Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. The 03/12/2026, Loudoun County Planning Commission work session will now come to order. As is our custom, let's stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. We have minutes from the 02/12/2026 work session. If commissioners have had a chance to review them, I'll accept the motion.

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes.

Second. Second. Motion approved made by Commissioner Moderetti, seconded by Commissioner Banks. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any abstentions? No? That motion will carry nine-zero. Okay. Next up, disclosures. I will start to my right. If you have any disclosures, just hit your light. Mr. Myers?

The only disclosure I have is I met Tuesday. Tuesday I met with Staff in regards to the happy pal canine application applicant wasn't here, but I did meet with staff in regards to the application,

okay Yes, commissioner Jasper

and I was at that meeting. I don't normally do staff ones myself.

Okay. Alright. Thank you. Anybody else? Okay.

For myself, on February 27, I actually attended a happy pause circuit court hearing, and that that and it was more it's actually more related to HOA documents than it had anything to do with the zoning or the land use for this application. But I did speak to a couple of the, the residents there and their attorney as well as the attorney representing Happy Paws. On March 2, I met with Ron Meyer and Aaron Swishelm regarding an upcoming item, SDC Ashburn one in our March public we'll to And at to of to power data couple data the centers. And on March 11, I met with the representatives for the Demos substation to review their latest revision to their substation. All right.

With that, we have one work session item tonight, which is Leji twenty twenty four-twelve, Happy Paws Canine Special Exception twenty twenty four-twenty one and Special

My name is Diane Antfong with Department of Planning and team. Zoning back before the commission this evening with Ledgy twenty twenty four zero zero twelve. Just a reminder, the subject property is a three acre parcel located off of Oakland's Chase Place in the Rolling Acres community. The application proposes a dog kennel for up to 25 dogs in the AR 1 zoning district and a minor special exception to reduce the 100 foot use setback on three sides of the property. Since the December public hearing the applicant has made changes based on planning commission feedback.

Changes of note are to the maximum number of dogs proposed and the proposed setback. The application is now proposing a maximum of 25 dogs exclusive of personal pets. The application was also revised to increase the setback distance from adjacent properties. In addition, the application was revised to include additional information based on the Planning Commission discussion pertaining to the size of the outdoor play area, interior space, status with Loudoun County Animal Services, LCAS, information on the HVAC and compliance with professional guidance. This slide shows the new oh, I'm sorry.

This slide shows the previous proposal with the approximate distances from neighboring properties. And this slide shows the new proposal with approximate distances from neighboring properties. The application continues to propose a kennel use co located within the existing residential home on the property, which is shown in orange on this slide. On the screen, the existing six foot tall wood fence is outlined in red. The outdoor play area is in pink.

The proposed four foot tall secondary fence is in dark blue with vegetation in green. Here is a side by side of the annotated special exception plats. As noted in the update slide, the applicant increased the setback distance from the neighboring properties, and as a result, the size of the outdoor play area was slightly decreased. Here is a graphic depicting the proposed setback. The applicant is proposing to reduce the setback to 40 feet on the north, which is shown in green, 35 feet on the east, which which is shown in purple, and 75 feet on the south, which is shown in light blue.

The 100 foot setback will be met at the western property boundary, which is shown in red. And here is a side by side side of the changes to the proposed setback on the property. Staff continues to raise scale and intensity as an issue for commission consideration due to the neighboring residential uses. Staff continues to seek guidance from the commission on what an appropriate number of dogs would be in this location. The proposed conditions of approval have not changed with this submission.

Staff continues to recommend conditions to limit the maximum amount dogs to 25 dogs. Limit hours for pickup and drop off between six to six and 9PM 6AM to 9PM. Sorry. Limit outdoor play window to 8AM to 12PM and three to 6PM with no more than 15 dogs outside at one given time, and provide both the six foot tall wood fence and the secondary four foot tall fence, as well as conditions pertaining to noise, staffing, waste management, water quality, and conservation of the existing trees on the property. Staff could support a commission recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors subject to the conditions of approval and contingent on the commission's discussion on appropriate scale and intensity.

And at this time, I will turn it over to the Planning Commission for discussion.

All right. Thank you. Questions for staff? Commissioner Myers?

Do we want to do that now or let them do the presentation? How do you want me to do this?

Well, if you have questions specific for staff, then ask them. And if they're more geared towards the applicant, wait till they're

I was I was serious about 10 different questions. My first would be in relationship to it's my understanding at the end of this process, the theory is that we end up with two principal uses on this one property. Is that correct?

That is correct.

And so when I look at the, the ordinance requirements when we start talking about two principal uses in the AR District, it says that each one of these have to meet their own criteria and standards prescribed in Chapter four and are subject to the use of six of the standards and requirements and setbacks. So how has that been looked at that we have two principles in one building and how we look at the different setbacks between these two.

So the kennel use would have to meet the specific standards for kennels, which is outlined in Chapter four. As for the residential use that I defer to Brian.

So the home there would need to meet the setback requirements, lot coverage standards, things like that that apply to the house, which it's doing. And then the kennel use needs to meet the chapter four standards for kennels, which it's doing except for the three setbacks, which they're asking to modify.

But this is a recorded nonconforming lot, correct? Because it's less than five acres. It's zoned. It's governed under AR one, and it's also it's a nonconforming lot. So we are increasing the nonconformity of this lot, Carice, correct? By the intensity of

the We are not increasing the nonconformity of the lot because we're not making it smaller.

But we're increasing the intensity with a special exception.

We're not increasing the nonconformity of the lot because we're not making it smaller.

We can't make the smaller. That's not the point I'm arguing. The point I'm arguing is we're increasing the intensity of the use that's going to be on the property, which would then increase the nonconformity of

the lot. Even a nonconforming lot can be used for any purpose that's permitted in the zoning ordinance.

But this isn't permitted. It's a special exception.

It's permitted by special exception.

Do you agree with that?

Yes.

So you can increase the intensity and it doesn't increase the nonconformity?

The special exception resolves use issue and the intensity of

the use issue.

Okay. Then going on to the next one then, in regards to the discussion about the consistency with the 2019 general plan on we talk about that in this in this attachment. Excuse me. My thing just shut down, of course. On, page four When we talk about the updates, to the general plan we go to on the attachment one page I think it's I'm sorry I had this all Actually its attachment It's in regards to what we we call it it's, Number three of the general plan and it talks about the consistency with the right with the surrounding properties and the development of the low residential self and that it shall not allow to look at it being any intense to the surrounding neighbors.

Do we think that when we look at this that this use is consistent with the single development development the general plans guides for the low development It's policy three.

So I think general let me okay, maybe I can unpack that and we can get to the answer you're looking for. Generally, the rural policy area supports rural businesses, which a kennel is typically considered a rural business, if it is compatible with the dominant land use pattern in the area. In this case, being surrounded by residential is something that staff are raising to the Commission, saying that it is typical that kennels can be compatible in the area, but the scale of it is something that we are flagging for commission consideration as we go through.

So this is not something that you necessarily agree is in compliance at this intensity?

I mean, that's the purpose of staff raising it as an issue for Planning Commission consideration is that we're flagging that this the Commission could go either way.

Okay. Then when we talk about the use permit in this particular case they're including both the above Ground 3318 and the basement at 100788 as we look at that at the basement uses being used Is there a way for these these because I don't see in the drawings and the stuff I saw where there's an actual access other than a window for animals to get outside of this lower level.

Yes. I believe there is a door, but I would defer to the applicant clarify, the interior schematics of the basement.

So that they can get out easily if they're in these cages? Yes. Okay. All right. Then how do we define employees? Are they the people that live there? Are they the outside? What is an employee?

I would say that an employee is someone who works for the business.

So it could be the people that just live there. It's not necessarily an outside employee.

That's right. If they are employed by the business. Yes.

Okay. What area of the property is covered under the reservoir protection area

I can pull up a graphic to show that but it is a small section of the reservoir protection area, and the kennel operations are not in the reservoir protection area.

I thought she was are you pulling I think she's pulling it up. Right? While you're doing that I can also the page I was looking for was actually page 37 of report where it explicitly spells out that's, strategy 3.1 that ensure compatibility of rural economy uses through the evaluation of scale use Intensity and design site and building of development proposals and compliance with a dormant character rule character. That's the one I was referring to that I think this one is not necessarily in character with.

And that is absolutely within the Commission's discretion Mr. To

Chair, I can answer the reservoir question. Question. It's the southwestern corner of the parcel right here that's within the reservoir protection area. I don't know if you I can't project up there, but it's just that southwest corner. Because,

I mean, the entire property is part special exception, so you can't say it's not in the special exception area Because the entire boundary line is a special exception

Right the use won't be within the reservoir protection area

The uses The use is being permitted on the entire property. Sure.

How do I do that? So

So I can speak to pieces of that. So at the end of the day, the applicant will be required to adhere to the substantial conformance with the plat and the plan. And there are specific areas for the outdoor play area delineated, meaning the dogs couldn't run everywhere on the parcel despite the whole boundary being part of it. Only within that specific designated outdoor area could they run around. So that is not the indoor component and the outdoor component are not where the reservoir protection overlay is. Does that help clarify?

But the property is set so that I'm going to call it runoff. Runoff could allow itself to go down into that area

I Don't know the hydraulics of the site,

but mean it's that higher it goes down so even though it may not be there the Dribble effect shall we say Trying to be a little tactful. Okay, the dribble effect could be it's in that area Okay Is this an indoor kennel or is this just a kennel?

This is just a kennel.

Okay. So that means they can have they can have any number of pets they want under six months old and there's no regulation on it, correct?

Yes, that is correct.

So even though we think we're limiting them We're not limiting them because if that dog they keep is six months or less It's not counted towards the 10 the 15 the 20 whatever number we come up with here

That is correct as the as the zoning ordinance, you know base baseline establishes But if the Commission wanted to recommend a condition more specific than they could do

and that's one of the reasons why I asked the question because on an indoor kennel an indoor kennel does not give you that six month and less Claws in it. It's only the kennel that gives you that because a kennel is not meant for breeding when you read the definitions in the ordinance So I'm not trying to be like arbitrary or whatever but to me It's important because if it's an indoor kennel. I don't have to worry about the six month old cliche shall we say or whatever that can be anything and In regards to this also they get this doesn't limit the amount of dogs they can have that are their own dogs, correct?

They would still need to comply with the county standard of for Personal pets,

but they have a kennel permit so they don't once you get above five or more and you have the kennel permit You're no longer of that. If you read the definition.

Right. Which is we've include so they would still have to come into clients with the conditions for the special exception. So, if it was clarified in the conditions, they would still have to meet what the condition outlines.

So currently, does the condition say that the 12 or 24 or 40 are also including their own pets or exclusive of their own pets?

It currently reads as exclusive of personal pets.

So they can have however they want, really. They can have whatever they want six months and younger and they can have whatever they want That's that's they own because the kennel permit itself allows you to go above the five dogs on your residence That is excluded the personal dogs from this

that is correct and so if it was the desire of the Commission to include personal pets, that would be something that the commission could do if Okay.

I'm not trying to I'm just thinking this is Right. To me, this is all very important. I mean, because with all due respect, in the thirty plus years that I as Wilma Flintstone have set here This is the first time I have ever seen where we have absolutely no separation of space in a kennel application and it very much I'm just saying for the record it very much concerns me because we've always had whether it's an outbuilding or whatever is there's always been a separation of space between the commercial, whatever we want to call it, activity and then the home residence. I have never had an application where literally, with all due respect, the children are sleeping with commercial use that's on the property and to me that's Once we allow this to happen, how do you ever stop it from anybody else wanting to also do it? And that's a that's a real large concern for me So we answered the question about that.

I'll I've got some more, but I'll stop Other

questions Commissioner Barnes.

Yes, thank you So after we let take the corner out of it, you know the piece so it's not Three acres left on it right how much how much land left because you can't count that and then they can't do nothing in that area right

Just to clarify, commissioners, are you saying removing this corner section that the orange is showing on the screen is showing the reservoir protection area

Yeah.

Which is not for the most part, part, the kennel use is out of the reservoir protection area.

Yes. So after you take the protection area out,

much left? Because it's a

whole three acre lot, right?

Is If

you take that piece out, how much land left?

Is that what the net is when you remove that amount of land area? So is that I If they

take that out, how much land left for them

to use it for their cattle?

We can try to come up with a measurement for that.

You know what I'm talking about, right?

Right.

Yeah. So we can't call

it to have three acres because they can't use three acres.

I would draw a distinction between a floodplain area that has a regulatory overlay and a prohibition of building in it versus the reservoir protection area is a little bit different. But nonetheless, there are no structures or any components of the kennel use proposed in this small area.

What Mr. Myers was concerned about was the hydrology. Yeah.

I know the water running down there. Yeah. I know. Hub water. Yeah. That's that's another one. But it's still that's not usable space anyway. You know, that's what I'm saying. So it's they're not using three acre lot.

So based off the map, so this is about 0.36 acres. So they would be left with about 2.64 acres. That is correct. That is not three. Yes.

Right.

But just to reiterate, there are no kennel related structures within that particular area of the property. Okay.

Mr. Maderani?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have just one question. This number, the permitted dogs number changed few times. So can you kind of give your rationale, the 25 number right now, why we settle at this number at this point?

Yes. So initially, when this application came in, the initial proposal was for 40 dogs on three acres. Throughout the staff review process, the applicant reduced the amount of dogs. So at one point, we came down to 35. And then when it came to the Planning Commission last, it was initially proposed at 35.

And then at the Planning Commission meeting in December, they reduced it to 30. The applicant has since reduced that number to 25. Staff, as you've read in the staff report, we are still raising scale and intensity as a issue for commission consideration. However, staff finds that the proposed conditions help mitigate some of the impacts associated with the kennel use. There are conditions that would limit a maximum of 15 dogs out in the yard at any given time.

So staff is comfortable with limiting the 15 dogs out at any given time. There's also parameters in terms of pickup and drop off for the dogs to help mitigate potential traffic impacts, conditions to ensure that there would be no more than two dogs outside during the nighttime hours between 9PM and 7AM the next day, which would also help mitigate. There are conditions to address noise, odor, water quality, waste management, which would also help mitigate the ultimate impacts of the proposed kennel use.

So thank you for the explanation, but I'm still kind of trying to see is there some kind of a guidelines the county staff had that you guys use, okay, for this many people. And I I don't know whether you still have some scale in here, how you came up with this number. Are you still feel just based on what you're hearing from the applicant, you feel comfortable having these conditions that this number looks good. Is that the case? Or you have some guidelines that you are following because they promised that six employees will be there.

That's because, okay, they said they are going to have this drop offs and pickups between these time frames. That's why this number looks good. I just want to find the rationale here. I mean, you guys following some kind of a scientific reasoning or some kind of a guidelines? Or just it's a feel good number every time based on the conditions?

Yeah, that's a great question. So if we recall from the last public hearing meeting, we did try to pinpoint a number and have an exact scientific formula on how many dogs could be appropriate here based off the review of the previously approved kennel applications in the rural policy area over the last twenty years. And as we saw from the chart last meeting, there wasn't an exact formula or rhyme or reason as we couldn't identify the particular pattern on what would be appropriate. So we've come to this number based off the proposed conditions, thinking about previously approved kennel applications, how does this pan out. It is difficult to identify an exact pattern, especially since the kennel application is so broad.

So we try to focus on other doggy daycare business operations, looking specifically at those applications, and then narrowing it down from there. Again, we are still raising it as an issue for commission consideration. So it is ultimately up to the commission.

Okay. Thank you. So basically, where you stand at this point from the staff perspective is 25 dogs but it has to come with all these conditions that when you feel satisfied basically there's two has to go together not like independently.

Yes.

That's correct.

Thank you.

Okay. I have a couple questions. Going back to the the number of dogs. So for example, as proposed, they could have 25 dogs. However, any dogs under the age of six months wouldn't be counted in that. Correct? Personally personal use, like myself or most residents, you can have four dogs. Once you go above four, you need a kennel approval. I'm understood. Is that correct?

Yes. That's So

if this application is approved as a kennel, does that four dog maximum no longer imply, meaning they could have 25 dogs as the business and 10 dogs of personal? Or is it still limited?

So it depends on the wording of the conditions of approval for this unique application. We have conditions of approval for other special exceptions application that address this very directly by excluding or including personal pets. So if that is a recommendation of the commission, it may be to revise the conditions to be very clear We about

we wanna make sure the number of dogs that will be allowed on this property, the number could be inclusive of personal pets and dogs under six months old, and that number would include all dogs on the lot. So that would eliminate that ambiguity. Correct?

If that is Yep.

Okay. And the last thing, the special exception use, just to clarify, if this is approved, does this special exception use now apply to the entire lot or only the area that has been proposed for the special exception use?

I believe it would apply to the entire lot. However, in the conditions, specifies the permitted areas. So on the specs plot, it would notate the outdoor area, the indoor area, and what spaces are associated with the Gulf.

So if at any point in the future they decided to include more of their lot, they would have to come back and get that approved. It had to go through that application process.

That is correct. Yes.

Alright. That's what I had. Thank you. And commissioner Myers, you had another question?

I'm sorry. I had one more question I really wanted to ask. It's in regards to the overnight boarding. It's on page nine. It's under number six. It talks about overnight accommodations. It says overnight boarding facilities may be provided up to seven days a week. Drop off time is six a. M. To nine p. M. There's no limits on it. So is this is this 25 more additional dogs? Is this the same 25? Is there any requirements?

I mean, how many dogs are gonna stay overnight? Because there is no conditions on It's just it's just a blanket that they can board dogs overnight with no additional requirements or limitations. So I mean you could literally have let's say we leave it at twenty five you could have 50 dogs being exchanged between 06:00 at night because you could have leaving and then the night dogs coming in and then the day dogs leaving in the morning and the others because of the timing they overlap each other But you could end up with twice as many dogs at one point in time being exchanged on the property because it's not a total number of within a four hour period of at no time shall this number be exceeded of 12 or 24 or whatever. And there are no limitations on the boarding.

If I may clarify, so the way that the condition is written, it's a maximum of 25 dogs on the property at any given time. So 25 would include the boarding dogs as well as the doggy daycare dogs. And so if the applicant chose to do, we're gonna have 25 dogs boarding for the next few days, that would be permitted. But during that time, if they have 25 dogs boarding, they're not accepting doggy day care clients because they can only have 25 on the property.

My point is you could end up at a point in time with almost to make this easy, let's leave it for right now at twenty five. Okay? To get it for the semantics. You have the same drop you have you have drop off times. Okay? So you literally could have the day people leaving at 06:00 in the evening with their 25 dogs. Mhmm. And you could have the nighttime dogs coming in with their 25 dogs so that all they have to do is they're leaving in the morning. So you literally could have periods of times when they have 50 clients. Because one's leaving and one coming. It's not exclusive that it can only be for at no point in twenty four hours shall they ever exceed more than x amount of dogs. There's not that condition on here. So you could have overlapping somebody coming in, somebody leaving.

But didn't she just say that the the condition specifically said 25 at any given time?

No. It doesn't say that. It doesn't.

It is 25 on the property total. So I would defer to the applicant on how they they choose to run their operations in terms of how they cycle out clients. But it is 25 dogs on the property.

So you could have a cycling of 25 or leaving an hour later, 25 are coming.

As I understand it, the the the desire is to have no more than 25 dogs at a time. And that's how staff is interpreting the condition. Correct?

That is correct.

I think all that you're hearing from the commission is make that explicit. 25, period. Let's not

Whatever the number is.

Whatever the number is. But, I mean, let's I don't think we have to keep fighting about this one. It's just I understand it. You want 25, not 26, not 29, not 50 by fancy math. You want 25.

Okay.

Great. So does the applicant have a presentation?

We do. Are you guys clicking or how are Okay.

Okay. That's fine.

So good evening Chair Caris, members of the Planning Commission. As most of you know by now, my name is Anna Ritter. I am a land use attorney with Walsh, Colucci, Lubeli and Walsh. And I've been serving as the applicant representative for the Happy Paws K9 special exception. I have with me tonight Marcel Berg, who is the applicant on this. And Beatrice is with us as well. We're happy to answer your questions. So very briefly, we've covered this. The property is a three acre parcel zoned to the AR1 zoning district under the Loudoun County zoning ordinance. It's designated in the rural North Place type under the general plan, and it's located in a wooded neighborhood.

And I will just note that the two neighbors who share property lines with this property do continue to be supportive of this application. So based on your feedback at the December 18 public hearing, the applicant has prepared a revised proposal that reduces the scale and intensity of the proposed use. And the changes that we've made include reducing the maximum capacity request, as well as increasing the proposed setbacks. And the applicants also provided resources authorities on kennel best practices in response to question raised in December by the commission. They've also prepared an air quality report describing infrastructure currently in place inside the home in response to questions.

We provided health department records verifying the location of the reserve drain field on the property. And we also provided the results from FOIA information requests for two animal services inspections that were conducted in response to allegations of animal cruelty, and we included those based on questions from the commission in December about animal welfare on the site. So in December, we heard feedback from the commission as well as members of the public expressing concern about what the appropriate number of dogs is here. And so the applicant went back and spent some time considering what further reductions could be made that would be responsive to those concerns while also maintaining the business's viability. And in January, we met with staff to discuss some options.

And we sought this meeting with staff for two reasons. And first, it's been our general practice throughout this process to seek staff's input and guidance. And we've been working with our reviewers for about two years now. And many of them have been out to the property, including our project manager. And they've had the chance to see how things are run on the ground.

Second, we also wanted to discuss what was at that time the most recent referral from community planning, which found the application was generally consistent with the general plan and recommended a maximum of 30 dogs. And we wanted to seek out more context for this number to guide the applicant in determining what reductions were appropriate. And at this meeting, our community planning reviewer was able to explain that she came to the recommendation of 30 based on a number of things. This included her analysis of the plan's policy. It included her own site visit to the property in July 2025, where she had the opportunity to see the dogs on the property in action.

She considered the proximity of residential uses, including the two properties immediately adjacent to this property, and she also considered the existing business practices of the client. This was very helpful to us, and so taking this into account along with the concerns raised in December, the applicant reduced the maximum capacity request to 25. Will share that the final community planning referral we received following this reduction found that there were no outstanding issues related to scale or intensity of the use, and that the request for specs approval is consistent with the general plan. So one of the things included in the January resubmission was a report that the applicant assembled in which the applicant assembled authorities on kennel best practices. And I'd like to note one of the major things recommended across those resources, and that's the rotation based management system.

And I think this is worth highlighting because while this is a business management model and might not seem germane to land use questions immediately, how the business is managed goes directly to the impact that the proposed use is going to have on adjacent properties, and therefore the scale and intensity of the use. The rotation based management system is recommended across authorities, and I've noted some on the screen. They're also in the report before you. And the key feature of the system is that dogs are rotated in active groups of five to 12. And the benefit of these small groups is that dogs are engaged.

Caretakers don't have their attention spread over too many pets. And so barking and other disruptive behavior is significantly minimized. It also means the dogs are happy. I'll note that Happy Paws also exceeds the caretaker to dog industry ratio at one caretaker to approximately 10 to 15 dogs, and Butress is an experienced dog trainer. And so both of these also contribute to keeping the dogs engaged, well behaved, and not disruptive.

I've also noted here that Lawton County Animal Services had no concerns on last referral, and Animal Services has investigated two complaints alleging animal cruelty. Both of those were found to be unfounded. The most recent investigation was in January. So the other thing I'd like to walk us through briefly, and this is included in the capacity report before you, is the industry recommendations for how much space a dog needs. So at Happy Paws, the square footage inside, which includes the basement and two main levels, is just over 5,000 square feet.

The outdoor backyard play area, so not the entire property, not the three acres, just the backyard play area, is just over 24,000 square feet. The industry standard for best practices says that dogs should have about 75 to 100 square feet per dog when inside. There's some context to this that I'll get to, but if you apply that industry standards to Happy Paws, that means the inside of the home could support 50 to 67 dogs. Now, the context is that there are people inside the home, right? This is not just an exclusive kennel space.

And that's also why Happy Paw's proposed capacity is 25 dogs, not 50 or 67. 25 is a 50% reduction of the smallest number up there. Just doing basic math, that means the dogs have about 200 square feet per dog. Outside, the industry standard is 200 to 300 square feet per dog. That means that the outdoor backyard play area could support 81 to 122 dogs.

Again, we're not suggesting that is appropriate for this property. But from a best practices animal welfare standpoint, it does mean that the 15 maximum dogs we've proposed to have out time outside at one time have plenty of adequate square footage. In fact, nine seventy four feet is almost three times the maximum industry standard. The applicants also increased the proposed setbacks. So the zoning ordinance prescribes a 100 foot use setback for kennels, as staff described.

Applying that to this property wipes out almost the entire backyard play area and would mean that can you hit it one more time? It would mean that the play area would need to encroach into the front yard and over the existing drain field, is shown in blue. To avoid that and to take advantage of the existing infrastructure, In December, we'd come to you with a proposal to reduce the setback to align with the vegetative buffers required in the zoning ordinance that's shown in green. With our January submission, increased the proposed setback to what's shown in red, and that's about a 50% increase almost everywhere. It's 20 to 40 on the North, 20 to 35 on the East, and 35 to 70 on the South.

Really briefly, there were some questions about air quality inside the home, again considering pets and people in the same place. There's an indoor air quality report with you that the applicants took a lot of careful time assembling. The home, of course, has the primary HVAC system. And that HVAC system is equipped with what's known as MIRV 13 filters. And in my crash course on air quality best practices, 13 is the highest rating compatible for use with residential HVAC systems.

Ratings of 16 plus are used in medical grade facilities and science labs. And based on my research, I am not an air quality expert, but I don't believe the ratings are sequential, so it's not like thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen. I think 16 is the next or second next rating. What you can see with the green circles is the MERV 13 filters filter out mold spores. They filter out bacteria and fungi. They filter out pet dander, and they filter out viruses. So that's the main air filtration system inside the home. The applicants also have the independent air purifiers, that second bullet point. And those are independent units that are plugged in in the main rooms of the house and in the basement. And those act in addition to the HVAC system.

99.97 to 98 particulate capture and their HEPA exceeding anti allergen filtration. And then the garage where supplies are stored, they have an independent mini split climate zone. And that concludes the applicant presentation. We're happy to answer questions.

All right. Thank you. Questions for the applicant, Commissioner Barnes.

Yes. You said the neighbors right next to them are okay with it?

Yeah. The two neighbors who share property line.

Development? How many other neighbors are there, those who didn't want it? Did you get the numbers up, Paul?

I believe those numbers are included in the staff report. But what I was trying to highlight is the two property owners who share the line.

How many said that didn't like it.

That's in the staff report. I don't have that number in front of me.

You don't have it? The staff

has it?

Yes.

I'm suggesting that maybe they will tell me.

So at that time, we have not received any new public I apologize. We have received How many people two new have public

don't like it?

Overall, I think

it's Overall, a that

were in opposition, we had 14 in opposition.

Okay. I I think that's at the hearing. I think you've received more.

You more. There's a more number come in. So all of them signed

and sent it back. In favor.

Yeah. That's not all of them.

The staff report says that we've received a 110 Yeah. Comments via email. Yeah. 89 of the comments were from current clients. 21 of the comments were from neighbors, of which 14 were in opposition. Seven were in support.

I got it. See, the clients don't count because they want the facility, so they won't say anything bad about they want it so that doesn't count to me is the people living there and invested in their money in the houses they live in and their lifestyle that that that and here's the people living with the dogs They're really saying 25 dogs plus they have four dogs There's 29 dogs living in one house and the family living at they have kids too, don't they? And yeah, and and then the whole cooking kitchen everything in there. I thought It's not very hygienic to me looks like people are living with their dogs dog is not living with their people here, you know So I I don't understand that it doesn't make sense to me that people and they're living in the same place where the people are living They should have a canon if they want to have a place for the dog It just doesn't make sense to me Thank you.

Okay. Commissioner Jasper?

I I think I wanna talk about air indoor air quality. Sure. Okay? I am also not an engineer related to either HVAC systems, commercial or residential. However, with just a tiny little search, I turned up petboardinganddaycare.com article called The Dangers of Indoor Air Quality.

And the dangers of indoor air quality talks about 98% of the pathogens in air that is typical indoor air in a kennel are three microns or smaller in size. Okay? And then it talks about how you address transmission of disease, both with personnel and between animals in an animal care facility. And they talk about a two pronged approach, combining air cleaning and surface cleaning. And then they say a highly effective method of improving air quality in animal care facilities is to use properly sized ultraviolet germicidal irradiation.

Irradiation. And they note that this is similar to what's used in some medical facilities to prevent transmission of disease through airborne pathogens. Apparently, you didn't find that in your research.

There's that's not part of the current infrastructure. So what we were talking about was just the current infrastructure.

Right. But we I think we were asking, was it adequate to protect humans and dogs? And I would think that we weren't asking really just what was. I mean, I think we were asking for the rationale about why what is there is adequate. I think the response that it's a robust residential system is perhaps not fully addressing the questions we were raising.

So I just wanted I wanted to ask if you'd I have concern, because having done a ton of research myself, I have not yet found a single case in which a large scale dog kennel is included in a residential home, right? And so finding standards, you know, is hard. And so when you put up a chart that actually looks like it found standards, expect it relates to a facility that is exclusively a kennel, if it's at this scale. And I haven't been able to find literally a single instance of one that is residential and kennel at this size. And so you can understand why both the commission and the staff and I certainly understand it are having a hard time finding standards because this is appears to be completely out of the norm.

And, you know, we this has gone so far. This is just to help you understand. We take this seriously, and this is why Commissioner Myers and I met, in part, county staff to try and see how do we develop standards. I I do, you know, this comment goes to staff a little bit. We did have a standard, you know, a precedent we established on St.

Louis Road, that was something that I don't understand why it wasn't deemed relevant here. But for now, I'll leave that and wait until the discussion. But I did want to ask you if you had looked specifically at that indoor air quality from pet boarding and day care perspective as opposed to a residential HVAC perspective.

The MERV 13 filters is all live. I'm not familiar with the website, so I have not looked at that, no.

Okay. Yeah, thanks. Okay,

other questions for the applicants? Commissioner Myers?

You all do USDA inspections?

What's the question? I missed it.

Do you do USDA inspections? I mean, the last applicant we had did a very good presentation about how they do that. What was it? Shiraz was the name, I think. And and that that that's how we could look at their facility and know that somebody was regulating it. Do you all do USDA inspections?

We're not familiar with that. That's something maybe we're willing to explore if we have more information on.

And then also, we also noticed in that last application they had, consistent visits, not complaint based visits, but they had consistent visits with the Lawton County Animal Services. In fact, they had talked about for the last what years ten years whatever it is they've been in that they had annual visits from them Do you all have annual visits that you comply with and do inspections with them that are not based on complaints?

We have had animal services over three times in the last ten months or so, but all of them were as to investigate a complaint. And they say they usually don't come voluntarily to do inspections, but we would be more welcome to receive them once a month if necessary. We're very open for that. Every time they came over to inspect anything outside, we took a touring inside and we showed the entire property every time and they we received nothing but compliments for them saying that they have never been to such a clean and, beautiful facility before, but we're open to that.

I'm sorry, I could, Commissioner, I was going to draw the distinction being the registered breeding operation of the Sherezza. That was what triggered those regular visits.

But they could voluntarily agree to it. Yes. Right. And then my other question is, do you have an evacuation plan for your basement for the animals?

Yes, do.

And it is?

We have two doors and we have installed an egress window as well. And we have a very robust plan that was developed by a senior firefighter. We have all the devices, the maps spread out throughout the house. We have the signals, luminal signals, signaling where the exits are. So yes, we have a robust evacuation plan, and we have been drilling that with our staff as well.

So how many dogs do you have in the basement?

It depends.

On average, how many dogs do have in the basement?

Well, if we have capacity for 25 we keep 15 outside, we have typically 10 dogs inside, maybe more than that. But they are spread out not only in the basement, they are in the main level as well.

So I guess my concern is, I mean, it's nice that people dogs aren't going to see your evacuation signs flash and stuff. What is the rationale that if when you have dogs in the basement, is there always somebody down there with them?

All the time. The dogs are twenty four seven supervised. Always.

Okay. And would what is the do you breed? No. And what how many dogs do you currently own? Two. You just have two? Mhmm. Because I thought last time you told us you had six? No. I thought no. Two? Okay. Two dogs? Okay. And would you be do you have do you, right now, take care of dogs that are less than six months old?

Typically not because we demand certain vaccines and when they are that young, they're not fully vaccinated yet. So it's mandatory to have rabies, distemper and Bordetella at least. We also highly recommend flu, Lyme and lepto. So yes, dogs at that age, they are not fully vaccinated, so they are not permitted to come to Dog in A.

So you don't allow any dog under six months old?

I wouldn't say that but, usually they come at the age of five months or so as soon as they are fully vaccinated.

So you do take dogs under six months old?

Eventually, yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

Other questions?

That was

my question was about shots and when those because I figured you require some level of shots, and those can't be given at two weeks old. So I think you answered my question.

Okay. This is more of a clarification of something that Commissioner Myers brought up earlier about overnight dogs. So what my impression was, if somebody goes away for a week, they leave the dog and the dog is there. It's part of your twenty five count, also happens to stay overnight. It'll be part of your 25 count for every day that it's the dog's there. Do you have circumstances where somebody just drops a dog off overnight, drops it off in the evening and picks it up in the morning?

No. We have very restricted rules or procedures. Our cutoff time for checking is 11AM because dogs, they need time to get comfortable with us, get comfortable with the pack. They need to burn some energy before a dinner and bedtime. We don't accept any dogs checking in at night. No.

Okay. Do have a follow-up?

Yeah. Because that's contrary to the public hearing. You actually had firefighters testifying that they were able to drop their dogs off in the evening when they got held for for for duty and stuff. So you had several people testifying that they brought their dogs at nighttime to you. So that's contradictory to what you just said.

No. Actually, they drop off the dogs very early in the morning. They have a very early start days, so they have access to our, property, property, and they drop their dogs. Typically, when they are on call and an emergency happens, they can drop off the dogs before 6AM. But before, it's an exception for firefighters when they are on duty and they don't have anything to do with their dogs. We allow them to bring their dogs earlier than 6AM.

Okay. Another thing on the the north side of the property, I know there's some kind of an easement that goes behind it. What's the width of that easement? Do you know?

I believe it's 30 feet. Correct?

No. The easement, is it the corridor between

Yeah. Yeah.

I think it's

Because the neighbor to your north, their property line doesn't abut yours. Hits the easement Correct. And then your property abuts that corridor easement. Do you know what the width of that is?

I guess it's around 10 feet. I'm not sure. Yeah. Maybe. I'd never imagine.

Okay. Yeah. Okay. That's all I had. And one last thing I forgot to ask, I wanted to clarify from staff. So if we send this forward exactly as it is, so is staff supportive or not supportive? Generally, you're pretty clear about whether you think an application can be is supported by staff as it sits or sometimes you'll say we these are outstanding issues that need to be resolved. Otherwise, staff generally won't support an application. As it stands, I know you've asked us, well, we'd like the commission to weigh in on these primarily two things, number of dogs and the setbacks. But as it stands, is staff supportive of this application?

Yes. As it stands, staff could support the application subject to the conditions approved.

The conditions. Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. Alright. Last round. Anybody else have any questions? Okay. Commissioner Jasper, this is in the Little River District. Yes. Sorry. There's no public comment during the work session. Yes. So, David, we're we're we're good. There's no additional back and forth in this. So Commissioners have had the opportunity to talk and submit whatever they wanted in our discussion.

Petitioner.

Oh, petitioner. No. We're we don't accept anything we can send in via email, we get information right up to the time when the meeting actually began. So that is how somebody can submit information.

So

that's not for that could go on ad nauseam. So we have all the information that we've had. We've had a lot of information from the public, and so we will go based on the information that we have at the time of this this work session. Okay. So okay. Then you can do that you can do that at any point in the future. But as far as this meeting is concerned, we're not taking any additional information. Commissioner Jasper.

Okay. So I'm sorry at this point to disagree with staff, but I do not think at the scale and intensity proposed this use is consistent with the general plan. And so both the minor and the special exception for the kennel use in the minor and special exception are something I wanted to revisit. Each of you has next to you revised conditions of approval, which I talked with Diana earlier today and Brian, and they were willing to put together for staff to to make it easier for people to review. These are conditions which I think would make this application more acceptable and that I could move to move it, recommend approval by the Board of Supervisors.

I will say that some of the concerns that have been raised during this conversation have affected my opinion a little bit. In particularly, among other good points made raised by Commissioner Myers, the kind of fact that by definition, when we change when we enable the kennel use, change to primary use to a kennel, then it delimits the number of personal dogs that the applicant can have, I think, is problematic and has to be addressed in in the maximum permitted. So I had, you know, to keep it try and keep it short and logical. I had tried to come up with a standard that was based on earlier cases that we had approved as well as consistent with traffic burdens that the county typically approves on a residential neighborhood. I had looked at the child care, the in home child care standard, which is 12 children in an in home child care.

Also, that is not inconsistent with the approach we took for a kennel on a larger lot off Louis Road, or Silcott Springs. It just changes names up there, but a very busy road where we had limited the number to 15 dog. So 12, in this context, seemed like a good number. I had suggested that was in exclusive of personal pets, but had assumed that that was limited to four. I could either say I would be comfortable with including personal pets in that or saying that it was limiting the personal pets to four, you know, either way.

So 12 or 16. Based on the downsizing of the size and intensity of use that I thought enabled potentially to increase the setback to back to 60 feet along the eastern property. So it's not the 100. It's still a minor specs, but it's better than 35. And while the existing owner may be comfortable with that, I think it has an impact on the community and also on future potential owners of that property.

So it seemed valuable to increase that setback. In terms of employees, my research suggested that a good standard was one employee for every six dogs that are at the facility. So, that, staff has included that under section five. Another thing was, separating dogs and pens to eliminate the potential for, you know, fighting and things like that. So just ensuring that that outdoor area was not always was not ever filled with the total number of dogs on the property, and keeping them limited to six dogs rather than 15.

Other counties have let happily, at at, Commissioner Myers' request, staff provided what other counties are doing. And they when they look at sound, they ask for an acoustical engineer to certify that, not an architect or engineer. Having spent an entire career working with architects and engineers, most of them don't know anything about acoustical engineering. So I thought that that was good language that we picked up. I think it was from Prince William or Fauquier.

The other thing that I picked up from those other standards was soil testing. So while solid waste is being removed, bagged, taken off by a service presumably on a daily basis or bagged, you know, as applicants said regularly on the property, urine is problem. And I think that's part of what commissioner Myers has been trying to get to. And in that case, I recommended I picked up the standard from one of the others, which was regular soil testing for acids and pH and salts. And so staff has formulated that language and that it would be that there would be some enforcement entity.

Other agencies use a certified arborist or a Northern Virginia Soil and Water Conservation District representative, but that this would be monitored on a periodic basis. For some reason, there was an allowance in the existing proposed conditions of approval for the impacts to the tree conservation area based on building new trails and passive recreation amenities. I didn't see any reason to disrupt the tree conservation area. And then I would think that based on just concerns expressed that made a ton of sense by Commissioner Myers and others, no commercial breeding would be allowed at the facility. A ton of stuff, but if if those with those conditions of approval, I could rec I would be comfortable making a motion forward it to the board of supervisors.

I think we could maybe do a straw vote Yeah. And

I was just has the applicant seen these revised conditions?

We received a copy when we came in tonight.

Okay.

That's when we got it.

Because some of these, I think, are are not significant. Some, I think, are significant.

I think we're prepared to speak to the proposal if that's

warranted Yeah. By So the you could speak to the the the conditions the revised conditions.

Sure. I have a question just before Are I do we required that they accept the conditions we wanna put on a special exemption?

We we could still but when I

just I just I just wanna understand the ground rules here. I mean, it's nice that you wanna know if they want them, but with we don't have to do it just because they don't want it or they do want it. This

is It doesn't limit right. It doesn't limit what we do. But before the motion, I just for my own purposes as as a member, I wanna know if they've revised if they say this is something we absolutely cannot support, these we can, we can. I think it's good to know that that so before I

just wanna understand Yeah. And make sure it wasn't

that I just wanna make sure they had a chance to see it and look at it and, respond to it before we go and make a motion with them included.

So the first change would be along the eastern side of the property. The current proposal for the 35 foot setback increased to 60. I think maybe there's a little bit of wiggle room up to 40 potentially, but any more than 35 or 40 is going to have to push some of the backyard play area into the front yard to maintain space for the pets, and that starts to encroach on the Dranfield. So as currently shown with the backyard play area, we'd need time to go back to our engineer and explore what the implications of a 60 foot setback are. So we can't agree to that tonight. My

thinking on that was there would be far fewer pets. And so you wouldn't need that much noise. Sure. Has space.

And so to the second point, so with the proposal for 25, we really did take your feedback seriously. And we do appreciate the willingness to negotiate on this. I do appreciate that. We really spent a lot of time on this submission determining the number of 25. We worked closely with staff and with our community planning reviewer.

25 represents an almost 50% reduction of what we came in with originally. So at this time, we're not able, the applicant's not in a position to go below 25. So 12 isn't going to work. We are happy to limit to the personal pets since that's been brought up to four. That was our understanding of the zoning ordinance, so we're happy to commit to that.

I realize that's the big substantive one, but I'll just kind of go through the rest. The employee condition, we're satisfied with the way the conditions for employees were previously. At one employee per six dogs, at 25 dogs, that means six employees, and that's just simply not viable from a business standpoint. Even if we reduce to 12, that's just not viable from a business standpoint. We are happy outside to go down, so we've currently proposed no more than 15 dogs outside at one time.

We're okay with going down to 12 dogs outside at one time, and we're also okay with separating the dogs so that there's six in each enclosure. That's okay from the outside perspective. It's the overall number that we're concerned with. I think the acoustical engineer part is okay. I think we're willing to agree to that.

It just means that this is the noise condition that says The acoustical engineer change is fine. Soil testing, I think we're willing to consider this. I don't have the information to know how much this is going to cost or what it looks like. It's my understanding that other kennels in Loudoun have not been asked to do this. We understand and appreciate the concern with urine, so I think there's just a little bit more background work that we need to do before I can comfortably commit to it, but we're willing to consider it.

And the tree conservation red line is fine. Yeah.

Okay. And the new commercial breeding is there, sir?

Yeah.

So I stand prepared to make my motion as it stands, regardless of the fact that the applicant wants to or doesn't want to agree. The chair and I had a conversation earlier today, And if other commissioners think that at 12 dogs, either exclusive of personal pets or inclusive of personal pets up to four, right, then I am okay advancing that. I think that that scale and intensity is appropriate within this area. And the other preconditions of approval we have would make this suitable, consistent with the general plan and the character of the community. I think that it is I I think that it's of benefit to us and to the board of supervisors to understand what our thinking was, which is why I think it's valuable to go ahead and pass this if the commissioners other commissioners agree with it, regardless of the fact that the applicant does not want to accept it.

But

I also understand that some commissioners may want to either deny it completely or approve it at a different level. And, I'm willing to either allow the chair to take a straw vote whether this is worth doing or go ahead and make the motion and see who votes for it.

Yeah. Not? If you make an emotion, we can Yeah.

So commissioners, because I've heard various discussions over the last several months that people are comfortable with different numbers of dogs. So if the commissioners want to do basically a straw poll, meaning what's the maximum number of dogs you would consider? It kind of gives a sense of where the commission's at, if they're willing to support it. Or we just take let's just go with the motion that she's proposed, and then we can deal with it

Yeah.

After that. So go with the motion.

Okay.

Okay.

Alright. We're going with the motion, which means I have to make the decision about including personal dogs or not. Thanks, guys. So I move that the Planning Commission forward Legi twenty twenty four-twelve Happy Paws Canine Specs twenty twenty four-twenty one and Specs twenty twenty four-twenty four to the Board of Supervisors with the recommendation of approval subject to the updated conditions of approval dated 03/12/2026, and based on the findings for approval provided as attachments one and two to the 03/12/2026 Planning Commission work session. I would advise staff that my motion includes revision of the language to 12 dogs, exclusive of up to four personal pets of residents.

So that's an absolute limit. And the inclusion of the additional condition there shall be no commercial breeding at the facility.

Okay. Is that it? Alright. So we have a is there a second to the motion?

I'll second the motion.

Okay. Motion made by commissioner Jasper, seconded by commissioner Banks. Commissioner Jasper, do you

have an opening?

I think you've heard my opening already.

Other discussion on the motion. Commissioner Banks.

I wound up seconding the motion, to be perfectly honest, because at this point, I found the applicant's proposal as it exists today, I probably would have voted to forward it with approval. But I defer to my colleague in the Little River District as knowing that neighborhood better. And if she believes that it is most appropriate at that level, that is something that I'm willing to support.

Okay. Other comments? Commissioner Combs.

Thank you, mister chair. I'm happy to support the motion. I think the ratio of pets to to surface area acreage is appropriate given the other applications that we've considered that and that you and I have talked about that, I also mentioned at public hearing. This is a three acre parcel in a residential neighborhood. And if it becomes to the point where the kennel use overtakes the residential use, then we're in a compatibility issue. And I think at 12 dogs, it's more right sized, and that is something I could support given the three acre parcel in the in the surroundings.

Other comments? Commissioner Frank.

I'm I'm kind of where Commissioner Banks says. I I felt like, you know, roughly a couple dozen inclusive of their dogs.

Inclusive.

Inclusive. Yeah. Inclusive.

I I probably could have supported that. You know, I I appreciate that we're comparing it to it in home child care, but staff can correct me if I'm wrong. In home child care is allowed in suburban neighborhoods, urban compact neighborhood, places where we have, you know, five homes on an acre. This use would not be allowed in those places. And those folks, they're coming and going every single day.

Nobody stays for two or three days at a time. So I would say they have as much traffic impact in a more compact neighborhood. So the 12 number to me, it is appropriate for this number to be a little higher than that. I think I would have been hard pressed to go any higher than what was proposed in the most recent application. The original application was a little too intense. But, you know, so I do think there's a little bit of difference. We should use some caution because, you know, I've seen 12 children in a child care center in a townhouse. It's I mean, it's just so it's and again, this use wouldn't be allowed there. So we've already kind of got some built in

differentiation. Know.

I I mean, you know, I won't worry about how much space per kid or dog or whatever. That's there's regulations that take care of that. That's not our job. As far as intensity and impact of use, there is a little bit of a difference there, in my mind. So I would have been okay with a slightly higher number. Mr.

Myers?

So I think one of the things that was I know you brief talked about childcare versus this but also in childcare You can only do it five days a week You can't do it on the weekend and you only can do it from six to seven So there's a whole lot of more restrictions on on childcare than there is on this application One of the things that I think should be considered You know in this approval process is that this property has to remain and the use has to remain under the current under the, the principal owner because there's once the special exception is here, there's nothing that prevents them from moving out and any any lessee any tenant anybody else can move in and then take over the operation because it runs with the land. And I know even in the daycare facilities that that's a requirement that it has to be the principal owner has to be person operating No doggy daycare instead of the child daycare, you know So I would like to see that it does have to be that it's a principal principal owner has to be the person maintaining the special exception, The other thing is does it necessarily convey with the lander is it only convey with this particular owner because we have the right to do that?

Yeah, I mean my staff can clarify. My understanding is it conveys you can't limit it to just this owner. They kinda

You can. You can. You absolutely can.

If I could You

can put a time limit on

Google runs with the property.

Yep. I was told that it runs with the property. You can't say it just runs with this particular owner.

That's correct.

Well, you can put time limits on it. We used to do it all the time where it was a five unit, and you had to come back for a renewal.

See? But I was

We we can't tie approval to ownership, though.

You can tie it to time. Okay. Yeah.

You can run that down. I'm certainly comfortable with those conditions that it has been.

Even with that said, in all honesty and and you know with all due respect Robin I've spent way too much time on this application But again, it's one of those things that once you do what you've done it and and I don't want to hear everybody now hates data centers We let the you slip them in by right now. Everybody hates them I'm telling you once you decide that these kennels can go into a house They don't even have to have a private They do not have to have a private structure They can be more intense than their surrounding property owners How do you stop the next one? It's not just this one. It's like you have now decided There's I've never seen where we've approved one that didn't have a separate structure You have the child sleeping and the dog sleeping together.

Yeah.

You have the kitchen, the living room, the dining room, all part of the commercial use. I mean, you need to think about that. Because now that we've done it, if this is approved, we've said this is acceptable. And it's not just in this property, it's in all the rural properties they can do it because this runs in all the AR one that we were going to be looking at and you know We've we've we we told the other people they can only look at the 1.3 acres even though they had a 100 acres because of concerns and stuff This one gets a wide blanket field and they can expand their house And the house becomes bigger, they just can't expand supposedly the special exception. How are you gonna differentiate that?

Because the house has the right to expand. It's just that the special exception doesn't. So I I just think that this is way much more has way much more possibility of affecting land use decisions than we're thinking about application tonight. So the only the only the only proposal that I would support because I think it's so important of the basis that it sets up for other applications is a is a reme recommendation of denial.

Okay. Yeah. I was gonna offer a a friendly amendment. As stated, approvals for 12 dogs plus four dogs that the applicant may own, I was just suggest 16 dogs inclusive of owners pets. So that means there's a maximum of 16. So if they happen to only have two pets then yes they could have 14. So it just be a maximum of 16 dogs inclusive of the owners pets

I would accept that.

Yeah, okay

Commissioner Barnes

yes, I I'm thinking about that this this is not a place for and I don't stand for any of that because just what Dale just said, setting a precedent. And this if we let them have the dogs and the human families living together 25, 30, or whatever it is comes up, and they're living too well in the same house. It just doesn't make sense. If they want a kennel, have a building for it where they can keep dogs, not the people. And that that's a very bad precedent that we are setting, and it should not be done that way.

If if they wanna build a place for it where they can keep the dogs, I can consider it, but not living in the same house where the kids living and the family living and that that they're talking about 25, but that will not happen. That living they're living right now with 25 dogs. And, that that's very serious, problem, to do that. Yeah. And we gotta think about it.

And actually, 12, that's too too many. And you're talking about adding four more to it, and that's not gonna work with me. Because it it that was about the maximum I could go, but CG had 12 plus including everything that might have bent me, but I'm I can go actually I don't like the application the way it's run a play you know, I I don't mind. I love dogs and but it's not the place for it and That's the way I think but we should be very mindful of what we are doing. Thank you

Okay, Commissioner Miller you were lit. Do you have

a?

Okay, and miss mister Myers.

Had a procedure question So let's say it goes forward with the recognition of the plan commission approval, at twelve, does staff still go forward with your recommendation of 25? Because I know you said you were also looking for guidance from the planning commission about concerns of intensity and stuff like that. Will your recommendation to the board stay that you recommend 25 dogs now or will your recommendations pick up the thoughts of the planning commission and you would consider changing what your recommendation would be?

We would take forward the planning commission's recommendation and all conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.

And not have your 25

That is correct, yes.

So the 25 is the applicant's request. That's not staff's.

You said you would support that.

Right.

The question is now, would that change?

No. Staff's recommendation overall would not change, but the 12 is the commission's recommendation, not the applicant's proposal necessarily.

Okay. Any other

comments? Commissioner Jasper, do

you have a closing?

I do. I I just wanna recap the amendments that I've accepted. First is the commission the chair's suggestion that the 16 be the total inclusive of all of the applicant's dogs. And and I've can accept it also.

Yeah. Was there something?

Well, I think commissioner Myers had that a condition that she wanted to see that ran.

If she would consider it. Yeah. Good.

I I missed it. So you're requesting an additional proposed condition.

She didn't frame it as

principal owner that has also be part of the special exception. So they don't lease it out to somebody else in your life.

Okay. And

everybody was like, yeah,

that's Okay.

That's what she

That's what I'm saying.

So you she offered so we're considering that friendly amendment.

Right. You did not write Yes. An additional condition. Mister chair?

Yes. Can commissioner Myers repeat what she's requesting?

I can read it from the requirement that you have. Is that you acquired in the daycare? The operator of the kennel must be the principal resident of of the of the of the residential property. And that's exactly word by word from what we already have.

In the last set of conditions.

I Okay. Just ask a clarifying question the intent is to require the person operating the kennel and the person living at the home to be the same correct okay

yes

thank you the

owner not the tenant not a tenant.

So that's a proposed additional conditions. That's technically a friendly amendment. Correct? So does the maker accept that?

Yes. I do.

Seconder? I do. Okay. Thank you. Was there another?

Mm-mm. Just yours.

Yeah. Okay.

Okay. I don't have any any closing. I think we've discussed this planning.

Okay. Alright. So we have the motion to approve with the revised, number of conditions and limit of 16 total dogs. All those in favor say aye

aye

opposed nay a Say a nay was that two three no.

Oh, and there's a nay

Put your hands up if you're a nay

So that motion will carry five four with commissioners Barnes, Combs, Frank and Myers opposed. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. Next we have the briefing of the March 24 public hearing items.

Work with them.

But Absent that being aired, that's why I just wanted to cut a small poll. Approving What are commissioners comfortable with? And you give They don't know. What is the lowest

number that will be majority of

the votes going

forward? This is

more than teasing for that moment. And nobody articulating it. But

I was thinking we have four plus the 15 at

Silca. Are

you guys ready to move on?

Gonna get over this this application. Sorry.

It's done. Allison's ready.

I'm done. Okay. Allison.

Hey. Are five items for our March agenda. Here they are. The Crossrail industrial application was deferred. First up is an early withdrawal request for about a 39 acre parcel from the new Bluemont Agricultural and Forestry District.

The new Bluemont AFD currently has 76 parcels enrolled and 2,220 acres. It would be about 2,181 if the withdrawal is granted, and it does still have that two two hundred acre core as required by the code. I will note that there have been some scheduling issues due to the snow and then subsequently trying to obtain a quorum. So this is moving forward to the planning commission without a recommendation from ADAC. So I just wanted to note that. But staff have not identified any issues with this application. Is this It's what purpose of the withdrawal is.

It would be good to know that. Okay.

I would also like to reiterate my comment at the last hearing where we talked about conservation easements, recommending withdrawal based on something going into a conservation easement without having reviewed the terms of that easement is silly. And so I don't that that I wanna see the the draft easement and and have the staff's assessment of the draft terms of the draft easement.

Okay. 300%.

That sense.

Are there any other questions for this one? This is the Tuscarora application, Tuscarora Land Bay 4. It's a special exception to permit 130,000 square foot government building for split office and warehouse facilities. It's intended for use by general services. The site is located North of Crossrail Boulevard and West of the W And OD Trail.

This site is part of the Tuscarora original approvals and development and was dedicated to the county for public use at that time. So, generally, the planned policies support this use in this location, and staff have not identified any outstanding issues of this application. Here is the proposed layout with the building in gray, parking in orange, and tree conservation areas are kind of scattered in different colors throughout the property. But on the north and east buffers, they're, like, orange. There is pink in the northern upper corner, and then yellow on the western edge.

Allison. Yeah. Because it was dedicated to the county, is the county the applicant now?

Yes.

Okay.

General services. Yep. Allison,

it would also be good to know when this was done, was it really what was the use that was intended? I mean, it really supposed to be like parks and rec? Was it supposed to be a school? Because typically when those proffers are done, it doesn't just say nothing. It says something about what's the future. Just because I'm looking at the proximity to all of these residential houses, you know, it seems like it would have had a use that was more guaranteed or more not guaranteed, I'm sorry, but more, flavored towards being supplemental or next early to the community.

Thank you. So we

just at the hearing, it would be nice to know what was when it was originally dedicated, what was the intent and purpose?

Sure. Got one more. Yep. What have there been community hearings about it? Has there been a community engagement process?

We can be ready to answer that at the next week.

The county unfortunately doesn't have a really good track record of when they are the applicant of actually having community meetings in advance.

We can be ready to answer that. Are there other questions on this application?

Yeah. Really quick. Yeah.

Your previous slide, you see the dirt on the other corner right across from it. It'd be nice to know what that is. I'm guessing I know. But Mhmm. And because I'm and, again, the Caddy Corners, the industrial park in it. This site may end up serving as quite a buffer for the people in the residential. So just the knowing what all that is, even though it's not technically adjacent, there's cross trail in the W and E between it, it'd be helpful to have good context there, I think.

Commissioner Banks, do you have a question? No. No? Okay.

All right. Next is the Eastern Gas Transmission and Storage Incorporated Leesburg compressor station application. This is a special exception to expand the footprint of an existing natural gas compressor station. The overall property is 73 acres. It's located East of Route 15, West of Evergreen Mills Road along Watson Road. The existing station was approved in 1991 with a storage building addition approved on-site in 1998. Here is the general expansion area highlighted in orange. Generally, the plan policy support this use in this location, and staff have not identified any outstanding issues with this.

The Novak facility?

We can be ready to answer that. Where the Novak facility might be in relation? I'm not sure.

It should be at two I think it's I think is it

because I think it's right at that next parcel.

There's a facility right across the street that is a similar natural gas use.

That

what Well, you're asking

there's also no bed from that corner too.

We can clarify. Yep. Other questions about this application? Okay. This is the SDC Ashburn application.

It's a special exception to permit expansion of a data center building footprint by approximately 5,600 square feet. So the property is located South of Shellhorn Road, East of Loudoun County Parkway, North of the Greenway. This is just a few properties south of the Quantum Park application that was heard by the Planning Commission just a few weeks ago. And it is just south of the next application I'll talk about after this as well, so note the area. In 2019, about half of the site was approved to support development of data centers, which have been constructed, as you saw in the last slide.

That demarcation is shown here in red, the limits of that approval. And so the intent is to locate this building shown here and that just those few corners that clip into to outside of the red line are the areas that trigger the the need. This is the it's expanded area. The area was recently this property in general and this area in general, this is the true of this application and the one I'm gonna talk about next, but this area was recently redesignated to the urban transit center place type as part of the data center CPAM ZOAM, and it does not support generally data center industrial uses in that place type. But due to the minor scope of this application, staff could support it given the context of the surrounding area but raise that inherent conflict to the Planning Commission for awareness and to consider as part of this application, just that recent redesignation.

But generally, staff would recommend an enhanced design given the urban policy area for something like this. Any questions about this application?

It's the entire purple. Right?

So the limits are the entire purple, but the need for the special exception is triggered by the part that's just on the other the right side of the red line. It's those three kind of corners here. Can try to point. It's here, here, and here are the expanded areas. So everything on this side of the red line, all all this building was already approved.

And the use right there is medicine already. Right. That's what I

was trying

to understand. Okay. So

get the Police plates. So my understanding is

Yeah. I'm glad you

This building was previously approved for data center. And then at some point, it was I think it was taken off of the site plan in order to get a bond release. Then when they came back to put it back on, then the county said, no, I need a special exception to put it back. That creates so it's kind of an odd situation where if this building was previously approved, and they just want to put it back. But because they had removed it from the site plan, it wasn't

It's not grandfathered.

Grandfathered anymore. So they have to come back and ask for it. Is that correct?

Right.

Is

it because it's now the urban place type, more density, is it inside of the boundaries of this metro tax district?

We can follow-up on that.

That would be good to know. Okay.

Barb, your question?

I was just going to point out that it's a very I mean, was this was a it sounds to me like this was a recording error type of for the previous owner of the property or something like that. This is kind of a silly problem that we've created through a combination of issues.

I

would agree with that.

Okay. This is a the barrister substation application. It's a commission permit and special exception to permit a substation, and it is also a special exception to reduce parking required. Sites just north of that SDC Ashburn site here. Similar analysis to the special exception request for the SDC Ashburn with this being in the urban transit center place type, so staff raised that conflict but can support it given the context of the area being highly industrialized, all the surrounding properties being industrial. And staff could support it with an emphasis kind of on on the design. There is also a planned road on the East Side, not exactly shown here. Future Thumb Drive. I think they call it Barrister Street. Was formerly Thumb Drive.

I like

it. Yep.

That's just one drive.

So One

drive is the best.

Yeah. That is the best. I like that one.

Here is the proposed layout. It does straddle two parcels. It's proposed to be situated directly adjacent to the Stratus Substation, which is that one off to the left corner and south of the Dullesbury data centers that are to the north and west. Any questions on that?

Is that dirt area between the pond and this site, is that also gonna be a substation?

Yes. That is going to be the future Stratus substation.

We already proved that one. When we approved a while back. Right? That's what I thought. So this is gonna be right next to

it. Correct.

Alright.

And, as I mentioned, this application is deferred to a future meeting.

Okay. Alright.

We have one application for April work session scheduled.

Brian, did you have any? No. No, don't. I just want to mention again now that I've got everybody here. I've kind of mentioned at the end of the last hearing is, especially we have five items.

I don't know that we're going draw a lot of, people out to this. But, during public hearings, when it's questions for staff and questions for the applicant, Please restrict yourself to questions for the staff and the applicant as opposed to, commentary about the application or anything else. Two things, it will help speed the meeting along. You still have the opportunity to provide commentary and pitch your motion. Or if something comes to work session, obviously, we can speak, as long as we really want to about the application.

And the letter commissioner pointed something out to me is that if it is an application where you do have the public waiting to speak, if they hear commissioners already telling everybody what their opinion is and how they're gonna vote before the public has even had a chance to give their opinion on the application, I don't think it doesn't help the process for them to feel like, you know, when people come out from the public to speak, they wanna feel their opinions are being heard and may affect somebody's opinion on application. If they're hearing the minds are already made up, it kind of diminishes that process. So anyways, I'd appreciate that. All right. That is it. We are adjourned.