Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Mic check, one, two. This begins the meeting of the Franklin County Planning Commission starting at 6.01. Ms. Richardson, please conduct a roll call.

Mr. Evans?

Here.

Mr. Jefferson?

Present.

Mr. Hancock? Here. Mr. Clements? Here. Mr. Doss? Mr. Pendleton?

Here.

Mr. Peters?

Here. At this point, we'll go over the minutes from our August 11, 2026 meeting. Are there any discussions, issues, or changes regarding the minutes? Hearing none, the minutes are approved as written. For the public hearing, we have application for a special use permit. Application of Chad Burnup, applicant, and David and Sandra Burnup, owners, requesting a special use permit on an approximate 4.49 acres of property zoned A1, Agricultural District. The parcels are located at 762 Redwood Road in the Union Hall Election District of Franklin County and further identified by real estate records as tax map parcels number 0540015900 and Number zero five four zero zero one six three zero two The purpose of the special use permit request is to allow for sales service and repair of automobiles trucks recreational vehicles motorcycles and existing buildings This property has a future land use Royal rural area County and we'll start with a staff presentation by Miss Franklin members

A little background on this property. The property does have a single family home with two detached garage structures with frontage along Redwood Road and is surrounded by A1 agricultural zoning. This area consists of residential dwellings, farmland, and wooded properties. The proposed automotive repair shop is conducted in the detached garage behind the home that is placed diagonally on the property. and is accessed from Redwood Road Route 705 as shown on the conceptual plan. There is a wood privacy fence between the subject property and 780 Redwood Road on the left side of the subject property along with a tree line towards the front of the property line and a wood privacy fence between the subject property and 712 Redwood Road on the right side of the subject property. The county received a complaint regarding the applicant conducting automotive repair in the detached garages. Staff has not received any phone calls about the application. This is your subject property location map. Your GIS aerial showing the location of the property. This is your zoning map. And your future land use map. The property has frontage and will be accessed on Redwood Road. The surrounding area is single family dwellings on both sides of the subject property and the rest of the area is vacant farmland and wooded lots. This small business will not generate much more traffic than the single family dwelling does on a daily basis. The business averages three customers per day to about 15 per week and 60 to 65 per month. The noise generated by this business should be minimal because the service and repair are accomplished inside of the garage, which will help reduce the noise of the shop. The landscape screening and privacy fence will protect the aesthetics of the surrounding area. Staff conclude that the use will not be a substantial detriment to adjacent properties, change the character of the zoning district, and will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter and with the uses permitted by right in the A1 Agricultural Zoning District. Staff recommend that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the special use permit with the following five conditions. Number one, the proposed use shall be developed in substantial conformance to the conceptual plan titled Burnup 762 Redwood Road, tax map numbers 0540015900 and 0540016302 prepared by the applicant. Number two, the applicant owner shall vacate the property line between the two parcel ID numbers 0540015900 and 0-5-4-0-0-1-6-3-0-2 by plat or deed of vacation approved by the planning department. Number three, the landscaping and privacy fence along the southern property line between subject property and 780 Redwood Road and the privacy fence along the northern property line between the subject property and 712 Redwood Road shall be maintained Number four, the applicant must adhere to all VDOT regulations regarding the entrance to the property for the use to allow for service and repair of automobiles, trucks, recreational vehicles, and motorcycles. Number five, no vehicles being serviced shall be parked in front of the single family dwelling. Any questions for me?

Any questions from the commissioners? Okay, thank you, Ms. Franklin.

The applicant also gave me four signatures for adjoining property owners to be submitted for record in support of the use.

Very good. Thank you. Next, let's hear from the applicant. Please state your name and status.

Chad Barnock.

Owner?

Yes, sir. Okay.

What would you have anything that you wanted to add to that?

I think she pretty much summed it up.

This has been a business that's actually been in operation for a while?

Yes, sir.

Okay. How are you, are you understanding of the conditions and you accept these conditions?

Yes, sir. Okay.

I think we'll have to talk about the conditions. Any questions from the commissioners for our applicant?

Mr. Chairman, what's your hours of operation typically?

8 to 5. Monday through Friday.

We had the opportunity to do a site visit. We were impressed with what you're offering the community. The matter of what we saw as a conceptual plan versus the condition was number five, the condition is no vehicles being serviced shall be parked in front of the single family dwelling. But the conceptual plan had some customer vehicles in front.

There was one or two in that because I had a van. My personal van was parked out front in the yard as well.

Right. Your personal vehicles are not questioned. We just want to make it clear that given your location that all customer vehicles will be behind. Yes, sir. Okay. The matter of the fence... Our thought is for years down the road in maintaining the fence, we'd like to put in a stipulation that the fencing be at least five feet high. So in defining the terms maintaining the fence, that if you have to replace part or whatever, that it be at least five feet high, would you find that to be an acceptable condition?

Yes, sir. Because I probably just talked to the owner. And you're looking at the property to the left. We were actually getting ready to take the fence and redo it.

OK. And so five feet is not a problem for you either. Yes, sir. All right. Any other? Mr. Chairman? Yes.

What do you do with the oil, used oil?

I got a big barrel out back. I put it in, and then I got a guy that's got a waste oil heater, and he comes and picks it up.

Any further? Thank you. Thank you. Okay, next is citizen comment. Next is citizen comment. Ms. Richardson, do we have anyone signed up to speak regarding this application?

There is no one signed up.

Well, very good. So is there anyone in the audience wishes to speak to this application? Well, this ends the citizen comment session for this application. It's now time for the commissioners. What are your comments or questions that you may have before we finalize our recommendation for action? This is nice. I do want to laud the fact that you have a skill that there is a demand, a desire, and the fact that you're trying to do something that puts that skill, providing a service to your neighbors and the community, I appreciate that effort. So thanks for doing that. We just want to make sure that as a business in A1 that you are adhering to standard business practices. As the chair, I can't make a motion, but I hope that someone makes a motion to account for what needs to be in the conditions.

Mr. Chairman. Yes, Mr. Jefferson. I guess I probably should have asked the applicant this. I did ask him about his working hours. You know, if we approve this, then this stays with the property regardless of who is there into the future. I'd like to consider putting a condition on certain hours of operation.

Can I ask the applicant if— No, you can make the most—yes, you can, but he's already agreed to Monday through Friday, 5 to 8.

Well, that's what he said he did, but I'd like to make another condition on the timing is from, I don't know, say 8 to 6, Monday through Friday. Okay. I'd like to make that as a motion as well.

So we have the condition as identifying the parcels. Second condition is that we vacate property line to connect two pieces of parcel. Landscaping privacy fence, the condition is that the fences will be maintained to at least five foot height. The you do have to complete all VDOT requirements and regulations. Number five was no vehicles being service shall be parked in front of the single family dwelling and then number six. Who be hours of operation money through Friday from 8 to 6?

Yeah, I mean that's a number I. If that's a workable time frame, then I'd like to make that number six condition.

Mr. Chair. Yes, sir.

is is that are we discussing that up that number 6 now what's yes, we are.

Motion has been made yet.

No, I just made a suggestion for a lover where the conditions.

You have a comment. Well, I just he he said we got a letter of support from the adjoining landowners. They would be the ones most affected by the hours of operation. And if they're all OK with whatever he's doing, I guess I don't feel comfortable limiting his ability to make an income on that. That's my point of view.

To be clear, you're saying since he's been operating 8 to 5, remain 8 to 5?

Whatever he's, I don't feel comfortable adding that just out of, I mean, this is a man's business when we're talking about his. No, we're not limiting him. We're giving him an extra hour. Well, but what if he wanted to go out at 9 o'clock and work? Then we are limiting him. And that's, again, that's my point of view. I just don't feel comfortable putting that restriction on there.

Mister chair, yes, I think the reason why I was suggesting it is is to it's my understanding that whatever whatever conditions are put on this it goes with this property. So in so hypothetically in the future if this gentleman was to sell or you know, whatever other scenarios you may have exist that if it if there's nothing in the conditions at that point in time. You could have somebody operating out of this garage 1 a.m. in the morning, and you could do nothing about it.

Correct.

So that's the only reason why I was suggesting the condition, just for that reason.

Yes, Mr. Peters. I just want to clarify. There's already a sound ordinance that he would have to be under, correct?

No. The noise ordinance doesn't regulate his type of business.

Amplified sounds only. Again, I don't feel comfortable adding that one, but that's... Okay.

I think from the sake of Planning Commission, we are talking about a business which has typically stated hours. That's normal for a business. We are in a neighborhood, so how we move forward, that would be a consideration of what makes sense. So any other further discussion, or would someone like to make a motion? We can't act without a motion.

We first need to make a motion to add the proposed condition?

No. The motion would include whatever condition. And then we'd have it seconded, and then we can have further discussion.

I'll make a motion to amend the five existing recommendations we have, including Mr. Evans' eight to five.

Eight to five? Eight to six.

Eight to six? No, no, no. It's five recommendations here. Correct. So I want to make sure that we have all six recommendations, including Victor's eight to five work schedule.

As a correction, I think it was eight to six.

OK. And for staff? And the fencing?

The fencing?

Yes, the five foot height, yes.

Is it OK if we put something like the privacy fence shall be maintained at least five feet in height?

Yes.

Because if you want.

The person making the motion, is that acceptable? OK, so before we have a second we have. In addition to the five conditions as stated, we added in condition three that the fence would be maintained to at least five foot minimum. We'd add a six condition that the hours of operation be Monday through Friday from 8 to 6. Is there a second?

I said.

We have a second. You have it OK discussion.

Is there a reason we don't add Saturday? I mean, Saturday's a pretty standard workday as well then. I just really don't feel comfortable limiting. I mean, when somebody's come in with a garage on A1, do we normally put that stipulation?

We try to businesses that are close to single family dwellings to make some types of hours of operation. If the planning commission wants to do Saturdays, like from 8 to 1 or 8 to 5, 8 to 6. I mean, yes, you could amend the motion. Include Saturdays, but that doesn't mean that this gentleman has to work on Saturdays but if he wanted to he would be able to or when and if he sells the property and Somebody wants to do the same type of business then They would have to adhere to whatever hours you put in or come in and ask for or come back and ask For the special use permit to be amended So you're asking the Planning Commission consider adding a Saturday I

If we're going to do that, that's what I would, I mean.

And for Saturday, you're saying the same hours?

I would. I don't think it's uncommon for garages to work on Saturday, I guess. But the same hour, 8 to 6? Yeah.

OK. Further discussion by Planning Commission as to whether that's a reasonable change?

He asked for Monday through Friday.

Correct. I think the consideration is he's not going to own the land forever. Whoever buys it next, do we want to make that option now or that person would have to come in and ask for that option later?

Mr. Chairman, I don't have a problem with Saturdays. That's fine. And I certainly have no intention of hurting anyone's business. Again, I'm just thinking about a process, thinking about down the road and trying to make sure that it's positioned properly in the future in the event that something else is starting to work there.

Mr. Pendleton, would you want to reconsider your motion to add that Saturday?

Yeah, I'm fine adding Saturdays if we agree.

Well, we just you've agreed to amend the motion So as I understand the motion do you have it written I?

Understand the motion excuse me that it is to approve with six conditions Condition number three was added to five to five foot fence and then there was condition six of of hours of operation Monday through Saturday, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Is there a second?

Okay, so that's the motion. Please conduct a roll call.

Mr. Peters?

Yes.

Mr. Pendleton?

Yes.

Mr. Doss?

Yes.

Mr. Clements? Yes. Mr. Hancock?

Yes.

Mr. Jefferson?

Yes.

Mr. Evans?

Yes.

I have six ayes with the six conditions.

And when will this be presented to the Board of Supervisors for final action? October 20? So, sir, the final decision will be by the Board of Supervisors at their next month's board meeting on October 20. You may feel free to leave because it's all that's important to you, or you can continue to sit and watch. At this point, we are at open citizen comment time. We've completed the public hearing portion of applications. Now we have open citizen comment for anyone who would like to comment on subjects not related to this evening's application. Ms. Richards, do we have anyone signed up to speak?

We have no one signed up.

Thank you for that. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to make a comment? Well, this ends the open citizen comment session. We have agenda items. Three items on our agenda are about zoning ordinances. One, a review of staff's annotation of articles and decide if their annotation method is acceptable or what needs to be different. Also, assignment of citizen zoning ordinance comments for commissioners to monitor. A third item will be review of results of the August 20 Board of Supervisors work session. So we'll start with the staff. Provided us hard copies of the way they foresee annotating the proposed zoning ordinance so that we understand what is it that is required by State Code of Virginia. What is it that was carried over by current zoning ordinance from the current zoning ordinance? And what is it that staff really would like to see in the zoning ordinance? With those three things, we could then make those decisions when we have an actual work session on the zoning ordinance on the 23rd of this month as to whether those things should be, kept as written changed or deleted so today's meeting is just so we understand staff's process so that we can do our work on the 23rd okay thank you um first of all um we finished articles one and article two we emailed them to you

last Friday but the question if you could think about it and before you leave or email Jen to let her know is if we email you something do you want a paper copy waiting for you here at the dais or you're going to make your own copies we don't mind like I'm putting mine in a binder so I can have it all together so when y'all start talking I'll have something to write on So just let her know before you leave or email her how you would like us. I mean, I don't mind emailing it to you, or we can have it delivered to your house if you would rather have the paper copy than having it on email. We just need to know how you want it.

Please make sure Jen's aware of how you want to receive this.

So that when you're here on the 23rd, you'll have it. If you don't have it today in front of you, you'll have it in front of you. So the first three articles are kind of hard just because a lot of it does come from the Code of Virginia. Some of it, things have been Added to, if we add something, it will always be, if staff adds something, it will always be in red, or if it's something new, it'll be in red. So at the top of your page, you'll see on each page, there should be a little legend, and it'll tell you what color. goes to what, like blue goes with the code of Virginia, the red goes with new or staff changes, green is what's in the current ordinance. If it's something we're still working on, maybe with the county attorney or with the planning commission, it'll be in a pinkish color. And then if staff knows that there's been a citizen comment on something, we will try to highlight it in an orange color if we know right up front. I did find, I think it's in one of y'all's packets when we get to the question, I did find an email on some more questions with Article 1. So we'll make sure that somehow, someway we go over those so that y'all know that they're was a citizen's comments. I don't know if y'all like this format. It's hard because you're asking for a lot of information. If staff gives you the article and we say we're good with it, that means staff likes everything that's in it. If we don't like something, we're going to tell you we want it taken out. So in other words, in articles, one and two staff is good the way it is written now except for that one that we're still working on that's in the um pinkish color but everything else we're good with does that make sense instead of having another color for y'all or do you want another color i mean the color would be for the whole thing because if we're giving it to you for review then that means staff feels good with it. This is what we're giving you. This is what we want. But if it's not what the planning commission wants or you feel like we've missed something that a citizen, some comment, then we want y'all to let us know or if it's something that we need to discuss more. So do you like this format? Do you want to think about it?

Well, let me appreciate Red. It could be two things. It could be new. Does it mean it's new and staff wanted that new change?

It would either it's new to the ordinance or it's a staff change. Like, for example, on the first page. where it says pursuant to the Code of Virginia, what I'm going to try to make sure we do when we see a Code 15.2-2280, put as amended. So if for some reason one year something gets amended and we miss it, then it means that this ordinance was amended with that update. Does that make sense?

Well, that's a good decision in that not that many people know what et sec means anyway. I guess that's what it means, as amended?

That's how I've always interpreted it, but I could be wrong.

Refresh your Latin.

Or like.

So.

That's not as amended. It means in sequence. So it starts at this section and continues. So for example, if you cite FOIA, and you cite the first section of FOIA.

All the stuff that follows.

Oh, OK. Well, I guess we could have it or just couldn't have it. Like we were copying.

I'm going to wait to refer to a statutory scheme. It can be super technical. The more appropriate way is cite the first and last section. That's technicality that almost no one follows. It's pretty common just to cite the first section.

So we wouldn't really need it. Well, to hear it is, but the idea of as amended, that stands for all state code, right? whenever state code is amended, that becomes the change that's required to follow. I don't think you have to say as amended. Would you show?

Okay. All right. So you could have both then.

So, like, one thing that staff added that we didn't add the first go-around is if you look at Section 1-1-3, and it doesn't – it's part of the state's code. It says protect against destruction and encroachment upon historic areas. And then there's another part of it in the state code says and working waterfront area. We just went ahead, since we were copying it directly from the state code, we just went ahead and added something that was left out. So it would be stuff like that. But when we get to Article 4, you'll probably see some other stuff, because that's when we'll start discussing about the agricultural district. So you will definitely see some probably strikethroughs and a new suggestion of staff, that type of thing. Good, good. It's just most of, like I said, articles one, two, and three a lot has to do with the state code. Well, all of it has to do with the state code, obviously, but this is all technical stuff that's just like at the front. Some people read it, some people don't. Staff has to read it. The meat of the ordinance to me is, article three has a lot in it that tells you what the planning commission does what the bza does what the zoning administrator does how you do permitting that type of thing the question is about the format um my question is so with this current format then

will we know what changes from the current code are were requested by the county and what changes were added by berkeley group into the proposed because right now it seems and this is kind of piggybacking his question right now it seems like the new is kind of in one category of of the red and it's not there's no distinguishing what is what was asked by the county and what was

I wasn't going to distinguish between the county and Berkeley group. I didn't know that y'all wanted me to distinguish between that. I mean, if we're doing another rewrite from Article 1 all the way to Article 10, then we're starting with the draft that we have. I'll tell you if it's in the ordinance now. And when you read it, you'll see we put some stuff on the footnotes that this came from section 25.3 of the current ordinance. And if it's been rewritten, we try to tell you. But I wasn't distinguishing between staff and Berkeley group. Because, I mean, I think you'll – staff has been talking about some things that we see on a daily basis, and there might be some changes in some of the sections that we think, because of citizen comment from comments we've heard from you all and comments from staff, that we may pull some stuff out that's in this draft ordinance that we may not like – to see and then it'll be up to y'all if y'all want to put it back in. Does that make sense? And I can let y'all know when we're doing that. But you'll be able to see because it'll be a strike through.

I think the bottom line is I do know that there was a fair amount of coordination between staff and Berkeley group as to what to have in the zoning ordinance.

Yes.

So and what Ms. Cooper stated was We're being given stuff that staff supports. That's the baseline. I was going to have a question, but I think you had a question there, Mr. Hancock. Yes, sir.

As an example, on the top of page 2, so 113 number 9 there, you have the text in color and a box around it. Are those the same color?

Are you talking about right here?

Number nine? That right there.

Number nine, basically that comes, it's, That is a whole new, that was in the state code that was left out. And so even though, I mean, we do, like it says, protect approach slopes and other lands, significant airports, including U.S. government and military air facilities. Some people might say, well, you don't need that in there, but it comes directly from the state code. And staff felt like it should be in the ordinance. So we added it. It wasn't in the first draft.

But are you asking about the color of the font? But the colors.

Are they? I'm a little colorblind. Oh. And I'm trying to speak to a broader, maybe a broader point. Okay.

So basically it is green and blue. So it's in the current ordinance.

This right here. Is that pink and red?

no it's red okay it's it's supposed I think it's just the the typing but it's I think because that box is darker that's why it looks like to the box is bold and the the the font is not okay but that is that would have been something totally new that we that staff decided to put in yes okay Yes.

Section A there, you've got in a red box of the Code of Virginia. It's a black box, but it's in a red box. Section 1, day 1, day 3, under Purpose A, see where you have the red box.

Yeah, I don't have it red. Does that matter?

No, I think it's sorry.

The one where it says of the Code of Virginia, that should not be in red. It was in, that should. No, it shouldn't have a red box around it. It was in the draft. No, that's a typo, sorry.

Well, I think what you were highlighting there was you want to add as amended.

That's what should have been.

So I think. What's happening is if it's in black font, it exists already, and they're just calling attention to what they want to do with it. If it's in red font, it doesn't exist already, and they're adding those words.

Would it be easier stuff in red if we didn't box it?

No, it's good. Stick to the format.

I don't know, try it, see if you like it. If you don't like it, we can always change it.

So I'd like to ask about page 1-3. A lot of what we're provided is boxed, but there are some sections that have no boxing whatsoever. The thought was if it's not in any way annotated, that was an addition based on a best practice. You know, if it's not in any way connected to being a Code of Virginia requirement, carryover from the current, or staff wanted it, then what doesn't get annotated is an option as to whether we even want it at all because it's not required and it's just thought of as just possibly a best practice to be added to our zoning ordinance. Correct?

Yes.

Top of page three. three there's items there that we could decide is unnecessary because it's not required and we don't think it applies to franklin county would be the approach that we would be taking that was the idea of knowing what was being offered as a best practice but optional as to whether we think it's appropriate for franklin county and is that true to that

Yeah, but there is something in the ordinance about, I thought there was, about the shoreline management plan and the zoning ordinance existing.

I'm wondering, again, did we miss something?

It should be 800.

Yeah, but this just references FERC and the shoreline management as amended and when it was.

So all I'm trying to point out is if we don't see it as being annotated, it's optional. Because it wasn't carried over or it's not required by the Code of Virginia.

Right. And those wouldn't be required by the Code of Virginia. It's just.

Okay. So when you see something that's not boxed, you want to look at it to see whether it's appropriate for Franklin County. I'm not against that, those comments. I just want to make sure we understand how things are being annotated and how we apply our logic here.

chairman yes could uh with the the citizen comment uh is that also is that comments that staff felt were uh worthy of being added in but they're not that uh again going on with victor was saying that it's not required by law or the existing ordinance it's just a proposal that um that

Right there, the comment that's highlighted in here, that was a citizen. The citizen comment, the way it was written, didn't think that that needed to be in there, that it was unfair that the United States or the Commonwealth of Virginia or the County of Franklin should not have to be subject to the provisions contained within. So in other words, that citizen would like to see that removed. And what I was going to do is when I presume, and we haven't discussed this, but when we go to talk about these articles, I figured y'all would allow me to do some type of presentation. Yeah. I mean, I'm not prepared to do that tonight. I mean, I could, but I mean, that I would do some type of presentation to talk about that citizen comment.

Correct.

And plus, if you're looking at citizen comment, then you'll probably come across it.

Yes, sir. So make sure I clearly understand.

So on page three, at the very top, section C, what is that? That would be a best practice, section C.

As a default, yes. That's what we would think of generically.

Not in a box. And it's just language there. Yeah.

That really only applies to Smith-Mountain Lake because it has to do with...

I mean, the whole section C. If you look at C, there's no box around anything.

Right, but when you read it,

No, he's just trying to make sure he understands. Okay. Yeah. Concept, yeah. I mean, on page six, it's violations continue, and there's a paragraph there with no box around it. So it's not a carryover from the current zoning ordinance, nor is it required by state statute. It's section 1-4-2 violations continue. And that's just left unboxed.

Yeah. Yes. Yes. Yes.

So make sure you make Jen aware of how you would like to receive The intention is that as staff completes them, you get them two weeks prior to when we're actually having the work session for it. So it gives you time. Also, the public will be made aware of these documents and have a chance.

They were put up today. I think they were put up today.

So I think the protocol is they come first to us, and then their next, staff's next action is to make it public.

Yes, and the holiday kind of messed us up a little bit.

Darn holidays. And did you want to talk about the crosswalk? Sure. Absolutely, Mr. Jefferson.

Yes. Yes.

Yeah, and I guess we probably should pull that out. I mean, basically that yellow highlighting in this incident is to tell us that we need to put a date there when it's adopted. But you'll notice that there's highlighting for different articles. And it comes from the original draft showing you that they're would be something in Article 3 that you might want to take a look at that pertains to this. I can take the yellow highlighting off. It might just be easier either add it or just take it off and then just us make a notation. I mean we know we've got to go back and put a date in. It was just a way for us to help. And then I guess we can talk. I mean, do you want us to keep the article sections that go along with different things? Do you want us to keep it highlighted yellow? Or we can just get rid of that highlight so you don't have so many colors?

I do know that in the final form, the highlights won't exist.

No, the highlights will not exist. Neither will footnotes. That stuff will all go away.

So they do serve a purpose of helping to remind everybody where those things need to be done or connected. I mean, I see a value in it. For the sake of this being a public document for review, I guess it just needs to be an annotation that the yellow highlights are for editorial purposes.

We can do that if you want us to leave them. i think it's helpful okay we can add it to the legend should we move on to your crosswalk yes um i always thought the crosswalk was useful um if i can find mine in here there it is I always thought the crosswalk was useful. It takes the old, so if you're looking at it at the top, it has previous zoning ordinance, and then it has the division, so 25-1, the authority enactment. It tells you where it is in the draft zoning ordinance, that it's in Article 1, Division 1, and then it gives you the sections that it's in so that you can take – This is where it talked about it in the current ordinance that we have now to the new, where it is in the new draft ordinance. And I always found it useful when I was reviewing it and so I wanted you all to have the, the final version in case you couldn't find something in the current ordinance, current previous ordinance, the ordinance that we have now, where it would be found in the draft ordinance. Like I said, I just thought it was useful.

So this is in order of the current zoning ordinance from 25-1? All the way through. Yeah. And then where it now exists in the proposed?

Yes. Y'all may not want to use it. I just, I mean, I use it. So I thought I would stick it in there.

So it could be helpful as to see what all was carried over and how much of the current proposed, of the proposed zoning ordinance, how much is reflected from carryovers from the current zoning ordinance. Well, thank you. Staff's doing a lot of work on this, so I appreciate that. I hope this format helps us in our process to make sure we do a methodical job of completing a review. Before we move on, I'm going to ask any other questions. We're good?

Nobody's asking any questions. Good.

The next item was that we have a slew, a lot, a bunch, many collections of the comments from our citizens. What you have, I've handed out to your positions. All this stuff has now been divided amongst us. The idea is with your amount of collection of citizen comments, if you would please review them, figure out how you want to organize it to know, to check off as we go through our work sessions that we did, in fact, pay attention to what it is that the citizens had specific issues with. One, to make sure they get addressed. Two, if we missed it, that's a good way to know, oh, we didn't say anything about that. So it's important. The challenge is, how are you going to get that organized? Because I divvied it up by pages. You may find in your close to 30 pages of written comments, maybe there's only a total of 10 issues when you read through it all. I don't know. But it would be good for you to know what the citizens are concerned about to ensure that we've addressed them, and especially if we missed it, that we circle back and get them. Yes.

And if you all do not still have it, if you remember to a certain date, Berkeley Group organized all those comments. Like if it was all about, let's say it was the a one, the 10 acres should be the same or just one acre. They, they did a spreadsheet that was at your May 13th meeting. And if anybody wants that, we can definitely email it to you. And then Jen has a spreadsheet of all of them that came in afterwards too. you saying the spreadsheet compiled all the comments yes because we started keeping up with them all right if anybody's interested it doesn't show yours specifically for your district but um okay so by handing them out to us

As we have them now and what staff has tried to do, I think we'll have a good checks and balance system so that we are concerned and faithful to our citizens have to say.

It was one of them, yes. We can send them again. We might as well just send them to all of you electronically. Yours is a little bigger, I think, your font, isn't it? I'm trying to remember.

Yeah, it's bigger paper, too.

But we can just send them to all of you.

Thank you.

And I think both of those documents are online, too. Are they? I know one of them. I know one of them's online. We can make sure they're all.

Next item, review of the results of the August 20 Board of Supervisors work session. So part of your handouts is the revised calendar of our work session in this format. I'll do my best to keep up with what we did schedule and what we're now scheduling to know if what I'll always have the as of date, as you see on the top. This is as of September 2. And we've shifted things down now so that if this calendar holds up, we would take it out to September 1st, 2027, which would mean that month or the next month we would be prepared to hold the public hearing. and make final action as to what would be proposed for board supervisor adoption so september or um september october of 2027 with the right with what we have set up so they um as a reminder the board supervisors When I asked them, should we conduct joint meetings every four months to go over that, they were more interested in getting updates with the end of every work session. So that'll be a process of emails, and maybe I'll have to show up at their own work sessions to give them a verbal. But at some point in time, it may seem important or appropriate that we have a joint session face-to-face with the Board of Supervisors about these things so there's an actual discussion. But they said that may be necessary, but it's up to us when we should recommend a joint session. We did talk about there's a desire to immediately draft an amendment to the current zoning ordinance on the subject of data centers. And there was a significant discussion about whether the Board of Supervisors felt that was necessary. So there was no consensus by the Board of Supervisors that they would like to change what they've asked us to do and move ahead with addressing data centers specifically with the idea that we need to amend the current zoning ordinance with new standards related data centers. So it is basically they said, well, it's up to you guys if you think that's important. But to the Board of Supervisors, there was no consensus that that was necessary. I'm of the opinion we are a resource for the Board of Supervisors. They did specifically task us to come up with a way to review the current or the proposed zoning ordinance. We've come up with a methodological way to do so. Unless the Planning Commission feels there's a need to change and do something that the board is not insisting needs to be done, that's what we're going to talk about now. But I can say actions that are being undertaken now is trying to assemble a panel of experts. They really did like the idea that when we do data centers and businesses similar to that, that we will be... They said they liked the idea of our convening a panel discussion on the pros and cons of data center so that our proposed standards in the zoning ordinance is fact-based. So we would at some point in time still do that panel. I think it will be important it will be in public so that people can appreciate the pros and cons as well as for us to do that. That, if we do it according to schedule, would occur in April next year. It also gives us the amount of time necessary for the researchers going into finding appropriate people to sit on this panel and to see to it that they would be able to put on their calendar. Yeah, we'll be there then. There's another point I wanted to make. The staff, the other point I want to make is staff is in the process of looking at other localities' ordinances related to data centers. And in the proposed zoning ordinance, we have approximately four pages of standards on just data centers. And to compare what we have is a proposed zoning ordinance as to what other localities have in their zoning ordinance and see what needs to be added to it to strengthen our zoning ordinance. So there is action going on to see to it that when we do data centers, we will have been comprehensive. So with that background, the question comes to the planning commission as to, do you see that we need to change the schedule and do data centers as soon as possible or stick to the schedule? And that's what I told the board supervisors is what I would bring to you.

We discussed a little bit, but the idea that current zoning has it by right. So if we were to make a recommendation to make it a special use permit, that allows us the flexibility of if one comes up to get to pull in the experts quicker if we need to, to actually discuss it. So is that something worth

discussing or to basically amend the current to a special use permit instead of by right is that as your staff i wouldn't just want to amend it for a special use permit you would need to put some type of supplementary regulations to get with it i wouldn't recommend just changing that is that a like a legal reason or what i guess what's the What's the reason is because if you're, that way you wouldn't have to have 30-some conditions on an SUP if you had supplementary regulations or in the draft ordinance, they're called use standards, if you already had them in place. So if the planning, as your staff, it's up to you, but as your staff, if you want to visit this I would say you start, whether it's going to be a permitted use or an SUP, and we start with the regulations that are in the current draft and then add to those or take away or add to those if that's something you want to do. And it'll just delay the zoning ordinance. But that's up to you as the planning commission of how you want to do it.

Yes, it's not a matter of changing by right to something on you. Then you have to do all that other stuff that amounts to an amendment.

I just wanted to, I didn't know quite what the process was on all that stuff.

No, it's just that's what staff would suggest. Now, that doesn't mean that's what you direct staff to do. But if you're asking me how I would prefer to do it, would prefer to discuss whether it's permitted sup and then have some type of youth standards so that you don't have to have that many conditions because your staff's gonna go start looking at youth standards to pull in stuff that's why it was when we had the well still with Even with the solar ordinance in the zoned area, we still had a lot of conditions. Even though we had a good ordinance, we still had a lot of conditions. So, I mean, there's some cases where you could have conditions that go along with the EU standards too, but I'd rather have them in place. Standards.

Similar to this topic, there was extensive discussion by the county attorney with the board of supervisors about the idea of establishing data center standards and conditions countywide in this county code. The bottom line is creating land use standards for data centers in a non-zoned area wouldn't stand up to legal challenges. Because there's no statutory authority for localities in Virginia to impose land use standards related to data centers in non zoned areas I think the concern of our citizens is These data centers are seen as intrusive and impactful But half of the county is not zoned and don't we care about that half also we do and It's just that in the Commonwealth of Virginia, localities aren't authorized to establish those kind of standards for data centers unless the Virginia statute changes. So as we move forward, whatever we do about zoning ordinance and data centers applies only to zoned areas. It won't translate to anywhere else. Any further discussion about the idea of do you want to adhere to the schedule or do we need to do data centers separate?

Yes. I guess the panel of expert opinion stuff on this, when do we expect? Are we still looking at November for that?

No, be well. No, not if we hold this schedule, then it will be April. OK, but what we are trying to do is. Find the people that are willing to come and make those presentations on the pros and cons. And I had said it just couldn't happen earlier than November just for people schedules.

Gotcha, OK. Mr Chairman, yes, to add to that point. I think it's a great observation or a great consideration that. a subject matter expert is going to be an important part of that discussion for the data centers. And I don't think we should rush in finding that person or those people. And if you're looking at best case, a February timeline of getting those people scheduled to attend, you're really not gaining, we wouldn't really be gaining that much between February and the beginning of April date to have that conversation. So I originally was in favor of doing it sooner than later, but I think in light of needing subject matter expertise, I don't know if there would be added value in moving it from April to February. That's true.

OK.

Thank you.

So this is not necessarily a motion, but would you agree that there is a consensus that we adhere to the schedule as presented? OK. Are there any, that ends the agenda portion, but are there any general announcements or updates as to what to be expected? I would like to ask for October 13th is our next planning commission meeting. Do we have a lot of applications?

We have four.

We have four. We have a second dwelling on the property in R2. We have a short-term rental special use permit, and we have a rezoning from A1 to B2 for a dock building business, which will be a contractor's office and facility with a special use permit for outdoor display on business property.

So we thought if it's possible, planning Commission meetings on these monthly dates of public hearings. We might be able to squeeze in a work session Chances are there won't be much time But we will have our first work session on 23rd and then on the 7th if there's something really minor that we could squeeze in on the 13th, yes, but have to be minor But right now plan that will only have three work sessions on articles one through three and Any other questions? Our next meeting is September 23rd and October 7th at 6 p.m. here in the boardroom as work sessions for Articles 1 through 3. October 13th is our next monthly public hearing. Gabbling out. Meeting is adjourned at 7.08.