, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing on this agenda item to staff or the applicant have anything to say in response to public comment Madam chair. I just want to make a correction on the draft motion if you so wish to recommend approval This should actually include the second specs as well specs 2024 dash zero zero thirty two so if you wish to approve it, please include both specs numbers. All right. Speaking of motions, we are still in contact. Mr. Miller? No, we're not. I'm sorry. We're in Little River. All right. Yes, Commissioner Miller. I have a question. I'm looking at weblogists. In that corner there's no steep slopes but we're pretty close to minor steep slopes. I assume we're far enough away. That's correct. We're very close to the corner of the property then. It's very close but it does not impact. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Now we'll get to a motion. We are in Little River Commissioner Jasper. Yes, thank you. Turn your microphone on. Sorry. Detail. I know. Hang on, I'm looking for the marishans. So I want to just ask staff for one clarification before I was out at the site today and I found you know as I looked and I think in some of the photos demonstrated that the condition of the trees there is very poor for the most part and so I want to be sure that appropriate buffer is being provided in consistent that is consistent with the county requirements. So I've looked at the sheets but I want, I'm looking for staff reassurance that the county farrester will in fact be out there and that they will ensure require compliance with the buffer requirements all around if the trees are not found in good condition. That's correct. They have to be in substantial conformance of the specs plot and that's in the conditions of approval. So yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. With that in mind and hopefully on the record, I move that the Planning Commission forward led G2024-0015, all the water storage tank upgrade and relocation, specs dash 2024-0031, and specs 2024-0032 to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of approval subject to the conditions of approval dated September 5th, 2024 and based on the findings for approval provided as attachments one and two to the September 24, 2024 Planning Commission public hearing staff report. Second. All right. Motion made by Commissioner Jasper. Seconded by Commissioner Myers. do you have an opening? I don't thank you. Okay any other comments on the motion question make sure did the motion incorporate the extra that you want it? 0 0 32 anything else? Okay, I'm guessing you don't have a closing either All right, we have a motion on the floor. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The motion carries 9-0. Thank you again all for being part of our process. And I know I enjoyed learning a little something interesting in the last couple of weeks reviewing these materials. So we are on item 4. I'm tap dancing while we shift people around and clear some of the space out of the room. Legi 2023-0072, town of Percival water works. Welcome back, Darby. We'll continue our water and utility discussion this evening between cell phones and water. We seem to have a theme going. It's the same thing with this one. I don't need to move this. Good evening. My name is Darby Maccalfe with the Department of Planning and Zoning. I'm here again tonight to present the application for town of Percival waterworks. The subject property is approximately 21 acres located south and west of short hill road and north of the town of Percival in the Ketakhton election district. The property is owned agricultural rural one under the Loudon County zoning ordinance as are all adjacent properties. The properties located in the rural policy area and the rural north place type. The site is currently occupied by the town of Percival's existing water treatment facilities. The applicant is requesting a commission permit to permit a utility major use a special exception to permit a water treatment facility in the AR1 zoning district as well as a minor special exception to eliminate the landscape buffer requirements along the southern and western subject property boundaries. President on screen is an annotated excerpt of the applicant's specs plot. Blue are existing facilities and red are a component of tonight's proposal. The 2019 General Plan policy support the provision of municipal water within the towns and anticipates the construction of facilities. The General Plan additionally outlines criteria proposed uses should meet to be compatible with the surrounding character. The proposal is consistent with the land-using compatibility policies of the 2019 GP. As buildings have been cited down slope of existing facilities, adopter rectangular forms and grouping similar to traditional agricultural buildings found in the surrounding area. Conditions have been recommended by staff to mitigate visual and natural resource impacts of the development. During the planning commission briefing for tonight's application, commissioners asked to see a depiction of the nutrient bank plantings surrounding the subject property. President on screen is the depiction of the nutrient banks adjacent to the subject property. The subject property is outlined in yellow, and the nutrient bank plantings are indicated in green. The location character extent of the Commission Permit Application is an accord with the 2019 general plan. Staff supports approval of the Commission Permit Application. Additionally, staff supports a recommendation of approval of the specs application to the board of supervisors with us subject to the conditions of approval and staff are available for questions. Thank you. Thank you, Darby. Do we have any questions for staff? Commissioner Barnes. Just for this staff. They already have existing equipment there, right, and the blue that you said. So they're going to keep that too or they're going to take that out. The blue will be retained. Blue will be retained so there'll be two of them. It is an expansion of existing facilities. Yeah, okay. So there's two of them. It's for specificity on the components of our different applicant. Okay. So they're all going to stay there. The red and the blue. That's correct. Okay, thank you. Okay. Any other questions for staff commissioner Jasper? Just Darby, if you could refresh my memory I seem to recall there being some talk about a trail through the site or is that just the driveway? The drive way, the existing driveway facilities are the dashed line with the large boxes of dashes And the smaller checkered line is part of the proposal of driveway facilities Okay, so we'll connect the east and the west or east and the north west Vice chair combs Thank you Madam Chair to repeat a question from Commissioner Myers on the earlier application, is this, I'm just wondering why a commission permit here but not on the last one. You want to take it? Thanks. This is stumped the planner. So the service station established, I would have to follow up on why the determination was not made to require it at the time. But okay, director just I end me. It was not in the service area. So the service areas are established in a comprehensive plan. This was not in the service area, even though it's are established in the comprehensive plan. This was not in the service area, even though it's an existing facility. Even though it's an existing facility. Right. So it was determined to go ahead and have the commission permit with it. Okay. So it's outside the service area that's shown in the land use map in the comprehensive plan. Thank you. evaluation of the impact of the use and the other zoning ordinance standards that apply. So. Okay, thanks. Thank you. All right. We'll go ahead and hear from the applicant now. If you have a presentation. We can keep it brief. Thank you. Good evening commissioners and chair Frank. My name is Jason Alagno with IMEG. I'm representing the applicant of Percival on this application. The town of Percival water works sources all of the water for residents and businesses in the town of Percival waterworks, sources, all of the water for residents and businesses in the town of Percival. They've been doing so since the original Millian gallon water tank was constructed in 1930, which is located on the subject property to this day. The existing facility that Commissioner Barnes mentioned will be retained that is used to treat surface water which comes from a reservoir. This application is for a commission permit and a special exception. The commission permit is to commission a new well and the special exception is for groundwater treatment for water from that well. Hence the two facilities, one for surface water and one for groundwater. This is an overview of the property again. Again, just to reiterate, the special exception is based on the necessary expansion of the water treatment facility that's been operating at the site for 38 years. It's a treat. Ground water source from the commission well and to show up the reliable, safe, and clean water source for residents of the town. Of note, the property to the south and west of the subject site, which you can see on the screen is in blue, is a large conservation easement containing areas of tree bank totalling over 95 acres of proposed, I should say existing tree plantings. The tree bank was created and began planting in June of 2021. So if you go out there, you can actually see those trees are growing there about as tall as I am. And there's 95 acres of them. Just zooming in and reiterating staffs, the graphics that they showed from the special exception plot, you can see our site is in blue. The existing facility is in red and the proposed facility expansion is in the light blue box. The Weld to be commissioned is located on the same property, which consists of 21 acres. And the idea behind co-locating all the facilities here is that the town has the ability to create and maintain a conservation use man tree bank by creating an efficient use of space with this facility expansion and maintaining this critical infrastructure on the subject property and consolidating it in such a way to maintain the beauty of the surrounding land. It's important to note that the design of the facility expansion takes into close consideration other constraints on the property. Namely, there's mountain overlay district steep and moderately steep slopes. Additionally, there's critical underground infrastructure that are water lines going to and from the facility that are necessary to provide water supply to the facility as well as water supply from the facility to residents and businesses. When you overlay all of these constraints, you're effectively left with a box of available land, which is exactly where the proposed facility is proposed with this special exception application. The last component I'll mention is that in addition to the offsite conservation that's occurring not with this application but done by the town, we are committing to a tree conservation area on the property which is a requested component of the application from staff and it's been accommodated in areas that are not encumbered by existing underground infrastructure. But are in areas where there's existing vegetation located on steep slopes and mountainside overlay district areas of the site. With that, I will open up answering any questions. Commissioner Myers. Just a quick question. So the, excuse me, the map that Darby had showed us answering any questions. Commissioner Myers. Just a quick question. The map that Darby had showed us that showed where all of the ‑‑ oh, I just lost it. The new dream thing. Thank you. That ‑‑ all of that area. Can you pull that back up? Is that all property owned by the town and is that all property that you've talked about? It's going to be permanently eased. Yes, it's owned by the town and its in perpetuity will be maintained. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for the applicant from the commission? Commissioner Miller. Thank you. It's a concern of staff, I guess, to the board. It's not for our consideration, but Mayas will ask the question now why no buffer? It comes down to the tree bank and conservation easement being located along the portions of the property that the Minor special exception request occurs so that buffer The request to eliminate the buffers on the west and south property boundaries where the new trees are growing exactly They're it's only in the areas adjacent to the tree bank and Dutrients you're fat as your buffer essentially essentially effectively 96 acres. It's a heck of a buffer Yeah hundreds of feet in any direction. Yes Also, I'd like to add we are required to maintain 400 trees per acre Within that new tree bank Okay Christian jasper You know I I don't know the geometry of how the nutrient buffer with how many plants for however 100 feet equates when you do it in the context of the 45,000 or so plus square feet. And you know, like it's not exactly the same. So it's a little hard to consider without a comparative analysis of what you've got in the area where the buffer would be. And then, you know, what is replacing it under the nutrient bank. But my other question is who enforces the requirements of the nutrient bank? My understanding is there's a sponsor for this and in this case who's the sponsor? The nutrient bank is monitored by DEQ, Department of Environmental Quality. In order to build the new drink bank, we are to submit a plan to DEQ. They approved it. They monitor it. They inspect it. We currently do have the sponsor for a new drink bank as a daily group. And they are currently maintaining it. And the DEQ comes out. the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state restrictions put on it through documents that are recorded at the courthouse for restrictions of what you can and cannot do in a new train pink. So I guess my, my, and it's not a question it's just I have trouble, you know, the counties requirements are count are enforced by the county and it's clear exactly what they are and how they would pertain in this situation. And I'm just having a hard time overlaying yet a different set of requirements, part of an entirely different program that may or may not be equal to and is not subject to the same regulatory scheme. So, they're actually more strict that green area, that was the tree, what was the tree save area? The tree save area has like, it's a deed of restrictions I believe that you have to place in with you know record at the courthouse a Nutrient bank also has a deed of restrictions and and Which says what you can and cannot do in the property? So it's probably it is more strict because it's actually monitored by the county and by the by the state Okay, thank you Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. We'll go ahead and open up the public hearing. I don't have anyone signed up in advance to speak on this item. Is there anyone in the room who would like to speak on this agenda item? Seeing none, do we have anyone online joining us on this legislative item? We do not, Madam Chair. Okay, last call. All right, the public hearing is closed on this item. We do not, Madam Chair. Okay, last call. All right, the public hearing is closed on this item. Now we are in contact and Commissioner Miller, do you have a motion? I do. I move the Planning Commission to approve ledgy 2023-0072, tenant of personal water works. Commission permit 2023-004, subject to the Commission for a Replyt data June 10, 2024 and based on the findings for approval provided as attachments 1 and 3 through September 24th, 2024 Planning Commission Public Hearing staff report and I further move that the Planning Commission forward ledgy 2023-0072 Tana Perceville Waterworks The plan is to attend the committee's committee's committee's committee's committee's committee's committee's committee's committee's committee's committee's committee's committee's committee's committee's committee's committee's committee's committee's committee's committee's committee's committee's committee's committee's committee's committee's committee's committee's committee's committee's committee's committee's committee's committee's committee's committee's committee's committee's committee's Public Hearing, staff report. Second. All right, long motion made by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Barnes. Do you have an opening? We don't see as many as in the fact that when we do, they are long motions. There you go. They need water and the 96 acres of buffer. Not that we have something we're considering, but that answers the question, I believe. Thank you. Any other comments or questions before we vote? Okay. I guess Commissioner Myers. I'll just say that I'll support the motion for approval also. I know in a lot of research I've done when we were dealing with the cluster ordinance and conservation and the nutrient credits, I did more research than I ever thought I would do in my life in that particular. And it's not did more research than I ever thought I would do in my life in that particular. And it's not an easy task. It's very regulatory and just because you put in a plan doesn't mean that it necessarily gets approved. And DEQ actually has their own, I'm going to call it branch agency underneath them that actually regulates this and monitors it and controls it because just because you want to do one doesn't mean you get accepted. You have to go through a very detailed process. So knowing that it's actually stricter than I think anything we could look at doing I will support the motion of approval for tonight. Commissioner Cares. Oh, I was waiting for the motion. Oh, you're waiting for the motion. All right. All right. We have a motion on the table. All in favor All right. We have a motion on the table. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 9-0. Thank you. Derby. I don't know if you get to go home, but you're not coming back to us. Are you? All right. We are going to pause briefly. I'll ask that the folks who are up and speaking it, then on the next item, do have themselves prepared but we are going to take a brief recess to let everybody stretch and move for a couple of minutes because I know this next item is going to be just based on the speaker list a little lengthy so we want to do that now before we get started. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm sorry. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. All right. The planning commission will reconvene. We are up to legislative item number five, CPM 2024-001 and ZOM 2024-001, data center standards and locations phase one. So we are ready Abdul and company whenever you guys are. Okay. Good evening commissioners. My name is Abdul Jaffrey. I'm the county's project manager for data standards and location. I'm joined here with Dan Galinda, director of planning and zoning. And also Mark Holland, who is also with planning and zoning. Mark is the project manager for the zoning ordinance amendment portion of this project. I'm here this evening to present the proposed amendments for data standards and location comprehensive plan amendment and zoning ordinance amendment phase one. Before I start I would like to point out that after the planning commission work session on this item on September 12, 2024 staff address some of the questions in the staff report and provided a supplemental document with additional information not covered in the staff report. This is our presentation outlined tonight. So we will begin by outlining the purpose of tonight's discussion. Then we will discuss the growth of data centers in the Laudan County. Next we'll go over the project background and timeline. We will follow that with an overview of Phase 1 scope. We'll then discuss the proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan and zoning ordennins. Following this, we'll discuss the scope of work for phase two and finally we'll conclude with presenting our recommendations. So the purpose we're here to present the proposed amendments to the Lawn and County 2019 general plan and Lawn and County zoning ordinance for data center standards and location phase one. This graph illustrates the cumulative and annual growth of data centers in the county from 1997 to present, focusing on existing development and excluding those in the pipeline. By 2016, data center development surpassed 10 million square feet mark. Growth temporarily slowed during the pandemic, but rebounded strongly in 2022 with an additional 7.2 million square feet of development in that year alone. Earlier this year, the county surpassed four million square feet of data center development. This graph illustrates the growth in existing and pipeline data centers in the county over a five-month period from March 1, 2024 to July 1, 2024. As of March 1, 2024, the county had 40 million square feet of existing data centers and 36 million square feet in the pipeline. By July 1, 2024, those numbers increased 43 million square feet of existing data centers and 47 million square feet in the pipeline. This represents a substantial growth of 14 million square feet in just five months. The map to the right illustrates where data public and the public are in the right place. The first step is to make sure that the public and the public are in the right place. The first step is to make sure that the public and the public are in the right place. The first step is to make sure that the public and the public are in the right place. The first step is to make sure that the public and the public are in the country. The first part of the development across different policy areas in the county, as shown, 72 million square feet of existing on pipeline data centers are concentrated in the suburban policy area. Accounting for 80% of the county's total data center development. Leesburg, JLMA, joint land management area is an emerging sub-market with over 5 million square feet of data center currently in the pipeline. These two maps depicts the distribution of existing and pipeline data centers across various policy areas. This graph illustrates data center development across different playstypes. I understand it's a busy slide so let me break it down for you. I've shown 72 million score feet of existing pipeline data centers are located in playstypes where data center is a core use. Core use or uses that align directly with the intent of the playstip. In Leesberg, JLA may employ men where data centers are a complementary use, there's a 5 million square feet of development. Complementary use supports the core uses while also fulfilling the playstyle goals. The suburban employment playstyle where data center is designated as conditional use has seen the most significant growth. Approximately 38 million square feet. Conditional uses are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, 21 million square feet of data center development is taking place in playstabs where data centers are not envisioned under the 2019 general plan. This is because in some cases, the underlying zoning allows data centers by right and in other situation, a rezoning application was approved to allow data center. These two maps display the distribution of existing and pipeline data centers across various playstyles. This graph illustrates data center development by zoning districts. A total of 85 million square feet of existing and proposed data center development is located on parcels zone for industrial uses zoning districts designated for commercial and residential uses have seen very limited data center development The industrial park IP zoning districts has seen the most amount of data center data center development with approximately 44 million square feet. Again, these two maps display the distribution of existing and pipeline data centers across various zoning districts. To better manage the data center development in the county, the board initiated the data center standards on location, CPAM, and ZoA. This slide summarizes the discussions from both Phase 1 and Phase 2. The board directed the staff to divide the project into two phases. Again, as you can see, this provides the anticipated timeline associated with Phase 1 and Phase 2. The project initiated back in February of this year and here we are in front of you at the Planning Commission Public Hearing. The anticipated completion date for Phase 1 is winter of next year. Phase 1 has limited scope and consists of two main components. A comprehensive plan amendment, CEPAM and zoning ordinance amendments, ZoAM. The CEPAM includes both text and map amendments. The text amendment is specific and designates data center as a conditional use in all playstives where data centers are currently identified as either core or complementary use. The map amendment includes revision to the 2019 general plan playstyped maps or data centers are not appropriate. I'll discuss this map amendments in the coming slides. The Zoom text amendment designates data center as a special exception use in three zoning districts where they're currently permitted by right. It does not include any mapping amendments. Additionally, the zone does not apply to properties currently under 1972 zoning ordinance. This slides outlines the five playstypes where data centers are currently designated as core and complementary uses. Consistent with the board direction, staff recommends designating data centers as a conditional use in these five playstypes. Designating data centers as a conditional use will require the county to evaluate the propiateness of the proposed data centers taken into account factors like location, potential impacts related to noise and lightening and compatibility with surrounding uses. Additionally, appropriate mitigation measures will be applied to minimize their impact on surrounding properties. The following three slides will discuss the proposed map amendments. The area highlighted in blue is located east of Laudan County Parkway, north of Dallas, Greenway and west of Randolph Drive. This is currently the only area designated as urban employment. In 2022, during the TLAQ discussion series, it was recommended to the board that the urban employment place that be removed from the 2019 general plan and replaced with the urban transit center play style. The board approved this recommendation as part of the data center's CPAM and zone project plan. Following the board's direction, the urban employment playstyle will be removed from the 2019 general plan and replaced with the urban center, urban transit center playstyle. Data center uses are not envisioned within the urban transit center playstyle. While most of the current uses in this area are data centers and sub-stations, it is located close in close proximity to the loud and gateway and Ashburn metro rail stations. Looking ahead, if the data center industry evolve, this area has the potential for redevelopment into uses that capitalize on its proximity to metro rail. The Goose Creek Club is located south of Tascora Creek, east of Cochran, Male Road, and west of Goose Creek. Currently, the PlayStyle designation for Goose Creek, Goose Creek Club is Leisberg, JLMA, employment, shown in light pink on the map to the left. In line with the board's direction, employment shown in light pink on the map to the left. In line with the board's direction, the playstyle designation for Ghost Creek Club would be changed from Leesburg JLMA employment to Leesburg JLMA residential neighborhood. This would unify the Ghost Creek Club and Ghost Creek Club too under one playstyle and align it with the existing and predominant residential land uses. Data centers are not envisioned in the Leesburg, JLMA residential neighborhood playstyle. This area consists of communities of South Fork, Winsbury West, Winsbury, and Orcola. These communities are designated as suburb and employment playstyle which does not reflect the predominant land uses on the ground. Consistent with the board's direction, the playstyle designation for these communities will change the suburb and neighborhood playstyle to align with existing and proposed residential the system. The system is not envisioned in the suburban neighbourhood play style. This slide outlines the proposed text amendments to the zoning gardeners. Consistent with the board direction, staff is recommending to revise the zoning ordinance to change data center as a special use exception. In industrial park, general industry, mineral resource, heavy industry zoning districts. Designating data center as a special exception means they have to go through a legislative approval process and involves public hearing before the commission and board. General public and other stakeholders have the opportunity to comment on the applications. Special exception uses are reviewed carefully to ensure they fit within the desired character of the area and do not negatively impact the surrounding properties. The county may impose the specific conditions of approval. The existing use specific standards which was developed and approved during the zoning ordinance rewrite will guide the data center applications. The phase C of this project includes amendments and updates to the 2019 general plan, focusing on land use, site and building design sustainability and policies related to energy usage, water, air, light and noise for data centers and substations. We will also align policies within the 2019 general plan, particularly between Chapter 5 and 2. Phase 2 of the CPAM does not currently include a mapping component. The ZOM will align with the CPAM work examining the existing use specific standards in the current zoning ordinance. We will determine if additional standards are needed such as noise attenuation measures, building and site design requirements, landscape buffering and the establishment of data center uses within an existing structure. Finally, staff support, the planning commission recommendations of approval to the Board of Supervisors. This concludes our presentation. We're happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. Thank you. I don't suspect we have any questions for staff. Do we? I just want to know on the one slide, when you use the word existing, because on your, I don't know which slide number it was, it was after the place typed pipeline data center. It was the graph one. We, because we're only dealing with the IP, the MRHI and the PDGI and this particular thing. When you say existing versus pipeline, what is pipeline to you? Does that mean it's got an approval? Does that mean that you're thinking about its being submitted? What is the definition of pipeline? Thank you for the question, Commissioner. When it comes to the existing data centers are the ones that are currently on the ground or have an approved issued building permit. So that falls under the bucket of existing. In the pipeline bucket or data center applications legislative center application that are currently under review or have board approval and also site plan applications that are currently under review and also has approved site plan but does not have a building permit issued. So if they're not have a building permit? If it does not have a building permit. It does not consider existing data center. It's a type like. But it wouldn't be under the new regulations then. As we're reviewing this. If they have an existing approval, legislative approval or site plan approval, then the data approval will stand unless there is anything that is not specifically stated that then may fall under the grandfathering provisions from when the zoning ordinance was adopted. There are a few applications still in process that are also being reviewed under the revised 93 under that grandfathering resolution. But this discussion is just going to be looking at anything that either comes, has come in after December of last year or if it is an existing application that for some reason loses that grandfathering status. So if you submitted after December and you haven't gotten approved yet, you could now have to go back and redo and now be a special exception. You could unless the board grants another grandfathering as part of this. Any other questions for staff at this time? Okay, Commissioner Cares. In the area that we want to change from urban employment to urban transit center. And you have a map there that shows it's mostly data centers, as you said in substations there. Is there a lot of vacant land that's not spoken for that could be developed as something else? Because I think the runways prohibit really any kind of residential type use. So I really think even though it's close to a metro stop, the only use is in there are going to be more industrial and commercial. And it looks like the vast majority, or at least the majority of it, already has facilitating a data center is on it, and I'm guessing there might be some more that are in the process that maybe haven't gone that finish yet. I'm just wondering what are we changing by making this change? Is there a lot of vacant land that we want to preserve for something other than data center? Or what are the types of uses we want to see in there that we're not happy with now? Commissioner Kieres again I was briefly discussed in the presentation. You are correct, the majority of this area is existing on pipeline data centers and substations. There are like, I believe three parcels that are non-datasenter applications. The intent of replacing the playstyle for this area is to looking ahead should the data center industry evolve. The urban trans center playstyle is the right playstyle to enable development that would like to locate and close proximity to Metro station? So it just seems it's contrary to what the other ones were changing. Well, it's urban employment, the other sections by hidden one by hidden wood and the goose creek club were saying, well, let's just change it to what's currently on the ground now. And here we're saying, well, let's change it from what's on the ground now to what we want it to be in the future. It seems to be contrary to each other. If the data center industry changes dramatically enough that these data center buildings are no longer used, and they want to come in and they're looking for a wholesale, let's redevelop all this as something else. It seems like that would be the time to do it, no? Data center is currently a core use in urban employment play style, which is the current designation for this area. But data center is not envisioned in the urban transit center play style. I'm just saying we want to take the predominant use of the land now and say what's there now is no longer allowed and we're doing the exact out. We're kind of doing the opposite in the other ones. We're saying we're going to change it to what's currently there, not what it's currently zone for. So I don't know, it just seems so that the history of this one mapping change goes back to those T-Lock discussions over two years ago at this point. This mapping change has been a consistent recommendation from mid-2022 whenever T-Lock made its final recommendations to the board and has been reaffirmed by different board actions since then. So you're right, it is a little bit different because the other mapping changes that are proposed came out of staff's work as specifically as part of this project based on the boards direction of looking at where things are and aren't appropriate. The T-Lock and the boards discussions about this area have been purely long-term in nature that when and if things change that they want to see that change evolve over time to make use of the metro station. Okay. All right. Commissioner Miller. I'm going to follow up on that with Commissioner Kiers. This is one of the variety of reasons that I want us to not send us to the board tonight and we'll go to work session. The Urban Transit Center, which we're talking about remapping this area too. Core uses, multi-family residential office retail and service commercial complimentary uses, entertainment commercial, civic cultural and community and public facilities. The garage for Metro rail sits in the 65 plus LDN. So if we're going to consider remapping an area to not, because data centers are a potential use there, and we're going to flip it to say that this, we're going to map this area now for multi-family residential in the 65 plus. Okay, now we have to go back and figure out how to either change our policy and be Fairfax and build, no matter what the noise is, this is the problem with where I'm, I don't want to speech a fight, should be asking the question. Yeah. If you can't at least change your tone with a question mark at the end of your statement, I'm going to stop you Oh the question Why do we think this makes sense to do and allow for residential by mapping in an area in the 65 plus LDN Just to make sure that we can't do data So on that map anywhere within this roughly rectangular area that's in yellow would be within the 60 to 65 where residential is allowed. It's only those areas in red on the out screen. It's only those areas in sort of the orange-ish red that are in the 65 plus. The place type has a note in there about residential restrictions in the noise sensitive areas associated with that. Understanding at that time that you're right, we don't want to encourage, and frankly, as the audit stands, there could not be any multi-final residential in those two orange to red areas, whatever you want to call it, on that map. So the overall goal is to create a more urban environment and a mix of uses, even if not every single part of that could be developed in the same way. That's the board's long term discussion as we've had these various conversations over time. It's not very little of what we're talking about with this phase one is a clean discussion. It's all a little messy. So I mean you raise a valid point. All right, Commissioner Jasper. I think, Dan, thank you for joining us tonight. I think you may have answered my question. I was wondering whether Tila and the board were thinking that that would go to alternative uses that could benefit from Metro's proximity like office or you know educational second you know graduate educational training and cultural uses etc but I think you made that clear perhaps. Yes you're right thank you. Yes, you're right. Thank you. Mr. Mader Ready. Thank you, Madam Chair. If we can go to the slide number 18 one time, again, I just need a little more time to understand this. So in that picture, you have the existing place type, suburban employment, and you want to change it to the suburban neighborhood, which all it is there, place type, suburb and employment and you want to change it to the suburb and neighbourhood. Which all it is there, the Winsbury, all those things are fully developed. Are you worried about data center industry going into those neighbourhoods? How are these things related here? So if you look at Commissioner on the map, the existing residential areas and there's also a proposed residential development right where my cursor is. So those exist, so that's purely residential that's coming in there and I think I mentioned that as the 200. I know that there's a resolution coming in there. So they have a wrong place to have designation on them right now, suburban employment does not allow residential. So the purpose of this is to re-designate it to a place to have that matches the predominant use on the ground, which is residential, and a small component of commercial as well. But then also, designating this two suburban neighborhood also does not allow data center development in that place, that. What are we solving if the place is fully built out? So we're starting to see a number of neighborhoods being approached where applicants would buy out all of those residential homes and put data centers there. So hidden wood is I think the first one that's really been in front of the commission. There are others that we are aware of there at least being approached if it's not something that they're currently acting on. We've had people call in and ask the department from the TPA, from the RPA that have been approached by someone that called them and wanted to offer them money for their land and their neighbors and people that really weren't following the planning of any other guidance they were trying to find land in Louton. But there's a lot of activity of potential data center applicants just looking for whatever land they can find and trying to make use of it. So in this case they could purchase those properties and present an application. Thank you Dan. That's exactly where I was going with. So I mean did we hear a lot of complaints that people approaching them, people don't want to sell their properties. Why are we solving this problem? I mean, is somebody saying it's a big problem for the neighbors? So if a portion of that area were to get purchased and were to turn into a data center, it would be a problem for the neighbors that surround it. As I think you all hear for many of the applications that come before you that are close to any other residential uses. The board's guidance to us in looking at this was to look at areas where they were data centers were and were not appropriate. In this case, the, and really honestly just from my personal experience, part of the reason that this area was suburban employment to start with is that it was not dense enough or in the right location for us to originally recommend it as suburban mixed use five, six years ago when we were really working on this area in the plan. The intent was to try to allow the commercial aspect to interplay with the residents on the ground there to create a some degree of mixed use, some degree of community that wasn't a single use. But as it stands right now with it being suburban employment, the board wanted us to take areas out so we were not encouraging people to look in those areas. Okay, thank you. I'll follow up on that. Commissioner Kierst. So suburban employment allows data center, it's not by right, correct? It have to be a legislative application. Well, it goes to what the underlying zoning district is. Yeah, it's complimentary years right now in the 2019 general plan. And sorry, no, it's a complimentary, it's a place. And my apologies. I think it's conditional. Yeah, it's a conditional use. So it have to be a legislative approval? No, it depends on the underlying zoning district. Okay. Yeah. So if for this area, if you're particularly looking for this area, I'm just going to go back to my mind. So in going back to that, not that one, the one used to have the southwest corner of that portion of property that's still undeveloped. I think you said there is a residential, has there been an approved residential? Right here, yes. Yeah. An approved residential development. So there's an approved one already? Yeah, 220. Yeah. Okay, I thought it was just a pending one or one we haven't seen yet. You're seeing it's already been approved. Sorry, we've been approved. Okay. So you just prove the residential closer to the data center than possibly allowing the data center closer to existing residential. So you accomplish the same thing, I guess. Sorry. Mr. Banks. One question. As I understand it, the driving reason behind this whole effort is to determine where data centers are appropriate and not appropriate. With that in mind, can you explain to me the logic behind going from by right to special exception in industrial park, general industry, mineral resources, heavy industry. Are you saying that data centers are not appropriate in those areas? Your first one. So the boards guidance to us in the mapping exercise was to look at areas where they were or more not appropriate. The boards direction to make the explicit changes to the place type and the zoning districts were their guidance based on them trying to grapple with the degree of change and the degree of square footage that we are seeing with the data center industry in a short amount of time. When the 2019 plan was being developed and was approved, I don't believe anyone that was involved in that process anticipated the exponential growth curve that we've been experiencing the past five years. The board has been, and to some degree, commission has in the past two been struggling with this with every application that's come through whether it makes, this one makes sense whether that one makes sense if it's too close to a use if it's not. And trying to wrap their arms around all this holistically. The board's direction to staff right where wrongly has been to make them special exceptions everywhere so that there is more direct board oversight on those decisions moving forward. Thanks. oversight on those decisions moving forward. If I could just find a dent. So as someone who chaired the planning commission for a year that we did the plan, we absolutely consider that and we generated many areas. We knew the growth of the data center and we knew it was coming. And there are several areas we put in the plan that would allow data, sickle and road corridors, a classic example. When it got to the board, they left some areas in, they took some out. But when we did the plan, we were anticipating a significant growth in data centers, and we're trying to find areas where it made the most sense to put data center growth that would be more compatible and away from residential. So I just disagree the assertion that we were never anticipating a large growth because we absolutely were when we did the plan and presented it to the board. And again, they kept some of those areas and they took some out. But I think this, this, this, the growth was anticipated. I agree, I agree that it's a shame that they've popped up in places they don't belong. The, the PDOP was a problem and now you have data center, my, my neighborhoods of classics end there dropping a million square feet of data center in a substation right in the middle of a suburban residential neighborhood. Why? Because they could. At least that part's been fixed, but a lot of these other areas, they were, you know, that we put in as data center. It was expected. I just don't know, and to Commissioner Banks comment, when we can talk about this more, are we just simply to say yes, just make them all special exception and conditional, just to put a hard break on it. That's one way to look at it or do we acknowledge the fact that yes it's still growing. There are areas that we probably do want to put more conditions on it, but there are areas that they kind of make sense to be located. And I guess we'll decide whether we want to go with the all or nothing approach or be a little more surgical in it But when I look at this that's kind of where I'm going is let's take a look at the different place types where they are And say yes, make sense for this to be special exception because we can see the impacts it has around the adjacent properties If I may add to just and again the whole purpose of Fees one which is as you can see, it's very specific conditionally used and special exception. That's it. And that means we have the ability to manage the growth of that data center. And by special exception, again, it has to go through the legislative application process, the county has the ability to as discussed to impose the appropriate conditions we needed and to mitigate the impact. So the whole purpose of that is to manage the growth in places. As you can see on this graph, we have seen development in areas that they're not supposed to be going there. So the purpose of this work is to manage the growth of data center development. Commissioner Barnes? Yes, I just have a small comment on the question I should say that's what it is now. So it's going to be still a special exception even when you're dedicating a place for data centers. It's going to be just by right, they can go and do it. So as draft did this would take away the ability to do future by right approvals. That it would any future data center would need to get a legislative special exception approval to move forward. But not in this area but you proposing. No, in, well, if you're talking about the areas that would be removed from the place type map, there would be, there would not be land use policy guidance supporting putting a data center there. But from the zoning ordinance standpoint, this, this specifically purposefully switches the three districts where it's currently allowed by right to special exception. So across the board, a data center would require a special exception of the problem moving forward. Commissioner Jasper. So looking at this graphic, I feel like I remember us entertaining legislative applications in the transition policy area that I would think would be represented as pipeline. I'm surprised not to see any pipeline applications there. Commissioner Jasper, this is miles of July 1st. We've updated this. We have basically that this represents all the information that we have in different place types and different zoning districts and in different policy areas. I just add, I can't speak to that specifically but I will say we quite often are having applicants process site plans simultaneously with legislative applications that way they can receive approval very fast. So if those in the transition area did so and pulled a permit already then they would switch over to existing. Even if they're not fully built but they have the permit to be built they will show up as existing on these graphics. Okay And my second question is a follow-up, which is I have been concerned with what I thought was a proliferation of applications in the transition policy area and the notion that the transition policy area might become inundated or become characterized by what this use which I consider an industrial use rather than kind of what sounds like the goals when you read the general plan for the transition policy area. Is that your understanding of the transition policy area that it is okay, that because Commissioner Myers and I had this conversation a couple of weeks ago, I mean, on the dius, I just, you know, I'm not sure I understand the transition policy area if it is okay that it becomes really predominated by industrial uses. So the transition area overall would only allow those industrial uses in the areas that have that place type designation, which are almost all concentrated just out of Leedsburg. So they do not proliferate along the entirety of the policy area overall There there is the quarry down at the very end of the county and the bottom and TPA But largely it's just the area outside of Leesburg so absent any other Significant changes that aren't being proposed as part of this or anything else It would not be something that proliferates throughout its entirety, but I think what What you will see is what we have seen is that the vast majority of our commercial industrial applications in recent years have been data center applications. So for whatever land is not spoken for already in a transition policy, a transition policy area industrial place type. As things stand right now, I think it's a high likelihood that anything that comes in soon would like to be data center. All right. Well, thank you for explaining that. I appreciate it. On that topic really quick, I'm going to, so, but some of the things we've seen recently are technically probably on this chart called Leesburg JLMA. Yes. Right. Right. And that's going to be transition. I mean, it will show up on. If you're just looking at the three policy areas, right? Sperven transition and rural, that falls and where. So the jail amazed are their own policy areas. So even though there's different ones around different towns, they're kind of organized in the plan as their own policy areas. So they are separate from the TPA, even though I believe those recently Greenland Park had a piece of property that crossed over that boundary. And the only overlap. That's where the overlap was in two policy areas. I think that's where the overlap is happening. Because it's either right there or it's adjacent or surrounded by or that's so on a map. It does look like it. Okay, vice chair comes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm hearing a lot about this is an attempt to manage proliferation of data centers, their growth, perhaps for scene or unforeseen. And it seems to me that the notion of making it as special exception use throughout the county is a disincentive to the data center industry. I'm wondering, and this is calling my recollection back to when we did the Zor, and we went through some uses and we identified IP and OP and places where data center might be desirable, particularly as Commissioner Banks mentioned in the Mr. Hire or the GI districts, are there things that we can also do when we're talking about managing to incentivize where we want them to be? I'm seeing a lot of activity here about distance and ofant of dissentant of dissentant of, but perhaps there, and I think Commissioner Jasper raised this question at our work session a few weeks ago. Has there been thought paid to things that we as a county can do, perhaps in the CPAM or the ZOM, to incentivize where we want them, where we find that data centers to actually be an ideal use. So I would say given the boards direction to separate this into two parts, not as part of phase one, because their direction was very explicit. Phase two is where we would be looking at things, aspects of this more broadly, that are not these three specific things as part of phase one, where that could come into play. Just building on that, right now as you can see, phase two doesn't have a mapping component right now, but if the commission feels that there isn't, that's something I think the commission can consider in terms of face to scope to your point commissioner and in terms of incentivizing that something that we could explore in face to I think what we're seeing right now with the recent application is request for increased FAR and request for increased height and there are places within the county that could be considered for additional height and additional. So those are some of the areas that we can consider as part of phase two. But that again, as Director Dan mentioned, that's not within the scope of phase one. But the phase two as it's currently contemplated doesn't involve any sort of mapping. It's just with respect to the ZOM. So this is phase one. The CPAM doesn't have a second phase. It's this is our shot. No, CPAM does have a CPAM component, but CPAM component in phase two, the phase two doesn't have, does have CPAM, Phase II C-POM does not have a mapping component, is what I'm trying to say. For us to look at incentivizing and strategic location in parts of the county where we think that data center is appropriate and we could support additional height because of surrounding industrial uses, whatever that case may be. There are areas, the scope for Phase 2 is brought in for that purpose. There are opportunities for us to consider additional Work to look into as part of it. Perhaps something we can consider as we're looking at a lot of Disincentive here where we can park the Consideration for incentives and where that might fit into our Process. Thank you. We'll go second round, that's it then. Commissioner Meyers. I have three quick things, well four quick things. Number one, I had asked at the briefing for this and I still haven't seen it. I've been told that there was a study done by economic development that talked about data centers and where we wanted them to go and strategic solve them. I know it wasn't just me, I think several other commissioners that asked for that information, and that's not been provided. I wanna make sure that we get that information because I wanna have the discussion about not only where they shouldn't go, but where they should go. Whether other people wanna have the debate or not, I wanna have the debate. Number two, I also want, and you don't have to give it to me tonight, but I'm not voting on anything until I know what the special exception conditions are for what I'm asking people to do. I don't need it to be that somebody wants to just see it go across their desk. I need to know what the special conditions are that we're looking for people to do. Number three, I'd like us to also definitely have a discussion because, and Port, Mashaun has left or he would say yes please. We continue to have a debate when it comes to data centers, is it heights or is it stories? And what are they? As it relates to the different place types, I want us to look at that and get that clarified so going forward. We don't continue every time somebody comes in, is it 60 feet, is it three stories? Is it 45 feet, is it 60 feet? Is it three stories? Is it 45 feet? Is it one story? I want us to make sure that we have that also looked at. So when we're looking at that, we have that to look at also. And then I also want to make sure that we have a discussion about grandfathering, which I don't expect we will get in tonight. And then lastly, just a comment. I mean, this county put hidden wood in the situations it's in. How dare I say they shouldn't have, they should be residential. They have no use left of that property with the 65 and then the road being right in there too. And so if somebody needs to be looked at for not being residential at that area and I also don't think it's appropriate that we're dealing with applications that haven't had a final lock before the board of supervisors and we're downbound in the areas. I'd like us to have a discussion about that also. Thank you. Commissioner Myers, sorry. I am going to, before you respond, I'm going to ask, can we hold statements until after the public comment, there were no questions there. What was I said, let's just get these. Okay. What was that? All right. Let's keep that kind of stuff for afterwards when we've got a motion. We're asking for what we need for our next meeting. I really want to get through the questions really quick. Go ahead. You can respond. Just on the first question, Commissioner Myers. Pitch, 10 of the staff report does talk about mixed reference to the data center study that was conducted by economic development and it also has a link to that at the bottom for that study. I just want to go to the next. Sure, absolutely. We can definitely thank you. Absolutely. Commissioner Banks, questions. I think I know the answer to this, but I just want to make sure, again, I'm trying to wrap my head around this whole thing of going from by right to aspects in certain districts. So again, in industrial park, general industry, mental resources, heavy industry, as I understand it, the only by right use that we're being proposed to change over to aspects right now. Of all the other by right uses in those areas, the only one that we're changing over is aspects right now. Of all the other by-right uses in those areas, the only one that we're changing over is to data centers. Is that correct? Yes. That's correct. And what's the justification for plucking that one out rather than any of the other by-right was there, and was there a comparison about the intensity of uses of any of the other uses? Explain that to me. So the history of this as I'm sure you're gathering is long and complicated. The T-Luck discussion series happened concurrently with the zoning ordain tree, right? The board received their recommendation from T-Luck and added it to the department's work plan to work on the data center uses as a use from a policy and regulatory perspective. The original intention of that, and I believe it's captured in the staff report if it's not, I will find the direct information to give to you. But it was sitting on the work plan and the board gave staff direction not to work on it while the rewrite was happening to finish the rewrite and then to come back and look at the data centers holistically. Originally that proposal was to essentially look at all the things in phase one and phase two as one larger project. It was the board's direction and their concerns over the length of time that would take and what other applications may get submitted and may go through and receive action prior to a larger longer project ending that led them to break this into phase one and to phase two. So it's not that data centers are being picked out just because it would they were picked out four months ago. The board and its transportation land use committee had already identified that this was a growing concern and had started that study and that discussion years ago. It's just that we did not initially plan to break it apart in this way. The thinking initially when they told us to wait was that the rewrite would not touch as many data center standards as it did. And that was partly from the commission requesting that some of those things get added in, that at least when we were working through that project, we weren't anticipating tackling at that time. So we went a little bit further there than we were anticipating. Because of that, the scope of this has changed to looking at those, the effects of those, and if there is anything else, there may not be. If there is anything else that we wanted to look at from policy or standard standpoint, that would be in addition to or tweak to those standards that were in the New Zone in ordinance. I hope that answers your question. Commissioner Kierst, do you have a question? It's just real quick. It's, so most of our discussion up here seems to be what phase two kind of stuff that we're actually wrestling with in order to get to phase one. My understanding of what I'm right, for phase one, the board simply wants us to vote whether data centers should become specs and conditional uses, period. Correct. That's all they want from us is a vote on that. All the rest of it comes later in the mapping changes, but yes, in the mapping changes. Okay. It's as simple as that. Yeah. Well, we're ready then. Let's go. I think you're going to be sorely disappointed. Sorry. We're going to move on to the public hearing portion of the evening because we have a very long list. So with that said, we're going to go ahead and open the public hearing. I am going to ask folks that you please adhere to the three minutes. I have asked staff that once I've told you thank you, sir, or ma'am, they will cut your microphone. Because we will not have time to keep going five minutes with every speaker. So just please bear with us as we try to make time. I'm going to call up the first few people. We'll cue folks up and move quickly. Ray, Chetham Banks, build agenda, matlessly. I don't know. I hear she's a little suspect, but no. I shouldn't say things on my cover. Ha ha ha. Good evening. We welcome all public comments. You know what, well, I signed up first. I signed up first. She knows where to go to sign up. All right, your time starts now Good evening Madame chair members of the planning commission and my husband Jim Banks My name is Ray Cheaton Banks, and I'm here as chair of the Chambers Data Center subcommittee I also happen to work for equinex as head of state and local public policy and government affairs I will be brief. I know that there are a lot of very smart people who want to speak, very passionate people who want to speak about this topic. I want to thank you all for the opportunity to be here this evening, and I want to thank you for all of the hard work that you are currently doing and that you will continue to do on this process. This subcommittee, many members who are here this evening, is made up of a variety of businesses across all sectors who are invested in Loudon, invested in our business-friendly and smart business climate. We are ready and willing to offer the expertise of the committee and its members to craft the best CPAM and ZOM possible. We have spent many, many hours on many, many early morning phone calls. Everyone can attest to talking about this issue, researching this issue, brainstorming this issue. We asked the commission to invite our participation. And the participation from other industry and business stakeholders who have signed up to speak and are here tonight. We want to get this right. from other industry and business stakeholders who have signed up to speak and are here tonight. We want to get this right, we know you want to get it right, and we want to help to get it right. Thank you again for your time. Thank you, Mr. Jonda. Good evening, my name is Bill Jonda. I'm a civil engineer with Gordon, but today I'm here speaking on behalf of NAYOP, even though I am also in the chamber working with Ray mentioned. Nayop's membership is always looking for predictability in the development process. And while we don't support the change of data center to special exception use, I'm not here to debate that. That sounds like it's going to happen and just as what it is. But what we really want to talk about is what the effects are to existing developments, existing investments, existing properties. I also want to note that there were several really good questions by Commissioner Miller and Commissioner Kierce about some of the map changes and how we weren't changing maps to reflect what's on the ground. I actually think staff did an awesome job this summer at the July board public hearing presenting maps that were proposing to change the comp plan, place types to match what's on the ground either existing or pipeline. Fortunately, the board didn't adopt those map changes, but I thought that was a great start to try and match what is actually being constructed and what is being proposed. But more importantly, the proposed zoning amendments result in numerous commercial properties. Basically being stuck without a way to modify, expand, or improve without coming back through a lengthy, lengthy, special exception process, and that's what we're concerned about. Even to implement green energy technologies that I think are really the target of this policy change. Where we are most concerned is that we'll be unable to complete campuses that are already under construction, say a campus has a five building program, three buildings are are already under construction. Say a campus has a five building program. Three buildings are approved and under construction. We might have to come back in first specs for those last two buildings. That seems unreasonable for an investment that's already been made by someone probably in the tune of over a billion dollars on the campus already. You may have seen that the Chamber of Working Group has provided some minor draft amendments to the zoning ordinance text that could help to serve protect these investments from these unintended consequences. We would love the opportunity to work with the commission and ultimately the board. Just like we did on Zor, I think we all put our heads together between industry working groups, the commission, staff, the board last fall. And I heard out a lot of issues, came to a lot of compromises, as everyone could live with. And we want to follow that same path this time around as well. So thank you very much. Thank you. As Matt gets ready, can I also have John Colich and Don Slamon? Go ahead. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission. Thank you for the opportunity to address this evening regarding the proposed data center, ZOM and CPAM. My name is Matt Leslie. I have been a resident of Loudoun County for over 25 years and I serve as the Senior Planning and Development Manager for Bowman Consulting Group where I work alongside more than 40 full-time employees in our Leesburg office. Loudoun County has a well-learned reputation as a pro-business leader thanks in large part to the partnership between county leadership industry and local organizations like the Loudoun Chamber. Business investment is the foundation of Loudoun's thriving economy and data centers have been pivotal to the success. The amendments before you tonight will not only impact the data center industry but will also reverberate across all sectors of Loudoun's economy. My hope is that tonight's collective testimony will make clear that businesses, labor unions and current and potential economic partners are all watching this process closely. With billions of dollars currently invested in ongoing and planned data center projects we must be particularly mindful of how these changes may disrupt existing investments. Any disruption could have long-term consequences on loudens ability to attract and retain business across all economic sectors. Moreover, I urge the Commission to consider whether these amendments align with the goals of the 2019 General Plan, which emphasizes a balanced approach to economic growth, sustainability, and land use. It is critical to ensure that the proposed changes do not hinder the ability of current and future data center projects to meet these established goals. To protect Loudens' business-friendly environment and ensure that we stay on course with the general plan, I strongly encourage the commission to proceed thoughtfully. This process requires careful consideration to avoid unintended consequences that could be detrimental to both the data center industry and the broader economic landscape. To that end, I offer myself, as I know many others do, as willing participants in this process. We stand by ready to assist as needed to facilitate a meaningful and intentional dialogue on this issue. Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission, thank you so very much for your service and dedication to Loudoun County and thank you for your time and attention this evening. Thank you, Sean. Good evening. My name is John College and I'm senior vice president at the BF Saul companies. As you may know, BF Saul has a long history as a landowner and developer in Loudoun, and we're current owners of hotels, shopping centers, office buildings, and raw land across many different zoning districts. I'm here before you this evening to share our concerns with the repose ZOM and CPAM, and the uncertainty they will create for future investment. I will cover two related topics, and it would be grateful to have the opportunity to meet with you individually to discuss them further. Firstly, we're concerned with the level of uncertainty the ZOM and CMC pan will create and the development industry generally, and specifically data center development. The concept that a landowner could have, a by-right development taken away with a blanket special exception approach, sends a terrible message to companies that have invested in Lowne County or are considering to do so. Instead, the ZOM should consider where specific special exceptions for data centers are necessary, similar to the approach recently taken by Fairfax County. Like Fairfax, Loudon could adopt important standards in zoning ordinance that provide additional controls on locations of data centers, their design, screening, noise attenuation, and other aspects of this use, which provide clear restrictions and standards. In contrast, the proposed ZOM and CPAM created creates uncertainty that will unnecessarily impact the data center industry which makes an important contribution to the Loudon County economy. We also share the concerns raised by the Planning Commissioners during the recent briefing. As you stated, it is not clear how the county can adopt special exception process without specific zoning ordinance setting out criteria and applicant would need to satisfy and standards to review against. The state code refers to suitable regulations and safe guards for special exceptions, and the ZOM must set out what they are. Secondly, we also encourage the planning commission to take the opportunity afforded by the CPAM to consider locations where designated place types is no longer suitable and data center uses may provide a more appropriate use. This would further the county's goal of directing data center development to locations where it is appropriate. The BF Saul company has land along the route 28 quarter with suburban mixed-use place type designation that envisions a mix of residential and commercial uses. However, over the years, the properties become surrounded by data centers, substations, flex and warehouse uses which make mixed-use development unrealistic. We request the commission consider changing the place type to suburban employment for future planning and development. We thank you for your dedicated service, and we look forward to the opportunity meeting with you in the future and discussing these issues further. Thank you. Thank you. As Don comes up, can I have Kate Smiley and Pete Homes? Linus. Good evening, Madam Chair and Planning Commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you tonight. My family is residing in this county for over 50 years, rural farm road, 6-11, and a legared farm road on Kerry Pond. But I've been in the lab room for over 40 years. I left the area for 40 years. I worked for the National AFL cell, both internationally and in the states. And my job basically was holding the hands of workers all over this country dealing with deindustrialization. I worked in 39 states where I do rallies to help workers that lost their factory, their mine or their workplace and I just want to compliment you on attracting the best industry for workers that I've ever seen. It's the most unionized industry, just because of the nature of it, organically the continuous operations require skilled labor. And the electricians who I represent, I represent local 26 electrical workers union. And the fitters, the guts of the operation are all union, almost we do about 85% of the work the fitters and plumbers do have done every project but one and also So dependent on power regulated monopoly powers generated and distributed by union labor These are great jobs and there's safe jobs in clean environments You know over in Maryland Frederick Maryland quantum loophole is going to build on the East, COA, aluminum, former Brownfield site. That was 800 aluminum jobs for 39 years. We're going to have over 1,800 electricians working there when it's all completed, just maintaining those buildings. You know, it's not just the construction that we do, and we do 45% of the construction of a data center, but we also have on any given day 30 workers work and every completed data center for six or seven different contractors doing maintenance work. And also because of the economies of scale of this industry being located here, we have eight of our contractors built prefab shops, fabrication shops where we're exporting stuff that we don't use here in these data centers where exporting worldwide and throughout this country. And so, you know, these are six-figure blue-collar production jobs. You know, these are, so what you have done in a practice industry, I really want to applaud you. And because of the growth of my union, you know, we just took in 500 apprentices in August. You know, it's an era in why you learn free to the applicant career. You start at 2480 an hour and when you graduate, you're mixing $62 an hour as a journey person. You're also getting fat hours towards an annuity. You tube dead fine benefit plans, $8 an hour towards the health care for your family. It's almost a $90 package. But we've limited our demands. In Washington state, once had this industry. There were wage demands when so I went down to Oregon. We're not letting that happen. New York used to be the biggest part for data centers because of latency. That's not going to happen. There's a lot of changes in industry and I'm running out of time. Look at Microsoft's Re-Commissioned 3-Maw Island. And people are getting behind the grid to build these things. Do everything you can to keep this industry here. Thank you so much. Thank you. I appreciate your speech talking there. Kate, Smiley, and then Pete, and then Alvnick Broby up next. Good evening. My name is Kate Smiley, and I'm Director of Virginia Government Affairs for the Data Center Coalition, or DCC. DCC is a national membership organization actually based here in Loudon County that includes many of the counties leading data center owners and operators. Data centers in Loudon County create thousands of construction jobs as facilities are built. They provide quality, high-wage jobs that support ongoing operations within the data centers themselves and data centers catalyze a larger ecosystem of small businesses. A recent Northern Virginia Technology Council study showed that the data center ecosystem now provides over 12,000 jobs in Loudoun County alone. The data center industry is especially beneficial to the county from a tax perspective. That NVTC study showed that in Loudoun County data centers pay $26 for every dollar of local public services required. That's a 26 to 1 ratio. For comparison, fiscal benefit to cost ratios for other types of commercial development rarely exceed 4 to 1. 26 to 1 versus 4 to 1. That's pretty extraordinary. The study also found that data centers fund about $4,600 per resident and locally funded county expenditures. This growing source of revenue helps the county fund schools, parks, libraries, and other community priorities. And considering the opportunity to grow data center investment in the county, we would note that phase one of the pending CPM, CPM, ZOM will have a number of negative consequences for both existing and future data center projects. Innovation drives this industry and our members continue to lean in on efforts to increase efficiency and reduce and mitigate any environmental and community impacts as technology solutions and enhancements evolve. Flexibility to consider additional on-site generation and energy storage options on data center sites as technology's developed is important and an area where county leaders have expressed strong interest. However, the proposed changes before you would ultimately hinder this type of innovation particularly for existing facilities looking to modernize. Additionally, phase one of the pending CPAMZOM lacks clarity on a number of key fronts. We believe that if a special exception is to be required, data center applicants, county staff and residents alike should have a much more defined understanding of what standards must be met. It is our understanding that staff is proposing for the current chapter four standards to apply, with more standards to be determined in phase two. We believe that the standards the county intends to apply to data centers via the special exception process should be established in conjunction with the requirement to go through the special exception process. Furthermore, applicants currently in the pipeline should have a clear grasp of whether the rules will change for them. Midsream should the special exception amendment get adopted. To that end, we respectfully suggest that projects currently under review should get legacy status and continue to be evaluated by current standards. We are appreciative of the opportunity to offer comments this evening and welcome further dialogue regarding these proposed changes to guarantee the best possible outcome for loud and county residents, businesses, and data center owners and operators. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Pete. Hello, good evening, and thank you for this opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Pete Homm and I live in Waterford. I work for CloudHQ, a local data center developer. I've been working in commercial real estate projects in Loudness since 2006. In 2016, I started working in the data center industry in Wish I had started sooner. Before that, I grew up in Fairfax County and lived there until 2016 when I moved to Loudon. I love living here and now raising my family here. My three kids go to Loudon County Schools and my family and I are involved in many community events and enjoy being part of the community and giving back. Cloud HQ has similar values and has sponsored many events in Waterford. Every spring, Cloud HQ and the architects, engineers, and contractors that work for us have sponsored the Waterford Foundation 5K. The foundation uses that money to protect the history and open space of Waterford. By the way, the Waterford Fair is coming up October 4th through the 6th. Please go. It's a fantastic event. Over the years, I have met many of my neighbors at community events and through my kids' school events, Cub Scouts there are many sports teams. While talking with my neighbors, I've learned that many of them are directly or indirectly involved in the data center community or industry. For example, one of my neighbors started his own structural engineering company specializing in data centers. He started out just as himself just a few years ago and now continues to grow and hire more people. I have many other examples like that. Just yesterday I participated in industry golf tournament that raised $50,000 for loud and based Boulder Crest Foundation, a nonprofit that helped military veterans and first responders in need in Blumon. Over the years I have encouraged many others to join the growing industry and I'm proud that Loudon is home to such an amazing industry. I'm proud of the work that we do and the tax base that we create. Also creating highly technical and high paying jobs and every day I'm amazed to get that I get to work with the smartest people I've met over my 25 years in my career. We should all be proud of that loud and is the global leader of the data center industry. I look forward to the time when my kids and their friends also find a well-paying job in this industry. I ask that you take the necessary time to consider the decisions you are making. As the loudest complaints do not necessarily represent the greater public. There are many others that live and work in loud and appreciate what the data center industry has to offer and has provided for their families. I am one of them. Thank you. Thank you. Can we also have Kat Schmotzer and Theos Demadas come up? Go ahead. Good evening. Nick Roby with Dialectric. I'm here to just have concerns with the new rules that are coming out for the, what's been published or what's been had a conversation about it today about currently employee 2000 employees of the 2000 employees here roughly 88% of those are in the data center industry and of those 88% of the industry 40% of those are loud and counting residents. And if you do that math and you figure with $50 a day, five days a week, 4.33 weeks a month, times 12 months a year, that's $2.4 million, roughly to the local community, offices, small business. And we're concerns about unemployment. If some of the data center market goes away, unemployment rises in the county. So we just have concerns about what we see. We're hearing, we just know that we're here to hire the public. We go to high schools. We go to all the job fairs in Loudoun County to hire the local high school children. They want to work in their hometown and we want to work close to home. And we're here to employ them. And thank you. Thank you. Hello. My name is Kat and this is my first meeting ever attended but I am a senior project manager for holder construction and I've worked in Loudon County since 2016 after graduating from college and I've been in data centers the entire time and it's rare to work for such a large general contractor across the entire country and And it's rare to work for such a large general contractor across the entire country and to stay in the same place for eight years, let alone two years as our normal timeline. And so being in data centers in the growth of this industry has allowed me to call the DMV my home this entire time. And specifically, I work for holder, but I work with the Cloud HQ program for the past six years years. And through them I've been able to develop great relationships with our trade partners, local businesses, and have really seen a really valuable impact for data centers in this community. On site on the project that I'm on which is one of the areas that was brought up today that could have been re-zoned or can be re-zoned, we've over 1,300 workers that come to site every single day. And that they are from around the DMV and they are coming just to work on one data center. We surpassed over 3 million man hours on site which is the hours that we have workers on the project which is an amazing milestone. And so every single day on site we have three to four food trucks, we have breakfast and lunch is brought in for different meetings. We have coffee and ice cream trucks even every few weeks for the workers as recognition and appreciation for their hard work on site. We're dedicated to the community, we're dedicated to the workers on site, and we host multiple women in construction events. Women in construction is very important. Cloud HQ had a breakfast last year. In this past March, we had over 130 trades women that were present at that breakfast. And that was the largest trades women breakfast that holder had across our entire company. And in the DMV, DC specifically makes up 17.6% of construction is women, which is an amazing statistic. It's the largest across the entire country. And construction has one of the best pay equities across the entire job force at 96%, which is still low, but it's a great, great set to have. And so with that, we really support the data centers in Lawn County. We've been able to see that growth myself included. And we love sharing what we do every day with the community. Next week we have 50 students coming up from Mississippi State University for the second year in a row and they are overwhelmed by the size of the project and the workforce that we have out here especially compared to the workforce that they have back around their university. So the world is growing because of data centers and we appreciate the efforts for your group to continue having these efforts in Laudan County. Thank you guys. Thank you. As we get ready to hear from the Chamber, can I also have Chris Tandy and Will McLaughlin come up. Good evening Madam Chair. Members of the Planning Commission, my name is Theo Stamadas with the Loudoun County Chamber of Commerce. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the data center, ZOMC PAM this evening. Reputation is paramount in Loudoun County. Together with the Loudoun Chamber, local leaders have built a globally recognized pro-business environment. Business investment is essential to our economy and data centers have been crucial to this investment landscape. Changes to regulations affecting this single industry will send ripples across all sectors, businesses, labor unions, and strategic partners will take notice. Billions of dollars are currently being invested in ongoing or planned days in a projects and to protect Loudens reputation and economy we urge this commission to take necessary time to ensure these zoning amendments are thoughtfully considered Avoiding any rushed decisions that could lead to unintended consequences The loud chamber has two primary concerns regarding the ZOMC PAM that we believe weren't careful attention. First, we advocate for a thoughtful process. We oppose a blanket conversion of data centers to conditional and special exception uses across all districts. Making data centers a conditional use without including the conditions where data centers are appropriate gives businesses no guidance and no certainty. Instead, we move forward and support approach that combines both phase one and phase two. We understand that the community concerns. The board of supervisors are trying to address and agree that data centers are not appropriate in every location. In areas where they are appropriate, we encourage a more surgical approach to meet the community's needs. The Chamber endorses the establishment of performance standards within the zoning ordinance to protect residential areas and vital view sheds. We are open to engaging in discussions around renewable energy incentives, onsite generation, battery energy storage, concepts outlined into advisor turners, white paper. Collaborating in additional work sessions will not only help maintain Loudoun's pro business reputation, but also position that can be as a leader in the digital environmental revolution. Second, it is essential to protect existing campuses. If the board decides to classify data centers as special exception uses and all zoning districts. We strongly urge the county to respect and protect data center developments. Achieving our goals requires that these facilities be allowed to modernize and adopt more environmentally friendly practices. As currently drafted, and relocation or expansion of a building on a good and existing or approved campus would trigger a special exception. Madam Chair, we advocate and we stand ready. We're eager to assist in drafting language to support this approach, and we are ready to work with you all, the county, this commission, the business community to get the best product. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Greetings, planning commission. I'm Chris. I work with several nonprofit climate groups and various environmental coalitions, commissions and committees, but I'm here to speak only for myself today. I'm here to support the amendments to the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance that would make it harder to build data centers in Latin. I don't see data centers as the harmless and risk-free money tree that some do seem to suggest that they are. Data centers are gobbling up huge amounts of land and going into places that people don't want them like near residential areas, near malls, along reach 7, and then even saw one application that would have been near the metro station. Their construction is numerous environmental problems related to waterways and impervious surfaces, but I'm gonna focus on air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. They're consuming an incredible amount of energy causing loud and imprints, William counties, to be the only counties in Nova that are increasing their greenhouse gas emissions and data centers are causing Virginia to fail to comply with the Virginia Clay Economy Act. We're supposed to be reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but instead we're building new fossil fuel energy generation facilities and delaying the decommissioning of coal plants elsewhere on the PGM grid. The county's 2023 energy plan sets the county government on a track to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the county government operations. We should have the same approach to businesses within the county and data centers are the big offender preventing load and from reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I'm sure that you've heard before that climate change is already killing people. We might be doing okay here, but millions globally are facing food insecurity leading to malnutrition and death. Last just yesterday was reading about extreme weather in Balaui leading to floods and then cholera outbreaks and food insecurity. I certainly don't lay the entire problem at your feet, but it occurs to me that there's a certain moral implication of failure to act locally to reduce green and scous emissions. Personally, I find it depressing that we've allowed this county to be taken over by data centers where some business focused folks see great success I see failure of the county as the county gets taken over by hideous person like bitlings that devalue people's properties Eliminate habitat for wildlife create the need for additional and unwanted energy infrastructure and hurt people's quality of life We're two business friendly and it's a consequence this industry is recklessly exploiting the weakness of the county zoning and permitting rules. Now data centers are starting to do this microgrid thing, which I don't think is a good idea. There's a vantage data center in sterling with on-site natural gas generation, via a simple cycle to gas turbines. That data center is permitted to emit total of 169 tons of particulate matter per year, 95 tons per year, nitrogen oxides, 42 tons of volatile, or again, compounds, 41 tons of carbon monoxide, 19 tons of sulfur dioxide. That's direct air pollution. It's not counting emissions from electric generation from the grid from a single data center These blutes and hot pollutants harm human health They're caused lung disease heart disease premature births their air pollutants reduce the quality and length of people's lives Please do more to control data centers in the county We shouldn't have by right. It's ridiculous to have by right anywhere in the county. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Will McLaughlin here? Okay, you are. All right, in Anthony Solis and Tony Calabries. Good evening, my name is Will McLaughlin, if my shirt didn't give it away. I am one of the founding partners of Americans, formerly known as GI Johns. A service is able to better known small business that provides portable toilet services and headquartered here in Northern Virginia. I'm here to provide another perspective on the impact of data centers. Since our humble beginnings four years ago, myself, my partner, Patrick Ford, a single use truck, and our commitment to make a difference on veteran outcomes through mission-driven capitalism, we have grown to support 60 Northern Virginia families with full-time, full benefit and employment. From inception, Americans mission has been twofold. First, hire as many veterans and community members from the areas we serve as possible, and second, to support gold star families. That is, the immediate families of service members who died in service of this country. Whether we can impact one or 100 veterans, our mission is to make a difference. In line with our primary mission, 15 of our current employees are veterans themselves. Additionally, we count several more as the single alumni of our company who used us as a rally point to gather themselves in repatriation to non-military life, more on that later. In pursuit of our second mission, our small business has donated just over $287,000 to date in support of Gold Star families directly underwriting those fallen members, children's, educations, or programs providing family support services. The success of Americans and our ability to support Northern Virginia families and impact veterans' causes as a direct result of the extensive opportunity we are afforded working on projects like Loudoun County Data Center Construction. Their work enables our work. I would also like to share a perspective on a topic that I believe we are uniquely qualified to comment on. Work or welfare, it was touched on earlier. Because they use us to provide the toilets. As you know, these sites may accommodate many hundreds of workers at a time. The standards set and demanded by the owners, general contractors and subcontractors, executing these types of projects in terms of safety and worker accommodation, is absolutely unparalleled in the industry. We have worked on hundreds of job sites across the DMV for scores of different contractors. None of them have the focus on worker comfort and safety that the data center community has. They afford thousands of skilled workers and on the job experience that exponentially eclipses the experience of their counterparts and other industry sectors. Their peers should take notes. As a takeaway testament to the impact this ecosystem has beyond the status quo that is familiar to this cohort, I would like to provide the following testament from one of our veteran employees whose employment, in part, was because of data center impact on our business. I am an Army veteran who served this country for 15 years and served multiple tours to Iraq and Afghanistan. I am proud of my time in service, but I also suffered from PTSD from my combat exposure and ended up landing me with legal issues. When Will and Pat heard about my story, they didn't even know who I was, just that I was a vet who had fallen, and they reached out to help me back on my feet. A stranger but a fellow brother in arms. Excuse me, please let me finish. I'll be done in 30 seconds. They always made me feel part of a team and work shoulder to shoulder the true definition of leadership. What they did helped me get my fight back and now I'm going from a master's degree in operations management. Though I have since moved on from the company, they have been nothing but supportive. I am now married and working as a project manager living my best life all because I reached out a helping hand. I will always be grateful and will always have the most sincere respect for Americans. Please consider the aforementioned data center communities commitment to work or experience their impact on our mission and this preceding statement to its impact on one life as you determine your decision. Thank you for your time in consideration. I'm sorry, Laura. Thank you. My name is Chair and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Tony Solis and I'm a business agent for Columbus and Gasparers Local 5. And I'm a Lord on County resident for 21 years. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you about the data center's zoning amendment, comprehensive plan amendment this evening. Locke 5 in collaborating with the or sister Locke or Steve Fitor, 602, has been at the forefront of building and maintaining data centers in Lado Cany, since its inception. Or members, numbering in the thousands have been instrumental to this development. Data centers has provided members with value career training opportunities to grow under craft and opportunities to county residents to join a work class close to home. Work is not just in the construction of the building, but in the maintenance upgrades and retrofitting needed over the years after the opening. Data centers help keep property taxes low, provide the service that county residents want and need and make ladder county affordable places to live and raise family. They are the beacon of hope for the community future. Change being proposed to affect all these, the change will politicize event, the most routine decision can cause delays and additional cause for developers. Data centers, developers who don't want to deal with the hassle of the change will decide to build a different market. This will impact not only the membered by moving their jobs to other states or jurisdictions, but also myself and my brothers and sisters from labor who live and work in this county. It's risk, race and taxes and the Chris County service. Thank you. Thank you. As Tony comes up, can we have John Ellis and Mary Turpeck? Happy full honorable commissioners. Tony Calibri is our remaining proud run resident and partner of DLA back to the maps and ordinance for just a minute. I respectfully urge you to reconsider the elimination of the urban employment place type. Healthy discussion had earlier. As the staff notes, these areas are entirely populated with existing or in process data centers. I remember very well the deliberations from 19. Changing the place type designation of these lands to the urban transit center as many of you heard and a number of you strongly asserted during our recent fund filled black chamber case along with 28, which is in the other UTC area, will make it virtually impossible for the structure of these facilities to evolve up date or modern arts. Either you don't adopt this change or you create specific standards, carefully crafted parameters where data centers might be appropriate. For example, in the fringe of the UTC, if you're a mile away from a metro station, have you a mixed use development? That's the type of thing a planning commission should absolutely do. Surgical excellent well said and in fact several of you made those recommendations Mr. Miller vice chair and Mr. Banks joined the black chamber deliberations Well quite a bit of the employment area Is proximate to the gateway station and makes it seem easy to do the UTC type and to demarcate it accordingly for transit oriented development. The staff report reminds us and as you all deliberated earlier, a good portion, probably 55-60% of that is in the Dallas Airport runway noise contours that's specifically prohibit residential. Dallas Airport and turnways aren't going anywhere. When the associated noise contours prohibit the type of high density residential development that the UTC embraces. So adoption of this change is currently proposed, means no meaningful exterior improvements to data centers. It means no residential and those noise contours, I don't think the county wants to take that on or be like Fairfax. So what remains, industrial uses in the UTC, that doesn't make sense, are thriving office, hotel or retail markets, I don't think so. So none of these uses, particularly without the energy of residential, are going to occur in those areas, whether that's intended or unintended consequences, it's something that's certainly before this planning commission. Adaption of these proposals again means no real viable development there and I think Mr. Kieres hit the nail in the head in terms of these discussions. I don't have time but to note that a similar situation exists along reach 28, as Mr. College pointed out, no expel of order and Gloucester Parkway where you've got a number of areas designated for suburban mix use which have gone the way of data centers. So I hope you are surgical about it. When combined with the proposed requirements for the special exception, the IPGI and Mr. High Districts, these place type designations amount to a down planning and down zoning targeted specifically, as Mr. Banks pointed out, at the single most viable industry in the county and our region Arguably in the country. You've heard a lot about legacy and grandfathering appreciate your thoughtful consideration. Thank you for your valuable time Good evening commissioners. I'm John all of a I am representing Savile Loudon which has board members in the Sterling, Leesburg and Ketakton districts. And I'm of course speaking on the item before you right now. I out in five, we're literally getting to the data centers. And we wanted to comment specifically on the discussion that you had in your September 12th work session. We certainly compliment you for the diligence you've showed in considering the interests of the data center industry. But it sometimes feels like we're on different planets. As many of you know, and certainly the supervisors know, in many recent hearings, community meetings and taxi rides for some of my colleagues, citizens have raised a range of concerns about the impacts of data center development on their livelihoods, their health, and their quality of life. It seems strange to us that none of these issues came up in your last work session. Commissioners did mention that you would like to have more support from Mr. Reiser and from the Chamber of Commerce as well as more information on airport noise, which might be useful in arguing that the county should not put any additional restrictions on data center development. But there was no discussion in that meeting of other equally legitimate issues such as how screening requirements affect actual noise levels off the data center properties, how continuous diesel generator testing affects air quality, or quality in health, how the consumption of a billion gallons of potable water per year may affect public water rates and actual supplies. How land price inflation affects the growth of other loudened businesses and other potential employers, how the growth of other loved businesses and other potential employers. How the shortage of renewable power generation and our region affects the county's climate change goals. And how replacing green spaces with data centers affects nearby homeowners, property values, and quality of life. Data center investors are understandably concerned about uncertainty. So our tens of thousands of residents who have no idea where the next power line is going to come in or how high their electricity and water bills are going to go. The purpose of zoning is to balance the interests of individual landowners with the interests of citizens who are impacted by their projects. In your upcoming discussions, we encourage the commission to adopt a well-balanced approach to this project. Thank you. Thank you. I just marry here. Okay. I'm going to move on to Erin Walter. I'm a citizen of Loudoun County. I'm here to say I don't think data centers should be by right in this county. I think they should all be by special exemption. I think that because I think they should all be by special exemption. I think that because I think the county needs to be able to control it not at a macro level and we need more control over this industry in general. I have three main points on this topic. One, I'm very concerned about the fact that we're overrelying on a single industry in this county for our tax base. I grew up near Detroit. I will tell you that it does not go well when you have a whole area that is relying on one industry. And we are driving other industries out of this county with the land rates that the data centers are charged. So we need to get some control over making sure it's not just one single industry program lying on here. Number two, the county is responsible for overseeing infrastructure needs like water and power, just like they do for roads and schools. In order to do that, for the data centers, they require infrastructure, they require water and massive amounts of power. You cannot do that unless you have control over each one. Each data center can require a lot of power individually. You need to approve each one and understand what each one plans to use. Number three, the citizens of this county, I mean, if you guys don't know this, it's an average single newspaper. The citizens of this county, people who live here, they want more ability to speak out against, you know, each individual data center. They want to understand where it's placed and be able to talk to our elected officials about that. And I think that that is what we elect you to do. So again, no data centers by right in the county at all, all my special exemption. Thank you. Thank you. Noreen? Nope. Tom? You're up. I'm going to go to the committee. Noreen. No, Tom. You're up. While you come up, I'll take Robert Badger and Jim Bingle. Good evening. My name is Tom Donahue. I retired electrical engineer living in the Tocton district for the past 37 years. I'm here to support special zoning exceptions in order to give the board of supervisors the flexibility to shape the impact of data centers on the county at large. I recognize that the county cannot make zoning determinations on the basis of power availability. But the county should consider the impact of the de facto rezoning of our properties for the electric power infrastructure needed to support data centers. This is a land issue, a land use issue just as much as noise and visual appearance. The impact extends well beyond the hundreds of feet that you typically discuss. The chief planner of the regional transmission operator, PGM, has told me that as long as Virginia builds data centers without also building the necessary local power generation, PGM is required by law to keep building transmission lines to ensure reliable stable power in the region. PGM last December decided that we need three more 500 kilovolt transmission lines to come here from outside the county and also decided that we need to build a 500 kilovolt distribution loop connecting the planned aspen, golden mars and wishing star substations. All of that is just to get us through 2027. In January of this year, PGM forecast based on the need requests provided so far by Dominion that data center load usage in Virginia over the next six years will triple. Because of this expected growth, PGM already has determined that the transmission expansion approved last December will be insufficient to get us through 2029. Therefore, PGM in July opened a new expansion planning cycle and last week posted the initial 94 proposals from energy companies to meet this growing need. The PGM board will vote on these in February. Those proposals include a new substation, a point of rocks in Maryland, and up to two possible transmission lines from as far away as the West Virginia Ohio border, cutting across the Blue Ridge, sweet run state park, between the hills in Northern Loudon. One of these power lines would be a 765 kill-of-volt line that by itself would expand the existing right-of-way in Northern Loud and by 200 feet using giant V-shaped lattice towers with guy wires. The other line would be a third, 500-kilovote line in northern loud and 175-foot tall monopoles. Looking ahead, state regulators will pay attention to how the county does zoning and designates preferred infrastructure zones in the CPAM. The county needs to consider new local power generation if we're going to continue to grow like this. Treating data centers as special exceptions will provide an essential tool for the county to manage the impact of overall infrastructure development. As a final note, as a citizen, I can't tell what is already settled for infrastructure requirements and what requirements are still to be considered. I can't tell how much land could still be cleared, claimed for data centers. It is not clear to me who in government or industry has a complete picture. Thank you for your efforts. Thank you. Mr. Bradger, you're up. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, Adam Cher. My name is Bob Badger and I'm a civil engineer with over 45 years of planning, designing construction experience. When we were looking for a place to live in Northern Virginia, we were very impressed with Loudon County and its thoughtful approach to planning and development. The adilic setting that this visionary approach has produced commits to us that Loudoun County was the right place for us to invest our life savings and a retirement community in Ashburne and we love it. However, we've since learned that the ongoing explosive development of data centers in Lawn County is destined to undo all of that in safer planning if not managed more carefully. Data centers not only impose a significant demand on power, water, and infrastructure. They can also impose permanent, irreversible, visual, air, and noise impacts to existing residential communities. Why data centers? Data centers are a new land use. It's not an office building, it's not an industry. They need to be treated differently and more appropriately. We heard tonight that data center growth was anticipated. It was promoted and encouraged. The county is now trying to deal with this unsustainable dilemma and needs to find a way out. It needs a new plan, ASAP. The first step in closing the floodgates is to restrict the unconstrained development of by-right data centers, especially in residential areas. Our community is within 100 feet of a potential by-right data center that will be 60 feet high. Is a planning review too much to ask? Only through thoughtful context appropriate planning reviews can the county prevent future obliteration of our in-neighbored's, view sheds and natural resources. This action isn't going to stop data centers, but hopefully it will prevent, to help avoid, conflicts with residents. We are asking the county to exercise its authority and take this critical initial step to implement these reasonable review requirements that are being proposed to better identify and understand the far reaching impacts associated with future data center development that will prevent further impacts to residents. Please take this critically important proactive action now. Thank you. Thank you. As Jim comes up, I will call Tier Airmen as well. Good evening, Chair Frank. Sorry. And Planning Commissioner Skittle. I'm Jim Vingo speaking for the Piedmont Environmental Council. We support the proposed phase one changes to the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. The place type changes clarify where data centers are envisioned and not and that data centers will only be a conditional use where allowed. The ZoAM implements that conditional approach. The board previously made data centers a special exception use in most zoning districts and subject to public review. This amendment just covers a few zoning districts that were left out upon adoption of the zoning ordinance update in December and closes the loop for heightened board control over data center development on a case by case basis. We are confident that the board initiated C-Pam and ZOM are necessary, legal and permissible as developed by staff with guidance from the county attorney. It's clear there's a lot of interest including ours in what happens in phase two, but let's leave that to later. It's now an inescapable fact that Loudoun needs to get a handle on data center development. In an industry racing to win in a global market with an insatiable demand, the county is overrun by data centers with ever more being introduced. There is no balance in Loudoun's commercial market whatsoever. The staff report on Loudoun's data center square footage built and pipeline and the pace is mind blowing. This is not the orderly development that residents expect. The surgical approach that you've been asked to consider when loud is being bomb-barded with data centers is mismatch. the conditions for approval of special exception applications that staff included in their report was a helpful reminder of the considerations that apply to all special exception applications. These are the same considerations used with every application no matter the type. Finally, we strongly believe that special exception and all of these elements for consideration must be applied evenly across the county regardless of location in data center alley on the edge of the suburban policy area in the TPA or JLMA. No matter where it is, additional growth of the industry will increase the future economic risk of loudens dependence on the data center sector. We ask you to focus on the direct impacts of the excessive data center growth in Loudon and all of the negative impacts to the residents health, safety and welfare and approve this first phase soon to start that process. Thank you. Good evening commissioners. I'm Tia Irman, a representative of the PEC and an 18-year resident of Loudoun County. During your September 12th work session, I listened closely and heard a great deal of concern from this body for the impacts this long anticipated CPAMZOM could have on the data center industry. What I had hoped to hear was a discussion of the residents, this industry has already negatively impacted. The communities, it has transformed and the opportunities, this initiative, presents to improve the situation. Also lacking was a discussion of the extensive risk and liability laden is assuming by allowing one industry to become so dominant. The extensive infrastructure buildout, data centers uniquely require and the resulting transformation of our suburban communities, all to back our financial future on a highly adaptive, rapidly changing tech industry. Land-use impacts generated by data centers include air and water quality, impervious cover and runoff, community character alteration, and loss of acres to extensive energy infrastructure including transmission lines and substations. Each additional rezoning approved with transmission lines overhead today increases the need for additional transmission lines through residential communities and rural regions tomorrow. As we heard in the SEC hearings last week, Appalachian Power is looking to modify its large power service tariff on hyperscale loads to ensure its monumental infrastructure investment in this rapidly changing industry is viscally sound. So too, should Loudon be considering the long-term return and risk associated with this level of dedicated land use and fiscal dependence? When we invest so highly and devote so many properties, it is Loudon County assuming the risk. In the 1990s and 2000s, data centers were an economic diversity mechanism. In the 2010s, they helped fund the development of Ashburn. But the world is not a frozen moment in time, and today we each project approve now represents a real opportunity cost for what Loudon is turning away. We have lost all sense of balance, and what future ventures and new businesses we are leaving no space for pricing out and driving away. Certainly some options unlikely to necessitate so much additional tax payer funded infrastructure. With three more applications totaling three million square feet up this evening alone later tonight, Data Center development has not slowed. On September 12th, every commissioner disclosed a meeting with data separate representatives and loud and chamber of Congress. The industry is clearly aware and responsive to these proceedings. It is time for the board to initiate a change to our county's guiding documents, which staff has developed carefully with county attorney approval. These changes are legal, permissible and needed. So we hope you will support these updates. Thank you. Before I call for anyone else in the room, I do want to go to the remote speakers who did sign up in advance as a courtesy to them. If they've managed to hold on this long, do we have any speakers still online remotely? We do. Okay. Do we have Natalie Pee? Yes, I'll put her through. Thank you. Hello. My name is Natalie Pee and I urge you to support C10 2024 501 in Zellum 2024, 001. I have lived in Latin County for over 40 years in the new Little River District. Hello commissioner Jasper. I'm honor to serve on the board of directors for both the Piedemont Fire Memorial Council as well as the Chesapeake Climate Action Network. And I'll make a second committee for the Sierra Club Great Paul's Group. Today I'm speaking on my own behalf and my most important role as grandmother, the three very young girls, aged nine months, one year, two and a half years, and a young lady, 10 and a half years old. I am distressed that the world, my granddaughters, inherit from us will be unlivable due to the ravages of climate change. We must act not a mitigate climate change. The authoritative intergovernmental panel on climate change warns that the greenhouse gas emissions must be cut in half by 2030 less than five years from now. It is a very exorbitantly high demand for electricity from the data center industry increases emissions from Virginia and violation of the Virginia Clean Economy Act law and exacerbating climate change. Further, because the loud and county's practice of approving all data center applications, diminution energy could not transmit electricity to data center alley in 2023. The solution with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality air permit variance to ignore air pollution limits and allow data centers to operate 24-7 on highly polluting human health farming is a backup generator. This permit variance made loud and counted and air quality sacrifice zone. They inflate the solution was not implemented, but the significant negative environmental human health climate change and economic impacts burdening loud and counted in northern Virginia are well documented. Most recently data centers have cited a national press as breaking the electrical grid. Clearly data center development business as usual and loud and counted must change ASAP. The Board of Supervisors recognized this in last February initiative the process would create a data center amendments before you today. Baselin will change byright data central land use to special exception land use to allow public input and board approval to ensure protecting loud and county residents and resources. I watched the recording for work session. Many issues for raise creating work bugs to this very important first step to improve the data to a development process. This project would not have been before you if it was not a fewer issues with legitimate. They are not. Not it must not only be pro business, but not it must be pro resident, pro environment and mitigate climate change. Please recommend approval of this application today. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have KC Fisil? Good evening Madam Chair and members of the Planning Commission. My name is KC Fisil and I am the Business Development Executive at Mountain View Solar. Representing a 30-year-old company that began as building contractors and transitioned into solar energy in 2009, we have witnessed firsthand how the development of data centers has allowed us to evolve into a comprehensive energy management company. Sustainable data center development is not a business opportunity for us but a passion, and we believe Loudon County is uniquely positioned to lead in this area. This discourse is inspired by the collaborative efforts of the Chamber's Data Center subcommittee and the invaluable contributions of my colleagues and the renewable energy sector including our ESCO partners, data center operators, utility providers, and renowned energy academics from around the globe. The data center is owning a amendment and comprehensive plan amendment currently uses blanket language that hinder existing campuses from developing further without additional approvals. It is essential to allow these campuses to amend their plans and implement routine changes that enhance sustainability without requiring a special exception. Routine changes consist of integrating battery energy storage systems into existing facilities, adding accessory buildings that support renewable energy initiatives, and modifying building designs to reduce footprints and improve energy efficiency, which should not require a special exception for every minor change. Additionally, I want to highlight the need for clarity in the zoning ordinance regarding renewable energy solutions. Currently, the language restricts onsite generation and battery energy storage. We propose allowing ons-site accessory battery storage as a standalone use and adding on-site generation as an accessory use for data centers. This will not only support our goals for sustainability but also align with the board's objectives for energy innovation. We have a unique opportunity to lead in sustainable data center development. By promoting renewable energy incentives and innovative solutions, we can set a global precedent. The challenges posed by data centers will persist, so we must address them proactively rather than shifting them to neighboring communities. Data center growth is not expected, it is inevitable, and loud and county is the world's hub an example to follow by. Future grid resiliency depends on decentralization. Immediate county wide renewable incentives for data centers, commercial industrial, agricultural and residential applications are crucial. Loudon has vast untapped roof top space that could sport these efforts. For the restrictions on sustainable data center development completely misaligned and even contradicts our county's renewable energy goals. In closing, I urge the commission to carefully consider these amendments. Transitioning to sustainable data center development and energy solutions requires meticulous planning and collaboration. Rushing these decisions can hinder our progress towards a greener future. Let's ensure our strategies are clear and comprehensive, allowing – loud and county to set a benchmark in renewable energy and sustainability. Together, we can create a resilient energy landscape that meets both current needs and those of future generations while keeping our local ecosystems in mind and remaining eco-conscious. Thank you for your time this evening. I look forward to collaborating with the county and other stakeholders to create sustainable future. Thank you. Daniel Nadler? Danielle? Yes, hi there. Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the Planning Commission. Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak. I'm speaking on the Data Center zoning amendment and comprehensive plan amendment this evening. It's certainly not new news to any of us at the Data Center's in our county, truly help support and build a strong tax base. But what is lesser known is the willingness of many data centers to give up their time, talent, and treasure to help loud these youngest residents. I am the executive director at the Loud and Education Foundation and really truly can attest to the generosity and support of so many data centers including Amazon Web Services, Google, Equinex, Microsoft. They've partnered with the Logna Education Foundation to invest and work for development programming that connects LCPF students' interest with career opportunities. They also give both money and volunteer hours to serve the county's most vulnerable students. They support LES, which is a loud education foundation's fuel program, which provides we can mail to more than 2,000 students each week. And the data centers are some of our best partners both showing up for volunteer events, coming to help cover the cost of food for the students. So we're just thankful for them as partners. I think the commission for your thoughtfulness is really important matter. And I guess my request is really that the commission takes its time to get this right with the goal of maintaining loud and counties business-friendly reputation. So thank you so much for hearing me out. Appreciate it. Thank you. Do we have Dorna Tantor? Yes, I'm here. All right, go ahead. Great, good evening. I'm Dorna Tantor from Waterford, and I'm here to support the proposed amendments to the CPAM and ZOM. This technology is changing at light speed and we were all surprised by how big and power hungry the new data centers are. We just saw a graph of the growth of the square feet of data centers and we're out of time. Large sections of eastern loud and are unrecognizable, all huge love buildings, and despite our web of transmission lines, while western loud and struggling with the transmission lines needed to feed the data centers. Data centers have been great for Moutain but the situation has changed. Watching the work session I heard a lot of concern about rushing new standards about making decisions that would surprise specific landowners not knowing the economic impact of making these amendments and concern about making decisions that were not relevant to the whole county. These are legitimate concerns but all those concerns are playing out right now. If you're concerned about changing things out from under landowners each new data center already does that. The effects of each new data center are wide ranging on air, water, and of course power. As others have pointed out, citing transmission lines is a land use issue. I was certainly surprised when I found out that the originally proposed route of the Western Loudon Transmission Line could render many farms, including my own farm, which is my career unusable. My farm was started in 1786, so I think that qualifies as grandfathered. My neighbors were surprised that they would have lost so much of their like savings that had been invested in their homes, just as an eastern loud and Virginia academy was surprised to find their expansion threatened by the Aspen to Gold and Transmission Line. Wherever the western loud and line is finally built it won't be enough. More lines and substations are coming. As to the data centers themselves, hidden wood made the experience of living near a new data center David to all of us. I could list a million other things. I can't understand why we the residents have to live with that uncertainty in order to protect the data center industry from uncertainty. Perhaps our things are less important than the investments of some of the wealthiest corporations in the world. I also heard concerns that we haven't studied the economic effects of making these changes. I don't believe the answer is to let the current economic effects play out faster than we can understand. It's exponential growth of a powerful new industry. One thing we all know is that it's risky to base so much of the county revenue on an industry that was unimaginable a few years ago and whose future we don't know. The amendments to the CPAM and ZOM are long overdue and sorely needed. The work began in 2022. There are already performance standards specifically for data centers and there are guidelines and conditions that apply to all special exceptions. Any changes from phase two will apply when adopted and we are ready to move forward. The residents of Loudoun County deserve an open process for something that is so dramatically affecting their lives. We need these changes to further control data center development and we rely on our board supervisors and the CPAM to protect our quality of life in the overall health of Loudoun County. I don't see any way to keep up with this rapidly changing situation other than having the data centers considered on a case by case basis. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Do we have anyone else joining us remotely tonight? I have one more, Richard Rasmus, ready to speak. All right, go ahead. I'm Richard Rasmus of Hamilton in the Conduct and Gift District. I'm representing the Loudness Future Political Action Committee. We are not opposed to data centers per se, we're deeply concerned about the cumulative effect that there rapid unchecked growth in having on our community. Data centers bring economic value, but the current by-right regulations fall short in enabling the county supervisors to control this growth in a meaningful, sustainable way, a power that is entirely appropriate to the board's duties. The Surgeon Data Center development is straining our electric grid, placing future capacity and stability at risk. This is particularly problematic given the power-hungry nature of these facilities, as well as their proximity to residential areas where they can cause noise, light, and air pollution. We support the direction of these comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance amendments, which aim to allow the board to consider the location, size, and environmental impact of data centers. We especially endorse the move to reclassify data centers as a special exception use, giving the county more oversight to ensure future developments are aligned with community interests and sustainability growth and goals. This phased approach is a positive step in balancing economic growth while protecting the quality of life in loud. We urge you to adopt these amendments to give our board of supervisors the regulatory tools needed to manage data center growth responsibly. To be clear, nothing that's being proposed would affect the existing industry, but rather whether we are going to double again the nearly 50 million square feet we already have or are in the pipeline. Note that the minion energy just announced it expects the time it takes to connect large data centers to the electric grid to increase by one to three years amid a surge in requests, bring the total wait time to as long as seven years. Therefore, there's plenty of time for the board to carefully consider the development of more greenfield sites and push the industry towards better use of existing infrastructure. We will support stronger amendments and updates to the 2019 general plan as phase two of this process unfolds in order to address land use, site and building design, sustainability, energy, water, air, light, and noise pollution policies pertaining to data center uses. Thank you. Thank you. Is that all of our online remote speakers? Yes, it is Madam Chair. All right, great, thank you. Do we have anyone else in the room who would like to speak on this agenda item? Please come up and speak, you'll have three minutes and then stop and fill out a speaker form to my left on your way out. Absolutely. Good evening. My name is Beth Lebella Foster. I'm in the Broadrun District. First I want to thank the staff and everyone involved in drafting and refining the C-PAM and ZOAM reports. Please know how much the residents of Loudon appreciate the work you are doing in trying to come up with a balanced approach to the data center development in our county. We especially appreciate the changes that will enforce common sense restrictions on what has so far seemed to be an industry that has shown little regard to the impact its unprecedented growth has had on our community and state. I came here expecting to see a full court press from the data center industry tonight. There is one reason why they lobbied you so heavily and why they showed up in force tonight and that is because they are scared of the possibility of regulations being placed upon them. Right now, they do whatever they want to do when they are by right property. That needs to change. One of the things that I heard over and over and over again in the comments and from the speakers was that what's going to happen if we do this it's going to drive the data centers away the data center industry will leave because we're putting regulations and restrictions on them. The one thing I didn't hear concern for the residents who live in Loudon County. Only one question was asked about the residents and it was this. Are they even concerned about what's happening in the data center industry to which I want to say talk to the residents of Hiddenwood, talk to the residents of Belmont Country Club. Talk to the residents in my neighborhood. If you who are here from our neighborhood would stand up, these are the faces of people who are directly impacted by what you're doing here tonight and by the data center industry's unregulated growth. It needs to change. We hope these changes once enacted will put an end to the predatory land grabbing tactics that are threatening entire residential neighborhoods and driving up the cost of land to the point where other businesses are priced out of the market. We also hope these changes will stop the rubber stamping of ByRide data centers whose developers now have an entitled Expectation to be approved without drawings or detailed Specifics as to size appearance number of generators set Back details environmental protections noise protections Profor and the like. I witnessed that that rubber stamping at this very same body at the July meeting. I urge you to vote yes on the staff report so that it can move on to the board of supervisors because time is of the essence. Thank you. Thank you. So anyone else in the room that wants to speak on this item before I close the public hearing? Okay. The public hearing is closed. I was so eager to hear what all of you wonderful people had to say. I didn't ask my questions. So I'm going to ask that you all indulge me while I get my three minutes. I know in our packet we have clarification that if a application were to come in for a specs after phase one before phase two is implemented that they would default to the existing zoning ordinance standards and criteria. That's correct, right? Yes. Okay, do we currently have any applications in process under the new zoning ordinance? Everybody's grandfathered in that we've been seeing. I know that's, I didn't expect to answer that question. I asked that question, so I apologize if I surprised you. We don't know we can find that easy. I just wonder because somebody is going to have to be first. Right? And so we don't know if it's broken or if it works great or we just don't know. But we do have these standards in place. They've been in place since December of last year. So if I'm going to go down to what if scenario, if we said whether it's all the place types or some of them or whatever, it becomes a spec in phase one. We take that action, the board takes that action. Is it possible for it to become by right then again in phase two. It's possible. It's a living document. Every amendment can Same way where it gets put inside of it. It would not be advisable. Right. It is possible. I could see why not. But I wanted to ask if it was possible. Okay. And then I know what we would, this would propose to take out complimentary uses, right? Where it's either, it's a spec, or it's not. We don't end up with a complimentary and core use of data centers anymore. It would switch the model conditional, which is- All conditional. Not exactly the one-to-one, but essentially means specs when it's implemented. Okay. So, Leisberg JLMA employment place types. So, an example, I'm hung up on just because of some things that we've had in front of us recently and that are coming down the pike. That is complimentary use. What? And I read, but I feel like it's a little squishy and I'm curious if what your interpretation is what makes something a complimentary use in that place type. So a complimentary use in any place type is intended to be a use that should be allowed with whatever additional use specific standards and things might accompany it, but that it's not what was envisioned as being the primary use or uses that would be placed on that land. So it's a purely apathetic example. A drive-through restaurant fits in a lot of commercial industrial areas. There's no desire to have an area that is entirely drive-through restaurants. That's a silly example, but I mean that is kind of distinction, it's trying to show. It's there to serve the businesses or residents that are there as the core use in that place type probably. Okay, I'm just struggling to see where data centers are complimentary in that current area. But especially when they're becoming the predominant use in an area. I mean, what point does is there a percentage or a cutoff that something be those from being complimentary to core or the other way around? So no, the plan was not developed with that level of specificity in mind. It was intended to provide broad and flexible guidance in a way that largely we did not track or propose to track in any sort of numerical fashion. OK. All right. Last question then I will ask, two of the three, it seems like one of these things belongs with the other. Two of those three remapping sort of seem like it's mostly residential or is existing residential and we're kind of doing it to codify that. It protects those parcels. Could it possibly protect them from, which I'll have the right word, it preserves them in that use in the future, but could it also protect them and this may come in phase two with uses and standards or standards and criteria? If that is codified, is that's the planned place type there and then something goes next to it in a different place type if we set For instance setback requirements or something Just could that play into it? Are my over thinking the the remapping the potential impacts of remapping so the remapping Being solely in the general plan Changes no legal rights any of the land associated with it, not what's proposed to change and not anything else that's around it. It's setting the guidance and anticipating that as applications come in, it either is supported by or not supported by those place types. So in the example you provided, if there's a, well really whether it's in one of those areas or not, if there's an existing residence And next door to it a data center would come in under the new regulations not something that's been in process and all of that The as an example the sub backstainers at the commission recommended the board adopted that were Increased from what we had previously in the old ordinance would apply. Okay, so it's it's what's on the ground not necessarily the planned place type that would go It's what the zoning district allows. Okay. Okay. All right Thank you Did you all have any Clarifications or things you'd like to add after the public comment if there's something staff would like to Interject please do so now. I think one thing that I'd like to touch on because it's come up and I'm happy to talk with the commissioners more about this in a different setting as well so we can dive into it in more detail. But I think there's a misperception that the phase two work would add standards that only a special exception use would have to meet. Largely what is in Section 4.06.02 under the new ordinance applies to all data centers period. It doesn't matter how they're approved. So everything that is in that list right now as it's written applies if something is by right or if something comes through the legislative process to get approved as a special exception. You can do a special exception to even modify or remove those standards because of where they're used and how the ordinance is organized, but those are blanket across the board. So even if this change were made to these three additional districts, this part doesn't change. All of those standards are for the use no matter what we do. As things stand. So language could be added. The thing I was trying to look for a good example for earlier is that largely the few places where if you look at the use table and you see a use that is both permitted slash special exception. Under those use-specific standards quite often, it will say something to the effect that in this district, this uses a special exception when it's not in some other places. Or an alternative is that in this district, or maybe even wholesale, if it does not comply with this certain set of standards, then it becomes a special exception. There are very few, if any instances in the ordinance where there is a list of use specific standards that are permitted and another one that's listed for special exceptions. The whole point of special exceptions is that we look at what is appropriate in that specific area, looking at the criteria that are listed in chapter 10, which we included in your staff report, to look at that specific site if there are negative effects, if they need to be mitigated, if it is compatible with surrounding land uses, et cetera, and that is the one instance in which the commission and board can place conditions on an application. Everything else we do, the applicant has to agree to it. Under conditions, they don't. Largely, we work with them and we try to make it to where they do. But that is the one situation where the county has the authority to impose certain standards on a use to make sure that it's compatible with everything around it. So it's not that the commission does not know the standards that would be put in place if this change were to be made. You'd be having the same exact conversations you have with every specs that comes before you. We review it based on those same six criteria, looking at that compatibility, looking at those effects, looking at ways to mitigate them, and ultimately coming up with a recommendation that with conditions we think you can be mitigated and it's appropriate, we support, or we don't think those things can be properly mitigated that uses appropriate in that area and recommend against. So like I said, I'm happy to go into more detail on that, but I think I feel like I'm seeing confusion on the commission that there's an additional step that is obviously being missed before actually can be taken on phase one that is not entirely the way that the ordinance works or that anything you see in front of you works on a regular basis. Thank you. Okay. I'm going to open for a motion since we are countywide. Do you have a motion? Mr. Myers. I would move that the planning commission forward, CPAM 202-4001 and Zee Mod 202-4001, data center standards and location phase one to a committee to a work session of the planning commission. Second. All right. Motion is made by Commissioner Meyer, second by Commissioner Miller. Do you have an opening? I mean, we've had a lot of debate tonight. We've had a lot of good comments tonight. I think a lot of us have a lot of people we'd like to have as part of this debate we talk to. And I understand what you said, Dan, in regards to those conditions exist, But I would say the county just spent a lot of time. There's five pages I think it is now. A performance standards you have to do in every single district except for the PDOP in order to do a data center. And if we don't think that's enough, then we need to say what we think the additional conditions are. Because if all we're simply doing is taking exactly what's on the book today and making an unofficial exception, then I don't understand the logic of why we're I personally don't understand the logic of why we're doing it other than to get it past somebody's desk. I would like to have the opportunity and I don't know if other planning commissioners would also but I think there are people I would like to invite to a work session whether it's some of the chamber folks whether it's the nail folks I've had some discussions with representatives from PMJ whether discussion about. I'd like to have somebody from the sanitation or a lot of water to talk to us about the water issue. And I'd like to also have economic developments to talk to us about it because I think it's just as important to understand where it shouldn't go is where it should go. And I think that should be part of the debate as we're deciding what shouldn't be a special exception. So I'm looking forward to a very healthy debate and I don't see it being one that is in one work session because I'd really like to see us separate out the discussion between the seat panel and the zoning ordinance because they're very different in the way that we would end up ruling in them. Thank you. Commissioner Miller. Thank you. I will be supporting the motion. First and foremost, I'm out of the business of rubber stamping. So I mean the board of supervisors tries to shove down our throats. I almost think it was preposterous to think that this would get approved tonight, especially after four previous applications and two hours and 20 minutes of speaker comment on a very complicated issue that there's no way it's just going to go out tonight to say we're going to do something. Further, as we move to a, to a work session, work sessions maybe I would hope of course at the discretion of the chair that we would have some sort of process that would allow us either in the subcommittee fashion where we handled the Zor or in some committee of the whole. Because I was limited to, I only asked one little round the questions, a couple questions. I think there'll be, we need to have, be able to have full ability to have conversations, not just ask questions of staff to build a point. Additionally, there are things that at a work session and high level topics, such as Commissioner Pull and Meyer suggested, hearing from other people in the industry in a more of a roundtable type of discussion. Largely because there are things that phase one really doesn't talk about that I believe are important to the furthering of the discussion. We talk about onsite power generation as being an ideal that we would like to achieve, except of course we have no guidelines in the comprehensive plan for how to do that. We talk about battery energy storage. no guidelines and the comprehensive plan for how to do that. We talk about battery energy storage. We've had long discussions about that through the Zor process, but maybe there needs to be a modification of our battery energy storage systems or regulations on how it could apply to specific uses and data centers. The mapping changes that we talked about, Specifically the one along the toll road, which happens to be in the Metro Tax District. I really don't want us to go down a path where we're doing something that hurts metro rail by impacting the tax district. Just tomorrow, the Metro General Manager, the board chair, and the finance chair, meeting with the governor and the Secretary of Transportation is figuring out how to continuously fund Metro. These are ongoing things that something as simple as this mapping change could negatively affect. And I think it says already that in the one last thing in the Zor, we talked about things, we had issues would come up like, somebody we're going to discuss about thisOR, we talked about things, we had issues would come up like somebody we're going to discuss about this topic. We really can't fully answer that because that's going to show up in this other topic from three months from now. And that interplay of regulations from one chapter to the next is a lot of what we could see here happening, which is why I bring up the notion of we ultimately could negatively affect the metro tax district. Things along those lines are for further incident with discussion that if it takes us weeks or months or however many times to get there, I think it's incumbent upon us for something as important as this to take very good diligence and figure out how we can recommend to the board an actual planning issue, a planning item, a way to present it to the board in a way that is not not encumbered by frankly the board's political desire to do something regarding data centers. It's our job as planners to present a plan to the board with a recommendation for them to do whatever they want to do with. But it certainly can't be a rubber stamp from this body and I think further deliberations will go a long way to at least giving the board options to consider when we get through with it. Thank you. Commissioner Jasper. Thank you. Chair Frank. I'm going to support the motion reluctantly. I do believe that further deliberation is required. But I also believe that there is absolute urgency to making thoughtful decisions here and moving something forward similar to what the board requested. And the things that I'm particularly concerned about right now are unintended consequences and just hearing a little bit more about what those might be. Consistent with what Commissioner Pullenmayer mentioned earlier, what is the nature of the grandfathering? And if we come up with a grandfathering strategy, I mean, one thing we want to avoid obviously is everybody rushing into file legislative application to get, you know, in under whatever line is ultimately established. So I think we need to be thoughtful that our delay doesn't cause additional problems for us. So I'd like to think about that. The other thing that I heard from a number of the industry representatives today is their concern that this could interfere with the completion of campus plans, which could be beneficial actually. So I think understanding the scope of all of those things is important. I'm equally concerned about the impact that this has had on the economy of the county in a negative way, frankly. I do believe that the inflation of land prices makes it almost impossible for people to look at other uses for lands. And so I think it has an inhibiting effect on some of the businesses that might otherwise locate here. And so to pretend that it's, a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a in business land prices. So I'd love to get some of that fleshed out, but I also do think that that adds to the need for speed. And, you know, homogeneous systems are unhealthy, generally, and especially in economic development. And I think it's important that the county enable the economy here to diversify. So more consideration, but I would also suggest that there is a need to press forward as quickly as possible. And if we could give relief to those people who want to improve sustainability along the way, as part of that mapping process, that would be important. Thank you. OK. No additional. Could I share a case? One thing I'd like to see in addition to what's already been said is I go through the comprehensive plan and it goes through each of these like transition light industrial and you have where you've made your you and ink changes to it. What I'd like to see is go through each of these areas and then see on a map where exactly those uses are located. So when I see transition light industrial, I'd like to see the map of the county and see exactly where those areas are or transition industrial, mineral extraction and have a map and say, okay, this is where exactly those are. I know there's a big map that has overlays and things, it's just kind of, for me, it's difficult to decipher it all. So if we could go through each of those and say, okay, this is an area and then we can make decisions based on that. But I'd kind of like to see that laid out That's that's probably the one thing I'd like to see in addition to what's already been asked for Thanks, I'm chair mask of all of course. Yes If just to make sure I'm understanding are you saying that for a Place type to actually map out where the various core and complimentary uses are within that place type, that sort of map? Right, so that, when I look, let me pull it up. So it says suburban industrial mineral extraction and it gives a graphic and it shows things and it says core use is data centers, that's lined out, it's listed over as a conditional use. So I'd like to see on a map those areas that are suburban industrial mineral extraction where we're looking to change and remove data center from it. They're bigger, like so you can see it that. Sure. And it's for each of those place types. Okay. Okay, we can work on that. Thank you. Okay. Do you have a closing? I just, I think this is a huge issue. I think I want to thank everybody that came out to speak tonight. I don't want anybody to feel like we didn't hear what I didn't hear what you were saying. I think the idea that there's no regulation today on data centers is not the way they operate today. I think if you go and you look to the zoning ordinance, what was adopted in December of 2023, there are like four to five pages, single space, of all the requirements, including setbacks from residential, all kinds of things that are there. I think the issue is we really haven't seen, as you said, we haven't even seen how new applications will respond to this and what we really need to do. We're kind of having this fast gut reaction. So I really want to make sure that we take the time to look at what are all the new requirements already and then what do we need on top of that if anything or as are certain areas we need it. And I hope that we can have in a work environment where we're all maybe in that dollars rumor wherever so that it's not so like formal. It's more informal as a work session. I would see it being. And as we invite people, we can be down on their level actually having a discussion with them. Thank you. OK, we have a motion on the table. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? The motion carries 9 to 0. Thank you all for coming and staying with us tonight. I know you're not all leaving, but we appreciate those of you who are for being part of this process. We are going to take a very short 5 minute break because we're going to have to get through 3 more items. When we come back up. All right, so we're going to take a 5 minute recess. and we are going to go into the two-way, two-way, two-way, three-way, three-way, and have to move in. So, body and heart, work in, so, we are going to have to, have to have, move in, and then, we are going to move in, and then, and then, and then, and then, and then, and then, and then, and then, I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to do 20 seconds. I'm looking more at taking out a bit. How do you do it? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You want me go on? I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go a little bit of the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the other side. I'm going to go to the other side. I'm going to go to the other side. I'm going to go to the other side. I'm going to go to the other side. I'm going to go to the other side. I'm going to go to the other side. I'm going to go to the other side. I'm going to go to the other side. I'm going to go to the other side. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm going to put the key up for 10 seconds. What do you do? I do think you can take a different glass to display. You can take a different glass and then I can take a different glass. So, I mean, we got these things, we to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go about the same time. But if you're on your list, you're going to have to do that. And then I'll be ready to do that. So yeah, I'm going to be ready to send back the fees for the rest of the... Yeah, I think that's a little bit there in the first place. You know that? I'm, uh, I think I'm down and I think I'm down. You guys, you guys, you're okay this thing, and I think it's great. I think that's also, I think it's something that you say, just to a good part. And I feel like, I'm pretty good. I think other side. I'm going to go to the other side. I'm going to go to the other side. I'm going to go to the other side. I'm going to go to the other side. I'm going to go to the other side. I'm going to go to the other side. I'm going to go to the other side. I'm going to go to the other side. I'm going to go to the other side. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, he's saying we're dead. We can't access. We can leave. So, yeah, we did that. I found something. look for a 30. So we went back to the bedroom, then we'm going to go to the other side. I'm going to go to the other side. I'm going to go to the other side. I'm going to go to the other side. I'm going to go to the other side. I'm going to go to the other side. I'm going to go to the other side. I'm going to go to the other side. I'm sorry. I'm going to do a little bit of the same. I'm going to do a little bit of the same. I'm going to do a little bit of the same. I'm going to do a little bit of the same. I'm going to do a little bit of the same. I'm going to do a little bit of the same. I'm going to do a little bit of the same. I'm going to do a little bit of the same. I'm going to close this up. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. All right and the interest of getting us out of here before the sun comes back up. Let's reconvene and move into our 6th item tonight. Ludgy 2023-0060, Luchstone, Cochran Mill. Madam Chair, a point of order. Yes. Oh, okay, okay. Yeah, it's going to be, okay. Given the hour and we have three applications left, it would rather, if it was one, I'd try and take us to the edge, but absent that that I'd move to suspend the rules. Second. Thank you. Motion to suspend the rules to allow us to continue past 1130s. Been made by Mr. Miller, seconded by Vice Chair Combs, all those in favor. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 9-0. All right. Now, Allison, we will get into the meat of item 6 and we're ready for you. Thank you. Now I'll some Britain and with the Department of Planning and Zoning and I'm here today to present the application for Luxone Cocker Mill. Of note the applicant provided a revised proper statement this morning but staff have not yet had the opportunity to review it. The subject property is 97.8 acres located on the east side of Cockermill Road and Phillip A. Boland Memorial Park and to the west and north of Cycling Creek in the Leesburg election district. This property is currently undeveloped but considered part of the Luxone Corrie. The property is split zone joint land management area 20 general industry and primarily zoned mineral resource heavy industry. This property is located in the Leesburg JLMA and transition policy areas, specifically the Leesburg JLMA employment, Leesburg JLMA industry, mineral extraction and transition industrial mineral extraction place types. You can see from this graphic the property lies primarily in the Leesburg JLMA industry, mineral extraction and transition industrial mineral extraction place types and therefore staff analyze the application under these two accordingly. The applicants proposing to rezone the property to the general industry zoning district to develop approximately 1.7 million square feet of data center and utility substation distribution use. The applicants additionally proposing to increase building height from 45 from 45 feet to 105 feet without additional setbacks and reduce a portion of the scenic creek valley buffer from sickling creek to allow a 50 foot encroachment. Here is the proposed layout with north oriented to the left showing four data center buildings and utility substation in the southeastern portion of the property, just the top right of the screen. There are a few remaining outstanding issues with this application related to land use and compatibility, natural resources and transportation. The zoning ordinance permits a maximum building height of 45 feet and allows up to 100 feet if buildings are set back from streets and lot lines with additional one foot for each one foot above 45 in height. The 2019 general plan anticipates a maximum height of four stories equivalent to approximately 48 feet. The applicants proposing a zoning modification to allow up to 105 feet without additional setbacks and staff recommend the building height be lowered to be more consistent with the 2019 general plan set back from the roadway and additional buffering be provided to reduce the visual impact. The 2019 general plan anticipates extensive buffering in distance from uses anticipated in this place type. The applicants proposing an enhanced buffer in some locations but staff recommend the enhanced buffer be applied more uniformly and to screen buildings closest to the roadway specifically buildings 1, 2, and 4. Here highlighted in pink is the proposed enhanced 60 foot landscape buffer. You can see here the buffer is fragmented along Cochrane Mill Road and where the buildings are closest to the roadway. So staff suggest a more uniform buffer to reduce visual impact from Cochrane Mill Road and also from Boulin Park located across the street. Here is a graphic from just one single viewpoint heading south on Cochraneel Road. You can see the elevated sports field on the right. Cochraneel Road and its current state and subject property on the left side of the roadway. The subject site located adjacent to Cycle and Creek and contained several stream channels that may impact surface waters. The proposed layout would significantly impact stream channels in waterways. So staff anticipate this design may pose feasibility challenges throughout later stages of development and recommend relocating buildings to avoid impacts to streams and wetlands on site. Here's a graphic depicting in blue, the stream channels on site and buildings that would impact them. The 2019 General Plan recommends a 50 foot management buffer around 100 year flood plain areas to account for natural changes, and to over time maintain bank stabilization, temperature moderation, flood control, and other impacts. The applicant is proposing a 50-foot management buffer but proposes several potentially land-disturbing encroachment such as fencing, storm water management and utilities within it. Staff recommend the applicant commit to limiting these land disturbances and to maintain the intent of the buffer and place it in a tree conservation area. The applicant is proposing to designate a portion of the property where it is also floodplain as tree conservation area. However, the commitment includes encroachments that are not permitted in these zoning ordinance where there is floodplain. So it's the language in the tree conservation area that impacts the floodplain. Staff recommend the tree conservation area commitment be revised consistent with the zoning ordinance. The subject site's been identified by Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation as an ecological core Representing continuous habitat of at least 100 acres and containing potential habitat for several endangered plant and animal species Staff recommend the applicant provide equipment to implement appropriate protection measures prior to land disturbing activity on site. The applicants proposing to design and construct improvements to Cochran Mill road along the properties frontage consistent with the 2019 CTP, Countywide Transportation Plan, and proposing some improvements off site up to the WNOD trail. Staff recommend extending the same improvements up to the WNOD trail as are provided along the frontage. I'll let the applicant discuss in more detail these improvements, but staff recommend the applicant commit the same improvements for the full segment. And also commit to provide a sidewalk across Stonewater Lane, which would be consistent with the 2019 CTP. Here's a graphic highlighting the area along Cochraneville Road, the applicants committed to improve in the purple area being the partial improvement, as previously mentioned. The applicants provided a turn lane warrant analysis for some, but not all intersections, existing and proposed. To recommend the applicant provided a turn lane warrant analysis that includes all existing and future intersections proposed all the way up into the WNOD trail, which is the area proposed to be improved to determine appropriate mitigation measures and staff recommend the applicant identify turn around areas for analysis or alternatively provide a commitment to construct internal rejection lanes. At the Planning Commission work session on September 12th, the commission asked a few questions that I would like to touch on. The zoning district breakdowns, the property is currently 2.8 acres zone GI, just shy of two acres, jail and A20 and 93.5 MRHI. There was a question about Bullen Park where it connects with Shreve. That's currently in emergency access only. And parks said that they currently were not pursuing that because of the ultimate condition of Cochraneil Road not being fully improved right now. Should it be fully improved, they would be potentially interested in the future. You say where it meets Shrieve? Yes, I believe that was that entrance down below. Could shrieve. I do have a map. I can pull up. Let me circle back. The buildings are not explicitly located in the flood plain or the risker. They are located in moderately steep slopes. But there are, as I mentioned, incidental structures, accessory structures that may include encroachments into all three. I'll let the applicant speak to kind of the operation and business history, although I can identify that it's been in operation for approximately 100 years. And I'll also let them talk about the sufficiency of the singular substation proposed as part of this application. Staff recommend the applicant, or the application be forwarded to a future work session to address the outstanding issues discussed. And with that staff are happy to answer any questions. I have Bradley Polk from DTCI and Jen here from Natural Resources available for questions as well. Thank you, Commissioner Miller. So to clarify, the secondary entrance off of Shrieve, because Shrieve dead ends at Sikland south of the property. I believe it's the one right here. If that was the one pertaining to your question. Probably. That's where it means cock and mill. Okay. Not shrieve. Correct. Okay. It's tree drive. Not shrieve mill. Perhaps that's the confused. Oh, that's tree drive right there. Right. Yeah. Good Lord. Okay. Oh, good lord. OK. So the question I have is about when you showed the graphic of the field, the ball field being in view, that's the field at the DC United Training Facility. Correct. Yes, to the north's portion of the site. My question is pertaining to the road and the United Drive more specifically where if it ever becomes a, if cockamills ever completed to its final condition, and United Drive becomes a backdoor entrance to Bowen Park. But the relationship with the county in Bowen Park and that facility, that field is just for Loudon you not DC United and the trains that that's not a field for Parkson rec correct It was dedicated to that but it was open. I think Parkson rec had the ability to use it as available But it was dedicated to the soccer is been dedicated, but it still could be Parkson rec still could work with DC United to use it for. Correct, when they were developing the stadium and tandem with these fields. Right. That was one of the discussions that came up and they said, if there's opportunities for the parks to use it, they would avail themselves of it. Okay, but it's not likely that parks and rec will probably ever use that facility as a because there's really no way Probably, okay, and I want to say that that road cannot go through what there was concern about cut through So I don't believe that the United Drive goes all the way through Well, I was Hypothetically United Drive could one day be a back entrance to Bolin unless it really is no way to do that. And the reason I'm asking those questions is because it goes to the potential need for additional screening or any screening at all of the building that I was talking about because if no one from the county is ever going to be on the United, these United fields over there other than the people that work at these United and train there. That's why I'm asking that question. Okay, thank you. Question or cares? Going back, so what is the ultimate condition of Cochraneville? I thought it was a two-lane road. It was never supposed to be for. It is too. It is too. And they're paving it. They're doing a two lane road, right? Along the, yes. They're fronted. So I'm just going back to your statement that parks and rec said, well, because Cochrane's not finished, we won't use Shrieve Drive, but they're going to finish the road. Why wouldn't they then hook? Because either United or Shrieve makes a lot of sense to be a back way into the eastern end of Bowen Park. Why was Parks and Rec? Were they referring to the current state as to why they haven't opened it? Or if they were to finish Cochran, would they not then want to open that up? I believe that was particularly directed when if you were to turn right out of that site going south, the rest of the roadway, where this blue line ends, the rest of it is still gravel. I believe that was the- I thought they went almost all the way to that. How far south does I thought they'd go down? Let me get the map back up. I thought they went pretty far south. Where's the southern boundary of where they're improving the road? Isn't it almost down to stone water? It's at the intersection of Cochran, Mill and Stonewater. Right, so that's way south of Shrieve. So, this is a park's wreck decision. I don't want to bug you. It just seems like the road's going to be finished, so it would make sense for them to open that up. It's the rest of Cochrane Mill that's offside of this property to the south. Okay. about visual impacts to the park. Is that because people are playing soccer. You see the buildings across the road. I mean, I'm just wondering, it's not a place where people live that may be impacted by having a large building across the street. What is the, I'm just trying to figure out what's the criteria of what's an offensive use for someone going to a park? Sure, it's going to have a visual impact with the power lines that are there and the other buildings at that height were simply identifying that, yes, you will see this facility in as a size and scale going to necessarily overwhelm the park. But yes, I would agree it's different than several hundred homes there, but it's still going to have a visual impact. Does the commission feel like that needs to have any additional screening, or does it feel like the turnover of the park is not enough to warrant any additional mitigation? That's what we're asking. But so you're requesting buffers that might take that to mean that if you get the buffers you're looking for, then you're okay with that. Correct. And the idea is uniformity across from it. So here, where there are some enhancement, the commission rather see a unified buffer along the road or as proposed here. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Oh. Commissioner Barnes. Yes. So, road is pretty narrow and I suppose to be finished to two lane and then you're going to have a shoulder on it, both sides to pull over and do something flat or something happens. So these buildings that I see are pretty close to the road, you know, they're trying to build and that's not not gonna be kosher, because they gotta put something back and you know, move them back. That's what they're supposed to do. I don't like the placement of that, but the staff said they don't like it either. The placement of the buildings. Part of the suggestion for visual impact from both the roadway and from the park is to provide a unified buffer or maybe in combination provide some distance more setback. Yeah, okay, I agree. Thank you. Okay, I have a couple of questions, Alison. Do we know the height of any other buildings in the area? There are not a ton of buildings, immediately adjacent to this property. I can say that surrounding this property, the district, the zoning district limitation is 45 feet. There are several others, Nonna Jason, kind of periphery from this site, about a mile and half out, but not immediately Jason. All right, thank you for confirming what I thought. Now I'm gonna throw something at you, I didn't warn anybody I was going to ask about. We have a lovely trip generation study in here. Has anybody ever looked at what the construction traffic impact is because I would venture? There's a lot more trips when it's under construction than when it's up and operational. We have DTCI in the line. I will defer to them and It's on roads that aren't done that are with very very very heavy trucks and things being hauled in and out I just wonder what that does to the roads because we're certainly seeing complaints of that elsewhere in the county Bradley you're on the line I wouldn't blame someone if they fell asleep. Yes, I'm here. Actually the construction traffic is not something that's considered as part of the trip generation for the application. So there's no point in which we consider the impact of the construction traffic on the road and the road network. No, we're looking at the trips generated by the use that's being proposed. Right, but you got to get the use there. So, um, or shunt, you look like you're about to push buttons. I mean, we've seen proppers before that direct where that construction traffic comes from. Are you thinking more of just from dust and general wear and tear on the road? All of the above and wondering where they're going to come in and out of in this particular site. Like, do we need to put in a, you can't come this way or that way during certain hours or you have to limit, I don't know what the answer is, but I'm trying to figure out what data we have to work with to make that decision right now. I do want to just quickly add that the applicant is proposing phase to development so for the first 500,000 square feet and then the second phase containing the rest so I just want to put that out there. I think the commission wants to direct or sort of makes suggestions on the priority of roads and to get into it That's something you can certainly discuss Okay, I think if we have additional conversations about that that would be something or about this Application that would be something we're gonna need to look at is how are they getting in and out even just during that first 500,000 Okay, Commissioner Jasper. Chair Frank, I just, this came up in the context of all of the development around Hiddenwood and V. as you probably know, handles construction traffic plans and so they do for the construction, phasing, which roads where you put different kind of control mechanisms, whether it's flaggers or temporary stoplights and the impacts on the road. Typically, I think it speed up. That does that. It did such a smashing job on that one. I know. So, yeah, that doesn't give me great faith. But anyway,, thank you. Again, we have limited certain roads. In fact, we tried to do it down there in Hiddenwood not to pick on a source spot. But what roads could be used for what? And not sure how much it helped. Okay. Any other questions for staff? We'll go to the applicant then. Who is presenting from the applicant? We get nearer. You're in the... I promise I am aware of the time and we'll try to be brief. and Oh man. Thank you, Allison. So my name is Erin Swiss-Helm. Thank you again, you know, Madam Chair and members of the Commission for allowing us to speak with you this evening. I also have Anthony Van Afro and Rich Brittingham here with me. Anthony is a representative of a flux stone who is our applicant and Rich, of course, you all know is doing our civil engineering for this project Allison did a really good job of covering the subject property It's about 98 acres and is presently zone primarily to the MRA Chi zoning district And is designated primarily as the Leesbrook JMLA, Mineral Industrial Extraction and Transition Mineral Extraction Place Types, where data centers are a core use. We did want to zoom out and give you a little bit more location context for what's going on around this property. The subject property is outlined here in yellow. The green outline here on the map are additional luckstone applications that will be coming to the commission after this one. The area to the south of the property has been developed primarily with a kind of myriad of data and utility and other industrial uses. And then we also note that there are data center uses out to the east as well and that our proposed development is removed from residential uses. As Allison noted we're seeking a rezoning to the PDGI zoning district to permit data center development. We are doing a phase development of just under 1.7 million square feet. We are seeking two zoning modifications. I want to talk about those very quickly. Allison notes that we are seeking to increase the maximum building height allowable to 105 feet. The reason that we're doing this is because we know what is going to be built on this property and that additional 5 feet is to accommodate a parapet wall to help screen rooftop equipment for this proposed building. We've also included a reduction to the scenic creek valley buffer, typically under the revised 1993 zoning ordinance that was done as an administrative modification, but due to the applicant's application's grandfathered status, we included it as a zoning modification so that there was certainty at the time of site plan. I do want to note that we are complying with the risk or policies and in the updated proper statement that I sent around this afternoon we have removed the fencing encroachment from the risk or proper here. In addition to these modifications we are preserving tree cover along the banks of the sickle and creek and doing reforestation in order to support that scenic creek valley buffer reduction providing a minimum of two LID measures and have committed to exceeding the recup the state regulations for on site phosphorus reduction before considering offsite options. We're also providing a minimum of 31 acres of open space, included in that are areas for pollinator plantings and to support the monarch butterfly. The tree conservation areas that we discussed as long as the reforestation areas. We're also dedicating a public access easement along Ciglin Creek to allow for a trail to establish some of the missing connections in this area. Allison did a good job of touching on the proposed improvements to Cochran-Mill Road. Again, in the updated proffer statement that I circulated, we have corrected the typographical error that made it seem as though we were not going to be providing the pedestrian connections and commitments along the entirety of Cochran-Mill Road. We have made that clear. We have done improvements to Stonewater Lane to permit secondary access for this site and also to accommodate construction traffic already in the area of the property. Cochran Mill Road right now is currently being used as a traffic routeway for construction traffic for data centers to the south. We have included warrant studies for the turn lanes at United Drive and Shreeve Drive and are updating those studies to include all of the intersections that staff identified in its most recent round of comments. And then we have also added the crosswalk that they have requested along Shrieve Mill, sorry, along Stonewater Lane. One of the things that we have also done with this application is committed to building design. These elevations that you see here are included as an attachment to our proper statement and we will be developing in substantial conformance with these. They do meet the fenestration and design standards that were adopted by this planning commission and the Board of Supervisors in December of 2023. And then we also wanted to talk a little bit about screening and compatibility. So first, you'll note here there is a green line along the entirety of the property's frontage with Bollham Park and with Cochran Mill Road. That is a required type C buffer. And then Allison pointed out that there are areas where we are seeking to enhance that buffer, doubling the plantings and providing a 60 foot wide buffer in those areas. Those are in areas where we are closer to development on the opposite side of the road or we're closer to a newly improved public roadway in the case of the substation. You'll know in the center of the property we are providing just the required type C buffer. And that's because of what we're across from. In those areas we are further away from proposed and current development on Bull and Park. And the grade and topography in that area will produce the overall sense of massing for these buildings. We'll talk a little about that on the next slide. So this isn't showing up as well on the big screen but this is a schematic that Duberry and Dubé prepared showing a cross section of how the property sits and interacts with the fields across from that portion where we're only providing the type C buffer. As you can see here, we're about 644 feet away from the nearest softball use on this property. You can also see that the softball fields are elevated and the grade of the land slopes down about 25 to 30 feet below the grade there. There also are existing power line easements and existing power line poles that are approximately 120 feet closer to those softball fields. And we believe that it is important to consider the entirety of what is going on in this area, not just the fact that it is a park, but the other industrial development as well as the infrastructure for that industrial development that's already having an impact on the view shed of the park. And this is just showing a viewpoint from one of those fields. This was a picture that Anthony actually took earlier this year. His daughter's softball game, as you can see, their transmission lines are readily viewable, and actually, depending on where you are on these fields, even if you are facing towards the action, you're not necessarily facing the property. These things are kind of at an angle, so very rarely you're actually looking directly across the street. And with that, I wanna thank you again for the opportunity to present before you this evening. This application has a lot of things to like about it. We're proposing data center uses in an area that's planned for data centers that has the existing infrastructure to support data centers as planned for industrial development. The application includes commitments to environmental stewardship, to transportation improvements that are desperately needed in this area, and support for the county's recreation and trail needs also within the vicinity of the property. And with that, I am available to answer questions as our members of the applicant team. Okay. Do we have any questions for the applicant, Commissioner Barnes? Yes, I do. You have seen the concerns of staff. What they are concerned about, right? Yes. So that's going to be another thing you're going to have to do when it goes to the work session to alleviate their concerns, see what they have. And I think the buildings are very close to the road. And you're talking about 105 feet. And there's no room up there. Are you going to dedicate any land to for the road if they come down and finish it? There are already existing commitments to dedicate the needed right of way for the road in this area. Commissioner Barnes. And then we are dedicating the additional right of way that's needed to why that road way. How much? It's proposed to be a 70 foot right of way. And that's mean in front in the front of the I'm talking about in the road Yeah, the the roadway is supposed to be 70 feet wide so we're We are dedicating enough right of way for that roadway to be 70 feet wide along across from across you Yeah, yes, and we're also pursuing needed right of way off site to the north as well Okay, and then it's pretty sensitive area-of-way offsite to the north as well. Okay, and then it's pretty sensitive area in all the wetland and the back. And are you going to do some study on the nature resources? So we've committed to a habitat proper. We will be required to comply with all of the Army Corps of Engineers requirements. We'll have to do a jurisdiction of wetlands study. So yes. You want to do this study? Yes. We'll be required to. Okay. By the Army Corps. And are you going to adjust the replacement of your buildings? Well, we are not proposing to adjust the placement of the buildings based on what we've currently presented before using it. 105 feet right at the road. It's like a big castle you build that a big wall on the road so every time you drive by they're all going to see this big tall wall and they're going to be a lot of traffic going through there. So you're going to have to move it back somehow. I don't know. I don't know where you got a know where you've got a space there. There's you got wetlands there in the back. So figure out something that how you can do set back from the road on your buildings. I hear you. We're also providing pretty extensive buffering along the entire property finish. How long? How much? 50 feet? Between 25 and 60 feet. There's no enough. That's a farm here. You know? There are also 100 or 120 plant units per 100 linear feet as well. So it's a pretty dense buffer. Anywhere, I want you to see if you can do some placement differently. And right in the front, I don't like to see 105 feet tall. Actually, I don't want any one of them, 105 feet, but especially in the front, the two buildings that you have. So see how low you can go on that one. I understand your comment, yes. If I could quickly offer some clarification on the separation from the edge of the right of way to the building frontage, the separation reigns between 80 feet and 140 feet from the edge of right of way. It's hard to tell sometimes with the scale of these drawings. These are somewhat subjective as to say whether they're right on top of the roadway or not, but they are actually between 80 feet and 130, 140 feet from the edge of the right of way. So, in between in that distance there is buffering and then there's potential travel else. Part of that is the scale commissioner barns because the property is about 98 acres so in order to fit everything. Yes and we've kept all of our buildings out of the flood plain in order to protect those environmental resources. Thank you. Commissioner Mader ready. Thank you. Commissioner Madharedi. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to get the understanding on the two issues from the staff report to what you have on there. For example, building height. You was called for 105 and staff reports said you guys are increasing the building height from 45 to 105 feet. One of the things I know somebody asked for the clarification, is there adjacent building close that has higher height than 45, 55, whatever it is? In our meeting too, I did ask, are there any other data centers near that are this kind of height, 19, 105? So there aren't a ton of buildings in Salos and said immediately adjacent, but there are tall data center buildings in the vicinity of the property. So there are taller data center buildings to the south and certainly the bell innovation and vantage buildings are also taller than 45 feet to the east. Okay, Alison, maybe this question is for you. So is the challenge here is increasing the building height itself or increasing the building height without additional setback. What is staff concern here? In general, it's increasing the building height. But it's to mitigate that impact, staff recommend things like setbacks or additional buffering. Those are sort of typical tools in the toolbox, if you will. So, the way I'm understanding here is if they can give us additional setbacks, staff is okay with additional height. It might help alleviate some of the visual impact. Okay. Landscape buffering. Again, the question staff is saying, I know it's not uniform, but do you guys agree in general what applicants are, they are providing what plan calls for to be agree with that? The applicant is providing what plan calls for? Do we agree with that? The applicant is providing what the zoning ordinance requires and then the pink areas highlighted here or where they're going above that requirement. Right. No, one in the middle section where it's not pink. Or I know it's not uniform but are they giving us enough whatever the general plan calls for? Staff would recommend more. The recommends more but are they giving us what's required? Let me take a step back. The purpose for staff recommendation of having more of the setback is because of the zoning modification to increase the height. The zoning regulation builds in that there would be additional buffering to increase height. So by eliminating the buffering or that additional setback and also increasing height, staff recommend some kind of mitigation back. Thank you. Along the type C buffer along Cochraneel, that is the standard when all other elements are being followed when you have the judicial setbacks. Thank you. Commissioner Cares. You kind of asked about it. We go to work session. If you could bring a more of a blow up of those two buildings along Cochrane Mill to get a sense of the distance from the road to the building and something that will show the land. It does, I also have a little bit of concern about it. It's a 100 foot wall, 80 feet off the road. 80 feet really isn't that far. So I do have some kind of concern with that. And to answer the question, there's the data centers on the north side of Ciccolon Road. There are 100 feet, they're close to this site. They're just due south of it. So there are other data centers in that area that are 100 feet in height. But yeah, I'd just like to see that. The building design is good. I just would like to get a better sense of the size of these buildings in comparison if you're on the road and the proximity to the road. I don't know if there's would be any way to maybe flip something with building three, put the generators on the side and push back the building tours. I don't know if there's a way to reconfigure that to push them a little bit farther back. That would be helpful. Commissioner Myers, I'm falling up on, on, on, on, Commissioner Myers. that you really can't push the buildings back, you know, then is there some kind of enhanced buffer that you could do along where it's just green right now, that then could meet the intent to where there is an increased buffer done for the increased height that you're going, that we could look at in that way, or is there the possibility that we taper down the front two buildings and give the higher height to building 3 and 4 that again reduces that visual as you're drawing down the road that the 105 feet is right there. Again, like we've looked at in others where it's up on the road. Vice chair comes. Thank you, Madam Chair. The Zima modification for height, it's up to 105. Is that for all buildings? It's set up for all buildings, yes. Okay. I think there was something in the staff report that said 105 up to 117. But you already have a user and the 105 is inclusive of the parapet. Is there any potential for you all to go to 117? I think. The elevator pet house. Yeah, so what the staff report is referring to are things that are not included in zoning height, like the elevator pet house for the building itself. So those things are excluded from zoning height Under the zoning ordinance, okay, you I mean when we discuss this application. I think you had said We already have a user we know how big these buildings are gonna be they're gonna be 99 feet or whatever at 100 feet But we need the additional five feet for the parapet yes Do you also need another 12 feet for other things? No. So what I'm, what I'm, I think doing a poor job of explaining vice-chair combs is that there are certain pertinences to buildings that are not included in height under the zoning ordinance. So when staff says we're going, we have the potential to go up to 117 feet, the only thing that would be taller than that parapet would be things that are not included in building high like mechanical equipment or like an elevator penthouse. Okay. So although our ordinance doesn't count, the additional additional 12 feet you may nonetheless need them Yes, but that's the case for every application that's before you whether it's a data center or Just want clarity because your mod is saying 105 staff is saying up to 117 I just want clarity on what we're talking about you know Taking absolutely in the spirit in which it was intended to ask. Okay. Thank you. I actually have a question, Allison. If we did a setback to mitigate the additional height that they're requesting, how far back would it need to be? How many more feet would we need if they wanted to go to 105? Normally that would be we'd set back more, right? What's the base would be calculating that off of I guess is what I'm trying to determine, is it 48? Is it? I don't know. Chair Frank, I don't have that number. Okay. Hard and fast for you. Rich, you're signaling that you do. So the zoning ordinance building setback requirement off of Cochrane, Maraud is 35 feet. You could put, you know, the zoning ordinance allows buildings up to 35 feet. We are approximately 90 feet. The PDGI- That allows buildings at what height? Up to 35 feet. Up to 38 feet. At the 35 foot threshold, you are allowed a 45 foot building height. You are also allowed one to one additional set back up to 100 feet. So if you have an additional 55 foot set back from that 35 feet, which we have in excess of, you are allowed a 100 foot building height by rights. We're asking for the 105 foot building height because there's an end user insight that has, that we've profored building elevations to, they put in thought into their architectural elevations, etc. So that our confusion I think with staff during this is we're hearing we'd like to see you further set back from the road. We're two and a half time set back from the road beyond what the zoning ordinance requires. The building set back the building height. There's a whole lot of headshake and going on so I'm going to that for a second and see where we've got a disconnect here. I don't want to spend too much time. We're not going to work this out here. But clearly we have an issue that needs to get worked out because we can't even all agree on what we need to mitigate. I just want to clarify the regulation. It's the 45 feet and the 35 setback. It is a one to one setback for every foot in height you go above 45. So if you're going an additional 105 feet, that'd be an additional 60 foot setback. It's not an additional, but it gets a 505. It's an additional. Okay. Let's get that figured out when we get back together next time. And then, you know, I don't know if this is an applicant question or a dominion question. But as far as how much acreage is there is dedicated to the substation. Sure. It's approximately 10 acres. And do they believe that under current industry needs that is going to give you everything you need to power those for buildings fully? Yes. Will it have any excess capacity to power anything else around it? That I do not know. Okay. Okay. And that's not about power. That's about the location and suitability of substation locations. So. Okay. Any other questions for applicant or staff? We'll go ahead and open the public hearing. I do have someone signed up. Miss Tia Irman. I believe you are our only preregistered speaker on this item. Come on down. You're the next contestant. That's what you stand alone. Do I get four minutes? You get three minutes. Okay. Post July rolls. This may be a little long then. Good evening commissioners. My name is T. Irman speaking on behalf of the Piedmont Environmental Council. We were asking you to recommend a Nile of this legislative application for a non-by-right 1.7 million square foot data center development. The revised 1993 ordinance section 4-603 list over two and a half pages of permitted uses for the GI zoning district including Flex Industrial, wholesale trade establishments and warehousing to name just a few. This zoning district provides for a wide variety of uses, a wide array of economic development opportunities and land use potential. Options which would diversify our counties rapidly narrowing economic portfolio, and we could see many potential uses aside from another hyper scale data center. We believe the trends in growth and development in Latin has very clearly shown in economic dependency on one industry and corresponding narrowing of our commercial land uses. Neither of these trends vote well for the long term health and well-being of Loudens residents as numerous historical, least similar situations exemplify. Whether you look at paper mills, coal towns are auto manufacturing. The industry in question changes, but the story remains the same. A rush to invest in buildings and infrastructure to accommodate the cash cow, a cultivation of a cluster economy with specialist workers, educated to perfectly suit, advocating to make the industry larger, and good times that will never end. Followed by a change in technology, economy or circumstances, no one saw coming leading to a fiscal disaster. A situation I know well, I'm from a small town in Ohio, directly adjacent to Middletown, recently made famous by a certain political candidate. When industries change overnight, unprepared communities are left holding the bag. I do not want this future for Loudon. We agree with staff's recommendations for improving the profits for trail connections and strongly feel the applicant must maintain the integrity of the 50 foot buffer for the River Stream corridor. We agreed the two buildings coming into conflict with the Stream Channel need to be relocated or deleted. 1.7 million square feet of data center is more than enough. We do not feel there is justification for so many noted encroachments to the wetlands and stream corridors on the site. Looking again to the ordinance, Leven's community has many requirements for this land, both today and in the future, and the decision makers of our county are empowered by the zoning ordinance to quote encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the locality. Power we urge you to exercise in recommending denial of this application as long as the data center uses included. Thank you. Under three minutes. Do we have anybody joining us? Is there anyone else in the room? We'd like to speak on this agenda item. Do we have anyone joining us remotely on this item? We do not, Madam Chair. All right. Thank you. Last call. Okay. Public hearing, portion of this is closed. We will move on. Do we have a, um, we're in Leisberg. Do we have a motion, Mr. Barnes? Oh, microphone. Can't you have that? Okay I move that planning commission forward. LEGI 2023 0060 Lexton Cochranville ZMP ZMAP 2023 001 Zmod 002 002 001 and Zmod, 0-0-2-0-2-3, 0-0-1, and Zmod, 20-24, 0-0-11 to the November 14th, planning commission work session for the further discussion. Second. Motion is made by Commissioner Barnes. Seconded by Commissioner Miller, do you have an opening, sir? No, I'm looking forward to it. No opening. Any comments on the motion? Commissioner Kieres. I'll support the motion. There's some clarification on the distance from the road as we talked about. That's what I'll be looking for in work session. The comment I want to make is we're talking about where data centers appropriate and where data centers aren't appropriate. In my mind, this is exactly the kind of place where they are appropriate. We just had a discussion about the zone and members of the public saying we want to have the right to weigh in on these data centers. Same meeting and Tia spoke up but that's it. The public doesn't, I found it interesting, all my years on the planning commission, all the legislative data centers, there's been almost zero public input. There's been a few, and generally when they were encroaching close to houses, you got some public input. But the vast, vast majority of them, there hasn't been a lot of community engagement or concerns or public coming out to speak. I think most of that is because for the most part the data centers are in the areas they belong as opposed to where they don't belong. And I put this one in the category of this is a location where a data center and even a large data center complex would be appropriate. Commissioner Meyers. Yeah, I would just like, and I'll support the motion to you and I support everything you just said about the core use and this being the right place for the data centers to go. But one thing I think would be helpful is when we have the work session, when you're sending out the updated packets, could you please include upfront, not back in the back, the items that you guys have agreed on, like where they've talked about they've done, the trails and stuff they want to do, so that it's very clear really, it narrows down what the discussion needs to be instead of, I feel like I'm reinventing the public hearing over. So if we could have that up front, that would be very helpful for me. I thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Miller. Yeah, I'll support the motion. I travel on this road quite a bit. A little bit less now that Crossgill is open. It is nothing but industrial. I mean, heavy industrial. Obviously, this is a quarry. But there's tow truck, tow facilities. We bring the cars and trucks. And there's heavy machinery and all sorts of stuff and half of its gravel road. Although it was pleasantly surprised to learn, I think TooShart mentioned it, that there is a four lane stretch of Cochrane Mill. It always baffled me why there was a paved four lane stretch of it. And it turns out that that is for the future extension of lost or parkway which hopefully will never frankly be built But I say this because while it is a very industrial area and bull in park has got the power lines running through it and everything like that 105 feet is still an intense use, no matter where it is. There's not going to be a tremendous amount of traffic on this road. There's a lot less now that crosshills open to where it is, but it's still an intense size and still an intense height. And I can see in this world in which we live where that could potentially be a challenge. Some comments today on this body would suggest that but in perhaps lower heights could create more opportunity for better buffering and I only say that in the notion that while Bowen is just where they keep people going play games and do stuff, it is a great park and it is an environment in which you sometimes don't want all of that. And I think that there is a time when United Dry will be a back entrance to the park. And so those are just things to consider as we go forward. The true intensity of this project on this site. But otherwise, from a location standpoint, this is in touch with the guests and that's where things like this belong. Thank you. Mr. Mott already. Thank you Madam Chair. I support the motion, but at the same time, I would like to bring up more items that were here in the presentation today from the staff. In their deck from the page 13 onwards, they recommended discussion on waterways, discussion on RSCR, discussion on TCA, discussion on habitat, profit, discussion on road improvements and crosswalks. There are too many caps in here that we haven't even talked about or where at least staff things that there is not enough things done to this application to get some kind of an agreement with us. So again, I don't have answers. I don't have questions right now. But I am not happy that in general this is the place where we want data centers to go, but not with these many issues where there is a disagreement between the staff and the applicant. I want to see better discussion and some kind of agreement with the staff that you guys did look at these issues and why you still differ with their opinion on this application. Before I support the approval, I would like to see the discussion and some kind of agreement. Thank you. Commissioner Jasper. Thank you. I'd like to support the comments made by Commissioner Moderati just now. I am concerned about the impact on natural resources, what land streams, the impact potentially on cyclones, creek, but also the comments made by other commissioners on the impact of having a 100 plus foot giant thing at the edge of a park. It does expect if it will affect the user experience in the park for sure and so what you can do to step down And diminish that it would be great Okay, I will just add my concurrence with with with the last two Commissioners have shared I will add as you can probably tell I'm concerned about the surrounding roads and how we're going to now because I'm kind of getting fed up with it. But 105 foot solid concrete wall that goes many feet wide is not the same as a power line. And I don't like that people keep comparing it. Well, the power lines there. I sit at baseball games with my son next to power lines and I sit at baseball games with my son next to very tall data centers. It's not the same. It's not the same to live next to it. It's not the same to sit at a park next to it. It blocks more light. It's just visually unappealing, but it's not the same. And what we require around the setbacks on those big large transmission lines, it just feels like it does a better job of mitigating than 105, 12, to 99 foot wall. And so just because I don't want someone else to say it to me again, I'm going to publicly say, please, don't. It does not get you any favor. So you can find it to say to other people if you want, but I don't like carrying it anymore. They're not the same That's right. Well, come here's your barns. Do you have a closing? No ma'am. All right. We have a motion on the floor all those in favor I Opposed motion carries 920 Second to last. Item number seven, Ludgy, 2023, 0071, Arcola Grove rezoning. Welcome back, Zach. We get to send Alice in home. She and Marchione will be here until you're healed to the end. What do they, what do they, who's called I like a Highlander Award or something, we used to have those. I have those up here, so you know on this. Um, maybe I could, I might have had one that went to a foreign during the early morning stuff. So the Mark's Award, they that way. I used to, yeah. I said I had an history and mixed emotions that's always on the other side of the world. That's all you need to do. Yes. I've had a history of Smithway. And then, I'm just saying. Yeah, we did one. I just, I just, I'm just saying. How are we like? We're moving where that we are. See what you like. We are ready when you are, Zach. Okay. I will try to make as much sense as possible at this late of hour. So, shh. Hello again. I'm here now to present the application for our cola grove re-soning. There we go. Sorry. So the subject properties identified on the screen consists of six parcels. The northern portion of the site is currently occupied by contractor service establishments with outdoor vehicle, heavy equipment and material storage. The southern portion of the site is forested with a mixed scattering of hardwood and evergreen trees. The site is located along the west side of our Colabullavard, south of Azalea Lane, and east of Stone Springs Boulevard within the suburban policy area and the suburban employment place type. The two northern parcels are currently zoned a royal commercial or RC and the four southern parcels are currently Zone planned development industrial park or PDIP site access is proposed via one full movement entrance on our Cola Boulevard and emergency access on Azalea Lane The applicant is requesting approval of the zoning map amendment or Z map to rezone approximately 6.8 acres, which includes the two northern parcels from the RC legacy zoning district to the PDIP zoning district for the development of the utility substation use. The applicant is requesting a special exception or specs to permit the construction of utility substation transmission use. The applicant is also requesting a zoning modification or Z-mod to increase the maximum building height from 60 feet to 100 feet. The proposal would increase the permitted data-centered use on the subject property from 614,000 square feet to 743,400 square feet with approximately 43,000 square feet of substation use. Here's a picture of the applicant's concept development plan or CDP, the two data-centered buildings are proposed on the left or southern portion and the substation is proposed on the right or northern portion. Outstanding issues, there are two outstanding issues related to compatibility, which include building height and the utility substation. Compatibility, utility substation, the policy, the Loudoun County General, 2019 General Planner, or 2019 GP recognizes uses such as data centers and utility substations. They may not be compatible with adjacent residential uses and should have transitional uses located in between. Tonight's proposal for the residential development is approximately 92.5, 92 feet, five inches away from the nearest corner of the house on our Colatown Center. Recommendations incorporate the existing forest cover and trees, additional plantings, and interim screening measures into the overall site designed to buffer and screen future adjoining residential uses. Capatibility building height, our 2019 GP anticipates heights of two to eight stories or 24 feet to 96 feet in the suburban employment place type. Tonight's proposal is 100 feet in height. Recommendation is to commit to a lower building height or provide additional building design information and or utilize existing force coverage entries, additional plantings and interim screening measures, into the overall site design to buffer and screen the proposed uses from future adjacent residential uses. At your meeting on September 12th, the Planning Commission asked four questions related to this application. The first question sought to clarify if the proposed application's data centers could utilize substations within the vicinity. Therefore eliminating the need to construct a new substation staff will defer to the applicant on this question. The second question sought background information on previous applications approved for these parcels. Portions of the property, which are the four southern parcels, are subject to ZMAP 2020-0010. And minor special exception, SP 2020 0-013, Arcola Grove, commercial. The Board of Supervisors approved the request to resume the four southern parcels from the RSE zoning district to the current PDIP zoning district and reduce the building and parking setbacks from Arcola Boulevard. Under the previous approvals, the property may develop with up to 460,000 square feet of warehouse use and 65,000 square feet of warehouse use and 65,000 square feet of office use. Or two up to 614,400 square feet of data center use. Or a combination of permitted PDIP uses and conformance with the building area. Embleopes approved with the ZMAP application. Provided that the development does not exceed the vehicle trip generation of the first two options. The third question sought maximum height information for neighboring structures. The height of residential buildings in our COLA town center development are up to 45 feet tall in this town center fringe and could be up to 60 foot tall in the town center core. Also, our COLA center data center, which is the Google data center is 100 feet tall. The fourth question requested that the CDP of our COLA town center be included in the presentation. Here's the most recent CDP for our COLA town center. As you can see, this application's proposed substation is shown in the middle of Here's the most recent CDP for our COOLA town center. As you can see, this application's proposed substation is shown in the middle of the screen in gray and the proposed data centers are shown in gray below the proposed substation. Our COOLA town center, which was heard by the border supervisors on September 11th of this year, replaces 530,000 square feet of proffered commercial uses with 524 additional residential units for a total of 823 units and 70,000 maximum square feet of supportive neighboring retail uses The board of supervisors will revisit this application at the business meeting on October 16th. Staff recommends that the commission forward the application to future work sessions to address the identified outstanding issues. With that said, we're happy to answer questions and I have Brad Polk from DTCI available to answer related transportation questions. Thank you. Appreciate it, Zach. Any questions? Commissioner Kierz. Could you go to your area of image? I think it's a second slide. Sure. Okay. So when I look at this, it shows, it looks like it shows the circle of the Zalia lane kind of ending where the substation starts. And then if you go two slides over, so go to two more. Now it shows that going almost all the way across the front edge of the, all the way cuts the property in half, which is it, you know? So the first slide is the existing condition. This is the proposed condition. So you see the existing terminus right now it terminates there and the proposal with the data set is to extend that. Yes, sir to serve both the data center location and the and the substation location. That would be emergency access only. Okay. Okay. That's all I have for staff, thanks. Just for clarity's sake, the map before this one. I'm going to say the bottom of the yellow line. Delas West Boulevard was projected plan to continue up in that strip that's between the Glasscock field and this site, right? Is that the, do we have a timeline for that at this point? Bradley, there. Don't blame it. I believe that that is currently under construction. Okay, I think you might be right. Or planned for construction. Okay. In the near future. I'd be curious and then I wanna know where that lands and its final configuration and where we may or may not have buffers with the residential to the southwestish. This stuff that's between this and the hospital. Okay. Any other questions for staff at this time? Marshaunt? No. Okay. I'm sorry. You're good. All right. Questions for staff at this time? Marshaunt? No. Okay. No, I'm sorry. You're good. All right. We'll go ahead and go to the applicant presentation. Good evening, fine. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm members of the Planning Commission. Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Planning Commission. It's Brian Winterhalter with the L.A. Piper. I'm joined by Liz Nicholson and Doug Fleet with American Real Estate Partners in their Data Center Division Powerhouse. If someone could load the presentation, that would be much appreciated. Thank you. As you can see here is the context of the site we're surrounded by industrial uses, the Arcola Town Center development that is yet to be developed and then some other uses and lower intensity light industrial type uses to the west which will show you some of the images of as we move forward and then obviously we're to the west side of our Colable of Art north of Route 50 in south of where the industrial area in the AWS data center campuses to the north. We're planned for suburban employment. I've had a lot of discussion about that this evening, so I'll move on other than noting that the two to eight feet, sorry, two to eight stories in height is equivalent as staff noted to 24 to 96 feet and we are proposing 100 feet. The property, the four parcels to the south are currently zoned PDIP per the prior zoning approvals. That zoning district, as you know, permits a 0.6 FAR on a by-right basis. And up to a 1.0 by special exception, I just wanted to clarify at this point that we are not seeking any additional FAR by special exception, the only additional development that we're proposing prior, compared to the prior approvals is based on 0.6 FAR over the entirety of the six parcels. We are proposing a building height up to 100 feet and we'll show you some of the adjacent uses and how that's consistent with the plan development in the area. This image shows you the existing approvals that apply to the property again six parcels, the two parcels to the north are zoned RSC rural commercial currently They were not part of the prior zoning approval the 23 acres to the south consisting of four parcels Was part of the prior zoning approval and staff has already described those approvals? I'll move on it is important to note that the RC parcels we have under contract to purchase but We are not the owners ofC. parcels we have under contract to purchase, but we are not the owners of the R.C. parcels. Just to go back in time a bit, and if you'll indulge me, I wanted to give you some additional background on the planning, history, and zoning approvals for the area, because there was a vision in place once upon a time, and that vision has frankly been chipped away at to the point of being substantially different in this area than it was originally Contemplated to be so the left on the next series of slides is the comprehensive plan the right Our zoning approvals the left shows the business plan designation for the property that was adopted in 2006 and for this overall area The right shows that in 2007 there were two zoning approvals, the shops at our coal center and the our coal center itself. You see on the right the vision for the our coal center development which clearly includes in mix of uses residential office, commercial and other uses as part of that overall vision. Then there was a site plan filed which is now the Amazon data center to the north that is for data center buildings with a substation. That's what the Amazon data center building looks like and that's the sub station. Then there was another zoning action in 2018 that approved the Google data center campus and also changed the residential that was adjacent to our site that is on Westbrook's property at the Arcoa Town Center from residential uses to non-residential uses. So the area on the right that is identified as village commercial that was changed to office and hotel uses. Again, the same planning designation for business applies to the whole area at this time. But you can see already how between the Amazon site, the Google site, and the introduction of office and hotel uses, the character of the area was changing fairly significantly from the original or coal town center vision. This is the Google data center that's directly across the street and you can see the substation there as well. There are actually two substations on the property. One currently exists, the other one is yet to be constructed. In June 2019, as you all know, the county adopted the change to the comprehensive plan for the 2019 general plan. The area of our property is designated for suburb and employment uses, which of course allows non-residential, including data centers as a conditional use. And then the areas across from us were planned as suburban mixed use. After that was in place in 2021, the county approved the Flex and Dust Reel and commercial and a portion of that being data center development as well. So you can see on the slide on the right or the image on the right, between Amazon, Google, the Village Commercial Office and Hotel and the Commercial Flex and Data Center approvals that there's actually relatively little residential left in the mixed use residential or coal town center. Our application was filed and then was approved on the prior application on our site in September 2021 when that was approved. The adjacent Westbrook property was still planned for an approved for office and hotel uses. Westbrook then proposed to change their uses on their property. This was after the data center development was already approved on our four parcels. And then this is what you see here. This is where their initial filing. As they were processing that application that was on hold for a while. And was then later resumed while they were on hold. The JK sites were approved. Capradi came in with the old Arcola residential building, which has, or development, including the old Arcola school. And there are athletic fields that are planned and approved adjacent to the portion of the property that's on the north and the substation area. And then we came in with our proposed application here, which adds the two RC parcels in order to accommodate a substation, which is necessary in this area. And we can talk about that in more detail. But Dominion has been looking for a substation in this area unrelated to our application. We've been coordinating with Dominion. So we certainly need a substation, but there is also a need for a substation in this area regardless of our application. So some it all up, this shows you the existing and plan data center buildings and substations in the immediate vicinity of our property. So there is obviously a significant amount of data center development. All of the data center campuses have substations. Our substation, well, it is certainly adjacent to the Westbrook property, is certainly not the only substation in the vicinity of their property and in the vicinity of this overall area. The image on the upper left is the current use of the substation site for the RC parcels that we're proposing to develop the substation. So that's currently a trucking storage facility. You see some of the other uses on the west side of the property along Azalea Lane, the outdoor furniture store, lawn care services, other outdoor furniture uses. So all of these areas that are in this image are planned for suburban employment and are all recommended to be redeveloped with two to eight stories of non-residential development. So this is the current condition but it is certainly not the ultimate planned condition but that's what you see along the west of west side of our property. So what are we that's the history and sort of what brought us to where we are today. So what are we actually proposing? Two data center buildings, a substation and a zoning modification to allow the building height up to 100 feet and as you will see in some subsequent slides, we meet the one for one setback requirements. The only need for the modification is because we are adjacent to districts with lower building heights on the west and the north sides of the site. Here are the proposed two data center buildings. The area to the left in the lighter color is a wetland area that we are proposing to preserve. We've actually modified the design of the buildings a bit to allow us to preserve the totality of that wetland area. As some of you have noted already, the cul de sac at the end of Isalia Lane has been relocated. I think one of the images that was in staff's presentation I believe is actually an outdated image. The reason that the cul de sac is pulled all the way at the bottom of the page on this image is so that we could pull the substation farther back away from the property line at the boundary with the Westbrook property. So that's what we have done. To give you a quick comparison the prior approval was for 614,000 square feet. The proposed application is for 786,000 square feet. We previously would have accommodated under the existing development approvals about 126 megawatts. We're currently contemplating about 165 to 170 megawatts for the two buildings. The increase in square footage is certainly increasing the capacity of the project in allowing additional megawatts. However, the additional building square footage is not what's driving the need for the substation. The prior approval would have needed a substation also. And as you can see at 165 to 170 megawatts, we are not the entire need for the substation. So the substation is to serve others as well as serving our own project. With respect to the zoning modification, as I mentioned, it's needed due to the adjacent RC and R16 parcels. The RC parcels are to our west. Those are already planned for suburban employment and are recommended for two to eight stories as well. So we think our building height is quite compatible. We also meet the one for one setback requirement. The R16 parcel that's part of the Capretti old or our Cola school residential project. We're not actually next to the residential, we're next to fields. And here is the adjacent uses and you can see in the north where the field area is. That's a cricket pitch in a soccer field that we are adjacent to. This shows the setback requirements. So if we were required to meet the one for one setback which we certainly can, that's the red-dashed line on here. So the only need for the modification is not because we can't meet the setback requirement, it's because we're adjacent to RC zoning district parcels at that portion of the property. We have committed to the architectural renderings that I'm about to show you and made additional proper commitments related to the design and we have also included green building features. We've included additional screening and buffering with respect to the substation we've coordinated directly with the Westbrook folks. They have made some modifications to their design over time. We've made some modifications to our design over time in order to make the substation and the relationship with the residential that they have planned as compatible as possible. Here's what they've done on their side of the plan. You see the sport court and the community garden area. I'm gonna keep moving quickly because I'm running out of time. And you see the cricket field in the soccer pitch here from the our cold old our cold school just really fast move through the renderings we've committed to these renderings there an attachment to our profits so it's obviously a high quality of architectural design and these are a proper architectural renderings that we are including and I think the architects have done a really nice job and you can see some of the views here of course you will be able to see you can see some of the views here. Of course, you will be able to see the H frame portion of the substation, but we've got a lot of screening and buffering around the substation area. We have a taller screening wall than would typically be required at 16 feet rather than the standard 12 feet. But this gives you a good view of what you would be seeing from the adjacent property. This is about the closest view right here. This is intended to be from the third floor of the townhouse that's closest to the project. And that's the end of my presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Brian. Commissioner Kieres. So we have approved data center and they need a substation. So basically without this substation site being approved, you just have to wait longer in order to be able to build the facilities at the issue. That is correct. Dominion has told us that they have been looking for a substation site. They would like to use the substation site that we are suggesting. And even in the absence of our project, they are still looking for a substation site that we're suggesting. And even in the absence of our project, they're still looking for a substation site. So next comment, I mean, as I've kind of said, the ugliest data center building out there is a thing of beauty compared to the best look and substation I've ever seen out there. And is there a possibility on this site Let's look in substation I've ever seen out there. And is there a possibility on this site that you could reloc, you could switch this around and where you have the substation, have a data center building there and bury the substation in the back, Northwest corner where all those other industrial uses are. So you're not subjecting the residents in that community to have in a substation right there. Is that something that's even conceivable? We've looked at many designs to try to either pull the buildings forward. Part of the desire also was to give enough setback on our Cola Road and to provide that buffer in the front. The substation parcel wasn't large enough and if we rotated the buildings it didn't really provide with the wetlands any sufficient space to be able to do that. So we looked at a number of alternative solutions. We thought that this actually had the most minimum impact. Yes, I'd argue from the worst impact on the residences. But okay, there also is the challenge of the road, right? So the road is necessary for the emergency access purposes. So if we had a building and a location, the building would be cutting off the road. Does a road go somewhere other than your site? We would still need a road somewhere for a secondary access point. Okay, I just, I know. It seems to me you can still get a road in there, but. I mean, it's something I think we could try to look at again, but I don't. We haven't been asked that before tonight, quite honestly, so I don't know that. I don't want to end that with you. I didn't, you know, just the idea of the substation there. And, you know, we were a chicken or an egg situation here. The residential application came in first, and they kind of said, well, there's this one that's going to be coming down the road. You know, so unfortunately, but obviously the board hasn't approved that residential development. And if they were to turn it down, my opinion on this would probably change. But given that the residential was approved and the work with them to try to get the residences far away from that site as possible. Anticipating something was coming down the road. I just have an issue with the substation more so than the data center buildings. We did try to mitigate by putting up a more attractive larger, higher screen wall, similar what we did at the Pacific property on the old well campus. And we certainly enhanced and put in very large tree buffers all around to give it that aesthetic feel. To answer the previous question, Commissioner Kieres, the Azalea could not be closed, so we simply pulled it up to provide not only the access to the substation, but also the emergency access as a secondary means of access. But there are a number of businesses that do use as Alia that are populated from where it hits and initiates. Commissioner Mader ready. Thank you, Madam Chair. And in the same line says Commissioner Curses saying, whatever happened, it's happened all all the years with all the modifications in the area right now. This application is surrounded three sides by residential area. I know on the south side there is a storage area but right next to it there is a stone ridge townhomes right there they are not too far from a hundred foot building I don't think they are too far where this building is going to be. So even if you move the substations somewhere else I mean if it can be screened from the south also somehow I don't know whether you guys can do it, especially if you look at different options. It's not looking good for me right now how it stands with the additional buffer on the screening. Knowingly, I know there are applications that data centers came too close to the residential buildings. Like application before this one we talked about there are certain areas, there are good for data center, there are certain, they are not. I don't believe this is a good place for us to knowingly put a substation around here and also increasing the building height at the same time. So that's really a comment, really, more than a question for the applicant. Commissioner Miller. Thank you. I think this question might be for staff, but I'm probably not going to answer as well. This site, along with the Westbrook site, adjoining it prior to remapping of the airport impact overlay district, which is now in 60 to 65. Was this in 65 plus? Because well, low just doesn't have the old. Yeah, it would take me a second to go into that. I want to say it did affect this area, but I don't know with the exact line. Fall. Okay. So that that that that answer that question would be helpful to me. The well load just only has the current. Yeah, it would be not the previous. That's all. Thank you. Commissioner Myers. I'm trying to understand so what's before us tonight is it really just the substation or it's the substation and the data center? And or I guess what I guess here's what let me rephrase my question. Do we have the ability to approve one and not the other or is it all or nothing? You could recommend you could split it and recommend, not separated by application numbers. No, but you know what I'm saying? Correct. You could support the data center, but not necessarily support. The substation as it moves forward, because from what I'm hearing, the data center would just simply be put on hold for longer until there was more electricity found in this area. It's not like you're denying it, but you are setting a better buffer than where the RC is that you're not necessarily putting a substation in there to date, tonight, tomorrow, whenever the application is decided. So yeah, they could actually, they have a data center approved by right, which does not require a substation further. So yes. So I guess that's why I'm trying to figure out, what do we really, what do we really, what do we really be asked to approve? Are we being asked to approve a read? Because it looks like they're trying to get more FAR with the data center, so that it went up to like from 1.6 to like 1.7 or whatever. So that is part of this application. So you have the special exception for the utility substation. And we could choose to not recommend approval of the special exception, but recommend approval of the Z-Map. The Z-Map effectively increases data center development by 100,000, 100,000, 25,000 square feet. From 1.6 to 1.7. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Jasper. This is for the applicant. What is What's the justification or the compelling need to change the data center? Approval to add a hundred thousand feet. So In bringing in the substation parcel the site site area is larger and at a .6 FAR there is additional FAR that is available and the justification for a 100 feet in building height is consistent with what is recommended in the comprehensive plan and the properties around our property, our application site are also recommended with the same comprehensive plan designation and could also ultimately be developed with development at the same building height. So we are consistent with what's recommended in the comprehensive plan with respect to building height. Okay. All right. Any other questions for staff of the applicant before we open a public hearing? So again the common theme with the building heights versus stories. We was up to eight stories so the difference between our assessment and the ordinance, or what the district would allow is only four feet. So 96 feet at eight stories versus 100 feet that's allowed by the district. So. So the big difference for the added density is the footprint, if it's not the height. Yeah, okay. Can you bring me that? Yeah. Can't miss an opportunity. If I may, for what it's worth, the current proposal has better commitments for architectural design, better commitments for the wetland preservation, and better commitments for a number of things that aren't in the current approvals. So there is some advantage to considering the proposed application because it's not just the difference of 614,000 square feet versus 786,000 square feet. There's a lot of additional enhancements with the current version of the application. Okay. All right. I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing. We do have one person signed up with Jim Bangle. You come on down. You've got three minutes. We're happy to have you. Thank you. Chair Frank and planning commissioners. I'm Jim Bangle representing the Piedmont Environmental Council again. We do not support the proposed rezoning with a special exception for a substation. The proposed building height increase and expansion of square footage on the existing approved application for this site. Special exception applications have six categories of consideration outlined in the zoning ordinance. Staff have analyzed these considerations and have noted outstanding issues for the land use and compatibility questions which in our opinion are enough to deny this application and we would encourage the applicant to develop according to what's already been approved. The development pattern in our COLA as everybody knows is already very fragmented now. The request for additional square footage and height on this site adds to the challenging pattern because it doesn't provide a reasonable transition to the adjacent residential neighborhoods. The industrial nature of the substation and data center are both incongruent and incompatible with near residential, with inadequate screening and just increases the conflict between uses that we've already experienced in the Arcola area. The application increased in height from 60 to 100 feet without additional setbacks as to the problem. So we understand also how staff look at the fiscal impact consideration for special exceptions, but given the concerns about the single industry dependence that Loudon has on data centers, it would point to the need to consider the risks as well as the rewards of a data center approval of each data center approval on the county's fiscal stability. The already approved ZMAP 2020-0010 development offers the potential for warehouse uses that conform with the building envelopes and vehicle trip generation. There are still reasonable uses for the property that can be developed if the applicant does not want to proceed with a data center right now. Or once there is a data center application available a data center available Sorry, let me start that again once there is a substation Available there could also be the potential to revisit this application in the future. Thank you Thank you. Do we have anyone else in the room who'd like to speak on this agenda item? Do we have anyone joining us online for this item? We did not, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. Last call. All right. Public hearing on this agenda item is closed really quick before I take a motion. Question for, I don't know if it's staff or maybe more you Brian the applicant but you showed a really pretty picture of what the screening looks like around the substation is that are you proffer to that? We would be willing to proffer to that yes we're proffer to enhance sub screening we have the type C enhanced buffer and we have additional plantings that are proposed that are reflected in the rendering. That rendering itself is in our plan side. But we are making progress. Have you run that past a minion? They usually want such a big security perimeter. We get told all the time they can't add additional plantings that close to the wall. I think we have coordinated that with the minute. Dominion is on board with this plan Because I'm just worried that we're we're going to have this impression that we're going to get certain plans Plants around the wall and then that's not going to work with their security perimeter And they're going to get moved somewhere else and not have the same visual Metication impact mitigation, but okay. All right. We are in delis Commissioner, not already. Do you have a motion? Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. I contemplated to do what motion here, but I'm going with this particular motion today. I hope you guys will support it. So I move that the Planning Commission forward, led G20230071, Arcola, Grow, Resoning, ZMAP 2023-005, aspects 2023-0015, and ZMAR 2023-0031 to the Board of Supervisors with the recommendation of denial based on the following findings of denial. One, the proposal to construct buildings up to 100 feet in height and accompanying utility substation is incompatible with adjacent plant and approved residential development. Proposed buffering and screening of the utility substation is insufficient to mitigate visual impact on plant adjacent residential uses that are proposed as close as 92.5 feet. Second. Motion is made by Commissioner Maderite. Seconded by Commissioner Miller. Do you have an opening? Yes, ma'am. I'm just really brief. Like I said, I thought about whether I can send you guys to a work session, but I don't want to waste anybody's time because it is not, I mean, applicant, I did have two meetings with you guys. You guys did make a comment that I haven't seen the staff report and I haven't made up my mind, but I did entertain the meetings with you to see what kind of changes we are working on. And I do appreciate all the effort that you guys put it into try to mitigate those things. But at the end of the day, I could not come up over the objections I had personally to have a 100-foot building where there are three sides kind of covered by residential units. I'm sorry, so thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Jasper. I'll be supporting the motion. I have spent a good bit of time out there. I know there are currently data centers out there with some, you know, and some substations, but I do feel that there's a good bit of residential out there. There's the potential for future residential development additionally. You know, you have the data center approved that is already there. And I think to kind of turn this into a game of dominoes with everybody building a bigger data center adjacent to each new data center that comes online is not beneficial to the residents of the area. So for that reason I'll be supporting the motion. Commissioner Miller. Thank you. The current applicant is not here with you guys did not do the original rezoning those another outfit and then you purchased us to do whatever you wanted to do. The Arcola Town Center site and I'm about your site for sure but the Arcola Town Center site used to be in the 65 plus L.D.N. And when we changed the airport impact overlay district, it took away a lot of areas where you could construct housing, most notably in this area, the Cedar Terrace, where half of the property went from 6665 to 65 plus and their proposal went from 1200 houses to 300 rubber was. At the same time, we took housing away from areas. It also opened up other areas for housing where housing is needed. And this is one of those areas, additionally to here. Do you join in our whole residential and other things in the area that allowed for residential, which the board has supported in this area. As such, I cannot support putting in a substation, as Commissioner Mottorbelli said, that is surrounded by three residential neighborhoods. It's just something that we always talk about avoiding it, and here's the opportunity to avoid it. I do recognize this site has already approved for data and by all means, build it. And if that's not financially viable at this time, and you want to do something else with it, it is approved for 460 out thousands where a fee to flex. There's plenty of flex in the area, and I'm sure those flex developers would like more. I recognize that at the price you probably paid, that doesn't make flex the viable option per se, but again, that can't be a consideration of this body. I look at this and say simply, I can't, in good conscience, put a data center next to what's all, approximately another new 800 residential units. Because, part and parcel, because of the change in the airport and the impact overlay district, that's what got us to this point. And because of that, I don't know that even a work session would change my mind because there is I do agree there is no way to really jigger the site so that that's data of there and substation below so because of that I will support the motion. Commissioner Burns. I will support the motion for the same reasons. They can still build their building, they can have a data centric if they want to, but in a lower height. But putting a power station right next to the residence is not a good thing to do. Thank you. Commissioner Kierce. I ask a clarifying question. It's just clear. So the site for the data center, I'm sorry, the site for the substation, that parcel you do not own now, correct? We have them. They're under contract. But you don't own it. Correct. So if this application doesn't proceed, we are likely to drop those two parcels. Right. So, but we couldn't approve the density you want on this building because I think you said you needed the land for the FI. Are you're back to your previously approved? That's correct. You're previously approved data center. More of the height of those buildings. 60 feet. Those were at 60. That question, is it possible for you to reconsider moving that data center to a different location. Moving the substation to a different location, if that's something you want to explore, then I would consider going to work session to see if that's something you want to do. If you really kind of need it here, then I'd probably support the motion. There's probably two options other than what that substation is. Today one is to do what we've done in a couple other developments in Ashburn, which is to reduce the format and do a gas insulated substation. So that would reduce the footprint by greater than 50%, which would provide more buffer on residential. The other would be to either find something off site or maybe there would be some impact on the wetlands and put them on the wetlands side of the property. If we put on the back, the buildings would move forward and it probably would not present the right profile or set back for the data centers from our Cullable of Art. Okay. So, so based on that, I mean at this point, I'd be willing to go to work session to give the applicant time to work on that. And that, you know, maybe some of the other commissioners concerned, they might alleviate that if they were able to remove that substation. So I'd be willing to go to work session with this. So at this point, I won't support the motion. Commissioner Banks. Yeah. Given the lateness of the hour I won't repeat what has already been said but simply say that I will support the motion for the reasons that have already been outlined by Mr. Miller. Commissioner Meyer. I too will support the motion. I think here you have the fundamental difference and that's why yes. There is a reasonable use of the property and it can still be a data center. It can be 60 feet high. It's less. It's 100,000 square foot less. But you then don't have the intensity of the substation setting right up to the residential. If later they want to come back and redesign something through creative design, there's nothing that prevents them from taking that property and redo it. But I think at this point in time, looking at the reasonable use, the ability to do the data center. We're talking about a thousand, a hundred thousand square feet less. The real discussion is the substation which I just don't see a way of making it work. So I will support the motion of denial. Vice Chair comms. Thank you madam chair. I'm with commissioner cures on this one. I think there's still enough to be determined to send this to a work session. For the reasons you just mentioned the potential redesign options. But also, Brian in your presentation, we saw images of substations nearby for the Google Data Center and Amazon Data Center. And they were hideous. Your images are showing additional screening 16-foot wall, additional plantings. It already looks a whole lot better than those. I have a feeling there's potentially more that you might be able to do with some innovative thought to screen it additionally. I see this as an opportunity for us to think a little bit outside of the box on how we might screen these. This isn't going to be the only time we're going to see a request to put substation near residential and I want us to be more equipped to handle something like that and I feel like this is an opportunity to do it. So for that reason I wish we were sending this to work session because I would support that. Thank you. I not support the motion, but I understand where you're coming from. Just out of curiosity, Doug, you mentioned a 50% smaller footprint substation. Is that taller than? It is not, Madam Chair. Okay. Appreciate that data point. I'm going to support the motion and it's not as much because of the Arcola Town Center residential though that may, you know, it's a chicken and egg thing. I guess I'll look at the, we'll call it the rooster. We have a light tech building on the other side of those sports fields. You know, we have affordable housing and that seems like some of the worst stuff to put looking at a substation and a 100-foot tall data center right there across the field. So it just doesn't, I think we have a compatibility issue at the core and I think that's why you're meeting some resistance. So I will support the motion. Do you have a closing commissioner? Mader ready no matter what all right we have a motion on the table all those in favor I Opposed nay Okay commissioners motion carries seven to two vice chair combs and commissioner cures opposed Thank you all we're get to the final item of our evening. Ledgy 2023-0064 Crossmill Center. Marcia, your one man band on this one, huh? I am. You are. So on this day, 51 years ago, Mary Jane Schneider, a Navy nurse, came birth through a baby boy, and named him Robert Francis Edwin-Marshont Schneider. Happy birthday. Did I hear birthday? Oh my gosh. No, no, is your birthday's Wednesday, not Tuesday? Today is, right now it's 12.47 a year. It's Wednesday. All right, happy birthday, Marsha. And to that end, to that end, Marsha, 17 years ago today, Ellen Miller herself also did the same thing to my son, Jake. Ah. Happy birthday, Jake. Y'all should go to I Have For Birthday Pancakes or something. They're still open, right? I mean, yes. Yes, thank you. Exactly. Well, thank you all for hanging with us tonight as advertised. This was a long one and We are ready whenever the technical gods Smile down on us. The amnesia we've all had with doing Star points every one of you. I thought maybe something got changed up there that's throwing everybody off You didn't have to admit that y' just forgot. I was giving you credit. I said that then. So okay, final item. In interest of time, I'm just going to hit the highlights. Thank you. We've had several conversations with the developer and what we feel we have resolved with guards of transportation. So, familiar with this area south of the airport east of Cicol and Road, North of Cochrane Mill Road. 22 acre site, wishing to resume from JLMIT 20 to PDIP with two development options, either 920,000 square feet of data center or a number of PDIP uses at a maximum trip generation on the site. Increasing FAR and also increasing lot coverage. This is the concept development plan, cross-dryle boulevard to the north, sickling road to the west, and then Cochrane Mill at the southern boundary. This is the development envelope in this dash line and arrow, and you'll see tree conservation areas along Cochrane Mill and at the rear of the property. Two issues, the theme tonight about land use and compatibility and the transportation administration we just spoke about. We believe we have solutions. So each of the place types we've talked about tonight, Cochrane Mill. Conversation we just had on our Cola Grove and now here there's specific transitions to adjacent uses in this case the joint land management area, Leesburg joint land management area employment play site does talk about screening industrial uses from adjacent roads. In this case they're out they're property and number of design commitments and as before we're asking the commission are you comfortable with a description a general description of the design versus building elevations of how the property might be laid out. Hite, a comment team that we talked about tonight again, four stories at 12 foot average, about 48 feet they're allowing up to 60 feet per the district and again recommending a lower building height based on the staff interpretation of the policy. This is a map you've seen before, but in a different form. The purple is a joint land management area. You see one, two, four stories, and then as you move south, one to three. So one thing I do want to say about height versus stories really is talking about the scale and massing between place types. And so the idea of stories is to create some distinction amongst it. And so we talk about stories and talk about height. It's really sort of distinguishing between the place types. Transportation, again, we believe we have solution to this. This was clarifying dedication to rights away both for Cochlear Mill and Sikland Road in the shared use path. We'd also talked about secondary access for fire rescue. And there were some notations that we were asking for on their cross sections. We feel confident that those can be addressed. So what we're asking the commission tonight to look at is again, the relationship of the site to Sikland Road and Cross Trail. Is there an interest in seeing more detail with regards to site layout and building an architectural design? And that is the end of my presentation. We appreciate your privity. Commissioner Jasper. Oh, never mind, Commissioner Kears. My first got back on the commission and the new zoning ordinance had taken and it been implemented. And there's a lot more stringent design commitments for data center buildings, fenestration and there's a whole list of things that the buildings are expected to meet. And I think I'm going to start talking to you. But basically my question to staff is if this is met, all these things are met, then staff is okay with not having a visual picture image. And the answer I got was yes, because they're meeting all of these commitments that resolves our concern about the look of the building. Is that an accurate? Okay. So in the case of this application, have they met all those design standards or not? So this is under the grandfathering resolution, so they are developing per the old ordinance. Right. And they're going to go through their architectural commitments and their presentation. Okay, so I was just curious because they've committed to them. Secondly, the DTCI report, they were asking for turn lanes, left turn lanes, right turn lane and out. That's been agreed to, there's no issue there. Yes sir. Okay. All right. Thank you. Commissioner Meyers. Just real quick. And Michonne, back to your lovely, which I have to commit on overnight where you have the building heights and stuff. Presentate. It was what page, what six of ten. Yes ma'am. On your presentation. Is that what it is or 8 of 10? That one, yes. So as I'm looking at this, the red is their building proposal correct? That's the property boundary. That's what I mean. So literally to the left as I look at this, you're saying that there's buildings already existing that are 52 to 100 feet high. And then you're saying over to the right there's buildings that are up to 100 feet high. Yes ma'am. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Thank you for that. A bra. Yeah. All right. Well then we will go ahead and launch into the applicant presentation. Thank you. I do. Thank you. First time. It's very exciting. Good morning. Chair Frank and members of the commission. Thank you for your time. My name is Morgan Hadlock. I'm an attorney with Walsh Galuci here in Leesburg. I have the honor of representing the applicant, JK Land Holdings. With me, I have my colleague, Micromio, and Charles Yud with JK Land Holdings. And other members of our applicant team in the room is welcome to answer any questions you might have. Just for the record, all requirements for notice and posting have been met. Mershant did an excellent job of quickly summarizing the background of this application, and it is very late. So I'm going to focus on addressing the outstanding issues identified in the staff report. As Mershant mentioned, we're making slight tweaks to some of the notes on our CDP to address the transportation issues identified. So with our time this evening, I'd like to focus on the land use and compatibility questions raised, namely building height and architecture. I got a power. Oh, yeah, thank you. Well. Let's see. It's very good. It was going to be working. Okay, Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. of the application. The current property is separated from cross-trail by two county owned parcels directly north of the site. The applicant has these parcels under contract and intends to bring them into the limits of the property with a subsequent rezoning and ZCPA but they are not part of the current application. The applicant is a contract purchaser of the subject property included in this application and didn't want to risk breach of certain contractual dates by revising the application to bring those County owned parcels into the application but intends to bring that rezoning Before you all subsequent to this current rezoning next slide, please So this property is designated as the Leesburg JLMA employment place type by but the general plan, which is the pink here on this map. Next slide, please. This place type envisions light and general industry uses and lists data centers as a complimentary use. The design characteristics of this place type allow for a total non-residential FAR of up to 1.0, and provides that a building should not exceed a height of four stories. The height of a data center story ranges based on its construction, but is often approximately 30 feet in height. Here the applicant is proposing PDIP zoning, which allows a building height up to 60 feet, which would roughly translate to two stories. Based on the text of the plan as shown here, we believe that the proposed maximum 60 foot building height is in compliance with what the plan calls for in this place type. As Marshaunt noted, staff is interpreting that four-story maximum as a maximum of 48 feet at an average of 12 feet per story. We note that the 12 foot story is only referenced twice in the plan in the design guidelines for the Urban Transit Center and Urban Employment Place Types, which both call for a minimum rather than a maximum FAR and place much higher upper limits on the number of stories appropriate within the place type. site design in those place types is of course going to be different from what is appropriate in the JLMA and we think the plan accordingly allows for flexibility by not specifying the height of a story in the place type guidelines. Next slide, please. That being said, we are cognizant of the fact that this site is adjacent to well-traveled roadways and has telephoto that sits rather high along portions of Cross Trail and Siklin. It isn't our intent to have some looming building on top of a hill at the corner of Cross Trail and Siklin. So we've prepared cross sections that show the proposed grade along those roadways. As you can see, the building would sit below the grade of both Cross Trail and Siklin about 24 feet below Cross Trail and about 16 feet below Ciclin. While the building is still 60 feet in height, the changing grade and the provided buffering substantially mitigate the visual impact from both of those roads raised as these exhibits show. On this slide, we've also provided an illustrative building layout that locates principal facades along Cross Trail and Cyclone and equipment yards to the interior of those buildings. The applicant doesn't yet have an end user or specified use plan for the site. So this Building Layout is subject to change but with its next submission, the applicant will include proper commitments to locating those principal facades along the corner of Crossrail and Ciclin to ensure that the architecture of those facades is really fitting their prominent location. Next slide, please. This map provides a bird's eye view of how this building would fit in with surrounding development in terms of height. The industrial development's north of the greenway range between 45 and 100 feet in height. So at 60 feet this development really would sort of fall in the middle of the pack with regards to height. And of course the visual impact would again be mitigated by the proposed greeting. I also want to highlight the proximity of the site to the airport and note that we received a determination of no hazard from the FAA stating that this development would not interfere with air navigation. So in some we feel that the building height both complies with the plan and is in line with surrounding uses and is appropriate on this site. Next slide please. Regarding architecture, we unfortunately cannot provide a definitive building layout or elevations because we don't have that end user yet. But wanted to provide commitments to ensure that the ultimate development is attractive and utilizes high quality building materials. As I mentioned earlier, the applicant with its exhibition will identify the facades at the corner of Crossrail and Ciclin as principal facades and will update its design standards proper to reflect the facades standards included in the current zoning ordinance. We'll also include a commitment that at least 30% of each principal facade will be comprised of fenestration. And finally, we'll include in a illustrative sheet in the plan set including representative architecture for the principal facades, and proper that the principal facades will be in general conformance with those renderings. Next slide, please. So these are the kinds of buildings that we anticipate, including on that illustrative sheet. Of course, the ultimate design may vary subject to what use is developed and the preferences of the ultimate user. But we think these images are representative of what could be developed on the site and speak to the high quality of what we're intending to develop. Next slide, please. So in sum, we contend that the 60-foot building height is in conformance with the plan and in keeping with the development surrounding the property. Regarding architecture, we believe that the updated exhibits and commitments described this evening will better aid staff in evaluating architecture and site design while maintaining the flexibility necessary in the absence of an end user. We understand that the staff report recommends that the commission forward this application to a future work session, but believe we've anticipated many of the changes that would result from a work session and are committed to making those updates. If the commission is amenable to the changes that we've described and is comfortable recommending approval of the application this evening, we greatly appreciate it, but are also happy to continue these discussions at the November work session. So with that, we thank you for your time. Inciteration of this application and are happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Do we have questions for the applicant? Mr. Barnes. I talked to Mr. Zerl Marlago about the setback. You said it was 75 feet. That's correct, yes. Right. A long second. And I was asking if he could do a little bit more and it's going to be lower. The ground is lower so you're not going to see the height much more than really. You're going to see about 40 feet or something from the road because it's going to be going down. How much lower is it from the road? A long sickle and I believe it's about 16 feet. How much? 16 feet lower. 16 feet. You're going to have generator on the side. If a data center was developed on the site, likely yes. On the ground. So you don't have the putty on top. That's not in our current proper commitments, but I think that's certainly something that we'd be Inmedible to updating. I'd like to see that on the ground, so it won't be visible from the road and all that and the noise. So, but did you come up with the, if I could respond to your inquiry, the issue that you raised was could we provide greater setback or greater distance from cyclone? So if you're driving down cyclone road today to Lane Road, we have additional dedication of right of way and our setback, which as shown right now is 75 feet That's from that additional right-of-way so even deeper to the site you're giving the right away for four lane We are giving the right away for the ultimate sec four lane session, which is 55 feet from center line So just wanted to mention that first before Before I respond to your request which is today driving down the two lanes after our application is accepted we are on the hook to dedicate that additional right of way. We also have buffers along the road and we are right now showing 75 feet just to keep the story all on the same page. Keep us all on the same page. We are willing to increase that 75 feet to 95 feet. So I think coupled with the distance from the right of way dedication and the buffers And what we've shown with the grading and dropping the building down significantly that really helps with the with the view from Thank you. Sure. Thank you so much Commissioner Jasper Thank you chair Frank The stairford port has a number of additional concerns raised in it beyond what we've discussed in both presentations at this point, and I know it's one o'clock in the morning. It seems to me that it would be worth exploring each of these items in greater detail at a work session. I'm not going to ask you to respond to each one because they're several sequentially here now, but I personally can't imagine a recommending approval to the board without further discussion of staff concerns. Understood. If I may clarify one regarding the comment on storm water management, I believe that was included in error in our fourth referral. We received a comment requesting additional commitments, committing to specific LID measures. commitment to specific LED measures and that was different than what we had previously discussed with DTCI or parkingway and RT. And so we reached out to NRT and discovered that that comment was indeed included in error and believe that it's included in error in the staff report as well. And that is one of them. I mean I personally just a manner of concern you are willing to profit a 30% fenestration but the designs that you provide on the exemplary sheet with the CDP looks like those buildings actually don't have 30% fenestrations. And they don't have any step backs at all. So, Mershant. No, I just wanted to agree with Morgan that, yes, the storm water management issue, we were able to clarify the rights of way and shared youth path buffer we were able to resolve. So it goes back to the site design and height discussions we're having now. If I may answer, Chair Frank. I think we're answered on that item. We're good. It was an accident. Commissioner Maderetti. Thank you, Madam Chair. A couple of discladifications. One, I don't see a substation so you don't need a substation for this. At this point in time, a substation is not proposed. There, as you know, from a lot of the discussion, there are other industrial sites in the area that are proposing data that also include substations. So we are not proposing a substation at this site at this time. Okay. Thank you, Charles. The second one is those screened mechanical areas typically are company the building. I know you guys don't have the renderings but how can we make sure that those are properly like not towards the roads or something like that. How can we make sure that those things happen? I do think that would probably be best addressed via a screening proffer which we don't currently have in our current iteration of the proffer's but would be happy to commit to something similar to what we agreed in Greenland Park which would be fully opaque screening of mechanical equipment. Thank you. Commissioner Kierfs. Just to clarify, because you want to pick it. So you have agreed to the current zoning ordinance architectural standards, including the 30% for registration. We're proposing to make those commitments with our next submission. Okay. So you are. Okay. And just submission. Okay, so you are. Okay. And just like, Curious, how much are you lowering the site overall? Like, what's the highest elevation on that site now? Because you're dropping it down to 330. What is it actually at the highest point, you know? You know, I don't think I have that information at hand. We want to. Looking to our engineer to buy that. I just did more just a curiosity. I don't think I have that information at hand. We will have. Looking to our engineer to buy that. Just a curiosity. It's not a thing. Commissioner Cures, the 330 is where the entrance is on Siklin Road and the site starts from that point. It's kind of like a mid-level point. It goes up in elevation as you get towards cross trail. It goes down in elevation as you get towards Cochraneel, so it's kind of like a balancing right in the middle of the site. So as you get closer to the higher elevation portions, it kind of cuts into the hill there. Yeah, I just curious what the highest elevation was on the site. If you can look at that graph, you might help follow along. Existing 378 to 330 would be the proposed elevation. Okay, thank you. Could I also respond to just the architectural point they just brought up, excuse me, commission or cures. I think what in all the discussion, I hope you're getting the point, up regarding commitments that we're willing to make and details on layout and renderings, but from the beginning, in your staff report, there are two pages of written-profit commitments on building design. And largely those do come from existing, the new ordinance requirements, but the written word of the proffer governs, no matter what. And so while we do need some flexibility with what will be the ultimate exhibits, this language is a commitment regarding the building design and it's in there and it's been in there. So I just wanted to add that. Thank you Chair Frank. Can I share my words? So I just want a clarification because I don't think there's as many outstanding issues at this point as we thought there were. So I'm asking for the clarification. So in regards to the architectural, as you say in the profit, you've already had a lot of that wording, but you're willing with the next submission that you're gonna update your architectural sheet so that people can see the evidence of what you're committing to do through the profits. In regard to the building height, it's a matter of when we look at that area, do people feel like 60 feet is okay or do they want to go to 48, which really is kind of a decision of the planning commission with all of the respect for staff. I mean, they provided us information. In transportation, you guys have agreed now as my understanding on Ciclin and Cochlin and the right of ways in the commitment, so that's no longer an outstanding issue. And then it's my understanding that you're going to also agree to a further setback of 95 feet you'll commit due tonight from Sikland where you were at 75 feet. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Madam Chair. Yes sir. Ms. Marsha, your point. Ms. Marsha, your point. The Delta we're talking about between the staff interpretation of height and their interpretation of height is 12 feet. They're using the topography at 18 feet and 26 feet. So in our opinion that would offset our delta between the heights that are anticipated in the area. Interesting, but you're like at 48 and 60. Correct. That's the same. Building into the topography I think lowers the scale and massing a scene from the adjacent moves. Commissioner Jasper, I'm sorry just to follow up on your comment, Moor Shlun. And also, Mr. Yadda, I think the engineer said that the topography of the site goes from 330 to 370 something. So is the, I mean, I mean, understanding how that grade changes and how the building steps up or doesn't step up would also be helpful. Yes? Okay, thanks. Okay. Do you have another question? Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, no, that's okay. I keep losing Commissioner Miller's with Mr. Barnes' coat, like throws me off the knee on yellow and green. I keep realizing why I keep missing you. I swear. It's nothing personal. One, I don't want to beat a dead horse, but we were talking about committing to facade standards. And I know you have a couple pages of stuff, but I'll be candid with what you're adding into it. I don't have a side-by-side comparison. And do we have everything committed to in the New Zoning Ordinance Standards? I know this is a 93 thing, but if we're looking to not have the detailed drawings and renderings, we like to have a little extra verbal reassurance, I guess, or written reassurance. I've done this side by side, no, not yet. No. And we talked about that tonight that they would describe their commitments this evening and that would be reflected in a future submission. OK. All right. Because that's important to me if we're not going to have the rendering side like to have the language that gives us the confidence that we know roughly what we're getting. OK. that we know roughly what we're getting. Okay. Any other questions? No? Okay. We'll go ahead and open the public hearing. We have one last speaker, Ms. Tia Erman. They must be at the other way. I think they took turns. I appreciate them not both speaking on everything. I will give them credit for efficiency. Well, good evening for the last time commissioners. I'm T. Arman speaking for the PEC asking you to forward this to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of denial. This is another application for an extremely large hyperscale data center, nearly 1 million square feet in his owning district which supports many other options from a diverse list of uses. Indeed, the application allows for other uses which we appreciate and find to be better suited for the long term needs of our residents, the broader business community, and serves to better preserve the fiscal health of our county. If the applicant were willing to proper out data center use, we would feel differently about this application. With this location so close to Loudens Excellence Soccer Facilities, my brain goes straight to craft beverage, manufacturing, to host team celebrations, and carry out restaurants. I can personally attest, drop off for soccer practice in that location, really needs more readily accessible meal options. We strongly oppose our rezoning to allow yet another data center, where today it is not permitted and further urge you to recommend a Nile of the accompanying special exceptions which magnify the negative impacts of this unneeded facility on our community and our region. You saw this evening how far we've come and how rapidly it happened. Novak's company spokesman was quoted today addressing the newly announced additional three year delay in power supply to data centers. Quote, five years ago, a data center might request 30 megawatts of power for full operation. More recently, requests for 100 megawatts had become common. The smallest application before you this evening reported to need 162 megawatts of power. All the way up to 2021, we were regularly seeing applications for 50, 80,000 square foot data centers. This evening alone we are considering adding another 3 million square feet of data center to an industry that is already the dominant commercial land use in our county. Their immense size is a land use issue we can control. Allowing special exceptions to double their density with no sufficient justification is a land use issue. We can control. This application follows in the footsteps of several we've seen lately without detailed concept development plans sufficiently detailed proffers and architectural renderings, although we understand some of the reasons in this case. We do encourage you to require more detailed information for these projects as we do for residential applications and go over great length with residential applications. We encourage you to recommend denial of this application as long as the data center uses included and thank you so much for all of your time this evening. Thank you. All right. Any other questions or comments? We are in Leisberg again, Commissioner Barnes. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm closing the public hearing. There you go. No one else here? No, no. Okay, great. We have closed the public hearing. Now, Commissioner Barnes. All right. I'll leave that money commission forward. LVGI 2020-2006-4000-center-prozenen-and-mech-pre-20-2006-4S-VX-20-3006-10S-VX-20-3006-10S-VX-20-3007. and the second. Second. All right. Motion is made by Commissioner Barnes. Seconded by Commissioner Miller. Do I need to do a friendly amendment? I keep going. Yeah. Before we get too far, I am going to propose and staff may throw something at me. I am going to propose a friendly amendment that we strike the date November 14th from that and just say future planning. Future commission work session. In the event, it can be turned around for October or if not November. Change it to the future work session. Is that accepted by the seconder? Okay, so we've just changed that to read for a future work session. Future work session. I don't think the applicant has a problem with that. No, didn't know. Is we quick or that way? I'm making no promises because I have not vetted this with anybody. And, you know, all right. Just strikes me that it may not be that hard to turn around. Okay. All right. Thank you. Do you have an opening, sir? No, I think it looks pretty good to me after what the changes we asked for. And I'm okay with it. Commissioner Miller. So in a work session, I know that we, there's no users, there's no design yet. You know, I would say this is probably a better spot for flex. However, one thing I actually spoke with the applicant team about was that once cross-trails extended to the green way, this area will, in many ways, become another gateway into Leesburg. And with a gateway into a community, I would hope for something that's visually appealing. And coming in from Cross-trail, these buildings will only be 30 or six or so feet above grade. If the design that design standards that they commit to are sufficient, then I think we end up knowing that we're gonna have where the user ends up being a very attractive building as a gateway to the community. And that's one thing that I'm focused on making sure that we can achieve through the further discussion at the next work session. Thank you. On the other comments, Commissioner Meyers. I just wanted to make sure it's my understanding. It might correct that already in the proffers, you all have agreed to basically meeting the 2023 development criteria for the data centers. So the proffers because this is a grandfathered application, the proffers really better reflect the design standards set forth in the revised 93 zoning ordinance but they are fairly similar and as said before we're happy to make those updates to mirror the news owning ordinance. I would like to ask if we're going to be going to a work session. Could we do that in the interim because what I'd like to see is it's as clean as possible if we can get to the October and that it also includes the architectural updated sheets that we've talked about. The generators on the ground that one person requested the 95 foot set back from Siklin and then the commitment to the 30% filtration. Finstration with tongue dyed because I think if we can get those in the report before it goes back out to us it will make it a much easier and faster for me anyway work session. Absolutely that's our intent and we appreciate that. Any other comments? Closing commissioners? Nope. All right, we have a motion on the table. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The motion carries 9 to 0. All right. Thank you. That is our last legislative item. We do not, as far as I know, have any administrative items. So thank you all for hanging in there. We are adjourned.