Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

You go. I'm going to open this uh joint board of supervisors meeting with the planning commission on January 15, 2026. Call this meeting to order. Um and I want to make a change of the agenda. I'm want to ask um Mr. Early if you'll lead us in the pledge, please.

Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. And Mr. Brent, would you mind to lead invocation, please? Heavenly Father God, we thank you for allowing us to be here tonight. We just ask that you guide us and uh help us to make the right decisions for the county. Jesus name. Amen. Amen. Hey, Miss Leot, I'll let you call the planning commission to order, please. Okay. I'm now calling the Carol County Planning Commission to order for the joint meeting with the board of supervisors.

Thank you, Miss Leot. And I will open the joint public hearing for proposed changes to the subdivision ordinance establishing Virginia Code 15.2-2232 2-2232 at 602. Is anyone would like to speak on the joint public hearing for the changes to subdivision? If not, I'll turn it over to Mr. Durban. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um there are two um two matters uh as you can see on the agenda for joint public hearing. The first is the um required revisions to the Carol County subdivision ordinance. Um now I think that the um the board is aware that there have been certain um actions taken by the general assembly at their last um uh legislative session that changes the way um localities have to process um subdivisions. It has changed the uh except for localities that have a population of 5,000 or less, the planning commission is no longer able to be the entity that reviews uh and approves subdivision plats. Uh, additionally, the time frames for reviewing and adopting um or for reviewing and approving proposed subdivisions have changed to give the locality less time in which to act. Um, these appear to be the result of some lobbying by home builders and other developers to try to speed up the approval process for

subdivisions and developments in general. So, um I I think that's the purpose behind the general assembly's action. But what it means for us is that we do have to amend the subdivision ordinance to accommodate those uh two changes. In addition to um those changes, although not reviewed by or not required by the code, in reviewing the matter with Mr. Newman and uh um evaluating our our overall process, it was determined that Mr. Newman is spending a significant amount of time on plat review and the fees that the county charges dating back more than a decade are just out of date. They're not close uh to the level that would defay the county's expense in reviewing the plat. So if we we've adopted a proposed simple $100 per lot fee, which is close in approximation to what the county actually spends on Ronald's time in reviewing subdivision plat. It would also provide that um for plats that have three pages or more, there would be an additional $50 per page fee beginning with page number three. Uh finally, there were some other additional issues that the planning commission had requested or Ronald had recommended. Um and there was one issue I saw that uh while I was reviewing the ordinance that although you don't necessarily have to take action on it now, it would be recommended. So, if uh if you will indulge me, Mr. Chairman, I'll just briefly walk through those changes, point them out, and um ask that the the um planning commission recommend and the board adopt.

So, the first change you can see up on your screen is simply the change of uh definition for administrator. This um it used to be that the Carol County Planning Commission was designated as the administrator. um the director of um uh land use and plan coordinator was the agent under the ordinance and for small plats um the agent would be the person to review it and approve it and then for larger subdivisions that went to the planning commission. That's no longer permissible. So what we've done is just abolish the definition of agent, provide that um the designated administrator is the land use and planning coordinator and also provides that the board of supervisors may designate a different employee of the county to service administrator in the event of the absence or unavailability or due to vacancy or reorganization etc. So, um, if the ordinance is adopted today, Ronald's position would be the administrator to review subdivision plats and then by subsequent action by motion or resolution at any time, the board of supervisors could designate a backup person, the building official or someone else who can serve when um, Ronald might not be available. Um, This next change was just a a change to update uh change in the code of Virginia. It used to be um the erosion sediment control was under title 10.1. It's been recodified to 62.1. So that's not really a substantive change. It's just updating the code.

Here is a change in the definitions that just clarifies and this is based on feedback from from Ronald and the planning commission that um a deed of boundary line adjustment must be recorded with the plat when boundary line adjustment parcels are not in common ownership. What's what's happened in the past was that uh someone might submit a boundary line adjustment, changing the property boundaries with their neighbor, swapping land a little bit. Um that plat would be approved as in compliance with the subdivision ordinance, but um the plat was the only thing that was getting recorded, not a deed that actually incorporated that change. So that creates a uncertainty in the public records when you're researching title, you know, years later, you might see a problem there because you've got a change property boundaries uh in the in the subdivision plat, but no deed showing that. So, creates an ambiguity. So, this is intended to clean that up. Some of these other changes that you'll see is just changing administr um to administrator just to clarify who is reviewing the plat. Um I note in paragraph C before you that it does still provide the ability for the administrator for Ronald to refer questions for advisory opinions to the planning commission. So, in situations where you've got a complicated flat, the planning commission traditionally wouldn't want to decide that based on um a referral from Mr. Newman. They can still do that, but ultimately now under the new required changes, the final decision has to be the administrators.

Again, here um subsection It's just changing the uh it's recognizing the fact that the county no longer has a position called that's designated the county engineer. This simply provides that the um the um administrator may refer to a licensed engineer for rather than the county. Here's subsection G just showing that the the changes that I described in the fee structure would be implemented $100 per parcel for uh subdivision plat both preliminary and final and every plat of boundary line adjustment and all utility plats or other plats required to be reviewed by the administrator. So if Ronald has to review it, um there will be that um per parcel fee along with the per page fee and the other changes that you see here are providing the appeal process. Um I think in the editing process we had um inadvertently eliminated the planning commission from the appeal process. Usually it's an appeal from Ronald the planning commission to the board of supervisors and if the citizens unhappy with that then they can appeal to the circuit court. Um so the um the version that went out yesterday missed that. You can see in yellow, we've added that back in so the planning commission has a a role in the appeal process before the board of supervisors. Um 216-15A um it just provides um it clarifies the

process for whether a preliminary plat is required or whether a developer can just go straight to a final plat. incorporating the timelines from the code of Virginia. Um, this also clarifies the process for for submission of a preliminary plat as opposed to a final plat here. just clarifies um I think was already required but not explicitly stated that even for both preliminary and final plats a topographical map must be included in the the plat of subdivision and just going through additional changes just changing from agent to administrator you see the highlighted portion is what I discussed adding the planning commission back into the appeal process. So, um those are that, you know, that's a quick overview of the changes. Um as I said, essentially, you know, we're talking about um changing the role of the planning commission under the subdivision ordinance to comply with the code of Virginia. Um amending the fees and um we have edited the timelines. Usually before July 1st, we uh Ronald would have had 60 days to act on a plat. In most cases, that's reduced to 40. Um and adding a requirement that when VOTE approval or PSA approval is required, it has to be forwarded to days. So, it's a little extra work for Ronald, but it's required by the by the code. There's no other way to address

If there are any questions or or concerns from anyone, I'm happy to try to feel those. Just for clarity, you did cover the fees and the changes together. Okay. Yes. Yes. The fees are going um to $100 per parcel um for all plats that are required to be reviewed by Ronald and um When the plat is three pages or more, there will be a $50 charge for each page beginning at page three. So, first two pages are always free.

Yes, that'll be the next. Okay. If nothing further, I'm going to close the public hearing at 6:14. Is there any discussion from the planning commission? The board supervisors. Does planning commission want to make a recommendation.

Okay. Motion by Franklin, second by Curtis. All in favor say I. Opposed. Thank you, Miss Leed. Does anyone on the board want to approve the I'll make a motion to approve it as presented. Okay. Have a motion to approve the proposed change of subdivision as presented. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. I'll start the vote with Mr. Earl. Yes. Mr. Horton? Yes. Mr. Bryant? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Mr. Moore? Yes. And I vote yes. Next on the agenda um is the public hearing for the ordinance for the the review the fees

and that is Virginia Code section 15.2-22. 2-2232. I'll open the public hearing at 6:15. Does anyone in the audience want to speak on the proposed fees? If not, I will turn this over to Mr. Durban. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um this is the public hearing on the um proposed 2232 fees. Uh we need to establish these by ordinance. Um as we discussed at the time that the planning commission recommended and the board adopted the 2232 review policy. Um, anytime there's a proposal, a proposal to construct a street or connection to an existing street, anytime there's a proposal to construct a park or other public area or a public building or other public structure, a public utility facility or a public service corporation facility. It's supposed to be either shown already on the comp plan or it needs to have a determination made by the planning commission that placing that proposed facility in that location is in substantial accordance with the comprehensive plan. Um note that a decision by the comp plan that it's not in accordance would uh prohibit the construction. Uh but that is subject to appeal to the board of supervisors within 10 days and the board could either uphold or overrule the 2232 finding by the planning commission. Uh with the increased interest we've seen in electric generation facilities, especially solar, I think we can expect to see more and more of these facilities being applied for review. We haven't really had many in years uh up until

now, but we've already got one application and and you can anticipate more coming. In order to conduct a responsible review and make an informed decision, the planning commission will sometimes need to receive a significant amount of review and feedback, possibly from outside experts, but definitely from county staff. Um, and it's uh deemed not appropriate for the county to bear that burden of either an outside expert, usually an engineer looking something some component of the 2232 application or just the time that staff would spend reviewing and evaluating um the application in order to make a recommendation as to whether it's substantially in accordance with comprehensive plan. For this reason, we've proposed an ordinance establishing that applicants for 2232 review will submit their application to the county. staff will review and estimate the costs in terms of staff time and outside experts and advertising cost. And as you might recall, u for certain applications under the 2232 review policy that the solar sighting policy that needs to be advertised in a public hearing held before the planning commission would would make a determination. Um those costs should not be borne by the county. They should be borne by the applicants. So that is what we've included in the proposed ordinance. Um the issue uh that makes it a little more complicated than just setting a a fee is that the county doesn't have a lot of experience in reviewing these. Although I think we're going to start establishing some. So, without having done a few of these, it seemed like the most fair process would be to adopt a fee structure where the applicant submits the application.

Staff reviews it initially and determines how many hours they would expect to invest in staff time um and in some cases outside experts time. prepare an estimate to the applicant and require a deposit. The the deposit would be refundable if the county expends less on the review or on um expert assistance um than the deposit. And in that situation, they would receive a refund. Um, if the cost actually exceeded at any point what the deposit was, then the county could submit a a bill for the applicant to then pay those additional charges. So the fee would be based on the taking the estimated amount of time of staff, multiplying it by their rate of compensation and adding that on with advertising charges and any estimated costs of outside exports. um to give the the board I know that the uh the plan commission's already heard this, but to give the board an idea of kind of the ranges of 2232 review fees that are out there. Um I think Fairfax has a $2,25 review feeing Meckllinburgg County is 325. Faulier County is 1,100. West Morland is 600. Montgomery County, I couldn't find a 2232 review fee on their website, but they do charge $500 for a comp plan amendment, and I would consider that to be a similar workload for that. So, those are kind of a ballpark of fee. They're kind of all over the place. So, it's my suggestion that we adopt the

ordinance as submitted with the understanding that we get a couple of these under our belts, we might want to just go to a some a simple flat rate. In that case, we would um be back before the commission and the and the board with a recommendation on on what that rate should be. But for now, until we get a little more experience with this, I think that this is the best rate structure we can offer. Um Mr. Newman did point out one error. I I u apparently still have not adjusted to it being 2026. Um, so I do recite in that ordinance that it public hearing was held on January 15, 2026. If you're inclined to approve that, um, we would make that amendment. Thank you. I'll close the public hearing at 6:21. Um, have any discussion? And I'll turn it over, Miss Leot.

Okay. Uh, planning commission members, do I hear a motion to approve this and send to the board of supervisors? Motion by Mr. Hill, second by Mr. Sner. All in favor say I. Opposed. Thank you, Miss Leot. Okay, we entertain a motion from the board if they want to adopt these fees. I make that motion to adopt it as amended. Have a motion on Mr. Horton. Do I have a second? A second. Okay. Second by Mr. Moore. Start the vote. Mr. Collins? Yes. Mr. Bryant? Yes. Mr. Horton? Yes. Mr. Early, yes. Mr. Moore, yes. And I vote yes.

Thank you. So, um, we'll go on with ours and then we'll get out of your hair so y'all can continue. Um, next on the agenda is the public hearing for the transfer of the other piece of property from the Civic League. And I'll open that public hearing at 6:23.

[clears throat]

They were for They were for the plan of commission meeting. That's for the plan of commission, Miss Mr. Wson. Yes. Does anyone want to speak on the transfer of property from the civic league? And we'll give it just a minute longer. All right, we'll close the public hearing at 6:24. Mr. Chairman, I have to clarify one thing for the board. Yes. Um the there were two parcels that were owned by the by the civic league.

One parcel, I think it's 76A41A was transferred from the board of supervisors to the civic league years ago with the reverter clause that if it was ever um ever ceased to be used for for civic league purposes, it would revert back to the county. Right. The Civic League also owned a par a parcel that's right next to that

that was not subject to the reverter, but they have determined to convey that to the county as well. Um when the county held the public hearing on disposing of the civic league property, it was just advertised um for your meeting at the beginning of of the month uh for 76A41A. So this is just basically the same continuation same same equation um but it's for SE this includes 76A 888 okay thank you Mr.

do we have any discussion okay if not I'll move on to the next on the agenda which is the um committee appointments anyone have any committee appointments they'd like to make Mr. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion for Miss [clears throat] Leot for the Mount Rogers PDC board. Okay. I have a motion for Miss Leot Mount Rogers PDC board. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Mr. Collins. We'll start the vote with Mr. Bryant. Yes. Mr. Horton? Yes. Mr. Early? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Mr. Moore? Yes. And I vote yes. Okay. Next on the agenda, I'll entertain the motion to adjurnn. So move.

Okay. Have a motion. Mr. Bunt. Do I have a second? Second. Started vote. Mr. Early. Yes. Mr. Yes. Mr. Bryant. Yes. Mr. Collins. Yes. Mr. Moore. Yes. Thank you.