Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Check. Check. Check. Check. Check. Mic check two. Check. Check. Check. You hear me, Webex?

Check. Check. Check.

Good evening. I'd like to take this opportunity to call to order the 04/09/2026 meeting of the Planning Commission. At this time, I'd like to just welcome everybody. And if you're able, please silence your phones and join us for the pledge of allegiance. Alright.

Also, at this time, I'd like to take this opportunity to recognize any news media that we may have with us or online on Webex. Looking over, we do have a full quorum today. I'd like to take this opportunity also to welcome mister, Daniel Schmidt, from our from our board of supervisors who'll be joining us, all year long, and, he will be abstaining from voting unless it's required. Alright. Pass it over.

Thank you, mister chairman. I would like to note that the commission did begin its meeting this evening at 5PM with a work session and received 45 comprehensive plan and also a presentation that detailed trends and development stats for the county. Also, I like to join with the chair in welcoming everyone to the Henrico County Planning Commission public hearing for April 9. This evening, it's requested that all public comments be provided from the lectern located in the rear of the room. For everyone who is watching the livestream on the county website, you can participate remotely in the public hearings by following these guidelines.

Go to the planning department's meeting webpage at henrico.gov/planning/meetings. Scroll down under the planning commission and click on Webex event. Once you have joined the Webex event, please click the chat button in the bottom right corner. Screen. Staff will send a message asking if anyone would like to sign up to speak on an upcoming case. To respond, select Molly Mallow from the drop down menu. Send her a message. She will place you in the queue to speak. Commission does have guidelines for its public hearings. The applicant is allowed ten minutes to present the request, and time may be reserved for responses to testimony.

Citizens who support the application may also speak in this time frame. The opposition has allowed a cumulative ten minutes to present its concerns. What that means is that everyone who wishes to speak in opposition must be included in that overall ten minute allowance. Commission questions do not count into the time limits. The commission may waive the time limits at its discretion.

All comments must be directly related to the case under consideration. The commission does maintain verbatim minutes of the meeting. Commentors must provide their name and address prior to speaking for the record. Again, thank you for your participation and interest in your community by being here this evening. With that said, mister chair, the next item are the request for withdrawals and deferrals. We do have one withdrawal, and that will be presented by miss Jean Moore.

Thank you, members of the commission. This case is in the Rhine District on page two of your agenda. The applicant is Brow Holdings, and it's 2025102025. This was a request to rezone to RTHC and R5AC on 23 acres located on the west line of Lubernham Avenue near Kings Ridge Parkway, to develop townhomes in single family. This has been withdrawn, so no action is required by the commission.

Mister chairman, the next item on your agenda are request for expedited items. You have none of those this evening, so we move on to cases to be heard. The first item appears on page one of your agenda. It is provisional use permit 2026100022. Brian Prater for Spyrock Real Estate Group. This is a request for a provisional use permit to allow mixed use development within multifamily residential located at the intersection of Westmoreland Street and Jock Street. The existing zoning is M 1 Light Industrial District. The site in the Westwood redevelopment Overlay District. The staff report will be presented by mister Seth Humphreys.

How are you, mister Humphreys?

Good. Before you get started, just wanna

ask, is anyone in the audience on Webex in opposition or approval that would like to speak to this case?

Mister chairman, there is no one on Webex for this case. Alright.

Thank you, mister chairman, members of the commission. As stated, this is a request for a mixed use development on approximately 1.86 acres in the Westwood redevelopment overlay district. The site is currently improved with two one story office warehouse buildings built to the nineteen sixties. Surface parking surrounds the buildings with little street improvements except for grassed areas along Jacques Street, most notably where it intersects Westmoreland Street. An existing rail line easement is also located along the property's eastern side and would remain at this time.

According to the conceptual plan, the proposed seven story building would include 224 residential units and approximately 2,500 square feet of commercial space at the southwest corner of the building fronting Westmoreland Street. A six street or a six story parking deck with 303 spaces would be integrated on the eastern side of the building with a singular vehicular access to Jacques Street. The deck would be interior to the site with the other uses wrapping the structure along the two facades facing roadways. In addition to the interior residential or interior resident courtyard, resident amenities would be located facing Jacques Street along with the leasing office and the entrance to the parking deck. The applicant has provided an illustrative master plan, including elevations, street sections, green space concepts, and a layout plan with more specific dimensions.

The revised master plan is dated 04/06/2026. The revised conditions handed out to you this evening are the same as those in the staff report, except they have the date for the master plan added to them. Many of the examples show what may be programmed for different areas of the property, and the green space concepts provide illustrative options for the grassy area near the intersection of Westmoreland And Jocke Streets. It is important to note the enhanced corners shown on the sample elevations as this is what will be expected at the corner of the building at this prominent intersection. The street sections show a five foot sidewalk with a four foot utility strip along both road frontages, with parallel parking proposed along Jacques Street and a parking study.

Currently, parallel parking is only would only be included along Jac Street and not Westmoreland. The master plan also provides examples of potential sustainability sustainability features such as EV parking spaces and bike parking. These items have been provided at the applicant's recently completed property on Dabney Road called The Alder. The site is located one half mile walking distance from the West Broad Street and GRT bus stops at Westmoreland. In lieu of compliance with the parking requirements in the code, a development or redevelopment in the Westwood Redevelopment Overlay District may provide a parking study in conjunction with the master plan.

The applicant's parking study shows the development would have a three zero three off street three zero three space off street parking structure, an equivalent of 1.35 spaces per dwelling unit, which would exceed peak demands as noted in this study. This level of parking is generally consistent with the other developments approved and built in the area. The comprehensive plan recommends heavy industry. A residential use is not generally consistent with this designation. However, this property is located within the Westwood Special Area, which was adopted by the board of supervisors on 12/11/2018.

That special focus area recommends the allowance of residential uses properly designed to minimize conflicts conflicts between existing businesses and new nonresidential and residential uses through the use of design features such as buffering and sound suppression. The proposed mixed use development would be consistent with the recommendations of the Westwood Special Focus Area and the Westwood Redevelopment Overlay District. Therefore, we recommend support of this project, and it concludes my presentation. I would be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, mister Humphries. Does anyone on the commission have any questions, mister Humphries?

I do. One, thank you for the report. Outstanding. We had a few questions, I think, earlier in the week that we addressed, and they they answered. Do Do we have that agreement with the adjacent landowners? Is that gonna be an issue with the fire lane and all of that?

That usually happens at the plan development. I have talked to applicant, though, and they can expound upon this further, but they have noted that they do have the distance allowed, and they are sprinkling. That is one of the conditions that they sprinkle the parking deck so the the distance for that would be reduced. And in conjunction with the adjacent property owner, believe they would have enough space. It's just they need to present their agreement at the time of planned development.

Right. And also the parallel parking on Jocke Street. How many spaces is that? It

will depend on final engineering is my understanding of how far from the intersection and how far from the entrance to the parking garage they're allowed to space them and exactly how that works out.

And the reason for that question is with the retail space we do have the ability if needed to have parallel parking on

Westmoreland? Potentially traffic were to concede to that and move the centerline. The distance wise we have enough but whether the crown of the road or that type of thing.

Because I think we're on 1.8 acres so it's going to be tight and retail Depending on what goes in there, how the traffic is and being majorly M1 down there right now with traffic eight to five is going to have some challenges there. Also we discussed the disposal and everything with recycling trash and those things so that's going to be dumpsters. Is that going be a dumpster or is that

going be a roll around cart coming out? When I talked to the applicant they talked about it being a roll cart. And now they'll access They confirm that during their presentation.

That's all I have.

Okay. Does anybody want to hear from the applicant?

Another question. Mr. Humphreys, thank you again for the presentation. I did want to ask, I see again in the report some concerns about overcapacity at the schools and the provided recommendation that additional school facilities or other methods of accommodations, new students start to be examined. Is that a recommendation to the board to begin partnering with the board of education? I'm just curious. This is a common theme with many of the applications. We're excited about new development, but we need to ensure that our schools are able to support the new growth.

Sure. We do have a good number of previously approved developments in this area. However, I I think we have time. They're not all gonna be developed at the same time. You know, many of these projects are very large. They're expected to happen over the next twenty years, if not longer. So I think there is time. It's just a kind of a note to note that this is an ongoing something to think about.

And I do appreciate that. Think something I think I want to personally follow-up with the board of education on. Again, we see this frequently. Mhmm. I'm just curious what activities and actions they might have already been able to start to

be able to start

to plan for the growth over the next, you know, ten to twenty years.

I'd have to look at the specifics of of what they've proposed proposing in their capital improvement project. I don't have that right in front of me.

Absolutely. And this is not, I think, a now needed conversation. Mhmm. Something I do want to follow-up. Sure.

Thank you.

Any other questions for mister Donfres? Alright. Wanna hear from the applicant.

Alright. Good evening, mister chairman, members of the commission. My name is Preston Lloyd. I'm an attorney at Williams Mullen appearing on behalf of applicant this evening. In lieu in giving in lieu of giving our full report, if it would be acceptable to the commission, I think I'm gonna focus on a number of the questions that mister Phelps had, understanding that there aren't any opponents in the in the audience this evening.

The first had to do with the garbage solution, or rather, that was the last question asked, but I'll address that one first. And Mr. Humphrey spoke correctly when he answered that it will be carts that will be for the apartment building located off of the fire access lane, and then would be wheeled out by the refuse company as appropriate. So it would be screened from view when not being removed, but would otherwise be accessible to the residents. And then there would be a separate enclosure for the retail location that would be just behind the retail location, also accessible from the fire lane, similarly deployed with a removable cart to screen it from view.

The other question that was asked was about the status of negotiations of the private access easement. We do have an exhibit in our presentation that I'd be happy to put on the screen if we might have that added. It's the very last slide, I believe, of the PowerPoint presentation that illustrates the boundary of that easement area and the relative split between the two properties. Keep scrolling, believe there may be one more parked slide. Keep going, please.

There we go. Thank you. And so this just shows the allocation of the easement area between the respective parcels, that thick red line being the parcel line. And it's approximately down the middle. There's a little bit of wiggle room between the two.

That has been presented, and there's an agreement in concept with the adjacent property owner. A final agreement will have to be presented to the county at the time of plan of development review, but we do have an agreement in concept and believe that that's a viable way of proceeding. A final note about timing, because that was raised in connection with the school's question. There is an existing tenant operating on this property, operating at light industrial use. That tenant is expected to continue for a number of years, but we're trying to work proactively with the county to create predictability about how the future of Westwood is going to develop.

And so we're requesting this provisional use permit to set the table for when that use ceases, and it can then be redeveloped into a residential property. So we're a number of years away from that moment, and so there may be further opportunities to consider school infrastructure. I will note that the Dabney project, the Alder, which was mentioned in the staff presentation, also developed by this applicant within the Westwood overlay, has shown that there is a very de minimis number of school children created by the demographic that this multi family product is serving. And so from a generation standpoint, of course, we understand how the schools have to use certain expectations and metrics when considering what's the likely generation. But the facts would illustrate that there is a very small generation from this kind of apartment product, and we hope that assuages the commission's concern that the additional multifamily units presented by this case might overwhelm the existing infrastructure.

So with that, I'll pause and invite any questions that the commission may have, and thank you for your time and consideration.

Anyone else? Thank you. Mr.

Chair, I'd like to move that we recommend approval of PUP-twenty 20 six-ten 22, Spyrock Real Estate Group with the revision conditions dated 04/09/2026.

Second.

Alright. We have a motion by mister Phelps, second by mister Mackie. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes.

Mister chairman, we now move on to the next case on your agenda, which also appears on page one. It is r e Z2025103169. Andrew m Conlon for Bekova Development Company LLC. This is a request to conditionally rezone from a one agricultural district to r six c general residence district 9.941 acres located on Pauci Track Road north of its intersection with Cane Road. The applicant proposes townhomes. Use will be controlled by zoning orders, regulations, and proper conditions. The 2026 comprehensive plan recommends suburban mixed use. The staff report will be presented by mister Livingston Lewis.

Mister Lewis. Mister chairman, good evening, members of the commission. This is a request to rezone 9.9 acres from a one to r six c to construct residential condominiums as part of the larger Bekova community. The site is located on the east line of Pouncey Track Road between Cane Road and North Gaten Road. Surrounding uses and zoning are primarily residential to the north, west, and south, with recreational uses to the east across Pouncey Trail.

The 2026 comprehensive plan recommends suburban mixed use for the site and adjacent areas to the west throughout the Bekova development. This designation encourages a mixture of residential types, an average gross density of four units per acre, and master plan traits such as interconnected streets, pedestrian networks, adequate open space, and shared amenities. As illustrated on this concept plan and related exhibits, the applicant proposes constructing 74 townhome style condominiums, resulting in a density of 7.44 units per acre, which is below the 12 per acre maximum for townhomes in the R6 District. When added to other approved rezonings in the Bekova development area, the community wide density would be 4.91 units per acre. This calculation would be even lower if existing A1 residential properties are factored in.

Access would be provided from Pouncey Track Road and via the previously approved private easement connecting through the adjacent Bekova Village community to the north. Other features on the layout include a partially impacted wetland area, 22 guest parking spaces, two pocket parks, homes fronting on Pouncey Track, and landscape buffers around most of the site. The transitional buffer 35 along Pouncey Track would include a berm and fencing consistent with what has been provided by other development along the corridor. Sidewalk would be provided along Pouncey Track, one side of all on one side of all interior streets and in front of each building. The condos would have the same general appearance and four story design as these proffered renderings.

Individual units would be 20 to 22 feet wide with at least 2,250 square feet of finished floor area. Each would have a rear loaded two car garage, and they are shown with ample windows, balconies, and a front and rear second floor, front and rear 2nd Floor outdoor patio. The revised proffers distributed this evening also provide the following commitments. Exterior building materials consisting of brick, brick veneer, stone, stone veneer, and hardy plank. Masonry foundation treatments, residential style lighting throughout the site.

Exterior construction hours limited to Monday through Friday, seven 8AM to 7PM or dusk if earlier. Saturday, eight to five or dusk, and no Sunday access only from Pouncey Track Road pocket park amenities, including at least two features from a menu of options and the right to use the Bekova Recreational Facility. Although the applicant has addressed a number of issues previously identified in the staff report, several items remain, the first of which is the missing 0.88 acre parcel at the site's northeastern corner, shown here. This parcel is critical to completing the development's pouncey track buffer, sidewalk, and pedestrian lighting planning for use of the open area in this portion of the layout and preventing future piecemeal development of the excluded parcel in a manner incompatible with this project. Leaving these points unresolved would be inconsistent with the unified development goals of the suburban mixed use designation.

Along with issues raised by residents at the community meeting in March, staff has received several citizen emails highlighting various topics of concern with the proposed development, including questions about school capacity and street lighting along Pouncey Track Road. It should be noted that at the time of POD review, the applicant would be required to install pedestrian lighting as part of the project, including along their segment of Pouncy Track. In addition to the concerns above, recommends the applicant further address pedestrian connectivity, building orientation in garages, and landscaping adjacent to driveways. The applicant is also encouraged to consider designing for additional sustainability recommendations, as mentioned in the staff report. While the proposed condominiums and resulting density would be consistent with the variety of uses supported by the SMX designation, the request does not meet other suburban mixed use goals related to unified development.

For this reason, staff recommends the application be deferred to allow time for additional property acquisition and refinement. This concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Leversman. Real quick, I wanted to ask, is there anyone in the audience on Webex that want to speak to this case?

Mister chairman, there's no one on Webex for this case.

Okay. Alright. For those who do wanna speak to the case, when John's right, you'll up at the back of the podium. Just remember to say your name, address before you start to speak. Does anyone have any questions, please? Lewis? Okay.

Their we're active adult community of consisting of 41 single team. Family business. Homes. And I am speaking tonight on behalf of our entire community to state our strong opposition to the proposed road connection between this new development in Vekoba Village. We ask that the commission evaluate this proposal through the lens of health, safety, and welfare as this connection presents severe unacceptable impacts on our neighborhood.

We asked the commission to consider three primary issues. Number one, a severe risk to pedestrian safety. The Cova Village was specifically designed as a quiet 55 plus condo community. Many of our elderly residents take walks early in the morning and in the evening. By design, there are no street lights of own proud of And Number two, unfair burden on private infrastructure.

The Cova Village is a private community. Our roads are privately owned and maintained by our unit owners association, funded by residents who largely live on fixed incomes. This proposed connection forces the residents of the Cova Village to subsidize this new development, allowing nonresidents to use our private roads as a cut through will significantly accelerate wear and tear unfairly transferring the financial burden of this development's traffic onto our elderly residents. Number three, conflict with existing legal entitlements. Our public offering statement legally restricts Makova Village to a single point of ingress and egress on the Poncey Track Road.

The applicant's site plan relies on using our neighborhood

help of of And working with

able We

In We conclusion, we understand can can that the applicant needs secondary emergency access due to high density they are proposing. However, it is the applicant's responsibility to solve this problem within their own property lines. We respectfully request the commission to require the developer to

of

the

so that

secondary the access roads project project. Are no longer required. Mister chairman, at this time, I would like to point out that the statement I just read is in concert with my two colleagues on the Bacobo Village board of directors. We always speak with one voice. Thank you for your time in protecting the safety and welfare of our community.

Thank you. Before you step away from the microphone, could I get you to say your last name one more time, please?

Yes. It's Pisenti. It's p I s e n t I.

Thank you, sir.

Yes, sir. Thank you.

Is there anyone else that want to speak to this, or is there anyone on Webex?

Mister chairman, there is no one on Webex for this case.

Alright. At this time, we'll hear from the applicant.

Good evening, mister chairman, members of the commission. My name is Andy Conlon here. With me is Kate Lafayette from Roth Jackson as well as Andrew Browning, site civil engineer. As usual, mister Lewis did a very nice job describing the property and the project and what's proposed in front of you. I would point out that this project is part of the larger Bekova Community, which started in 2011, has 236 current acres of property with a number of sub associations, including Bekova Village, which mister Pesenti is referring to.

That's just to the north, which also Bekova Community has over 40% open space, and this project that we're proposing at this time is consistent with those standards that have been set by Bekova Community, including over 44% open space. As has been described, we're proposing a residential townhouse condominium community with a 74 townhome residential units with access off of Pouncey Track Road and a number of the features that have already been described. As you can see in the concept plan to address a couple of the outstanding issues, the farmer piece that has been described at the very corner, a number of attempts have been made to acquire that property. This particular project has been designed with a concept plan to be able to incorporate that if and when that property owner who does not wanna sell, wants to stay on the property, and understands this project, but could be incorporated into that, particularly with the Stub Road that goes into their property and be able to allow for access and the use of that open area for additional units if need be. So we're trying to, design the project specifically with that property in mind, not excluding them so they do not have to access off Road, but we can't force someone to sell.

It just can't happen if they're not available, and they're not willing to sell, we're not going to force them. In the same respect with respect to Bekova Village, and, I apologize in that We had some information that was sent. And part of the issue is that there is an existing proffer in the Bekova Village and concept plan that shows that there's access, that they would be able to have the grant of cross access and there are easements along with plans that are provided. But mister, Babcock, who is the developer for Bekova development, does not wanna force based on our discussions at the community meeting, we don't wanna force that access. If they don't want us to go access through there, I know the county wants to, and we, quite frankly, would like to have cross access.

But if that community doesn't want to, we'd like to continue to talk with them. We actually don't need that access in order to build this development. We are allowed to have the number of townhome units that we have on one point of access. We'd like to have two points. The reality is it's really not benefiting our community because to get to through their community, what we're doing is taking a right on Pouncey Track Road and coming back to our community. We're really not gaining anything by having our community go through their community. It really is a benefit for them to be able to take a left. Right now, to get into Bekova Village, they have to do a right in or right out. They're not allowed to take a left turn into Bekova Village. This connection would allow them to come in, take a left into our community, go through our community, go into theirs.

We entirely understand their concern as presented by their board president. We don't, again, wanna force that. We're not required to do this. The only thing I would ask is that we'd be allowed to add a note on this concept plan that says future connection upon agreement on the, you know, with the HOA. Again, we don't need it necessarily to meet the policy and the requirements for the number of units on a single point of access.

We'll continue to work with them. We think we have a number of good ideas that we can work with them to, make it worth their while as well to make that connection. But, again, we don't wanna force that issue. With respect to some of the other, issues that were raised by mister Lewis, a lot of those are code requirements, including the neighborhood compatibility standards with respect to the elevations that were provided in some of the landscaping that was shown on the, on the, elevations. I think we're, we'll meet whatever the code requirement is, and, we can amend our elevations to make sure that they are compliant with requirements and things of that nature.

There's a there was a comment in the staff report, for example, about parking. We have to have two parking spaces per unit. Our driveways will provide that. We've got additional parking spaces on the units. We out do meet parking based on this concept plan. We've confirmed that with the engineer. We have to as part of the site plan. So we really feel like, we're ready to move forward to the to the board of supervisors. We've we've met the standards of the remainder of the Bekova community. I'm willing to commit now, and I've certainly done this in the past. If I could make that one change to the concept plan that I just described with respect to the connection. We are we've committed to not make that connection until we have agreement with the HOA. It's not fair to them otherwise. So we can make that part of the case. We're not required to make that connection at this time based on these number of units.

So with that, I'll ask you to make a recommendation to approve this case to the board of supervisors, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Any questions? Alright.

Thank you, mister chairman. I I wanna say a few words. Thanks to, both mister Lewis for, presenting this, this case very thorough, and also attended the community meeting. I wanna thank, those who did attend the community meeting as well as those who have emailed me, with your feedback about this case. I think there's been pretty good engagement there, and I thank the the applicant as well for, coordinating the recent meeting. I'm okay with with placing that note on that connection. Okay. You know, it says upon agreement. There's no agreement. It's not made.

I do have three remaining questions that, haven't fully been answered yet that I'd like to to ask now. Mister Conlon, the the timing of the occupancy of these units roughly, how many years out are we are we looking?

We're probably talking probably about a year and a half before the buildings start coming up. So probably occupancy is close, you know, between a year and a half and two years.

Okay. Just looking at the school forecast. Sure. You know, it's a little bit tight, but, in in two years, that, that might, mitigate some of those numbers a bit. We've had some input about lighting, in this corridor, and not all of that is is really on your shoulders, but the community does want more lighting in general in this in this area. So could you talk a little bit more about, your plans, not just on the walkways, but in entrance ways or whatever you can do to kind of light up this area of of Pouncey Tract.

Yeah. I I guess that that was one of the questions that we had with respect to, in hearing that comment, particularly in the community meeting and talking with a couple of other folks since that time. Obviously, we're providing some lighting that's, provided within the site itself that we are providing as required on some of the previous zoning cases to make that consistent. So I have a consistent street lighting within the development itself. There was some question, you know, I don't believe that it's ever been provided along Pouncey Track. We're not opposed to that. It's just not something that's typically been provided. I don't believe in other cases along Pouncey Track Road. You know, I'm I'm not opposed. It's like a sidewalk.

Sometimes you have to start and do that, but lot of most of this development has already occurred along Pouncey Track and, again, looking for some consistency. I I wasn't clear to me that comment whether it was along Pouncey Tract or within the property itself. We are committing to create that within the property itself, obviously, and the lighting consistent with other cases.

Yeah. I know it is a broader concern that the committee had, and and I also know that Poughnsey Tract itself is controlled by VDOT. So Yeah. There's only so much control that Henrico has there. I guess my last question is around attainability, attainable housing. We in three chopped, it's very difficult to build housing that that's attainable. I'm just wondering if you have made any attempts to to address that in any portion of this proposal, or or will you?

Yeah. We we've we've provided a commitment to director of planning as is typical for the policy, not to make it part of the proffers, but as part of a commitment separate from that. And part of it is looking at the area median income to be able to commit to have at least 25% of the units would be for the attainable housing using the trust fund from the county potentially. We feel like we can do that with respect to the potential cost of these homes, which would be in excess of 700 up approaching some $800,000 as we continue on and and plus on that standpoint with the attainable housing being able to relate to the lot price and being able to lower the lot price in the same house. It's just a question of making the lot price worth work work for the for the able obtain that area median income.

So 25% of the units would be geared towards 80 to a 120% of the AMI, which is typical for these. And that's the commitment we've made to be able to provide for that attainable housing.

Alright. Thank you. Any

other questions from the commission?

Mr. Chairman, hearing the community comments and those responses from the applicant, I do move that we recommend approval of REZ2025Dash103169, Bekova Development Company LLC with the revised proffers dated 04/02/2026. Second?

We have a motion by mister Shippy, second by mister Winterhoff. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes.

Mister chairman, we now move on to page two of your agenda. The next rezoning case was withdrawn, and we discussed that earlier in the meeting. So therefore, we move on to the first discussion item. And this one is the commission will consider revisions to the planning commission rules and regulations. You have in your your documents that are in front of you, the final revised copy of the Planning Commission rules and regulations. We did make the changes that you suggested at the last meeting and we're open to any further input. And if they're acceptable, we would recommend you adopt them. Alright.

I believe mister Shippey has that for

Mister chairman, I have reviewed this final draft of the rules and regulations, and I move that we approve the revised Henrico Planning Commission rules and regulations dated 04/09/2026. Second.

Alright. Once again, we have a motion by mister Shippey, second by mister Winolf. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes.

Thank you, mister chairman. The next discussion is the one I mentioned to you in work session, and that is setting a work session for 05/14/2026 regarding the 2045 comprehensive plan. As you know, we have quite a few documents that we'd like to review with you that afternoon. So we are suggesting that you schedule a work session for 3PM. It doesn't necessarily require action, but I would like your consensus if there is everybody

We all heard this in the work sessions. Everybody good for the 3PM?

100%.

Pack of lunch.

If we

and then we may have depending you know how agendas go. Items drop off. We may have a more lengthy agenda that evening as well. However, we'll look at it and when we get to the time of putting the agenda together, if it looks like we can do that at four versus three, we certainly will make that suggestion and let you know that. Alright.

And then the final item we have this evening will be the consideration of the approval of your minutes with the CIP and regular meeting on 03/12/2026. We do have an errata sheet with comments that we've received to date. Those changes will be made. And of course, if you have any other changes you would like to have made, just let us know and we'll take care of that. Motion to Yes, sir. I do need a motion for that.

Alright. Motion to accept the minutes along with the errata sheet. Second. Printed. Alright. Motion by myself, second by mister Phelps. All in favor? Aye. Any opposition? Alright. Motion passes.

Mister chairman, I have nothing further for the commission this evening.

Alright. 06:42. Meeting adjourned.

Very efficient.