I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next slide. I to I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. Good evening everyone. The July 30, 2024, Loudoun County Planning Commission Public Hearing and Work Session will now come to order. as is our custom please let us stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you all. We do have a combined meeting tonight so we have a work session item as well as a public hearing item. We do not take public comment on work session items but we will on our legislative items that are up for public hearing. Just so everyone knows how that works, members of the public who wish to comment on any item on the public hearing legislative agenda may do so. If you're in the boardroom, please fill out a speaker slip, and hand it to the Assistant Deputy Clerk of the Planning Commission at the end of the day. To my left, if you're participating electronically, please call the number on the bottom of the screen. If you've signed up to speak after 12.30 p.m. please confirm your name is on the speaker list as public comment sign up closes after 12 noon as indicated on our website. Indicate your name in the agenda item you wish to address. Each speaker, whether speaking on behalf of an organization or as an individual, will have three minutes per the commission's updated bylaws that were adopted at an effect starting this month. Written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Deputy Clerk who will make copies for the Planning Commission. The Commission may vote on applications tonight and send its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors or may forward the item to a work session for further consideration before taking final vote. Our procedures for the public hearing are as follows. We'll have a 10 minute staff presentation followed by commissioners questions to staff. Tonight each commissioner will be given three minutes to ask questions of staff that will have a 10 minute applicant presentation when applicable followed by commissioners questions. The hearing will be open for public comment. We'll have three minutes for each speaker. After everyone has had a chance to speak, the hearing will be closed. The applicant and staff will have an opportunity to provide any responses to public comment. And finally, there will be a motion deliberation and a vote by the commission. All right, we have minutes from the June 25th Planning Commission Public Hearing. Do I have a motion to adopt those? All the meeting minutes. Mission. Last, last for Exition Meeting. So June 25th Public Hearing. Yep. All right. Do I have a second? Second. All right. A motion is made by Commissioner Maderite, seconded by Commissioner Miller. Any changes or corrections to those? Commissioner Jasper. I had a question on the description of the public comment. While I understand, I remember people saying that the Luxstone quararry didn't, you know, I don't remember them saying that it hadn't caused any issues, right? I remember folks saying it wasn't that bad, but I don't remember them saying what it says in the minutes that it didn't cause any issues for the community. I think people did talk about some minor issues, but they felt that looks stone was a good neighbor and provided notice and things like that. Am I the only one who has that recollection? That's how they remember it. Okay, so do we have a Friendly amendment to the motion to make that change is that how we? Correct our minutes How about I think we would be looking for some specific Language, okay, how about has not caused insurmountable issues for the community? Are you referring to a specific wrongled ingrown, the public comment description? So we can go back and listen to the audio again and if it's appropriate, We can add something additional based on what we hear in the video. Yeah, so both Will Terrell and Ronald and Grim, if you could listen to their comments, I believe one of them was more clear that there had been some issues, but they weren't horrible. Okay, we can do that. Thank you. Okay, do we want to adopt them pending that clarification or hold them until you guys have had a chance to go back? Okay. Are we comfortable? I am. I don't think it's that material. Okay. All right. Very good. We have a motion with a request for some clarification on the table. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? The motion carries 801 with Vice-Share Combs absent this evening. Okay, disclosures. We'll go ahead and go down the line. Missioners, if you have a disclosure to make, please turn on your light. Commissioner Miller. Uh, yeah, one second second come back. Okay happy to do that. Well I start down here Commissioner Myers. On you see here July 24th I had a virtual meeting with the represents from the Dominion application for tonight. Also I had a virtual meeting with the represents from the Dominion application for tonight. Also, I had a meeting in regards to Stoneheel with our application tonight. And then today, I had a meeting with the Zebra application virtual and then also a virtual meeting with Greenland, which we have on our program tonight. Thank you. Commissioner Kieres. Thank you. I'm saying July 8th. I had a phone call with Paul Dyckman who's on the Loudon Valley 2 states HOA board regarding the Stone Hill application. On July 9th, I met with the applicant and their team for the Stonehill application. July 16th had a meeting with the Dominion folks regarding their panel-wiring application tonight. Also on July 16th I met with the applicant and their team for the Zebra East application tonight. On July 17th to 28th, I was in Southern California, was mid-70s and sunny every day. Just like throw that in there. On July 29th, I had a site meeting with Cam Jones, the county's affordable howling on Budsmen and the Osteomatis of Loudon Chamber to review a potential site for affordable housing. July 29th, I attended an HOA meeting with the Goose Creek Club community about the Goose Creek to residential application. And today I had a conference with Mike Romo regarding the Greenland Park application. Thanks. Commissioner Miller. Thank you. On July 22nd, I met with Aaron Swiss on Vomolish Goluchi, along with Pete Holm, Gavin Klein, from Cloud HQ, the applicant in the, Bill Junda. Gordon and Polkiede, Park from Groove Slaid regarding the, zero east application. And on 722, I met with Molly Novotani from Curata and Andrew Rassister from Tor Brothers regarding the Stone Hill application. Commissioner Jasper. Okay, I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to give dates. But well today I spoke with Charles Yud about the Greenland Park application. I spoke with Molly Novotny and Angela Rassass about the Stonehill application. I spoke with Aaron Swiss Helm and the team from Zebra East about that application. I spoke with how we Eda yesterday about the Arcola Grove data center. And I spoke with the team from Dominion Energy about the wiring shop application. And I also spoke with the community of Blumont about small area planning last week. Mr. Maderetti. about a small area planning last week. Mr. Maderetti. Thank you Madam Chair. On July 18th, I met with Erin Swishel, my and the applicant team regarding zebra east application on July 26th. I met with Molly Nawatni and applicant team regarding the Stonehill application. And finally, Angelite 26th, I met with Harvey Edo and applicant team regarding the Arcola Grow application. Thank you. Commissioner Banks. Madam Chair. I met with the Walsh Kaluci team on July 19th regarding Zebra East. And frankly, that's the only one I can find on my calendar. You can give them to us later too. That's fine. At the next meeting. There you go. Well you're about to all learn every single thing I did on July 23rd as a matter of fact, funny enough. I'm going to go back to the last one. I'm going to go back to the last one. I'm going to go back to the last one. I'm going to go back to the last one. I'm going to go back to the last one. I'm going to go back to the last one. I'm going to go back to the last one. many data center representatives and community members. It's also on the 23rd, I had a meeting with the Milestone Belmont applicants for the application before us tonight. I had a meeting with the Zebra East applicants, Aaron Svassalman, that team for that application before us tonight. And I had a briefing with the Stone Hill applicants also on the 23rd and over the last Couple of days since Friday there's been some back and forth emails with the Milestone representatives and dominion regarding the Milestone Monopol application tonight. So I Think that's it if we're good. we'll jump right into our work session item. The one and only tonight is Leji, 2023-0059 Greenland Park. Good evening commissioners. Thank you. Thank you for accommodating this work session item and do appreciate the applicant agreeing to it as well. We are dealing with staff changes and we move this from the earlier work session this month. So do appreciate everyone's patience calling up the PowerPoint. I'll hit some highlights in the interest of time without a public hearing items. I'll just go into the two issues that we find outstanding to get the commissions feedback. From members of the audience, this is subject property. South of Leesburg, north of Dallas, Greenway, just west of Ciclin Road at the intersection with Shreve Mill Road. The proposal will re-zones 81 acres from TR-10 to the PDIP zoning district, which would allow about 2.1 million square feet of data center and utility substation uses. This is the concept development plan. Shows the building envelope, approximate location for a future substation. These were the issues that were outlined in the staff or the staff memorandum. The two italicized items building height and architectural and site designer those that we've identified as outstanding that we need the commissions, guidance and feedback given the applicable policies for the place type. Terms of building heights specific to the transition light industrial place type. The staff has assessed this as being three stories height or equivalent of 36 feet. The applicant is proposed to align with the IP district standard of 60 feet. And to meet the policy we have recommended a height of 36 feet, the commission did ask for an assessment of buildings that are, or other projects that are in proximity, proximity to the subject property, this was included in your item. This is a depiction of that analysis here. The applicant also has a presentation with the updates that they've provided and also has a similar graphic we collaborated on having these two assessments. So generally what you'll see in the area are ranges between 45 feet up to 100 feet. The table on the right talks about the project name, talks about the setbacks and height associated with each project and then the applicable or the place type that applies to each of those projects. And I can come back to this. Next, architectural site design. Again, there are certain design features recommended in the transition policy area. Two choices when you look at development projects. You have a very specific layout and building design, which the applicant generally or sometimes applicants will commit to substantial conformance with. Or you'll have a, the applicant is proposing as more or less a call it a bubble plan or general limits of construction and then provide text that describes the general design requirements and design parameters for the project. In this case the applicant is asked for flexibility with a more or less a bubble plan and is provided details in the text or the proper statement about how those buildings would be arranged in the materials that would be used. In this case given the high profile location along the greenway, along Siklin, we'd encourage the applicant to provide elevations to better understand the scale and massing on the property. They have instead provided the architectural design commitments in the proper statement. But in this instance, we've asked the commission to weigh in on. And again, this talks about the general description of the development boundaries of property on the concept development plan. That is a quick overall summary. The applicant also has a quick presentation to go over their other amendments that they've made since you've seen it last, unless there's questions on this Madam Chair, if you'd like to see the applicant's presentation of the commission, I'd like to see the applicants presentation of the Commission. I'd like to see there's first and then we can get into questions if that's helpful. Thank you, Marchant. Does anybody have questions they'd like to ask now of staff? Commissioner Miller? Marchant, we had talked about Sikland Road last time. I just want to clarify what portions of and what improvements will be done to sicklen road now and or versus when the county gets around to actually widen it itself. Okay. I do have DTC on the line, if Bradley, if he wanted to jump in, but I can give the overall assessment the shrieve, they're providing frontage improvements, they're providing a 12 foot lane, they're providing the shoulder that would ultimately be part of the ultimate configuration of Sikland Road. They're also providing contributions to a future shared use path. And then also improvements to the Sikland Road intersection. There's a timing issue with that. They may or may not realign that based on the corresponding projects and the development of the property. And all this will align with the skinnale property just to the north that they're undergoing their signal road improvements right now. Correct, there will be coordination between those two projects. It will be a continuation in line up with all of it together. Correct, that's a general common practice with the rest of these properties. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Kieres. Yeah, Marshal, you mentioned the design. They're not providing an actual picture of what the building will look like. But you mentioned they have in their proffers design commitments. Do those design commitments match what the county would expect? Correct. Generally, outline the commitments that we would typically see. We are asking it as a comfort level absent of actual elevation. The applicant has provided cross sections in their presentation to better understand the relationship of buildings to the area roads. I think we've generally comfortable with the way the design commemments have been outlined, but would still recommend elevations to better and lay out of the property to better understand how the buildings will be laid out. So one of the things that's in the new plan commitments is the 30% venestration. Is that, I understand they have not agreed to that at this point? That specific number no sir. All right. Thank you. Mr. Myers. I'm just two quick questions. I did go through the general plan and you had when you were talking about the building height, the 12 feet rule that you were pointed out for this particular area. Can you tell me what page that's on? I couldn't find it. I mean, I found it in the urban area, but I did not even find where it's dictated, where it even speaks to a height of a building. So, you are correct. We noted that as a footnote in the staff report that the only, the type of playstypes that specifically define story height is in the UPA. So it's not in this particular area. The specific height measurement is not. We've to be consistent across the playstipes. We've interpreted that story height based on the standard that was described in the UPA. And that will be one of the amendments that we're likely to make in our future concept, our future CPMs to address that. But isn't that one of the reasons that was put in there is because we really don't want to encourage data centers in that area. In the UPA? Yeah. There's certain areas where we don't want it correct. Correct. And the UPA. So that's why we actually were looking to limit the height to make it look more like an apple in an orange. The only thing I would offer to you in this area, I think the data center development and the nature and the scale and massing, in this area would be different than data center development in the suburban policy area. That's why we've encouraged the commission to look at the comfortable with the commitment. But today there is no policy in this particular area that says 12 feet, 35 feet is the standard. And I just have three stories. Correct. But even the three stories, not in this particular planning area, correct? In the playstyle it does set up the three stories, yes ma'am. Okay. The TLI playstyle. So in the map that you've given to us that gives us the one, the six different rezoning that have been done in this area for data centers. Yes ma'am. For data centers. On those, just, do you have any idea how many of those did where they actually profit elevations, buildings, and everything, or were they really were more like the design scape like we see a lot of people doing? It was a combination of both, but I would have to go back and audit those specifically. So it's not unusual that we've seen in this area where people have done the exact same thing when you don't and then user that these people are, that this particular user's requesting. Yes, ma'am, we've seen both. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Jasper. I'm Ashon. So as you know, we spoke earlier today and I was not here for the last session on this, but I'm looking at the comparison and my concern has to do with the transition policy area and the variety of policy guidelines that seek to ensure that there isn't too much of a visual impact for any kind of development there. And I'm looking at this map or this chart, and it talks about setbacks and height, but without understanding both the volume of the building, the adjacencies in terms of roads and other kinds of development and the designs of these. I understand that one of the problems with these plants is that they're just synopsis, right? They're very, so with this chart, I see that there are buildings of a variety of heights, including up to, you know, one is in here at, I guess maybe the tallest I'm seeing is 100 feet, but I don't know anything else about them. I mean, so I find it difficult to use this as a guideline. I'm only looking for your response. Like is it worth digging down deeper? I end up, you know, because it is, in fact, the same dilemma you have, working based on proper language rather than elevations and a CDP. I don't know what these buildings actually look like. Is it worth looking at that harder? Or? I mean, talk about Apple's orange as we could be. I think we would, the staff would concede to that in this context that the 60 foot might be appropriate, but it was under the recommendation that the layout be used to be able to determine that. If you're building into the slope of the property that masks the height and those types of things, whether or not it would be a worthy exercise that would just take more time. This chart was based on the request we had gotten from the commission if there was further comparison or analysis that's something we could do but we don't have that information to see them. Okay, and just one quick follow up. Are any of these buildings 2 million square feet? You know? I did not do that side by side comparison. Yes, there are larger buildings in there, but I could not tell you if it was up to 2 million square feet. Thank you. Okay, if there's no other questions for the commission, we'll go ahead to the applicant presentation. Mr. Romero. I'll give you a minute. Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Michael Romero. I'm a land use planner with Wolf's Clutch here in Leesburg. With him this evening is Mr. Charles Yodt from J.K.L.A.N. Holdings. We also have the whole J.K.L.A.N. Holdings team behind me if we have any specific questions about items in the application. I just want to start off by thanking Marciant and the rest of county staff from meeting with us on a regular basis. We've been meeting with them for several months. It feels like years now meeting with them on various topics. And after the May 28th, Plenty Commission public hearing, we did meet again with staff on June 5th. We had actually two meetings that day. And I thought they were very productive and resolving a lot of the issues that were brought up by the Plenty Commission at the last meeting. In fact, five of the items are references topics for discussion in the staff report of effectively already been resolved. So with that, I'm also going to be very brief in my comments and just focus on the two issues that Marchion on reference in his presentation. So if we can go to the next slide, that would be great. Actually, I'll control myself. So for building height, the transition light industrial place type, as has already been discussed, does not reference a specific amount of feet per story. It does reference one to three stories in the place type. The only two places in the 2019 general plan that do reference 12 feet per story is the urban transit center place type and the urban employment place type. The proposed buildings will be 60 feet in height, which is in conformance with the surrounding properties. I will note also that the implementing zoning district for the transition light industrial place type is the IP district used to be the PDIP district, which is what we're proposing this application. That district allows up to 60 feet. So even though this is listed at three stories, the only implementing district for the place type is a district that allows the previous presentation and in response to what the Planning Commission requested at the public hearing. We also evaluated the buildings or the projects around this site and determine what the heights are and how does it compare to this site. As you can see in the middle there, the property is outlined in blue. It's approximately 81 acres. Just to the immediately west of the site is the warm property, which was recommended for approval by this commission at 60 feet in height. Further to the north is the cross trail property that is 60 to 100 feet in height. Immediately to the east is the Stonewall collection of properties, Stonewall Creek and Stonewall Secure Business Park, those range in height from 60 to 100 feet to the immediate west of this property is a cyclone road distribution facility. This was the one facility mentioned at the public hearing and that is at 45 feet in height. If you go a little further to the east, you have the Panda Power Plant, which is at 45 feet in height. However, the cooling turbine or the turbine for that is 100 feet. And then on the south side of the Greenway, but still east of Sikland Road is true north, which has been originally approved for a smaller height, but is now at 56 height based on a zoning concept plan amendment. So if you didn't know what the place type was, underlying any of these properties or the zoning districts underlying any of these properties, if you look at there in north of the Greenway or East of Sikland Road, they all generally are in that 60 to 100 range for building height. So if you just take away the traditional zoning for this area, this site really fits in well in terms of building height compared to the other projects. For the other issue, for architectural site design, it is true we do not have elevations at this time. We don't have a user at this time, which is the reason that we are doing what is effectively known as a blob plan. With a blob plan, we try and, and this is something that I've discussed with Project Managers in the past, you try and build boundaries around what you can do on the site and what you can control is what we've tried to implement. First bullet point on this screen references building elevations, which will be provided at site plan, which is a traditional approach for really most applications that don't profit elevations at this time. All the bullet points that are below that reference, all the building facade treatments that we've agreed to in the profit statement. If you were to show an elevation, which I'll show you in the next slide, this is effectively producing a building that's attractive in nature. The final bullet point at the bottom there just references the building entrance and how that's really addressed. And these are taken in conformance with the new ordinance. It was adopted in December of last year. These match what is provided in that ordinance and this image that's on the screen is taken directly from that ordinance. There's a lot of good illustrations in the ordinance now to help show exactly what the county is looking for in terms of building design. If you look at a facade standards on the left hand side, the blue dots, we've implemented all those design standards with the exception of the 30% registration which Commissioner Kierce you mentioned. We do have references to windows just not of that percentage, but if that's something the Commission would like to have us just implement we can certainly do that. In terms of road sections and screening, this was a specific request from Commissioner Kiersch at the public hearing. We wanted to give you an idea, even though we don't have renderings and we don't know exactly where the buildings will be located on the site. We wanted to give you an idea of what it could potentially look like if you had an equipment yard facing a roadway. So at the top of the screen, the cross section you see is Siklin Road and the gray area is the equipment yard. And if you go to the right, you can see the setback area facing or heading to the right further. You see the future dedication area for Sikland Road. Between Sikland Road, future right away and the equipment yard is a 75 foot setback. In addition to a type 3 20 foot road quarter buffer, the equipment yard will be approximately 50 feet and it would probably be about 125 feet and width and that is a general number but it's likely the amount. On the cross section just below that is the green way. On the furthest to the left is the the green way to the right, is the equipment yard. There's at least 160 feet between the green way right of way and the equipment yard. The interview in area between that is the power line easement, which is approximately 135 feet. It can go from 120 to 170 feet and width. But again, the same type two, I'm talking about type three, row quarter buffer, but the extensive distance between the right of way and the equipment yard is certainly helpful in terms of visual impacts. Just for examples of what the screening could look like. If you go down reach 28, there's a couple of really good examples. The images you see on the screen are based on the Vantage Data Center on Route 28, just out the Waxpool Road. The image on the left shows it under construction, shows the two stories, and the generators that are in there. When it's fully clad with its material, you can see those images on the right. And I do wanna point out just one image in the middle there. There's a solar slash wind light pole, which is a fairly unique feature, which we have included in our application as a proper element. The last image I'll show you is the Edge Core Data Center on Roo28, just north and nooks Boulevard. This is a helpful image because it shows the building and the generator screening area. So the building itself is on the left hand side. The screen area is on the generator screening areas. So the building itself is on the left-hand side. The screening area is on the right-hand side. The screening area is so well done. It almost looks like a building unless you knew as a data center screening yard. So that is the screening methods that we've profit to and we would be agreeable to doing. And our goal is to really make it as non-generator storage or are looking as possible. It would look as close to the building as we possibly could make it. So I have many more slides, but I'll stop there because there's really only two issues that are really up for discussion. So I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Do we have any questions for the applicant? Commissioner Kierfs? So absent any, obviously, citing and what the buildings are going to look like. My primary concern is the frontage along Ciccolon Road because that's where the buildings are closer to their twice as close to Ciccolon as they are from the greenway. And that would be the particular facade that I'm most concerned with as far as driving down Ciccolon Road, prefer it to look like an office building than a data center. particular facade that I'm most concerned with as far as driving down sickle and load Refer to look like an office building than than a data center So I mentioned the 30% fenestration and I'm just wondering if you're willing to commit to that and that would be the profile Whatever profiles front sickle and road would have that so it could look more like an office building versus a data center We would commit to the 30% administration. Okay. All right. Thanks. Commissioner Barnes. Yes. Applicant. We talk about the renditions and you brought them. How close to the Ciclin Road this building is going to be? How close? So from the right, the future right of wind. to the cyclone road, this building is going to be out close. So from the right, the future right of wind, yeah, the future right of wind line is 75 feet from the building line. So 75 feet up back. From the edge of the road? From the edge of the proposed right of wind. So the edge of the road today is further away from the right of wind line. In the future at the ultimate improvements to 75 years. How many 75 feet away from that? From the property line, yes. Okay. And you're going to do what Mr. Kierce wanted you to do. Yes, we would agree to that. And you're going to have a generator on ground. Yes, they will be ground mounted. You're going to camouflage it or hide it. Yes, we've agreed to screening a similar to the picture. Sound deadening, you know, something to silly one be dead and noisy. The screening would deaden sound. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Commissioner Jasper. Hi, so Charles and I spoke a little bit earlier today. I have some concerns both about the visual intrusion and how that impacts the transition policy area, which is intended to be a transition rather than a continuation of the densities of the suburban policy area. But right now I'd like to ask you questions about the performance, noise, and infrastructure that's required for the data center. So you've, I saw you committed to in the proffer statement low flow toilets, which while a good thing are not the cutting edge of how to save water in a data center. We have other applicants who have committed to reuse of gray water and other techniques that have been widely adopted to mitigate the impact on natural resources. Have you, how, you know, what kinds of commitments are you able to make with regard to water reuse and what's the state of technology in the county for that right now? Just to the chair, is there a time limit on the applicant's response because there's a lot to cover with infrastructure and I'd like to adequately address the question from the commissioner. Can you do it? Just a year, nay. Two minutes? Yeah. Okay. Go for it. The, you're correct. The commitment at this point that we've preferred for site optimization or optimization and efficiency for data center have been limited to the cooling of the building and then the limitations on use of water. We're very sensitive to that because there is a perception out there that data centers use a lot of water and that's not always the case. And so we are very interested in applying reasonable technologies that can be deployed to save water and then ultimately for electricity too. And I think that's where the rest of your point may be going with regard to infrastructure. So right now we are evaluating very seriously the concepts of alternative energy sources to deploy at the point of usage. I do need probably a little bit of time just to say that this property is in the Novak service territory. They have, they make public commitments to their interest in use of renewable sources. All be it right now, it's about 10% of the power that they distribute. That needs to be more in the future, but as the power provider, they're very much interested in source of energy and how to manage that in the future. I also mentioned to you that we have the Dominion transmission facility under construction right now along the frontage of the greenway. That's a Dominion facility that has two poles and supplies power from the north south power line that is shown in the aerial. And really what probably was the impetus for all of the industrial development that's occurred in that area. Some of the things that supervisor Turner has raised in his white paper have been both related to Power generation and then what would be ideal characteristics for data centers to have in the future So in terms of power We're definitely talking to providers and and businesses that are Cutting edge Looking at natural renewable mobile gas, battery energy storage, and small modular nuclear reactors. The timing of all of those and the ability to deploy is variable, but we are looking at that and we do expect to have that conversation very detailed with the board. How can we address that? What's appropriate to power? What's appropriate to to proffirm in terms of power? But right now, we're served by the grid. The ideal characteristics included items such as lead certified, we do have a proffirm reference to lead certification, but other elements that are quite technical. Hot cold, isle containment, in-rack, in-ro cooling, submerged data racks, waste heat reuse. All of those are on the table right now for all the applicants to consider how can they make commitments to address the concerns that the county has, but also have it be scalable, affordable, deployable. And so I just wanted to take the time to try and answer your question fully and say, we are definitely looking at that as power companies need to, as end users need to, other data center applicants need to, as end users need to, other data center applicants need to. Yes, so thank you for the thorough response of one other question. The generators that you are gonna deploy there are they, how are they powered? And how many do you think might be required by the facility? Diesel backup is the industry standard right now, but there are potential alternatives to that. One being natural gas, the ability to draw from natural gas, to have service to your property in the volume that you would need, which would be an issue, is something that we are evaluating. Okay, thank you. Could I also address the question you made about transition, which is more site related? I don't know that there was a question there. I don't think so. It was a statement. No, it was. Let's wait and see if we get a question. A true question. Commissioner Maderetti. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a simple request really. In last few applications that came in front of the commission, we are used to looking at the renderings of the buildings, how they look like from the adjacent roads, the setbacks and all those things. Before I make my decision, I would like to certainly look into those to see what the visual impact is going to be. The second one is, I hear just at the end of the state in Charles, you just made your evaluating a lot of stuff in terms of what kind of a generator, natural gas or coal or diesel, what's not? But is it typical that you don't really know those at this phase or what's happening with those? Why you guys don't know whether, is it going to be diesel generator or is it going to be something else? Good question. I think the first part of it touches a little bit on the transition points, but the power supply and how data centers receive and use electricity is a huge issue obviously. So to say that we are looking into it, so is everybody else and it can't be understated. But right now there's a reality of what utility sources are available to users. And that is electricity, the grid as it exists, and the power sources that feed that grid, whether they be coal or other sources throughout the region. And so, my point earlier was both the utilities need to look into diversifying their power source and they are. And then data center users need to do the same thing and they are. But right now the utility that is available is electricity off of the grid and the backup source is diesel fuel generators and and alternative sources are so critical to identify what can be deployed because they have to be reliable and they have to be able to turn on when the grid turns off so to speak. So I can't understand the importance of that as a decision and also the challenge it is to commit to those types of things in a land use application when technology will likely change moving forward. So hopefully that is a well rounded answer. All right, Commissioner Myers. You have a question. What did you want to tell us about the transition area in this? Okay. I was really trying to pick up on the point of how critical it is to recognize the transition between boundaries of policy areas and how do you treat that? And I think that's a lot of the policy background that the staff is identifying and trying to articulate as a concern that may relate to what does the building look like. This is a emerging industrial area and it has been planned for industrial for decades. The after the revised general plan was adopted, there were small area amendments to include industrial uses on the north side of the greenway. And then later in 2019, when the 2019 plan was adopted, this area was planned for transition light industrial. So the point of transition is really what you're budding up against. What we are budding up against is the greenway with a power line easement, with a power line being constructed. And then the transition, the edges, the edges to across the green way, which is the rural area and then continuation of some of the transition area, our most heavily buffered edge is over there in that corner next to the green way, pointing to the west and while the drainage natural drainage area sort of becomes a de facto area to retain, it also retains an awful lot of tree conservation. Also knowing that there is an alternative future coming for a portion of the transition area, there is a rezoning application that is pending under review right now. We are not associated with it at all. It has residential in it, and we do not do residential applications. But the nearest proposed dwelling unit is 2,400 feet away, almost half a mile. And so that's important to us because we don't want to be a bad neighbor. But I wanted to just say that the transition issue is really about how you treat the edges. And that edge to that policy area is the green way, a new power line, and then quite a bit of distance to future residential development. Facing the other way, I think the graphic is self-evident. There's an awful lot of industrial development that we would be compatible with. Yeah, three quick things I'd like you to just affirm or say that you can't. So when it comes to the building facades and the treatments facing the greenway in Sipkin Road, you have agreed to the site designs that you were showing us tonight that that will be what we will see. That is correct. You have agreed tonight that you will agree to the 30% registration and profiles as they face Sipland Road. Correct. And what I'm hearing from you tonight is that you're willing to agree to continue with a commitment to work with the Board of Supervisors and both renewable resources and with alternative resources as it proposes to this application as you move forward to the Board of Supervisors. Correct. Thank you. Okay. Any other additional questions for staff? I'm sorry for yes. I said we'll follow to Ms. Myers' questions. Migrants saying that the cross-sections tonight would be added as a sheet to the CDP? We can as a sheet. But to the point earlier, the Commissioner moderating made, we don't anticipate building elevations as part of this project at this time. They would be provided at the site plan stage. The whole purpose of the preferred building design standards is to put some limits on what we can do. Again, in line with what is already in the zoning ordinance, it's meant to evoke a building that would look something like this. I was actually referenced. If you go, the slide would you actually talk about? Because I think it's important because it would be part of what we're thinking about. Where you talk about here, the minimum of two distinct exterior surfaces, material patterns, the minimum of one set back for that's what I'm saying that you're agreeing to commit to even though we don't have a building elevation that's facing. Yes, correct. And that's already in there. Yes, that's already in the proper statement. My question is about. Yes. Okay, thank you. So, Mike, you go to the next slide. The one that showed the cross sections. Commissioner Mars you weren't anticipating committing to this one this was just it was the other one okay great. Thank you Okay any additional questions or staff for the applicant Ask him a question sure Commissioner Barnes Can you bring that picture again with a little rendition you showed up there the building right there Which is the front and which is the side side? He's was on the side on the side side. He was on the left side. In this image, the front would be on the right hand side. And the side would be on the left hand side. But the side could also be a principal facade. This is just meant to show different techniques that could be used. For example, a lot of the items that are listed in red are in adjacent to residential districts which we are not adjacent to. You would normally have a step back, but that is not applicable. What this just shows is there are different design elements that we could include that are shown on this image that are already referenced in our Proffers. Fronting on Siklin. You would depend. It could be the left side or the right side. The land twice, but it would be the left side or the right side. The lengthwise, but it was the lengthwise. Yeah, whatever has the specific building design features, we would have that facing signal. And that's going to be 75 feet away. Correct. And when you're talking about a generator, it has to be diesel. It does not have to be diesel, but that's what we are currently. Unless you have a big tank sitting around there. You would need fuel storage if you had diesel. Yeah, diesel 2 here. It's toward that, too. Yep. Somebody asked you about the generator. How many generators you're going to have? We don't know the answer to that. We don't really answer to that right now. Generally, what they have. It depends on the size of the building really. We honestly don't even know how many buildings will be on the site. But it's maximum to have a couple of them too. So in some cases, there would be more than two per building on this one. More than two generator. Yes, more than two generators per building, definitely. Yeah, thank you. That's what, definitely. Okay. Thank you. That's what I thought. Okay. Any other questions for staff or the applicant? Seeing none, we're in Leesburg. Mr. Barnes. John, are you going to leave the motion like it is on a pair? Are you going to change any, make any changes to it? Unless there's the two motions in the packet. one was for denial or one was for approval. That's the one that's it right? Yeah, okay. Okay, do we need to amend them at all to codify the commitments that were made or we've got that. The only concession was the 30% the other commitments were already. Okay. All right. I moved that planning commission forward. LEGI, Tony, Tony 3-0059. Greenland Park, ZMPA, ZMAP, Tony, Tony 2-Dash, 0-024 to the Board of Sipervizers with the recommendation of approval. Subject to the proper statement on June 7th, 2024. I don't share there also findings for approval that were, I'm sorry, go ahead. Could I do a friendly amendment? Sure, that's what I have here. No, we don't have findings. Well, the findings are down below, too. He's emailed it out to everybody today. But I would like to, can we also add on there that we feel that the 60 feet is appropriate with using the attachments that are on the staff report, the attachment three of the staff report? I don't know that we need that in the motion, but we can certainly ask the staff report reflects it because by raising it as an issue. Part of the else's any issue was do we agree with the 60 feet. If that's recommend approval I would assume that's an agreement right? Yeah. I'm just simply pointing out that we do. I hesitate to get in the habit of us putting a lot of detail and sentiment into motions. I think this motion captures that we're okay with it. It didn't come up with a discussion item. I would, I will, we can commit, I think staff can commit to making sure that that's noted in the report when it goes to the board that this was not an issue with the commission. I will respectfully disagree with you only because I've set through quite a few public hearings now that not necessarily when we're not agreements with the staff, the reason why we make a decision get expressed. So I think it is prudent upon us to if we feel it is appropriate to state in our motions that it's appropriate. I think that covers it and the application. I would also like to see that we also put in there about the basic, that the 30% finish-action profiles facing the on-sickland road is part of the conditions of why we are also recommending approval because that's an amendment to what's not in here. Okay. And then also that the applicant has agreed to a commitment to, so to continue to work on renewable resources with alternative resources with further discussion with the board supervisors. Okay. I'm going to. You got that. March on. Yeah. Do we, that's part of the motion or is that a fine? That's part of the motion. That's part of the motion. Why are the motion? Because it wasn't in our report. We can account for those in the motion that was forward. Do we want to read the second portion of that regarding the findings? Is that from the email? It's not in the staff report that it was in the email that was sent out to by this afternoon. Right. It's doing a read it for you. Do you not see it? No, I'm talking to. Yeah. OK. The recommendation of people based on the following findings proposal to develop the site with data, centered uses, and compliance with the land use policies of the transitional light industrial place type of the loud county 2019 general plan which supports data centers as they core use and to the affluent is committing to two electric vehicle charging stations and wanting with recommended sustainability measures in the 2019 general plan. Do we have a second? It's all second. Okay. We have a motion made by Commissioner Barnes, seconded by Commissioner Myers. Mr. Barnes, do you have an opening? No, I don't. No. Commissioner Jesper. Well, I won't be supporting the motion. The reasons I won't be supporting the motion are because I have referred back to the comprehensive plan. And I will quote from the comprehensive plan with regard to the transition policy area. Despite the fact that applicant has said that the purpose of the transition is to only create a transition to adjacent uses. The policy states in policy one, ensure that the transition policy area retains the visual character established by extensive natural open space dot dot and low profile construction to minimize visual intrusion into the natural environment. In this case where we have 2 million square feet of development proposed and we don't even have any building renderings or building sightings or anything like that, it's hard to see that this transition policy one has been fulfilled. Significantly, in addition, transition policy area policy four states that non-residential uses will include uses that are compatible with the resource protection, desired development patterns, and the rural landscape. And goes into greater detail where it says that they shall be visually concealed from adjacent roads and residential areas, minimize the effects of noise, vibration, and odor, and have access to adequate infrastructure and roads taking into account the or acknowledging the what is still not yet formal policy but the white paper that was produced by supervisor Turner that the applicant has discussed. adequate infrastructure to support a development of this type. And to not acknowledge that is really close to just insanity, just doing not recognizing the reality of what we have going on in the county. And that this is also repeated in transition policy area policy five, which specifically once again states ensure that adequate infrastructure and services are available to meet increased demands of new development. So with this little detail is we have in this application and with all of the infrastructure and other policy concerns that it raises, I won't be supporting the motion. And I'd also like to add that it is not our job, I don't think. My job as a planning commissioner is not to just pass something on to the Board of Supervisors for their decision. It is for us to actually render our best judgment before we pass it on for their consideration. So I just, I can't just simply take a pass and say it's, it's their job to consider it. They will definitely consider it, but it's my job to do my best. Commissioner Mader ready. I will definitely consider it, but it's my job to do my best. Commissioner Madharedi. Thank you, Madam Chair. My argument will be in very, very similar lines with Commissioner Jasper said, but I'm not going to explain all of those details. Rather, I'll say for such a big development here with a 2 million square foot building, not even having the building rendering. I guess I consider myself not doing the right job, especially with all the focus on the data centers right now, just merely passing these to supervisors and asking them to consider the building rights, asking them to consider design standards is I don't, I just consider it as have job done right now. So I won't be supporting the motion. Commissioner Kieres. Just for the county attorney, I recall we are not to consider the availability of electricity or the power source in our decision making. That's what I believe that's what I've been told in the past, is that correct? Yes, that's correct. Okay, thank you. So from that aspect, the resources other than that are definitely available at this site. I will be supporting the motion. I'm a bit concerned, public hearing again about the heights and also about not having any kind of renderings of the buildings by understanding that's hard to do when you don't actually have somebody plan to occupy them yet. But the county has worked pretty hard with a new plan to actually put in writing the types of things that it wants to see in a building that would preclude the need for providing renderings if it meets all of those requirements. And staff has said that it does. And with the 30% fenestration, that's, it's meets all the requirements that we'd look for. So I'm okay with not having an actual rendering of the building at this point. The county has identified this site as appropriate for data center development. The politics of data centers don't care about it. I'm looking from a planning point of view from the planning, the plan, this is where data centers are identified as being located. This was added to it in the 2019 plan. It wasn't there before that. So fairly recently the board said this is an appropriate area And when you look at all the development around it it fits in with the you know the power plant other data centers The FedEx facility it does fit in with what is being developed in that area So I will be supporting the motion Commissioner Myers I To of course will be supporting the motion seen how Meyers. I too, of course, will be supporting the motion, seeing how I helped us some friendly amendments to it. And I do appreciate, and we've talked about it earlier, my esteemed colleague. But I think it's easy to take the general plan and use generalized statements from different area points of the plan. I mean, the transition, the transitional has been everything to a lot of people and a lot of different things to a lot of people at the same time. Some people try to use it to say that all that area, because it could ever be called role, then it should be remain role. I don't know how many people have likely traveled down Sikland Road, but there's not a thing of Sikland Road that I would say is a role character left anymore. I mean, it's really an industrial look and industrial corridor. It's more of a JLMA than it is a role policy area. As far as adequate infrastructure, I mean if you want to build in, it's not going to have a lot of people at it, it's not going to create a lot of traffic. This is probably the kind of building you want there. And then more importantly, this is designated as a core use in this particular area, in this particular transition area also. So I want to thank Marchrami because I know you've had a tough time, you've been out some, you've been helping with other stuff, you've met twice with us with this application. I really appreciate all the time you put into it. I also very much want to say that I appreciate the applicant and the time that you've taken to work on this with us and every time we've asked you to do something, you know you've turned right around you had a deadline back in June 7th and you worked over the weekend and you got it in and you identified all five outstanding issues that you could. So I want to thank everybody for the time they put into it and I think it's a lot better application for that and then glad to support it. Okay, Commissioner Banks. I will be supporting the motion primarily for the reasons that have been said by others, so I won't go into a great detail. But primarily because it is, this is an area that has been identified as an appropriate place for a data center. And everything else that we have seen given the character of the application that there is not yet a tenant or user for the particular site. It seems to be appropriate. It follows all the guidelines that we have already set. So therefore anything else to me as a planning commissioner would be me taking into account political issues and not planning issues that are in front of us. So with that, looking at it from a strictly planning perspective, it seems inappropriate to use. And so I will be supporting it. Okay, we have a motion on the floor. Do you have a closing Mr. Barnes? Do you have a closing statement you'd like to make? Most of you are supporting it. I think it's a good place for it. And they have made some changes that we needed. And I think it's okay to go over it. Thank you. Thank you. All right, all those in favor? Hi. Hi. Opposed? Nay. All right, the motion carries 621 with Commissioner or vice chair combs absent and commissioners Jasper and moderately opposed. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, Marcheant. I know you're not leaving us quite yet, but maybe switching chairs at least. We will move on to the public hearing portion of our agenda tonight. The first two items, we'll kind of, I'll lump them together. Allegee 2024-002 and 2024-003. Review and renewal of modification or termination of the new Love It'sville Agricultural and Forestry District and modification and termination of the new Montville Agricultural and Forestry District. Rachel, welcome back. Good evening Chair, Frank and commissioners. I'm Rachel even Chuck with the Department of Planning and Zoning. Decide on the review and renewal modification or termination of the new Love It's Fill and new Mount Fill Agricultural and Forestal Districts or AFDs. Aleg E Numbers 2024, Chippell 02 and 2024, triple 0, 3, is governed by section 1524311 of the county's codified ordinances. Virginia code provides that AFDs may extend for periods extending from four to ten years. The county requires submission of renewal applications by the landowners of parcels that are between five to twenty acres with parcels less than or larger than that range considered to be passive renewals. By right withdrawal is permitted during AFD is located generally west of the town of Love It'sville and borders the Potomac River to the north. It currently has 96 parcels and over 1,700 acres with a four year period that expires on January 2nd, 2025. All but three landowners submitted the required applications for renewal and leaving 93 parcels with 1676 acres eligible for renewal. The new Mountville AFD is located to the north of the town of Middleburg. It currently has 40 acres, 40 parcels and about 2200 acres. It also expires on January 2nd, 2025. The owners of all but one parcel every turn renewal applications, leaving 39 parcels and 178 acres eligible for renewal. Nearly all parcels in both AFDs are also participating in land use assessment. The parcels are generally evenly split qualifying under open space, agriculture and forestry in the Lovisville agricultural and forestal district, and qualifying under open space and agriculture in the Mountvisville Agricultural and Forestal District and qualifying under open space and agriculture in the Mountfield District. The Agricultural District Advisory Committee met on June 10th and recommends renewal of both AFDs for four year periods with 93 parcels for new Lovisville and 39 parcels for new Mountville. At the Planning Commission briefing on July 11, clarifying, clarifications were sought to explain the difference between renewal, termination, or withdrawal of districts, as well as the maps that show non-contiguous parcels included in the AFDs. Pursuant to Virginia Code Section 152, 4305, each AFD must have at least one core, which is the language used in the Virginia Code, of at least 200 acres in one parcel or contiguous parcels. Other parcels are eligible if they are within one mile of a core, or that they join parcels that are within one mile of a core, or contain agriculturally or far as the least significant land. If a district falls below the core criterion, staff will then recommend that the Board of Supervisors terminate such district. And during review and renewal, landowners may submit written notice of by-right withdrawal as I stated earlier. I think also explains why AFD maps of districts show non-contiguous parcels since the AFD program consists of voluntary enrollment by landowners. And finally, is stated by the staff reports, certified letters are sent to all landowners within a district at least 90 days prior to a district's expiration. And in Loudoun County, this occurs generally not eight to nine months before expiration with all the modification or anything else that may happen during review and renewal. Staff is supporting a commission recommendation for renewal of each of the two AFDs for four year periods containing 93 parcels in the new Love It'sville AFD and 39 parcels in the new Mountfield AFD. It concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions. Thank you, Rachel. Do we have any questions from the Commissioner? Commissioner Jasper? I'm sure you left over late. Okay. Any questions? Are we good? Okay. We are in... We'll take Ketakton first. 2024-002. Mr. Miller, do you want to make a motion? I know. It's such a riveting presentation. You lost track of the pages on your iPad. Oh, pardon. That's right. Thank you. Forgot we shifted to that part of the agenda. See, you're away now me. You're away now me. I'll take that one. All right, we will, at this time we'll open the public hearing. I do not have anyone signed up in advance to speak on this item. Is there anyone here in the room who would like to speak on the first of the two ALEGY applications? Seeing none, do we have anyone joining us online on this agenda item? We do not, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. All right. We will go ahead and close the public hearing on the first of the two items. Now we'll go ahead and take a motion from Mr. Miller. Okay. I move the Planning Commission recommended board the board of supervisors that renew the new love and so agricultural and forestal districts to include only those parcels listed as number one through 93 and attach them one entitled new love and so A FD proposal proposed renewal recommendation July 3, 2024 to the July 3, 2024 Planning Commission Public Hearing staff report with the same period before the next review of the new Lovitville AFD of four years and to continue to require any subdivisions or adjustments to parcels enrolled in the Lovitville AFD to meet the current zoning ordinance requirements or a minimum of 20 acres, whichever is greater and prohibits subdivision through clustering. And I further move with the Planning Commission's recommendation to be based on the findings that all parcels recommended for renewal with the new Lovitville agriculture and forage will just contain agricultural and forsterly significant land. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you. We have a motion from Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Jasper. Do we have any comments or questions in opening on the motion? No, no. No, no, no. All right, great. All right, seeing no lights, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion carries 801. All right, we'll go ahead and take the second one. Do we, again, we'll open the public hearing. I don't have anyone signed up in advance. Is there anybody in the room who would like to speak on this agenda item? Seeing none, do we have anybody online? We do not, Madam Chair. All right, thank you very much. Then we will go ahead and close the public hearing on ALEGY 2024-003. We are in Little River. Do I have a motion, Commissioner Jasper? Yes, you do. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Supervisors that it renew the new Mountville Agricultural and Forestal District to include only those parcels listed as number one through 39 and attachment one entitled New Mountville AFD proposed renewal recommendations, July 30, 2024, to the July 30, 2024 Planning Commission, public hearing staff report, with the same period before the next review of the new Mountville AFD of four years, and to continue to require any subdivisions or adjustments parcels enrolled in the new Mountville AFD to meet the current zoning ordinance requirements, or a minimum of 50 acres, whichever is greater, and prohibits subdivision through clustering. And I further move that the Planning Commission recommendation be based on the finding that all parcels recommended for renewal within the new Mountville agricultural and forestal district contain agricultural and forestly significant land Do we have a second second all right motion is made by commissioner jasper seconded by commissioner moderetti do we have an opening? No, we don't okay any comments or questions from commission See none we have a motion on the table. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? That motion carries 801. Thank you, Rachel. All right, next up on our agenda, Ludgy 2023-0093, Milestone Belmont interchange. Question is joining us. Looks like Mershant is teeing us up. We are ready when staff is. Good evening commissioners. My name is Christian Maldonado with the Department of Planning and Zoning here to present the application for Milestone Belmont interchange. As of 5 p.m. this evening, staff has received three additional public comments in opposition to the application citing concern for the proposal due to its proximity to residential uses. The subject property is located in the southeast corner of the Lansdown Boulevard, Clay Born Parkway, and Route 7, Cloverleaf Interchange. The site is located within the suburban mixed use place type in the Broadrun Election District. The applicant is proposing a commission permit and special exception to construct a 152-foot telecommunications facility and a 2500-square-foot antenna hub site in the Virginia Department of Transportation right away in the office park zoning district with co-location up to four carriers. The 50 by 50 foot antenna hub site will consist of a telecommunications facility or monopole to be located in the center. Screening will consist of a 10-foot high chain link fence and green privacy slots, along with evergreen trees that will surround the property. Vehicle access will consist of a 10-foot wide gravel driveway with turnaround that will be accessible from the eastbound on ramp from Claivorn Parkway to Route 7. Some of the subject site and landscaping will encroach into a future dominion energy right of way for the proposed Aspen to Golden Transmission Project, Belmont Variation A. However, the applicant has coordinated with Dominion energy to meet their encroachment guidelines as their application proceeds to the state Corporation Commission. This is an overview of the height of the proposed facility. A two-foot tall lightning rod will be installed at the top, while the primary carrier will be accommodated at 145 feet, and up to three other feature carriers at 135, 125, and 115 feet. Picture now is the approximate location of the subject property, existing vegetation, and existing transmission lines that cross route seven from the parking lot of the Regentsiant Belmont facing north. The Loudoun County 2019 General Plan supports provision of wireless connectivity to support continued growth in the suburban policy area. The Strategic Land Use Plan for Telecommunications Facilities establishes a preference for locating telecommunication facilities on existing public facilities sites, such as the V.W. Right-of-way. Staff recommend conditions relating to design, including material and color to blend in with the natural environment and landscaping to ensure the telecommunications facility and antenna hub site are appropriately screened from nearby land uses. A map of nearby existing telecommunications facilities are shown as stars, including Trailside Park, which is approximately 1.8 miles southwest of the subject property. No existing telecommunications monopoles exist within one mile of the subject property, but do within a two mile radius. Several rooftop antennas exist in the nearby vicinity, including one on top of the Innova Loudon Hospital and another on top of an office building west of Claiborne Parkway. Coalocation of the facility to the proposed transmission line project is not possible as Dominion Energy's guidelines prohibit co-location on high-voltage transmission lines. The applicant has indicated that Verizon will be the primary carrier. the state of the state. The state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state commission permit application and a recommendation approval for the special exception application as it was found to be consistent with the location, character and extent envisioned in the Loudoun County 2019 general plan and the county's strategic land use plan for telecommunications facilities. Staff is happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Do we have any questions for staff at this time? Commissioner Jasper. So I'm still wondering, I know with the last hearing on this matter, the question of whether, how was need demonstrated and how does the staff assess, How did we demonstrate it? And how does the staff assess, like, let me just pose a scenario. Everybody wants better coverage and it's a competitive advantage to sell better coverage and overlapping coverage and faster coverage. So every carrier says to Loudoun County, we want to put a monopole every half mile along XYZ road and without regard to impact on viewshed, et cetera. Is there no place where the county, where, let me ask it this way, and without regard to impact on VU-SHED, et cetera. Is there no place where the county, where, let me ask it this way, where does the county assess is this necessary and in the public interest, is it better or worse to have this proliferation of polls? Like, where's the governor or this break on that Creates a qualitative and and a science informed assessment of where actual need is Michelle Yes, we have legal counsel. I just wanted to point out quickly that, well, I guess we can ask questions about this. Actions for disapproval under the Virginia Code of these monopole telecom communication facilities were not supposed to, it says the locality, shall not disapprove an application on the basis of the applicant's business decision with respect to its designated service, customer demand for service, or quality of its service to customers from a particular site, or the applicant's specific need for the project, including the applicant's desire to provide additional wireless coverage or capacity. I'm not really supposed to get into the business decisions of the applicant. Or, or need Jason, I find that. I also understand that I find that impossible to believe in an unqualified way. And I haven't had a chance to review the state code on this matter. So you're saying that no matter what, there's nothing that the county local jurisdiction can do to consider whether a poll is needed in a certain area. I think related to this is the commission permit and that's where we can assess the location extent character of the location of the poll in relation to other, and as shown on the comprehensive plan. However, the code of Virginia next session also says the locality shall not require an applicant to provide proprietary confidential or other business information to justify the need for the project. A lot of this is related to, I guess, the federal... Well, like the need unidentified, though, like this aggregated data about individuals, you could still have the applicant could provide information. It just wouldn't need to be related to specific carriers. And then you might be able to make an assessment. Well, I think the general underlying premise behind this is they want to allow for the proliferation of cellular service and higher levels of, I don't know what the correct technical term is. And so, again, we're not really supposed to get into. But we do get to cut consider location extend blah blah I am regarding the commission permit as aspect yes Well, and that's what we're considering location and I'm special exception Yeah, okay, does that No, I'm sure Yes get an impact. Yeah. OK. Does that? No, that's right. I'm going to share. Yes, March on. So, Commissioner, Jasper, so there are also there's propagation maps. So telecommunications policy does want to discourage the unnecessary proliferation of telecommunications facilities. In the west, you have your scenic easements, your mountain oversight, scenic easements, your mountain oversight, scenic easements, and also do you have an unnecessary collocation. So if you have multiple facilities in the close proximity, there will be discussion of the need and necessity of the ability to mitigate that. That being said, there are propagation maps and applicants do need to have typically provided to demonstrate that there is a need or a coverage gap or use of gap maps or propagation maps that try to demonstrate and I do believe part of your presentation will will provide that as well. Okay great but staff looked at all that I didn't see any kind of references to that so. I apologize. Okay all right thank you. Commissioner Myers. Two questions. Well, first question is, at one point in time years ago, the county had done like a comprehensive review of looking at locations and placements for needing in the future of cellular towers and those type of things that dealt with when the toll road went on and on everywhere and people in the rich shops went on and everywhere and there was a plan that was looked at as, here's where we should look at for those placements of polls in the future. Is this one of those places that was agreed that this is where we would see one go? The telecommunications plan does call for these types of facilities to be located in public right away. I'm not. I'm talking about this particular location. I mean, I know it talks about major highways, I know it talks about the greenway, but it also got into was it was looking at one point in time It looked at actual locations. I would ask you about this particular location at Route 7 and playboard and all is this one that they showed where there would one would go I would need to follow up with you on that no Secondly, I remember from years ago when tell us first came to Lodden County, there was a discussion and I had it myself with John Woods that forever you were going to have an issue with drop calls and stuff according to him because of things that were inside that building that prevented activity even today your phones will drop in your round there. So I mean we're not talking about putting a poll in an area where for years has been maybe not publicly known but none within the government surroundings of it that that area is an area that's not good for telecommunicating. So why would we put a poll in an area where we know we've got a facility that's got this which creates a deadening area for for phone coverage. I will need to defer to the applicant as to placement. Staff wouldn't be able to provide further comment on that. Okay, and then my last question is in regards, and I know Jason, I had a little bit off my discussion about this, is I'm still a little bit confused about the location of this property and then the underlying easements that have been granted to Lodden Hospital and other places that deal with scenic eusheds. So I would like to see you all show us a map that shows the easements that are for all the different, because there's four or five different entities that are called out in this. And I would like to see that and then I would see, like to see how this responds to where that easement is. And I know, like, even when we did over there at Howard Hughes, back when it was the bond brothers, I mean, the view shed easements, wider as they went out, it wasn't a straight line. So that you knew you were creating that you wouldn't exist a building or anything that would block that view shed. That's the whole reason why it was created. So I'd like to see the map that shows this poll and shows those easements. Thank you. I have a question I'm not sure it's for staff though, so I'm going to hold it, but I reserve the right to pop back and bug you with something in a bit. Okay, we will go ahead and take our applicant presentation now Good evening planning commission my name is Aaron Frank. I'm a senior land use planner with Cooley And I am joined this evening by Matt penning the director of development for milestone as well as Paul Dougan an independent radio frequency Engineer here on behalf of Verizon. I'm gonna try to to be very quick with my presentation while also being thorough to address some of the comments we've heard. The presentation this evening, thank you, appreciate them, or shun. This evening is on behalf of Milestone Towers, who the commission is becoming increasingly familiar with as they do a lot of work in Loudon as well as across the state, often in partnership with public schools, county itself, or in this case, V.Dot. And this selection, this site was selected based upon need. This is the southeast corner of the intersection of Claiborne Parkway and Leesburg Pike. And that's the first item that Milestone looks at is where are the surrounding towers, can this be co-located or is a new tower necessary for the area for which there is additional coverage and capacity needs? So what we're looking at is the area south of Route 7. And as many of you know, there's a lot of growth and development activity in this area in addition to 140,000 travelers every single day. So we have an increased need for cell service based on number of devices, cell traffic, and vehicular traffic. Can the other polls provide a service? I know that's what most folks would like to see here. We have is a rooftop facility, .85 miles to the north. That provides propagation down to about Route 7. About but I'll show on a following slide, it doesn't penetrate further south than Route 7. There are two existing towers to the southwest and to the south of the property. Those are about 1.7 miles away. In cell service distancing, that's a long distance. Typically cell sites will propagate about a mile, three quarters of a mile. So that's beyond the range of being able to provide service to this area. And on this slide I provided in a blue star trail site park. As the commission knows there is an active application for a cell site trail site park. As you can see, by the radii surrounding the blue and the yellow stars, these areas are distinctly different. The trail site park application does not eliminate the need for this application and vice versa. So talking about the need for this site, what we have are propagation maps. And this shows the levels of service that exist from surrounding towers. Green represents excellent service, blue represents good service, and the gray are lesser values. And as you can see on the slide to the left, there is green in the three areas that primarily radiates surrounding the existing poles or facilities. However, there is an absence of green south of Route 7. Now as we look to the right, we can see how that green area extends from the star, which is the proposed tower location, to hit that area of greatest need, which is right around Claiborne Parkway with Bobont Chase and Regency at Belmont. Now we've heard suggestions that the site be located further to the east at the intersection of Route 7 and Ashburn Village. And as you can see, the green area of excellent service does provide some service benefits to that intersection. However, if the cell site were to be located at Ashburn Village and Route 7, which is about three quarters of a mile or so from the proposed cell site, that doesn't provide the penetration where we're looking for it, where the area of need exists, which is Clayborne Parkway and Route 7. It's taking a closer look at the property. Property-zoned OP. And we looked at our surrounding uses in terms of how appropriate this site is for a cell site. To the north we have ANOVA and then multifamily residential. To the northwest both of these uses are cross root seven which is six lanes with the multiple interchange. This is about a quarter of a mile to the multi-family to the northwest. On the southwest of the intersection, we have future residential, which is zoned and has a approved development plan for units at that location. So this would not be an appropriate location for future cell sites. It would be directly adjacent to future residential. And that's something that we try to stay away from It's something that the telecommunication goals plan Advises against as well. So we look for is the public property But also in a commercially-zoned area in which case we have auto repair to the east as well as OP zoned property to the south We do acknowledge that further to the south, approximately just over 400 feet away, we do have the Ashburn Chase residential community. There is an intervening commercially-zoned property, and this 400-foot setback is about two and a half times what the county would otherwise require if this monopole were located on private property. While this is exempt from that because it's on public property, we do use that as a benchmark to make sure that the setback is in accordance with the intent of the county. Another site design consideration that we have is it's location with respect to the Dominion project, which is the Aspen to Golden project, to provide transmission line with 500 kilovolt lines. And this project has a primary route, which is the variation A along the south side of Route 7. There's also a variation B along the north side. In coordination with Dominion, we consulted with them to make sure that the monopole would not conflict with its future plans. So the monopole was located just outside of the easement. The future power line plans, while these are still under discussion, they do consist of poles that would be about 175 feet tall on average, ranging up to 195 feet tall, whereas the proposed monopole is 150 feet in height. So here's a closer look. Christian had already taken a look at this, so I'm going to be very brief in showing just the relationship between that central circle, which is the pole location, which is south of the easement and does not conflict with dominion. So here's a look at a few existing towers, Longward 7 and the green way, and it shows 150 ranging up to 190 feet of height. So the pole that is proposed at 150 is a typical average, or even in this case a below average height. So of course with our application, we provided simulations of what this is going to look like. These four simulations show that it is visible in the background from a few different locations to the northwest going left to right, clockwise, northeast, southwest, and southeast, from distance about a quarter of a mile, but I'd like to focus more so on the closer properties and we do recognize the sensitivity with aspirin chase. So this is what it would look like, and we wanted to provide a picture of the poll with all four carriers provided that it is fully leased up to see what it would look like. Here's visualization of what the tower would look like with Dominion Powerline's variation A. As you can see, there are other visual obstructions in the skyline, as well as with variation B on the north side of Route 7. Here's a look at what the pole would look like from Route 7. And then from the OPZoned property just to the south of the site. With each of the applications that Milestone makes, they do community engagement and there is a website that has been up since the application was conceived and remains up. They held a town hall with 486 unique recipients receiving notice of that. And we had a handful of folks attend and comments. And we've been in touch with different members of the community since that point in addition to a community balloon fly. So in summary, we believe this is a great site for the cell site for the reasons that Christian Marshawn touched on, but we look at the telecommunications plan to provide some of the goals about where these are suitable. And we acknowledge that these are not easy decisions as they provide visual impact. There's no getting around that. However, we located this on public property. Distance did away from residential. It is near the site of future tall structures. This is set back a distance that is considerably further from the adjacent residential that would be otherwise required. And you know, this is something that is going to result in a less visual impact than would otherwise occur with just the Dominion Aspen to Golden Project. And we're pleased that because of the criteria of location, extent character in the guidance put forth until communications goal plan, that staff does recommend approval as well as V. and Dominion's concurrence. Econology, this is not going to interfere with future roadway or electrical plans. So with that, I'm happy to take any questions. Commissioner Miller. Thank you, Aaron. Thank you. Hyte of the poll. I know that at least not this carrier, but one other carrier is looking for space for their east on Route 7. They'll have a poll I would assume with the opportunity to do so about the same height. If these polls were 195 feet, would that not allow for further propagation with fewer polls? To minimise the number of polls that will be up and down Route 7. I was going to answer your question, but because we have our radio frequency engineer here, I can't bring him up here without having him answer some questions as well. So could you please, Paul, you can press the green red light. There you go. Yes, the tall are the antenna height, the farther the propagation, the more line of sight visibility the sight has. But when it's higher than it needs to be, also generates unnecessary interference with other adjacent facilities and performance would degrade and begin to suffer. A adjacent facility is meaning? Meaning other towers? Or towers? Save horizons colllocated on. So would interfere, create undesirable interference and degrade performance if it's higher than it needs to be. They only build for the height to fulfill the objectives and no more. So that's right. Is part of that then residual from going back many years, we're no longer wanted to be too tall. So now we're stuck with a bunch of 134, 150 feet. When if we had just gone to 195 feet 20 years ago, we wouldn't be interfering as much if they were, we would have 80 at 195 feet instead of 150 at 150 feet. But because we have so many at 195 feet instead of 150 at 150 feet. But because we have so many at 150 feet, we now create interference when they go much above that. Yes. Long ago, the structures were generally much taller. Some cases over 200, right. But no more. They decommissioned many of those because they're simply generating undesirable interference from adjacent sites. So the average height as a knowledge is far lower now than it was 20 years ago. Okay, thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you, Erin. Thank you. Commissioner Maderetti. Thank you, Commissioner. Matt, I have a couple of questions. The first one is related to Aspen Gold and Line. I know you mentioned there are two alignments and how concrete those plans are right now. It's like 90% said that those lines are going to be there or 50% what's on the record so far. Commissioner Matteready, the meaning is in the midst of a community engagement process and an SEC application process. That's ongoing. Staff may have an idea in terms of an inkling of confidence level right now. What we're doing is we are planning around their plans to make sure we don't interfere with whichever option that they do choose. But I can't speak in terms of whether they're 50 or 90 percent there. I just want to make sure we don't even consider for our purpose right now because if they are not 100 percent clear what their plan is going to be, I just want to look at this as an independent application. The second one is you just mentioned the community outreach. What has come out of this community outreach? Males, meetings, whatever you guys add. Have you guys changed anything from from the time you started this application to what you're presenting today? Are there any changes made or enhancements made to the application? I'll let Matt Penning add on if I miss anything, but since we've had some of the community meetings, we've had a balloon fly and done some visual simulations so that we can provide accurate images of what the poll is going to look like, and I believe that we have added some additional landscaping since those meetings as well. And I can add into one, by the way, Matt Penning, the Mouse and Towers House, I also have a cold, so please excuse my voice. But so one other just in terms of outreach and education, some of the concerns we had was about safety of the sites. So in response to that, we posted some information following the community meeting on the operation with respect to FCC thresholds and how the site would be compliant with those. So in addition to landscaping, as well as increasing the fence sites to screen the facility a little bit more from public view. There is a little bit more of the education going on in terms of frequency and what these facilities emit. And thank you, Matt, for providing those 16 different vantage points and how they're going to look like. I do appreciate it. So that's a kind of visual impact. I just wanted to see on those. And thank you for sending those things out. Thank you. The problem. Commissioner Cares. Just to clarify, because initially, I thought you said this was adjacent to domain energies right away, but the picture showed your tolerate in the middle of that blue swath. So are you within their right away or are you outside of their right away? Commissioner Kieres, good comment and let me clarify as I was trying to to breeze through that application that the center if you look at this diagram, in the middle of that square, there is a circle that represents the pole, which is just south of the diagonal dash line. Thank you. There is equipment and landscaping within the Dominion easement. That is a permitted encroachment by Dominion. However, the pole itself will be located out of the easements. So when you say it's a permitted encroachment, I mean, do you still need their approval to do that? We would coordinate with them in terms of, because this is a future dominion easement, we don't exactly have the proper approval process, but we would be well coordinated with them and with V. It would probably be through V. We would need to grant approval, because ultimately we need to get approval from V dot for this. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Myers. I noticed in the report that the only thing from foreign rescue is that they can service the area. But there's nothing in here that says that this will help to support foreign rescue emergency service and telecommunication with that with this poll. Were they ever reached out to ask if this is a benefit of a poll that they also need for services for the county? Fire and rescue didn't have any further comments other than that they'll respond with in four minutes. That's with the turnaround. It's a land-stown fire station by Riverside Parkway. No, no, no. around the it's a land-stown fire station by Riverside Parkway, but there was nothing more beyond that. My question is about the communication that's needed from whether you want to call it mobile or whatever we call it. There's a need for continuation so that we don't serve service. I'm not talking about the time that you service, the truck gets out. I'm talking about the phone service. That gets the carls out. We do have some polls that accommodate, I forget the name for the first net. First net, I think is. First net. First net can go in any poll. It's just got to be made recommended to it and that they need it. So did you have already coordinated to have that capacity on there? If not, we can follow up on that. I guess my question is is this identified as a poll that the foreign rescue needs to extend service for The the service they need in the county they have not indicated that this time Okay, so I definitely think that's something we need to know As part of this not just that they can get the far truck to there and who services it? percent In regards to the hospital Was there any reach out just some I mean when you go there that building is probably if you could probably put a Something on top of that building would get you almost 150 feet that nobody would even probably notice like when you drive through Pass cascades and you see all the I call them whipping towers Better up there that served up to communication. Was there any reach out done to the hospital in that very large structure to see if it could be there So in terms of co-location onto the hospital rooftop Is that okay? So one of the directives from Verizon because of where they're currently located and they're on air cell sites in the surrounding area Location north of seven would cause additional interference and less service. So that was one of the directions because Verizon's on existing rooftop very close to the NOVA hospital. If we go back to that we could show the diagram where they're existing on air and surrounding cell tower sites are. And Paul if you have anything feel free to jump in. Yeah, you wouldn't want to go any further north. But we're right now. I mean, it's not even, it might be a football field, if anything. If that, it's just the other side of the other interchange. And here's a propagation map, which shows that, the other side of the other interchange. And here's a propagation map which shows that that green level of excellent service does exist to north of Route 7. So ultimately that is starting to get this further away from the ultimate coverage area which is south of Route 7. And have you all had any interviewing or research done in relationship to that the cell service doesn't work because of the infrastructure that exists at the tell us facility? Commissioner Poemeyer, we're going to look into that. I appreciate your comment earlier. I can tell you anecdotally and professionally ourselves and our F and engineer have done tests and found that yes. There is a wireless gap that corroborates what we're showing. But my point is, a poll there or not because of what's built in the infrastructure of that building, there's a mechanism that exists that prevents service from occurring there intentionally. So are we putting a poll there that won't even work when you put it there because of infrastructure that exists inside already an equipped building. Because to me I think that's a very big question that needs to be asked. I know from the the briefings I've had from the Flintstone days I was told that forever and you got to that circle your phones aren't going to work and it's because of our building and stuff that goes on in the several research. So I do think that something needs to be answered before we decide that this is a place for a poll that picks up coverage. Thank you. Commissioner Barnes. Thank you. Have you talked to any neighbors up there? Have meetings with them? Those are living close by? Yes, Commissioner Barnes, we held a virtual town hall and have kept our doors open to have additional conversations ensuing from there. What kind of reaction did you get from that? Matt, speak for that. So as I mentioned, one of the concerns we had was about health and just in general radio frequency exposure from these facilities. Some of the other concerns were obviously visual impact and citing and simply being able to view it from where they reside. In terms of other, you know, just general information, understanding how the location was selected, can other sites serve the area instead? Can this go somewhere else along Route 7? So did some of them say to you that they already have good reception where they live? Not that I can remember off the top of my head, but there was a significant amount of public comment issued written on the public legislative form, so it's possible that there were some comments about that. No, why I was asking that question, if they already have good reception where you're putting it in, maybe they don't need it up there. Maybe some place else you got to put it. That's where I was going. So you didn't ask anyone of them if they have a good reception on their phones right now without this tower. I had in that reception. So coverage and capacity can vary with the number of users in a certain place at a certain time based on the capacity, but also what type of service carrier that they might have. That's why we've done these professionally engineered propagation maps because it can vary for the same person at different times. I'll let John. No, I'm not saying that this thing. I'm just asking you what the reaction was. Did they say they're having a good reception where they're live, they don't need it anymore. That kind of, I'm just trying to see what they said. Can I respond to that? Just this afternoon, I drove through that neighborhood that exists just to the south. And I was checking my signal strength and my data throughput speeds. It was essentially the data throughput speeds are a new order of less than one megabit for a second. In some cases, it couldn't even take a reading. And then I took my phone into Whole Foods Market and tried to do a data through foot speed check and it wouldn't even run. So this clearly identifies the fact that there's not good service in that area. Okay, thank you. Did I see another light? Yes, I know we're discussing this at NOSM, but I do the question I have is what happens in environments unlike here, where you are required to have a less visible approach. So, for example, in an urban environment where you can't put a poll up, how do the carriers address that when you can't get 150 or 190 football? In urban, Commissioner Jasper, in urban environments you might see more rooftop facilities. For example, where you have the existing tall facilities, we just don't have the height around here at this point. So in terms of how the poll is designed for lack of a better word, we look at some of the guidance and the Tumuk Communications Plan, which talks about having it as a gray color, for example, which is what is designed here, so it blends in a little bit more with the skyline. Okay. Thank you for the momentary education. I appreciate it. Okay. I do have a few questions that I don't think we've gotten to. And I will acknowledge that there happens to be some folks from Dominion in the room because they have another completely unrelated application before us tonight. I will not commit or insist that they speak up because they may not have the right people information and whatever other fingertips. But I will issue a welcome that if they would like to answer any of these questions that I'm about to ask, they can certainly come to the podium and do so if staff and the applicant are not able because I think they might be better able to answer some of them whether that's now or at another time. But again, we won't force that issue but please you are welcome if you want. The first not-dominian question I guess I'll start with that. You said this is 400 feet from the nearest residential the apartments which are in front of the Regency subdivision. On the other side still the south side of seven but the west side of this interchange, that part of the Cloverleaf, that we have the approved residential that is already under construction there adjacent to Belmont Chase and Belmont Country Club. How close would a tower over there be to residential? Commissioner Frank, should a tower be located on the southwest portion of the intersection, it would most likely be around 200 feet. So half the distance, okay. Yes. All right, here goes my right away easement questions. I don't know if this is such a thing, pardon if I use the wrong terms, but when we do commercial property leases, building construction, whatever, you'll hear about air leases. Does right away isn't just a piece of land. Does it extend upwards as well in a case like this? Like I mean, does dominions right away so many feet wide all the way up to the top of their lines? Or is it really just on the ground? That is a good question. And what I will say is I don't believe that and Dominion can come up here and kick me off the stage. I welcome you to do so, but I don't believe that they have procured that right of way yet. So in that sense, that is even more to say that in this case, I do not know. But Dominion, you're welcome to come up here and answer that if you'd like. Okay. Okay. What I could add to that, Mr. Frank, is when we coordinated with Dominion, if they were to come in that alignment along Belmont and variation A, we kept the monopole enough distance from the future right of way that even anything mounted on top of the tower would have sufficient standoff so not to encroach within that horizontal plane of the Dominion right of way. So that within those air rights. So we're about six and a half feet off of the future Dominion right of way with the pole and we wouldn't expect the antenna standoffs to be greater than five feet from it. So we'll be maintaining enough distance and more than a croach on, I guess, the air rights. Okay, so that answers my other question is what would be the diameter or the clearance you need on the top? I know you've potentially three levels. I'm guessing the highest one is probably the biggest, but are they all, so you said five feet is about the clearance you need in any direction from that poll? Yep, that's pretty conservative as well. Five feet is more than sufficient. Okay. Madam Chair, the way I understand is that your poll is just off the edge of the easement, but the polls of the Dominion easement are down the center. So you'd be about 50 feet from the center of the easement where the power poll is likely to go. Is that a fair statement? That's correct. We had it measured at 57 feet from the center line of Dominion's easement. So this provides that free board, that five to six foot free board we were just talking about between the circle and the easement line Okay, so that is the border is it the started line of the dominion easement? Yes, man, okay, and then the lesser line in the middle in theory I mean we obviously this is not yet all perfectly in place, but we know the direction most it seems to be moving towards. And just as an aside the board has taken up discussion of the alignments west of here. These are alignments that they will have to take up in a future discussion. I know Dominion has expressed their preferences so and that they would rather this alignment versus the jog up north and down. Forget which one's A and B, but okay. So right now the only thing that we know goes into that easement is the plants, the fence, the stuff on the ground right there that, okay. Yeah, because my conversations and I know some board staff conversations with dominion is that's all there Where is going in it sounds like you're confirming that but That's correct. Yep. That's correct. We have been in close communication with dominion. Yeah five feet is I mean, I know you guys have this down to a science, but boy if they hit something weird and have to jog a few feet one way We're kind of off a close. So, all right. Any other questions? Can I ask you a question? Sure. I'm sorry I had a step out for a second, but were you talking about distance from the 500KV line polls? No, I want to make sure that the top of the monopole and anything writing on it related antenna and such and whatever has to fasten that on are outside of Dominion's easement so that there's no conflict down the road when they need to build. Because it's my understanding is it's dominions understanding that the only thing in their easement and this is what they're okay with is the ground stuff and landscaping. If we have a pole that is going to start encroaching, the things on top of the pole encroaching, I don't get the impression they're okay with that at this point. This, it looks like doesn't, but it's, it's got a little bit of a cushion, but we're talking five to six and a half feet total. So it's, you know, a foot and a half of cushion. Firestick's feet from the drop line of the... No, no, we're just talking about the diameter of the stuff around the pole. I'm talking only on the monopole. Right now it has a five foot clearance, let's say. OK. You know, we've got that five foot distance encroaching upon the air rights of right-of-white. Anything overhead of the Dominion Eastman, they's going to cause a problem for the Dominion lines, because we don't want two big projects conflicting, one very big project. OK. So anyway, OK. All right. I think that is all the questions we have at the moment. We will give everybody a chance if they want to before we take or after we take a motion if we need to. We will go ahead and open the public hearing. I do have folks signed up for this item. I will remind everyone all of our speakers whether you are representing yourself or an organization. You have three minutes. I'll call up a couple people at a time if you would be so kind as to queue up at the podium so that we can keep moving. And please forgive me if I mispronounce a name. And anyone who didn't sign up who would like to to you can go ahead and fill out a speaker slip at the end there and we'll get you added to my list I will take first Mary Badger and James Clapper Good evening commissioners. I'm here to talk to you as a resident of Regency at Belmont a 55 and over community that would be impacted by the site proposed by milestone towers. As you know the stretch of Route 7 has been deemed a sensitive area because of the historic nature of Belmont Manor and Nova Hospital with its helipad for Virginia Academy and community church. In fact this area is considered so sensitive that there is an ongoing effort to underground to minion energy's transmission lines in this stretch. That effort is supported by Loudon County. This cell tower location is inconsistent with the county's efforts to preserving to keep this area free from towers. We understand that a Nova hospital plans to add an additional helipad at their site. Consequently, we believe 150 foot tall cell tower directly across the road could increase the likelihood of an air accident, particularly in inclement weather. In addition, Virginia Academy has plans to expand. In speaking with both lands down Conservancy, Virginia Academy and Church, they have expressed their objection to this proposed location as well. Our neighborhood and surrounding area have been designated as mixed use by the county. Mixed use suggests you want people to live there. Each decision you make will determine if this location remains mixed use or becomes industrialized. You have the power to decide if this area remains livable or not. Many residents fear it will become unlivable with each additional impact. And 400 feet, I'm sorry, with all due respect, 400 feet from the apartments and 600 feet from our townhouses. I don't believe shows any set sensitivity to residences you had claimed. Loud County has a rich history and beautiful view shed one that should be preserved each decision leaves a mark until one day that history and view shed is overtaken. And again, with all due respect, we all know that milestone only benefits by erecting yet another tower and selling the real estate on that tower. I don't believe they took the time to, it wouldn't behooved them to take the time to see if a antenna could be placed anywhere else, because again, they don't benefit financially from that. If Loudoun Cany believes preservation of the viewpoint is important that we must search for more thoughtful solutions to modern day problems based on the sensitivity of this area and because there are better less impactful solutions to consider. We ask that you please deny this application. Thank you. Thank you. We'll take Robert Badger up after Mr. Clapper. On Jim Clapper, all of a townhouse in the region, Regency of Belmont community, and I'm here to register opposition to the request for an exception to remit the milestone cell tower No, not road to be installed at the intersection of Claiborne Parkway in Route 7 I believe you have a picture taken last April the balloon flown at the same height and it was alluded to in a stand presentation The cell phone tower with an emulation of what it would look like The reason see at Belmont townhouses all have roof-level terraces, which is only real access to view of the outside and view of the skyline. The cell tower would be a distracting eye sore with its projected location as close as 600 feet from some residents doorstep and would generally have a negative impact on our visual environment. Well, I can't quantify it and currently I feel sure that this cell tower from Stolars proposed over time have an unfavorable impact on the value or townhouse. Also, Phil Compel mentioned that the impacts of tower will have on the residents of the Ashburn Chase apartments, who are even closer to the tower than we are. It will have a negative impact on their quality of life as well, particularly on an area that many children who live there play. So if I can't argue with the propagation maps, but if it's as all possible, we'd recommend moving the tower at the Ashram Village Boulevard and Route 7 interchange, further away from the residents and churches. And from the charts I was seeing, it would actually be at least some improvement and the cell phone tower coverage. So I'll recommend this request for exception, not be approved. Thanks for your attention. Thank you. Mr. Badger comes up and I also get Guy Frankenfield. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, Madam Chair. My name is Robert Badger and I'm a resident of the Regency at Bellmont over 55 community. I'm also a licensed professional engineer in the Commonwealth of Virginia. During my 45 year career as a civil engineer, I was involved in cell tower sighting and permitting for telecommunication companies about 30 years ago. When cell towers were first being installed at a large scale. As you know, locating towers is not a simple process. It's too critical, yet often competing criteria must be considered. The first is to maximize cellular coverage, and the second is to minimize impacts to this around the community. Milestone towers is proposing to construct 150 foot high botable tower at the Clairborne Parkway interchange with Route 7. However, this location fails on both the critical site selection criteria. With respect to the first, it mainly provides redundant rather than filling the gap in coverage that currently exists east of Claiborne Parkway based on the coverage maps provided by the applicant. With respect to the second, it would create a significant visual impact to the existing residential communities, school, and church, and we need to lead to the south residential community school and church immediately to the south of the site as well as future residents. 150 foot tower would also be a navigational conflict with the existing and expanded helicopter pads at the hospital immediately to the north of the site. An alternative tower location that better complies with both criteria would be a half a mile to the east at Ashburn Village Boulevard interchange. Based on the first criteria, this location would be more centrally located in the existing cell coverage void, as well as providing improved coverage to travelers along Route 7. With respect to the second criteria, it would not impact existing residential communities as are primarily commercial businesses adjacent to the Ashburn Village interchange. Therefore we respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny the current cell tower application and ask the applicant to consider other more favorable locations including the Ashburn Village Boulevard interchange. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Elizabeth LeBella Foster, if you would come on up your next in line after Mr. Frankenfield. Thank you very much, commissioners. I appreciate it. And you can tell by all the reading glasses that we're wearing, I'm part of that 55 in older community also. My name is Guy Frankenfield. I'm a resident of the Regency at Belmont community, located very close to Route 7 and the Clayborne Parkway interchange. The homes in our community have a 360-degree view of our beautiful Northern Virginia area. To the east, the community church, to the north and south, tree tops of conservation areas, and to the west we can even see the Shenandoah mountain range. Mauston tower is proposing to install 150 foot tall cell tower in the southeast quadrant of Route 7 and Claiborne interchange, which is only a few hundred yards away from our community If that South sell tower were built that tall and that close It would extend a hundred feet above the elevation of our town homes piercing the horizon like some out of place industrial monolith which would greatly detract from the views of our community and the other residential communities nearby. I saw the pictures of the balloon fly and I appreciate the applicant providing the balloon fly for us. That balloon was easily observed above the rooftop of our community. And the pictures that you saw tonight were not very representative of the angle and the view of what that, that, uh, cell tower will look like. As the previous speaker mentioned, the Ashburn Village interchange, only about a half a mile east of Clayborne interchange, would be a better location for the cell tower to provide the reliable cell coverage for an area that is lacking that service. And I think you saw the radii that the applicant showed up here earlier. That interchange, Dashburn Village interchange, is shown on that drawing or on that view. It's not moving it very far, but that little bit that it does move moves it into an area that has a void for that cell coverage. In addition, the Ashburn Village Interchange meets the necessary requirements for the cell tower since it's on a V dot parcel. Not to mention the cell tower at the Ashburn Village interchange location will greatly reduce the visual impact of the numerous residential communities near a Claiborne. Regardless of the final location of the tower, we recommend that the height of the tower be reduced to the absolute minimum elevation required. Regardless of the final location of the cell tower, it will be visible. Therefore, we recommend that tower be architecturally enhanced so that it does not appear to be industrial looking, but instead compliments the natural beauty of our area. Therefore, we respectfully request that the County Plan Commission reject the current application for a tower at Clayborne Parkway interchange and ask the applicant to consider a more favorable site, perhaps the Ashburn Village Boulevard Exchange, minimize the height of the tower and architecturally enhance its parents. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Behind Mr. Lablefoster, can we have Richard Allen? Good evening. I'm Beth Lablefoster, a homeowner at Regency Belmont, and my home is one of the 200 homes that will have an up close, negative visual impact from this project. 411 feet per milestone's application. That's the distance between its proposed tower and its closest residential neighbors. 411 feet. Slightly over the length of one football field. The application in staff report give you the facts. This project fails to meet even the most basic preferred criteria of the telecommunications plan. There's nothing for the monopole to co-locate onto and it will be by far the tallest visible structure in the area. So tall that Milestone has had to ask for a special exception. The application says that the Monapole will blend in with the future dominion aspen to golden 190 foot towers. But as mentioned before, Loudon County is pushing for the undergrounding of those towers, which makes milestones point moot. And the photos tell the story. If you look at the photo Milestone took from our neighborhood, you will see that for some reason, it was taken from 780 feet away, not the closest distance of 411 feet, but 780 feet away. Almost twice the distance from the homes whose living rooms will have a direct and completely unobstructed view of the tower. And what will the people in our neighborhood be looking at? A 150 foot tower encircled by four rows of 10 foot tall and tenets. Our town homes are a little over 40 feet tall, roughly the same height as the antenna load on the proposed monopole. So if we take something the same height as the antenna load on the proposed monopole. So if we take something the same height as one of our town homes, stick at 150 feet up in the air at a location that is 411 feet away, less than a tenth of a mile from the closest residents, that's what we will be looking at every day. The county plan thoughtfully creates space that address the needs of a thriving community. When the requirements of that plan are kept in place it works beautifully but when the requirements are disregarded and exceptions made what do you end up with? A 150-foot cell tower, 411 feet away from your home. I urge you to deny this application. Thank you. Thank you. After Mr. Allen will take Brian Turner. Good evening. I'm Richard Allen. My wife and I are homeowner residents of the Regency of Belmont, age 55, plus residential community. We join our neighbors in opposing the cell tower at this location right next to us. All of us bought homes and moved into a pleasant residential neighborhood in a beautiful area. Now we feel like we're under siege from encroaching industrialization. Industrialization that is incompatible with the nearby residential neighborhoods. Last year you helped stop some of this encroachment by determining that inserting a 24-7-16 pump gas station right next to us would not be compatible. Subsequently, the gas station business was able to find a more appropriate site at elsewhere at a different location. Now we're facing encroachment by the proposed 150-foot cell tower lurking above us, a huge bulky data center right next door, an electric power transmission towers and lines running right next to our community. We feel under attack like the old Orson Wellesdram of the War of the Worlds, if I may use an old cultural reference. We understand that your authority may be limited in the case of the data center and the electric towers and lines, but for the 150 foot cell tower, you and the supervisors have the power to say no to this location, and to recommend that the cell tower be placed down route seven at the Asperger Village Boulevard interchange, where the tower would be much further from residential communities and where there's even larger void in reliable cell coverage. Yes, we need better cell coverage where we live, but our interchange there at Route 7 and Cleveland Parkway is not the right place for this tower. We ask you to ask yourselves, would you want this 150 foot tower inserted right next to your homes, especially when there's a less intrusive location? We urge you to reject the cell towers proposed location. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Turner. Hello, commissioners. I'm Brian Turner and I'm the general counsel to the Landlord. Mr. Turner. Hello commissioners. I'm Brian Turner and I'm the general counsel to the Landsdown Conservancy. For context, the Conservancy includes a note-aloud hospital, Landsdown Resort, the National Conference Center, Landsdown on Potomac HUA, Landsdown Village Greens HUA, Landsdown Woods, and several other medical office facilities and businesses in the area. The applicant has not reached out to the Conservancy and the Conservancy is opposed to this application for two major reasons. Well, on this area, this area of route seven consists of several sensitive areas, including scenic easements and recorded viewsheds. And two, the Conservancy is actively working with the county on an underground initiative to place transmission lines underground. The underground route being proposed by the county and the Conservancy runs through the Claiborne Parkway interchange and the proposed cell tower may conflict with the area needed to bury these lines. Conservancy is therefore requesting the Nile of this application. Thank you. Thank you. That's everyone I have signed up in advance. Do we have anybody else in the room who'd like to speak on this agenda item? No, do we have anyone online for this item? We do not, Madam Chair. All right, thank you. Last call. All right, the public hearing on this item is closed. We'll go ahead and entertain a motion, and then anybody has any questions or comments will have an opportunity to make those. We are in broadrun, so I have the honor. I get to the right page. Okay. I move that the planning commission forward, Lugie, 2023-0093, milestone, Belmont, interchange, CMPT- 2023-0011, and the next one. The next one is the next one. The next one is the next one. The next one is the next one. The next one is the next one. The next one is the next one. The next one is the next one. The next one is the next one. The next one is the next one. The next one is the next one. The next one is the next one. The next one is the next one. The next one is the next one. I can personally attest to the need for better coverage for Verizon customers in this area, anecdotally. You can sit outside at the coffee shop next to the whole foods and not be able to get a signal. So whether that is due to what is built up the street or whether that is due to the lack of a tower here, I think that is a legitimate question we need to be able to answer before we put something there that may not really move the needle as much as we're hoping. I have a number of things that I would like to learn more about, including that one, that Commissioner Myers raised that issue. I would like to, if we can, get a little more clarity from both Dominion and the hospital that they are truly don't see any interference for this at this exact location whether it's with the helipad or the future lines whether the lines are buried or not. I think we should also find out if there's a need for this on the first network, which is the emergency first responder network. If there's a gap there, could this fill it or if there's not a gap. And I think if there wasn't outreach done to the conservancy, I think we need to do that. I think we need to understand what those overlays and viewsheds are and what the impact of those are and could be to this. So I think we have some questions. We need to understand what those overlays and vuesheds are and what the impact of those are and could be to this. So I think we have some questions we need to get answered before we can really take a final vote on this and I hope that the commission will support me. Any other commissioners? I would just like to add that I would like to, I know we mentioned a little bit, but I definitely want to see Whatever maps and stuff exist as it relates to the different groups It's supposedly hold from the benefit of loud and counting these easement fuchsia It's and I want to see the radius that's supposed to be done And then I'd like to see that laid over this monopole so that we can see in contrast and then also I'd like to know the ownership of the complete ownership of the parcel. And as Chair Frank already said, I definitely want to have a discussion about tell us. I would like to also know there's a very tall building on the other side of Peats. It used to be the toll brother building, had toll brothers on it. I mean, that's a pretty large building that I could see where you could do a poll up on that. And it's literally less than probably 50 feet, maybe at the most, and it's uphill. So it seems like that would have a lot of coverage. And then it takes away. I will say it's gonna be pretty, just being blunt, that's who I am. It's going to be pretty difficult to get my vote on this one. I don't think this is the appropriate location setting right there where we're looking at it. And I don't see the need for it. It's not creating new coverage. There's a discussion about is there a hole in the circle or not? And I think that hole is not necessarily derived from the need of this poll. It may be derived from other circumstances that are beyond. But I definitely want to have some more discussion about the conservancy, the view sheds that are here, and aren't there other locations where this could go and still meet the same needs that are needed to be done? Commissioner Kieres. Yep. Other than what's already been said is if you could provide this would be for the applicant if the poll was say 125 feet what that coverage would look like is that something you're able to do if we were looking at a lower height poll and how that would impact the coverage you're looking for. Yes, we could provide something like so that so we could have idea what the difference is in the heights due to the coverage. Sure. Thank you. Commissioner Miller. Thank you. I'm going to support the motion. I think this may have been 18 to rise and in T mobile spend upwards of $10 billion a year each on infrastructure Companies like milestone don't go and get approval for towers to then go and try and sell them to Space to carriers a carriers come to people like milestone and say we need towers in this area, we will please help us. And that's because there's about a hundred people in this room right now and every single one of them has a a cell phone of some type on them that was built sometime in the last, I would say, 80% of the people here have a cell phone that came from post pandemic and every phone we get is newer and more powerful and does more things and that's why these companies have to invest in the infrastructure necessary to support that. I can't imagine why Verizon would want to go through this if they didn't actually need a tower. I don't know why they would want to subject themselves to if they didn't actually need a tower. I don't know why they would want to subject themselves to the cost and expense of doing this. So as we continue to find out the more information that you all want, that's terrific. I would just remind everybody that these are serious safety issues. Cell phones are a major safety issue for all of us more than just about anything else. And I've said this in the past, and I'll say it again, I think they should be taller to cover more area, to have fewer of them. But we're at the point now where the gentleman said that 150 feet is more the, the quote, tallest now. And this is where we're at, and we can co-locate two other carriers and a whisp or a first net transmission on here. That's what I think is the best for the community. So hopefully that when we get to a work session, we'll answer all these questions, we'll be able to support the efforts of the tower up. Thank you. Commissioner Jasper. I'll support the motion. I come from more time in a more urban environment where cell coverage is provided by more antenna on smaller geographic distances but never through a tower, even in an environment like Washington, DC, where the buildings can't possibly be over 120 feet. So I know that it's possible to do more, and if we are in terms of not having the visual impact or the potential interference with flights, et cetera. So since people are asking for alternative analyses for propagation, one being shorter towers, I might also ask that you guys consider alternatives to towers period, right? Where are the tall roofs around and how could those fill in the holes? I know that those antennas having run a mesh network for myself. They're not that, the receivers aren't that expensive and maybe it isn't a poor, you know, economic trade off to do more on top of buildings. Commissioner Mauder ready. Thank you Madam Chair. I'll support the motion. Again, I would like to make few points. Some of my fellow commissioners already mentioned them. Number one, I would like to see a smaller tower, if it can be done. Again, some kind of studies to see that. Number two, few of the speakers here mention that there is an alternative side, they think is better. I don't know whether it's better or not. Maybe you have done some research or maybe you have not. I would like to see something like that. Why one place is better than the other. The third one is, again, I am kind of why we haven't talked to somebody like a land zone conservatory, which is a big organization around, has a huge impact. And big influence, I'm kind of don't know why you guys did not talk to them yet. But I would like to reach out to them and get their feedback on what you guys are planning to do. So those three points I would like to see if we go into work session. Thank you. Commissioner Banks. I will be supporting the motion and I really want to see the information that most of my colleagues have already asked for primarily one variation in tower heights. What does that do for you or not do for you to reaching out to the conservancy as well as to the hospital. And then three in analysis as a commission of mod already has indicated on some of the other sites. But particularly the ones that were meant or the one that was mentioned by the neighbors. That is the one that's half a mile down Route 7. So particularly I'd like to see an analysis of what the coverage it does there for you and does not do for you. Okay. Sure, Mr. Myers. I know you said go to September but with the amount of information that we've requested from both staff and from the applicant. I mean I think that only gives them about a week to get stuff together and then it's got to be ready for the packet from what we've been. It doesn't leave a lot of time. I'm just wondering is that enough time going to the September to get all the analysis? I mean we've asked for quite a bit of different analysis to be done and then get back to staff for them to be able to put it back in the packet. That's my only question. The deadline for September would be August 9th. So if the applicant's. So we can a couple days. So it's pretty tight. This is very much. Is there, if we say September and the applicant and staff agree to October, is that permissible? That is allowed. We can go later. Yeah. Okay. Do you just modify the motion to say a future work session? Yeah, we could see that. We're trying not to do that with commission permits and the new process. That's okay. My concern is just like I know what just happened with right in park. And I'm not faulty to anybody. I just know with the amount of workload. Right. We're also meeting later. Right, but I'm just, I was concerned about, there's a lot of different things we've asked for to be reviewed. Yeah, and my concern is not having enough time for staff and everybody should really have the ability to put a good package together to make it a meaningful work session. Right, well, and we, you know, you didn't have this information, but we did have a leadership call earlier this afternoon and run through some different scenarios of what could be handled in September versus October and things like that. So we thought we could. Staff was aware of this in part of that discussion, but I'm fine with it going to October if staff in the applicant would prefer or need the time. I'm also fine with... Yeah, I'm fine. I'm also fine with. Yeah, I'm fine. I'm also fine with. He was on that call. I don't do these things unilaterally very often. Can we just say a future work session? Okay. We're all right. Nobody's going to get us in trouble for that. All right. We are trying for the sake of clarity, especially when there's commission permits, to be committed to a date. And that's really mostly for applicants benefit as much as anything else. But, okay. So we will, can I friendly amend my own motion? Instead of a September, we'll just say a future work session. And we'll let staff and the applicant work together to determine when they feel like they are ready. Okay. All right, we have that slightly modified amendment on the floor. I'm not going to make a closing. Thank you all for your support. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 801. Vice Chair Comes is still absent and we'll be back to discuss this further in the fall. Thank you, Planning Commissioners. We look forward to talking to you at a future work session. Thank you, Erin. We have three items left and none of them are probably ten minute items. So I'm going to suggest that we take a please be prompt ten minute break right now. Take care of whatever you need to and we'll be back at 8.45. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. Thank you. I'm sorry. Okay. Moving on with our agenda, And a ledgy 2023-0076, Stone Hill. Allison, we are ready when you are for our presentation. Good evening. My name is Allison Britten. I'm with the Department of Planning and Zoning, and I'm here today to present the application for Stone Hill. The subject property is 16.64 acres located east of Laudan County Parkway in south of Evergreen Ridge Drive in the Sterling and Little River election districts. The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from PDH4 to the R16 ADU Legacy Zoning District to develop up to 104 residential dwelling units to include 80 multifamily stacked and 24 single family attached dwelling units. The application would result in a density of 6.25 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is additionally proposing modifications to reduce the minimum front yard requirement for multifamily stacked, increase building height, allow units to front onto open space, eliminate the road corridor buffer on internal roadways, reduce the cemetery preservation buffer on one side, and allow street trees on private lots. Here is the proposed CDP, the legend in the bottom left corner. The multi-family stacked units are identified in orange and single-family attached units are identified in light blue. Active recreation areas are identified in purple and in the top right corner of the primary parcel you can see in red the historic cemetery that exists on site. In general, the Latin County 2019 General Plan supports a 100% residential project on this site, single-family and multifamily residential identified as core and complimentary uses in the suburban neighbourhood playstep, but there are remaining outstanding issues with this application relating to compatibility, heritage resources and transportation. The 2019 General Plan anticipates development in the suburban neighbourhood playstep develop at a density of four dwelling units per acre, up to six dwelling units per acre for infill parcels, and anticipates at least 10% civic space. The proposal would result in a density higher than the maximum density the 2019 General Plan would anticipate. In this area and does not provide the same amount of, or does not provide the anticipated amount of civic space. Staff recommend the application be revised to include additional civic space and approximately four less dwelling units. This graphic shows the four civic space areas proposed. Recreation area D on the bottom right hand corner would provide 43 total parking spaces to serve the sport court. And staff recommend additional civic space be provided in lieu of excess parking and that the civic space be provided in a more centralized location to serve its residents. Here you can see recreation area D is located across the street from Hopewell-Manor Terrace away from the proposed residents. The subject property is located in the 60 to 65 LDN noise contour of the airport impact overlay district, but the property is proximate to the 65 plus LDN noise contour. It should be noted the application is in compliance with the standards of the revised 1993 zoning ordinance, but as a matter of consideration, staff have identified a potential incompatibility between residential uses and airport operations based on airport noise complaints in the area. The Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority noise contour map is also a matter for consideration. Staff note there's an ongoing board directed community process specific to this area related to airport noise and retaining existing commercial designation maybe compatible as well. The subject property is located about 400 feet from the highest noise contour area in 2023 and while received a total of 60,858 aircraft noise complaints and of these complaints about 72% of them were generated from the residential community adjacent. This is a graphic identifying flight paths within a 24-hour period with altitudes ranging from 1000 to 2000 feet. The star identifies a one-mile radius around the subject property. At this time staff now support the proposed zoning modification to reduce the required road corridor buffer width and recommend landscaping details and internal street sections be provided for staff analysis of the proposed impact. Both through Revise Night 93, zoning ordinance in Lawn County Facility Standards Manual require a cemetery treatment plan identifying the totality of the cemetery area and a maintenance plan. The applicants provided a treatment plan, but it's limited in scope and the applicant, or application does not identify a party responsible for the maintenance of the cemetery area. So here is the proposed treatment plan with the easement area identified in orange and staff recommend consistent with the county regulations, the area be expanded to include the area in yellow here. The proposal identifies two potential points of ingress and egress to serve the residential units one from Evergreen Ridge Drive and one from Hopeville, Manor Terrace. The access from Hopeville, Manor Terrace, however, is conditional upon approval from adjacent residential communities and the traffic impact study does not provide analysis of the possibility of only one access point. So staff are not able sufficiently analyze the application for safety. However, staff have found preliminary safety concerns with a singular point of access from Evergreen Ridge Drive as currently proposed and recommend either the access point from helpful Miner Terrace be provided as part of the proposal or your revised traffic study. To accommodate future improvements to Laudan County Parkway and bring the existing shared use path into conformance with current plan policy, staff recommend the application include a reservation along Laudan County Parkway with a dedication upon request. The application currently includes a reservation but limits the time the county has to request the dedication to 20 years. So staff just recommend the time limitation be removed. The application includes a commitment to provide a public access easement for a bus shelter, but staff recommend minor revisions consistent with county policy or a commitment to provide cash and leave with permission enter the site to construct the bus shelter. Staff note there is an active county project to construct the bus shelter, accordingly. At the Planning Commission Work Session on July 11th, the commission asked questions related to the following. The site is currently subject to proper conditions from the Loud and Valley Estates to rezoning. The site is currently subject to proper conditions from the loud and valley estates to rezoning. None of the triggers in those rezonings were associated with the subject parcel. Bev Tate with loud and county public schools is out of town and unable to join us tonight. But I was able to meet with her to discuss the status of the Delus North Planning District. The schools this proposal would be served by currently do have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed community. Dedication of the land area would not impact the calculations provided based on the 2019 general plan. Regarding the cemetery, it's believed members of the Mankin and Creighton families may be buried there dating back to the late 1800s early 1900s. And as mentioned previously the application will be required to comply with the 60 to 65 LDN aircraft impact overlay district regulations in the revised 193 zoning ordinance for noise and mitigation with acoustical treatments. And I do also have Josh Peters with planning and zoning available for any questions. He's a staff member involved in the board's community engagement process. Staff recommend the application be forwarded to a future work session to address revisions related to the issues discussed and staff are happy to answer any questions. I also have Lindsay Marffert from Department of Transportation and Capital Infrastructure available for questions as well. Thank you, Alison. Go ahead and start with Commissioner Miller. Thank you, Alison. Josh, are start with Commissioner Miller. Thank you, Allison. Josh, you there, Josh? Oh, right there. I thought you were on the line. I knew you were here earlier and I couldn't see you now. You moved. Okay, hello, Josh. So the objection that this is in the 60 to 65 in proximity to the 65 plus. My question for you is because there for those that don't know, there is nobody in this county that understands the LDN lines and how they were crafted more or better than Mr. Peters. So we set this up to have things that are either in the 65 plus or not in the 65 plus. We have up here, we've talked about other applications where we've said, hey, Cedar Terrace, Dalfourwood 50, can we just move the line 40 feet so it lines up with the road instead of going over here? And we were told no, can't move that nothing because the lines are where the lines are when you're in it. When you're out of it, correct me from wrong, the lines are where the lines are. So if you're we are in 60 to 65, even by a foot, policy says we are allowed to build houses there, correct? If you are in that LD in 60 to 65 area, residential development would be permitted pursuant to performance standards. In proper mitigation of things of that nature, but performance standards which are met. But in 65 plus we now have a prohibition of prohibition. The county will not by policy will not consider new residential properties in 65 plus. Neither by policy or by zoning. Or by zoning act. Okay. So even though this site is approximately 40 feet from a line which these lines are air drawn, not ground drawn. So there is no county policy that prohibits Construction of new residential in this on this site That's correct. Okay. That's what I was going for new the answer to but neither here from you. Thank you. It's all ahead I want to make it worth your while to sit here Commissioner Kieres So I said I think you you have will you send it to us, the letter, the memorandum that the applicant sent. And I think this addresses the vast majority of the outstanding issues. Which if you look through this, because this I found when I went out and visited the site, after when we first got the briefing package, my first concern, especially with the parcel, with all the parking and the pickleball court was this is right up against another community. And what do they think about this? So I found this Lawn Value States too. I called their office, got a hold of one of their board members. And basically, basically said, yes, we're very well aware of this. We've been working with them. They've done everything we've asked, and we're the ones that asked for the additional parking, and that they were finalizing this being incorporated into Loud and Valleous States too. So this community would have accessed all the amenities and everything within that entire community, not just what's on this site. While staff haven't had an opportunity to fully absorb that letter, I can say that that may change the analysis. This was analyzed independently, but incorporation of the surrounding community may change. And the second entrance, I agreed with what I nurse is odd is you need that second entrance, but it's actually the, a lot of LA State's two wants that entrance there. They're not opposed to it. They actually want it there because it's going to help with improvements where a hopeful manner goes out to have a green ridge. So, okay, I just, my point is that most of the things I think that are listed as outstanding are resolved by this memo. And the other, only other thing I'll say about the airport, the answer has been Commissioner Miller and Josh articulated it, but The county's undergoing an effort to try to do something and It's only gonna fix this site if which I don't even love or happen the FA agrees to what the county wants them to do County wants them to fly the full departure route full departure route takes them farther west before they turn north or south Which takes them away from some of the more heavily residential areas and through an area that's kind of like you look at it, you can see it's more of a commercial line than you'll go north or south. The problems with that, if you put that map back up that showed all the red lines, imagine all that red lines now being concentrated just like you see the red lines on the other sides. You're going to have all those flights going out of very specific. Imagine all that red lines now being concentrated just like you see the red lines on the other side So you're gonna have all those flights going out of very specific and if you're underneath those flight paths You're gonna get a lot of objections as well because of the increased noise they'll get It's gonna reduce the effectiveness of the airport because when they have planes lined up to go One's going to the north, ones going to the south, they give them a clearance to fly the departure procedure, but leaving a certain altitude, turn right and go direct to a certain point. So the minute that plane starts turning north, they can launch the second one because now you have clearance, they're not going to hit the other ones going south. Now they'll have to wait for the full distance if they're going farther out before they turn. It's going to slow down the efficiency of the airport. So I don't know that anything will change but if any changes are going to result of what the county is trying to do it'll take airplanes away from this property not potentially put them closer. So in my mind you know the airport issue is not so much of an issue because we do allow building with the proper mitigations and where the parcel is located. Well, my time's up, so thank you. And Josh, there's some spots available that back in the planning department, if you decide you need to change. Just kidding. All right. Yes, Marshal. So that, the only one I'm going to offer is the existing plan land or the existing zoning of the property is consistent with the plan. Residential density is consistent with the plan. There's a propensity for complaints here. Whether it's the only way we would really see to mitigate that is lesser number of units that would be impacted by it. But to your point, if there's a future that moves it less, so we were sort of in a situation where both uses meat it. They're going to provide the noise attenuation that's anticipated by the previous ordinance. We're sort of a loss as to how you really reduce that, only really way we would solve possible is by reducing units if that makes sense. You'll never solve the problem because you always get noise complaints. And you'll always get people to move into a house and say, gee, what's that big thing that I just amile away from my house? If you never looked and you don't know, I don't know how that happens, but it does. And no matter what we do, we're to get complaints. In just to our real estate agents, the old story was that real estate agents also knew the flight timelines during the day and pick when they would show the properties. Yeah, no. No. We're going to be nicer if it was that easy. We're nicer if we could tell people when we're going to be taking the seat something. Doesn't work like that. Go ahead, Commissioner Kierst. The last question I had, about the density being slightly over the six. And in the briefing report, I can't remember the exact way it was phrased, but maybe if they provided a more affordable housing type units, then then it would be okay. I think the old phrase, I don't know, it was density credit. Is that still something the county looks at? That was included in the briefing memo, but upon reconsideration, not necessarily what this place type calls for. Okay. Okay, Commissioner Meyers. So, following up on your question, if we look at purely just the units and don't account the ADU units that they're doing. Are they at 6 over 6 under 6 where are they at? 6.25 is the total number of units. I understand them, but if I erase the additional units they get for the affordable and all. There's only one additional unit beyond what the zoning ordinance requires in this application provided as affordable. And so it wouldn't break that threshold. So they're only doing one, that can't be right. They're only doing one additional unit, nine total, one above with the zoning ordinance. Okay, so that's my point. If they were, if they were taking away 10, because it's 10 total, but they're doing them. If the 10 went away, and that would be their base, because they get the additional, because they're ADUs, would they be at 6 to an acre? Yes. Okay, so they're only above the 6 to an acre acre because they're doing what's required in doing the ADU units. Um, Marsha, do you want to take that Marsha? So the ordinance requires the nine or doing the nine, providing the one additional, if you were looking at from your analysis, yes, it would drop below the six-toying units per acre. But the reason why we've noted the higher densities, because they're doing the units that are required by the units. The only thing above and beyond is the one unit which wouldn't have a material impact on the overall density if they were to remove that one extra. So they're entitled to do that anyway. Yeah, they're not getting a density bonus for the number of units, specifically meaning the minimum threshold. Right. And they would be at the sixth if they weren't doing that. So they are complying with that, they're getting the additional based on the aid and use that they're doing. The required to do. The required to do. Yes. Okay. And in regards to Hopewell Terrace, that when you say it's in a budding community, it's really from my understanding the reading, that all is going to be the same HOA. So while today you may say it's a different community, it's really going to be the same community developed by the same developer. So it seems like they would have the ability to know that that interchange, whatever we want to call it, is going to happen in the future. We're talking about we think it may not happen in your report. I'll let the applicants speak to the intention. The report was written based off of what the applicant, the application currently provides and there is a provision of the proffers that could go either way. Its own property owners association or incorporation. So I'll let the applicant speak to their overall intention. Okay. And then in regards to the cemetery, my understanding is the only issue you have is who's maintaining it and then you want your whole the yellow Included so if they've agreed to that like in this thing they gave to us and that kind of eliminates your concerns about the cemetery correct Okay, thank you Commissioner Jasper were you trying to you didn didn't quite, but I think you felt. I failed. I gotcha. My day. School capacity. So this is a new issue for me. So could you explain, I assume that county has gotten feedback from a lot of county public schools and what did that feedback say? Correct. Generally that the schools that this proposal would feed into have capacity. So that's the Rosalie Carter Elementary School, the Stonehill Middle School and Rock Ridge High School. I should they do have capacity. Through, projected year 2027, yes. Okay, great, thank you. Any other questions or stuff? Okay, I will go. The, I don't know if we have this, I think we do. That surrounding area that already kind of exists in that neighborhood, this was a large development, obviously, so I'm not sure I can say tell me the density of the entire development but that Lawn Valley estates technically three we call it Lawn Valley two but okay Lawn Valley three that portion there which is a similar kind of product type. Do you know the density for that. The overall loud and valley site, the 800-some acres originally approved was permitted to develop up to 3.2 dwelling units per acre. And if you just strictly look at the Buckingham community to the east, I think perhaps might have been your question. That is a more densely located area, and it sits at about 15.3. Just that small section though. So is it kind of everything where the word's Latin Valley of States three is, the dark roofs, that whole area, or is it something closer? Is this smaller area directly east? Okay, so just right there. Okay. All right. Any other questions for staff? No? All right, we will take the applicant presentation. Good evening, everyone. Oh, Allison, pull it up before we start. Great for the record. My name is Molly Novotny. I'm an urban planner at Curata Partners. And please to be here before you tonight with Angela Rossis with toll brothers to talk about this application. And to Commissioner Cures' comment, we did submit a memo to staff after the briefing and the staff report came out identifying several outstanding items, all of which we have now been able to address. But we recognize staff has not had the opportunity to review that memo. So I will highlight those changes for you all tonight. This map kind of sets the stage for where the property is. What you see outlined in red is the overall loudon Valley Estates 2 community. And Chair Frank, I do have density numbers for you a little bit later in the presentation. Our property is shaded in red at the bottom, the 16.6 acres. And importantly, this is the last developable parcel within this Loudon Valley Estates 2 community. There is other parcels that show a lot of open space. Those are owned by the HOA or by Loudoun County. This will be the last available land within this community. As staff said, this is planned suburban residential. The density does allow 16 units per acre. This project was originally contemplated to be 100,000 square feet of commercial development. It was originally contemplated that way 20 years ago when Loudon Valley State's two was first developed. And yet 20 years later, here we are sitting with a vacant parcel. It's vacant from a commercial use because of what's been happening around it. There are several commercial uses within the one mile radius and then even more within the two mile radius, as well as some commercial uses that have failed up at the top of the outer circle there that shows the hair is teeter that has closed. So that's one of the reasons this site hasn't developed, but also when some commercial uses have come forward, the HOA has not been supportive of those. So we have put our thinking caps on and have come forward with an application that is consistent and compatible with the existing residential. And so what you see here is our project. It's a 104 residential unit. So this slide introduces one of the first changes that we have made to the application since seeing the staff report. And that's the addition of two additional on Met Housing Needs units. So to Commissioner Myers' comment about the overall density, we now have three additional ADU or on Met Housing Needs units, which if you take those three units out, we would be under the six units to the acre. We did add these on Met Housing Needs units because of the comment in the briefing memo, so we were trying to address staff's comment there. What this illustrative layout shows you is the darker roofed buildings are the stacked units, the two over twos, and they are ringed by the townhouses. We've got 80 stacked units and 24 townhouses in the project. This image also really shows you the amount of active and open recreation space at the property. We have more than 40% of the site is left in open space. There is a cemetery that was originally preserved with the earlier application and we have provided some active rec space on the left side of that preserved area and then we have provided additional active rec space at the request of the Loudoun Valley Estates 2 community and I'll go into some detail about how closely we've been working with that community but importantly here these pickleball courts in the parking area specifically in response to their request. These are proper elevations that show you the high quality of the stacked units, the two over two. We have very detailed design guidelines and again, these are proper in our submission and these are the stacked town homes. One of the reasons we have that modification for the reduced yards and some of the street trees is because we have these rear load units that we do need to be able to provide access to which would make providing the buffers in the street trees a challenge. I'm going to focus on two of our active rec spaces. This first one is a primary active recreation space and one thing that you may notice from our original packages, we have relocated the Totlot here. We received some good feedback from Chair Frank about the location of the Totlot here. We received some good feedback from Chair Frank about the location of the Totlot. Previously, we had it located right along Hopewell Manor Terrace. And by moving it into the site, it really buffers that Totlot from that road. It also helps activate the pavilion in the grill space that will be programmed in that space. This is the kind of what we're calling the community park. There is the comment from staff that we're providing too much parking for this community park. And to be quite candid, this is directly in response to that community that exists there today. They have a parking shortage. They've asked us to help them solve their problem. This is not parking to support our project, but it's parking that would help support this park, but it will also provide some needed parking for the units immediately around the property. In terms of overall density of the project, again, I've got the Loud and Valley states to community outlined and read that overall density is at a 3.15 dwelling units per acre. When you add in our property in our new 104 units it brings the overall density just to 3.27 dwelling units per acre and that's an overall. We included this slide because the briefing memo talked about if you were part of the Loudoun Valley State's two community then staff would not have the concern about that overall density and be up against the threshold. But then we looked even closer to us and with the property directly to our east that you guys were looking at on the other map, that density is 9.53 dwelling units per acre. And again ours is 6.25. Staff has already addressed the airport overlay, but this image shows everything kind of in bold here is within that LDN 60 to 65 noise contour. It does allow residential. Everything in purple is residential. This is not a new use. We will not be the only residential in the area. We do have preferred commitments as noted on the right side of this page, including the disclosure statement for resale packets as well. area we do have preferred commitments as noted on the right side of this page including the disclosure statement for resale packets as well. I've already mentioned the site has more than 40% open space including active recreation space. We have located the active rec spaces in such a way that they're both accessible to our future residents as well as the Loudon Valley Estates 2 community, largely because we will be part of the Loud and Valley Estates 2 community. We have met with them several times, at least five times with the various elements of that community. The first meeting more than a year ago was with the neighborhood immediately next test, Buckingham. And then we had a meeting with the full community on October 23rd and then subsequent meetings just with the Board of Directors. So these next couple sides kind of overview the new commitments that we've made since the staff report came out. Number one, importantly, we will be part of the Loudon Valley States II community. We have always been submitted land as part of that HUA. So our proffer was not written as it, as clearly as it should have been, but this property is part of that community. And therefore, a lot of the comments from staff about the access to Hopewell Manor and other things like that go away because of our merging or our acceptance into that community. We have proffer to dedicate, not reserve, the land along Loudoun County Parkway. When we met with staff previously, we thought reservation was an appropriate solution. Seeing the staff report, we realized, no, they wanted dedication. So we've made that change in the Prophers. All of the Prophers snippets here, staff has not seen because staff doesn't want a submission after the staff report, but we just want you to know that we've gone to the effort and the work on writing those up and look forward to sharing them with staff. The bus stop easement, construction and contribution, we've followed staff's language on that, we've making all of those contributions and proper commitments. And then the Profford Cemetery Treatment Plan, we have expanded the easement areas shown now with that blue line to meet the request that staff has made. We've also noted that the upkeep for the preservation and protection buffers will be part of the HOA's commitments. And then again, as I mentioned earlier, we've relocated the TOTLOT, and then we also had to shift some of our active rec space outside of any required buffers. So we have done that as well. The only commitment that I did not include as a bullet there is the additional two on my housing needs units that I mentioned that we are adding to the proffers and we have also committed to do the sprinklers as an option in the townhouses as well for folks who want that purchase option. So with that I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Commissioner Miller. Thank you. So this parcel will be included in LV2. Yeah. It will be part of the community. Does that mean that right now it is not part of the HOA? So it's submitted land right now, but it's not developed right now and it was always identified as commercial land. Right, so but if it's not part of the HOA currently Why does the HOA have veto power over previous? Opportunities that were brought to toll for commercial development. So veto power is probably too strong of a word, but it wasn't. They didn't earn their thumbs up, right? So we're trying to be good partners for them. Why is that a, why would that have been a concern of, of LVHOA? Because this project was developed however many years ago, this was, here's a master plan community and there's residential in this and here's some commercial. It was always gonna be commercial. Yeah, I think some of the uses required maybe a special exception as part of the use. So that's where I think they had. Okay, so it wasn't some- More input on, yeah, some of the commercial uses that were maybe potentially interested here Okay, so it had it been something that was by right use Right you to sign them up and build this however many years ago, but it must have been a spec shoes or some kind Yeah, I believe that yeah, the uses had a special exception. Okay. All right. Thank you Mark Lee was a gas station That was proposed. I think you've ever heard somebody come out and say, yeah, yeah, build a gas station in my neighborhood. Well, no, but I haven't seen. But that would that had been the only thing that has ever come up or there have been other things that were rejected over time. Yeah, I don't know of any other details related to the uses. I know it was marketed for a number of years trying to find users that were interested. That was one of them that I aware of. Okay, so it was it was it was it was it was a congaeson finance used at once required. Okay, did they ever go through a spec process or did you know over whether there's never been an application on the site, anything else? Okay, thank you. Commissioner Maderetti. Thank you, Madam Chair. Nice presentations from both staff as well as Molly. Many of my questions answered, but one question, Commissioner Miller's favorite but he forgot to ask parking. So if you take out that additional parking you guys mentioned on the other side of the road. Just if you consider what's on the left, what's the parking here? What can you give us some numbers? Sure, we, overall, and I'm going to answer a question in a couple steps, okay? Overall, we have need 232 parking spaces and we overall have provided 355 parking spaces. We're just looking at the parking on our side of Hopewell Manor. We have 56 surface spaces. Every townhouse has four spaces. So two in the driveway, two in the garage. every two over two has one driveway, one garage, and then there's those additional 56 surface spaces on this side of Hopewell Manor. So this is per the revised 1993 ordinance. We are in excess of what that ordinance would require. And then when you add in those parking spaces across the street, we're more in excess even with the new ordinance. So we thought, so we are interested in, even without adding those additional spaces, you guys are on excess. From the revised 1993 zoning ordinance, yes. Okay. Because I don't want the HOA to decide what the parking is going to be or whether they are shot on the other side for the overall HOA to impact the new residents which are no say right now on this building parking. So I don't want those additional, I don't want you to count those part of the parking for the new homes that are going to come in to meet the requirement. They're not to meet our requirement. They're not needed. Okay. Okay. And the second one is I think thank you for moving the talk lot that we also talked about that one. So, how you guys are planning for the corner location you originally? So we put the top lot in a location that wasn't open lawn area and so we're instead using that corner lot to be more open free play. Just open. Yep. We'll have some benches and obviously the landscaping and a buffer. We do have an enhanced landscaping area around there because of its location and so we haven't made it. We're going to see what we're doing made it. We'll do better than that. Yep. OK. OK. Commissioner Cures. Rum by me again, the sprinklers. How? This is currently not in the process, correct? Not that staff has seen, but we've drafted the proper language based on our coal farms. It's to provide sprinklers. On Fleetwood North that was just approved by the board of the board of the board. It was to provide sprinklers at cost for townhouses that request them. That are not already constructed yes because it would need to be during the construction process. Clip that was something I'd actually ask for because- No I know that's worth- But I'm saying the two over two's already get them. Have that already. Also, we agreed that they would give out the material that was provided by far and rescue for the benefits of sprinkling. Yes. And that's in, like you say, the fleet, that was the same language it was in the fleet with application. Do you have other questions, Commissioner Kierz? No, I think I'm good. Okay. All right. Commissioner Jasper. Hi. It's a say thank you. Good presentation on both sides. Thank you for mentioning that. I have one question. I'm going back to the profferon noise attenuation, which I think is, you know, of significance here. I won't talk about the other little things that we spoke about, but I will, you know, the current proffer language I understand says that you will have an engineer do a study before CFO and integrate more noise attenuation measures if the decibel levels within the units are above 45 decibels, right? And so what I, we talked about and what I asked for was that that would actually be done before the units are constructed based on a, you based on an engineering study that projects the type of your planned construction methodology materials, et cetera, so that we would know before the units are built whether additional attenuation measures are required. So I would ask whether you're still willing to alter the language of the proffer to ensure that that happens before unit construction occurs. Yeah, thank you for the comment. Yeah, looked into that with our coosdwell engineer and our various design teams and within told brothers. So we can make that commitment and we'll have before building permit plans reviewed and then confirmed with our co-stical consultant that we meet all of that criteria before we even start construction. Thank you so much. Okay. I'm gonna, I mean, most of us didn't get that memo until 330 this afternoon and at that point, I'm almost in the car and I'm away here. So I apologize if a lot of this may be covered in there. I'm going to try to rapid fire. With the changes, the top lots, things moving around, whatever are we still at 5% civic space? Or do we go up or down? So we have not changed the quote, civic space. But at least in the briefing memo, it was discussed that if you're part of Loud and Bell Estates 2, then there's no concern with civic space. OK. Gotcha. Are the, it sounds like the cemetery treatment plan, the lacking part is the long-term maintenance, is that you guys making that commitment? It's committed to it in the Proofers now. All right. The, the integration into the HOA, it sounds like that is, is that still something that would need to formally take place to or you guys are pretty much good. So it's clarified in the process. It's clarified in the process. Okay, and so that would then give you the approval you need for the hopeful manner entrance or is that gonna be a separate action that would need to be done? We'll continue to work with the HOA on that, but as part of the HOAO.A. and having access from that road. Okay. And the time limit on the trail right away, dedication? We're dedicating it, so we had a county wanted it. So it doesn't matter, no 20 year issue anymore. That was just for the reservation. Okay. Thank you. And our bus landing shelter problem. That's all. That's all. That's here too. Okay. All right, and thank you for, I've told anybody who's listened over the last two weeks of the issues I have with top lots being right next to roads. And yeah, so thank you. Allison. Yes. Madam Chair, just a point of clarification. I believe if the property is incorporated in the loud and valid two estates, then staff would be able to analyze the totality of civic space really surrounding the area. But that has not been done yet. Okay, but where it to happen, I'm gonna guess they've got that 10% civic space in that larger community. But that needs to take place, March on. And what that helps with too is the second entrance. So we would have concerns without that concession you're left with a right-in right out off of drive over Green Ridge Drive and so that's something we would we've not analyzed yet so I think the applicant is committed to trying to get that what's interesting is the hope well is a private easement and it's got a lot of condos that cover it. So it requires a lot of hurting the cats to get buy into that. And so we understand that dilemma, but at the same time, it has some significant implications getting that second interest retained. Absolutely. But that does become easier. It sounds like, and it's believable that it becomes easier when you're part of it because most of the time you don't tell yourself no. Or you have great willpower if you do because most of us can't do that. Okay. I think you got through all of my rapid fire stuff. So, all right. No other questions? We'll go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and open the public hearing. We do have a couple people signed we do have a couple people signed up on this item. Ryan Berry. Are you still here, Mr. Berry? Perhaps maybe not. If he shows up before we're done, we'll welcome him to your arm and. Good evening. Who's been adjusted for updated information? So hopefully I'm not saying anything that's now out of date. Good evening commissioners. My name is T. Arman speaking on behalf of the Piedmont Environmental Council. In the Stonehill application we see a dense residential development mostly as it was envisioned by our comprehensive plan goals for this parcel. We appreciate the mix of single-family attached and multi-family stacked units as allowing for greater diversity and housing stock in the suburban region is a positive step to creating communities welcoming to a broader, more diverse range of residents. A key component to the creation of multi-generational neighborhoods were residents at differing phases of life and circumstances settled to build community is appropriately sized outdoor spaces, be they personal yards or shared spaces, ample green outdoor places, residents can regularly access, makes a measurable difference in overall community happiness and the quality of life for a loudens residents. We agree with staff in their assessment that the comprehensive plan prescribed 10% civic space needs to be met in particular if front lot requirements are to be reduced to the point of near elimination, as is also requested here. Offering only half of the 10% bare minimum number is insufficient. However, given the discussion this evening, if this community is to be incorporated into the surrounding developments with access to their amenities that may resolve the issue, I would ask what the amount of civic space is for the neighboring community and what the number looks like with these portions addition, with the new total of residents to access all of those same spaces, what that total number is. This is an all-to-com and theme in loud and development applications when it comes to quality of life features, minimums from our planning documents developed from public input, planning research and sound, modern planning practices are not the starting point they should be. In this particular application, we agree with staff that the parking lot accompanying the sports court is larger than necessary, though it has become clear what that purpose is. The space could be better utilized to provide the missing civic spaces and for fill the needs of this future community if the new total is still below the minimum. We also agree that honoring, caring for, and the upkeep of our historic cemeteries is the least we can do as we add developments around these sites. We would like to see that as you resolve before the application is moved forward. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the room who would like to speak on this agenda item? Seeing none, do we have any joining us online? We do not, Madam Chair. Okay. I do. Oh. All right. You're welcome to join us up here at the front and if you're not Mr. Berry are you? Okay, George. All right. Well on your way out if you fill out a speaker slip just so you did Okay, I left it on the counter there. Oh, okay. Great. Sorry. Has it made its way to me yet? Hi all means you have three minutes So I'm one of many residents who live Next door and the 55 and over Birchwood community. We are a buttock to the property plat line on the south side of the community. My concern is, and someone mentioned this word, is the compatibility with the surrounding homes. The homes in Birchwood are million dollar homes. And the concern is primarily the height of the houses, the height of the town, how the 80 unit apartment building, for example, I don't know what that is. So that's one concern. The other concern is we have the houses that align the tree line behind the property, the new property, the proposed property. Those houses have terraces, they're 40 feet high. When we sit on our terrace, as retirees, we expect to, and this is why we pay for those houses to enjoy the serenity of sitting on those terraces. So, another concern is whether or not trees are gonna be chopped down. What the preservation is going to be for the surrounding natural habitat. My third question, and I don't know if I'm going to get an answer here, but my third concern is whether or not toll has in fact spoken and collaborated with the HOA for Birchwood as a surrounding community. You know, during the presentation, it was mentioned that there's concern you know, they're concerned about the compatibility with the surrounding areas. Well, if you're concerned about the compatibility with the surrounding area, then I would expect that that birch wood would have been one of those, one of those that would have been conferred with. That's it. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you. Anybody else? All right. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing on this agenda item. We are struggling districts, but I'll go to my left just because that's where most of the development is happening. In the Sterling District, do you have a motion, Mr. Kiers? Yeah. Microphone. I'll see if I can get through this and you guys can correct me. I move to the Planning Commission forward. Ludgy, 2023-76 Stonehill, ZMAP 2023-7, Special Exception 2023-42, ZMOD 2023-65, ZMOD 2023-66, ZMOD 2023-67, ZMOD 2024-4, ZMOD 2024-15, to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of approval, subject to the proper statement, dated June 14, 2024, and the conditions of approval dated July 15, 2024, provided as attachments to one in two to the July 30, 2024 Planning Commission Public Hearing Staff report. The recommendation of approval is contingent upon the applicant making the following amendments to the application. One inclusion of the of commitments in the memorandum to the county from the applicant data July 27, 2024. The inclusion of two additional on-mett housing units. Three to provide sprinklers at cost, pre-construction for townhouse unit purchasers that request them. I further move that this recommendation of approval be based on the following findings for approval. The proposed multifamily and single family attached residential dwelling units are consistent with the Loudoun County 2019 general plan. Recommendations for the suburban neighborhood place type. The proposal addresses environmental impacts through the use of low impact development measures, tree conservation areas and the use of pollinator and native plant vegetation. Consistent with the 2019 general plan. Second. All right, we have a motion from Commissioner Kier, seconded by Commissioner Myers. Do you have an opening? Yes I do. You've caught your breath after all that. And one is I understand this land was originally zone commercial and as quite happens it's not thrown to by fault over the years but every time you get a large residential rezoning we always want to put in commercial and retail space in them and then more and more get approved and we end up with more and more of these small pockets of commercial and retail and the reality of it is there isn't enough commercial retail interest to fill all these spaces and We tend to try to if you start building too many you cannibalize existing ones We're finally getting some traction on getting more retail in this area, but probably not even a mile down the road. In our, our Cola Center, the big announcement target's coming. That'll bring some people in, but they've been trying for years and years to get that very large commercial site going. As was pointed out, Harris teeter closed, but then they tend to cannibalize themselves just to keep other grocery stores out. So, but the point is there's another shopping center to the north very, very close by, which is why you tended to see these little parcels sit unused. And also from a community, it's a last available portion. It finishes off the community. This parcel is very compatible to what it's adjacent to. And with the commitments in that letter, joining Loud and Valleys states to, addressed many of the my concerns. When I talk to the HOA, they want that cut access to Hopewell, Mater Terrace. Most of all the things we see here was done in conjunction with the HOA, so I don't have any concern at all that this somehow will not be approved by the HOA. My understanding is the developer has rights to include it whether the existing HOA likes it or not. But I don't think that'll be an issue. They're dedicating the land along Loudon County Parkway versus the reservation. They took care of the bus stop shelter, cemetery plan treatment, and I'll tell you if anyone have gone out there, they did a very, very nice job with the cemetery. It's all maintained. It's fenced. It's actually locked, but there's a number to call. If you need access to it, so they have been taking good care of that cemetery plot. The relocation of the Tot taught lot makes sense. So I think they've done everything that the county was actually looking for in their concerns with their this application were addressed in this. In the two additional housing, you know, that's my old school. I was looking, I'm going to ask talk to them. I said, hey, would you willing to include a couple of more of those units to this application? I'm thinking of the old density credit mindset. Give us a couple more units that benefit the county and I would be okay with the slight overage in the density. Civic space, regardless of what I think, the overall civic space plus or minus, this isn't going to move the needle. Probably a fraction of a percentage, but this community will have access to a significant amount of amenities throughout the Laudan Valley State's community, so I have no concerns about lack of civic space for these residents. And actually the best part of this parcel of land is a good, as you can see from the map, a good portion of it will remain undeveloped as open space with trails through it. And again, I think that's a nice addition. So those are all my reasons for supporting the application. I do have a question. And if anyone else has a question, please let me know. I want to ask it before everybody weighs in. This was on my second, on the back of my notepad, so I missed it. You mentioned parking exceeds the 93, and it will exceeds it. Do you happen to know how it stacks up to the 23 ordinance, while that is not what you are being required to do? I think there's some of us that are just curious. I have not run those numbers, but I will say that our parking garages are counted as a full space. And in the new ordinance, they are not counted as a full space, and in the new ordinance, they are not counted as a full space. We do have that difference. Yeah, you're two car garages. We would count as one and you're a car, we would count as half. So, but you're over enough that I suspect you're close, I just say do as soon. Okay, all right, thank you. We'll go ahead and back to, do you have a question? Friendly amendment? Yeah, well I will hold it. Yeah, go ahead and let's. I think you wanna add in the thing you talked about. I couldn't remember the language, so please. All right. I accepted. I appreciate your chasper. That the applicant will perform an acoustical study based upon building plans and provide any additional noise attenuation required to achieve the 45 decibel interior noise level Prior to the issue and so building permits. Yeah, absolutely except that Okay, so we have a motion with a friendly amendment commissioner Miller so You know, I'm not a fan of two over twos. I'm going to get that out. It's a challenging product long term. The other side we talked about, one of the reasons that the community wants is happy with the overage of parking over by those pickable horses because there's parking as a challenge. And while some people might think that us realtors are all corrupt and trying to get it be underhanded and stuff, no, it's not the case. Sometimes we just know what actually works in the community. And what's interesting is that LVE2, we have the parking problems, was also done under the 93 revised parking. So I appreciate everybody letting Michelle and I know that we were right things being under parked. So that that challenges while this new section is under the 93 we know that that doesn't adequately meet the parking needs. Having the Overage being right across Hope, well, I can live with that because the whole point of having off lot parking was that when you have more people than typical show up, you have some place to go. And across the street is fine. We talk about that in our Cola with the Comparities Project. They had the stuff across the street. I can certainly live with that. Would I rather this be 16 foot wide instead of 2 over 2's? Sure. It is what the rest of the development is. We'll reluctantly go along with it because I can't really necessarily dictate the housing type. I would like to, but I wish we could develop more of the other land to make up for that. I do, in general, I know Commissioner Frank said this, Commissioner Jasper said this earlier on, earlier application about what we send up to the board. I know that Commissioner Cierce's motion includes, hey, as long as you do all of these things, then yes, let's send it to the board. It's a lot of things. So if the motion had been to send it to work session to resolve and finalize those things, and other people had other questions, I would have been more in favor of that. I don't know that we would get to that point here. If other people suggest otherwise, then maybe that does happen. But I generally think, I agree with Commissioner Jasper as she said earlier, that we should do all of it, make sure it it's done here and then send it to the board. But it does sound like everyone is on board with what that letter would indicate so. I've been able to bit but I haven't talked much tonight so I'm going to that but so but so I'll just, I'll leave it there, but thank you. You have two more Mr. Miller, so don't worry yourself out. Commissioner Maderetti. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think Mr. Miller did express what exactly I was planning to say. First of all, regarding the parking. If HOA is asking right next to your new proposed building for additional parking, that something wasn't right there. There is a reason they need more parking right now. I know 2023, if you guys are short, like you said, Molly, I don't know knowing that how I can go ahead and still support this application. Because maybe there are excess parking spots because HOA has for it, because maybe the neighborhood next door to it might be lacking the parking right now. That's why they want to come there and park in those additional parking spaces. So I don't know those excess parking spots are going to help the new neighborhood that's going to be built. So I am not feeling whether this is going to be enough parking with the proposed density at this time. I guess everything else like Commissioner Kaya said, there are too many things that we could have worked to have work session right now, instead of saying that they're all like part of this motion that we are going to go ahead and pass for supervisor to look into. So I would have supported a work session to resolve all these things and send a cleaner application to the supervisors. Commissioner Barnes. Yes, ma'am. I would have supported the work session too, because it's a pretty long list to put out there. We should be able to finish our application as much as we can, rather than hustling it down to the supervise as half baked. That's what my concern on it is to, I would support a work session on it if it's possible. Did you have something else? Well, sorry. I would still continue to support Commissioner Kyrs' motion. The reason in this particular case is there's a tremendous amount of specificity in terms of what the applicant has proposed. The actual proper language has already been submitted to us. And many of the items that are included in Commissioner Cures' list are items that just take care of themselves by virtue of the applicant proffering to dedicate these, mentored to do other things. I'm not speaking to the parking issues, but to the other issues that were raised, I think those are really completely resolved and there'd be pretty much nothing to talk about in a work session about them. So that's why I still support the application. Commissioner Myers. I too will support Commissioner, of course I seconded I will support his motion. I also would point out that I would have agreed to a work session if I saw there was something that the staff or I felt like the staff and the applicant are us for a disagreement of something that had been put forward with the outstanding issues. But when you look at the outstanding issues and then you look at the response of all the commitments of what they've done, there's, I mean, if we want to get a work session to talk about 5% versus 10% to look at the overall, I mean, to me that's what we're waiting six weeks or whatever to do. Staff have been pointed out in their report that they're not sure this additional parking was needed and question why it was put over there. So now we're discussing about whether they need more or not. And while I understand there were other changes that were made in 2023, that's not what this application's being measured under. So while you might want more, this isn't measured by that. You know, the density going up to the 6.25 is because the additional ADUs that required in the unmet housing. The adjacency to the 655 we've already heard from the residential is a lot in here. The cemetery we've already heard they've proffered to the commitment of what the county wanted. The Hope Wild Terrors is being taken care of because it's becoming into the part of the HOA. So the relocating of the Totloth that was the current concern is done. The two unmet housing are done. The sprinklers is done. The two element housing are done. The sprinklers are done. So I don't understand why we need to have a work session to kind of have a work session to re-talk about what we've already agreed to. So with that being said, I guess I'm one of those that still believes my time is worth money. Everybody's time is worth money. Why do we have a discussion to discuss what we've discussed. Thank you. Do you have something else, Mr. Maderetti? Sure. I understand what Commissioner Miles is saying, but at the beginning of this whole presentation, staff did say that they got the memo this afternoon. They did not get fully absorbed this whole thing. So that's not saying something, everything is right here. I mean, still they need to make sure that what's there in the memo and understand. I mean, in my mind, that does call for a work session for them to fully absorb and put it in writing and kind of a give us an approval. You know what? We fully agree that it should go ahead and go to the supervisors. Thank you. That's my person take. Okay. Any other comments on the motion? All right. I will say to the point that Commissioner Madder ready made, I think for some of us, I'll speak for myself. Let our rail stand on their own. But the concern that arises is that we are getting things very late that staff then has to do an incredibly fast review. Sometimes same day, commissioners haven't really read through it. It's just not ideal. This application's been in the process for 12 months and there are three rounds of referrals. This is not the first time somebody has mentioned a cemetery, for example. And not to, you know, there's a lot of little moving parts and pieces and details and that's what we do is focus on them. So, while it seems like we've got them all resolved, we are certainly trusting that they are resolved and that they will stay resolved between us and the board and what we think we just agreed to is in fact what will be in the paperwork and the proverbs that go to the board. And I'm not, I wanna make a very clear, I'm not singling out this applicant, but this happens frequently. And we have oftentimes had problems when it leaves us and goes to the board. So I think that's the issue. It's that we'd like to button it up. It's not that we don't think we're pretty much getting there. We need to talk about a ton more, but it's not buttoned up. So I think that is why the, when it's more than a couple of loose ends, why some of us would like to go to a work session. So in my mind, we will trust that this will happen, like it's we expect it to, but if it doesn't, I'm done approving things without a work session. If we have outstanding items and we think they need a dress, if it's a policy issue, we're okay with it. That's different. But the little things like this, like what we're talking about here, and again, it is not just this applicant or this representative team or anything else. It is a number of people. It's part of our process almost now, which is a bit of a problem. So, Marshant, are you going to interrupt? I was going from the minute. Again, I asked. Hold on. Let me let Marshant. A little bit of a risk. So we have the memo that outlines their commitments. Right. We have the memo that outlines their commitments. If the preference of the commission is to see the final CDP, so we did not get a revised CDP, the graphics that are shown tonight, if you want to see the exact language, and that's the work session where we can wrap that up and bring it to you. You're trusting that will, you're directing staff to be able to do that. And sometimes we're having to interpret the commission's intent, and that sometimes can be a debate with applicants. So that's what we look at. If you want to be clear that these amendments have been incorporated and that what you're approving has that final language, then that's what recommend going to commission. If you're comfortable with the level of commitment made tonight, then we can make it work at the board. Right. Now I think thank you. You explained kind of where I'm coming from very well. Like I said, we can trust it, and but if this starts to become, I've looked at staff multiple times and will continue to do so that if there keeps being problems between when it leaves us and goes to the board as far as what the intention was and what the commitments were, I for one will stop doing it and giving folks the leeway because yeah, it does sometimes feel like a waste of our time, but not if it's causing other people to waste their time down the road and there to be problems. So I appreciate that you move the tatlott. The parking while we are not holding this application to the 23 ordinance, they've acknowledged in their actions that the 93 was not adequate because they have their own residents clamoring for more parking. So clearly there was a need and more parking, let's not add more in there with the parking and cross problem. I think we're close enough that this will be better than what exists now. And I'm okay with the extra parking being over there around the pickle ball courts because I do think we're trying to fix a problem and that makes for a better livability for everybody the new Andy current residents. So I grew up under the O'Hare Airport flight path so you know I I know what airport noise sounds like I don't live that far out of it now at Delis, but, you know, MWAH has concerns with this. I don't love more residential in this area, but if with the changes that Commissioner Jasper proposed so we can be a little more aggressive perhaps on some balancing of that, I think I can be alright because it is okay in the plan right now. So I would have been happy to go to work session for the reasons I started with, but I will support the motion of approval again just with the caveat that please don't mess this up for yourself and others. That's all I ask because I, there's a lot of trust in faith and play here. So we need to make sure it's getting across the finish line the way it was supposed to be. Madam Chair. Yes. The last acoustical treatment, do you want to amend, was Commissioner Ciarist, do you want to amend your motion? I do include that one. I already did. I'm going to do that. They did differently. They would do that extra evaluation earlier in the process. Thank you. Commissioner Barnes. I was still tearing on it because I think we have like rubber stampeded quick because the time or whatever is saving money or whatever I don't think we should be considering money. We should be considering it's done complete rather than hustling it back to the supervisor. They might not look at it all, you know. And we give our job to them. That's not the way it's supposed to work. We are supposed to have it complete and then send it to them. All the issues were settled. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Do I have a yes? Do we need a clerk? Could I just say something? So we have made all of these changes as you've seen through our, through my slides. I understand staff has not reviewed them, but if we commit to resubmit this week, staff will have a chance to see if we've made them, and then if staff says no, they haven't done it, then maybe they could ask you all to take us back. But we've made these commitments already, we've made them verbally. They were very clear in the staff report of what we needed to do to address them. And so we are committed to that memo that we prepared today. I can just say that for the record. Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you. I don't think we can take back votes on motions, but I will say that as we have done before, I will offer myself, and I'm sure the district commissioner and others will offer themselves to staff if there needs to be a interpretation of intent or a very clarification or something as you are preparing stuff. I'm sure we are willing to assist if they're become egregious in impasse or something just as crystal clear as we hope it is in the memo. So with that said, Commissioner Giucio-Closin. Yes, I do. Go for it. So I would like this to move forward. For those of you that think a work session is better, I just want to go over the outstanding issues that concern about civic space was because they thought, staff thought this was going to be too little civic space for this size community. It's part of the larger loud and vellia states community. They'll have access to all the communities and amenities. So there's only nothing for us to resolve there. If you still don't think that's good enough, then maybe you think it still needs to go to work session. Air point, no, airport noise, we talked about, if you still think we need to talk about airport noise, then maybe work session. I think that's worth the recommendation. Air point, no, airport noise we talked about. If you still think we need to talk about airport noise, then maybe work session. The density is slightly above the recommendation, but they're providing two additional affordable housing units to the county. I think that's worthy of the slight over in the density if you don't then support work session. The surplus parking, we've talked about staff things it's too much, some of us are concerned it's too little, so I don't think we want to say, go to work session to talk about taking it away, we understand the need for it and why it's in there. The Cemetery Truma Boundary Plan was a very minor amendment. It's a one-liner to fix that. The access, again, that's part of being part of the HOA, the Hopewell Manor, the community wants it. The rest of Loudoun Valley, too, their board wants that. Road to be put through, so there is virtually no chance that it won't. The Loudoun County Parkway, Reservation Versus Dedication, a one-line response, and that's taken care of, and the bus stop landing pad and shelter, they've agreed to exactly the language that staff is asked for. So these are, in my mind, fairly simple things, I'm sorry, if we go into work session, we delay this application months, and it would be a two-minute discussion at work session to say, yeah, they wrote those lines exactly like they said. I just don't think this is the type of application that needs to go to work session because the issues I think are fairly easily have been very quickly resolved. So I would again request support for approval. Thanks. All right, we have a motion on the floor. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Name. The motion carries 7-1-1 with Commissioner Miller opposed and vice-sharecombs absent. All right, thank you very much, Allison. Thank you all. Thank you all. And thank you. All right. I know, Allison, you don't get to leave yet. Next up, we have Ludgy 2023-0088 Dominion Energy Loudon Panel Wiring Shop. And Nick, I believe this is you. All right. Go ahead. I'll never stop talking. No. Okay. I'm going to give you commissioners. My name is Nick Sissaro Planner with the Department of Planning and Zoning and project manager for the Dominion Energy Lone Panel Wiring Shop. Dominion Energy is proposing a commission permit to permit the development of a public service utility center on our parcel zone, transitional, residential three, or folly. This is a legacy zoning district. This facinity map highlights the subject parcel with the proposed facility occupying the western portion of the site in blue. Prince William County is directly to the south of the site with um, um, um, presidential to the um, um, um, west, the Novak Arcola and um, by the sub-station sites to the north and the most be used, most be used to the center on the eastern portion of the site. Power lines intersect the subject parcel. Right here, power lines go right through there. This slide contains the commission permit plate. The building is approximately 72,000 square feet and size and approximately 32 feet tall. As a reminder, stain-alone commission permits are subject to plain and commissioner approval and sent to the board of supervisor for ratification. Commission permits are evaluated for consistency with the general plan based on location, character and extent of the application. This application is located within the transition, large lot in neighborhood place type near similar ee uses. Staff finds that the proposed public utility center is consistent in character with the surrounding properties, including a substation, utility center, power lines, and other similar types of ee uses. In terms of the extent of the project, the project has been designed with a minimal footprint to protect the natural features of the site as poll run is directly to the south of the site. To answer the questions asked during the briefing earlier this month the applicant is writing a type three road corridor buffer which is 20 feet and width and a type C 25 foot buffer around the surrounding or on all their portions of the site. There are also no design commitments associated with the sample location as it is a stain alone commission permit and there and therefore it is not permitted to be conditioned. there are no sending issues with the application. Staff finds that the application is consistent with the 2019 general plan policies and staff supports planning and commission approval of the application. I may have you answer any questions that the planning commission may have at the time. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Nick. Commissioner Jasper. Oh, I'm sorry. Left over light. Anyone else? Questions or stuff? All right. You did such a thorough job. We have no questions. We're done. No. We'll go ahead then and move on to the applicant presentation. And we'll pass down the clicker and load up that presentation for you. To the clicker and load up that presentation for the clear Perfect While we wait for that to be pulled up good evening chair Frank members of the commission my name is Sheri again I'm a senior land use planner with the law firm of McGuire Woods and it's pleasure to be here this evening on behalf of Dominion energy With me tonight. I have checked in Funtante with Dominion, its project manager, as well as John Carns with Kim Lee Horn, Dominion's project engineer. And just to give you some more orientation to the site, it is located off of Auburn Farm Road at the southern end of the county. You can see the Loudoun County, Prince William County line outlined in yellow, just south of our site. We're about two miles south of Braddock Road and east of Gump Springs Road. This is Dominion known property. Dominion's overall site is outlined in blue. The 115 acre parcel, that's the part of the subject application is shaded in blue. And you can see the project site for the panel wiring shop in Maroon. There, and as Nick just explained, this is public utility property, dominion owned. There is utility infrastructure around it. You can see the two transmission lines that cross through the site in orange. There's also the Dominions, our Dominions Loudon substation, SVC station, and a lay down yard towards the back. Even in white, there's a small Novak station just north of us. The closest residential community is Stone Hill, which you can see to the left. We have had several conversations with them. We had a virtual public meeting with them back in February and we also recently just reached out to them just to confirm there were no issues, but we've never really heard any concerns with them. There are about 1,500 feet away and there is a substantial tree buffer forested area, if you will, in between us and the Dominion parcels. The other residential community to the Northeast is Virginia Manor. There are about three-quarters of a mile away and really will have no views of the panel wiring shop. So the good news is we are not here talking about a substation, which is what we usually talk about. But the panel wiring shop is just as important in meeting load growth demand in Northern Virginia as substations are. The facility is where control panels are built. You find them in every single substation. This is where they're going to be wired, stored as needed, and then supplied to the substations located on Dominion's grid. If you are aware of the substations anatomy, there's a control enclosure in every single substation, and there are anywhere from five to 50 control panels in each of those control enclosures. We are here today because there are not a lot of specialized facilities that create these control panels. Dominion does have an existing wiring facility in Fisher'sville, Virginia, which is about two hours away. Given the growth that data centers have originated or created and the need for substations in this area. The Fisher'sville site quite simply is unable to keep up with the demand. It's also too far from the northern Virginia area where the demand is generated. And Fisher'sville is an older facility. And what Dominion is proposing here is a much more modern site with better assembly areas, training rooms and employee space. So what is a panel wiring shop? Control panels, as I mentioned, are in every substation and served to control the equipment, measure energy entering and leaving the site, provide extremely important communication between the substation equipment, as well as monitoring control panels are actually wired by hand. Each one can take anywhere from 16 to 40 hours to complete, depending upon their complexity. And if you look closely at this picture, you can actually see two technicians behind those panels wiring the facilities by hand. So as I mentioned, this is going to be a newer, more modern site and Dominion anticipates that this newer facility is actually going to be able to shave up to four weeks off the delivery time from one to panel begins to be wired and then up and running in a substation. So just for general operations, the site's gonna have about 50 employees. Also the new facility will, as part of that, will have the space finally for a substation crew in Loudon County, which is never, they've never had before. will have the space finally for a substation crew in Loudon County, which is never, they've never had before. It's a six to seven man crew. Small, generally they're out in the substations, but they will be able to have indoor space now. And then trip generation is minimal. You'll have the day-to-day employee trips for the 50 employees, but traffic is minimal. You'll have the day-to-day employee trips for the 50 employees, but truck traffic is minimal with about one to two deliveries per weekday. Typical hours are 7 to 4 p.m. And this is going to be a quiet low-profile site. The work is conducted inside the building. There was sound-level testing conducted at that Fisher'sville site, which did not reveal any potential for significant amounts of sound emanating from the facility. Also, lighting is minimal. The facility is going to shut down at the end of the day. But any security lighting will be downward directed and dark sky compliant. And Nick went over the site a little bit, but I'll just go over briefly. Again, about a 72,000 square foot building, maximum heights is going to vary 32, 39 as well as lower parts as you go north on the building. Employee parking is going to be on the front. There are going to be accessory structures around the site. Dominion is committed to environmental sustainability, so there are going to be solar panels. Proposed that offset approximately 30% of the building's energy needs. Also since this site is not on public water, a water tank is proposed in the event of any type of emergency. Other accessory features are at the back of the site such as the loading dock, two small emergency generators, and then some other smaller storage shed structures. There also will be an above ground fuel storage for Dominion's vehicles. Entrances on the site, they're going to be two. They're existing off of Auburn Farm Road. You see those southern one here. It's going to be exit only right out. There is also an existing entrance that is utilized by the substations north of this site. And you can see the driveway connection point that we have at the back of the site. And last and probably most important, lamp's gaping is going to be substantial. There's going to be about 171 new trees planted throughout the site, 84 of which are going to be evergreen. There's no utility lines that are going to be impacting these buffer areas. So Dominion is able to plant trees with mature heights in the range of 20 and upwards to 80 feet. Also there's going to be about 81 shrubs for the lower plant profile and all of those 81 shrubs are going to be pollinators. And then also for this site, a significant amount of land area for this parcel will remain undeveloped open space in accordance with the comprehensive plan. And then there were some questions about building design. So inside the building, there's going to be office training rooms, break room storage, and of course, lab and assembly areas. This will be a lead-sover site design. We have the solar arrays. We also have actually electric vehicle charging spaces for employees. The color scheme is going to be white and gray with vertical insulated wall panels that will have a clean flat appearance with a more modern design. The inset that you see there is representative of what those vertical panels are going to look like. I do note that that in set shows that more gray and this building will be more white with gray accents. We did provide a few renderings. The upper left is the existing site. If you look down below to the left, that's the time of planting and construction. We did then prepare a rendering and the upper right that shows five year growth and below that 10 year growth. And then this is just representative of the variation of plant material we're proposing. And then last, because this is a public utility, we are here with the Commission Permit. We do believe we meet the location character and extent recommendations of the plan. Public utility service center is a by right use on this property. There's going to be an attractive design as well screened from adjacent properties. It's co-located on surplus dominion property and it is an important piece of infrastructure to serve the area in the minimum footprint that's necessary to meet the needs of the project. We are pleased to be with positive staff report and we'll be happy to answer any questions. Okay. Commissioner Miller. A couple educational questions. How many panels a year does it facilitate this produce? Obviously it's a constant. I'm not just building all new substations, we're also replacing existing panels out of time. That's true. Yeah. So there will be some replacements as the age out and as technology changes. Okay. But we could literally put out thousands. Okay. And this facility will, along with the Fisherville facility, be serving the entire state and beyond for any areas where the dominion also exists outside the state. Just related, related utilities but mostly all of all the state and Virginia. Yes. Okay. The 50 jobs are those while being newly created jobs, are people moving up from Fisherville to do that or? Newly creating. All new created jobs. Okay. And I see there's only one proposed loading dock. Is that enough? At a curiosity, because from 7 to 4, roughly an 8 hour shift, if ever became necessary, I would imagine this facility could go double shift. Increase production. We could in emergency situations where we just can't for, you know, if there was some catastrophic event. Okay. Where we needed to replace a bunch of them really fast. But the difference really between this shop and Fisher's fill is what we call the dice bay. So the dice bay is at small or the hanger like looking structure attached to the end of the building. Now the control houses will actually that go in the substations will actually be trucked into that bay and then once the assembly of the panels are complete then they will get installed into the control houses under roof. And then the whole control house will be put on a truck and ship to the substation. Okay, so you don't need a loading doctor load in 100 control panels to ship them out. You're just one at a time are going wherever you need to go in the state, in which case you have a giant garage where truck pulls in, loads it up and goes on its way. Yes. OK. You should increase inefficiency. Terrific. All right. Thank you. You're welcome. Any other questions for the applicant? OK. We will go ahead and open the public hearing. I do not have anyone signed up in advance to speak on this agenda item. Do we have anyone present in the room who would like to speak on this item? Seeing none, do we have anyone online for this item? We do not madam chair. All right, last call. OK, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing for this item. And we are in the little river district, correct? Yes, sir. So if you have a motion commissioner Jasper? microphone. Sorry. When I need it off, I have it on and when I need it on, I have it off. Sorry. I'm moved that the Planning Commission approved led you 2023-0088, Dominion Energy Loudon, Panel Wiring Shop, CMP commission, plan and commission, plan and commission, plan and commission, plan and commission, plan and commission, plan and commission, plan and commission, plan and commission, plan and commission, plan and commission, plan and commission, plan and commission, plan and commission, and forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for ratification. Second. All right, motion is made by Commissioner Jasper. Seconded by Commissioner Kierst. Do you have an opening? Seems like a good idea will execute on. All right, Commissioner Miller. Oh, you're ready to vote. Ready to vote? Ready to vote? Any other comments? No? All right, we have a, do you have a closing? No. No. No, all right. We have a do you have a closing? No, we have a motion on the table. All those in favor? All right. Opposed? Motion carries 8-0-1 with vice-chair combs absent. Thank you all. Don't you wish they were all this easy, right? I'm time to talk about Ashburn and Claiborne Parkway. Yeah. If you live in Broadlands or Brambleton, you've had some problems in the last two weeks, but that's not this crew to fix. We should probably say you're request to talk to Dominion earlier. No, no, no, when I knew. Oh, okay. No, no, no. I wondered if we have no transmission, substation, or... I know. I was being through here today. I know. I was being through here today. So do you want to talk about labor now? That's OK. I didn't want to assume there wasn't anybody back in that row that they could comment on it. So I was going to welcome you with the opportunity but did not expect you to have to do that on the spot. So thank you. Thank you for not running from the room when I did it. All right, last administrative, not administrative, sorry legislative item of the evening. Ledgy 2023-0077 Zebra East. Alison, welcome back. Thank you. Y'all have been sitting here for four and a half hours. So, we'll at least let you move chairs now. Wake your legs up. And I guess we have enough of us up here. We didn't lose quorum. We're ready when you are, Allison. Thank you. Again, for the record, my name is Allison. I'm with the Department of Planning and Zoning, and I'm here today to present the application for Ze east. The subject property is 26.58 acres located on the east side of Lawn County, Parkway, north of Shelhorn Road in the Sterling Election District. This property is zoned off as park and located in both the urban and suburban policy areas in the urban employment and suburban employment place types. This property is currently used as a temporary parking lot but there are active county applications proposed in two phases to construct a four-lane urban collector roadway across the property called Lock Ridge Road and connecting existing Lock Ridge Road and Shellhorn Road. The applicant is proposing to amend the concept development plan and proper statement associated with previous approval to allow development of data a data center and utility substation uses up to a floor area ratio of 1.0. There are two different development proposal configurations and in option one the applicant is additionally proposing to modify the proposed road corridor buffer along a portion of future lockrids drive. Road, pardon me. Here is the general layout of development option one with the minor special exception proposal highlighted here in purple. And here is the general layout of development option two. Here is a side by side, the key differences being the two options do not both include the minor special exception request. The location is different for the management, the storm water management mitigation and there is a proposed outdoor seating area and development option number two. The red building and parking envelope is the same in both configurations. There are a few remaining outstanding issues with this application related to land use and compatibility and transportation. The Loudoun County 2019 General Plan supports data center uses on this site. The development is proposed predominantly in the urban employment place type where data centers are considered a core use. However, it's unclear whether utility substations are proposed as part of the application. In general, the location character and extent of the utility substation may be considered along with every zoning or zoning concept plan amendment. So long as the location and scope are clearly identified for consideration and staff recommend additional details be provided and a local location clearly depicted on the concept development plan for consideration. Additionally, the 2019 General Plan provides policies in the urban employment place type related to information such as those listed here. Absent this type of information staff are not able to provide a full analysis for conformance with the 2019 General Plan and staff recommend additional details be provided for analysis. The general planning anticipates urban policy developments to include 10% open space, inclusive of areas to be used by customers or employees. This application includes about 16% open space in the form of tree conservation area, north of future locker-droid, and development option 2 indicates a potential seating area with a commitment to provide two picnic tables and four benches. Staff recommend the size of the seating area be provided and that both development options include areas to be used by customers and employees consistent with the general plan. Two points of access are necessary to serve this site at all times. The application proposes temporary direct access from the Loudon County Parkway and several possible interconnection parcels are interconnection access. However, the proposal does not depict permanent site access for evaluation or identify the phasing of the inter parcel connections and staff recommend the application include information about access phasing and clearly demonstrate the permanent access for staff evaluation for safety and compliance with the general plan and countywide transportation plan. As mentioned earlier, the county's processing plans to construct future lock-raid road. The applicant has provided a commitment to reserve the necessary right-of-way area for a period of 20 years with dedication upon county request. And staff recommend the application provide a dedication rather than reservation without a time limitation. The application includes a commitment to provide a shared use path but does not include a commitment to acquire the necessary right-of-way or public access easement within which to put the shared juice path consistent with the general plan and staff recommend the application include a commitment to acquire one of these at no cost to the county. As previously mentioned, staff are not able to provide an analysis of key elements of the 2019 general plan absent additional details regarding specifically pedestrian connectivity, the application includes a commitment to provide pedestrian connections between external roadways, internal site connections, building entrances, parking areas, and other amenities, but does not demonstrate or depict the location or quantity of these elements or the connectivity of those elements for staff to sufficiently analyze for conformance. At the Planning Commission, Works Session on July 11, the commission asked about the minimum necessary information we provided, or it's typically seen, while this tends to vary depending on the place type and the considerations of the 2019 general plan, staff would anticipate for this application at least the following elements be provided. This is the same list as earlier. The commission additionally asked about the subject application its relationship with the Delasbury parcel to the south. The applicant has provided three illustriatives for informational purposes only, not to be considered for staff evaluation, demonstrating an overall intended layout. As mentioned, these are illustrirative, not committed as part of this application, and I'll let the applicant speak to a long-term planning of the site. But here is illustrative one, two, with development configuration option one, and three, with development configuration option two. So to summarize, the general plan supports a 100% data signer uses as a core use in this place type. But staff recommend the application be forwarded to a future work session to address the revisions related to the issues discussed. With staff happy to answer any questions. I also have DTCI available online as well. All right. Thank you, Alison. Commissioner Madden ready. Thank you, Madam Chair. Alison, like the other application from Infra of us today earlier, is there any kind of a memo that you guys received recently addressing any of these outstanding issues you presented just now? I have not received a memo but I have been in communication with the applicant to discuss options and we do also have future meetings set up to continue the discussions. Do you believe, maybe there is still a presentation, but do you believe any of the outstanding issues you just addressed being kind of like this right now? For you, you think you're identified? Many of these types of issues are administrative issues, but absent any documents to review, I can't say if they would address all the policy concerns. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Kieres. You mentioned about X acquiring right of way for the shared use path. Where would that be? My understanding is we're expecting to put the pathway across their frontage, which is their property, right? So what would they need to access? Where would they need to acquire? I'm not totally sure what might need to be required, but just to carry out the provision of the shared use path a long, loud and county parkway. It would need one of those two, need to be in one of those two elements to meet the planned policies. So just committing that that's, it's here, it's in black here, on along the west side, right, along loud and county parkway. So have they committed to doing it? To providing the path. Yes, it's just to ensure that it's not a cost of the county to put it in the road. Okay, so it's a verbiage thing, not that they're not at the request. Right. Also, and maybe it's because of the zoning for this area. You're looking for a lot more minute details than we just did with Greenland Park as far as, you're consistent with, you know, building set, but where the parking spaces are going to be, where the benches and all that, that wasn't part of the request for Greenland. Is that because of it's a different zoning district that this now required? And I'm just wondering why this is being asked for all that in advance and the other wasn't. Part of it is because this property is predominantly located in the urban policy area for which there are a certain set of design guidelines that the general plan would anticipate. And part of that is because the urban area anticipates a more dense location. But the Greenland Park application believes in the transition policy area for which the design guidelines are a little bit different. Okay. Correct. And then asking for a Greenland for that, the building layouts was implied that you would incorporate the other elements that were asking for a year. It just wasn't as specific. So is the concern? If you're looking for, I've seen other data center applications. They say we don't know if we're going to build one, two, or three buildings, but we'll commit to three picnic benches, seating areas. That'll be part of the application when it gets to, they actually put submitting the plan. Is that not sufficient? One other element for consideration that's different from the Greenland Park for this application too is that this application includes a special exception request to increase the floor area ratio and to support that special exception request generally part of the analysis would include those elements too to see what it's expanding to or from and what the impact might be. That's just one other fact that differentiates it from Greenland Park. OK. I think you said DTCI was on it. So I was curious about the status of whatever it's called, Lockwood Rockridge or Prennace. I guess they did the road that they changed in the name. Which is it going to be Lockridge or Prennace? Is it going to be Lockridge? Lockridge. OK. Which is it going to be lockridge or prens? Is it going to be lockridge? Lockridge. And yes, ETC has been. And I'm just curious what the status of it is. Is it being funded? Is it being built? Or is it still just something for out in the future? There are two active county applications. On this CDP graphic, you can see right here. There's this small line. This actually indicates two different phases of the development. So there's two different projects concurrently processing, but at this time it's anticipated for completion in 2031. There are design, designs in review currently. Okay, is it funded? I'll let DTC I answer that one. And the second part of my question is, I know when these roads were planned, it was back when this was supposed to be millions of square feet of office. And we're going to need multiple roads, east, west, shellhorn was supposed to be millions of square feet of office. And we're going to need multiple roads, east, west. Shell Horn was going to cross the Broadrun, or a good Broadrun. And this was going to be another way to cross it, and that was going to handle all the volume that was going to be created. Now that this is almost all data center, other than the border protection facility there. As the county looked at it's really a need to have this road at all. I'm curious if that's been looked at whether it's relevant anymore. I see transportation it looks like they are online but we're not able to hear them. Bradley commissioner Kieres. Yes, we can hear you. Okay, Bradley Polk with the DTC I hear. Both of those segments are in the CIP, the portion which is west of Loudon County Parkway is anticipated to be completed in 2028 and the portion on the east side of Loudon County Parkway is anticipated to be completed in 2031. And that includes the the bridge crossing? Yes. Okay. And a signal on the intersection at the County Parkway. Yeah. Okay. So I got for now. Thanks. Okay. Any other questions for staff at this time? No? All right. We'll go ahead and Aaron will take the applicant presentation. Yeah, turn on my mic. I'm going to wait until she gets it. Feel free to introduce everybody in the next. Yeah. So I think most of you know me. I'm Erin Suessam. I'm an attorney with W in the next slide. Yeah, so I think most of you know me. I'm Erin Swassam. I'm an attorney with Walsh Kaluci. To my left is Pete Homes. He's a Senior Vice President for Development with Cloud HQ, who's the applicant in this application. And I believe you also probably know the man to my right. This is Bill Junda with Gordon Engineering. They are the Civil Engineer for this project. So again, really want to thank you guys for the opportunity to present before you this evening. I realize that it is late and has been a long evening. So I'm going to try to be brief, but I want to address some of the things that Allison brought up and some of the questions that you guys have asked already. So I'm just very quickly. Alison did a really good job of explaining where the property is and what its place types are. The only thing I wanted to point out here is compatibility with surrounding uses. Zebra East is shown in yellow here and is completely surrounded by properties that have been either developed data centers or are planned for data centers or owned by data center companies. So I want to talk a little bit about the development proposal. So we're proposing a zoning concept plan amendment to amend the current entitlements to allow for data center development. With our updated submission, we are planning to move utility substations as a use on the property. We are requesting a special exception to permit a 1.0 FAR. After the dedication of future lock-bridge road, I'm gonna try to get that right all evening. It's been prentice up until now. That's about a 270,000-foot increase. We also plan to remove the buffering request. We've done some additional engineering and now know that that is not required for the development of the site. We are committing to 30% open space for the property and to make that clearer, we are planning in the updated materials to show a reduced building and parking envelope. That's that red dotted line along the outside of the property. We're going to shrink that down to the white areas that are proposed for the actual buildings themselves. As Allison pointed out, we are doing a pretty large tree conservation area to the north of future lock Ridge Road outside of the right of way that's needed for that roadway, committing to on-site phosphorus reduction without the use of credits, alternative turf plantings instead of grasses, and then there are some existing distribution lines on the property that we're relocating and burying as part of the development of the adjacent site. I just wanted to provide a little bit of detail about how we got here. So previously with our second submission, we submitted this image as part of our CDP that did provide building footprints and circulation routes throughout the property. When staff reviewed this image, zoning administration expressed some concern with the buildings traversing the current lot line and we explained that we plan to do a BLA, a lot consolidation to combine the two parcels after the zoning application and the recommendation to avoid zoning compliance issues was to not show the building footprints, which is how we ended up back at the plan that you saw today. Allison noted that we have included illustrative sheets as well to show how the two properties are going to interact with each other and to provide some additional detail. We have since that submission continued to be in conversation with Allison and with staff and we have a plan going forward for how we're going to address some of the staff requests for additional information. We hear it and we are responding to it. So one of the things that we are planning to do is an updated set of CDP sheets shown here. We've removed the building footprints to address the zoning administration comment for the existing lot line but our showing circulation. We're also going to shrink the building and parking envelope for the property. So to assure staff that the profit open space that we have included will be included outside of that building and parking envelope and will be available for use for either members of the public or employees of the proposed data center. We have profit to provide connections to the existing pathways and connecting all of our parking and building areas. We are happy to show the connections to the existing trails and the planned connections. It gets a little dicey trying to show the pedestrian connections to buildings that we can't show, but we are intending to include additional information about parking. We are also proposing additional sheets for the phased access to clarify that phased access that's discussed in the TIA in our CDP and our Prophs and are including the dedication and reservation of future Lockbridge Road that's about a 16 to 20 million dollar value to the county We're happy to discuss the timing of that improvement or that dedication. Part of the concern with providing dedication at first site plan is that the plans for this roadway have been delayed already as part of the county's CIP process. And while we are very happy to dedicate that right of way as this same applicant did in Dallas-Berry for those areas shown in purple and orange, we wanna make sure that we know what we need to dedicate and that we don't get held up at site plan if the county's plans are delayed. This is one of the billing elevations that we have included. They are attached to the proper statement and are showing the character and the elevations that we plan to build on the property. In addition to this, we have also included a pretty specific design that proffers to comply with the data center standards that are included in the 2023 Aladdin County Zoning ordinance that was adopted in December. And some of those are here on the next slide. One of the other things that was really important for us to point out is that this design is an evolution and an improvement on the design that was approved with Dallas Berry. So because the buildings are intended to be on both Dallas Berry and Zebra East parcels, we it to make the design better and to comply with the newly adopted data center standards. I wanted to talk a little bit about the commitment to environmental stewardship. This is in the proper statement. One of the things that I think is really cool and you don't see all that often is a commitment to alternative turf plantings in lieu of grasses. This is something that Cloud HQ is including as part of their regular site development. And in fact, this picture was taken by Pete Home to my left at an existing Latin County campus. We are undergrounding and relocating the existing distribution lines to remove any interference with the air habitat of surrounding areas. We are committing to doing 100% of the phosphorus production that's required for the site on site and will not be purchasing any off site credits. We're committing to about 3.3 acres of tree conservation, increased canopy coverage, and providing additional native and pollinator plantings and buffers and the long stormwater pond banks to support habitat activation in our local pollinators. We're also providing electric vehicle charging stations, and that's in addition to the regular building design efficiencies at Cloud HQ includes on all of its campuses and our plan to connect to the reclaimed water line that's available in this area from water and water. So just to sum, our proposed submission updates would remove the utility substation as a permitted use. Update the CDP to show additional circulation detail and access phasing as well as information that can help staff evaluate the building orientation on the project. We're gonna do that by altering the building and parking envelope and we'll also amend the proper statement to clarify all of those things that we are showing on the CDP and that are already included in the proper statement. We have also committed with our updated submission to provide a cash and lieu for the sidewalk along future Lock Ridge Road, which was formerly Prennest Drive, its plan is as part of the county's scope of work. And then we will also provide additional detail regarding the open space amenities on the property. So again, we really want to thank you for the opportunity to present before you this evening. Zebra Eust is a prime example of a developer choosing their sites intentionally and looking at what not only the zoning is for a site but what's planned in the area and what exists on the ground in that area. So one of the things that we really pride ourselves on is picking project sites that are compatible with the type of development that we are proposing on the site and are planning to submit updated materials to address the outstanding issues that staff has identified as we've talked about. We are available to answer any questions you might have. I'll provide additional detail and thank you again very much for your time. Thank you, Erin. Commissioner Kieres. So the data centers, whichever layout, what will be the amount of electricity that they'll require? Do you have any sense? I'm- The amount of square footage you're requesting. So the total proposed square footage, if we were to build up to a 1.0 FAR is right around 960,000 square feet for the property. I don't have the calculation offhand on exactly how that converts to the current, like the wattage that we would be required. What I'm just curious about is, so there's no substation on the site. What is the requirement that this data center will have? What other substations are built or proposed that would then be able to provide power to this site. So what I'm trying to get at is if this needs one gigawatt and a typical data center can produce 20 gigawatts, this is a minor, but if it's like this needs 20 gigawatts and the typical substation produces 21 gigawatts, this site kind of needs its own data. That's what I'm trying to get. Sure. So I've gone back to one of our graphics here. And if I can get the laser pointer portion of this to work, there we go. You can see here that there are two planned substations on the Delasbury parcel and Those are planned to serve these buildings as well as the existing building That's a curlander construction on Delasbury. So is that Guaranteed commitment or if other data centers get built before you is they're gonna hook up to those substations and take the power I don't know how that kind of stuff works, but I think first come first served when it comes to power. That's a good question. Absolutely. So we time it as such where we work with Dominion We give them the easement when we know the commitment from our side is needed then we quickly work with Dominion so that the timing is Situated where it serves the buildings that we're building. If that makes sense. Well, what you're saying makes sense, but let's say you're working with Dominion, you say, okay, we're building and we're gonna build a substation, but some other day, I don't know all the data centers that have been approved and what are coming online, but if another one gets built somewhere in this general proximity sooner and they go to dominion say we're ready for power They go. I got a substation over here now what you thought was gonna be there for you is now gone Correct so the the land that would be for the substation is owned by cloud HQ So we would not give them an easement until the time That the substation or that the building is prepared. That's why I like to centers to have their own substations. I guess that you can do that. Yeah, and that was part of the design of the overall campus. So you can see here kind of the interaction between the two. We're just north of Delasbury and those substations were designed with the campus as a whole in mind I'm trying to understand again why you have two different Design is that just give you flexibility of which way you may want to go with the configuration Sure. Yeah, so that's to provide some flexibility for The designs that individual tenants might require for the leasing of that space from Cloud H2. Okay, so it's not because the, I didn't know if it was because the boundary line thing was there you were going to propose one, then when you can get the boundary line adjustment done actually. No. It's just to have flexibility. Correct. Yeah, both of the design proposals include building the buildings on both Zebra East and the Delasbury parcel. Okay. building the buildings on both Zebra East and the Delasbury parcel. Okay. So this, obviously I can look at this. Counting on state of center, this is where they belong. So I don't think there's too much issue with that. But I really think this will need to go to work session because there's a lot to clear out. What I like to see is if you have two different proposals for configurations, then provide the same set of answers to staff that if you have two different proposals or configurations, then provide the same set of answers to staff. If we build it this way, here's where these elements are going to go. If we build it this way, here's where these elements are going to go. There's no question whichever way you build it, then that's kind of all resolved. Sure. And we're very happy to do that. Part of the reason that we have ended up here is because we tried to provide that level of detail and then we ran into a zoning compliance issue but we've since continued our conversations with staff and I think we have a good path forward on how to address that. Okay, thanks. Mr. Banks. The discussion is about electrical power. Prompted, I thought my mind is the infrastructure there in this site sufficient to support your water needs? Or is there going to be, after the additional work in order to accomplish that? Yeah, so we will be served by loud and water. No issues there. We're also planning to hook into loud and water's reclaimed water line or the purple line for the cooling of the building overall. So, yes, we will be using Latin water water, sorry, water water. But in addition to that regular service, we'll be accessing the purple line for that reclaimed water. Commissioner Maderetti. Thank you, Madam Chair. will be accessing the purple line for that reclaimed water. Mr. Maderetti. Thank you Madam Chair. In terms of, I know you guys are asking for increase of FAR from 0.621. At building at FAR of 1, How does this height of this building compared to the digital reality of the Cloud IQ buildings you guys have right now? So we're not requesting any type of modification for height. So we're allowed to go up to a hundred feet if we set back further from the public roadways. And since we are talking about the dedication of Ride of Way, part in the first. Yeah. So, yeah, so part of the reason that we're requesting the special exception is because the Ride of way that we are proposing to dedicate to the county for Lockbridge Road is about 4.4 acres. So without that dedication we would not need a special exception for this site. It's really to recover some of that density that is taken away because of that dedication. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Myers. I just wanted to ask what my understanding is also, I think you've verified this when we were talking. Part of the thing that's driven you to try to get this done now is because of the movement of this road plus its name of this road. To really to kind of commit to get your building, I guess, saved, shall I say, or whatever, so that as it's moving, it gets more set in stone as work and go. So, I guess to me, I get it why the increase because that entire 4.4 acres at one point in time wasn't really involved completely on the site until the road got moved. Now that the road's got moved, you're simply trying to capture or re or still have the same FAR or density you would have had, had the road not moved completely onto your property. Is that a fair statement? Sorry. So, I think that that is mostly accurate. There is a slight square footage difference in what the approved site plan is for this site and what we're requesting, but our current proposal would not require a special exception if it were not for that dedication. So this graphic right here was prepared by Gordon and this shows the existing, or the approved site plan for this property showing the proposed data center there. And when this plan was approved, the alignment of future lockridge road was different and was mostly off of the property. We understand the plans change and are happy to dedicate that right of way to the county. But that's part of the reason that we're here as well today. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Perhaps I'm oversimplifying something, but why not do the boundary line adjustment now or sooner in this process. So it seems like that's actually causing some of this work around that's now problematic and zoning issues and all that. Sure. So really, candidly, the reason is because if we do that, we lose our grandfathered status and have to go back and rework our whole plan. So we're profaring to the data center standards, but just the time involved in going back and re-analysing the plan set and updating all of the references and all of the documents is a pretty huge endeavor. Okay, and it's a bigger endeavor than the headache that it sounds like the back and forth on the zoning feedback is causing. I guess that's your decision to make. I don't know which is better. I'm just I'm curious. Do we have this is probably part staff, part applicant question. Actually both of my next questions probably are. If lock ridges in built or just slides farther to the left as far as timing, because it sounds like there's, as we've said, things have changed in that neck of the woods. And perhaps maybe somebody's going to find it's not as important as it once was to do. Are we confident that second access point on Loudoun County Parkway is gonna be adequate? Is that been, it sounds like that we're not yet. Like if that became the permanent second entrance point, because the one is on the Delosbury parcel and that's technically not part of this application because we don't have that boundary line adjustment, but then the other one sounds like we're do we thoroughly vetted that what it's what I what would how would we feel if those two were the permanent access points to this property I guess is what I'm asking if Lockbridge didn't happen I'll let DTC I answer that okay make it worth their while for staying online I'm not sure if you're going to be able to do that. Make it worth their while for staying online. One of the complicating factors. With that is the Delusbury has. Limitations on her F.A.R. Based on. Getting that second entrance on future lockrids road, they're limited to they are until they get a connection to that route. And this was only looked at as an interim condition in the traffic study. Okay, so it really shouldn't ever be the permanent option. Is that March on? No, just part of it is traffic from Delosbury can now move through this site to Lock Ridge and vice versa. So that sort of creates the complicating factor. Yeah. Where does traffic from both sides go? If I could add some context. Oh, go ahead. So when the Delosbury application was processed, Zebra East was not part of the plan. Right. And could not rely on the access number one that's shown on the Scrafic. So at the time, it was approved. It only had one permanent access on the on-line County Parkway. And so that's why there is an FAR restriction. You can't go above 0.6 until a second entrance on that can a parkway is constructed. And it was assumed to be Princess Drive or Lockridge. Now that Zebra East is part of the equation, there are two permanent access points at any given time, whether it's this phase with entrance is 1 and 2, one on Zebra East, one on Dollsbury, or on the next phase, which has a portion of Princess opening where there's a connection for entrance number four and then the ultimate condition is when all of printus or lock ridges built and we have at least two access points one on lock any parkway one on lock ridges road. So until lock ridges open your density on Dallas Berry is it limited to 0.6? Until phase one of Lock Ridge's built, which is not this one. Which is the pink part? The pink one, yes. Because it's envisioned that there will be some thing through that well, there's storm water pond and one of the drawings. So there's going to be some kind of connection point on print. Oh, yes. Whatever that road is, we're calling it in a grid. Yes, yes. So it's hard to see on this, on the big screen. Oh, I see that. But hail pink thing. Correct. So that's gonna be a two lane private access. Okay. Okay, use me. All right. Road. road. So that's the 2028 or 29 scenario and then the 31 is the full thing and again this can all get pushed so I guess what I'm trying to find out is what guarantee do we have and I know you're not in control of that process but we need to check imbalance I think for making sure that those two loud and county things don't become it or is it just the motivation of you guys can't probably get to 0.6 and the other thing that's not going to be a lot of things don't become it or is it just the motivation of you guys can't probably get to point six above point six without it. I mean you've got motivation. I'm just you're not in charge of building that road. So right. And I think two things I'll offer. One yes. So part of the the conversation around dedication of future lockridge road, like we want to do that. That benefits the county and it benefits us. Right. So I'm very confident we can work that issue out. That's really more making sure that we can get our site plan approved even if their final design is not there. So I don't think we have any no meeting of the minds there. Second, I mean we the traffic study in and Polkett is here if we've got some additional technical questions does analyze all of these scenarios for full build out of Zebra East. Okay. Allison or Marshant, whoever wants to go. Madam Chair, one point of clarification is that that entrance to shown here, the limitation to .6 FAR is essentially unlocked and it does when construction of the Princess Lockridge drive is completed. So it is tied to that specific road. Right. To clarify. Okay. All right. I mean, yeah, like I said, I don't doubt that they're going to give the dedication. It sounds like they have incentive to do so. It's just, you know, like we've all said, is there is somebody going to sit down and do a thorough scrub of a bunch of things and go, wow, we're not putting 5,000 employees up and down this street every day. We're putting 200 because it's data centers. Not, you know, do we still need this road? Is this a good use of county resources, which they don't control? So we're that to happen. I just want to make sure we're not left with some really not great situation as far as access points, March. So some background to this. Tell us Barry is a different zoning district. Right. So, one suggestion was just bring it all in as one, start from scratch, and change these out, but grandfathering also creates a problem. So that's some of the explanations of complicated factors. You have buildings that are crossing two zoning districts. Right. They have their own standards, and that's what's created the complexity for them. Yeah. Yeah. No, it's it's it's a lot of little details because of all the reasons you just said and I think we can get there. I just think it's trying to figure out like how to get there from both sides. So on that on that sort of theme of you know this is a little different particularly than what we looked at earlier tonight. You know, we do have the lack of design details and stuff. It sounds like here, but we're not committed to illustrious. So it's an either or, is that what you're looking for? Like either, you know, preferred illustrious kind of things or a lot more verbal detail and designs and things like that. Probably somewhere a blend of those kinds of things or a lot more verbal detail and designs and things like that. Probably somewhere a blend of those kinds of things. Okay, so that's what you're looking for. All right. I know. Sorry. Just to be clear, that's also what we intend to submit. So I think it's less about the building design itself and more about the building orientation and some of the things that removing the building footprints have made it harder for us to show. So it's not lack of desire to show it, it's just working it out with staff on how best to show it. Nobody would let me give you guys a hall pass on the grandfathering thing and I'm sure the legal folks are probably about to scream at me even saying that. But boy, would that make this easier? Because then we could just push into the new stuff and we could all do this without trying to straddle 16 different things for ways. So anyway, all right, Commissioner Kieres. I mean, it's got me curious about this now. Dallas-Berry is limited until they get an entrance on Prennace or Lockridge, correct? Is that the same case with Ebre East? Are you also limited there until lock with the haven't a lock regentrance or is it just dullest berry? So not currently and part of the reason the reason for that is the contact that Bill provided earlier, which is at the time that dullest berry was decided on by the board back in 2022. That entrance one that we are showing was not guaranteed because there was no development proposed for that portion, for the Zebra East parcel. So the conditions have changed since the Delusbury approval. And we're not trying to reopen the Delusrier approval to now come back and ask for something different. Just acknowledging that the lay of the land has changed on the ground here. Okay, so the saying of Delas Barrier is limited to 0.6 until they have an entrance off apprentice. Zebra East will not have that limitation. I was currently proposed. Yes, okay Allison interesting No, we got it. Okay. We got what I was gonna get at is you know at some point It may be the safety know what county if you're not gonna get around to build the road We'll just build it to our entrance so we can get our extra point for Private road is yeah, well and and that's point for it. Well, private road is, yeah, well, and ultimately- And your backup plan? Well, yeah, so there's, I mean, if access really becomes an issue, yeah, we would just build the access that we needed for the campus. That's obviously not our preferred solution because it doesn't support the county's CTP goals and it's currently funded projects. So I mean we're happy to you know continue to cooperate and to provide the right of way and to do everything we can to help support the county and those goals. I just want to follow up on that because it's not that you can just go out and Now build a private driveway. I mean you literally would have to be Building to the specs of what the county says but you'd only be building it to the Amount of the front you need correct? We would probably have to investigate the Delosbury Proffer more specifically. Right. I mean, yeah. The minimum that could be built to satisfy that proffer and unlock the rest of the FAR. Right. So I'm like, it's not somewhere in between. Right. That's why I'm like, it's not going to be just, oh, yeah. I've way going to somebody's house. I mean, that's kind of, I news, you know, all. Oh, Ruby and DataSignals by Drone now. No, no. It would be a roadway built to the- Meet the proper commitments. Correct, that would, you know, comply with those proper commitments. There are design standards that are in the FSM that we would be required to meet as well. So it would not be just something that we would go out and build with no- I just want to clarification. Yeah. No, that's that's a good clarification. So no gravel driveway. Okay. Good. Any other questions for staff or staff or applicant at this time. All right. We will go ahead and open the public hearing. I have one person signed up. Tia still with us. Tia Irman, come on up. The lovely welcome back. Conviction. Yeah, right. You're the next contestant. Yeah, I think since it all go back to Scotland. Good evening commissioners. For the record again, my name is Tia Irman. I'm a senior land use field representative for the PEC. I have a master's in urban planning and community development from Virginia Tech. The Zebra East application coming before you tonight is a bit of a head scratcher for us. Or rather the fact that it's coming to the planning commission at this time while lacking so much of the basic and vital information necessary for the county to know. What it is even potentially approving or denying. We believe it is fair to require the same information from data center applications as we expect from residential. More broadly, this is yet another application for a non-by-right data center to continue our head-long run off of an energy cliff. As everyone should by now be aware, Aladdin County does not have the required energy for the data centers which have already been approved. As Commissioner Jasper said earlier this evening, we simply do not have adequate infrastructure for this. High voltage transmission lines, Chris Crossing, residential communities, is a planning issue. Thousands of diesel generators, most gen 2 spilling particulates into our communities, is a planning issue. Over 4,000 semi-truck-sized ones in loud and already today. Continuing to add more data centers to our county, converting properties which are not zoned for data centers today to allow still more these energy giants to be constructed and improving them at higher FAR than mandated, simply plans for failure. If further is the narrowing of our economy, already far more dependent on a single rapidly evolving technology industry, then is physically sound by any estimation. Thanks to rapidly improving technologies and AI, the additional space also exponentially increases the already unprecedented energy demands, which will have to be moved into this county via still more transmission lines, which all Virginia residents are on the hook to finance. We are happy to hear the Commission asking applicants for expected energy usage and water usage, as these things are important to land use planning for the future and the adequacy of utility services and water and sewer as well as transportation are expected review considerations. Ultimately, we cannot support this application and request you forward it to the board with the recommendation of denial. Thank you. Thank you. That is the only person I have signed up at the moment. Is there anyone else here who'd like to speak on this agenda item? Seeing none, do we have anyone joining us online? We do not, Madam Chair. All right. Given the emptiness of the room, I think we can go ahead and close the public hearing. We are in the sterling district again. Commissioner Kierst, do you have a motion? I do. I move that the Planning Commission forward, ledgy 2023-77 Zebra East, ZCPA 2023-5, Special Exception 2023-19, Minor Special Exception 2023-14, to the September 12th Planning Commission Work Session for further discussion. Motion is made by Commissioner Kier, seconded by Commissioner Banks, do you have an opening? I do. So as I mentioned, this is where data centers belong in the county. So to me, that's not an issue in and of itself. As we've been instructed by the county attorney, we are not to consider where the electricity is going to come from or how it gets there. But I do think it's pertinent to know about substations, their capacity, and how much a site is going to use. And so which is why I ask that question because I find substations far more objectionable than the data center buildings themselves, so I'm kind of cautious about location of them. Some of the things I'd like to discuss at work session are again, as I mentioned, I prefer to have illustrations for the frontage, for the options, the two different options. We got two primary road sites that these buildings are gonna front. You got Loudoun County Parkway as well as Lockridge. So I'm concerned that those two elevations have again a more upgraded type of look than the back sides. If you are backing up directly to Dallas-Berry, I'd like to see probably the generators back up to that site so they're pretty much hidden as much as possible. Also, all the minor details about the buildings, parking, the things that were mentioned by staff have both options for both sets of how you would like to orient, possibly orient the buildings. So those are my concerns. I'd like to see in work session. Commissioner Jasper. Not in mistakes this time. Okay. So I believe I agree in large measure with what Commissioner Gears is saying about the location of the project. I also find the nature of the information provided about the project to be more in keeping with what I expect from multi-hundred or in excess of 1 million square foot building for the county. So I commend you on that. I commend you on the environmental commitments you've made. I am curious as is Commissioner Kierce about overall energy use. I know I think the instruction from the county attorney is that we can't ask whether Dominion can provide, Dominion energy can provide the power because Dominion energy is required by law to provide power as needed, as part of their charter in the state. But I do believe there's some possibility we are permitted to consider the overall impact on the grid in the county and impact on other county citizens and energy users but surely we can ask about what your projected energy uses. I expect it will be a range since your co-location facility and you don't know what kind of users will be in there for sure. What your water use projected water uses, and I know you're planning or considering a couple of different approaches to building and rat cooling. So I expect that will be a range as well. And I'm also curious your strategy for powering generators for the center. So if you can offer any kind of information about that, that would be interesting to hear at the work session. Thank you. Commissioner Meyers. Yeah, I mean, I'm supportive of going to the work session to clear up on ice sending issues that plenty of commissioners have. I do want to point out for the record again as I'm already happy because we did hear from a speaker in the public. I mean, this is not a place in the county where data centers are not looked to be. This is absolutely a place in the county where the long range plan has shown this is where data centers have gone. So I think that needs to be stated again for the record. I also know that it's a core use in this area. So again, it's not like we're looking to put something where it doesn't belong. I think that the way you've looked at the increased open space in the tree conservation area and you've gone to the higher limits of that is to the lower with the splitting of the two districts. I think that's commendable. I'm not I guess what we need to look at is depending on whether it's option one or option two where these magical picnic tables are going to go that I'm not sure who's ever going to use them. But people want to see them there, so we obviously need to find a bubble for picnic tables. I think that you've addressed the issue with the cash and the lieu for the sidewalk. And I also kind of appreciate the amount of that you've already looked at, the chiller option and the things you've met, the DEQ requirements and those type of things that are usually looked upon, not sometimes not all the way until site play but to address them early. So and I do want to say I appreciate the longevity that this particular applicant has had in Lawn County and is always strive to make sure to be a positive citizen. I'm just going to say citizen of the county and look forward to continuing to work with you all. Okay. All right. look forward to continuing to work with you all. Okay. All right. I will support the motion for many of the reasons that already have been mentioned. But I will say I find that Alice and you in particular are pretty detailed in your report and some stuff. So hopefully that will help guide as you get ready for your resubmission because it sounds like you've already got some ideas and some things underway. But I know you've been working with Allison. I hope you will continue to do that because I think she gives pretty good feedback on things. Do you have a closing? Mm-hmm. No, I don sorry. No, I don't. Okay, thank you. Appreciate that. We have motion on the table. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The motion carries 8-0-1. Thank you very much. That's the end of our legislative agenda for the evening. I know Jackie doesn't have any administrative items but one thing I will just put a B in everybody's bonnet and share some information with you all. The September work session includes an information item that staff will be presenting to us on the data center C-PAM which we will be then taking up for consideration at our work, our public hearing later in September because that is obviously a big initiative and effort. A lot of time put into it, we're going to go ahead and get a pre-breathing on that which is unusual but I think it will be helpful for all of us. When you see that item on that agenda that's why it may seem a little out of order coming to a work session before public hearing. We're not taking action, we're just learning, and asking questions. So with that, I wanted to ask, we talked about also, and sometimes in September, we were gonna have a work session or whatever, to kinda go over people to spell out like policy procedures, type of things we'd like to see happening. We talked about that was gonna happen in September, is that still, or are we looking at a work session for that? Because I think I'd also like, I think we should all think about it and try to get some stuff in ahead of time. No, I think that was something that Eric and I had mentioned we were gonna reach out to folks and continue those conversations. Right now there's nothing on the schedule. Oh, because we have a September, we're gonna do a work session on it. We have a staffing and workload issue in September and October that's pretty intense as well as a consultant who's currently making the rounds assessing the entire process in situation. And I suspect there may be some feedback. One of my action items is to find out the timing of that report because I think that may also be something we want to take into consideration. Eric and I have been interviewed as part of that process. So there's not a date set for it. I'm not sure if that's the case. I'm not sure if that's the case. I'm not sure if that's the case. I'm not sure if that's the case. I'm not sure if that's the case. I'm not sure if that's the case. I'm not sure if that's the case. I'm not sure if that's the case. I'm not sure if that's the case. I'm not sure if that's the case. that can simplify some of our work and also that whole interaction that is in the Virginia State Code about talking to the Board of Supervisors and making recommendations, et cetera. So that's something we haven't gotten to. I certainly love to somehow find a way even if it's a special session or something, and make it a priority. Okay. What I would encourage, like I said, what we thought the next step would be was to gather some specifics on what those were. So we can kind of get a list and figure out what exactly it is, what exactly people want to talk about because I think there was a lot of general statements but before we put something on an agenda I think we need because none of us will be prepared staff won't be prepared if we don't really have an agenda light out beforehand. So that was what we took on as the next step and that was communicated in an email a few weeks back that we're talking to people. I've only had one of those conversations thanks to vacation plans but like I said we've got pulled into some other things here at the department. We haven't stopped it. It's just not like everything else. It's a resource issue at this point. So no, we don't have a special meeting set up for that. We were looking at whether we had to do a special meeting for the data center, CFAM, which has a work plan adopted by the Board and a time commitment on it that we're trying to adhere to while still doing our work and being thorough so that's sort of where the priority went in September candidly. And now we have, if you look at September and October's work session, some full agendas after the last six weeks worth of our work. So I'll talk to Eric again when he's back. He is not in town obviously this week. And we will set aside time to talk to each of you guys and move that along, but it's just become a resource issue. All right, there you go. Thank you. I'm letting it.