What? I'll call to order the regular meeting of the Charlotte County Planning Commission for this day, Thursday, October 17, 2024. It is now approximately 70 p.m. I'll call attention to the fact that there is a public comment sign-up sheet outside in the vestibule. With that in mind, I did more than Patrick you will offer an indication for it. Yes sir, no problem. Let us pray. Lord, thank you for this planning commission and everybody from the county that participates and thank you most importantly for your son, Jesus Christ who died on the cross for our sins and please be with us tonight as we do the business of the county and help us do things that are pleasing your eye and be with us as we come to these meetings and as we go home. It's in your name we pray, amen. Amen. We have before us the agenda that was sent out in the packet and has one line, it's copies outside for the public, do have a motion with regards to the agenda. Okay, move it, move it, move it, second. Second. All right, we have motion and second. Any discussion on the agenda? Anything to note by staff? All right, here none. All those in favor of the agenda is presented. And it's kept by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? The agenda will be as presented in the packet. We also were presented in our packet minutes from the September 19th meeting, which was at 7.30 pm Patrick you were absent everyone else had a chance to look at the minutes any comments on the minutes? I'm motion on the minutes. Look at what proof. I haven't missed Nichols motion.ist, why can't second any further discussion on the minutes. Here none will indicate approval by Senate aye. Aye. Opposed? None. The minutes for September meeting stand approved as presented in the packet that's available online. I will now open the general public comment period. There was a sign-up sheet out out front, Miss Elviston get that force and go and order the sheet. Were there any written comments for tonight? No written comments for receipt. In which case, that's Mr. Benjamin Hadlock to take Just a microphone if you would. Good evening everyone. Benjamin Hadlock with East Point. We have just withdrawn our application, things have come down down through the border supervisors. Just wanted to be here to offer comment on the draft ordinance that was included in the packet. We're encouraged that draft was able to be put together in such time. And the only comment we have, I understand there's going to be a bit of a discussion perhaps tonight, informing what might go into a final version of that ordinance. And we would just like to suggest, as is currently written, the decommissioning plan is due at the time of use permit application. Because at that point, often the technology for the battery and some specifics, including the conditions for the site, specific conditions for the site are often not. No one at the time, we suggest that the decommissioning plan be changed to at the time of site plan approval. Because at that point there is a more robust understanding of the specific technology, battery design as well as any specific conditions placed on the project. That's just one thing we want to offer during this general public comment but glad to be here this evening. Thank you. All right, thank you, Mr. Highlock. The other name that I have here is Mr. Daniel Dixon. Good evening, everyone. I'm Daniel Dixon Landowner, Madisonville, Chairman, and Friends of Charlotte. I ran out of time with my remarks at the last meeting. I talked about all the number of things that each point energy had considered all the number of environmental concerns and things we think are impacting rural communities with their zoning texts and amendment application and all the things that they listened to and found value and the one thing that we did not reach an agreement on is these things being done in industrial versus agricultural parcels. As many of you know, we circulated a petition about a year ago, began circulating where we were advocating for these things. We don't have industrial parcels because they're industrial processes and they need to be governed that way and be done on parcels 20 acres or less. And at least two miles apart, I believe, is what the petition read. So there's going to be a lot of the decision that you're going to have to give to how this is done. You know, there's some valid concerns with doing it conditional use and the main one is, is not that you can't put enough restrictions on something to do it. It's that this body or at least previous versions of it won't put enough restrictions on things as they need to. They're not stringent enough. And there's some examples of that. Now I'll lay some things out tonight. I've gone through the suggested zoning amendment language briefly. And some examples of things that are less stringent than the application that was put forward last is 10245 excludes placement in more urbanized areas. And frankly, you know, that's where they provide more benefits. So they shouldn't be excluded. It was relaxed on the lighting. They had a much more stringent requirement, the fencing. They had a much more stringent requirement rather than just black powder coated fencing. A black powder coated fencing rather than just garnd variety, prison style type fencing. The noise is going to be an issue in other sound studies that can be done for these things. The engineering is available for that. I think they were a little more stringent on the noise control. But most importantly, their application acknowledge compensating the county for a third party deconitioning estimate. And I'm not so why sure that is missing from the suggestions on your Norgance. There's a lot of value to that. I'll be talking to you all about more about that in the future about collective risk assessment. Because collective risk assessment begins in this room. It has occurred to me I haven't talked to the board about it. But it really begins in this room, and I hope y'all will try to bring yourselves up to speed on all that. You know, the storage technology is constantly changing with this. Their iron flow, chemistry batteries being manufactured with electrolytes made of iron, sodium and water. You know, I encourage you all to look into all these things for you to make the rules. Because the easiest thing you're going to do in all of this is work with like East Point Energy. They're going to be very willing to work with you on this. The hardest thing y'all are going to do is decide if this is the appropriate time and the appropriate place and go about in the appropriate way. And I encourage y'all to do so. The citizens won't y'all take a very, very responsible approach we'll make in this decision. Thank you. All right, thank you Mr. Prisixan. All right, those are the only names signed up. So anyone feels they were left off? All right. Here none. I'll close the public comment here. General public comment here for this meeting. The next bullet item on the agenda is to consider the battery, inter- and V storage, zoning, and minute, and to share it like here from staff. Okay, you have a staff report in your packet. Following our meeting last month, we found the house that 100 day, the 100 day review period could not be extended by action and after talking to the attorney and also talking to the applicant. It was recommended that the applicant consider withdrawing the application and instead the board doing referral of the issue to the planning permission by resolution which is allowed by ordinance in state code. So at their meeting on October the 11th, the board, I mean, on October the 9th I think it was. The board did adopt a resolution referring battery energy storage to the planning commission for review. There's a copy of that resolution in your packet and then following that adoption on October the 11th, the applicant did withdraw their application. So at this point we are not looking specifically at East Point application. We are looking at battery energy storage just as a use at the request of the Board of Supervisors. That does give us 100 days from the date of this meeting to complete our review. We still need to conduct a public hearing once we have recommended regulations for consideration and then make that recommendation to the board. In response to your request or draft ordinance regulations, we have provided that in the packet. I will go over a few things in that just for informational purposes to point those out. I'm happy to answer any questions about specific items that you may have. So on that draft regulation report, we did break battery energy storage facilities into two tiers. This is the common division of those facilities. It's based on kilowatt hours. With Tier 1 being those facilities under 600 kilowatt hours, which are often used for commercial, residential, even for emergency service use, and then tier two, which is a 600 kilowatt hours and above, which we are recommending as conditional uses if you consider adding it to the ordinance. We did include a number of regulations here. I'll go over a few of those that are most relevant, I think, or most intra-photically to you. Section 1024-3 does advise on compliance with building an electrical codes. It does specifically reference also the National Fire Protection Association, number 855, which is the standards for the installation of stationary energy storage systems. We do have a copy of that, I think, that we had gotten when Red House Solar was considering battery energy storage and it is updated regularly. I free access is available online with an account at NFPA. The location is also provided in there and we did include the town buffers that currently exist for solar with the waiver as it stands now incorporating that same buffer area, which is one mile to the town of Kiesville would be the minimum and then a half mile to the town's a Phoenix Charlotte courthouse and Drake's branch. That would require going to the one half would require a waiver as it does now if you drop below the one acre. I mean the one the one mile. The setbacks are provided there beneath that the Tier 1 is simply minimum building setbacks for the district whereas the Tier 2 we did up that a little bit with the fire concern. we looked at 150 feet on those for the property lines and the front and then also retaining that 400 foot set back from offset resident offsite resident structures which we also have for solar. The lighting 10248 was referenced here. This references instead requirements of this ordinance. There is a detailed section in the zoning ordinance on lighting that was established some time ago to protect the night skies because that is very specific and much more detailed. We felt like it was important to connect this to the regulations that we already have, rather than spelling out some different regulations here in this section. The 1024-10 is the Fencing for your Tier 2 battery energy storage facilities based on comments recently about adhering to the Department of Wildlife Resource for guidance on the 7-foot fence height with the one-foot anti-climbing device. We did include that here instead of doing the six foot. You look down at 10 24-14 for fire protection. We included a number of measures here specifically address at mitigating fire risk as much as possible. We reviewed a lot of those concerns previously, but here we're looking for an combustible buffer, which is 20 feet around the perimeter of the facility. We also have some safety operation standards, which relates to the monitoring systems that are required, and then emergency plan that has to be in place and the warning signage. And also experience and expertise where we would be looking at the qualifications and experiences of developers and selected integrators and also any potential involvement they've had at facilities that have had fire or other kind of hazards. And then finally an emergency response training piece is associated with that. The decommissioning piece is very similar to what we have for solar and that is in 10, 24, 15. The next section which should be 10, 24, 16 is the application requirements. We found this to be very beneficial in the solar section and getting the information we need To provide a review and for you to properly review the applications. So we did include that here as well 1024-17. This is something that wasn't previously mentioned was the community meeting We felt like this was important to foster community engagement I think it's been very successful with the solar facilities and we felt like it was an important part of this project of these types of projects as well. And then in 1024, 18, we referenced again the 2232 requirement which we talked a little bit about last time. On the final page, there's an alternative regulation provided there for section 1024, one01 and this would be something you could use if you were looking at limiting the locations where battery energy storage might be cited. This is something that Sussex County uses in that as an accessory use battery energy storage is only allowed as an accessory to utility scale solar substations or other generation facilities or as a principal use on adjacent properties to solar facilities substations or energy generation facilities. Since 96% of the county is general agricultural, this would be a way to narrow it down and kind of side them with existing uses that they would be supporting in other energy infrastructure that's already in place if you wanted to look at doing that. Any questions for staff? Any comments? Any comments? Any comments? Please. A lot of the setbacks of the date and set up like that, you just pulled me in from the solo policy line. I did, and I did do a comparison worksheet looking at Prince George Sussex, looking at the ones that were recommended by the applicant looking at Pitsylvania's and looking at Amelia's. Most of the localities in Virginia are fairly a lot with one of those. So, you know, we looked at Pitsylvania kind of as a basis for it and then when things differed across the platforms we would kind of look at what the other ones offered and go with that. There's a lot of differences in setback requirements. I think Amelia had one that was out there like at 5,000 feet. Some of the other ones only had 50 feet. A lot of them just use what is used in the district in general. So, you know, it's kind of something that you have to figure at what works best for you. 150 was kind of in the midline of what I was seeing and so that's where I went. It wasn't far from what we do already and it seemed appropriate based on the rest that we currently, I think previously identified and discussed. And then one more, nine combustible, proper, 20 feet. That's outside of the fence plan. That would be outside of the fence plan and between that and where you would have your screening. And the idea is that you would still have that screening piece that you have there that is designed to screen the facility and the associated fencing, just like you do with the solar facility, but this would kind of provide a break there. I mean the county administrator pointed out for those of you that you know visited the dry bridge facility, you noticed there that it was pretty much a gravel lot. So you've already got a situation where there's lots, not a lot of combustible material. It just kind of provides a little additional break outside of that sense line. And tell me if it's in here, that I think was on the... Let me see. I think on the site design, when you look at number two, it says it's to be cited towards the interior of the lot to buff or the facility from the surrounding areas, but it doesn't provide a specific distance. I think it's very important to have a non-combustible buffer, but it should be very carefully where it says single specimens of trees. When we went up to drawbridge, knowing the type of environment we have in Mr. Adams, been with Forest Department and Mr. Andrews having a certain fire department. Maybe don't let me leave anybody else out. I'm sure others have. What kind of hit me was if the fire departments come to an agreement that they're not going to enter the facility unless there's a human being at risk, which was the agreement they had in Chesterfield. Hypothetically, if we had that, but we have a Charlotte County environment, or even, which, by the way, if you went to Drogeridge, if you didn't see it, it could have been a Charlotte County. There are planted ponds, and it's not a lot of houses, because it's off on the side road right before you get to a right before 60 hits 288 up in Palatine. The um and then there were I guess they had put that thing in some cleared area and what might have been planted pines in the past. Just just like very similar to what you might see happen here in Charlotte County in my opinion. I would have thought they would have left a gravel road all the way around so that the fire trucks, if necessary, could traverse the exterior, not for the purpose of extinguishing a fire, but for the purpose of wetting down the surrounding vegetation. If it's dry bridge, if the wind's blowing the wrong way, and there is a fire, how you're going to suppress the fire. I mean, when we talked about this years ago, when we decided not to include battery with solar ordinance, from outside defense, most of what you want to do is prevent the spread of fire, right? So I go further, I agree with your spacing on the inside, but I would say, you know, just some more gravel around the outside of gifted local fire department, the opportunity to circle the sight of this, maybe that was a long way to say that. And primary, it seemed to be much more than 20 feet. Right, but they couldn't get the trucks all the way around. That kind of, there was more than 20 feet of spacing, but it wasn't set up so that you could go around. And I thought that would have been relatively easy to accomplish. You could get it on two sides of it. I'm giving that these things aren't anywhere near as large as the soul form. Anybody else got any thoughts on this? I was wondering since I was known here when you all had talked about this before and decided not to include it when you were discussing the soul or what has changed? I'm not going to, I don't know if I can answer that question, but I'll give you my impression of what you missed. When the little one down 59 came in, there wasn't really a discussion of batteries. When we got our second application, once it was Red House, those of you that were on, correct me if I'm wrong here. This is from Recrelection and this is on the public record. There was a community meeting in the Fire Department at Red House. A great deal of discussion and sued in that community meeting, which was not recorded, but which was essentially a public meeting. Multiple of us were there. And I don't think it was recorded, exactly. And my recollection is that a lot of the issues were with the battery component that was originally requested with that solar farm. And the applicant very quickly withdrew the battery component. And that is what triggered us saying, saying well we'll just treat them separately because This my impression is the issues that were being raised with battery issues not solar issues and it was They weren't the same the use wasn't the same and they were they were not The issues we were gonna have to dress were two separate sets of issues. So I personally, at the time, I don't know if we voted or what, but I was in favor of separating them to use as we're considering here because I think the concerns about the uses are different. That hadn't changed. I don't know if that, I gather that the other intendee question, but I don't have an answer for that. The other question I had, because I know last month, Mr. Ben was on one to discuss that you wanted us to discuss benefits if any of us allowing a barrier to storage. So I don't know that if anybody can address that, what is the benefit? To the side or to the county? To the county. I think as my understand this, what we're supposed to do is make decisions for our county. So is there a benefit to our county? our family. I understand the discussion about battery energy storage facilities may be necessary at some point, but it was also my understanding that it can be anywhere on the grid so it doesn't have to be in Charlotte County. So I guess my question is, is there a benefit for us putting these in Charlotte? I mean, I understand, I'm not talking about tier one, like just individual homes or whatever, but... Financial. Does anybody... Well, and Mr. Wid had said that we're not as a planning commissioner. We're not really too consider financial, but I mean I'm not saying that's not a benefit. But is that a benefit to the county and how much of a benefit is it? Is it a fine, is it a fine, you're saying it is or you're questioning? Are you saying? I think a better question is, is there a benefit to having a zoning policy in place? I think at some point the Richmond decided to say, hey, every county is going to have to use, have to allow it if you don't have a policy. So at least I think there's a benefit to have a state of policy. And since its conditional use, I think the benefit of battery entry storage will can be debated on a case by case, basis. And it may be determined that note this is not enough benefit to the county so the 20, 232, whatever it is, it does matter because that's part of that process is weighing the benefits. But it, I understand what you're saying now, but it was my understanding if we open the door, it's going to be like so. And you know, once you say yes, it's hard to say no, apparently. And I know that there's that always that threat. Well, what if what if the state or what if the federal government says this or that or the other. But regard, if we said no, and they said, well, you need to have something, can we not at that point maybe we'll be in a better position to know what works and what's good and maybe technology will have changed. Batteries will be different because lithium batteries are explosive. But and I know they're working on another technology. And you don't know what the state or the federal might say. They may say okay you you said yes, but that's not good enough. We're going to make you change it anyway. I mean you can't base. I don't think we should make decisions based on what we think the state or the federal government might eventually come in and say, well you got to have it. Well, at that point, can we not then come up with conditions and policies for it if it's going to be mandated? Because if it's mandated, they'll probably tell them, I know I've heard somebody say that, well, you know, they make it up, if we don't have something in place, they may make it a blanket, you know, requirement across and everybody has to do things the same. Well, they've let them just, if we add our own little plan out, trust me, the state's not going to say, okay, Charlotte, you're good. We'll let you all do it your way, but everybody else has to do it this way. I'm just saying we can't, I don't think we should make a decision based on that threat of, I'm just saying can't we put it off at that point for the threat of the state or federal government coming in? I just think it's too new and we don't know what the solar impact's going to be. You know I know that. That we're not necessarily in a hurricane zone or whatever, but those solar fields in Florida got tore up. So I mean, I just don't, we don't know what the solar's going to do. We're going to jump in on Barry and her P2. I just, it's just all too new to me. Try to solicit some response to your question. Would staff like to respond to the question? Which one? Or to, to Melinda's question of what are the, well, let me, let me phrase it. I'll make it my question. All right. No offense. Good. OK. Would staff like to suggest the benefits to the county of having a solar ordinance in place? At this time. It's a bad reason. I'm sorry. The local benefits are fairly financial, just like solar, you know, they do offer a financial benefit or economic opportunity to landowners where projects are being cited. They also have the potential to enter into citing agreements, just like solar does, which provides for local revenue. And then, of course, they're's looking at the jobs and the opportunities. And it's of course a lot smaller because the projects are a lot smaller. But that's the primary local benefit. If you want to look at grid resiliency and things like that, that's a larger scale. And then of course, savings to the energy service providers as well. As far as the implications of state and federal action, that was on the table this past year. They are revisiting it or planning to for the next year. But you don't know what state or federal will do. At least going through this exercise will put us in a better place. You know, to be ready if you don't stop something now to adopt something later. But if you feel like you need to do that now, you know, that's an option as well. But because we already do have a draft, you know, that you can pull out and start working on again. If you need to, you are going to be in a better place if they come back and decide to implement something like was considered previously. And since he was mentioned in directly not by name, the county administrator is somewhat present in the room. You consider that to be in your office or in the room, would you like to be recognized to add anything? No, I think Monica has covered the county would consider with financial. I think it's important that it is smaller. I think that what Monica has put together I've reviewed this thoroughly with her and had it changed a tweak a little bit in the comment about the distance between the fence and an outside made, it's a you're just creating more land and it's setting offsetting the fence from what you created so that creates your 20 foot buffer around the outside. So I think having, I know when I came in we had the county had approved one project and that was down 59. But before that was ever done, the county put an ordinance in place. And I think having an ordinance in place, if the option of saying yes or no, you don't have to say yes please. I think that some of the other counties have done this in conjunction with solar projects I think that they can actually consider them at the same time as an accessory use kind of like you play a shed on your property. I consider that an accessory used to your home. And sometimes that these and other counties, a battery energy storage is considered an accessory used to a solar engine. So lots to think about. And I think this is a good start. This is a better start than what the solar order was seven, eight years ago when we started actually. And that has more to improve the chain solar order. It has technology and has understanding of these projects that's changed. So you adopt this and new technology comes out. You come in and you amend this. You make it work better for the county. And that's always the possibility. I'll show them. So there are hundreds, approximately 100 counties in Virginia. Is that right? Let's do that. I know it close. How many of those have battery energy storage? And inclusive, we don't know. How many are you aware of that do? I mean, do we find? I don't know. There's a number of them out there, but there's a lot of variation in that. And I mean, a lot of it, they may limit it just to their industrial district, or they may have it much broader. And so there's a lot of different implications when you look at it. They may limit it just to their industrial district or they may have it much broader. So there's a lot of different implications when you look at it, but I don't know what an actual number would be as far as count. I spent some time trying to find facilities that were in place and all of them were next to, well, you know, higher they have them just, not next to anything, but in North Carolina and Virginia I can only find them next to substations or solar farms. And really, not very many next to solar farms, they're more typically being put in by the power company themselves, apparently next to the substations. Mr. Chairman. Yeah. Each point has applications in for two, I believe 20 megawatt projects in the city of Lensburg. And one of them is on industrial, an industrial site that was a by-right use and the other was a, was not industrial but required any condition or special use permit in the case of the city of Lensburg. Yeah, I should mind my comment earlier about there are a hundred counties in Virginia City's or exclusive county so there's what, 150 or more. Okay, I'm not going to do this similarly but is there any interest from anyone on the planning commission hearing from East Point in regards to the question? Okay, so hearing none. So we can, I think where we're at now is this will almost certainly be a starting point for any future discussion whether we start tonight or not. What's your, I mean I have a couple of questions further and some interest in discussing while it's fresh in my mind. But what's the rest of the planning commissions out type for going through this? Allowing that we have not agreed that this will even add this use or in this format or for that matter of subject to the recommendations that staff gave us about some counties have it only as an accessory used to solar substation or energy generation and others have it as a distance from such facilities. So do we wanna spend time on that before we debate whether or not we're going to have it at all or do we oh it's the conversation in hand whether or not we have it all. Which would you rather tackle first? We're not a lot of appetite for it. Mr. Chan, yes. He's a kind of a administrator. He hit on it, but I was thinking about it when Mr. almost discussed it, but like 20s Creek Solar, if we could go back in time, I would like to went over all this way ahead of time because we would change almost the whole entire project in a nutshell. And you know, I wouldn't want to keep putting off battery energy storage and then I'm just hypothetically saying the very first battery energy storage project B20s Creek 2.0 where we wish we would have put a whole lot more into it. You have the advantage on me, but I've not been culpable of having been on the committee when that 20s Creek was put in, I was, but I would tend to agree. You know, you can push it to the side and just say we'll just Wait it out, but then we could try to be ahead of the game If someone comes and applies again for battery storage And the meantime does it a pure upper down at that point or I mean, let's just say let's just say we can say nope you can't have it or we can say well thank you about it and then somebody comes in and applies what what happens then okay so you've got a hundred days to provide a recommendation of some sort to the board of supervisors and you need to have a public hearing during that get some input from them and then do that. But if you decide you're not recommending it or if once it goes to the board the board is stretching their time out somebody cannot apply for a project until it is actually included in the ordinance. Now they could come in and put in another zoning text amendment application but there's a 12 month period in there from the time the last one was considered. So that's once a decision is made on it, then somebody can come back in another 12 months and say let's look at this again. But as far as putting in an application for a project until the ordinance is amended, you cannot do that. It's a use not provided for in the ordinance right now. Monica, I see 100 days, what if no action is taken within the next day for then what happens? If you fail to take action, it's seen according to the state code as a recommendation of approval So you basically are sending the board a recommendation of approval along with whatever Conditions are at hand at that moment in time perhaps and the board would have to almost do our job at that point and Work with what our staff has at that point staff would work with the board on that at that point and work with what our staff has at that point? Staff would work with the board on that at that point. We'll just start it with. The starting date is today. It's the first meeting after which it's been referred to. So the board just referred it to you at their October meeting. So the starting date is today. So you have until like mid-January. We had a hundred days to address adding language or change to making a zoning amendment to allowing it as use. That hundred days thought of stock clock was going to expire on us. It stopped because that applicant went through their zoning text amendment application. That's correct. We had 100 days and they originally had submitted their application in May, but then they did a revision revising their recommended conditions which started to clock over. So that 100 days was going in October 31st, which did not give us enough time to complete this. So they graciously withdrew the application with the board referring it to us instead to give us some more time. Just not a penny, but I would like to see something in place so we don't have other quitties creating up to that force into doing something very, very quickly. And as far as, you know, we can't predict what the state will do, but the state has passed many laws and grandfathered in existing ordinances and families. You know, it's very possible that they could do that. And so if we had something in place, even if the state said, you got to do it, if they grandfathered our current ordinances and put in, we would still be ahead of the game. Yeah, I'm aware, I think the entire planning commission is aware that they've essentially grandfathered in our solar process by not waving 2232 at the approval of a sighting agreement where other counties that didn't begin the long process before the law changed those counties can to accept a sighting agreement and that passes 2232. Is that Dan Zadakurip? Assessment of that? Yes and no. If we accept a citing agreement, we're not required to do a 2232. But, conversely, we can require a 2332 before the citing agreement. Yes, which is what we continue to do. It's not required, but we're allowed to, the state doesn't say we can do. It's not required but we're allowed to do it. The state doesn't say we can't. So a lot of localities that exchange for 22-32 for the applicant in a lot of cases, they're going to set a agreement which wakes the need for a locality to do the 22-32. Right. I was just using that as an example of the case where we did sort of have a precedent about procedure that the state allowed us to continue as a weak argument. But it is an example where the state acknowledged our process prior to their say agreement code. So, I mean, we can, I asked earlier if we wanted to discuss whether or not to have batteries as a use and if so, where or if we wanted to work on the regulations and got no immediate response, but I take Mr. Andrews response as a comment to work on regulations and by one throw that idea back and forth and the other thoughts here are we going to spend time this evening further working on the regulations I've got an observation in the last alternative regulations that would limit battery storage storage facilities to areas with other utility infrastructure. What would be in a sense limiting principal use battery systems, wouldn't you? You would be limiting where battery energy storage could be cited. The rest of these regulations, you would use just that would be your what you would use for that specific reference regarding the accessory or the principle. But it would limit it to sites that we either were those things were located at or adjacent to where those things are located at. So you couldn't just go off on any property and that's in the ag district and locate one of these. It would have to be either adjacent to an existing project or in conjunction with an existing project as an accessory. So this language would automatically take out the East Point facility that was being proposed because there's no substation at the present near that problem. Unless a solar facility is adjacent to it and there is an application we have seen for a project in that vicinity. Yeah, I think as it in the in the narrowest reading of the sentence, if you look at only number one and not number two, I agree with your, your, your, which I think I see what you're saying. Right. Um, when you get into parcel contiguous, um, we're going to have to have a definition. We're going to have to look hard at the existing definition of contiguous or adjacent. But this is an and or, this is both, correct? It would allow for both. It would allow for both. And our attorney has not looked at this language. This is just something I had picked up from another locality as a potential option we would certainly get legal counsel to review it as well. I think Monica was just throwing out alternative language. You notice how she's got that number 10241 but there's another there's a previous 10241 at the beginning. Right it would replace the 10-1 that's on the front page. And I think Mr. Adams point is if either or both of one and two replace 10-24-1 it would sort of cause tier two to not be a thing. Is that what you're... Yeah, so I'm not. You could still do it, you just had to be... Contiguous. Yeah, it could take a little bit more. That's really narrowing it down. Yeah, I mean, I... At least like to see it, some distance. Which that's going to keep people from flooding this with, oh, they allowed. So let's come here. That's good. Because then they got to go to the land owners. They're right there. It's not going to open the flood gates. Let's put that way. So which one? Narrow. Since we don't have a consultant, I'm going to have to pick on staff. It seems from what we heard at the Dominion presentation, my recollection, and I'll refer to any of you who were there or have read the material, what they suggested that battery energy storage facilities were one of the advantages, not necessarily to Charlotte County, but to the state as a whole, is that battery energy storage facilities without solar, sourced from any form of energy, reduced the load on the grid. Importantly, that makes, and I believe this is a true statement, somebody would be happy to, it's going to be recorded in the record, you can find out that I'm wrong and explain it to us differently and I'll retract it. But importantly, that will reduce the cost of solar facilities because one of the biggest cost of solar facilities is to upgrade the transmission lines because solar facilities of necessity go out in less populated areas. But we're seeing that, right? My understanding is in order for that to work, for that math to work, the batteries you need to have to be a source of the load. Otherwise they act just like a solar farm and further load the transmission line they're attached to. Now, they've doubt the applicant or former applicant has some opinion on this but he's not, doesn't have standing in this proceeding so I'm not going to call him the the He's this welcome beers lumber the public the um the the question is If the point I'm making is if you limit them To being adjacent or what was the other word, contiguous to same parcel or adjacent or contiguous parcels. Or even if you make them some very short distance away from the utility scale solar substation or their energy generation facility, then you do in fact have them at the source, but you've eliminated the potential to put them somewhere that they might serve a load. There aren't a lot of loads in Charlotte County that would constitute a significant electrical load. Ontario Hardwoods is the biggest one that I can think of. Anybody else want to throw one out? That's a great example. Morgan. Morgan. Yeah, I think Ontario great example. Morgan. Morgan. Yeah, I think Ontario is probably much bigger than Morgan, but yes, for electrical. Those kilns run electricity. I don't know, maybe it's Morgan killing as well. So okay, so Morgan and... We got a big one. Yeah, alright, so many more of those big ones. They had upgraded three-phase ion because of Morgan long time. Yeah. Alright, so many more things. They had upgraded three-phase line because of more than all the time. Yeah, sub-station. And I know that there was maybe 15 years ago the same thing because of the way that Ontario kilns were in the industrial park. But there again, those facilities, what we've done is allowed us facilities in agricultural zone without I mean I think we would all say those facilities are so large that they one is at the industrial part with the other The other one more using Morgan as an example. It's essentially an industrial facility We just put it we just didn't Rezone the property industrial because in this in our you know this is this is something the planning commission we could vote of ourselves to change but right now agricultural in our zoning does not mean agricultural. It means everything else. Morgan is in agricultural. There's, it is the general, everything else thing. If you wanted to go back and say these things shouldn't be in agricultural, either you could wind that time or figure out some way to create zones around things like more in that already exist. And it's a possibility. I mean that's something you could consider doing. If we put right now, as it stands if we went with the language exactly as one and two, you would not be able to have it as an accessory or principal use on a facility next to Morgan, although you might be able to have industrial parks and have it next to Ontario. It's about tomorrow morning though, someone will have told them I'm using their name and name, but apologies to those particular businesses. What's, I mean, is there any appetite for writing in such a way that businesses like that or businesses that wanted to come, who would have battery And I think you could look at the language on that as far as commercial use and include that somehow in the definition if you wanted to, but then you've got to consider how much battery energy storage would be needed for a facility like that and what would you be thinking of in those terms. What is realistic to say is for commercial use rather than utility scale where you're actually putting it back on the grid? Are we looking at two totally different things there? And they would have facilities sized to meet their specific need, not to reintroduce that back on to the grid. It would be for their benefit. Well, if you, respectfully, if you, if you codify that statement, that would be true. But what we're seeing with data centers is that they get the right to put in batteries and then they essentially become battery farms on and off the grid because they can...if their peak is not equal to the peak of the surrounding transmission lines, then they are both and your statement is not true unless...I'm not trying to argue with you but you see what I'm saying. In other words, if Morgan puts in a batter facility sized appropriately for their operation, but their peak load doesn't correspond with the transmission load, then they can do that. And they will, because that's the economics of the batteries. You see my point. Unless you, and I don't even know if we have the authority to tell somebody whether their batteries can unload and offload. For years people have been putting in diesel generators behind every Walmart. Those generators are not for Walmart. They come on when the power company has demand and they are used so that the three phase lines in the vicinity of the Walmart does not have to be upgraded and they are remotely controlled by the local power companies. Yes, home, yet home solar systems are purposely designed not to over produce. But if you have a business in this big enough and I don't know what the tipping point is, you are considered to be a parallel source and when you hook them up in parallel, you can control them to put their suck energy off the look. You see what I'm saying? I mean, I don't know what that minimum size is, but Morgan might be there. You could... I don't know if we have the authority to say they cannot be a source for the for the grid. I'm just pointing out a loophole that if you're candidly, if you're a positive batteries, that loophole should concern you. Let me ask you a question. Looking at the same number one, Mr. Adams was referring to an alternate 241 at the end of the mall. An accessory used to sell utility scale solar facility. At this point in time, if a solar company comes in, a solar developer comes in or dominion of whoever and gets a conditional use for a solar farm, they do not have any rights with regard to batteries. With that open the door to all solar or at least all future solar farms having the right to batteries as an accessory use or accessory use as a separate conditional use program. If we required it as a condition, it would still be as a condition. I mean, you have to determine that. Well, I'm more curious whether it be a separate use permit process. You see what I'm saying? Say about some future battery farm. If they came in and giving that this document is not complete, but essentially something similar that was in the ordinance and assuming that the solar farm was in a zone that was in agreement with the matrix, hypothetical future matrix, would we be able to require our conditional use process separately for the solar use and the battery and the accessory use of batteries? Yeah, I mean it would be two separate permits. It could be an accessory to the solar but it would be two separate permits. So do we have any examples today where a property has two separate conditional uses, separate conditional use permits on the same set of poroses? I don't think so, but I think if you remember when we went to drive bridge and we're talking to Dominion, they mentioned there that they considered power generation and power storage to separate uses even on their property. They had a dividing line there. If you remember that conversation. So I think even the utility company looks at it as two different systems, even if they're integrated, they are two different power generation sources. One is a generation and the one is the storage, so they're not treated or considered the same system. I got a separate question if we're doing that. Yeah, that's fine. Okay. Why do we have a minimum lot size of five acres? Where is that coming from? I guess I'm thinking about like driver age, there's only a couple acres in itself. That one, why would we make it a minimum and why wouldn't we have a maximum? I would think you would do a minimum just to maximize those buffers. You're telling them to locate it to the internal part of the lot. So you don't wanna give them a three egg or a lot and then they're pushing it out to the envelope. It's supposed to increase those buffers at the edges if it's a smaller site. So I think that is the reason there. And you could do a maximum if you want to. It's not something that I saw there. And then the technology with what it is may change. So do you want to look at acreage or do you want to look at megawatts if you were to do something like that? You know, which one is really more appropriate? These facilities aren't that large, so you know, is putting a maximum acreage in it a necessity? Or you can learn more about the size of the equipment, the amount of equipment on the lot. I guess I was thinking about the difference between like the bridge is only two, three acres and we were in the proposed one was 20 acres. That's a significant difference to me if you're talking about how it looks and the impact to the area and everything. So what determines a size like if it was to help assist a or a B by a solar or whatever. What determines the size of the project? And I don't know why they would choose one size over the other. I don't know if it has to do with grid capacity or what their intent is. You know, I don't know why they would choose a larger whatever. As far as just like with solar and you see different sides, it's in different places. So three acres, somebody Mr. Adams probably did this in his head but I didn't on my phone. Tell me this sounds right. I look, three acres, it's 361 feet on the side. I think we probably got three acres. which is probably borrowing it from somewhere else. And if you have, that's only 150 feet to the center. And that's assuming that the lot is a square. I mean, you'd almost want a minimum lot size and a minimum width at its narrowest point, or a language like this, minimum width, like when we set houses back on triangular laws. See that's to be. And otherwise you will don't have the buffer. Same thing you're saying, but the math is a three acre lot would, you know, help. What's our, in the draft? What's the setback or the buffer? What's the distance of the buffer? 50 feet from a run. The setback is 150 feet. And what's the side setback? Or side? It's 150 from all property lines and the satellite. Well, okay, so I guess that's kind of my point. It's 150 on all property lines and the satellite on the road. Well, okay, so, I guess that's kind of my point. It's 150 on all sides and you have perfect square. You have a 60 foot square in the center, you can put the batteries in. If it's not a perfect square and we haven't required a perfect square, there very quickly is no room on three-acre lot for batteries. That's where the three-acre minimum top. Well, it says five. Oh, five acres. I'm sorry. I was thinking three. So five, you've got, if it's five acres, linking about the math here, you have less than two acres in the center. You have a pretty small lot in the center. Some smaller. Well, in the driver is what in that technically the largest one and it's only three acres. But it's three acres inside the fence. I think three acres is what the project area was. I think there's additional land around it. I don't think the whole site is just three acres and the applicant. But you're saying if it was five acres, the interior basically, the fence would be two acres. Well I don't know if it's in Maths and Work that simply. I mean I could do the math but I don't. I just think that's, I'm not saying we have to resolve this but I'm just saying I think that would be something that would need to be looked at in my opinion for how big do we want to, I mean do we want to have a minimum and a maximum and what would that be? That's just a question. I don't mean that we need to resolve that tonight. Well, I think I was just trying to answer your question. There's a minimum. I was trying to do in your question. There's a minimum. I was trying to do in math what Monica said verbally. We're back since I can't do the math fast enough. We're back to what Monica said. If you don't have a minimum, you don't have enough buffer. Not knowing, but what I'm saying is you put, nobody can tell me how big just these things have to be. OK. You know what I mean? You're like, you don't have enough room for what? All right. In the last hundred day process, which we did not complete, we had an applicant in order to ask the applicant. But the problem is if I ask the only person in the room that's here from a battery to energy company, he's just a minute in the public and that's... He's no dear dare I can ask I then I got to ask everybody else and that's a minute public what they were saying we don't have to answer this or resolve this this is just a question I have that maybe we can over the next hundred days think about that's all I'm saying. And Mr. Chairman with the back of the 1024-A1 off-tron of regulation just thinking on that You know, I don't necessarily agree with that either, you know it Which I don't I'm not in the big no with battery storage. I don't work for them or anything, but an accessory to a solar facility substation something like that necessarily. It's accessory to anywhere on the transmission line. It might be in the middle of the woods, but anywhere on the transmission line that can take in additional megawatts or power during the day, night, whenever it's going to absorb that it doesn't have to, and actually it probably better to not be beside the sole of facility because when the batteries need to put out, they're going to put out, they're going to go down the wire towards it wherever the fault current is, which I'm going to be. It's not like the substation charges these batteries up to wire running from the panel over the batteries like we're charging up a test load or something. This thing is just somewhere on the transmission line anywhere it could be, maybe where that project was. Taking in extra current During low demand times and then when the demands higher it's gonna go down the wire wherever the fault Yeah, you getting into a control question. We've never addressed that or had anyone here I guess the technical that could address it. So just just what I'm saying I Don't seem to be really relevant at all turn of because it's not necessarily, it's not the garage to my house. It's not the battery to run the solar form or the solar form. The panels don't come over there with this big wire that plugs into his battery storage facility. That thing is just anywhere on that wire, anywhere to store extra energy. It's available that day or that night. And the reason I say it being away from the salt, so that it might even be better is because that salt had done creating the inertia. And when it goes up on the wire, it's just sitting there hovering. It doesn't have inertia on the side wave. And that battery storage kicks in. It pushes that down the wire to wear the fault car. And it's not going to be crazy with and it doesn't have inertia on the side wave and that battery storage kicks in. It pushes that down the wire to where the fault current is. Not sure how to get crazy with it, but just went like an amount. I know a key to getting inside of back this old one, but it's not necessarily anything to do. I have a minor standing. It's been. What if someone were to make a motion, say that I proposed that battery energy storage be allowed in Charlotte County pending acceptance of a zoning ordinance in that scenario, if it was the nose had it then it would certainly direct our discussions. If the eyes had took it, we can say it was stronghold. We could go back and say look, I just started reading this yesterday. And we could get some questions and come back and we've got 100 days, so not jamming. Just think about it, let it meditate. At this point, there hasn't been an opportunity either for citizens to provide input on these regulations. And that's been the challenges of this, is we had a public hearing, but staff had not drafted regulations at the time because we didn't know if the Planning Commission really had an interest in pursuing this, and we didn't want to invest the time in putting all this together if you weren't interested. You indicated last month, you did have an interest, so we have put this together. But you can't really make a recommendation that you're going to adopt something, or recommend adoption of something when you haven't really gotten the citizens input on what you're thinking about adopting. So we can't legitimately act on the boat. We can't. If we made that motion a vote or a vote, we'd be out of order with regard to accepting SIS and comment. But you can propose a strong poll question. I'm not a fan of those, but you could go back. I wish no one was doing this math and not me, but I think five acres is 467 by 467 You subtract 150 all the way around and you're 167 or feet squared So 167 times 167 is 27 8 89 which is a third two thirds of an acre So if you have a five it's 27, 8, 89, which is two thirds of an acre. So if you have a five, it's that sound reasonable, if you have a five acre law, that is a perfect square, and you set back 150, you only have two thirds of an acre. In other words, the mass not linear because it's in squares. In squares. And that's if of parcel square. So you go in. Now I'm just trying to address that question. So enough of that. Did you miss a bin? You see a path clear if we can't vote up or down because we haven't had the public's input. The board has boarded their resolution in such a way that you could interpret it to be, no, we're not going to have one. I imagine reread that myself thinking on the same lines. Do you have any ideas of something that will break this apart in doable chunks? We can table and discuss it at the next meeting with happy people. Got justice and... You can make that as a mission or is there any feedback in today's idea of table in this that we have time to read it further? I've got to be appropriate. I just had a question. The 100-day limit was relative to an application. But the 100-day limit owned the resolution that was presented by the board of supervisors. But if that limit is not, it's as big of a back for the board. It's equalized to make that determination? And do what we did in this? The resolution specified that they were expecting a response of recommendation from you all in a hundred days. So I mean, they are giving you the extra time and trying to help you out with that, but they are expecting that recommendation as well. And it stated in the resolution as it was adopted. I think that's in the very last. My understanding from what you said earlier, maybe I misunderstood and I appreciate Mr. Alms asked the question again. If we don't act, stay law says we approved it. You are recommending approval. Of something. But whatever staff in the board, we've we've avoided our opportunity to be involved in the process. I think it's the law. Is that correct? If we don't act on a matter that they put a resolution to us, then the planning commission is not part of the process and the end of- I have no interest in it. Well, or the sole input would be that we recommend approval, but that work with, I mean, what in the elder sedimentic it was, then staff would work with the board. Is that accurate? Right, because, well, it's assumed that you are recommending approval, so that is your recommendation. It's like that's what you have provided to them. Here in this specific instance, in Shorla County what's going to happen is they're going to start from wherever we left off is that accurate? I think that would probably be the case in most localities. We've never run into a situation before when the timeline hasn't been met or not since Is there anything that staff can provide for additional clarity or any additional things? I know the maximums came up, the distances from the fence line came up. I have a curious question that could be answered by at least in the hypothetical bots older about a rather battery energy developers. And I'm not understanding as you have been conducting more than one, or at least at the minion counting as one. So the question is, and this goes to Mr. Adams point, about Morgan Lumber, or Morgan Lumber's killing operation, which I think is the bigger load. So for a commercial establishment, thinking of commercial establishments of which there are many more megawatts than are necessary for minimum battery load, for minimum, you know, the economics of a battery farm. At what point in terms of megawatts does it become economical for it? What's the, when it's, what's the smallest battery farm that would be paralleled on the transmission line and not just serve a local load. What's the current economics of that? Given that will change. But I mean in other words, are we looking at a situation where there are loads that are big enough to be paralleled if those loads had a battery farm at the same time. That's kind of, you see what I'm asking that? Because for the benefit of the, because we've had a debate for, it's part point, actually, and I have the thing is on and recording, you find that at the time we were talking about Red House, a weather battery farms provided, any resilience to local grit, and as elder a few minutes ago, open that door when she used that as one of the possible positives. It depends on how they are hooked up. However, I am quite confident and can find you, folks, willing to talk to you about and aren't battery developers but rather energy companies executives, that there is an advantage to a local load to have batteries parallel. The same as there is an advantage to a local load to have a diesel generator parallel. I think if you go to Morgan and Bonteri you are going to find diesel generators for that reason. The question is how small a battery farm or how small a local user before they are also in a position to be a battery farm producer. Because I want to see if we need to consider those folks' interests. Because this is another form of energy and I argue single-handedly that that is a benefit to the county. The businesses in the county can benefit if there are certain size. They can benefit not only from having batteries, for resiliency, but for having batteries for parallel. There's an economic benefit to the businesses. And that will attract growth in those businesses. That's my art. That's what we've seen with the distribution centers all up and down these coasts with generators. And I don't think batteries are any different. There's just a different tipping point. Does that make sense? Can we ask Dominion or the battery energy developers what they think the tipping point? What is the minimum economic size to where batteries become a source on the transmission line? Assuming that there's already, you know, because the reason being, those are essentially substations, even though their distribution connected. I'll remind you guys that Red House's distribution connected, it's not connected to the transmission line. That's what's different about it. That's why they were going to put better reason. Their own distribution side of that substation base. It's my recollection from the application and that's a public record. So is there anything else you guys can think of to ask? I got a couple things. Yeah, go ahead, please. Right before I table. At least they were. Model on 10, 24, 12. Can we change applicants may submit in component manufacturing, noise rates to shell. Same thing with the next sentence, the applicant shall be required to provide sound pressure. 102414 sub-paragraph 3 each individual battery shall have 247 automated fire detection and we add independently monitor 247 like fire alarm systems on building you have to have somebody to cause it because you can have a 24 or 7 automated detection but if it ain't telling somebody then that um say it's an independently monitored 24 or 7 because you can say I got 24 or 7 but it don't go to nobody it doesn't do it you get um good. And then on the very last page you put battery management system in italics like the rest of the other things. I'm trying to, you, is that you before you much the table, I want to learn so that some of the public was heard tonight. What was changed about the lighting? Was there change? Staff recognized and changed from our previous position. The lighting section we put in there just said, shall meet all requirements of this ordinance. One of my notes was here, fixture shell be fully shielded and in no light above the horizontal plane, which is the dark sky ordinance, but when you said that it's already covered. Yeah, we have an outdoor lighting section section 10.5 of our ordinance that was put in there. I think in 2014, Dr. Carl Weil, and she was on the board really pushed for that, but it addresses a lot of those things. It starts out saying the purpose of outdoor lighting regulations. It's preserved the in the purpose of out-of-the-lighting regulations. It's preserved the dark skies of Charlotte County and then it goes on into additional requirements that are very specific. Does that dark style requirement hold over top of this condition as well? That has to all attend five, as you said, it has to be met even if there were conditions under 1024. Well, that was the recommendation of the lining. It says it shall meet all requirements of this ordinance. So it would be in the zoning order. Oh, okay. That's the answer to this. Yes. The last six words of this sentence make the answer. Yes. Right. It has it to what is already there in the ordinance. Good, thank you. So, do you guys take notes on citizen comments that we got tonight? We can make some progress to have the best for this. Yeah, that's what we're doing. I made a note about the third party decommissioning age. It's something else is for us. And it's going to be more than one but in the container. Just one minute. We Lembukh. And the container. Just. We're getting good. All right, let me hang on that. It's just so different. Mr. Benz was related. You got yours, Mr. Ben? Yeah, I'm done. We sit somewhere else. Well, on 10, 24, 15, on the decommissioning, it says that the decing investment shall be prepared and staying by the fresh range of gear or contractor. If you put third party in there, he can't just go higher. He's got to do it. Or have a guy pay roll that says, hey, I'm going to figure out what it is. Well, I'm going to go a little further and use the word independent. Just kind of be glad there. OK. either way. And then to, if I got your name, but at the time of plan submission, that made sense what he said about addressing the sound. I think it was a sound. The decommissioning at the decommissioning, submitting the decommissioning plan at time of plan submission because we could change it on or times. Well, there's probably a way to have a draft. You don't you need that in order to negotiate the sighting agreement? The way the emergency plan is written, I think it's a two-step thing where you provide an initial and then you provide a more detailed one with the site plan. We usually have the decommissioning like with the solar it comes in initially and then there's an updated plan that's provided as part of the site plan. So you can either do it as two steps. I think it does give the planning commission and the board a better idea of what's entailed in actually removing these facilities and helps get a better understanding of that because it does go into detail about what the expectations are usually and all the equipment, what they're holding themselves to and I think it may be beneficial I have that when you're considering the application that makes sense But maybe do a draft at that point and then I'll finalize version with the site plan might be feasible I just kind of appreciate I think the strong brought our attention to recommendations on height of the fences. This needs to be, I mean, the solar farms you can see the wall I've getting in and out, but on these it needs to not. Right. It needs to be a, this high fence that excludes. Well, since you brought that up. Yeah. The wording, I would have preferred it be like it is in solar, which the wording is supposed to be that it would adhere to the current Department of Wildlife Resources recommendations at the time of construction. Because they may find that you know with you know something different Well, I'll just catch 22 the recommend the current recommendations from the wildlife will Are no if it's great. It can be less than a certain height or greater than a certain height But that isn't that with that's for solar right, but that's not oh is there yeah that's a question is there a separate one can you take that one of you take that away and find out if there's is a wall like recommendations specifically to battery energy that's a good question that's not the way to read it was just specific defense and in general there was a solar thing. I think it was solar. But so many at the state level, solar and batteries kind of more connected than it is. So if you could check on that. All right. So Mr. Andrews wanted to point something out of you for a guy. It was not a word, it was just something. When I was thinking about when you were specifically talking about battery storage, Morgan Lumber cut me an Ontario and just running through my brain and I was just thinking. Is that your district? You want to ask him? I'm going to ask it. Suggest that they come here and comment on it and tell us what do they think they can benefit. I'll just leave it in the air. They're on Mecklenburg, a lecture. Mecklenburg co-op. You know, not mean to throw it out the window. Speak on it for any of the... I would see it with being Mecklenburg by the power of Dominion anyways. And to do an extent, or somebody, another producer. Mecklenburg by buys it from Odeg. The Odeg buys a phenomenal amount of energy from Pennsylvania that's wind energy. If you look it up. When I'm saying that they don't participate in solar wind, better storage in the Earth. I can almost be a relevant down there at Morgan. Well, what's relevant about it more than it would be clear. Has nothing to do with whether or not they have renewables. Two points here. One, if you look up where ODEC buys their energy from, which they produce a report every year, they buy, and then they want to same buy more right now, or at least last year, in 2023, they had more renewables than Dominion. ODEC does. And then it co-ops buy from Odech. What about battery storage? Battery storage is not related to that because when you parallel the batteries you charge them up and then if you have them there locally, the way generators diesel generators are only parallel to large applications using Walmart as an example because they have stuff on their website for a few years ago where they used to do this. The generator can supply the local neighborhood but it's also there. That's why when you go to a hurricane zone one more it's not out of power. That's why they allow them to be sighted on their facility because they are the biggest benefit here. Like the neighborhood and next door also benefits. Okay what you're saying but you're comparing the generator to the battery storage which is two tow polar outs. The neighborhood and next door also benefits. Give what you're saying, but you're comparing the generator to battery storage, which is two tow polar outs. Up until the batteries run out, they're the same. They're a source. You're taking, if I got a battery storage, I'm taking Mecklenburg co-ops power and I'm storing it in my batteries, I'm essentially taking their power. The generator, I'm buying these a fuel and it's coming totally out of my pocket. I mean I would love to put a battery storage in my house and just pack Dominion's power into it. And then when my lights go out, I swap over and burn all that power ahead. I think it can be done that way. So we're just at the scale of Morgan. That's the question. That's the, that was kind of the reason for my question. And the interesting, what Morgan is about this and I'll try to reach out Mr. Ben you want to talk to Ontario or so you show okay I'm trying I think they're on the minion orthopedic they're on the minion and south side so I knew some of the Dominion and the Mechimer co-op it wouldn't be on the next one that convert thinks about this all right so is there any other conversations I'll make a quick point on the commercial use that you're things about this. All right, so is there any other conversations? I'll make a quick point on the commercial use that you're talking about. When we look at solar, we have like three different tiers. We have small, which is residential use. We have large, which is commercial or agricultural use. I think we did have one down at Ridgeway Farm. And then we have utility scale. So if we're talking about something like that and battery-energy storage or commercial consumption and use on commercial, we may end up looking at considering that separate from what the application we had here was. It is a different use and a different, different requirements would need to be in place so I think we've got to look at that you know if that's where we're going with this that really wasn't built into this conversation we were looking at you know actually using it on the grid to store energy and then put it back on the grid not to meet commercial demands and for commercial business resiliency and those kinds of things. What I'm saying is, the way generators are used by the biggest power users are they do both at the same time. They're called parallel. And I understand that in the same way that some of these agricultural entities are doing that metering and stuff. But you know that's not really the intent of what was written here was to address the needs of commercial customers. And if we're looking at that you know that may need to be considered and what we're proposing. I wonder if there is a loophole in what we have in front of us that allows for it is my suggestion. Well I just don't want that to be the reason this is approved or isn't approved. That's not really the intent of this. If you can figure out a way to break that in out into another tier, as you said, in parallel to what we did with solar, then that seems appropriate. Let's agree with Monica. Like the battery storage, it's going to go wherever that's calling for on the wire. I mean if you had a battery storage facility I'm just making a sub at Morgan Lumber company, but something on the Mecklenburg grid in Boydden was calling for power, that's where it's going, it's not going to Morgan Lumberton, it's going to wherever the thought current is on the wire. It's not really at all comparable to a generator. It's why I keep being confused. We'll see. We'll see. I'll come back with more information. I could be wrong. Yeah. Generator and better storage. Dominion would have had generators up there a while long time ago. They do. That's the thing you just don't see. But you're specifically. They do. But the commercial buildings, not the benefit of the grid. Both. It benefits the local distribution, not the transmission grid. That's when I'm getting a distribution connected battery strengths can be quite large. So the question is, and I would dearly love to be having that conversation here in this meeting with an applicant that could address it, but we don't have a solar battery energy company that we can recognize. See what I'm getting at? Okay, so what is, I think we need to have that in the ordinance if we're going to have an ordinance at all. We need to have some understanding of it if we're going to have an ordinance at all. all Is there any other Mr. Benoff to make a motion that we table this is there anybody? Any other discussion on it Now I like to make a motion we take the list to next week Okay, all right and all is a favor All right now Lots eyes And all is a favor. All right. Now, a lot of times, a lot of size. Does anybody, staff, you want to give us an update on where we are with current minimum lot size for these three categories? Sure. So we did have three things that the board had referred to you on lot size. The first one was minimum lot sizes for family subdivisions in the general agricultural district. We currently do not have something set aside that's exception for them, so it is three acres now as it is for all other lots right now. The minimum lot size for the village center district, which is currently one acre, the board expressed some concerns. If this could cause challenges in the case of drain field failures and recommended looking at potentially increasing it. And then along with that they mentioned the the minimum lot size for general residential which is currently one and a half acres asking us to look at that all as one and consider maybe if it was a way to make it more cohesive. So I have come back with that as well as some recommendations from staff that we talked about last time. We've got some clarity and to address some admissions that the zone administrator, who's the county administrator, have noticed in actually applying the zoning ordinance. So you have all of that packed here. The board really just asked you these three things. So the other things are coming directly from staff. The state code and county ordinance allows you to act on amendments or make recommendations on amendments with an emotion, with emotion that of course a public hearing would be required on these just as it is if an applicant or the board had referred it and then you do have 100 days from the date of referral from the board to act and that gives you until December 28th. On the second page of that report there is chart. I had several questions about that last time. So I just wanted to make sure everybody understood what this was. And talking about general residential, there was questions about how many people in the general residential district in the county are actually on public utilities that are provided by the tail. So we did contact each of the TAN offices to get account. As you can see from that the majority of them that do have access to public utilities are on water only with 42 customers in the county that are actually using TAN water. There's only one in the county that has just town sewer and there's 12 that have water and sewer. So this was to look at whether we needed to consider, how many lots there were in general residential that had access to public utilities that might allow for a small or lots as, but as you can see there, the numbers are not very high high particularly for those with sewer. The recommended changes follow, the current language is provided there in black, the changes are in red, the things that are highlighted or things the board specifically reference to you. The first one there is for the subdivision ordinance, the recommendation on the minimum acreage section 431. This just establishes that you have to comply with the zoning ordinance acreage. So we added a stipulation at the end that says unless otherwise provided for in this ordinance. And then the section 261, we just added the first Senate fair letter A is where we would be providing that exception for family subdivisions. And it would just simply say family subdivisions not shall be a minimum of ex-aikers, whatever you decide. Their recommendation of course, they said one was too small, we're already at three. So I would think you'd be considering, you know, one and a half or two, it was kind of what you're working at there for you all to decide. And that would be the only changes, you know, to the subdivision ordinance. The zoning follows. And Iision ordinance, the zoning follows. And I started out with the residential district. This is one that the board had requested you look at. How light it there is the one and a half, one and one half acres that they're asking you to look at. And then I'll go over some of the other changes that staff is recommending. These are pretty consistent across all three of them. So the first thing is just on the front setbacks, just providing some clarity on relationship to road, inclusion of private roads, and then also mentioning this alternative front setback method, which is something that's commonly used where you look at the pattern of design, a pattern of development around you so that if other houses beside you are building closer to the lot line, you can line up with those instead of having to meet the requirement. And there's a statement on there on how to do that. And then it says, lot's not funding a private, street or private road. So I'll have a minimum front set back of 25 feet. This is something that has been omitted from our ordinance. And so we are including that. The distances we use there are the same we have for rear set back lines. The side setback, we just added a little more clarity there. And then the last Senate, we included something for side setbacks for accessory structures, because this was not addressed. The rear setback is the same thing we just added a little more language for clarity and then putting that accessory structure language as well. And then the last section there is the alternative front setback. What we get to call into it. If by chance I had a lot in between two other lots that the structures were within 5 and a feet of my property, not the thing I'm going to build, but the property itself. And let's say you can imagine that. So you've got a three-acre lot and the nearest structures are within 500 feet of your property line, but they're tobacco barns that are more than 125 feet from the center line or 60 feet from the ditch line. That the way it's written, 4-3-4, it actually increased the setback. But that's an alternative you can use. You can use the standard set back or you can use the alternative. That's the way. Well, yeah, but rather than subjectively, couldn't we say that you could use like, what if the I mean we should decide which one we're using. See what I'm saying? I mean, I get it when the alternative decreases the setback. Do we want it such that the alternative might increase the setback? And it really would be the only time you would use it would be if it is decreasing it. But we could put in language there to clarify that. That's the general intent. We have this language in another section already. It was copied from that section. But if we need to provide more clarity, we can. That would be my. Yeah, I mean, we could change six dash three dash four at the same time for that. That's where original was in the village center district. So it was just copied. You know, we haven't had any issues with that because, you know, it's just a general understanding that it's up to the applicant to request that we look at that alternative. Yeah general understand it okay. Alright so we want to try to get a vote tonight of what we want for the minimum lot size so that we can eat out much closer to having a public hearing on that. And also, Mr. Chairman. And I don't know if this is later, but the setbacks I needed to make a comment about that. If you want me to address that later, I would... Well, I just can't comment about setbacks, so fair, fair. What we've come into, you want can't comment about setbacks. So fair, fair. What we've come at. Do you want to make it up? It was brought to me that they won't, that they wanted to, to consider having the general residential district setbacks side front rear aligned with residential. Is there a reason why they can't be or shouldn't be? Because that's what I was asked for us to look at. Wait, you said the general residential, I'm aligned with residential. What I think is to you. General residential and agriculture. You mean the general agriculture would general residential? Yes. Okay. an agricultural. You mean a general agriculture would general residential? Yes. Okay. Yeah. In other words, why, I guess if you have somebody in residential beside an agricultural, somebody is owned agriculture, yet they're set back. They can be 60 feet from the center of the road, but because their zones, agriculture, they have to be 125. Is there some reason why that we can't have the setbacks the same? There are any governor centers. Donings not to use. The only general residential is the example that you're giving would have to be right at the half mile mark outside of a town. So when you leave the setbacks in town or less, and then you've got a half mile where they increase somewhat, and at the end of that half mile you're an agricultural and they increase more. Well, how is it, I guess, in my question is, how is it that not everything is consistent in agriculture then? You can drive. There's one just put up right now on Cali Lahn that is not 125 foot from the center of the road. So my question is, where's the consistency and how can it... It was brought, I was asked to bring it in. Let's address that. Let's stop at one question. Can agriculture, is there reason why we don't want to do that? I guess it's the question, why can't agriculture have the setbacks that residential has? Is there a reason? A couple of comments there. So the county did not adopt them until 1989. Needless to say, a lot of things were built. A lot of property was divided off before then. That's why you'll see lots that are as small as a quarter of an acre out in the general agricultural district. Lots of houses have changed over time too. It wasn't acre in a half in general ag. Then it went up to three acres in 2002. As far as the setbacks, the general residential is right outside of town limits. It's a lot of places where there's actually some commercial development there when you think about coming in by sheldons and all that. Even like from keysville building supply up until the town limits. That's really general residential. Speeds tend to be lower or you're getting close to those lower speeds because you're getting ready to entertain or you're just coming out of town. Whereas general agriculture is anywhere else out in the county pretty much. So you've got higher speeds and traffic. So the general residential, the front setback is 35 feet from the street right of way, which is significantly lower than what you're talking about, 60 feet from the center line. So when you consider how wide a road is and then take that out of it and then look at how much property you're getting in there. It's really not leaving you that much of a front yard anymore. And so looking at a three acre lot size, do you want to push everything to the front of a lot and up towards the road and then when you have road changes coming in later, is that going to be an issue or is it going to be an issue you know with your driveway with you know traffic flow. Those things have to be an issue or is it going to be an issue with your driveway, with traffic flow. Those things have to be considered and when you've got three acres is it really necessary to have a 60 foot center line set back. So what do we do just get variances for people? How did the one on county line? Is it being built right now? It just got finished. And I understand they had a building for me. OK, well wait a minute. There's kind of a... They had it. One side of county line is pretty sure. No, it's just checking. OK, all right, just checking. I know. No, it's on county line headed toward right near the railroad tracks for where county line was shootover to the dirt road, the gravel road, and Tay Road, Picks up the trailer that had the double garage. Just recently feel It just thing I was just asked to bring this question and and to look at is there a Chance so if if that's I mean the only exception usually if they are replacing something That is there you know if they're coming back in and putting something, you can put it back where something else was. And maybe that wasn't it. So it may have been a trailer setting there. And the reason with that is it had already been encroaching. And then you've got to figure out, where's your drain field at? It's not like you can up and move the drain field that was there serving that. So that may be the reason if there was something there existing. I don't think there was, but I don't think so. That's why for sure. Is it? This ridiculous, ridiculous apology to the public. There's your loop across the road tracks twice. There's terror begins. That's an old photo that's pre-existing. See where I'm at? No, where are you? Good job. All right. That's fine. Any way. Maybe you can have a discussion with Dan with it. Matt, where are you? You're welcome to follow my phone to do so. So I'm just making a comment that I'm not to be argumentative. I want to make sure. Oh, OK. So not to be argumentative, but the point I would make is that we heard from more of the public than usual when we approved these relatively large solar phones, whether I was sitting up here or not. And one of the themes of that was the rural character of the camp. And reducing the setback will make it look more like your town, because buildings will be closer to the road. Just say that out loud on the record. And it candidly from the people that have spoken to me, some of the folks that were not enthusiastic about solar, also want to build buildings closer of the road so it's possible to you know have cake and want to eat it also but they put but the holding them to their argument that about the rural character and view of the county set back should be the larger if you want to look more rural last my opinion well I think that's interesting because it only pertains to structures and look throughout the county and you'll see a bus sitting right beside the road. And that is okay. So I'm not sure about this character. You're talking about the county you're talking about because setbacks are talking about structures. But I would ask to bring it to consider. I understand. I will say, in looking at things we get requests for on variances, the setback does not come that up that often. I mean, we have had a case recently and I think that kind of pushed it to the forefront but that was the case where somebody had already built something without the proper permits and he built it too close and was trying to address it. But we do not get a lot of requests for that and we you know it's not usually a big issue. Every now and again we will run into a setback concern, but not that often. The frontage, when we look at subdividing, is more of an issue. I did that, address that in the general agricultural district, because it is something that we do run into issues with fairly frequently. So although it was red herring, the reason I was showing the strongness, because I thought I knew where she was talking about, turns out I don't. But there is a lot there in that general vicinity which does not that had at some point in the past, based on the error image, had a single wide trailer on it. I think somebody has replaced it with more of a modular in the meantime, but that particular lot is small, which is why, and it's a triangle against the road. The long side of the triangle is the road frontage, which you can imagine that puts even more pressure on the property owner with the drain field and so forth. So the question I have is, are variances granted, does the public have it and opportunity to get a variance if they have a smaller lock? Can we codify that the county can offer variances if the lot is smaller than the three eggs? And because this particular lock that just so happens, we stumble across in conversation is an example of that. And we do have a section now that allows you to build only small or a lot if you meet setbacks. If they do not happen to meet setbacks, they could apply for variance and the limitations of the lot, maybe something that they use when they do that. And the BZA would have to make it. The BZA has criteria established by the state that they have to follow when they can those decisions. We're at 3-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1- Is the current staff proposal to change it to three one and a half one and a half? No, the idea is that one would be smaller as well. You're granting them an exception for family subdivisions. That is their intent. Oh, yeah, I understand. So what would they all then, the recommendation would be all one and a half? They are recommending that you look at some consistency there. If you feel that that's appropriate, I would think you would either be looking at one and a half and two, just based on comments that the one is too small and that the three is already there for general ag. So for all three we're looking at so the range of possibilities on the family subdivision is probably between one and a half and two and the hypothetical for the village center is to leave it at one or increase at the one and a half. And there's been no comments about changing the lot's outs for general residential way from one and a half. Is that accurate? Right. The general residential, they just asked that you can consider that in conjunction with the other two and try to get some consistency. Okay. other two and try to get some consistency. Okay, so to restate that based on all of the different conversations and Hayes will ask you to confirm this, the conversations at the board sewerage level for the family sub-aditions. Discussion up to this point has been in the range of one and a half to two. For the village center district, discussion up to this point has been in the range of one and a half to two. For the village center district discussion up to this point has been in the range of one to one and a half, where they presently at one. And for the general residential the the the disconversation has been around leaving at one and a half. Is that everybody's understanding? I'm just trying to, because we ask staff what's the recommendation. And staff says it's up to us. I understand that. But I'm trying to, all the conversation that has been had in those ranges. Does anybody want to, is there any consensus at numbers for each of those? Given that one and a half is the lower bound of the discussed brains right now in general agricultural for family subdivisions only and the upper bound for the possible village center district increase and the current. So if you one possible the solution is one and a half all the way down another solution is two one one and a half or two one 2,1 1 and a half or 2,1 1 and a half, 1 and a half. That's what I had. Yeah. Okay, so we could multi-vote or somebody could give an opinion of why they had Mr. Ben? Uh... No, they just some some numbers of boxes. Oh, I appreciate you. I would like to give them a opinion. Okay, there you go. Well, the end of the substitution, I would like to see it as the same as General Residential District of one and a half. And the reason for that is that it's currently three. And if I have three acres of land and I would like for my daughter to be able to build a house on my property with its split in half and I would have one and a half acres. You know, it's we're subdividing the three acre requirement that you can always have one and a half, I mean I don't know, is that enough if you do have a septic issue? Is one and a half? I have a one acre law here in town. I'm talking agriculture. Well okay but the law doesn't know what district is answering. Oh but you don't. The media is on the well I said. No I'm on septic. I think I can get away with the well, but you would start to have a problem if everybody had a well. That's why I show a courthouse years ago I had to put in town water, right? Because the problem is you almost have to negotiate with your neighbors about where their septic can go because of your well. You see what I'm saying? So you start to have a little bit of a problem if it's a large house. And I have a large house because it only matters how they calculate bedrooms, not square footage. You start to run into a little bit of a problem on one acre for a septic. But I may ask you one and a half. It's one and a half, okay? It's not limited the size of the house you can build. Because it's based on fixed number of fixture units. So it's going to limit it. And then you put the lot size and the setbacks going to be working against that. You're not going to put a 10,000 square foot house on a bigger and a half lot, which in that case, you would not have enough because you probably wouldn't get your setbacks and stuff. So they're all kind of working together, I think. One and a half of work. One and a half of work, yeah. But I know you had mentioned issues of... It can be done. When I had a vine come out they had to turn it around and run the lines the opposite direction because the soil wasn't good and that's the reason the initial. So you got one line that runs the whole length for the debucks and then come back with the lines beyond the debucks. Initially I had a distribution box with my lines running straight to the right. When he came out, when the saw guy came out there, he said, you've got good soil on this end, not good soil on the other end. That's the reason, one of the reasons that system failed. So what he did was turn it around and go back to the other direction and had to run those distribution lines right up to the property line. Which would be a problem if you never had a well over there. You wouldn't have been allowed to do that. Or conversely, you just created a situation, you encountered your neighbor's property where they can't have a well there in the future. Potentially, yeah. And they're a comma. Well, I wouldn't talk about your neighbor specifically. I'm an engineer. You're an engineer, yeah. You mean you have to think about lose the earth. Right, if we make it where it just barely works, what we'll be doing is pushing people's septic lines to the edge of their property where they will, in effect, it will be who got their first and they will Incomer the neighbor that's the problem with the small lots In any of these it doesn't matter what district we call it Yeah, one one-half I'm on a comfortable bowl of one-half Think making all three one and a half would be. I can move that one. Well the county is doing it. You can open Campbell County to the road up there. I was on the other day and they went in the camp after us and they cut out one acre lots of building on them just one right after the other. It looks like in Mecklenburg County it's the minimum lot size is .69 acres. It's not even the reverse of an acre. In the cable? Yeah, in the cable. Wow. It's a cultural section. I would never want to see it that small, but. Right. And they may be leaving people with undilted a lot. They could, or maybe... And, you know... Oh, so, make a lot that small, but you won't get five full bedrooms in it. I'm still up on the family subject. You're doing a family subdivision. You're going to make sure that you can handle well in the septic tank just for you to give them that land. Good to carry a minister there, I'd like to comment on this, since the building inspector reports you. As stated, one and a half is getting high. If you have an issue with your septic system, for sure. But the options are, I've seen in this kind of read, that people have had to go talk and purchase land from their neighbor to get a septic system bill. And in some cases, they've got information to put a septic system that the septic system is on their neighbor's property. That's not a good scenario at all. I don't know how much this is, how much is going to happen. There are a lot of lots out there that are less than the three acres that are being built on now since we've opened that pack up since I've been here. So there are lots of those being built on. And we may not see many issues. Monica has a small lots of G-City over there. She has a small lot of town that has a lot of trees on it. And I suspect that she has septic issues. The chances of having another septic on her lot are very slim and it may be an issue of having to contact the town or her experience to hook to the horse mate. Could she's one of the ones that has that option? How did the county don't have an option to hook to it? We actually had a Dreamfield failure a while back. And airlock not only is it the size but the shape of it. It is shaped like a slice of pizza basically. The crust end at the sidewalk and it really goes back to a point. So when we put in the second drain field, we were very lucky that we were able to get it in there, but it runs all the way to the back property line, you know, like Miller was saying with his. So it is a challenge. In lot size, in lot shape, you know, plays into it. So not every lot is a nice square or rectangle, unfortunately, and it can make it very difficult. I can imagine what you're talking about, he's a little bit, that small, a lot, without access to public utilities. So, what line is it right across the line? I'm not taking it up. My concern, unless I'm taking you at your words, 6.69, I mean I lived on a 16th in Raleigh. So it's not a matter of who buys the smaller lots. It's a matter of in Raleigh had water and sewer products. My concern is if you have, even if you do a family sub-adulter, let's just go pick on that one. And you do that and you can fit your drain filled in, not criticizing anyone, but two people here tonight, on part of the process, have given example where they had to run to the property line. When they did that, they took a big chunk out of their neighbor's property where a well can never be. And so if you have enough of these laws and somebody does subdivide a whole field, it will be first come first serve. Because your first drain field will be allowed to run up to this, you can do it. You can take your septic, your your drain field right to your property line. My understanding is That the your neighbor now can't put a well there and that's that's a concern That's that's my concern is Creating a first-come-first serve situation with a whole bunch of small lots in a field Whatever can we that Campbell, the little was taught about there. And I think the point that Mr. Amade, a few weeks ago, which is smaller lots, still sell at lot prices. So that creates an automatic incentive for some of us to make a small possible wall. I'm not sure we want to open the door of that frankly. And it affects us that way. But as I said, you know, so if we did nothing at family subdivision, we've done nothing. It's got to be a number below three if you're not just basically throwing out family subdivisions because they don't need to be family at three. Um, I mean, yeah, if it's okay to general residential, one of the half acres. Why isn't it okay for family subdivisions? It's a fairer. Why isn't it okay for any of the... It's a fairy. So that... I mean, we're not talking about the whole family. We're talking about a family family. But the potential for general... Whatever the term, a general... Residential. Residential is that those areas are closer to towns and as we develop the potential for those areas to have the availability to town water or town sewer is higher, then if the lot is out so far removed, that town water and town sewer are those lots is about practical Looking into the future and that's that's what we're here for us to Plan for the future of the county. Before we can vote on it, we have to have a proposal to publish. We have to have a proposal on these other three bullet points, I guess we could have these thoughts meetings with that in some way. We could publish, you know, I'm going to throw out kind of an AB scenario, but obviously there are a lot of scenarios. A one and a half all the way down the line as a scenario. We could throw out a scenario that was different from that. A two, one and half, one and a half. If we publish out of one, the question for staff would be, if we publish one and a half, one and a half, one and a half. And we hear from the public, could we then change it at that point to two? That's not a substance to two one and a half one and a half I know going down would not be an issue Um, I don't know as far as if you increased it Whether or not it will be substantial enough. I wouldn't think so But the only thing is like if you're up in general residential because they're currently one and a half and I don't I have not heard any issue really with that in the general residential so if something you decide to push them all up to two including Bayers you know you're not really giving them an opportunity to speak to that since something you're changing. Oh I see your argument. So in other words if we're average I want to have one and a half one and a half, one and a half, one and a half. And hypothetically, we could put any oven to two than that sunfare in house advertised. So, does anybody wanna, we can't vote to make a recommendation or, but I think we could have a motion of what we wanna advertise when we get, given that we're not to that point with the rest, but the entire advertisement. Does anybody wanna make a motion on what we would like to advertise? So that we can need past the lot sizes. Mr. Chairman, something as well too is what I had in mind, I think that note I had wrote down two one and a half, one and a half just because because I was in war stories you hear about getting down towards a cut of half with no potential to ever tie into public utilities. But the other thing too, I'm sure maybe this was I just didn't see it was a good definition of family. You know I don't think I should be at split off my life to my fourth cousin on the wife's side through marriage. You know what I mean? Is it direct family? I thought it was family. I haven't even defined it. It's family. It's family. It's family. Yeah. Sister In section B. Just not in the step child. Yeah. Can you do you step sister? I'm looking at for it to be under a Yeah, it's under B. It's part B covers that So those are the little communities where there are post offices or used to be but there are no, there is no incorporated panel. So it's like, right. So it's, they didn't have an agent. Yeah. No chance to form a solution. They didn't have an agent. That's what they're now. Yeah. And that was the concern of the board originally. that's what they're now. And that was the concern of the board originally. So there's seven of those. They are only a quarter mile square. So they're very small. Think of the intersection at Red House, or the post offices in Red Act, the intersection at Colin. Those are the types of places we're talking about. So if I move, I move, now I can't sit on the mile over next to the red-up post office. But if I live in nine-tenths of the mile down the Yellow Store road, I've got three acres. If I have three acres, I can't survive. I have one and a half acres of health and do it to my daughter. But if I live right next to a red-up post office, I can touch my three answers from the lives up in the three lives. You could, if you could still go on and stuff. That's a watering sewage there. Just like it's no chance of watering sewage for now with it. It's not consistent. Everyone's not being treated equally. There's different intents of the district, and that's why when you look at the zoning ordinance, it'll explain those village center districts. We're developed with the idea that growth with a car there would be where you would have a bunch of little stores in a new little community developing around it where the post office is. So that was the intent of those. So it would be a more densely developed area. For the record, not every post office got one. Madisonville was a post office since you get one. Right. I'm just saying it wasn't arbitrarily the postal definition. You go back to reason that it's some little haddy post office, is it was bigger than calling when the post offices were established? It just got smaller. So Hazel's at this can't make a motion. Is there a motion for how to advertise a lot, size and what I heard from staff was we could advertise one and a half, one and a half, and then go to two, one and a half, one and a half, or the board, or if that matter, soak in the board. Right? Going up doesn't concern staff from a legal point of view. If it's advertising, after we hear from public going out. Well, I said it could be a concern if you were going up on general residential. You know, if you do that on the family subdivisions, you're still giving them less than what they have now. You know, you're dropping it down, so they're still an advantage to it to them. But if you go up on general, because right now, general residential is one and a half. But you don't have to keep all three of them the same either. That was just an initial suggestion for consideration. And like I said, I don't think there's any administrator I, the one of her, need concerns really with the one and a half acre requirement that's in the general residential. So, that someone like to make a motion so we can leave past the last time? I'd like to make a motion. Okay. To advertise two acres for family subdivision 1.5 village center 1.5 general residential district. I have a motion to second. He further discussion. So the two acres would only be in the event of a family situation. Yeah, and so it would be the list you'd rather have. If you had a Aged field, you would still be required. Unless something changes, you would still be required to cut off a three-acre lot. Was it a good question? Now this would just be for the family self-division. It's only in the subdivision ordinance. There's four family self-division. I understand, but I think either I'd maybe understand you differently now. When you make that family subdivision, there's no requirement to actually build something on it. You cut off a...it's just a lot. It could remain a field. Is that your point? No, my point is if you have a field with no structures whatsoever and somebody comes to you and says, I want to buy a lot. Well, you'd have to sell them three acres. But building a lot. Unless they were family, you couldn't sell them a two acre lot. That's right. For clarification, that's why I ask. But what my understanding is, if you have, let's say, since the motion is two, if you have four acres, you can cut it in half. So both of them to family, and they can remain what is apparently one field, but now two lots for some number of years, at which point? Five years, thank you. At which point, the... It can be solved. It can be solved. Yes, that is what we would be creating. Yes, that's my Is that right staff? Yes Is that what you want We'll motion in a second. I motion was injuries What what's Any further discussion to now we have a motion And a second on the floor right there's no further discussion given that we're not going to let's just vote indicate uh... favor of two of advertising to one and a half one and a half by sent i i opposed okay we move past that. And we'll move on to the next part of the agenda. Is there any interest in continuing to deny this? Gus, the setbacks. How many more days do we have to act on this? These are the only three things that were referred to you, the things that you just voted on. So that is what it falls under the 100 day. Anything else is something the planning commission would be taking. Staff of course is recommending changes in this language to address some of these issues. The only numbers change that we had in here, let's see, was for the general agricultural, which is two pages from the end end and that was where we were changing the minimum front edge. It currently has 275 feet at the set back line for a lot of fronting and existing state roads. 200 feet at the set back line for a lot of fronting newly constructed state roads. We're just recommending 200 feet. So reducing it from 275 to 200? 200, yeah, on existing. So one hypothetical go forward would be to accept staff's recommendations without one change and not change anything else about the setbacks. Right, and the other recommended change we had was on the one below that three four. It had the 75 feet from the center line for privately maintained roads for front setback and general ag. We had been matching those to the rear setback so we changed it to seven just to follow that same pattern. But you don't have to take any action on setback. If you want to do these things and incorporate the thing staff is recommending, you know. You can include that through a motion with these that you just approved or recommended holding a hearing on. But that's up to you how much you follow through along. Why my inclination, because I'm just not as the chair but just as a person voting and representing the district district is that we would accept all the staff's changes, including the two distance changes that you described, the frontage at the setback and not changing the other setbacks. Now, I'll just throw that out as a point of view and ask for comments. Just try and move this along. So are you saying basically make the changes that they have and read? This would be like voting to advertise what you have and read, is that right? Yes. But that's the part with the setback parts we don't have to advertise right? No, but it's just the three. No we don't we could stop here and not advertise in rent but in the course of this process the ask that has identified that there are some things that need to fix. Yeah but I mean but the public I mean we don't have to advertise the setback aspect right? Any changes you are making, including these text amendment staff as proposed and would need to go to a public hearing before you can recommend changes. Do you understand what I'm saying? Yes. We have to, if we're going to make any changes, we have to vote to advertise that we're making those changes. Oh, okay. But all I'm saying is as a starting point for the discussion, what if we accepted all the staff changes and including the two distance changes and did not change any setbacks with regard to frontage and side setback recording? Oh, you do that. Just ask before. Because, okay, so I'm just going to hold a mind into the discussion, but not that my mind can't be changed here, because it's not broken. The language is somewhat broken and we're fixing it, and setbacks aren't. If you're of the opinion that the setbacks that we have today are appropriate, but you accept that recommendation that there's language changes that needed. And you would advertise the language changes with the changes recommended by staff and not any differences. But have I heard Mark correctly the setbacks are just to make them all consistent. I think he's saying he would include everything I'm recommending in here not looking at any additional setback changes like Mr. Long. Oh, okay. I got you. Yeah, the clarifications are recommended. I mean, I'm, look, I've read through it. I'm not, I'm not trying to skip the problem, but I don't think in general we need shorter front setbacks. And shorter front setbacks is the only thing I've heard anybody wanting and one possible situation is to not give it to them and make all the changes that staff recommends. That's my hypothetical, if you will, straw man position to try to move us along as a chair. Is there, is, is what is the feeling about that thesis? And that, these, now do you, is it make more sense? So now, rebut that idea, is there, do I see more change in that? I would be prone to make a motion to accept all the changes in red or staff. Well we could do that. If you made that motion, I... The changes to make the setbacks consistent. Yeah. Well the changes in red would be that. Yes, I mean just what they recommended. Forget what I brought up. Basically, that's what we're looking I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I Why can't we just say? Everyone has staff has recommended in red. That would include just what they have. I was looking for anybody interested in making more changes than what staff's meant. But I haven't heard anyone interested. Maybe I didn't express it well. So you can make the motion any form that you like. I'm not going to make the motion. Well, I think Mr. B and R. I would like to make a motion. I would like to make a motion. The staff recommendations and read these are extended. I'll second that motion. Okay and then can I ask you to include that and that there be advertisements when this this is the end of the discussion? Okay just clarify. All right so I have a motion a second. Any further discussion on that motion, second? All right here, none. All those in favor indicate us in a pose. All right, done that. Are you even faster? Is there a staff important? There is a written staff report in the packet. It primarily covers solar and where we stand on various projects. We did receive a conditional use permit application today or at least the initial part of it. We're still waiting on the fee and we'll begin processing that full solar facility. I think the county administrative network can't enough this morning how many projects we've been contacted by lately. And I think including that when we know of six potential applications that could be coming. So there is still a lot of solar interest out there. The only other thing on here we've got the training opportunities. And then the board will soon be looking at appointments for those that terms are expiring. I think on the planning commission the only ones are some of you all that are representing the towns. So we will be sending a letter out to the town. That's going to be the town of Drake's branch, the town of Keysville and the town of Charlotte Cornhouse just to recommend the appointment or reappointment of a representative. And then the board will consider that to reappoint you all. So there's the only things I had. Can I ask one clarify on question? When you said a total of six, that would be the total of everything hypothetically under number two, inclusive of this red oxolors that you actually named. It does include red oxolors. Right, but that's where the six comes in. It's in that same set, right? Okay. Yeah. So the sort of five-pointing commissioner of class at the least is you online You should do it at least some vocabulary Anything else? Commissioner comments Here none look for a motion to a jar. All right, all those favor. I pose need adjourn. Who's that? Oh, you do. I just saw something about that. I got a week and a half ago. It's fine. You didn't work today, did you? Yeah, I did. You didn't work today, did you? Yeah, I did. I did. I did. I did. I did. I did.