Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Amen. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah.

Anyone there ready?

He's ready.

I will call the September 16th Frederick County Planning Commission meeting to order and we will have an invocation by Mr. Charles Markert, one of our own, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. If you please join me and stand. That's what we'll do.

Let us pray. Dear Lord, thank you for this beautiful country and this Representative Republic that you've given us, and please help us to keep it. And thank you for this wonderful valley and help us to be good stewards of it. Please bless we the people and this form of self-governance that we have as a result of our Constitution. Give us the wisdom to choose the right people to govern us well. Give them the wisdom to make the right decisions. And please put a hedge of protection around everybody here. And also put your healing hands on Joe Crane, who is one of us that are missing tonight, undergoing an operation. Please protect the elected and the volunteer officials that... and the appointed patriots that we have that are willing to give of their time and their effort and wisdom. We ask you these blessings and for grace for this gathering. Jesus, in your name we pray. Amen. Please join us in a pledge of allegiance. Pledge of allegiance to the flag.

Thank you. That brings us to adoption of the agenda.

So moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed likewise? We have an agenda. It leads us to committee reports. Any committee reports to my right?

The CPPC, the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee, met this Monday here in this room and took up four different comprehensive plan amendments for review. One was for AMK properties, a parcel out near the airport that's looking to do a conservation easement. There was another For BHSLC, a parcel to the west of 37 out past the hospital that's also looking to do conservation easement and change to a recreation overlay. There's a joining parcel to that with KSSLC looking to do a similar thing to move to a recreation overlay that adjoins a larger recreation parcel there to pursue some more recreation opportunities on the west side of the county. There was also a proposal from Carmus Limestone out in the Stonewall District on a small parcel that adjoins their existing mining operation to change the overlay to match the extracted mining along there as well. The first one from AMK Properties, the committee made a decision to move it forward with no recommendation one way or the other. The other three were recommended to come to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for approval. Also at that meeting, we reviewed the electrical infrastructure plan amendment. That is an amendment that is coming forward to look to add the public facilities, the electrical infrastructure facilities to the comprehensive plan. There's some really good discussion around that. We know we've got some top of mind activity with some transmission lines and this talk of data centers coming through our area. This was a proposed amendment that will put on to the comprehensive plan to try to restrict where those facilities can go to try to route them under existing through affairs and try to give us a little more control as a locality and a community on where those infrastructure projects go. And that was recommended to move through to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for approval as well. That's all I have.

Very good. Any other committee reports to my right? To my left, committee reports. Mr. Bottock?

Yeah, Mr. Chair, I have one. Frederick Otter Board of Directors met on September 8th. to review and approve the East Pit design-build project for $59 million. The project involves new buildings, a carbon treatment system, a reverse osmosis system, and a new 500,000-gallon storage tank. This will allow Frederick Water to use water from the East Pit, which is capable of holding 1.7 billion gallons of water, and the project is expected to be completed in June of 29. And the other item at that meeting, we authorized Snyder Environmental Services to relocate the Wetzel Well water line to avoid a conflict with Carmoose Operations. That's it.

Thank you, sir. Any other reports to my... Mr. Markert?

Yeah, a very short one. The Conservation Easement Authority in the budget has been granted $300,000 for their budget for the use in this coming year.

That's right.

Thank you. Any other reports?

Seeing none, that leads us to Winchester Planning Commission. We have Ms. Lisa Mayfield with us this evening. Good evening.

Good evening. We had a very productive meeting yesterday in which we reviewed two text amendments. The first one was to review additions from the state that were required, and then while the directors were, the planning directors were at it. They polished up some typos and other items within our text. And then the second one was to review and establish the neighborhood design district for the Berryville Avenue neighborhood design district and get that put into our zoning. Both passed, which is fine. Great.

Thank you. Dr. Orndorff, looks like you're Comrade is not with you this evening, sir.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'm flying solo this afternoon. I will have a brief report since there were no action items on the September 9th Board of Supervisors meeting. I don't have anything to report. Thank you. Very good.

That completes our committee reports, which leads us to item six, which is citizen comments. This is an opportunity for any citizens who would wish to speak to the Planning Commission to do so. I would ask that you come to the podium, state your name, Magisterial District, and limit your comments to three minutes or less. Would anybody like to speak to the Planning Commission? Seeing none, I will close citizen comments. That leads us into public hearings. The first one being Ms. Feltner with rezoning 07-26 for area green solutions. Good evening, ma'am.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. This is a request to rezone an existing B3 with proffers to an M2 with proffers. The property is located at the corner of Martinsburg Pike and Woodside Road in the Stonewall Magisterial District. The previous rezoning in 2013 was a modification to the monetary contribution due date. Staff would like to note revised proffers were received on this particular application this morning. A copy has been provided to you on your dais this evening. The change addressed an issue concerning the right-of-way dedication along Martinsburg Pike. The right-of-way dedication was increased from the initial 10-foot proposed to the current 25-foot to address those concerns. The changes are reflected in this presentation. All other proffers remain unchanged. The locator map reflects the property location in red. It is located along Martinsburg Pike in the northwestern part of the county. The property is highlighted in purple and is located at the intersection of Martinsburg Pike and Woodside Road. Cedar Hill Road is located across Martinsburg Pike to the west, and the railway is located along the east side of the parcel. The current zoning of the parcel is B3 and is located inside the Sewer and Water Service Authority area. The future long-range plan designates the parcel as business with mixed-use industrial office directly to the north. The proffers proposed, proffer A addresses the development of the property in conformance to the general development plan. Proffer B restricts the use to soap and cleaning compound manufacturing and general warehouse and storage only with a maximum of 40,000 square foot of combined floor area. Proffer C addresses your transportation. The proffer proposes a single entrance on Martinsburg Pike and a single entrance on Woodside Road. This is a reduction from the current application that's approved, which is which permits two entrances on Martinsburg Pike. Thus, this is reducing it to a single entrance. As noted earlier, the revised proffers have increased the dedication on Martinsburg Pike to 25 feet. The applicant has provided a 20-foot utility easement, a 50-foot wide corridor enhancement, which aligns with the comprehensive plan, and a $75,000 monetary contribution to assist in funding along Route 11 corridor improvements.

is also stated.

For the site design, the owner proffers to provide necessary zoning district buffers to the south and to the northeast with the additional row of plantings, a quantity of four rows of plantings. Lastly, a $0.10 per square foot monetary contribution for fire and rescue for the building area. As customary, staff has provided the positives and the negatives. The positives is the proffer restricts the use and limitation of the size of the structure. The proposal is expected to reduce the traffic volume. Some of the concerns is the property is currently designated business, and the use proposed is typically associated with industrial use, industrial land use designation. The property is situated with and around existing established residential properties to the east, to the west, and to the south, which the attempt to proffer, the buffers have been included in the proffers. The building design should be of high quality design, and though a render has been provided, the proffers do not speak to the building material or the design standards. This is the updated generalized development plan. As noted, this does reflect the current 25-foot right-of-way dedication to accommodate future road improvements along Martinsburg Pike. It includes the full Category C buffer with the additional rows of trees to the northeast and to the south of the parcel. And the corridor enhancement buffer is shown on the west along Martinsburg Pike. This item is presented for public hearing. Staff is seeking a recommendation from the Planning Commission following a public hearing to forward to the Board of Supervisors. Staff is available to answer any questions, and the applicant's representative is also available to answer any questions.

Okay. Any questions? To my right. Mr. Collins. Oh, okay. Go ahead.

Yes. Thank you. I don't know if this is a you or an applicant question, but is this a relocation of an existing business that's in Frederick County?

IT IS. THE APPLICANT CAN SPEAK TO THAT AS WELL.

OKAY.

MR. DAVEN.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU, MS. FELTNER, FOR THE PRESENTATION. A COUPLE QUICK QUESTIONS. LOOKING THROUGH THE REPORT HERE THAT WAS PROVIDED UNDER THE TRANSPORTATION AND SITE ACCESS, There's a note that the current proffer mirrors a prior proffer with the exception of a 12-foot lane onto Martinsburg Pike. Is that what we were talking about with right-of-way, or was that proffer originally a transportation improvement that was in the prior proffer that isn't in the current proffer? I ask because we know that Route 11 corridor down there has some transportation challenges that we probably won't fix with one project, but if there are pieces along the way as we do multiple projects that could help improve the capacity down there. I wouldn't want to give something up if it was already proffered.

So the original rezoning from 2006 was a higher use applicant. And at the time, Martinsburg Pike was scheduled to be a four lane divided. With this application, according to VDOT, they've looked at it. They've commented that it's going to be a reduction in traffic. Along with that, we have road improvement plans that has established a six-lane divided highway from Winchester city limits up to this particular property. And then from there, it will reduce down currently to a four-lane. divided highway Woodside Road Woodside Road was originally on the plan to be a connection which has since been abandoned the turn lane if warranted in addition to the 25 foot that has been given for the widening for the six lanes if warranted at the site plan would be a requirement through VDOT that they would have to adhere to okay

And this zoning is a light industrial zoning. You noted there's some residential around there. With this zoning and the current set of proffers, is there a specific height restriction that would fall on this project?

The only height restriction is what the ordinance allows for M1. But that certainly can be something that you can suggest as a limitation for the proffers.

And M1 is 60 feet, I believe? Yes, sir. One more, and then I'll turn it over to someone else. The discussion on buffers, I know they've got some buffers here to try to reduce the impact on the residential. It looks like most of those are kind of planting buffers. Does the county code or this specific application look at any like board fence or anything like that, especially on kind of the residential that abuts the property?

So the applicant is detailing a full category C buffer, and that includes all of the landscaping requirements and a fence. Okay. They've also proffered a board-on-board decorative fence for the front property.

Okay. Thank you. You're welcome.

Mr. Thomas? It appears to me that this is a much less intensive use than what was originally planned. Is that correct?

That is correct.

Okay. I just wanted to make sure I was looking at it correctly. Thank you.

Okay. To my left, any questions?

Ms. Broomback? The Woodside Road, I meant to drive up there today, and it's been a while since I've been up that way. Is that a gravel road? It is. It is. Is there any improvements planned for that?

The improvements, currently it has a 15 foot right of way area for the road. They're proffering an additional 25 feet from the center of the road. Again, that road was on the future plan as being a roadway used but then when car moose did their rezoning it got Removed so the road entry area will basically serve what's there now? and then the improvement to this particular site and

Well, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Dr. LaManna.

Quick question. Actually, a quick question for you, if I may, Mr. Chairman, just for being a rookie here. Is the proffer of $75,000 to assisted funding planned transportation improvements, is that a common maneuver? Is that a common proffer that the commission usually entertains?

It is. We... The short answer is yes. It is done. My question is, what is the intent of that contribution? Is there some aspect of improvement up here that it's targeted for? Or is it a general overall improvement, monetary contribution for improvements anywhere in the county? So that is my question for you, Ms. Feltner.

I'm going to direct that to the director.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With the general nature of the language, we still wouldn't necessarily take the $75,000 and put it on a project, say, in Stevens City. There does have to be a nexus under state code between the proffer and the location that is proffering it. However, the way it's written, theoretically, we could use it toward most projects on Route 11 north, and so that's most likely what we would do.

Okay. Let me go back and ask to Ms. Broombeck's question. I know Woodside Road is gravel. Is that acceptable for a business to operate on a gravel road or is VDOT going to have some concern about that? I know we've got a list here in the county of roads that we're trying to get paved so we don't have gravel roads in the county any longer. I understand that Up across the railroad tracks, Carmoose has asked for this particular road to be abandoned, the right of way to be abandoned. But what about this piece here where this entrance is going to, and I realize it's not high intense use. It's not a lot of traffic. And if you want the applicant to address that, that's fine as well.

I will turn it over to the applicant, but I will tell you the ordinance will require them, if that is their entrance for commercial, it will meet VDOT standards. AND GRAVEL IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE MEANS. WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO THE APPLICANT.

OKAY. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I'M MARISSA WITH GREENWAY ENGINEERING. To answer some of the questions that were brought up, is this a relocation? Yes. They are currently on, the name of their road just went out of my head. They're right across from Clearbrook Park where the pool entrance is at and the Clearbrook Fire Station. So we would just literally be moving that facility to a more desirable location.

Just, I apologize, just to clarify for commissioners who aren't intimately familiar with Clearbrook area, that's Bruce Town Road.

Bruce Town Road, yes, thank you.

Sorry. What makes this location more desirable?

Right now, their building is more like a metal shed, and they are a growing business, a slow growing business. What they produce are the bases for dish liquids and laundry detergent. It's water, baking soda, and a special solution that they get from France. Everything's 100% biodegradable. They take this product, they put it in a spinner, spin it for an hour, put it on trucks. Once the truck's full, they ship it to the P&G plant in Martinsburg, where they finish the product. So they're looking to improve and have, like, a nice frontage where they can be better seen. They want a better facility. They're looking to have a rather nice-looking facility, to be quite honest. And they're just looking to get into a better location.

And do they understand that VDOT may require them to pave Woodside Road or construct turn lanes on Route 11?

We actually went back and forth a little bit regarding if they even wanted access on Woodside Road. Their thought process was at first he didn't. And we talked about it. We were entrance off of Martinsburg Pike, exit on Woodside to get back on Route 11. It's kind of the route that we were thinking. And that's not really something that we brought up. So it's something that I can mention to my client and see what their thoughts are. They may decide to not have an access off of Woodside.

OK. And do they have, I mean, I don't know what's in their special formula from France, but is there some?

I don't know what the special formula is either. His description is a special formula.

Is there something to keep our waters from getting?

Everything's 100% biodegradable. It's all environmentally, there's no chemical solution in anything that they're using at their facility. The chemical part does not come in until it gets to the P&G plant.

Okay. And was the $75,000 for a specific use?

No, it was not for a specific use. It's a general fund. Okay.

Perfect.

And that was from the previous proffers.

Okay. Any other questions to my right? Mr. Whitaker.

You may have already addressed this, and I may have not been paying attention. On the gravel road, that's going to kick up a lot of particular matter. Is the state requiring you all to surface treat that, or is the state going to do that?

We haven't had that discussion with the Department of Transportation. They did not make a comment on it with the CUP. Comments, okay, so that's something that I think they would probably wait until site plan to address Okay, thank you Mr. David Thank You mr. Chairman

So quick question on the building heights. Have buildings been specced or designed at this point with an M1 butting up right against these residentials, if there was an ability to proffer out some of that 60-foot height?

I do have an illustrative layout. I did not bring that with me. That was the one thing I forgot this evening. I do not believe it was 60 feet. Okay. And I can double check on that, and I can send that out to everybody tomorrow and let you know.

It certainly sounds like a good business and a good project. I just have concerns about how we can reduce our impact to the neighbors.

No, and I completely understand that. I mean, their goal is they want to have a small portion being their chemical manufacturing, and then the other portion is going to be warehouse manufacturing. What are most warehouse heights around here? Yeah, because I was thinking 40 feet. Significantly less than 60 normally. Yeah, I was thinking 40 was like the height limit was what was sticking in my head, but I don't want to quote that and mislead you.

But I would like to see something like that if it worked and made sense and we could reduce the height of that building by proffer so that things like lights on the top of it don't spread as far into neighbors and things like that. Yeah, I think that's a proffer that we can definitely add. That would be nice. The other item I've got is I see the buffers and the upgraded buffers with some additional plantings. I see a discussion about a split rail fence along Route 11. I didn't see anything about board on board or anything like that against that neighbor that's kind of right there on the rear corner of the property. Is that something that might be considered as well? I know lots of times we build these berms and these buffers, but during the winter, sometimes a fence helps with noise and you shed.

Okay.

It's a six-foot-high opaque fence in the drawing, but it's not necessarily a proffer. Is that?

So the zoning ordinance is going to require them to do a full buffer. And of that, they have three options. The least distance, which is 100 feet, is going to require them the full buffer. That full buffer is the landscaping requirements, which is your three row of evergreen or three row of plantings. and the opaque element, which could be a fence or a berm. And they've illustrated on the MDP, or the generalized plan, that that is an opaque fence, which is a board-on-board fence. Okay. I've zoomed in up there, so you can... Got it.

So that's part of the code requirement, so it wouldn't need to be as a proffer.

That's correct. They could, from now until site plan, if they wanted to, they could enlarge that to the 400 foot, which is not likely because they don't have the distance. Sure. But they can't go any closer to 100 feet. They can't go any less than 100, and that requires that opaque element.

Okay. Thank you very much for the clarity.

Mr. Chairman, if I could... apologize for butting in again. One thing I'd want to clarify is I believe they can meet the opaque element. You may recall from a semi-recent ordinance update that they may be able to meet the opaque element with a chain link fence with the slats in it. So if you're seeking board on board, I would push for making sure you get into that level of detail as opposed to Just the opaque and the other thing I would note just as a suggestion for consistency with recent discussion is actions You were discussing a 45 feet height limitation with the Winchester Gateway Application so that may be appropriate here as well just from a consistency perspective, of course You're welcome to suggest whatever you like, but that's just a suggestion. Thank you

Mr. Kearns. Yes, sir. Thank you. A couple of questions for you here. Would the applicant be willing to proffer in high-quality design as materials because that was not proffered in? Yes. I think it was generally discussed, but it wasn't proffered in.

No, it's not proffered in, and we can definitely add that proffer to it. The building that they have right now, Not to bring up a bad word, but it kind of looks like a nice Northern Virginia data center, but much smaller and very attractive with the lights on the outside, nice landscaping, a fence around it, like an iron fence, brick. Just a very nice, sleek design. It's there to enhance the corridor rather than be an eyesore. It's very important to him to make the corridor look better and make this something that builds on the corridor.

Okay. Thank you. Yes. Second question. It says the building is going to be 40,000 square feet, and I think it was like – approximately 15,000 square feet for the manufacturing and 25,000 square feet for warehouse. Nothing in there is mentioned about office space. Is there office located in there as well?

Technically, it's not. It wouldn't be. It would just be, like, office for whatever the use is. It's not going to be office space. It would be, like, An office for one office for the manufacturing use and one office for the warehouse use. So it's not really an office use. That's why we didn't include that in there.

Okay. But they're not going to have a separate location where their offices are? No, no. The executive team will be there as well? Right, yes. They'll be working out of there? Yes. Okay. I would love to see the parking layout for this at some point, but I'm sure that'll come down. Would you, would the applicant, do you know if they'd be willing to proffer in, they said the plantings, and we're talking about the buffering. Specifically, and this has come up a lot with other recent rezonings, to proffer in the planting of Virginia-specific native species? Oh, yes. Okay. I just want to make sure of that because that wasn't proffered in there.

I was like, is that not in the ordinance that it has to be?

Okay. We have an approved list of materials that are allowed.

That are allowed.

Definitely not all of those are Virginia native species.

So you want it to be Virginia native. Yes.

I do hear that a lot from constituents that that's important. So thank you. And then the last question I have for you is the machinery you were mentioning. We've talked a lot about in the past about machinery noise and bleed of machinery noise. Is this going to be, is this loud machinery? Is this going to be coming outside of the building? Or is the house right next to it going to be hearing this stuff on a Sunday?

No, it's inside the facility. And they do not operate seven days a week. It's a Tumblr, and all it's doing is mixing the solution. Where does Chrissy say that? Wrong email.

But then you've also got loading and unloading of trucks with beeping and rifts and all of that. I would be concerned with that noise impact on. Are they going to be running 24 hours a day, seven days a week, or are they operating hours?

No, no. So looking at this, the location of the building is Most likely we're going to have the parking in this area over here. And the building is going to be more centered over here. We're going to have to be able to have tractor-trailer to go around the building. So it's not going to be up against any property line directly. The machine that is going to be mixing the solution is inside the building, not outside. And now I wish I would have gone over and listened to them mixing it.

It's okay. And I would never have. It's just a concern. Yes. Noise is a common concern.

It's always a concern, yes. I completely understand that.

Is it part of our zoning regulation that they not have bays facing 11 or a major thoroughfare, or is that something that's usually proffered out?

That's usually a proffered item. There is specific language in the comprehensive plan about buildings facing and aligning on 11 and some of the other major corridors. But if that was the case, you would need to proffer that for this particular property.

OK. I don't know that exact language. I don't want to ask if they're willing to proffer that if I don't know the language to put in there.

I understand. Normally they say that the bays for the structure must face away or opposite from the roadway. Okay. Or specifically they cannot face the particular roadway.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Is that going to be the design anyways? Are they willing to proffer that? Do you believe? So the bays aren't facing Route 11?

Yeah, the bays will not face Route 11. Woodside Road, potentially. We're not 100% certain of the direction the building is going to be going in yet. But we would not have anything facing Route 11, no. We want the front of the building to be what's seen.

Perfect. Thank you.

Yes.

That's all, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

I would just add for the architectural design elements to be a little more detailed with like brick or what you plan to use on the building instead of just high quality elements because that's not.

Yeah. No, we can. I'll definitely. Yes. I just don't have it with me. I can definitely put in there what the materials are going to be.

Okay. What are their hours of operation? You said they wouldn't be operating on weekends.

Do you know what they are? I think they are Monday through Friday operation, like normal 8 to 5. Okay.

I'm a little concerned. I share the concern of my colleagues with the residents being so close there with noise being a concern. So I wonder if... I wonder if we need a proffer to state those operational hours is what I'm wondering. Can you explore that with them?

Yes, I can.

I'm not going to throw myself on a sword over it, but I know if I was a resident there, 100 feet, yeah, I get it. That's nice. That may or may not do the trick. Okay, any other comments, listeners? Thank you very much. Whoops. I'm sorry.

And this is just curiosity. You say they mix this chemical. Do they put it in a tanker truck or do they put them in totes or bottles or do you know? No.

Have you ever seen the, it's like the water crate. Big plastic totes. Yeah, the big plastics with the metal around it. Yes. They put them in that, and then they ship them off, yes.

Okay. And 100% of what they do goes to? P&G. P&G, okay.

Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. This is a public hearing. If anybody would like to speak to this item, either for or against it, this would be the time to do so. Please come to the podium. State your name, magisterial district, and limit your comments to three minutes or less. Would anybody like to speak? Going once. Going twice. I will close the public hearing. Okay.

Question for staff.

Yes, sir.

Could they build this with the current... Could they build this with the current B3 zoning, or does it have to be rezoned M2?

So soap manufacturing is more of an industry that you would see in your industrial district, which this is classified in the future. land use plan and currently as business. They have attempted to just mitigate that by proffering just the soap or proffering out all uses associated with M1 or M2 and just isolating it to the soap manufacturing company.

Yeah. But in any case, building height, noise, everything, this is probably a less intensive use than what was already allowed in B3.

That's correct. And if it is approved for an M1, then the regulations and the ordinance for the height requirements and the noise regulations would apply to the M1 standards.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Planning Commissioners, any discussion? To my right. Any discussion? To my left. This is Stonewall. Gentlemen, what would be your pleasure?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. From staff, do I need to, do you guys have a clear list of the proffer requests that we mentioned, or would you prefer that I try to go back through and list them again?

If you need any help, I'm sure we can, but I do think it's appropriate to include it in your proffer, I'm sorry, your motion language.

Okay, thank you. So I would, uh-oh, I lost the zoning number here. Let me go back and... It is 07-26. Thank you so much. There we go. I skimmed past. I was on the other part of the page. All right. I would like to make a motion to approve rezoning number 07-26 with the proffers that are existing on there plus... The 40 foot, 45 foot high building restriction, the board on board as the buffer, the high quality design with details of what those materials are going to be. Let me see here. The plantings of Virginia native species and that all of the bays will be facing away from Route 11. I think I hit all of those. Did I miss any? Operational hours. And operational hours, Monday through Friday. Eight to five? Yes. Okay.

Just one clarification. Yes, sir. When you say away, would you rather say not face Route 11?

Or not facing. Okay. Is that better verbiage maybe? Because away could be 180 degrees. Good point. Good point. Not facing. Thank you. Sorry. Not facing Route 11. Bay is not facing Route 11. Thank you. Okay.

We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. We have a second. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, Dr. LaManna, can you start our voting? A yes vote is what he said. LaManna, yes.

Brumback, yes.

Bottorf, yes.

Snudden, yes.

Markard, yes.

Thomas, yes.

Kozo, yes.

Kern, yes. DeHaven, yes. Whitaker, yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. This will go to the Board of Supervisors on October the 14th with the amendments to the proper that we discussed. Thank you very much. Okay, that takes us to our next public hearing, which is an ordinance amendment to Frederick County Code, Chapter 144. Mr. Klein, this is our subdivision ordinance modifications.

yes good evening mr chairman members of the planning commission this is the first of three ordinance amendments for your consideration this evening um i think you all are probably recall that we recently uh did our phase one zoning and subdivision ordinance update that was ultimately adopted by the board of supervisors on may 13th 2026 and in that project, the Berkeley group had identified some other best practices that we would be well advised to incorporate in our ordinance. At the time of the phase one project adoption, staff in consultation with the zoning administrator felt that those changes were outside of the scope of that project. They fell into this policy change category, which we had articulated throughout that process that that was not a policy changing element, but we wanted to bring them back to you in a relatively soon time period after the adoption of that amendment. So we can go ahead and incorporate those changes. It's kind of the first slate of ordinance changes that would be made to your newly adopted zoning ordinance. So this is the first of Two amendments that pertain what we call companion amendments to this Phase 1 update. This is for Chapter 144, your subdivision ordinance. I know that that is an ordinance we typically don't talk about as much at the Planning Commission, but contains many of the lot development standards that we utilize for subdivisions, particularly residential subdivisions. And again, these were... identified by the Berkeley group. And really what both set of proposed amendments seek to do is to improve the efficiency of our ordinance, improve consistency, improve implementation of best practices as it pertains to zoning and subdivision rules, and of course to maintain the user-friendly nature of our ordinance. There are elements of the ordinance that are being proposed to change for both Chapter 144 and 165 that really reduce the burden on potential applicants and property owners if they seek a waiver in particular circumstances. So I'll walk through those changes. We will tackle Chapter 144 first because of numerical sequencing, and then we'll do the public hearing for 165, and I'll cover those pieces at that time. So there are a slate of amendments, all contained within Chapter 144. The first pertains to general access, and most of these amendments that you'll see, we are changing what is now a Board of Supervisors waiver, which requires an applicant to come to the board and have a legislative action on a particular item to subdivision administrator waivers. Mr. Charron is our zoning administrator, but he also wears the hat of subdivision administrator, so it would give him the purview to waive requirements under certain criteria. The first is for general access, and that would allow for private streets and proffered age-restricted communities. We've recently tackled this issue, I believe, in Lake Frederick. Second pertains to streets and sidewalks. Again, changing a board waiver to a subdivision administrator waiver. for interpersonal connections, intersections, and cul-de-sacs. The reason for making these changes to a subdivision administrator is he or she would be reviewing those elements of a particular proposal at the time of subdivision design plan, so they fall under that kind of administrative purview where they would be checking to make sure that they meet certain criteria, or in the event that they would seek a waiver of certain criteria for various reasons, they would make that interpretation. We would also remove the Board of Supervisors waiver for streetlights, and we would remove the subdivision administration, sorry, subdivision administrator waiver for sidewalks and private streets. Both the sidewalks and private streets elements are elements of community design that we want in all of our communities, and we have not granted hardly any waivers to those, and we believe that they should be included in all new subdivisions, and there are criteria for where sidewalks and streetlights need to be placed, so we feel like those can be accomplished without a waiver. 302 pertains to easements. We would actually remove that Board of Supervisors waivers to underground utilities. We talked a little bit about that at your work session this evening as it pertains to the Gibson property. It is common across like localities that all utilities be placed underground. When projects develop particular pieces of property, existing infrastructure may exist. Some of it, particularly electrical power, is above ground. We seek to have that put underground. That's a fairly typical practice. We don't see a lot of waivers to underground utilities. And again, it is a best practice to put it underground, so we are removing that waiver. And then the next would pertain to environmental features and protections. There is an outdated section of our environmental features and protections part of the subdivision ordinance that would allow the subdivision administrator to waive stormwater management plan for developments of a certain threshold or less. That state code provision has actually been removed. We require under the Virginia stormwater management program stormwater management plans for all types of developments with land disturbing activities. So this is a cleanup element that we verified with Public Works as a change that needed to be removed because that's how they are currently implementing the VSMP program. So this is a public hearing item. And following your public hearing and discussion, staff would be seeking a recommendation on the chapter 144 subdivision ordinance amendments to the Board of Supervisors. And it would go to the public hearing at the board on October 14. And I'm happy to answer any questions you have about those changes. Any questions for Mr. Klein to my left?

To my right? Thank you very much, sir. This is a public hearing. If anybody would like to speak to this item, this would be the time to do so. Please come to the podium, state your name, magisterial district, limit your comments to three minutes or less. Would anyone like to speak? Limited audience. Seeing nobody, I will close the public hearing. Planning commissioners, what's your pleasure? This is open for anyone to make a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve the changes to Was it section one?

The section is chapter 144.

Chapter 144.

Second it. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Mr. Whitaker, can you start our voting, please? A yes vote as you agree with the recommendation for approval.

Yes, sir. Yes. Whitaker, yes.

DeHaven, yes.

Kern, yes.

Kozo, yes.

Thomas, yes.

Markard, yes. Sneddon, yes. Botthorpe, yes.

Brownback, yes.

LaManna, yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. As was stated, this will go to the board on October the 14th. Next item, again, Mr. Klein, Ordinance Amendment to Federal County Code Chapter 165, our zoning ordinance. Yes, sir.

Very similar slate of amendments. A little more detailed. broad given the large nature of our zoning ordinance. Again, we feel like these do approve efficiency and consistency, implement best practices, and maintain the user-friendly nature of the ordinance. The first pertains to final master development plan submission. We have an outdated, the final remnant of an old policy where master development plans used to come to the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors, for review and approval. And because of that, we used to require the county administrator's signature to be on MDPs. That is outdated. Mr. Bolhoffer would love to, nothing more than to not have to sign these. So we would remove that requirement. It becomes an administrative requirement where the planning director would sign the master development plan. The next pertains to industrial design standards. We would remove a Board of Supervisors waiver for the screening of machinery, and we would make that waiver standard for an enhanced setback an alternative screening requirement. So we would codify what the Board typically places on machinery screening, and we would make that an alternative requirement in that section, removing the Board waiver and giving an applicant for those machinery screening an option A or an option B when they're doing that. In my time here at the county, I've only seen one waiver of this for car moose, and that was a number of years ago. Next is our R5, our residential recreational community district standards, and we would change a planning director waiver to a zoning administrator waiver for street tree substitutions. As is typical, the zoning administrator is the final arbitrator of the zoning ordinance, and he or she should be the individual waiving a criteria to the zoning ordinance. Now, the planning director can, in the absence of a zoning administrator, make a waiver, but typically that is left to the zoning administrator. Again, that is a best practice. The next pertains to the Frederick County Sanitary Landfill, and we'd remove the Board of Supervisors waiver for screening. We have one sanitary landfill. I can't imagine we're going to get a second. And after consulting with the public works staff, they felt like it was appropriate to remove that waiver as it would be unnecessary, and they have no intention of seeking a waiver of screening because they want to be good neighbors should they choose to expand in the future. Next pertains to welding repair. I would note welding repair is a conditional use in our rural area zoning district. So we would remove the Board of Supervisors waiver for the screening requirement. Because it's a conditional use, conditions of approval could be added depending on the nature of a welding repair operation in our rural area zoning district. And typically, screening would be an element that we include in our conditions. So we felt like that is accomplished through another legislative process that doesn't require a separate waiver to the Board of Supervisors. The next change pertains to tractor truck and tractor trailer truck parking. We would change a Board of Supervisors waiver to a zoning administrator waiver for alternative landscaping based on topography or adjacent land uses. Tractor trailer truck parking is also a conditional use in certain zoning districts, so you have that conditional use element that plays into this, but also allowing the zoning administrator the ability to make that waiver IF AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN THEY NEEDED IT BECAUSE OF A CERTAIN CONDITION, THEY WOULD NOT NEED TO GO BACK TO THE BOARD TO AMEND SOMETHING THAT COULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED AS THEIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. SO THAT IS YOUR CHAPTER 165 ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGES. AGAIN, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM AND WE'D BE SEEKING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD. THIS WOULD PAIR WITH THE CHAPTER 144 CHANGES AND GO TO THE BOARD ON OCTOBER 14TH. THANK YOU.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. KLEIN TO MY LEFT? ANY QUESTIONS TO MY RIGHT? Thank you, sir. This is a public hearing. If anybody would like to speak to this ordinance amendment, this would be the time to do so. Please come to the podium, state your name, magisterial district, and limit your comments to three minutes or less. Would anybody like to speak? Seeing nobody. We have the deputies have no comments, so I will close public hearing. All right, commissioners, again, this is open for any commissioner to make a motion.

I would like to make a motion of recommending approval to forward to the Board of Supervisors on Ordinance Amendment Chapter 165, Item 7D of our agenda.

Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Dr. LaMotta, can you start us off, please, sir? A yes vote. Is there an agreement with this going forward with the recommendation for adoption approval?

LaMotta, yes.

Brumbach, yes.

Paul Torff, yes.

Sneddon, yes. Markert, yes.

Thomas, yes. Kozol, yes. Kern, yes.

DeHaven, yes. Whitaker, yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. As was stated, this will go to the board on October the 14th. That leads us to our last public hearing, which are ordinance amendments. to the zoning ordinance resulting from legislative action in Richmond.

Again, appreciative of the opportunity to present these ordinance amendments this evening. I think you all know, based on the work we did in that phase one update, the zoning diagnostic and the conversion of the ordinance, one of the things that we were frequently flagged on as being out of compliance with was our legislative compliance with the Code of Virginia. The Code of Virginia changes annually. There are hundreds of bills that affect the code, many of which affect planning and zoning activities and land use and we had up until the zoning diagnostic had not done a good job of staying current. We were reacting to kind of pertinent things like utility scale solar, but we didn't get into like the day-to-day kind of minutiae that is required of the code of Virginia and our ordinance got out of compliance. We were fortunate our zoning administrator made sure that we were mostly complying in our actions, but the code itself did not reflect those changes and it kind of affects what we did in the previous two amendments is we need to keep our ordinance up to date we need to keep it fresh reflective of best practices reflective of you know consistency so this is another piece of that puzzle and we've committed ourselves as part of that phase one update to you that each year after the uh state code changes are implemented typically july 1 we would bring a package of amendments to the board and planning commission for consideration of changes we need to make and i Fortunately or unfortunately, in your opinion, they are mandated. Most of the changes that we have to make are mandated by the Code of Virginia. So whether or not we put it in our ordinance, we have to be compliant with it or reopen ourselves up to a lawsuit. So in consulting with the county attorney, we want to stay fresh on these. There are a number of amendments that are pertinent to what we're doing. Some of those don't require changes to our ordinance. We're fortunate in the way that the Berkeley group structured our new ordinance with state code amendments. and not the text in state code, that when there are changes to various sections, as long as the code reference stays valid, we don't have to make changes. And there were several bills this year pertaining to vested rights, nonconforming uses, and manufactured housing where we were actually in compliance even though the code changed because our code reference was correct. And that was a big change. great effort for staff. There were other bills that the county administrator, or sorry, the county attorney and staff deemed that weren't applicable to us, typically because we don't meet a certain population threshold or we don't meet other criteria. We're not in like the Chesapeake Bay you know, study area or whatever it was. And then there was one other bill that was part of the slate of amendments that had a very limited time period that the bill was valid for, and it's called the Faith and Housing Act. And it was a change in state code where religious organizations could develop housing on their property if they meet certain criteria, one of which is being connected to public utilities. In consultation with the county attorney, we agreed we would implement that bill, but because it has a sunset clause of 2031, we didn't want to put it in our ordinance and then have it not be compliant in 2031. There was also some conversations we had with the American Planning Association, Virginia chapter lobbyists, that there may be in the next round of General Assembly, they might tweak that bill and... Reduce the sunset clause or make it permanent. So we're going to wait and see what happens in the next assembly session and see if that gets changed before we make a change to our code, because it is a long process to change this, take it to committee, do the advertising, things like that. We felt like we could be compliant with that because housing is typically accessory, and we allow accessory dwellings to various uses. So those bills are not part of this, but I wanted to call attention that we do look at everything. And we're fortunate Eric in our office is very into the General Assembly, and he spends a lot of time keeping up to date on it, so he's very versed, and then, of course, Mr. Fox as well. So there are two changes for your consideration this evening. The first was House Bill 1212, and it requires that for any locality with a population of 20,000 residents or more, we needed to permit one-family and two-family dwelling and townhouse that would allow for a minimal block area of 3,000 square feet. We're fortunate that our ordinance, the townhome or single family attached minimum lot size was 1,870 feet. However, in our single family districts, our single family housing types, our minimum lot size, the smallest lot size we allow was 3,750 square feet. So we needed to reduce that to 3,000 square feet to comply with this requirement. So we are recommending an amendment to the single family small lot minimum lot size to create a 3,000 lot standard that would bring us into compliance with the state code change. And again, that is a mandated change because Frederick County exceeds the 20,000 person threshold. The second change, When we actually dug into this bill a little bit more following the board authorization, there was this House Bill 655 that had a companion amendment. We thought we were compliant with the companion amendment, but we actually weren't compliant with the House bill, so we had to make a pivot and advertise this change as well. But it would amend an existing provision that requires localities to permit manufactured homes in areas zoned for agriculture, and it expands that requirement to all other zoning districts where site-built or stick-built housing is allowed with certain conditions. If you're unfamiliar with the term manufactured homes, that is the new modern term for mobile home. So what this means is that in any zoning district, we'd have to allow mobile homes. Now there are certain criteria in the bill. They have to be on a permanent foundation. They have to be connected to public water and sewer so it creates challenges if someone was trying to do this in every zoning district because they might not be able to meet that or it's too expensive to connect those but again because it is a requirement in the state code we have to allow it so the clean up for this is to amend our definition for single-family dwelling in that definition currently it excludes manufactured homes in the definition But we would remove that exclusion and then we would be in compliance with the code. So two amendments for your consideration this evening. This is a public hearing item and following a public hearing, we'd be seeking a recommendation and this item will go forward. And again, the purpose of these amendments is to stay compliant with state code, not fall out of compliance and open the county up to legal challenges. So this will become a regular cycle each year as you're on the planning commission. We will be bringing these in the early part of the fall for any changes. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Any questions to my left, Mr. Schnitt?

I have a question here. Maybe I have an old document here, but mine, and this just may be a typo, but mine just says any locality with a population of 50,000 or more, and that says 20,000.

I believe you're right. It is 50,000. I just want to be clear. Yeah, I think it's 50,000. I apologize. It might be a typo.

That's it. Thank you. Any other questions to my left? To my right, any questions? Mr. Whitaker?

Yes. On the church properties, if I remember, there was something that the state wanted, if they were to build dwellings on the property, that they could only do so if they wanted were in an area where water and sewer was being provided?

Yes, sir. That is correct. It's limited to properties that are connected to public water and sewer.

So- Church properties.

Church properties. Yes, sir.

All right. Now, shouldn't that be excluded?

I don't know if I understand the question.

I just don't feel where the state has a right to tell churches that own a massive property outside a water sewer district that they can't build residence on that property.

I think you're right and I think that's when we we attended a session at the planning conference with Virginia Housing and one of the things is after that bill was adopted they actually got a lot of feedback from rural localities that almost all of their churches are on well and septic that they would like to be able to build residences on their property but they can't do that under the provisions of And that's why we were advised to kind of hold on implementing it because it's likely in this next General Assembly session that they're going to revise that Faith and Housing Act to expand that allowance and not have public water and sewer as a requirement potentially. So that's why we're going to wait and see. We'll certainly allow if a religious organization approached us and wanted to build housing and they're in the sewer water service area, we're going to allow them to do that. But we want to see how this bill gets shifted in the next cycle before we actually put it into our code. But that's well-taken feedback, and we can certainly communicate that to the parties that are involved with the General Assembly.

Please do. Thank you.

Any other questions? Okay. Thank you, sir. This is a public hearing. Anybody who'd like to speak to this, please come to the podium. State your name, Magistral District. Limit your comments to three minutes. Seeing nobody. Nobody. I will close the public hearing. Planning Commission, it will be your pleasure.

I would like to make a motion of recommending approval to the Board of Supervisors, Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance Amendments that capture the legislative updates.

Second. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? OK. Dr. LaManna, can you start us out, please, sir? LaManna, yes.

Rumbach, yes.

Auterf, yes. Sneddon, yes. Margaret, yes.

Thomas, yes. Kozol, yes.

Kern, yes. DeHaven, yes.

Whitaker, yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. This, as well as the others, will go to the Board of Supervisors on October the 14th. Thank you very much, Mr. Klein. Mr. Bishop. Yes, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And before we proceed to the final talk, I'll give a brief update on upcoming items. In preceding your upcoming public hearing on 10-7 of the electrical infrastructure public hearing, there will be a public information meeting here in the boardroom on September 30th from 6 to 8 for anybody wanting to get more information on that. For those familiar with the VDOT format, we're going to have a number of staff and maps and texts around to be able to answer questions. not specifically a presentation or whatever, but just to be as available to the public as we can. as this comprehensive plan amendment moves forward. We do have the Valclus in-site plan in-house for review. That's one we regularly get asked about. It actually has been submitted for review. So that's coming along. At the September 23rd, of interest to you, I expect the Board of Supervisors will be considering the data center removal ordinance as well as the TM district removal ordinance. We also have Mountain Falls Market on the Conditional Use Permit on the agenda that evening. And finally, just a brief update on the two pending data center applications. the conditional use permit for winchester gateway would have gone to the 23rd september 23rd that is board of supervisors meeting however that applicant has asked to be placed on hold so that has been removed and then we are still in that same pattern with virginia technology park the rezoning to tm so we regularly check in with virginia technology park not Not a need to check back in with the Gateway just yet since they just came off the agenda, but so far they have not committed to a date to come forward. With that, we'll transition. You may recall at the last meeting, Mr. Stowe talked about adding an informational or educational portion of the agenda internally to the planning department. We're calling it PCU, or Planning Commission University, mostly because Planning University had a less fun acronym. Tyler's going to give us a little update on some current comprehensive plan methodology for this evening. Each time we give one of these, the goal is maybe a five-minute presentation and a little bit of discussion or whatever you have the tolerance for. Following this evening, by the end of the week, we'll be sending out an inquiry to the Planning Commission for suggested topics or topics you're curious to hear more about. We'll also be doing the same exercise within our staff with the idealized intention of trying to do about one of these a month.

Mr. Klein. Well, one of the more fun things that we're doing right now in the department, I actually do mean fun, is we're working on our comprehensive plan update. And you all have been active in that. The community's been active in that. It's wonderful. And a key question we asked ourselves at the start of this process is, how can we create a better plan and better planning outcomes Obviously our plan is more or less 16 years old. A lot has changed in our community. A lot has changed in kind of the fundamentals and the kind of underlying methodologies of comprehensive planning. And I was fortunate during that period where we were doing the community engagement, not only to hear what the public had to say about the planning process and elected officials, But there were a number of webinars going on culminating with the APA conference in the summer with different localities talking about their plan updates. And we attended some, Eric and I attended some sessions at the conference, heard about Danville's comprehensive plan, Cumberland County's, Fredericksburg, and One of the things they really focused on was how they were implementing their plans. And we looked back at our plan and said, OK, 16 years, what's been actually accomplished out of this plan? And there's not a lot of good policy to kind of hang our hat on and say, yeah, we did that. There's some, but not a lot. So Fredericksburg recently won an award for their comprehensive plan. They were recognized by the American Planning Association Virginia chapter for outstanding planning work. They were like the plan of the year, essentially. And the fundamental foundation of their plan was what they called, it's called an adaptive planning approach. And there was a book that they referenced, came back from the conference, bought the book, read the book, marked up the book. And really the book is helping us focus on conversations that we're already having with the community. And what the book is in response to was the COVID-19 pandemic and how communities were ill-equipped to pivot to the changing working dynamic, the changing housing dynamic, the changing community dynamic. And as good as comprehensive plans are and have been, they're just not as reactive as they otherwise could be. And really, it really showed the unpredictable nature of change in communities and how it really undid this kind of inflexible, rigid, traditional comprehensive planning model that we talk about in planning school and we kind of were basing our comprehensive plan in the past and based our comprehensive plan approaches on. And it goes back to what I said earlier. We're kind of asking ourselves, how do we create a better plan and planning process? And we didn't really know what that term was until we kind of came across what Fredericksburg was doing and realized it's an adaptive planning approach. So I want to talk briefly about what that is. But really the highlight and the kind of thing that has stood out to me was in the book, it was also in Fredericksburg, is the comprehensive plan becomes meaningful not when it's adopted, but when it's implemented. And far too often we adopt these plans, we stick them on a shelf, and we hardly ever go back to them to measure where we're at. How is the adaptive planning process different and how are we incorporating that into what we're doing? We're preparing for change rather than attempting to predict it. And while background data is certainly important for trend setting, it's not the end-all, be-all where we hang our hat and say that's the only way we're going forward is to look at the data and say, okay, we grew this percentage over this 10-year period and that's how we're going to grow over the next 10 years. And the adaptive plan establishes a clear, forward-looking vision while prioritizing implementation. It provides strategic tools, mechanisms necessary to guide growth and development while maintaining flexibility to respond to changing community needs, conditions, and opportunities. We can't foresee every change that's going to come, but we need to create a plan structure that allows us to change on the fly to certain things and not get into another cumbersome kind of process. So through this approach, the comprehensive plan serves not only as a statement of community aspirations, but as a living framework for action, one that can evolve as the community changes while remaining grounded in the long-term vision and priorities of a community. So we are turning that theory kind of into action. And as we're thinking about the comprehensive plan, I came back from the conference and told John and Wyatt, I said, I want to start this plan update by drafting plan implementation, right? We need to think about what we want to do, and then we'll backfill kind of like the plan text. So we've been working on that. We're working on plan implementation. We're having our second kind of internal group meeting tomorrow about some of the draft materials and some of the ideas we have as a group. We have a new assistant planning director who recently did an update in Front Royal in 2023. So we're going to be working on this kind of structure, kind of the implementation backwards part. And we're really excited about the direction that we're going and kind of how this matches kind of the goals that the community has and the board and the planning commission expressed to us. So we'll be excited to give you all more updates as we move along. And our target date is still fall of 2027. We're not falling off that given all the other things we're doing at this point. So stay tuned.

Any questions for Mr. Klein?

Thank you, sir. If anyone's interested in the book, Hanley Library has a copy as well, and I'd be happy to loan my marked-up version if you promise to give it back. We do look forward to seeing what comes out of that. Absolutely.

Mr. Whitaker?

Are they for sale?

I own one. I'm happy to lend it to you, but the library also has a copy if you'd like one. I'm sure we can talk to John about ordering copies if someone would like one as well.

Yeah, I mean, if you'd like to seek your own, I know they're on Amazon. But yeah, I'm sure we could probably manage in the budget if planning commissioners would like to request a copy, we can do an order.

That would be great. Thank you. Good. I'm old school.

No, sir. Of course. Yes. And I'll just add, I don't want to belabor your meeting or be spendthrift with your time, but a long time before the comprehensive plan update became a public thing, we underwent a fairly lengthy exercise where, as a group of planners in the department, we were going chapter by chapter on a week-by-week basis. And we kept coming back to that lack of implementation side. As we've entered into this process, it's really been nice to kind of put some terminology that, frankly, we didn't know at the time that we were beating up our own plan for not moving forward and not being actionable, that we weren't the only ones feeling that way and that there actually were techniques being developed that spoke to that. So we're excited to hopefully, as we come out of the comprehensive planning phase, process be filling your work program, whether it be at the DRC or CPPC or various committees with actual actionable items that feed directly from your comprehensive plan so that you as planning commissioners and board members as board members can really be seeing the results of the work that you've put into that process. Excellent.

Well, we look forward to seeing more of it as we go forward. So thank you very much. Okay. Unless there's anything else, I'll be glad to entertain a motion for adjournment.

Second.

Second. We are adjourned. Be careful going home. Thank you.