Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

if you take the logo off the mic will work if the logo is on and then if you want to do people and that then you do camera and content if you just want camera you want just people then you do camera okay and if you just want powerpoint then you do this one okay um if you notice the camera will move hopefully automatically okay uh yeah see it moved gotcha okay and logo will mute them

This begins the meeting of the Franklin County Planning Commission starting at 6 PM. And Ms. Richardson, please conduct a roll call.

Mr. Evans? Here. Mr. Jefferson?

Here.

Mr. Hancock?

Here.

Mr. Clements? Here. Mr. Doss?

Here.

Mr. Pendleton? Here. Mr. Peters?

Thank you. Now, as approved of the minutes from our July 14, 2026 meeting, are there any discussions, issues, or changes regarding the minutes? Hearing none, the minutes are approved as written. Our only application for this public hearing is for a comprehensive plan conformance review. It's an application of the Towers LLC Vertical Bridge and SELCO Partnership Verizon Wireless as applicants, and Rudolph C. Knaff III as owner, requesting a conformance review of approximately 10,000 square foot portion of plus or minus 21.259 acres of non-zoned property. The parcel is located off of Cherry Lane in the Blue Ridge Election District of Franklin County and further identified by real estate records as tax map parcel numbers 1130016201 and 1130016204. The purpose of this conformance review is to assess whether a communications facility, telecommunications tower, conforms with the 2045 Franklin County Comprehensive Plan in accordance with the Virginia Code section 15.2-2232. This property has a future land use designation of rural area county. We'll begin with a staff presentation.

Okay.

Representing Tina Franklin. We'll be our own Ms. Lisa Cooper.

Yes, Tina is actually on vacation, something that she deserves, so we hope that she's having a good time. And I'm here to present this comprehensive plan review. Verizon Wireless would like to propose to construct a 190-foot self-supporting Monopole communication tower. It will have a four-inch lightning rod, 100 by 100 leased area, and 50 by 50, which includes a 50 by 50 fenced-in gravel compound. The proposed communication facility and compound is located on a track of land near Henry Road on Cherry Lane. It's 21.259 acres. The leased area will be fenced with a seven foot chain link fence with one foot of barbed wire on top of the fence. A proposed 12 foot wide double swing access gate will also surrounding the 50 by 50 compact area with a new 30 foot wide utility easement access road to the lease parcel. This property is located in the non zoned area of the county, and this is one of the reasons you are doing the 15.2 2232 which is the review of your comprehensive plan. In 2006, there was a conformance review of a cell tower about 6,000 feet, the proposed tower location. The tower was constructed for emergency service. And we'll talk a little bit about this tower. This tower is at the fire department and Verizon was going to try to co-locate on this tower. But to the north, there's a U.S. cellular T-Mobile tower that Verizon's on. And this the the fire department tower was too close. So they had to find another location. A suggestion would be is that you might want to ask some questions or maybe the applicant can explain the better why they had to choose another site than I am. That might be something that you all would be interested in. The communication facility will provide reliable cellular coverage to the residents. tenants or business owners and even emergency service providers and others in the surrounding area. Staff has received seven phone calls inquiring about the application. One was opposing the application. We got two inquiries today and I also talked to someone that is opposed to the application today. We'd like to give you a vicinity map to show you where it is in location to where we are now. We also like to give you a map on aerial of the property. The reason why we advertised two tax parcel numbers is because, if I can get this to work, the cell tower is going on this site. but the road access through this property so we wanted to advertise for both um this is your excuse me this is your comp plan i think this is your comp plan map hang on no yes this is your comp plan map um it's rural county This is your zoning map to show that it is in the non zoned area of the county. We did want to give you this is in your packet. You did get quite a bit of information about the cell tower. So we wanted to show you the the proposed location of the compound area. Then there will be an access road off of Cherry Lane. This is the road coming in from Henry. So this is Cherry Lane. This is where the access road will go onto the property. This is just a blown up version of it for you to see better of the conceptual plan. Um, just to let you know, um, some analysis, um, basically the application did state that the subject property is heavily wooded. Um, a lot of you were out there for site visits. Um, you saw that. In your packet, if you want to see the existing vegetation, if you go to sheets Z1 and Z2, that will show you that. Impacts, the submitted application states that the community, I mean the communication facility is 350 feet off of Cherry Lane, about 390 feet. to the property line on Henry Road, about 353 feet to the closest existing home, which is at 142 Cherry Lane and 657 feet from an existing home at 65 Henry Road. The tower will be galvanized to better blend in with the surrounding area. There will be no lighting on this tower. It's not required by the FAA. If the tower is abandoned, Verizon will be posting a bond also to help if they don't remove it, but they have sent us a letter saying that they know that it would have to be removed and the property would have to be restored into satisfactory condition. condition. There was also a letter sent about the safety certification that should have been in your packet of information.

I also want to address some things that are in our comprehensive plan.

Yes, this area is the future land use is rural county, but I want to draw your attention. Chapter 12 is our implementation chapter, which promotes goals of each chapter. This one happens to be the utilities chapter. Objective 9-1 in your comprehensive plan states continue to develop telecommunication infrastructure to ensure availability to all residents, businesses and institutions. Strategy 9.1.3 states that the county will work on increasing cell phone infrastructure to enhance coverage throughout the county through partnerships and capital projects and consider if regulatory amendments are needed to create a more efficient development process. I think with this you can see that staff is in support that the cell tower would be in compliance with your new comprehensive plan. And so we are recommending that the Planning Commission make the finding that the proposed communication facility is in substantial coordinates accordance with the 2045 comprehensive plan that the board adopted in july of 2025 provide the following conditions and design guidelines are met the proposed use shall be developed in substantial conformance to the conceptual plan that is in your packet verizon and any future owners or operators of this facility shall allow franklin county emergency services agencies to co-locate at no charge on the tower and with the enclosed leased area for the ground equipment. Verizon shall post with Franklin County a bond guaranteeing the removal of this tower, which includes the tower and all associated equipment from this site if the use of the communication facility is abandoned for a period of six months or more. The bond shall be in the amount agreeable with Franklin County and Verizon and shall be posted prior to the issuance of any building permit. And the communication facility will be structurally designed to accommodate up to three wireless providers and associated ground based equipment. I would be glad to answer any questions. And the applicant is here also to give a presentation.

Are there any questions from the commissioners? And thank you, Miss Cooper.

Do you have a question?

Let me see the hand. How do you determine the valuation of the removal bond?

Well, they'll have an engineer and we'll have the county attorney look at it and we'll come to an agreement.

OK. Any further questions? Thank you, Miss Cooper. Next, let's hear from the applicant. Please state your name and status.

Good evening, my name is Anthony Bologna. I'm with the law firm of Williams Mullen. My address is 301 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1700, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27601. I have an agentic relationship with the Towers LLC, also known as Vertical Bridge, and as does Hui De Silva. Together we represent Vertical Bridge. The landowner is here as well, to the extent that you have any questions. I've got a short presentation I'd like to spin through. So this is the Will Hill Tower. Staff did a great job spinning through the rest of the details, but I'll quickly go through the zoning designation. It's in a non-zoned portion of the county. The tower height is 195 feet with a four-foot lightning rod bringing it total to 199 feet to the highest pertinence. This is a monopole tower. No guy anchors or anything like that. The anchor tenant will be Verizon Wireless. There will be space for three additional carriers. Four carriers total can co-locate on the tower. This is in the southern portion of the county. As mentioned, the purpose of our presentation tonight is to identify how we're in conformance with the comprehensive plan. So we identified just a couple or a few of the county's goals. There's being objective 7.3 of promoting the creation of livable communities through the provision of cellular coverage. 9.1 to continue to develop infrastructure to ensure the availability to all residents, businesses and institutions. And then 10.3 to provide top notch emergency services and preparedness to ensure the highest level of safety. We include this one, we had an interesting tower case in North Carolina where residents in a county were calling 911 and it was routing them to a different county's 911 dispatch and so we we believe while costing minutes of time in emergency situations we believe wireless coverage is imperative in emergency situations as mentioned and shown before here's the site plan here's our compound plan where any future where our equipment will go or Verizon Wireless's equipment will go the tower will be located and space for additional carriers Here's an elevation drawing of the tower. And that wraps up my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions. Like I said, Hui Da Silva, also a consultant on behalf of Vertical Bridges here, and then the landowners here as well. Thank you for your time, and thank you, staff.

Hold on, sir. Any questions from the commission? I'd just like to appreciate some points. So there is another cell tower in the so-called vicinity, but had the need or the ability to use another tower was too close? Explain.

Huey, do you want to address that?

Good evening. My name is Rui Silva and I do site acquisition for Verizon Vertical Bridge. Yeah, we did look at the tower behind the fire department. There's actually two towers. There's that one and there's another one. It's about 1.3 miles to the north of that. And at that time, when we start looking at this area, we looked at both towers. And RF decided to go up to the north on the other tower and then realizing that they will need to then cover the south of that area. So the other ones are about 1.2, 1.3 miles of each other. So that one is covering that area there. And now we need to be further south. So this tower is going to be too close to the other tower, which is a USL. It used to be a USL tower. It will be too close of that. They will be interfering with each other. It's not going to cover the area that they need to cover. That's really it.

Okay, so there is a need to actually construct another tower at a perfect distance in order to really extend the coverage?

Correct. Yeah, and when they look at the maps and what they need to cover, they need to be within a certain distance of each other and then to cover the area that they need to cover. Okay. In this case, that one will be too close to the existing sites, which I believe it's about to be on air, and then it's not going to cover further south where it needs to cover, where they want to reach.

Second question was, as in condition two, it talks about leased area for the ground equipment. So how long is the lease for? Is there a lease for this tower for a certain period of time? Because in condition two, they talk about a leased area for ground.

Well, we have a ground lease with Mr. Naff for the tower location itself. Now, I saw we had a condition. I don't think we discussed this. The condition about free space for the county, that's something I actually didn't discuss with the tower company. And we've done a situation like that before if we were below a certain height and I guess limited to a certain space. The last one we've done like that, I believe, was Matthews County. And then if you agree with that, I believe we they allowed for 150 or below or 160 and below and about 10 by 15 ground space. They will agree to free space like that. But something beyond that. they might have an issue with. And normally that's what's needed for emergency communications.

I'm looking at condition four. Is that the one you're referring to? The communication facility will be structurally designed to accommodate up to three wireless providers?

Well, that is, and that's our structural letter. We built it for, I believe the county requires four total. So we've designed for Verizon plus three more. And that's our structural letter. And then it will be designed. That is just a preliminary engineer letter. So then when we get actually tower drawings, what we call it, which is the design of the steel and the foundation, then it will be designed for those amount of carriers.

And I just want to make sure when we approve something that the conditions are as to be fulfilled as written. Yes, sir. Are you then talking about Verizon, any future owners or operators of the communication facility shall allow Franklin County emergency service agencies to co-locate at no charge to the tower?

Yes.

And that is problematic because how or why?

Well, I guess to start with, there's some state legislation that does not necessarily, I guess, give the county the power to impose it. And of course, they fought for that and all that. But I guess long story short, we've been able to I guess give something to the county so they'll have something that they can use for emergency communications. But of course, they don't want to compromise their, I guess, higher real estate, which is the top of the tower. In most counties, they agree to that and it helps the county for emergency communications. And then I've been able to, and I'm saying that from standing here without having this discussion prior. And we could agree with that right now. Now, if the county really wanted something more, I'll have to bring that to the table and propose it before we accept that today. And then they'll come to me and say that's a problem.

And Ms. Cooper, is that clear?

It is clear. I mean, if it's something that the Planning Commission, if we need to discuss it with you and Verizon, this is an application that could be tabled if we need to discuss that.

And what I'm hearing is you're amenable to the idea is just that certain locations on the tower have other priorities than what we're asking to be placed. And you wouldn't want to compromise those priorities for the emergency signal.

Yes, sir. And then the space will be there available for anybody that wants to pay the rent fair market value.

For that, I get. But we're talking about?

We're talking about free. That's the word that could be problematic.

If depending on location on the tower?

Yes, sir. Because the tower is built for four carriers. Anybody can co-locate. Verizon wants to take the top spot. This is built for Verizon as an anchor tenant. And then from there on, this is going to be a vertical bridge tower. They will lease the space to anybody, including the county. Now we're talking about free space. That's a decision that they need to make. I cannot make that decision. But I've seen in the past, and we've done that recently, and I've had the discussions with vertical bridge, if it's something like 150 foot on the tower and 10 by 15 on the ground, I think they'll agree with it. And we can just agree on that right now.

So for the sake of the planning commission doing the right thing, Ms. Cooper, how negotiable is this condition in your mind?

I think it's negotiable. It is lots of times when emergency services go on the towers. It's not uncalled for them to be the fourth, the lowest for that reason. so i mean i think we could if if they can go at 150 i mean that is something i mean i haven't talked to you know emergency services to see if they would even want to co-locate we just usually put that as a condition when we do um towers so that if there is a need for emergency services, then we have a spot on the tower and we request it as free.

Any questions by the commissioners about this?

Mr. Jefferson. So did I understand you to say that there was legislation that actually now that states that county can't require it, but yet it's something that you guys can offer up. Is that how the language in the legislation reads?

And as far as the language, maybe Anthony?

I mean, in general terms, is that what it's trying to do?

Yes, sir. Okay.

So I guess the argument here is that by having it in here, it's It's like the county's requiring it because we didn't have any kind of negotiation or any kind of conversation in advance. Is that fair statement?

I would say so. And when it's put as a condition, it kind of speaks.

Is it, at least is it possible to have those conversations before it goes before the board of supervisors? I mean, we're just making a recommendation.

Well, since it is a comp plan review, actually it's Planning Commission's decision under the 2232. We will ask the Board of Supervisors if they want to hold their own public hearing, but they do not have to. They can take your recommendation in this case. So if there are some concerns about... the co-location of fire and EMS, then maybe it should be tabled. Or Chris is probably trying to find the legislation. You can remove the condition. Oh, hang on. I think he has.

You can remove the condition if you so choose. These are just recommended conditions. You're not required to.

We did a site visit and it was effective at showing the lack of cell coverage given that we weren't able to communicate while at site. So I see the need for the tower. I just want to be appropriate with regard to the condition. So legal advice is we could remove the condition, but would it be on the grounds that it's inappropriate for a locality to require that.

The statute does not allow us to condition or require the approval of an application solely on the basis of the applicant's agreement to allow any wireless facilities provider operating and holding part by locality or any other entity.

So our task is, because this isn't a non-zoned portion of the county, we are just reviewing the application with regard to conformance with our comprehensive plan. Are there any questions about whether this seems to be conforming or not conforming with the comp plan, the application itself?

Part of the presentation did talk about it being, I mean, I think one of the examples even was that the need for timely emergency response and how this could aid in that. So I feel like the presentation is both advocating for emergency services, but also saying that it may not be something that could be accommodated based on the conditions as requested. So I just want to point that out. But also, the condition doesn't say that you have to reserve any of the four spaces. If you happen to lease all four of the spaces on the tower, the county would not have a space that they could use, correct?

You would, but anything below there, yes. And in reality, when you look at it, if you get three carriers in that location, if you get Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, that's your major three. Anything below that, it's not going to be really sought after. I wouldn't think so. So anything below that, I mean, it should be there, really. And that's why we're saying normally they'll agree to something on a lower level that it's not going to impact.

But the point is that cellular service would be available for open communication so people can still get the emergency service.

Yeah, and I think that was the point. It's more like people trying to call.

It's my understanding that the county has a tower at the Henry Fire Department with emergency services. Is that part of it? And that's not but a mile and something from this tower.

Yes, there is a tower at the fire department and that was one of the the questions staff had and that's the the maps that you had at your site shows that and we were hoping you know instead of building another tower they could co-locate that this company could co-locate on that Verizon could co-locate on that but it just doesn't work because of the closeness to the other tower. um so i mean it doesn't mean with saying that there could be enough coverage i just don't know if public safety needs more coverage in this area okay um besides what they have on the tower at henry any further questions

Mr. Bologna, thank you very much. Oh, no, you are. I forgot your name.

Rudy DeSilva.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ms. Cooper.

Let me clarify something. I just got a message. Emergency services is not on the Henry Fire Department. It is other sale companies that are on there at this point in time.

Okay. misspoke so I wanted to clarify so that completes the and then the owner of the property sure do you have any desire to add anything else thank you completes the application presentation all right miss Richardson do we have anyone signed up to speak regarding this application there is no one signed up okay Is there anyone in the audience who would like to make a comment about this application?

I would, sir.

Please come forward, state your name, your electoral district. After that, your three minutes will begin.

My name is Jonathan Cruz, and I live at 174 Dorothy Lane, right down behind Mr. Naffer. My concern is this right here about the tower. Me, myself, and I, I really don't care about it. But I was sitting back there listening, and when they start talking about safety and fire department and stuff like that, We live in a rural area, and it's kind of hard to get signal and stuff on phones and stuff, you know, like whatever. And I say this, if it's not a room on there for the fire department and rescue squad and the public safety and stuff, it shouldn't be put there. That's all I have to say.

Thank you. Is there someone else in the audience like to speak about this application? Yes, ma'am. Your name, please. Your electoral district. And then your three minutes when you come forward and your three minutes will start.

My name is Cynthia Booth, and I'm here tonight to speak in opposition of the proposal of the cell phone tower near Cherry Lane. I understand that reliable cell phone service is important, my concerns is the property values the cell phone tower and challenges the parents and the characteristic of the rules residential area for homeowners who have invested in their property having a tall tower nearby could affect the desirability and value of their homes i am also concerned about the road maintenance and traffic this is a very private road it's not state maintained it's several people that lives there but only a few of us is the one that maintains this road and another is about the wildlife and the surrounding environments the tower and the construction requires for it could disturb wildlife and remove or altered natural habitats we should carefully consider the long-term impact on the area before allowing the development we also want to ask an important questions have all the existing towers and other possible locations been considered you've got a tower on 605 coming off of 220 you've got a tower at Henry fire department and you've got a tower on brown hill And that's within 10 mile radius. So why can't we use the tower that is at the fire department to where the fire department will benefit from it? For the emergency part, for all of us, we could use that tower. And I'm also concerned about the noise and the construction and equipment associated with the tower. Residents should not have to deal with the unnecessary ongoing noise from a facility located close to our homes. We moved there knowing that we were living in a dead zone. I've lived there 16 years. I've had no problem getting out with anything. So why do we need a tower there when we got three more towers that you can use? Finally, I asked the zoning board to carefully consider whether the proposal is appropriate for this location under our zoning requirements because we're in a non-zoning area. We are a rural community. I respectfully ask that the board not simply approve the proposal because additional cell service is desirable. Please consider whether this is the right location where the existing towers can be utilized and how this decision will affect the residents who live here.

Madam, that's your three minutes. Thank you. Do we have a way to display the clock so people can see the time? There it is, okay. Three minutes. Was there anybody else in the audience? Yes, sir. Your name and election tutorial district.

My name is Scott Cowan, Blue Ridge District. I'm actually the chief of Henry Fire Department. I just wanted to clarify something. You said cell towers, cell service on that tower at our building? There's no such thing. The only thing on that tower currently is the internet provider that went out of business. So I just wanted to clarify that. So actually, the tower's not being used at all right now.

Is there anyone else would like to speak about this application? Yes, ma'am. Oh, ma'am, if you would please come forward. State your name and your electoral district.

It's Virginia Crescentbury, and I live on 316 Sherry Lane. Rudy lives right down the hill from me, you know, and the tower that y'all talking about, it's going to start at the, it's his property, but it starts at the road. And the road is not well kept, you know, it's just a raggedy little old road that we live on. So what is the purpose of putting a, whatever you call a tower there. I've heard that it throws out radiation, and I've done got old here, and God knows I don't need that mess. And all of these other towers that they're talking about, why can't you use that? And I don't mean no harm in saying this, but y'all pulled the map up on Rudy's property. He owns a whole hillside down there. So why not put it if you start up the hill where he lives at if he wants to benefit from it, you know. Mostly my family lives right there where I live at, and we don't need it. I mean, I don't feel like I need it. I can get on my cell phone and do whatever I need to do, you know. So, you know, I don't mean any harm in saying this, you know. I thank a lot of Rudy. He's a good person. He's my neighbor and everything. But when it comes to keeping the road up, He just does not do much to the road. At one time he did, but when he had a cabinet shop down there, he kept the road up pretty good, but he don't have that no more, so it's left up to the hardworking people that works in these hot furniture factories to maintain the road and keep the road up. And why would we want to let something like that come in where maybe these big trucks, we have seen tractor trailer trucks go up and down our road, you know. But why would we want to see something like that out our road when it's so peaceful and quiet? Why do you want to just... Up and put a towel up there when you got all that property over there next to Henry, you could put a towel up, you know. Rudy knows I'm right. So forgive me, I don't mean to make anybody mad, but that's just the way I feel. And they say it throws out radiation. It's just not good for us, you know, to be that close to where that I live. And then another thing is the trailer is going to sit right there where the tower is going up at, you know. It's supposed to go up at, so... Y'all just overlook me. I may sound crazy, but that's just the way I feel. I've been here 81 years, and I'm just up for the lot, and I'm just tired of putting up.

Thank you, ma'am. Any further comments, regard? Yes, sir, about this application. If you come forward, state your name, your electoral district, and your three minutes will begin.

My name is John Whitlow. I actually own the trailer that she just referenced to land directly across from that. If I was looking correctly when we saw the site maps earlier, it showed a 340 or a 390 foot buffer between Cherry Lane and the site of that. I don't know if you still have that. It was up on the screen earlier. There you go. Go to the site map please for the tower right there is a slight map and the other one it showed a buffer i think it was 340 feet you're never going to see that tower from the land that i own they're never going to see the tower other the only thing they're going to see is the access road when you come in off of cherry lane And to be honest with you, they're gonna maintain the portion of that road of Cherry Lane that they have to get to their cell tower. They're not gonna let it go downhill because anytime power outages or anything else, they have to go there so they can cut generators on to make sure you still have service. That's the nature of the beast. I don't see where there's an issue. It's not gonna affect any of that. The only thing that they're saying is They don't use the one at the fire department. To me, that's the county's fault for not putting their stuff at the existing fire department for emergency services. My mother lives about a mile and a half away. A crow flies from there. She falls in the yard. She's 70-some years old. I want her to be able to pick up her phone and call. She ain't got no service. What's she gonna do? She gonna lay in that yard and die. I can't be with her all the time. So I'm all for it. I'm sorry if I seem a little upset or whatnot or whatever, but I only see benefits. I don't see anything downside to it, but thank you.

Thank you. Any further comments from the audience regarding this application? Okay, this ends the citizen comments session of the application. Commissioners? What comments or questions do you have before we finalize our recommendation for action?

Did the applicants want to clarify any of those questions that was brought up?

So the desire of the commissioners is, are there any issues that you'd like to address?

I'd be happy to. I think we'll maybe start with noise. Typically towers are designed to have a generator with noise dampening on the generator. It is, provided how heavily wooded the site is, it is extremely unlikely that any neighboring residents would hear any noise from the tower. Generators typically on towers run once to twice a month for short periods of time, particularly during tests. In terms of the visibility and obstruction of view to those around, again, the tower is on a heavily wooded site, which will effectively shield at least the base and middle portion of the tower from view. It's got a sleek profile. It's going to be of galvanized steel and should blend well with the backdrop of the sky. It's a typical design for a tower. And then in terms of the road, Vertical Bridge builds towers. We want to be invited back into the communities that we do business in. After the tower is constructed, the tower will be maintained maybe once a month. There should be no heavy equipment coming in once the tower is built. There should be no frequent visits. In working in the cell tower business for a few years now, we have never been asked to provide traffic impact analysis because the trips to the tower are so infrequent. And so often road maintenance is an issue. And so I hope that can alleviate some concerns of road capacity, traffic frequency and impact. I'm happy to address any other concerns. On the note of emergency services, I think Huy cleared this up, but what we think is, you know, 80, I don't know anybody that has a landline anymore, and I think 80% of people, residents in urban and generally rural communities are relying on cell phones. And so it is their ability to access emergency services that we try to focus on providing an opportunity for them to have reliable self-coverage so that they can get in touch with 911, you know, their children's schools to the extent something happens, or the police department, or fire, or the hospital, etc., And that assists in residents, businesses, tenants, and anyone in between. So that was where we were coming from.

So the type of traffic you're talking about would be a pickup truck? Generally, yes, once the tire's gone. And the construction period would take how long?

Three, four months.

And that would be the extent of basically the noise? And this would be a Monday through Friday type event? Or is it on weekends?

Unless they need to be on weekends.

Question also was about health issues, radiation.

Typically, at least in North Carolina, under state statute, a board is not, this is in North Carolina, because of the lack of evidence of RF effects from a cell tower, antennas some hundred or so feet up, a board cannot consider the health effects of radio frequency. That is in North Carolina. In Virginia, they're preempted by the FCC.

Now to be clear, this is our application in non zoned area We're just to verify matters of as a compliance with the comprehensive plan Right out of consideration for the citizens and residents of Franklin County. These are issues that were brought up we will pass judgment whether it complies with Comprehensive plan But are there if people have those concerns and how do they get addressed? I?

I think the levels mandated by the FCC should be way below that. But if it makes the board more at ease, we can give you what we call a new report, which is an exposure report. I will show all those levels. It's not going to affect the population. It shows the heights, what affects our ground level, and all that. And of course, we don't have that right now, but we can present it if we have a side plan, building permit. Sure can.

Well, it's just citizens would like to know so they This gets presented this may get presented again Basically after you the Planning Commission makes their recommendation or their determination You're gonna make it a determination if it is in line with the comprehensive plan, then we will take that information Staff will take that information to the Board of Supervisors at their next meeting to see if they if they want to hold their own public hearing or do they agree with Planning Commission's recommendation and do not want to hold the public hearing?

So based on what we decide, you should have that information available should it be requested at the board. Yes, sir.

And if you want to put it as a condition of the approval, and we'll supply it at site plan building permit, you should be happy to.

No, I want to stick to the fact that we're obligated to verify whether this complies with the strategic comprehensive plan. That's our role. That's our sole function. But thank you. Any other questions? And comments, thank you very much. And comments amongst the Planning Commission.

I'd like to comment that a lot of my neighbors, I live in the vicinity of this tower. I know a lot of people that have Verizon have very poor service not too far outside of Ferrum. It would be helpful to have a facility there that would pick up their signals better. would be a benefit to the community, I think.

Do we have a motion?

I'd like to make a motion, sir.

Please, Mr. Dawson.

Concerning to the requirements of section 15.2-2232 of the Code of Virginia, I find with the inclusion of the four conditions recommended by the staff that the proposal one is consistent with adopted comprehensive plan policies pertinent to the sitting of the communication facilities. Number two, will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent or surrounding properties. Number three, is in character with the project future land use of the community. And four, that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan and with the community's public health, safety, and general welfare.

thank you so we have a motion to find that this is in compliance with the comprehensive plan as stated and you do specify you want all four conditions is there a second a second motion has been seconded Miss Richardson, if you please conduct the roll call of the vote of the vote.

And this is for a motion to grant with the four conditions, yes. Mr Pendleton.

Yes.

Mr Doss yes. Mr Clements yes. Mr Hancock yes. Mr Jefferson yes. Mr. Evans.

Yes.

I have six ayes and one absent.

And then this will go, the board will have an option to hear this on what date?

September 15th.

September 15th. Well, that completes the open hearing for the application. Now our next phase is open citizen comment. Since we've completed the public hearing portion of applications, we now have open citizen comment for anyone who would like to comment on subjects not related to this evening's application. Ms. Richardson, do we have anyone signed up to speak?

We do. Lauren Walk? After Ms. Walk, it will be Kim Jones.

Thank you. Hello, ma'am. Please state your name and your election district.

Of course. My name is Lauren Walk, and I am from the Boone District. Thank you so much to the board for being receptive to feedback that you have received so far, for seeking out ways to better communicate with the communities you serve, for making meetings more accessible through streaming than live, and for being willing to pivot when concerns have been brought to you. That is something that is rare to see, and we do appreciate it and notice it. I am here to ask the Planning Commission to be proactive. If needed, please reach out to the Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance plan to allow you to begin to process, to develop clear regulations that address issues to high impact industries such as data centers. I ask you to consider what interim protections are available while appropriate standards are being developed as well. Economic development should not require us to gamble with public health, quality of life, natural resources, or long-term future of our communities. The purpose of planning is to anticipate what is coming, establish protections before they are needed, and ideally with input from neutral, third-party sources that are experts in the field. You guys have been very open and have allowed for people who self-identify as experts to come in. What I've also seen is that from the board of supervisors posting and what they have already received information on, a lot of that information is skewed so that it can be It is presented well so that people who benefit from it will continue to benefit. The information is technically true and oftentimes gives you a partial picture. So while community resources to speak on this are being asked to come in and help, and while I have done a great amount of research in this to compile what has been done in other localities that has held up legally, I also recognize that I am not fully informed of all the legalities that can happen. So while I'm here to ask you to, with a sense of urgency, make and develop these safeguards a priority, make developing these safeguards a priority, settle on a public process of doing so, and give our community a clear timeline for when that work will begin. I'm also asking you to find third party sources that can come in and actually reliably give you information of what can be done, what has been done, and what to look out for and what to put in these documents. Because while I have spent over 120 hours creating them that I did email to you guys last session, I recognize that they may have holes in them. When industries come into our area, it should be safely.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

And following our next speaker, who is next?

After Kim Jones, it will be Laura Carter.

Your name and election district, please.

Good evening. My name is Kim Jones. I'm in the Gills Creek District. Mr. Chairman and members of commission, I am chair of the Franklin County Community Coalition and tonight we're submitting a draft memorandum for the commission's consideration. It is written in the form of a recommendation that this commission could ultimately send to the Board of Supervisors if you choose to act. At our community meeting at the depot, Chairman Victor explained to all of us that the full zoning rewrite would be handled deliberately with as much public participation as you could and would likely take at least 12 months before you were ready to submit something to the board. We heard that and this memorandum does not ask you to rush the entire rewrite. Instead, it provides a narrow and responsible way to address one urgent gap in the current ordinance now. under the current chapter 25 ordinance a data center is permitted by right in the regional enterprise park and maximum floor area is not regulated that can leave the planning commission the board and the public without a project specific design regarding the scale utility demand safeguards and compatibility of a particular proposal the memorandum recommends a two-phase solution Phase 1 would change data centers in the REP district from a by-right use to a special use with clear definitions and lawful transition rules. Phase 2 would establish standards addressing power, water, sound, generators, public safety, cumulative impacts, and decommissioning. This is not a moratorium, it is not a ban, and does not ask you to prejudge any particular project or any claim vested right. It preserves a path for suitable development while ensuring public review and elected oversight. The memorandum includes the supporting record, the legal basis, requested board action, and an optional motion for the commission. We respectfully ask you to accept it for review, place this matter on a public agenda, and seriously consider initiating this targeted amendment rather than waiting for completion of the entire zoning rewrite. Laura Carter will follow me and explain more about why this action is needed and the commission's authority to begin it. Thank you. Thank you.

After Laura Carter, it will be Michael Pagans.

Name an election district, please.

Laura Carter, Rocky Mount. You know how sometimes you're driving down a road you've driven a hundred times and all of a sudden you notice a piece of land that's been cleared. The trees are gone, there are bulldozers out there, and you think, huh, I wonder what they're putting there. Or these days, somebody posts a picture on Facebook and within five minutes everybody has a theory. Why are they clearing that? I bet they're putting apartments there. No, I heard it's a business. Well, I know somebody who already knows somebody and they said, and before long, half the county has an opinion about something most of us know very little about. But what we probably don't think about are the people who sat in a room years before and made decisions that allowed a place to become what it is. We don't know their names. We weren't there when they wrote the rules. We just live with what those decisions left behind. And I've thought about that a lot as we've watched this process unfold here in Franklin County. Most of us come into these conversations from places that we know. Economic development sees opportunity. A farmer thinks about their land and water. Our neighbors see their home and we see the part that's closest to us. You all have to see all of it. And I've come to appreciate how difficult that is. And I want to give you credit for what I've seen lately. More communication, notification, allowing public involvement and a willingness to listen to perspectives that maybe weren't a part of the conversation before. And that's what gives me hope about where we are right now. The memo that was being shared tonight isn't about being afraid of growth, and it isn't about closing Franklin County's doors to opportunity. We shouldn't. It's about keeping our options open until we know enough to make a good decision. because you're not being asked whether a particular data center should or shouldn't be built you're being asked whether the rules we write preserve franklin county's ability to make that decision when the facts of an actual project are in front of us how big is it what does it require from our land our water our power infrastructure and our public services what does it bring to the county what are its impacts and what safeguards make sense for that project in that place Those are questions worth preserving our ability to ask, not because we will know what every future project will look like, but because we don't. Opportunity will always come knocking, but our land doesn't come back and water doesn't come back easily. Years from now, somebody will drive down one of these roads and see something they've never seen before. Maybe the trees will be gone. Maybe a building will be going up and they'll ask, what are they building? When did this happen? How did this get approved? They probably won't know your names. They won't remember this meeting and they won't know about the memo that was shared or the hours, weeks, months, and years that you've all been spending on this zoning ordinance. But years from now, they'll be living with the decisions that you're about to help make.

After Mr. Pagans, it'll be Cynthia Booth.

Sir, your name? My name is Michael Pagans. I live in the Union Hall District. Lived there all my life. I'm here to oppose the planning and the zoning changes. I've lived here over 30, I've been a real estate agent and an appraiser for over 37 years. and the changes in the land changes of the lot sizes is gonna hurt the property values. It's also gonna lower the tax base if it lowers the property value. In 1988, zoning was shoved down the throats of three districts in Franklin County. We didn't want it. And we still don't want it, but it was shoved down our throats. And it seems like the same tactic is here today on the planning part. We're supposed to be living in a democracy. And in a democracy, you're supposed to get a vote. I think any changes that affect so many people's lives should be to a voter referendum and let the people decide. Attending meetings, I've attended quite a few meetings and I'd say 99% of the citizens that come to these meetings are opposed to the changes and the zoning. We voted the supervisors to represent the majority, not their personal preferences. I'm urging all the planning commission, the board of supervisors, and especially the unzoned planners to vote no unless those citizens in that area of the county want what they're trying to give us. It shouldn't be three districts and four unzoned. It's not fair to the people at Union Hall, Gills Creek, or Blackwater That's all.

Thank you.

Ms. Cynthia Booth? And after Ms. Booth? After Ms. Booth, it'll be Matt Pagans.

I'm still Cynthia Booth, the one that made a statement earlier, and I still oppose of it. And I think that you need to think about the Henry Fire Department as a source.

This portion is about things that are not the application. These are other issues.

No, I don't have no public issues. I just don't want this cell phone dial.

Got it. Thank you.

After Mr. Pagans, it will be Willis Brueggemann.

Name and election district, please.

My name is Matt Pagans. I live in the Blue Ridge District. The Planning Commission's recent discussion to undertake a rewrite of the Berkeley Group's 300-plus page zoning ordinance draft needs to be reconsidered. I heard it misrepresented as a choice between the 1988 ordinance and the new proposed draft acting like it's some old ancient document in its original form that has never been updated or changed. This is false. It has been revised periodically many times as needed over the years. It should be referred to as the current or the effective ordinance. It was discussed prior to the hearing. That discussion was also had been took place, uh, before hearing from the citizens and involving the public. It was also right before two new planning commission members just joined the planning commission. And if any changes are made, I think that they should have some input on this. Secondly, from the past few meetings, several people have brought to your attention the need for standards and protections for nearby residents, schools, churches, and other public infrastructure and resources as it pertains to data centers or other industry that could be high resource users or polluters. This really should have been done before now, especially having the knowledge that a data center was looking to come here and county officials having signed NDAs and a letter of intent. At the May 13th Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission joint work session, the agenda packets included a document where the Berkeley group advised you that Franklin County was unprotected from data centers. On page 10 and 11 of the minutes, it shows that the Berkeley group laid out considerations for you to address regarding data centers where it's suggested to, quote, ban data centers or add standards. Also, it indicates that the existing ordinance has, quote, no standards or protections. Since May 13th, today makes the fourth opportunity that the Planning Commission has had The Board of Supervisors have had three regular meetings, two work sessions, and one work session on June 18th was canceled due to lack of business. Being aware that the county has no standards or protections and not taking any actions to protect us while the county administrator and the Board of Supervisors are in secret communication and negotiations is by definition dereliction of duty and willful negligence. The acting county administrator, Steve Sandy, is especially culpable here. Of all people, should know better as the former zoning administrator. Sir, the wrap-up. You're three minutes are up. Could I say one last sentence? One last sentence. Tell me why the most resource-intensive, loudest, and thirstiest use in the book has no regulations or standards in place. Thank you.

Willis Brueggemann.

Is this our last person?

Yes.

Sir, your name and election district.

Willis Brueggemann in Rocky Mountain District. um i'm here because i feel like maybe there needs to be a form of some kind of committee or something with everything going on in the county that they should take a look at what's going on in other counties around us um the issues i got is um montgomery county they they're trying to put in a a boost pump for that mountain valley pipeline And they denied it right now. They might build a bridge over the tracks or whatever. But if situations like that, if they deny it and it doesn't get put in there, then it's a possibility that it's either going to be floored or over the hill down here to Franklin County. And that's one of the things. The other thing is with the Google data center going in over in Batatai, They want to take the water out of Carvens Cove. Why can't they take it out of the James River and pump it up to the Google Center since that's in Bolleta? I mean, as far as I know, Roanoke owns Carvens Cove property around it, and I guess it sold the rights to the Western Virginia Water Authority, but that bunch of water... goes through Tinker Creek and ends up in the Roanoke River that feeds. Our best asset is the lake. I mean, the tax revenues that it creates and the enjoyment that the citizens get out of the pleasure of using the lake, I just feel like there needs to be somebody looking at what's going on around us and how it's going to impact us because You know, I don't want to see, I've enjoyed the lake for the 40 years I've been here, and I don't want to see something happen to it. I know it's a drought right now, but once Google starts drawing thousands and thousands of gallons, it's going to be an every year situation with that lake. So that's pretty much what I had to say tonight.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience would like to speak? Anything other than what we had for the application tonight? Well, this ends the open citizen comment section. I do appreciate the concerns expressed. I had thought of something nice to say and I forgot how to say it. But the point that needs to be made is we're going to go into a work session. And typically, work sessions consist of the fact that the officials get to say what they want to say and have discussions and be more informed and amongst ourselves with the opportunity for the public to observe. Work sessions typically do not allow for participation by the public. As some of you know, it was our decision that as we go about doing what's been asked of us by the Board of Supervisors to complete a review of the proposed zoning ordinance, that our work sessions would be handled slightly different that would allow for public participation. This is now the second time we're going to try and do this. The first time it worked out very well. And because of the requests from the public, it was asked that we conduct these public hearings and work sessions as a live stream. And so today was inauguration of that. So from this day forward, when we have these public hearings and zoning ordinance work sessions, which will be held in this room, they will be live streamed for the benefit of those who are not able to attend. And we want to thank staff for making that possible. So thank you, Ms. Cooper. So let us get on to the agenda item, and that is our zoning ordinance update work session. What I want to do is basically to do that, I want to provide a summary of decisions we made during our June 30 and July 14 work session. By the way, I did want to make a point that the people that made their application, you could have left as soon as the application was. And you may choose to remain if you wish, but up to you. So basically we've had two work sessions, June 30th and July 14th, because the time we needed to come to a consensus as to what is it that we come to an agreement as to how to move forward to take a look at the proposed zoning ordinance. So we've taken two meetings to do so. and the most important item that we now have to undertake is decide on a schedule which we would want to present to the Board of Supervisors to say how we would undertake that tasking. So just to get us started, as to the highlights of our last two meetings, we did agree to start using the format of the newly proposed zoning ordinance as a basis to do the review. that as we do the review of the various articles, we needed to know specific things as to what is it that staff wanted as improvements? What is it that's in those articles that were mandated by state code? What is it in those proposed articles that include carryover from the current zoning ordinance? therefore if we know those three specific things per article the things that aren't highlighted as such would be seen as recommended best practices for us to decide whether in fact that's appropriate for our locality in all situations of determining knowing what it is that staff wanted what is it state and state required the state required so we already have an issue there looked at over but Staff wanted and what was carried over we have that option that said well do we like it the way it is worded in the proposed one and therefore keeps something about that or we don't like it at all basically and Decide it's not appropriate to continue in the new zoning ordinance We'd call that the base zoning ordinance from that we would know what we want to end up fine-tuning for the board supervisors and There is something we haven't really talked about in detail, and that is staff has compiled massive documentation of what it is that the citizens and residents have submitted in writing as to their concerns, comments, and suggestions. And we owe it to I think we've agreed we owe it to the citizens to make sure that as we go through it We have covered their concerns. We're not just going to ignore what they submitted So at this point I'd like to make the recommendation And if you agree with this then I'll do the fine-tuning for it but there was a Union Hall town hall meeting of which there were a lot of citizen input and And for instance, I would take the responsibility for all those questions as we go through this to, in fact, make sure what it is that they submitted gives a checkmark as being addressed or not. Similarly, I would say to Mr. Richardson, there was a town hall meeting for your district, and that I would ask Ron Jefferson to then be responsible for those list of things that his constituents or the people he represents. And that leaves the four of us then to divide up the remaining questions and I'd like to divvy those out so that each of us have bite-sized chunks of all these comments to see to it that they're covered and so as we're going through articles you have you can check off the 20, 30 or 40 different citizen comments that would be assigned to you. Does that sound like a reasonable breakup of the Questions that in comments from the citizens that way as we're moving through this We're assuring that all the time and interest that was submitted by or concerns by the citizens were in fact addressed Okay Then I'll work with staff and we can break that up and give you that out. Thank you So far, we have identified stakeholders and subject matter experts as the number, let's see, what do we have? Five, six, seven so far. And so if more come up, please make sure that they get identified. But common associations of stakeholders are, one, homeowners and property owners. Two, developers, realtors, and surveyors. Three, builders and contractors. Four, farmers and German Baptists. Five, non-agricultural business owners. Six, chamber of commerce. Seven, large institutional owners. So if some other group that you are aware of that need to be recognized as Stakeholders we add them to the list, but this reminder of who we could come up with so far. I Would ask miss Cooper to explain there was a I We needed to devise a way to ensure there's unbiased selection from county government of who would be recognized as prominent stakeholders and subject matter experts as these topics come up. But the issue was exploring the best way to use county existing capabilities to alert county residents of general information. Is there a better way than what we have to inform more of the populace? Ms. Cooper.

Well, I mean, I think, excuse me. One way we just recently, and I did find out at work because some people got it, is there was a suggestion from the public last time when we're having meetings to send out text messages. And I know that worked today because I know two people got those text messages. That's another way to get out to the public as long as they have signed up for these alerts so that was another way that we didn't have last time and then of course we're still putting stuff up on the zoning page and the website when we're having meetings once you all finalize the schedule we will be putting that up so people know when work sessions with the zoning ordinance is going on and what articles will be discussed you know, at those work sessions so that people can be prepared if that's what you're asking me. And I'm always open to more ideas of how to get word out to the public.

So a matter of the text messaging, you say people need to sign up.

Yes.

And how are they going to know there?

It's on our website. And do you know exactly where it's at?

It's on the main page under how do I.

and there you can sign up for franklin county mass notification system okay so those that's the capability we will have to provide for people to just get alerted right and then we have i mean we do a planning monthly that we always ask for people to sign up for if they come to

meetings that we send out and there's a calendar on the back that shows when we are having meetings, whether they're work sessions or public hearings. If they are work sessions, we could also put the articles that we're talking about from the zoning ordinance on there also so people would know. That's another way. Now I realize people are getting multiple notifications, but I think they would probably rather be over-notified than not notified.

Well, we're just going to give that a run. Hopefully you'll find that that's informative enough. If not, I'm sure you'll let us know. But I think it's a good start. Thank you so much. So as we decide how the public is involved in each phase of development, A REPEAT OF THE FACT, FIRST OF ALL, THE PUBLIC HAS A STANDING INVITATION TO ATTEND ALL OUR MEETINGS, OF WHICH NOW YOU KNOW HOW THEY'LL BE PUBLISHED. OUR WORK SESSIONS WILL BE ACCORDED FOR PUBLIC REVIEW. SO IT WILL BE LIVE STREAMING, AND WE ARE SCHEDULING MEETINGS TO BE HELD IN THIS ROOM THAT HAS THAT TECHNOLOGY CAPABILITY. The way we would like to do the work sessions as we come to each article, we'll have two different types of sign-up sheets for speakers. One basically for subject matter experts and self-identify as appropriate subject matter expert for that topic. The people that sign up as subject matter experts will be asked to speak first. The people that just sign up for general comments will be following those subject matter expert comments first. What's the matter of how much time should each person be given? If, in fact, what we want to recommend, if we have just a handful, five being the most, of people as subject matter experts, I don't know that we need to then say, you will have but only three minutes. We would treat them as applicants, as we treat applicants now. But truly, if we have more than five, then it becomes too time consuming for them to be able to speak without limits. And we would place a three minute limit on them as we would with the rest of the citizens. Does that make sense? So. So if it's over 5, we'll say, hey, for the sake of time for the meeting, they each would have only three minutes. OK? Let's see how well that works. Yes, ma'am. So when you talk about using an expert in their opinion,

Why would you limit that? Because that's just saying that I can only limit to how much I want to hear. Why wouldn't there be a way for them to submit to you something that you can review prior to that and then you can have a more informed conversation. But to say that you want to ask someone to come here and share their expertise with you and not take full advantage of it seems,

So I understand that's a good point as far as clarification. We are talking about basic public comment period session. If in fact people have volumes of information with data that needs to be shared, the best way to do that is send it in as a read-ahead through the department so that each of the planning commissioners would be receiving that equally. So if you're talking about documentation with that kind of information, that way when the subject matter expert comes up, can refer to those documents also to help clarify anything they want to say. So I thought before, though, that you had said that you were going to invite certain subject matter experts, like actual experts in the field, not Google. So we didn't want to appear as though we're the ones to decide who will be qualified as subject matter experts when in fact there probably are others unbeknownst to us. So we were saying that they are self-identified. For the people that we do know, when we're talking about something that we believe surveyors should be made aware of a topic that's coming up, and we do know certain surveyors, then they would be notified of, oh, by the way, FYI, this topic is coming up, and so if you have time, please come by type thing. So they are aware. So we would be not the ones to decide who will be the sole subject matter expert.

people they only believe what happens is what they can see happens like that the only research or the only things that you do are happen within these meetings that you don't leave here and maybe have those types of discussions or that people reach out to you and so maybe if you had a way to do like a report of like hey during since last month you know we've met with you don't have to specifically name them but just kind of show hey, we are doing our homework and not like people just thinking, oh, all they do is what we see here, which sometimes leaves us feeling like less than.

Just something to think about.

Do you have something?

Just to let you know, people that are speaking in the audience and not speaking into the mic, you cannot hear on the live stream, just to let you know.

So Any further comments, please come forth with podium because that way the live stream is more effective if I just made briefly Chairman I'd recommend setting some time limits if it's gonna be a sign up Otherwise, you run the risk of you're gonna cut people off and that has some legal implications During the work session you mean? Yes as in right now No When the subject matter sign up? Yes. You discussed, I'll recommend having some sort of default time limit. So if they're only- Unless you're inviting speakers. If they're only three- Otherwise you're gonna run into the problem if you may wanna try to cut people off and that has some legal implications when you are limiting in rent and cutting people off.

Okay, so for appropriateness, regardless of the number of subject matter experts, they have but only the three minutes everybody else has. That's what you're saying?

I think you can set a time limit. I would have a time limit. Okay. If you set no time limit, you run the risk of someone signing up and not stopping or, you know, being a little more time than you have to dedicate to it.

Okay. So under legal advice, given if you're a subject matter expert, would you consider three minutes or five minutes so that it is standardized?

Can we do five minutes and have an opportunity to extend another three or something if they aren't done? Or three and an opportunity to extend for another three? I know that they do that at the board, or you can request to speak longer if you're representing a group of people.

Again, you run the risk of, on the fly, deciding who gets more and less time. And that just has legal analysis and implications that are difficult to predict ahead of time. That's why typically when you have presentations, they're people you invited to speak. And then you have public comment that has a centered set of rules and guidelines that everyone knows will apply.

So distinction is if they're specifically invited to speak versus they sign up to speak. Yes. Mr. Jefferson.

So we could I think in spirit of what what's being said we could we could say five minutes but if there's certain number of in advance of before anybody starts speaking if it's a certain number of subject matter experts that are signed up then it's only going to be three minutes but you establish that at the beginning so that everybody Has to adhere to it. So it could be five minutes for if it's only whatever number that we decide signed up. If it's more than that, then you'll have to announce that it'll be three minutes and that's all that anybody gets. Does that meet your spirit of what you're?

Yeah, I'm not saying it has to be three or five minutes, but I just advise against no limits for a certain number of people. That's it.

If it's only five people, they get five minutes. If it's more than five, they get three minutes, is what you're saying.

If that's the numbers that we decide, that's the way we can handle it.

Let me ask another legal question, then, with regard to what Mr. Hancock is mentioning, that there's more that needs to be said. And if there's a desire by the Planning Commission, can they simply start asking questions of these people versus we typically do not extend the conversation with the general comments? Can we make that distinction with SMEs?

I suppose.

Okay.

Yeah.

So Ms. VanCock's idea that if there's more to be said that can't be said in five minutes, but there's a desire by the Planning Commission, you can begin asking questions of the person. In your thinking.

Yeah, questions, ask questions, not for them to finish their presentation, because then you would be...

Right.

Okay, just I wanted to clarify.

Mr. Chairman. Yes, Mr. Chairman. In addition to that, also, we were talking about subject matter experts providing some information in advance of. And we need to encourage that. And I mean, there is already a process in place where, again, if we're putting this information out in advance Whenever we're having a meeting, we're in Article 4, for an example. They know we're in Article 4 in advance. This is a group of subject matter experts that should be sending us in writing through the county. We already have a vehicle for them to respond to. get the information to us in advance so that we can look at what they, their information. And then that way when they have their five minutes or whatever, if it's five minutes or three minutes, whatever it is, we have their material and we know, we have their information in advance of. So it's not as critical for them to go as fast and hard as they can because they only got three minutes. Does that make sense? So I'm assuming that we already have things in play here. with how we're communicating in advance of our meetings, we should have everything in play for people to be able to do that if they're willing to do it.

So question to staff is do we need to make special note that for work sessions people are invited to submit anything ahead of time? Do we need to make special note of that or?

As far as staff's concerned, I mean they can submit it at any time that they want.

Yeah, but do we need to make sure they are aware of that? Do we need to make a special note on the calendar just so that they?

Oh, I mean, I guess we can say if you have something to say about this article, you can send it in and by such and such date, it'll be sent to the planning commission if that's what you want.

Yeah, the point is if there's sufficient documentation that should be submitted as read-ahead, SMEs can feel free to submit that so we have it.

Right.

Yeah.

I would hope that they would realize that they could submit it at any time that they wanted to. Yes.

And common sense should be common, but. I was just thinking we just make a note so that they know that we're accepting of that information. Sir, you have a question.

I had a relevant question. Yes. Are the planning commission emails published and available yet? Because I looked on the website earlier today and couldn't find them. So that would be helpful if we're going to try to be able to get you information to have an email address for you.

I have received some information, input from citizens.

Jen, have we put the emails up on the website yet?

I think I was waiting on a determination about that.

OK. Very good.

I'll work on getting the emails put on the website.

And the caution to the county or to the planning commissioners is as we communicate using our planning commission emails that we have to be very careful that we don't have a string of emails going on the same subject whereby that would constitute a meeting and be in violation for you. So The idea is, as information presented from our county attorney, how to avoid making those mistakes and being a violation for you. But this information will soon be posted.

We'll post your emails on the website. Thank you. We'll make sure that we do post them on the website. So they should be up.

I really want to get to one more point. OK, go ahead. Thank you.

Well, before you do that, and from what's just been said, I mean, I get the idea you want to put everybody on the email chain if you're submitting something. The reality here is we already have something in place, whether our names are out, I mean, our email addresses are out there or not. Find if they're out there. but you submit it to the county through the process that we have, and it immediately, they send it to us. So it's not like we never get it. Just saying, it's not like we don't get it. And then that way, and then the other thing is that if you actually submit it that way, well, I get it, public, if they know they sent it directly to my email address, then they know I've got it. So I get that part of it, but there is, what we have in place now, gets us the information.

So the point being is that ability does exist through the county staff, which then does distribute it to all the planning commissioners that exist today. But that information of our specific Planning Commission unique email address will be published. The critical point is as the meeting progresses, it's the responsibility of the Planning Commission chair to manage opportunities for additional comments from the audience, but to also try and make these meetings effective and efficient and not drag on too long. so that will be a bit of a touch and go trying to manage things to keep that fair use of time if you'll just take a seat because you'll be okay well i just want to finish the summary Additional meeting times needed, we decided that just trying to fit in work sessions as addition to our public hearings, Would not be an effective way to get through the process and so we agreed to conduct zoning ordinance work sessions Two extra meetings of the month and they will be Wednesday's six o'clock in this room the Wednesday of our monthly site visits and the fourth Wednesday of the month um so we will at least have two work sessions per month here at 6 p.m and whenever the public hearing sessions of our monthly meeting are short enough we will be able to have an additional third work session for instance our next public hearing has but only one application so we'll be able to fit in a zoning ordinance work session So I'm going to get on before I do. Our next important topic is the fact that you do have a proposed schedule as to what in the zoning ordinance would be reviewed during which work sessions. And so after this citizen comment, we will get onto that business.

Thank you. I just had two suggestions. One, I totally agree with Matt on the emails, but for some reason or another, the Planning Commission was working with their personal emails, which we all already have. So to have your county emails would be nice, but it's not like we can't. We already have your personal email, so we can get it to you if we really wanted to. The second suggestion was just to maybe settle on, like, I know he was talking about the free speech stuff and the First Amendment stuff and that people may have a problem with it if you cut them off. So, I mean, we already know from being at the Board of Supervisors meetings way too many times. how to split our speeches. I mean, there's a time limit. We either get the three or the five. And if it's longer than that, we'll split it with somebody else. I mean, people know that. So set your limit. And I tell you right now, if you're willing to engage with people like you do here, I highly doubt anyone there is going to have an issue with freedom of speech. I mean, we don't get any engagement from the board, I wish we did, but, and then I found out later that everything we said is never even talked about ever again. It's in that room and that's where it stays. So if you engage with people, I think you're doing the right thing. You're on the right track. If you engage with us and we feel like we're part of this whole thing, I highly doubt you're going to have issues with anyone saying you're trampling on my rights. So

Well, we hope it works out that way. Yeah, just try to make that point. When dealing with the public, we just try to be standard.

Yeah.

Thank you. So next order of business is the schedule, but is there anything else that needs to be discussed before we decide whether the schedule's appropriate as a good start? So you have been given a copy of the schedule in that we're going to march through the proposed zoning ordinance in articles. The first three articles were deemed so administrative and straightforward, it's thought that we could do articles one, two, and three together. And that if you agree with the schedule, what would happen, the way it's planned to go then, is staff would have done their work to identify in those articles what is it that they really wanted with the rewrite of the zoning ordinance to make things work better. What it is that is, in fact, required by Code of Virginia, and then what is that was a carryover, and then the rest is being good ideas for us to decide whether they're good enough. And so the thought is we could do that in basically three work sessions starting September the 2nd. And staff has agreed they'd be ready. So they're going to try and be ahead of us so that as we finish Articles 1 through 3 and when we start Article 4 on the 7th of October, if this is a schedule you agree with, We would start with, okay, staff, tell us what is it you wanted, what's the carryover, what is it that's Code of Virginia required, so that we have that base understanding. Are there questions about this proposed schedule so that it's understood, or it needs to be changed?

If the expectation is that by, for example, 10-7, we're moving on to Article 4. Yes. And Article 3 will be, is staff going to be able to integrate those changes? Is it going to create confusion if we are moving on to another article if you're not done with the previous articles? Or do you think you'll be in a good place to be able to do that?

We staff does hope to be ahead of you all schedule, so we don't hold you up. If for some reason, I don't know, there's just a lot of discussion on articles 133 and we can't get through it by 923, then staff's going to ask you to move it to ten seven. I mean, we'll know ahead of time. if we're going to have to already change, you know, the schedule. I hope Articles 1 through 3, I mean, most of it is mandated by the state and some of it is carried over from the 88 ordinance because it doesn't, you know, the state law doesn't change on some of those articles at all. and hasn't for years. So we're hoping that it can be moved through fairly quickly. One of the articles, I think I think I think it's an article three. I can't remember right off, but I mean, penalties may y'all may have some questions on penalties or something like that. That's in those articles. So, you know, if something just if you're not satisfied with them or if you have questions, I would rather us hold up something than to move on and be You know, not less satisfied because I don't like the end. I want the seven of y'all to feel comfortable of what we've put in front of you and the citizens of what we've put in front of them to get through the questions. If any of the citizens have problems with article. one through three or less. I mean, Article four might be a place where there's more that there would be more citizen comments.

Just more broadly as the process, not necessarily for those three articles, but that you all because there's really no gaps. There is no gaps now. And to give you guys any grace.

And if I if I feel like the staff can't get something, I mean, we'll I will just tell you that we can't get it done by that time. And we're going to have to either cancel the meeting or You know, something of that nature. But, I mean, we get it out to the public if we were going to cancel one of these. Because once we put this up on the website, I mean, if, you know, I don't want the public showing up if we've canceled a meeting because staff wasn't, you know, prepared to move forward.

I think the idea is that if we're not done with Articles 1 through 3 as scheduled, we don't start Article 4 as scheduled. So we don't go to the next topic until we're finished with that one topic. And so if we're still working on Article IV, when we say we're going to start Article VI and VII, no, we finish Article IV. The flexibility of any kind of leeway sort of built into the schedule is we have this room reserved to the end of October of next year. So we do have a way to continue the work sessions if we can't uphold the schedule. And I'm pretty certain the schedule will not be totally correct. There's gonna be something that's gonna create the hiccup, but at least this is our guidelines. So are there any... Would there be an agreement that this will be the schedule to be presented to the Board of Supervisors to tell them how we think we can go about completing the review? Are you comfortable with this being the schedule?

Can I make one more observation? It doesn't explicitly say in here when we would have the joint meetings with the Board. Correct. And I don't know if, can you just share your thoughts on that?

Yes. When, in fact, this gets presented to the board supervisors and they have their, I'm looking for my notes, they have their work session on August the 20th, is it?

Yes, because the regular board meeting is the 18th.

Yeah. So when they see this, then the idea is, would it be acceptable that we would provide joint meetings every four months, or do they want them more often or not as often? So that's not specified in here. And I do not know whether the joint meetings are typically on their board meeting days or work session days.

um i don't think so i don't know if they've set up because i think they're waiting for your schedule to come out but when they have we've had joint meetings in the past right so once joint meetings are scheduled yes they would be published but i don't they're not not on theirs not on their typical next schedule okay so that will be determined when they see this yeah and then i guess it's going to depend on how fast we get through stuff too

Yep, a lot of it depends So I'm getting consensus feeling that this is what should be presented and Steve and I will at least be the ones there everybody is invited to show up So

As we've already indicated, I mean, here's our roadmap, right? But it's going to be fluid as we go along. In the spirit of it being fluid, i think also what we need to do or what we should consider is uh also sharing with the board of supervisors not not only this road map but there's been a lot of uh requests a lot of comments about moving the uh high impact facilities i love that comment by the way but um up to the forefront and and really start you know to work on that in advance of um moving forward with some of the other uh or actually this schedule that we have so what i would like for us to do is to uh as we communicate this schedule to the board of supervisors to also acknowledge uh the request and um i mean personally i think it's a good step forward i think it's something that we should be going ahead and take personally i think we should be taking a look at it and if the board of supervisors agree to allow the planning commission to move forward with then they can make that decision in that meeting or at least have that discussion in that meeting and that's the whole point of what I'm what I'm driving toward here is is I would like for us to as we present the schedule to share that type of information with the Board of Supervisors as well And again, that's a personal preference. I would like to see us moving forward in that direction. And if they agree to allowing us to look at the ordinance, then personally I think it would be a good thing. You have a comment.

I see your finger going. Yes. Just keep in mind that if the Board of Supervisors directs the Planning Commission to – amend the 1988 code for data centers or high industry or what whatever to amend um that will push the schedule out immediately because i i don't have the staff to do both at the same time and that's just why i said it i mean just to let y'all know it will push it yeah if in fact the board decides that

This schedule is nice, however, there's something that they want done more immediate, then that takes, you know, we don't do both at the same time. OK. So we have been introduced to a new term called high impact industries as a generic term. That was to say, let us not just focus on something specifically a data center, because another term may come up to do an end run around the standards conditions that we have set for data centers and they come up with another term so the desire by our residents is that we recognize data centers are just a part of something called high impact industries and that we address so do we go about just something generic that encompasses data centers or do we address data centers specifically just so that you understand why those terms are getting used and the concerns by the citizens did i represent that correctly okay so uh the other issue then is we have a calendar that we're going to present in the in on the 20th we have a way to make the citizens aware of what it is we're going to do when The biggest concern complaint was that when the zoning ordinance was finally made available for public input, it was too voluminous to see at one time. So that as we do this in bite-sized chunks, we have to make, or staff has to come up with a way to make sure the citizens are aware, oh, if we're going to have such and such on this date, that they have the information that we are actually looking at. And that will be easy enough to make sure.

Well, I mean, anything that we do with the zoning ordinance, we are going to be uploading to that zoning ordinance page. And then, I mean, like we said, we'd send out, you know, what articles we're working on, too, so they would know. But that would be the main source of the information.

Okay.

I want to continue using that page because people are used to going there looking for stuff.

Okay. So they have a way to see what it is they want to look so that they can have some prep time also.

Yes. You have to get it first, and then we upload it once you get it.

So our private conversation here, folks, just – We haven't talked about the matter of, okay, are you planning to do, let's say, for the things the staff really thinks are useful, needed, and wanted during the zone. Are they going to be highlighted a certain way versus what's highlighted as state required, so that's noticeable as a state requirement?

Yes, it's going to have to be highlighted differently so you know. There'll be some type of legend. okay and that's what will be published for people to see right and if there's any i mean well i told y'all i would use the strike through method if there was something that i thought needed to get be get gotten rid of and if it's something that needs to be added it would be in red looking forward to making this work okay so um

The other agreement we had with staff was to try and get this, what staff is going to try and do in preparation for all this is try to get it in our hands two weeks prior. That's still?

We're going to try.

Okay. So then the citizens would have it one week and six days prior.

It's going to be in your hands first.

Okay.

Because you don't want to get comments on something that you haven't seen.

All right. So two weeks and do our best to review it when you can.

I'm trying to reconcile the timeline here. If two weeks prior to Our next meeting is going to bump into the next Board of Supervisors meeting where they're going to approve the schedule and potentially change the schedule if they want data centers or the high impact areas to be a priority. So I guess you're going to roll with the assumption that the current schedule as we have it written is what we're going to be doing the first meeting in September. Which you've already started doing. But in the event on August 20th they say pause and prioritize data centers, then you're going to have to shift gears. And so will we. And I'm good with that. I just want to make sure we were clear about that.

Yeah. So are we in agreement to offer up the suggestion as well during that meeting?

I'm willing to say, OK, this is how we'd like to do what you've been asked. However, if there is a desire to do something first and supplement, I mean, do an amendment to the current zoning ordinance based on demand for whatever from the citizenry that they feel is more important, that we work for the board of supervisors in that sense, we're willing to adjust accordingly. OK. All right.

Can I ask another question?

Yes, please.

Jen, do you have their memo that they presented tonight? OK. Because I haven't seen it. You need to see it. You'll need to see it. Then if you could keep one for the file. Yeah, I just wanted to make sure it was gotten in your hands. I didn't know if y'all already had it because it wasn't at my desk, so I wanted to make sure that you had the memo.

Got it. I do think what I'm going to ask. When we. The next work session. What I'm going to ask is that there be. A tutorial by staff. With the public. specifically about what is it about a buy right i think there's a misunderstanding that something's so automatic about buy right there's still some procedurals procedures and processes with regard to how buy right exists with regard to that uh industrial center right industrial park okay the buy right is not something oh since it's by right i simply can go in and do it What are the terms, conditions that we have with regard to buy right for that industrial park? So it's clear what the obligations are to make it work.

So you want that prior to the article that talks about buy right uses?

Well, I think we start with that, because it's something that is good information for the public to have soonest. And I would expect that to be like a five-minute presentation, correct?

Yeah, it shouldn't be long.

Yeah. So that when the public is addressing matters of by-right issues, they are understanding what it is that they like or don't like about it the way it operates in Franklin County.

Okay.

Thanks. And that's for the industrial park because there are certain limitations there. Anything else? So are there any general announcements or updates from staff?

I don't have anything.

Our next, anything else from the public? The citizens, the people that matter the most. Yes, sir. That was a very comfortable walk.

Well, it just came up because you said that you referred to it as the industrial park. I just wanted to clarify that it's not an industrial park. It's a regional enterprise park, which is separate use and district from the M1, M2 industrial uses. Correct.

Absolutely correct. our next scheduled meetings are wednesday on september 2nd and the 23rd 6 p.m here in the boardroom as work sessions for articles one through three september 8th is our monthly public hearing which will include a work session on articles one and three because there's only one application can you tell us what that application is that we're going to address

for on september 8th we have only one is it an sup um it is an sup for auto service okay thank you so before you hit that um i'm not going to be here on the second um we're out of town would like to participate so is this something that I can can we set up a call in in some we can set up to where I can participate over phone or ever how we do I can talk with IT about that okay well don't only miss you physically meeting adjourned 801