Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everybody. The 02/12/2026, Loudoun County Planning Commission work session will come to order. And as is our custom, let's stand for the pledge of allegiance.

Pledge allegiance to the flag of

The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for

case. The their

Motion to approve made by Vice Chair Moderetti.

Second.

Seconded by Commissioner Frank. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Against? That motion will pass eight zero one with Commissioner Jasper absent for the vote. Next item, we have disclosures, and I will start to my right. Commissioner Barnes, if anybody has disclosures, hit your light. Nope. Alright. Commissioner Combs.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. On Monday, February 9, I had a virtual meeting with Mike Romeo and Charles Yod regarding the Valley Commerce Center application before us tonight.

Okay. Commissioner Miller. Yeah. Thank you. On the eleventh, I met with Brian Winterhalter and Liz and Howie regarding Quantum Park. And today, I had a variety of conversations with Charles Judd and Chuck Kuhn regarding Valley Commerce Center.

Thank you. Commissioner Frank.

Yes. On February 5, I had a meeting with the applicant representative team for Quantum Park along with

right

do to to

make

with Quantum Park again.

Thank you. And Commissioner And Banks. On February 5, I had a meeting with the applicant team regarding Quantum Park application. And on February 6, I had a site visit with applicant team for the Valley Commerce Center matter.

Okay. Thank you. Mr. Meyer? No? Vice Chair Moderetti.

On February 2, I met with the applicant team from Quantum Park. And today, I hand back and forth via text with Mike Romeo regarding the very common center.

Thank you. And for myself, as commissioner Frank mentioned, on February 5, we met with the Quantum Park team. On February 11, I had a meeting with Anna Ritter regarding Happy Paws. February 11, I met with Mike Romeo, Charles Yudd, and Kevin Wright regarding Valley Commerce Center. And today, February 12, had

a phone call with Mike Romeo, Charles Yudd and Chuck Kuhn regarding Valley Commerce Center.

All right. Our first item tonight is Ledgy 2020 three-ninety seven Quantum Park ZCPA 2020Three-eight. Eight.

Good evening commissioners. My name is Ward Al with the department of planning and zoning here to present the application of Quantum Park. This request was last presented to the commissions back at the November work session. The proposed site is part of the Quantum Office Campus located North of Loudoun County Parkway, South of Walkspur Road in the Broward Run Election District. The property zone office park is located within the suburban policy area and the suburban employment place type.

The applicant requests a zoning concept plan amendment for the development of data center, substation, and office use. This application is grandfathered under the revised '93 zoning ordinance, which allows for the development of data centers and transmission substation without the need for special exception requests. Presenting on screen is the updated concept development plan. The discrepancy between the concept development plan and proffers has been resolved. Staff note that the building on the right is slightly wider as a result in the reduction of the building height.

Since the November work session, the applicant provided revised materials to address the majority of outstanding issues noted by staff and the commission. The applicant revised proper commitment to dedicate the required right of way for the construction of future Lockridge Road, which is consistent with the countywide transportation plan recommendation. Elevations and building renderings were updated to include all four sides of the proposed development for the data center. The maximum building height for the data center was reduced from 100 feet down to 75 feet. The applicant has provided proper commitment for a GIS substation.

In addition, the applicant provided sufficient justification to support the location of the proposed substation. On screen is the proposed elevations, and this ought to be renderings from different perspective. While the applicant did not provide elevations for the GIS substations, the applicant has made a proper commitment that the GIS substation height would not exceed the height would not exceed the screening wall height, and the wall construction materials will be similar to those used for the data center building. Tonight's staff raises two issues for the commission's consideration related to building height and the traffic signal. The proposed data center is 75 feet tall.

The existing data center on-site is 60 feet in height, and the office building facing London County Parkway is 60 feet in height, while the building located behind them are approximately 80 feet tall. Staff seeks the Planning Commission's input on the appropriate building height for the proposed use. The suburban employment place type support building height up to two to eight stories, and the recent CPM approval further increased the recommended height for the place type. The previous property associated with the rezoning of this property stipulate that the property owner is responsible for providing three traffic signals along Loudoun County Parkway if warranted by VDOT. However, the language in the proffer is unclear and lacks specific trigger mechanism for when the signal should be installed within the county's development process.

Currently, the traffic signal at Number 3 has been installed, and the design for the signal at Number 1 is underway, while a bond exists for the signal at Number 2. Staff does not anticipate the need of the signal at the entrance of Quantum Park Number 2 related to this proposal. Staff recommend that the applicant commit to a fair share contribution for the installation of the traffic signal at the intersection of Lockridge Road and Lowndon County Parkway. The applicant has provided a written documentation yesterday that they will contribute up to 20,000 for the signal at this intersection. The final value will be determined in consultation with DTCI prior to the next public hearing.

STEP recommends the commissioner forward this application to the board of supervisor with a recommendation of approval subject to the commission's recommendation for the building height and the applicant's commitment to provide fair share contribution for the traffic signal at future Lockridge And Laren County Parkway. Both staff and staff from the TCI are available for questions.

All right. Thank you. Questions for staff? Going around twice. Oh, for

the staff. The the distance, of these buildings from the County Parkway is still the same as it was before?

Yes, sir. It's But

that didn't move back.

That's correct. So approximate 225 feet.

Feet away. Back from the Loudoun County Parkway? That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Great.

Commissioner Frank?

I I know there's been a lot of back and forth up till today and DTCIs contribution and all that. It sounds like you've got a little detail to work on on the amount, but does that meet what staff was looking for as far as taking care of that? Because I think we all recognize the trip generation is not what it would have been if it was true office use. So I guess I'm asking minor pending working out the dollars to the to the nickel. Are we are we there? Do we are you guys good with it?

I'll need to see their actual calculations to see the traffic coming out from their development in relation to the traffic along that intersection, but we'll look at that in review.

Okay. So that's something you guys will engage on between here and the board.

Right. Okay.

So I just want to follow-up on that same point. So there was originally supposed to be three UU net, which is signalized, the Quantum Park entrance, which is not Lockridge which is not. Is that what is currently being required?

Based on their previous proffers.

Correct. And so what we're suggesting is eliminate signal number two and build signal number one.

Right. The

amount you're asking them to contribute for signal one, does that in the elimination of signal two, is there any amount that the county would get for that or is it a matter of it probably won't even be needed, therefore there wouldn't be any contribution?

So we don't believe the signal at that second intersection at their entrance would be needed. My understanding in talking with proper management is there is still a contribution or there's still a commitment for that signal based on the overall property. It's just this small piece we're able that. Able to then, do

And

then number one is they're agreeable to their fair share. They're gonna start with 20,000, but that number will change when it's finally determined. Is that and they're willing to do that?

We'll need to see the math just to confirm the 20,000. Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anyway, commissioner Myers.

I'm sorry. It's a it's a follow-up. So it's my understanding. Originally, the proper was for three lights.

Mhmm.

It wasn't if it's needed. It was a proper for three lights. Right. And this property was looking as as a whole. Now we're dissecting the property. If this little section isn't gonna pay for it and it and it is still part of the overall all proffer, why are we deciding they don't need to do it?

So the proffer would still remain for the overall property. So just because the small piece is developing with the data centers doesn't mean that the larger piece to the back, should they ever trigger the need for a signal, that would still run with that larger piece of the property.

Is it a different owner?

I don't know that piece.

We defer to applicant on that.

Because I don't understand why we're letting them no offense, why we're letting them off the hook. I mean, they're they're they're coming in saying, mother, may I? And we're just we're gonna leave ourselves out hanging, hoping that somebody else comes back when this wasn't I mean, this I this wasn't an either or. This was a prompt because there was a lot of things that weren't paid for when this application went through that the state stepped up and paid for to get this economic opportunity through.

Okay. And so what we were looking at was just whether or not a signal would be triggered from this particular application at that intersection, which it would not be. If that's something the commission still wants to carry forward, you can certainly look at that as well.

Yeah. Because I'm not sure who then we put it on. Mean, once we let it go.

So, again, it it stays with the larger property. So if anything ever developed there that would require a signal, that would give us our chance to come back and ask for the signal with the overall property.

Or we could just or we could just ask them to bond for it right now.

If in their proppers. Right. But if we did that and we don't need the signal, I guess our concern is

I mean, we used to do in the old days where can go to a contribution needed in that area for someplace else. Okay. We did that all the time. Okay. So one other question I had one other question I just want to ask real quick is and this isn't for transportation. It's more it's a comp plan question is and I don't know if you can answer to who you want to answer it. But when I look at Loudoun County Parkway and I look at this as a corporate office park in the general plan, are we now saying that in corporate ops parks facing Loudoun County Parkway that a substation is an appropriate use in the general plan?

The general plan does provide language, does provide recommendation that uses such as substation should be located away from public corridor. However, it is unable to mitigate for that, there is mitigations that can be done such as enhanced landscape buffering and screening to make it more digestible along that corridor to reduce that impact.

And this substation is just being done for this property's use. That's the demand for it. It's not like it's a regional.

I would refer the applicant on that.

Alright. Thank you.

Commissioner Banks. Yeah.

I wanna go back again to, the questions about the light. As I understand it, if there does become a need for a light at number two, there are proffers in place for the overall project that will allow the county to recoup some money from the overall project. Is that correct?

That's correct.

So if if it becomes available, it's not like we will have no one to go to. Right. Okay. Thank you.

And just for clarification on this, when those profits were made, was that before the data center explosion back when this was supposed to be a very large office park like WorldCommon? Was that when these profits were put in place? Do you know?

Yes. The initial campus that Ms. Myers was talking about was when these were home and then the campus redeveloped and then it was iterative in terms of the lights.

And given the changes in data centers taking up now a large portion of it, you may not ever get the requirement for the number two. But if we do, then it's we can get it.

But it was not a data center. It was a corporate office pocket. It not set up to be data centers. That's a mistake.

I'll say

that. When it was approved, it was a fully office campus. Data center was not Right.

Which is why the county probably thought three lights would be needed because you'd have a lot more employees there than are currently there. Now that data centers have taken up even besides these two other portions of the property, it's probably generating less trips now than what it was thought to when it was approved. So we may not ever need ideally, don't think you need number two, but if we do, we have an ability to recoup it. Correct.

So the proffers for these three lights carried forward with each amendment to the application, because the overall trip generation of the entire campus kept dropping, it was less likely that all of these would be required.

Okay. Thank you. Alright. Does the applicant have a presentation?

We do. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

While

we're getting that set up, just to answer a few of the questions briefly, that traffic signal number two actually is already bonded. So that signal's bonded, and the reason it hasn't yet been installed is because it's not yet warranted, and VDOT won't allow it to be installed until it is warranted. So at some future time when that signal is ever warranted, it would be it could be constructed. So it is already bonded, just to clarify the status of that signal. Mr.

Dow already noted a number of these things, but just to run through them quickly, we have committed to a GIS substation. We have committed to a maximum building height of 75 feet in the materials that we previously submitted. We've been having some additional conversations about further reducing that building height, which we are willing to do. We enhanced the screening walls around the substation. As already noted, the screening wall will be at least as tall as the GIS structure inside the substation area, so it will be fully screened.

We've updated the architectural renderings and the architectural elevations in the plan set. So there are four sided architectural elevations in the plan as requested. We've as already noted, we've removed the inadvertently bubble footprints in the plan and we have replaced those with the actual building footprints. With reference to the building getting wider, it's not wider this way in sort of plan view. It's actually slightly deeper, very slightly deeper. The frontage is the same though. So the building on the east side got very slightly deeper. But that was the change there. We've committed to the building materials and the building materials are shown throughout our materials. It seems like we just lost our

We had an online participant, so we had to call up the WebEx.

About that.

Sorry Oh, problem. The architecture is the same consistent high quality architecture that you've seen previously with a lot of stone and glass, similar architectural design as before. This is reduced to 75 feet and then will be reduced a bit further. This going on. I don't think this thing is moving the slides. Oh, it's moving slowly. Okay. This shows you the view from the west on Loudoun County Parkway looking toward the east. You see a lot of greenery in the middle of the campus. Much of that is mature trees that will be preserved from the earlier shifts in the Eastern Building.

We're able to preserve more of that tree canopy that's already there at the campus and is a nice high quality mature tree canopy. Some of those trees are newly planted trees, but we wanted to just show this to make sure that you all see the center of the campus and the greenery there. This view shows the substation screening wall area, again, very consistent with the architectural design and the high level of quality of the building materials, with the main data center buildings. We were asked to provide a rendering of the back of the building, so here it is. We know this isn't the best view, but this is only internal to the campus.

So this is the view if you're in one of the office buildings looking at the back of the data center building. This is a nice iconic shot of the middle of the campus with the building that we all know. Again, there's a nice tree area on each side, and we think that the new data center buildings will really complement the campus as a whole and frankly really elevate the architectural quality of the overall campus. The buildings that are behind the data centers are not nearly as iconic in their design as the central feature here. You can still see that and actually it will be flanked on each side with the much more high quality data center buildings. This is just another view of the substation area. You will be able to see the H frame, but everything else will be screened by the screening wall. Here are the elevations that

And the the And COVID-nineteen because it's very small, but it is we're the impact provisions

of from the COVID-nineteen Verizon COVID-nineteen lease that shows that, and confirms that Verizon has the rights to a secure parking lot in that back parking lot. So the previous concept of could we move the substation back to that location, we're unable to do that because Verizon has lease rights to that exclusively as a secure parking area. And this just shows where those secure areas are. So everything in that reddish color is within the security gates. So there's multiple security gates around the perimeter of the campus.

You can of course drive up to the front of the campus and park, but everywhere else essentially is within the security perimeters. We'll see next next screening. The And we've really shrunk this down over the course of this application as much as we really possibly can. And the GIS substation, of course, is a smaller footprint than the conventional substation already. And that's, as you already know from some of our other applications, a huge significant commitment in cost, but one that is certainly appropriate for this location.

This just shows our previous bubble plan. We have real footprints in our development plan now. This is a view of the right of way dedication. There's a lot of text on this slide as well. I will summarize by saying that we are in agreement with county staff on the right of way dedication proffer and that issue has been resolved.

With respect to the traffic signalization, this is what you all were just discussing. We followed the methodology that DTCI suggested to us of taking the trips generated by the proposed data center development over the volume of trips along Loudoun County Parkway and an assumed standard cost for a traffic signal. So that was just a math equation. Obviously, we'll work with DTI and they can vet our numbers and make sure that we're using the right numbers, but we are 100% in agreement on the methodology. So it's just confirming the actual calculations.

That's the end of my presentation. The only other item I would like to note is that we recently had some requests for additional off-site improvements, some trail and sidewalk improvements and some off-site reforestation, which we submitted a letter to the county and we are happy to make those commitments as well. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Okay. Questions for the applicants. Mr. Frank.

Alright. Thank you. I was part of the the nudge for those off-site. We have, like, literally 10 feet of trail that from their property to, like, Lockridge that in their right away, they're not that will not exist the little 10 feet, you know. So there's little things like that. We're trying to get them so they're well connected to everything around them that either exists or will exist when Lockridge is done. So and we'll I I read the I know it's was after 05:00. Not your fault.

We we we did. We wanted to have it in writing that we were willing to do it.

And I appreciate that, which I don't expect staff has had any time to review that with any in any depth. So I'm not gonna hold that. But, you know, I I trust that you guys can work out any. I know we're in a risker and we've, you know, we can't just throw trees anywhere in that area. You're going to give us the right away too. So I trust that the county folks will will tell us where where that makes sense and where it doesn't. Okay. The other thing is the building height. We we seem to see a lot of these two story applications come in at 60 to 65 feet. And having spoke with some of my friends up here, that 65 foot number has come up repeatedly.

And is it possible for you guys? I know the last number was 68. I think that was again in in some late letters and such. But would you be able to commit to 65 foot on the building height?

Yes. We would be willing to commit to 65 feet on the building height. It will be very tight, and we will figure out a way to make it work.

You they may send you out there with a shovel to find another couple inches if they're short.

I'll do it if necessary.

You heard that he offered. All right, thank you guys. We do appreciate that.

Yeah, thank you.

Other folks, anybody else? And would it be this letter that refers to these is there is there a way to see what it said?

Yeah. Let

This this letter that was sent I should check. I don't know if I got it in my email. Did we get an email on it?

I don't know if you you got it. It went out.

Yeah. We we sent it to to and to commissioner.

Is it something you can throw up on the screen or no?

Do you you want us to email it to you right now? Do you want us to bring it up on the screen? What would you

I yeah. It's to me, I just would like to see if you have it on the screen, that's good enough for me. I mean, it's additional commitments. I would just like to see what it says.

I need a couple minutes to

pull that up.

If there's any further discussion, we'll work on getting it. So

it on the

G Drive or on the on the Board Drive, K Drive. K Drive.

No changes. Yep. Find Board Board Room. Another commissioners, you can do you wanna see the concern about seeing this? It just basically is a commitment to a couple trail extensions and a few reforestation slightly off-site to the property that they had agreed to do.

Commissioner Miller?

They had question to miss Frank to the chair. They had sent it to her and she reviewed it and is what she wanted.

Yeah. In the last ninety minute. Yeah. Okay. It like I said, there's some I'm gonna look to staff to clean up anything if they don't love every bit of the i's and t's dotted and crossed on the proper language, but I think that it the spirit is very well kept.

Okay.

That's all I need.

Don't worry about it. Sounds like there's any concerns, so don't worry don't worry about it. Yeah.

This is.

Yeah. I get it forwarded

to It's thinking. It's thinking.

Any other questions for the applicants? No. Alright. This is in the Broad Run District. Commissioner Frank, do you

have a motion?

I do. I have to open another file now and get out of that email. Alright. Okay. I move that the planning commission forward Ledgy 2023Dash0097QuantumPark ZCPA 2023Dash0008 to the board of supervisors with the recommendation of approval subject to the proper statement dated 12/22/2025 with the three additions of the trails and the, reforestation that was the proper language was drafted and sent to staff today.

And based on and and, yeah, based on the findings for approval as attachments one and five to the 02/12/2026 planning session planning commission work session memorandum and with a reduction of the overall building height to 65 feet.

Second. Motion made by commissioner Frank, seconded by commissioner Banks. Commissioner Frank, do you have an opening?

I I do. I'll be brief. I I commend the applicant. This has been since June, I think, was our public hearing that it first came to us. And I was not a fan, to put it mildly.

This is not one that I was certain I would ever come around to. I had a lot of issues with the substation exception and other things. I think that what the applicant has done is gone above and beyond on a few things, including coming down to the height. They brought a new architect in that that I think the new building materials and their commitment to that are are going to be the most attractive building they could come up with. So I do appreciate how far we've gotten.

It is at the end of the day, their their efforts and their commitments and and willing to go above and beyond and do some of these things combined with the fact that Loudoun County Parkway is what it is, and that's sort of one of our I mean, the purple line for the water runs down there. This is sort of where this is supposed to be. Because if it was anywhere else, I I don't think I could get on board. So here in kind of the 606 Corridor near the airport, that's it's really the only place I'm gonna be willing to entertain substations on road frontage and things like that. And then they better be the nicest looking, best screened, you know, high quality And to that.

And look at where how far we've come and the end product that's being put in front of us and and its location. So I am I am supporting this recommending approval and hope that the commissioners will join me.

Any other comments? Commissioner Miller.

I just wanna point out the irony of us having a conversation here tonight in Loudoun County, which has roughly 80% of the world's data center capacity through a discussion on essentially computing power and speed while it took us three minutes for the Internet to call up an email to the screen in front of us. So anyway.

That was human error. No AI.

What an ironic turn of events. That's all. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Commissioner Myers.

I think it's not I I first of all,

I apologize that I was out

of town. I wanna unable to meet with you all. I just literally just got back in on Monday, and it's been it's been an interesting time. So let's put it that way. I'm trying to get here. I'm really disappointed. I'm disappointed that we think we have to change something that was such a signature statement of Logon County and what we went through in a partnership with the state. And, actually, at that point, it was a national search. There is no economic loss in the property. It served even today as a signature when you see pictures and advertisements that go out in economic development on this campus.

Just because other people have data centers and just because there are substations going other places doesn't mean you have to also put it in the front of this very gorgeous corporate center. I also find it interesting that this actual public hearing was last March. We've had now one public hearing, and this is now the third work session for this. And yet tonight, we bring something up here that I know I haven't. It seems like no other planning commissioners have even seen things that you've now extended and are part of the public process that you're agreeing to.

I don't think that's a good way to do to conduct public business, I'll just say. But whether it is or isn't, it I guess it doesn't really matter at this point. It's gonna get approved. But I will say, I think it is when we fight so hard to say that we wanna maintain Western Loudoun, then we wanna maintain high standards, we wanna maintain economic development, and we wanna maintain certain characteristics. Just because somebody else wants to make some more money on a property and they have to put a substation in there when we're saying we don't want more substations and we don't want more data centers, we just put it here because it's an opportunity for somebody to make a few more dollars on a partnership that was already granted to them back in the late nineteen nineties.

Commissioner Banks? I will be supporting the motion. I think this application is greatly improved from what we had begun with. In particular, I really think that the architectural design and materials that are now presented really complement the campus. And I agree very much with commissioner Franks that this this is the place where this kind of view should go.

And it actually makes the campus look better, function better, I think. And in particular, I am really pleased with the addition of the GIS substation. I think that's the kind of creative use that if we are ever going to continue to approve data centers, that kind of creative use is what we need to see. So that's it. Thank you. Commissioner Monterey.

Thank you. I echo the sentiments of commissioner Frank expressed about this application, where it started, where it ended today. I thought I can never get here. I I like the way you guys integrated the new buildings with the existing campus without losing that iconic look that that that campus used to have. On top of it, the high class material that you guys use and compromising on the on the height, having the GIS substation.

There are many things that I particularly like about, like how you guys willing to work with us to get this application to where it is today. So I will be supporting the application.

Commissioner Combs.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just echoing some of the other sentiment you've heard, I wanted to thank you for we admonish you to come back on the substation particularly with the commitment to GIS and the enhanced architecture. So thank you for doing that. I hope we see more of that moving forward. Thank you.

So for myself, I was pretty much a solid no on this from the beginning. The one thing I had mentioned to the applicants where I would consider approval is that they were able to the building on the right of the central entrance and push it as far to the right as the building to left is to the left, which would expose the first building after the central building. They didn't get as far. They got about half the building exposed, but it did open up another 40 feet or so of width of that central parkway to expand that. But even after that, I said, well, nice try, but it's not gonna work for me.

Until this last when you we met and all the changes you've made, I mean, going from a 100 feet down to 65 on the height, the substation, you pushed it farther back from Loudoun County Parkway. You went GIS. You screened it. The architecture of it. The architecture of the building. You know, all that combined is quite frankly changed my mind. I I really didn't think I'd get here, but I I am. You know, the campus is not what it was twenty five years ago. It's got data centers on the campus. It's got data centers to the north of it, to the south of it, across the street from it.

Most of it, if not all of which I think are much taller than the ones you're building here. From a land use perspective, this is this is where we want data centers in this corridor. And so all the work you've put into it, I kept wondering why is this taking so long to get back to us, but you've made significant changes. And based on that, I'm now in support the application. Commissioner Frank, do you have a closing?

No. But I I did, as quick as the little hamster in the wheel is moving the Internet, I did forward that email on to, the commissioner so you do have it there. I realize that's not a lot of time. We didn't get it, you know. Again, very late breaking, but it is there for you. That's it.

Okay. Alright. So we have a motion to approve the application made by commissioner Frank, seconded by commissioner Banks. All those in favor of the the is And commissioner Banks. Point.

Very I think that's a point. As opposed commissioner Jasper absent for the vote.

Alright. Thank you. Thank you very much everyone.

Thank you.

Alright. Our next application is Ledgy 2023 Dash 80 Valley Commerce Center, ZMAP 2023Dash8 and ZMod 2023Dash41.

Okay. Good evening, Chair Keers and Commissioners. I'm Rachel Evenchuk with Department of Planning and Zoning for Valley Commerce Center Legend 20230080. The 117 acre parcel for this application is located in the northeast quadrant of where Percival Road crosses Leesburg Pike adjoining the town of Percival. In the this is in the Percival Joint Land Management Area.

The application, the applicant is requesting a zoning map amendment for rezoning from joint land management three to plan development industrial park, PDIP, to develop a business industrial park with up to 986,000 square feet of industrial uses and the zoning modification to eliminate road, water, and wastewater standards. As you know from the public hearing in July and at the work session on November 13, the commission at the work session discussed and requested information on building massing, water usage, and on-site storage. The Pressville North Collector Road or PNCR, connection to Mayfair Crown Drive. Opposite the property, traffic impacts on Percival Road, construction traffic, septic system, and limitations on tenant selection. The intersection of the PNCR with Percival Road is proposed to be right in, right out for the PNCR.

The commission requested removal of the traffic divider to permit left turns or through traffic for the PNCR. However, such has not been changed as yet. The applicant proffers to remove the divider should the PNCR become a through road, from Berlin Turnpike to Route 690, Hillsborough Road via Mayfair Crown Drive. The applicant is offering alleviation of water concerns through a provision for at least 300,000 square feet of warehouse uses as well as proposing to offer monitoring of off-site wells for up to twenty four months and implement a mitigation plan for if data indicates adverse effect on off-site wells, but that does not include drilling new wells or for affected landowners. The applicant is also proffering to provide a construction traffic plan for all construction traffic as well as flaggers on Percival Road for the periods before and after the school day.

Reply replying to a commission request about Mayfair Crown Drive, the town of Perceval staff has provide provided a graphic advising that the roadway is a town maintained roadway, and there is an alignment that would extend west from Mayfair Crown Drive onto the county owned property to Centerfield Farm Drive. At present, there is no right of way between the two roads. The green rectangle there in the middle of the slide depicts the area where there is no right of way currently. Responding to a county staff request, the applicant is also provided a new CDP option one c that shifts the PNC are a little bit further to the south along Route 7, and with within the parking set 200 foot parking setback to avoid conflict with the archaeological site and potential graves. Following further discussion, the application is will also draft a revised proper commitment for a PNCR right of way.

As of right now, the applicant now has four CDP options. Option one is the includes the cul de sac ending on the property. Option one a has the p and c r all the way along the right edge of the property. Option one b does not depict the PNCR at all, and new option one c, moving the collector road all the way to the south to avoid the archaeological site. As before, there are outstanding issues regarding land use, transportation, environmental and heritage resources, and proper administration.

The application is inconsistent with the Perceval JLMA development patterns and land use guidance with the place type supporting low density large lot and clustered residential development and agricultural and rural economy uses. There remain inconsistencies with the PNCR, notably the write in, write out feature at Percival Road directing exiting traffic north toward Alder School Road. Staff continues to recommend stronger measures to protect wildlife habitats such as the loggerhead strike as the, further expand applicant has, this afternoon submitted another CDP option that would indicate an expanded tree conservation in the Northeast corner, and I believe they do have a handout for you. And as before, staff continues to advise that the requested modification has a reasonable potential to affect water availability for the surrounding area. The applicant proffers to offer off-site well monitoring for twenty four months and provide mitigation measures if it is found there are out adverse effects caused by on-site wells.

However, there is no provision for build deepening or installing new off-site wells. And again, option one c shifts the PMCR further to the south. Staff continues to suggest technical revisions to proffers and ease of proffer administration, and staff's recommendation to the commission remains the same, recommending denial. The application is inconsistent with the place type, introduction of land use, and development patterns, inhibits the ability to promote development practice to realize the vision of the 2019 general plan policy with impacts to adjacent neighborhoods and modification has the potential for a negative impact on off-site residential water availability. That completes my presentation.

Alright. Thank you. Questions for staff. Commissioner Myers.

Rachel, on your slide where you were showing the Mayfair Drive access to Fields Farm property, the green unusual shaped rectangle Mhmm. Who owns that?

That would be owned by the board of supervisors.

So the county could grant that, and then it would be connected?

It could. The the whole property where the high school is is owned by Madcap.

Thought because it's it's squared off, but just because that roadway isn't shown there, if the county owns it, it's just a matter of punching it over to Mayfair, and that would be be connected. That's correct. Okay. And then I thought when I was reading your report, and maybe I was wrong, that even though Mayfair Crown Drive is in the town, the money that's used for maintaining it actually comes from state funds that they've received, I thought it said, or contributions from regional road and and stuff?

I'm unaware of it. It's within the town boundaries. So

Okay. Maybe that was transportation that was in there because it talked about the money comes from outsized, which is not unusual. I mean, all of us do that where we get money that helps with other stuff. And then my last question was on your very your second slide, I guess, would be after your title. We were looking at the quadrants. Did the town go back and so Mayfair Autumn Hill was actually a a rezoning done through the court systems in conjunction with the county. That quadrant, as it comes into the Leesburg Pike, is not residential. It's nonresidential. Correct?

Where the site is If

you go down Perceval Brown Road and you come down to almost where you see Lee's where you see Hurst Road and all, that corner, that's actually not that's actually a that's actually an industrial park there.

On the South on the North

Actually, sides

of that both sides of that quadrant are both nonresidential.

To the Northwest?

Right. Then when I go over to the other side, that's also nonresidential. So three of the four corners are non residential.

That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you. Vice chair Maderati.

Thank you, chair. Rachel, can you explain me this third bullet point on the recommendation slide? Impacts of the surrounding residential neighborhoods are not sufficiently mitigated. Can can you explain that intellect a little further Which ones are not exactly, they're not mitigating?

Primarily, the issue of, water usage. The as I stated, the applicant is proffering to monitor for twenty four months off-site wells. And again, reiterating offering, it doesn't mean that the off-site landowners have to accept such monitoring. And if it is shown that any negative impacts to those off-site wells are impacted by operations of the on-site well, they would create a mitigation plan. However, there's nothing in the proffer that states that they would replace the affected wells off-site, such as digging a deeper well or digging a new well.

Okay. That's the primary off-site impact. And traffic concerns, there would be, especially, you know, to the West and the Mayfair community. And

and also just, just just one more question unrelated to the same thing. In the outstanding issues, I do see environment and heritage resources. I is are you saying that I'm just talking about the second part, the heritage resources. Is this about that archaeological site? Is something else in here?

Primarily, at this point, the lone environmental issue would be the impacts wildlife to, primarily the loggerhead shrike. They are they have provided a new diagram late this afternoon that would provide greater tree conservation area in the Northeast as staff is requesting, and they have provided the new option one c, CDP option one c that would avoid the archaeological area should graze be found?

Oh, this is other than the one they are bypassing at the Southeast corner. There were archaeological side that that they're going little south of it right now. There are are we talking about another site where they find something else? I'm not clear

on No. That would be the archaeological site in the Far Southeastern portion. Okay.

Thank you. Anybody else? No? A couple of questions. The write in and write out that they're looking to put in across from the Mayfair community, they call it a pork chop I think or something to make sure the cars only go right in right out. I thought that there was proffered or that if the North Collector Road goes through, then that would be removed. So that would that's still the case, correct?

That is the case.

So in the interim, this isn't a problem or you still think this is a problem having that?

It still directs exiting traffic if they are using the North Collector Road North toward Alder School Road, And so if traffic wishes to head south on Burling Turnpike, they would be the most likely option, they would head east on Alder School Road, is unpaved and has issues with horizontal and vertical correction. Or else the alternative is to also head further to the north along unpaved Perceval Road till they get to Route 9.

So, your concern is that the traffic won't be able to turn south if they're coming up? Correct. The primary entrance, which is designed to be the primary entrance, can go north or south, correct?

Yes.

Okay. So that entrance, if somebody wanted to go south, they can turn left and go And

the applicant is proffering that they will provide directional signage on the property.

Okay. Thanks. Remind me what a loggerhead shrike is. Sounds like a bat, but I don't think it's a bat. It's a turtle.

I think so.

Is it

a turtle?

I am not all that cognizant of

my Somebody gotta Google real quick?

Mister chair, it's a bird.

I'm just curious what It's bird. It's a bird. Yeah.

It's not a turtle.

Okay. It's it's a bird.

It's I argue a lot about turtles. That's And

is in the habitat you're concerned about that heavily wooded area in the Northeast Corner? Is that where the primary habitat for the loggerhead shrike is?

On the northern portion of the site and by they would the applicant is indicating this afternoon that they would provide additional tree conservation in the Northeast.

Okay.

The Google says the loggerhead shrike is a passerine bird in the family landidae. It is the only member of the shrike family endemic to North America related to the northern shrike occurs north of this range. However, it is also found in Siberia. Well.

Well, that would make sense the way our weather's been the past few weeks.

Is it endangered and that's why we have to protect it or something? Or what what's

the Is it endangered or just

Why is the reason we're Threatened.

Threatened. Okay. So if this were to be developed by writing, it's 39 homes. Is that correct? So you'd have 39 wells and there's nobody that regulates the amount of water any homeowner uses, right? No. And if they sold off all these lots for by right development, is there any way to protect that habitat, that all that heavily? If somebody wanted to build their houses in the woods, would there be any way to stop them from leveling those trees to put their houses if it's a by right residential? The county have any way to control that?

Whatever the setback and buffer requirements and the zoning ordinance are. Okay. For a JLMA three.

Right. But absent that, they could clear whatever they wanted off of their site. Yes. Okay. Alright. That's all I have for staff. Does the applicant have a presentation?

Yes, we do. Chair Kears. And I'd just like to provide some brief introduction before we get started with the presentation. Excuse me. To my right is Charles Yudd with JK Land Holdings. We also have a number of consultants behind me, namely Jamie Emery from Emery and Garrett Groundwater Solutions, Kevin Murray with Tri Tech who's also involved with the well approach. Let's have Mark Smith from Soils Incorporated who can address any questions about our wastewater. We have Aaron Steele from Gross Slade and Clayton Tock from Urban who can answer any engineering questions. So there's a lot of questions that you may have that they would be best to answer this evening. So if you do have specific questions about those topics, we can bring them up here.

Is

it ready? There we go. Okay. So I wanted to start off briefly with the changes that we made since the July public hearing that led into the November 13 Planning Commission work session. This is just one slide of all the revisions that we made, but these have all been made on your watch as a Planning Commission. We reduced the building height. The western side of the site is at 32 feet maximum. The eastern side near Wright Farm is at 40 feet. We added different CDP options which we have continually updated based on feedback from staff. We reduced the density our first and foremost to what is now 986,000 square feet on the site.

That was over 288,000 square foot reduction. We agreed to building design commitments. We agreed to two different images for building renderings on the site. Both face Perceval Road. As part of our most recent submissions, we've agreed to building renderings facing Wright Farm, which is the eastern portion of the site.

We also agreed to rural economy uses requirement inside the site to help address the rural comments that we received based on the place type review from staff. We also added a Mayfair left turn lane. For those of you that have been out to the site, and many of you have been out to the site for site visits, if you go out there to un rush hour, you can tell it's sorely needed. It's a dangerous intersection today and that left turn lane going into their site will be a vast improvement. Having the right in right out, which was brought up by Rachel, I think is a benefit for that intersection because it will allow cars to go right and avoid going straight through, which was a main concern from the Mayfair residents.

We did have the committee meeting back in September. That was a concern we heard from a lot of those residents at that time. And so we addressed that and then we addressed staff's concern by removing that right in right out entrance if the road does connect to 287 and 690 eventually. We also committed to provide a traffic signal contribution of 500,000 square $500,000 at Purcell Road and Hirsch Road and Hatcher Avenue. We also have confirmed our primary entrance was the southern entrance, which again also helps with Mayfair Crown Drive.

So the most recent changes that we have made are some of which are transportation related. Starting at the top of the screen, the personal North Collector Road entrance, as I just mentioned, we've revised per staff's request. We added a new layout option within the past week or two to address staff's concern about the archaeological site. We added additional right away. This came within the past few days.

I have a graphic for this, which I'll show you later in the presentation, which allows for us to add a right turn lane exiting the site at the northern entrance. And we are agreeing to increase our right of way with for the personal North Collect Road in that area from 70 feet to 75 feet to accommodate that. As we mentioned at the last work session, we are restricting 300,000 square feet of our total square footage to warehousing the storage restrictions that addresses not only traffic but also the concerns about well impacts. We are fully committed to the well monitoring and storage I'm sorry, the well monitoring commitment. And just to clarify, if there is a need for mitigation, we have listed in our proffers that it may include but should not be limited to the drilling of another well, the drilling of a deeper well or the reduction in production from existing well VCCD.

If in fact we need to get into that scenario, there are state code provisions that address that and Mr. Gary or Mr. Emery can address those if he's asked. The eastern boundary rendering, that's something that we have now committed to in the plan set. The massing comparisons, I'll show you some slides of that. That was a request of the commission as well. The archaeological site, we've added two provisions to that to address staff comments. The reforestation area is a commitment for the non personal North Collect Road option, which I'll show you a cross section of as well. And we shifted the bus stop location. The construction management plan, this was a specific request by Commissioner Myers.

I've added the information on the screen. Effectively, have two different schools that are near the site that do have school bus stops proximate to the site. And we've agreed to have a flagging person before and after school regulating that traffic. Fenestration, this was a comment I believe from Chair Keers. This is a typical proffer that we've added in other applications. We've decided to bring it into this to help beautify the buildings that are going be on the site. Water usage and on-site wastewater treatment. Water usage has probably been the primary topic. A lot of you commissioners have requested information about. We provide additional letters addressing that.

And for wastewater treatment, we have a diagram which I'll show you, which shows the differences between what a typical system would be for a home versus what we're proposing. This is the letter that addresses the water usage that we submitted with one of our prior submissions. I won't go through all the details of this, but it gets into the mitigation and regulation aspects of the well and how it will be affected. And some of the comments you may have been receiving from the public and other sources are not accurate in terms of our impact on adjacent properties. And I do welcome any sort of questions you may have in relation to that because Mr.

Emery I think can rebut any of those comments that you might have. He is a recognized expert in the field and I think he would be a good resource for any of you that have questions. SoilZinc as well provided this analysis of the sewage disposal system that we're going to be providing on the site. I won't go through the details of that, but this is a simple diagram. If you look at the maroon square in the upper left, that's the initial holding tank, then goes into the teal tank which is a secondary holding tank.

Then there's a tertiary tank at the bottom of the graphic there which further cleans and provides aerobic treatment for the water before it's dispersed into the field. So there's a very regulated system here that is monitored and it's regulated by the state on an ongoing basis, which again if you do have the pyrite development of homes on the site, that is not the case. There's a lot of work that goes into maintaining that system that can have it operate indefinitely in the future. This is a simple comparison of the two options. I'm not going go through the details of this, but this is included in your packet if you would choose to review that.

So the rendering along Perceval Road that we've committed to in the proffers is on the screen here. This is from the intersection of Mayfair Crown Drive and Perceval Road. Another image of the up close view of the buildings. These are the 32 foot tall buildings facing Pershoe Road. This is the new image that would face toward Wright Farm.

These are a maximum of 40 feet in height. As a reminder, the existing zoning district and the zoning districts that have bought this on the county are all maximum 40 feet in height. So we've reduced our proposed building height from 60 feet down to 40 feet along the eastern boundary and 32 feet along the western boundary. We did complete a mass and comparison study per the commission's request. We looked at the adjacent properties or the nearby properties namely in Mayfair along the western boundary of the property.

There is an industrial park within Mayfair and there are townhomes within Mayfair. The townhomes are on the bottom left and the two industrial items or the buildings that we looked at are on the right. We compare those in general massing and height to the buildings proposed along the western boundary And we're comparable if not lower than the building heights of those buildings as well as the massing of those buildings. So along the eastern side we have Wright Farm, there's also a industrial development at the bottom of the screen there on St. Francis Court.

Those buildings are relevant because they you can see them from the site almost during the wintertime. On the top of the screen, we have some computer renderings of the homes within Wright Farm and on the bottom are the industrial buildings along St. Francis Court. Just gives you an idea of the industrial facilities and the residential facilities around the site. Along this site, along the side of the property would have 40 foot building height compared to the larger residential homes that are in that area as well.

So as Rachael already went through, we have four different options on the site. The first option would include the road going directly through the middle. I'm sorry, that is the no build option right there, the no personal North Colicke Road option. This would actually allow for a much wider buffer along the Wright Farm property. We have the two other options with the road going through the middle of the site and then the road going along the eastern boundary.

And then the option we just had recently which completely avoids the archeological site on the southern part of the property. So the bottom image on this screen here is the cross section for the no build option for the Perceval North Collector Road. We would have a reforestation area of 60 feet in height. In total, it would be 120 foot setback in that area. And just to give you some perspective, the actual setbacks for the site, we would have a minimum separation of the closest building on our site to the closest home within Wright Farm of three fifty eight feet.

That's the absolute closest. And there's only about four or five homes that are even close to that and those go progressively further away from that three fifty eight foot mark. I won't go too much into the details along the fringe improvements, but we are improving the entire frontage of our property along Perceval Road with 12 foot lanes, eight foot shoulders, and turn lanes, left and right turn lanes into the main entrance, a right turn lane into the northern entrance, which is on the left, and then a left turn lane into Mayfair Crown Drive. We also would have a five foot sidewalk along that entire frontage. So this image shows Perceval Road on the left, our North Collect Road extension on the right.

This is purely to show the additional turn lane that staff has requested from DTI that we can accommodate that within a 75 foot wide setback. And we had a conversation with TTCI just yesterday, I believe it was, and we had we were able to resolve effectively all of the issues. So any remaining outstanding issues, I believe are more surface level than anything. We've addressed every comment that has been given to us from staff. So just going to the general plan, just want to end on a note of this is a plan.

This site has been historically planned for industrial uses through the choices and changes general plan as well as the Pooh GAM. We explained this during the previous work session and in the public hearing. Just wanted to go over that again. And then in terms of market demand, there's no question there's market demand for this in the western part of the county. And I'll leave it at that and be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Alright. Questions for the applicants. Have mister Myers.

Jamie. Jamie. Can you come up? As I look at the surrounding properties, and maybe I'm off on this, but most of the surrounding properties have public water and sewer except for really Wright's farm. So as you've if you as you look and I know you've done a ton of work out in that area. As you as you look at this area and then the topography as it falls towards the right line, what do you see as being from a professional point of view potential impact to Wright's Farm?

We don't see any.

If if you could just state your name for the record as well.

I'm sorry. I should apologize.

That's right. Jamie Emery Emery and Garrett Groundwater Investigations, were the hydrogeologists that have been hired to investigate the the groundwater availability on this particular property. So part of the process that is required is to the county has an ordinance that's called a hydrogeologic study that needs to be performed. And in that hydrogeologic study, that we have an obligation to evaluate the amount of water that can be withdrawn from that site, but also to evaluate what potential impacts might occur from off-site. So we actually sent out letters to 11 nearby neighboring homeowners by certified mail and the town of Purcellville was the only respondents that allowed us to monitor the wells, which was to the south.

I'll just for the moment let you know that those wells were monitored down in the southern part. Purcellville had their own hydrogeologist. They reviewed our data. They concluded there was no impact to off-site impact to their wells. Now, unfortunately, we would like to have had as many wells to the right farm parcel to monitor, but they chose not to.

But we do have a series of wells on-site that we were able to monitor and that allows us to assess what the likely impact is going to be off-site. And you'll see in the hydrogeologic report that and I don't know if you have this, you can show this map but it shows the zone of capture being that property. You can see it there. Shows that the zone of impact would be northeast parallel to the foliation of bedrock. And there's a number of rock units there, diabase dikes, that constrain the impacts to the east and to the west.

And so based on the information we have right there, we have every evidence to suggest or indicate that there's not going to be impacts to the east. And the east is where the Wright Farm residential wells are. So that line on the outside is the one or the zero impact. That is the zero when we pump a well, we pump it for seventy two hours at a constant rate. That well then we monitor the wells nearby and we make that determination as to the extent of impact.

So that hydrogeologic study was then reviewed by Loudoun County and an independent reviewer that was hired by Loudoun County and the hydro study was approved as it was presented. Now what's interesting to me is that everybody has a right to use groundwater on their property and you brought up 39 residential wells that could be built on that site. Well 39, if every well, every homeowner was able to pump one gallon per minute, that would be 39 gallons a minute coming out of that system. We're talking about using less than that and I'm going to go into that for a moment. You would not have any opportunity to regulate them or restrict their use.

And homeowners would be drilling wells along the perimeter of the property much closer to Wright Farm than where this well is located in this almost dead center portion of this particular property. But as a mitigation, and this applicant has taken our recommendations, our recommendation was to let the homeowners have a second bite at the apple. And that is give them the opportunity to be monitored for a period of two years after the applicant was using their well to determine if there were any potential impacts that were missed potentially by us. Now we do this for a living. This is what we do every day.

And we serve a lot of the communities here in Northern Virginia as well as most every community water system that's online. Our job is to try to make sure that nobody gets adversely impaired, and we haven't had that occur in thirty five years. So I don't have any concern that at this point the data that we have is incorrect. But given the opportunity for the homeowners to have an op to be monitored, there will be a chance for them to to for us to collect data over a two year period, which is an extensive period of time, and we're gonna give them you know, we're gonna notify them a hundred and eighty days before the property gets utilized. They have a certain amount of time to respond and then we have a certain amount of time to put the equipment in and and monitor.

I'm gonna be collecting water level if they say yes every hour. Now if residential wells are drilled up there, there's gonna be no monitoring from side to side and a person could go up there and decide he wants to irrigate his property at 10 gallons a minute minute or five of them at 10 gallons a minute. This is by far a much more regimented restricted water use. So that's part of the mitigation plan. The other piece that I think in that letter that was submitted to you is that the applicant also has a second well, as you can see up there, VCCB, that's outside the zone of influence of D, which is going to be their main well.

Should there be a mitigation requirement, they have an opportunity to that well, when it was drilled, was yielding about 38 gallons a minute. We wouldn't rate it at that high level, but production would have rate that could be achieved. So you have a mitigation of potential of the of what we've shown here and by the way I want you to everybody should know that when we drill these wells we submit a drilling plan to the county. The county has to approve that drilling When we do a pumping test, they have to approve that pumping test plan. So there's phases of application and phases of approval that go all the way through this process.

Now the last piece I want to mention is that the state now is engaged in this process, which under residential well development would not be. The state is going to have to look at this and say and does, we rate the well. We pump tested that well at 52 gallons a minute, twenty four hours a day. The state's gonna come in and say, no. That's good. Thank you very much. But we're gonna let you pump that thirteen hours a day. So right off the bat, they're gonna cut off the rate from 75,000 gallons a day of what we tested to about 40,000 gallons a day. So there's another piece of the mitigation plan that's already in place. 40,000 gallons a day is going to be less than 39 homeowners.

I can tell you that now. You're gonna be regulated because every time this if the yield gets up to or their use gets up to 80%, then the state steps in and says, now you've got to provide us explanations of how you're not gonna get to a 100%. And so there's a lot of protective phases into this. So you start with the hydro study that we've done. It shows no impact to the off-site users.

We're giving the homeowners a second opportunity to be monitored. We're giving them a chance if we do have an impact to change the way things are done by either drilling a new well, reducing the production, or go to another source. Think and then you've got the state looking over their shoulders monitoring the withdrawals that they have. So I hope that answers it. It's a long answer, but sorry.

One last question if I may, Eugene. So also we've heard a lot about so in regards to is there any opportunity or is there any concern that this well could end up affecting the town's water source?

No. Those wells that you see it in the South, Forbes production well and the town well number one, those wells were monitored during this pumping test to determine if there was any impact. We submitted that data to the town. There had their own hydrogeologist who was a professional hydrogeologist. She reviewed that information and wrote back to us and said, No, we don't see any impact. Thank you very much.

Impact.

Okay. Thank you. I just thought we've heard so much about water. It was important to have Yeah. Kind of a discussion about it. Thank you very much.

Good. Okay. Anybody else? Commissioner Barnes?

Yeah. My concern is the water is one thing. Another one is traffic. That road is only two lane. And from Percival to Hillsborough is always, always crowded in the evening. And I've traveled there. I I know very well that road. I used to go down and pick up my grandkids from school there. And on their graduation and all that, that thing was always lined up. And this thing is not gonna help that.

It's gonna create more trouble for that to let the traffic for the two lane. And that's that's my concern always been. And I don't think they have mitigated that because they're not gonna increase any lanes or widen the roads or anything like that. So that's that's the only concern I have.

If we could address commissioner Barnes' comments, good to see you. From the presentation by staff, there was reference to the right in, right out at the North Collector Road opposite Mayfair Crown Drive, and we don't believe there's any other outstanding transportation issues, but if you'd like, our transportation consultant could provide that overview to you. What we have provided is $500,000 towards signalization at Percival Road and Hearst just as you come over. That's the first intersection as you come over the bridge. Contribution to the Hillsborough RoadHearst Intersection, widening along Perceville Road, and in response specifically to what the community asked us for, a protected left hand turn lane into Mayfair.

And so, we hear the concern about traffic, but the very process to have our application reviewed and vetted up until this point has raised a number of transportation items that we continue to check off the box cause we've addressed. So I just think it'd be helpful to, if you're concerned about transportation impact, if we could go back to staff and say, what really does remain here as an outstanding issue? If it's just the CTP policies about how the Perceval North Collector Road will connect to Perceval Road, we're in a situation where you have this on your plan. We have to provide the right of way reservation for it, but what is the future for the Purcellville North Collector Road? We believe we've addressed what needs to be done from an applicant's point of view by providing for that reservation and all those other transportation improvements.

Commissioner Combs?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess, Charles, I'll start with you. Just picking up where we left off in the last work session talking about water and consumption rates. It occurs to me that we never really discussed, and Mr.

Emery mentioned it, what would be the consumption rate of the by right use here of 39 homes. We've been speaking in terms of gallons per square foot per day, think is how we were arriving at rates for various uses, industrial storage, the flex. And then I'll have a question about something that's in Clayton's letter. But I'm wondering is there a way for us to get an apples to apples comparison just using the same metric gallons per square foot per day so we can just compare those rates for the buy write, the 39 homes relative to what we're projecting for the various uses here. And that may take some a little while to pull Yeah, we would need

to look and see if we have reference to some guide for what does a single family dwelling typically demand each day. We're not proposing any so we hadn't looked into that.

Yeah but I figure you wouldn't have that right on hand but Mr. Emery mentioned that this I think will be this proposed development would withdraw less than the 39 homes. So I'm wondering if we can quantify that in any sort of way and I don't expect an answer straight away on that.

Well, here's one of the issues that you have with homeowners. It's highly variable. So if you take just an average homeowner, they're gonna use, you know, 400, 500 gallons a day, a resident. But what Loudoun Water has determined and others who monitor and sell water that irrigation throws that entire equation off the guardrail because one person can put an irrigation system in that uses 10 gallons a minute for four or five hours. You put two or three people together and now you're pumping 30 gallons a minute for three for five or six hours and the equation is gone.

Now you're talking about an individual who's now, you know, using 10,000 gallons a day. Right? So it kind of depends and you don't have the ability and I'm not you you don't have the ability to regulate what the homeowner is going to use. I'm just indicating that in the history, you know, in what we've seen in Loudoun County and some of the more larger residential homes that are used that they tend to use more water than the typical homeowner who just is using it for potable needs, right? But you don't know and we can't put a number to that. But I would tell you that irrigation systems use a fair amount of water for a home.

Understood. I think what I'm just trying and I heard you mention gallons per day. I've heard you mention gallons per minute. I'm just trying to get us to the same metric for comparing these different uses just so that we can get on a For example, in Clayton's letter, he's mentioning the limitation or the restriction of, you're committing to, no less than 300,000 square feet of, warehousing and storage, which is projected to use only 600 gallons per day. So by my math, that's a rate of 0.002 gallons per square foot per day.

That's right. I could be wrong but that's my math. And I'm looking at my notes from our last work session. We were discussing a 0.16 gallons per square foot per day across some other JK projects. We discussed a higher rate at Ashburn Crossing, for example. So can you just speak to that in the same using the same metric as much as possible across the different uses? And particularly, how you got to that 0.002 gallons per square foot per day rate for the warehousing and storage.

Sure. Appreciate it. The all of that regulatory structure that Jamie laid out is really de fact o mitigation. But we had to take it one step forward as the property owner and the entity that really would be responsible for leasing to tenants to try and gauge what would the water demand be based on the different types of uses. So those metrics that you mentioned, they are technically gallons per square foot per day.

And we were able to evaluate different categories of use. We looked at actual land water billing flex uses. Examples were in the Ashburn area. There are a variety of different flex projects, and they also have a variety of different tenants. Those use the most water when you examine the actual bills on a monthly basis to establish how many gallons per day are really being used.

We did the same type thing for long term storage looking at our warehouse activities, not just here in Virginia but elsewhere in the DMV area. And that's where we got that point zero zero two gallons per square feet per day. And that is a very low water demand essentially related to the characteristics of the use. If you have long term storage, you have goods coming in being stored and then after a period of time, them being removed. No real long term presence of an employee base or a customer base or somebody coming in there that would be a water user.

So, and that's reflected in that metric of very low water demand.

And so that's coming from empirical data. You've taken that from Correct. Other instances of

Because the level magnitude of importance is high. If you entertain a potential tenant and a lease for a period of time, you have to make sure that there's adequate water supply for them. So from all the work that Jamie and his firm have done and also Kevin at Tri Tech to help us gauge how to manage that demand in the face of what we think the capacity is and what the regulated permitted capacity of that well will be based on all of the reviews that have to happen. We needed some indicator. So not only did we have that indicator metric for long term storage, we also evaluated a category that would use a little bit more water.

And what we looked at is uses that would be considered light manufacturing. Your ordinance now in IP has a whole category of light manufacturing uses. And one of the best examples was a millwork operation where you have employees coming in, there's a fabrication of product, and when you look at the amount of water that's used, the metric really is slightly higher. And Mr. Combs, there's been some confusion over 0.16 or 0.12.

0.16 is a separate metric that Loudoun Water uses for estimating the amount of sanitary effluent. But in our observation, we were relatively close at 0.12 gallons per square feet per day. Then when you look at the flex category, and I know that the commission has seen a variety of flex applications, and you see a wide range of uses in that category. You could have a bounce house with kids coming and the water demand uses are higher, a brewery use, which is otherwise allowed in flex, uses a lot of water. But a contractor's office that might be more contractor equipment storage than office means less people.

But that under the heading of flex, when you look at those example projects, your metric equates to roughly point two three five gallons per day, gallons per square foot per day. And so that's the highest amount of demand. So as the landowner, we would have to regulate that and be prepared to say no to certain tenants and yes to others, long term storage being the best example of the lowest water demand.

Okay. Hopefully that helps. It does. It's super helpful. Mr. Chair, if you'll indulge me, just a follow-up question. Okay. So then you're gonna aggregate all these potential tenant uses using these rates and then you're gonna compare that to what the well will yield, what you can withdraw. And Jamie, you mentioned when you're rating the well, you've done a seventy two hour pump test, It's yielding a certain amount of water, but the state is already gonna knock that down. You mentioned the state's gonna say, sorry, we see your number, but now knock it down, assuming only thirteen hours of use.

Could you just speak to that a little more? I'm just wondering where does that thirteen hour limitation come from? Is that what we're expecting from the state or is that something that we know that's coming?

Excuse me. That is going to happen. The state has a safety factor because there are a lot of drillers that submit pumping tests that don't have any background or understanding on what the consequences might be of overusing that well. There are a variety of different people who submit a water use plan and the state has just it's part of their policy that they will discount it as a safety buffer. So that's what will happen. And what will also happen is that the applicant will have to submit a plan that does not exceed the amount of water in their view to be used at that thirteen hour per day rate.

Thank you.

Mr. Miller.

Thank you. We've talked a lot about water. I'm going to go to trees, which need water, but naturally. Trees as it relates to the Collector Road. Any version of the plan that has the Collector Road built will impact the Northwest Tree area. Correct?

One option in particular would. Let me show you that one.

Oops.

Okay. So the option on the right there, option one a, that would certainly go into the tree area that exists today. The other two options would come just short of that area.

Okay. To me, the preferred option is no build because there's nothing to connect it to. So with these trees, and there's been some discussion that, some people on this dais would like to see those trees remain. Is there a scenario where we cannot build in where the trees are and shift, potentially shift the square footage to other portions of the development?

Yes. That could happen potentially.

Okay. If there that shift does happen, square footage, I think it was a point one nine FAR or something like that. In the nature of this type of product, vertical doesn't really get you more square footage per se because you don't have a second level in warehouse, you have a forklift in a warehouse. So how would you be able to find space to essentially the square footage that was right now would otherwise have been in that treat area. Where would you find the space for that square footage elsewhere in the property?

First step we would have to take and we're willing to get into that is to pull back on the building envelope. If you recall in some of our earlier meetings, we were actually asked to show building envelopes. Right now, we have building envelopes on the eastern side of the site that would encroach into that tree save area. We would pull those back. I think if we had if we could get a good slide up there that showed the tree line clear enough, we could speak to where we're pulling back.

Quickly, I can interrupt. If you could staff report figure seven, if you could pull it up, it's page 14 of 17 of the staff report. I think that shows your building envelope as shown on your diagram here and it shows that suggested TCA. Let's see if that might be

While that's coming up. So the envelope gets pulled back. It's possible to still have the 980,000 square feet within the new envelope. Envelope's an envelope. It doesn't necessarily tell us it doesn't mean that that's the limits of where the buildings are gonna go. The buildings are gonna go somewhere in those envelopes. Correct. So it's possible that the envelopes, if they come out if if the portion of olive is in the tree area, tree areas comes out, you still may be able to build to the full, your fully desired 980,000

It certainly makes it more challenging because not only now would we be pulling our own internal road network. But But we we think think we we can respect can be the commission's wishes if they want to see that tree area remain and be used or referred to as a no build area. We would try our best to make up that square footage elsewhere in the site within within the building envelope as it is amended. And

and making up for elsewhere in the site is also partially dependent back to water. Because if you find that in the early stages of this development that you're leasing to users that might need more water than others and but you're like, well, there's such good tenants. There's such good opportunity that we're willing to sacrifice some building in the future. That I mean, that's a theoretical Hopefully,

the the the level of effort we put into this is is showing well because there's so many different requirements to address. And number one, we're looking for a place for businesses that is greatly needed. And so it makes it a little bit more challenging to pull back from that treat area. But we've also committed to building height and the appearance of these buildings to very much mitigate whatever impact somebody feels that might be adverse or to the negative. We've worked on that.

So it's making it more difficult when we pull away the building envelope, away from that tree safe area, but we'd like the ability to, A, be creative with our building placement, and B, we are self regulated de facto by that water demand. I'll give a really good example if you want to give me a minute. The 300,000 square feet of long term storage would demand approximately 600 gallons per day. If we felt that that a particular tenant or group of tenants wanted more of that, then that's more square footage of a very low water demand. So it really it keeps the door open for for, successful resolution while at the same time pulling out of the pulling out of the tree save area.

So we would we would prefer to stick with that that $9.68 at this point.

Okay. Thank you.

That's all

I have

for now.

Mr. Boneruty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have three comments I would like to make, comments or question per se. The first one, let let's go with the easy ones. The traffic, one of my question I was going to ask is, how did you guys kind of mitigated the traffic that coming in? Because these are going to be more like a warehousing and flex space. But you guys already answered mister Bond, so I think I'm go with good with that. The second question is, again, going last sometimes, somebody asks you a question already.

So commissioner Combs asked about apples to apple comparison. For the last two days, am trying to play with thanks to AI. I was able to do some comparison studies. Looks like with the 40 homes, with the 3,000 to 3,500 square feet homes, if you have a 40 of them, on the higher end, it says 15,000 gallons is based on different different numbers, different combinations is a higher end. I know, as an expert, I don't know whether you agree with that or not. But so why I'm saying that number is, again, I think I I played with the scenarios. I know sometimes I don't want to completely say it's unregulated. People are going to use the water all day. No. I don't want to use that.

I want more practical example. I think 15 was kind of number I that the system came up with for the 40 homes. So this use that we are proposing is 75,000, which is, like, five times what the 40 buy right homes could have come up with. Again, it's just a comment I just want to put. If you want to respond to that, that's okay.

Just so you know, the thirteen hours brings that 75,000 to 40,000.

Okay.

And so and just from the standpoint of I think that would probably be correct if you were to take an average across The United States, you know, in terms of what the water use would be. But having worked down here in Loudoun County and see the extensive irrigation systems that people put in for their homes here, I can guarantee you that they're going to be more water pumped during the summertime when the water table is at the lowest when they're irrigating their wells. But to your point, we don't have a number for that. I think the reality is we just don't have the ability to control a homeowner, a single homeowner or any of them and how much water they would use in that day. There was a subdivision here at Lena Farms a long time ago that I went to visit one time and they had an irrigation system and the people were pumping so much water that the water, when I came in the morning, was just running off the lawns down the storm drain and out the driveway.

And it had been on all night and there were 70 or 50 homes pumping out at the same time. I don't know the answer, but I do appreciate your, you know, thought on that.

If I could just jump in on that and and forgive me for this direct statement, but if you are at all proposing 39 wells, individual wells, also what comes with that unfortunately are 39 or 40 individual septic systems. And so that certainly has an impact. For so many years, the county was interested in working around the proliferation of individual wound septics. And in the rural area, answer was communal systems. And what you get here is, as Jamie said, a very regulated, de facto self mitigating situation that is a much better alternative.

I I certainly agree, Charles. So again, I just wanna put the point out there for others because they they mentioned that. But I I do agree that this is more regulated, has has has a better mitigating systems here. So this is the last item is what I really am concerned about. Sorry.

Not water this time. So I know you guys are doing the your FAR math. You guys are showing where you started with 1,200,000, came to nine fifty, nine sixty right now. Just for the comparison sake, 1,000,000 is almost the footprint of Pentagon City or 17 football fields. So this is a rural setting in general.

So in this kind of a setting, I don't think we should be using the similar FAR calculations we use in Leesburg or Ashburn or somewhere else. So in my mind, I think there were great changes done to this whole application in in the overall lot of adjustments, But I cannot go along with the 9070 or September that you guys are proposing. I think this number has to come down for for me to support this application. Like I said, in terms of the traffic or the other other, issues, the county raised, you guys did address them in very good way. But density still bothers me here because of the setting we have, where this particular place is.

So I'll stop and ask you to respond if you want to.

The we appreciate your comment and it's it's instructive. However, do have to come back to you and say if you are of the position that a suburban style FAR is not appropriate, we would say we agree with you. And we would say that we have taken steps to lower our gross square footage. Right now we're at nine sixty eight that nine sixty eight is approximately. Point one nine F. A. R. Your suburban. F. A.

R. Requirements for the IP District are point six. So we are essentially one third of what you would see in the suburban area. One third of what your ordinance expects. And as we said, there is a much needed Call for good land use planning that allows opportunities for business development that is not data.

To serve the community And so I believe we have addressed your concern because of that number I gave you. If it was point six, I would say, yeah, that's a lot. Pentagon City is not on a 117 acres, I don't think. And also there was one example going around earlier today about it may have been at the last meeting Anova, the hospital campus. The hospital is anticipated to be if you look at the website, it like 1,500,000 square feet we were not associated with them but that's what that's what we saw.

On 88 acres is a point three nine FAR and so. Point one nine is probably really appropriate for this area, but I respect your question and concern.

Would you be willing to go to that other number we talked about this morning?

Earlier today, we were not sure where we were going to end up with respect to the tree save area. That tree save area that we are not building in is 15 acres? 23 total.

Which is 13 additional.

23 total acres, 13 new additional acres of our site that we've agreed to no build. So like I said before, we would implore efforts to get to a good result to stay at that point one nine FAR at 968,000, give us the ability to site our buildings, still maintain that building height commitment and all the architectural design commitments. But that's where we are right now. That reduction earlier was before we were committing to that no such a significant additional amount of no build area.

It was under under 130,000 reduction. It we are right now.

Reduction. So what 800?

From nine Eight sixty or Yeah. Sorry. It's around eight fifty.

You got something to go to eight fifty?

Yeah. I just want Yeah.

Is there a question I'm sorry. Are you asking?

Question what the number was you two had

had It a conversation

was down a 130,000, so that was 850 approximately.

56. Yeah.

Alright. Commissioner Banks.

I I hate to continue to to beat a dead horse on this one, but I'm going to circle back around to another water issue. You spoke about this and you've mentioned it a couple times. And I just wanna clarify so that I I fully understand. You spoke very confidently that the water use for potentially 39 houses would clearly exceed the use that you are now proposing. Just give me what are those figures? What's that based on? It clearly must be based on some minimum that you think those 39 houses would draw in water per day, as compared to the use that you're proposing. I just wanted to make sure I understood that.

And then maybe I should resend that because it's not clear that 39 homes would use more water. What I was trying to get to is there's no ability to regulate the use of those wells and the problem it's possible they would use less water. But the one thing that it is and I don't want to be too specific on this, but it's kind of irrelevant in that one, we've looked at the demand that the water that, you know, the well can produce, and we've rated that with the understanding that the well could only produce 40,000 gallons a day with the state requirements. So we believe that there's enough buffer and security in the numbers based on the testing to show that there wasn't any impact to off users, that there's enough if we were completely wrong, we're giving the homeowners an opportunity to be monitored. And if you had homeowners that were built along there's no protection for the right for anybody neighboring.

And they might be a 100 feet away or 200 feet away and you might have someone. And so what I'm saying is there's just no ability for you or anybody to regulate the way the water is going to be used if it went to residential. And I think there's some concern there could be a concern there. I don't want to really go down that path too far except to say that based on the pumping test we performed, based on our impact assessment that we performed, based on the review of independent hydrogeologists that approved that, based on the state going to have to discount even that to a larger degree, And the fact that they have another well that if there was if everything broke down that they could be used as part of the mitigation plan. I think you're in pretty good I don't know of another situation that I could give you that's got more protections kind of built in place for supporting the local community at the same time meeting the needs of the on-site proposal.

That's very helpful. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Come back to me. So, we had earlier today, Charles, was about protecting the TCA. So, that's why I had this figure shown, staff suggested TCA. So are you saying that you're willing to commit to expanding the TCA as shown in figure seven to stay out of that

area? We would drop our building envelope. I think that exhibit you have there shows our building envelope going up into the green area. Correct. So we would drop it down and it would be more triangular and outside of that limit.

So it

would stay out of this TCA you would be willing to support and stay out of?

Yes. And then just to be more clear, we would preserve that tree line. We would not build into that green area at all. Our building envelope would come out of there and be triangular shaped. And we would like to call that a tree save area and no build area and not necessarily make it a TCA cause there's all kind of additional commitments that come with that.

We would so if that's okay with you, we would commit to not building any square footage of our buildings in that area, pulling our limits of disturbance to be somewhat coterminous with the green line because it would be we would have it as a straight line, that's obviously irregular. So yeah, to answer your question, the answer is yes.

Okay, so the staff difference between calling it a tree save area versus tree conservation area, would that still meet what staff is looking for here? I honestly don't know what the difference is between the two.

I could not give you an answer at this time, and we do not have this environmental staff on the WebEx who could answer that at this time. I'd have to get an answer to you at a future time.

I can give you an answer. The reason why we would not, would stay away from a labeling it tree conservation area, even though that's essentially what it is, we're not building in that area, is there becomes some very difficult proffer management issues on how do you go in there and thin that out when you have to? How do you, how are you regulated in an easement that is granted then to to the board of supervisors? We will commit to the Darker Hatching up above that was earlier shown as tree conservation area, but in reality this would be a no build area, it would be a tree save area, tree preservation area, and that is to get essentially and directly to your request that you wanna save those trees, and we do too. But we would prefer not to put it into an easement, if that's okay with you.

Does that sound right, stat? Does it meet the intent of them just staying out, not doing any kind of development?

The relevant intents there, I guess the TCA also, the language also talks about making sure there's some level of preservation for perpetuity.

Okay.

So, we can look at the language that the applicant proposes versus our template for TCA and we can discuss or highlight for the board should this go forward the differences between the two and see what the comfort level. So, if I

understand, Charles, the current dark green TCA, you're okay with the light green would be a tree preservation area. Is that what you're

That's correct.

Okay. All right. That was my main question and I don't have a problem with you trying to maintain your square footage, but I feel fairly confident that with the loss of that much acreage of buildable land, you're not going be able to hit the nine sixty eight. But not having you, you don't want to commit to any specific number, I'm fine with that. That's the loss, the saving of those trees and the loss of that buildable acreage resolves that issue in my mind. Alright. Last chance anybody for any other comments, commissioner Myers? Just to

so Go Go ahead.

Drain fields. In regards to the drain fields, because I do think this is also a thing that something that we you know, in researching and looking at what you're doing with this being a nonresidential use in the way that it's gonna be con con contained and maintained is much different and of a higher quality. And I'm asking the question maybe is is it, would you agree? Because if you have 39 drain fills, there's no real control. I mean, some may be alternatives, some may be conventional, some may be four bedrooms, five bedrooms, and you could end up with them.

They could erode on or have issues with the abutting, right farm where all of a sudden you have drain fill issues on abutting properties. I know we talked water, but we didn't talk drain fills.

Yes, that's correct. The drain fills will be highly treated and at a much higher level than 39 residential conventional drain fields would be.

And until you get out there on the property, know it like I know one commissioner used the idea of a 3,000 square foot house and that type of things, but until you get on there and do the the studies, I mean, you could end up with five and six bedroom houses on this, which would typically be a lot bigger than a 3,000 square foot home, which then would require much larger drain fields and reserve areas.

That's correct. And we've already done a pretty extensive preliminary soil study out there, and there are very good soils that would support five, six bedrooms home homes.

Okay. And with the topography of the property, does it lay so that and I admit I was out there and didn't ask for permission. The topography looks like to me there's a slope down where almost at certain points slopes down towards Wright where this is higher at certain points as it goes back down to Wright Farm. So the there could be the opportunity that you could end up with not if you're doing a non if you're doing a residential, you could end up with some runoff, shall we use that word, if these if these end up not being maintained correctly where you could have issues on the budding property.

That's correct. Yeah. I mean, on the side slopes is where you would put them, and so they could go pretty much anywhere on the property that aren't in unsuitable topography. So, yes, it could go on that on that hillside.

Okay. I bring this up because this personally happened to me. I've lived in the same house for a lot of years, and grandfather built it. And the builder built up above us and pulled the basement pulled the houses out because the people wanted to walk out basements, and their seepage came right down and completely contaminated both my drain fill and my reserve area. So to me, that is something I always think about when I'm talking about we've got slopes and looking at the way it drains and stuff that we could have unintended consequences when you're talking about just the residential development, not the nonresidential because you're actually containing it upfront, and you're doing it in a way where it's like almost a microfiber kind of, that's occurring as the as it as the effluent is taken care of.

That's correct. It's gonna be a highly treated effluent that will be clean when it goes into the good soil conditions.

Okay. Thank you.

Vice Chair Modarati, you have a comment?

Just just a quick clarification. Based on what, Chair said, it's possible that you might not be able to build 986000 because you're losing some land to the TCA. Is that right? What are you planning to is there not buildable enough buildable area left to recover all that extra envelope

you

are you losing there now?

Well, let me tell you, you've adopted an ordinance that has some max parking numbers in there. We would have to tailor our actual site plan and building placement to A, fit into the building envelopes, now they're revised, and then work around it. And so that's a significant amount of acreage to take out of development that was previously in it earlier today. So there's likely an impact on square footage, but we would like the ability to try and configure our site and develop our site because we are responsive to what the need really is, and that is to find alternative locations for businesses that desperately need it. So give us so we're asking for that flexibility in exchange for pulling out of the tree safe area.

Okay. Thank you.

Alright. This is the Catoctin District. Commissioner Miller, do you have a motion?

I do. Before I go to the motion, Brian, do I need we just wrote this motion earlier. It's not in the packet. Maybe we have a copy of it. Do I need to read the findings as well? Please. Read the findings as well?

Yes. Okay.

Not a problem.

All right. I move that the Planning Commission forward Legi twenty twenty three-eighty Valley Commerce Center, ZMAP twenty twenty three-eight, and ZMod-twenty 20Three-forty one to the Board of Supervisors with the recommendation of approval subject to the proper statement dated 02/02/2026, provided as attachment to the 02/12/2026, Planning Commission work session memorandum and based on the following findings for approval. One, land use guidance and recommendation for towns and JLMA areas in the Loudoun County 2019 general plan encourages new development to locate within towns before moving into JLMA or surrounding area. An application for annexation of the subject property by the town of Perceval was rejected by the town council on 01/08/2025. And two, the 2019 general plan design characteristics for the Perceval JLMA rural neighborhood place type are intended to support a range of core and complementary uses that provide opportunities for low density large lot and cluster residential neighborhoods as well as agricultural, agricultural supportive businesses and rural economy uses.

The proposal to develop the site with 986,000 square feet of industrial uses that includes up to 5,000 square feet of rural economy uses can provide for businesses that serve the agricultural and rural uses present within the Perceval JLMA and the surrounding rural policy area.

Second. A motion made by commissioner Miller, seconded by commissioner Banks. I do have a friendly amendment I'd

like to

add if Okay. Accept the

Well, it's here first.

Yeah, Okay. I just wanted with the as an addition, I guess, be a condition. With the addition of a tree save area depicted as the light green suggested tree conservation area in figure seven on page 14 of the staff report.

So it'll be part of the proffer statement.

So it'll be part of the proffer zone, an additional proffer statement.

Yeah. I

just wanna get that in as part of the motion. Accept

that. Okay. Okay.

Alright. So we have a motion by commissioner Miller and a second by commissioner Banks. Commissioner Miller, do you have an opening?

I do. I've long supported this project largely because of it of its need in the county as well as commissioner Myers said in her questions earlier that the other three corners of this intersection have similar uses. The 117 acres, I know that to some that nearly a million square feet of development sounds like a lot, but 117 acres is a big piece of property and you might see a third of this from the road, especially along Perceval Road at 32 feet. Being on Perceval Road, you're not going to see the 300,000 square foot building behind all this at all ever. So I think the visually you won't really see the impacts of what sounds like a lot of square footage.

I do want to make a quick comment about these 39 houses we keep talking about. I've always said development is not a choice of something or nothing, it's a choice of something or something else. In this particular case, one of those something else would be 39 houses on 117 acres, which in this day and age I can assure you would not be 3,000 square foot houses. These would be eight to 10 to 12,000 square foot houses. They're gonna have five, six, seven people living in them provided that the drain fields can support that kind of a thing.

Once that happens, I would venture to guess that the third of these houses will have 40 by 20 swimming pools in the back of them, which still bring in water from tanks, but then they're going to constantly fill their systems as go as their pools, as they go about it. So this is going to be a high usage water area one way or the other. This way it is regulated and it also regulates the type of businesses that can come here which to the 5,000 square feet of rural economy uses they're providing. I'm never a fan of specifically saying you have to have leave this for somebody because marketplace is determined what shows up. But in this particular development, in this particular part of the county, I'm pretty sure more than 5,000 square feet of these uses will be rural economy uses just by the very nature of where it's located.

Also, this project allows us to prevent what happened earlier this week, I hope to some degree. A leading employer and leading business in Loudoun County recently took 250,000 square feet of warehouse space in Clark County because we're running out of places for people like that to go. An existing business in Loudoun County that has lots of other land and they sold some spaces and they need more, they had to leave the county to find it. And this will help to some degree keep that from happening. So I am I'm grateful for that.

And also as commissioner Kirsten said, think as the question Mr. Moderetti followed up with, as we pull these the building envelope out of the tree save area, the likelihood of finding room for this approximately 130,000 square feet of building space they could find is going to be difficult for them to find elsewhere. The likely scenario is that that 130,000 square feet does come out of this plan because the nature of warehousing is it's horizontal, it's not vertical. You don't build three story warehouses, you just have open spaces and have big forklifts. So that the issue of a million square feet is unlikely to happen in our estimation.

We're not the pros of this. So I think given all of that, the alternatives, given what this provides, given the architecture that you'll see along Perceval Road, I think this fits exactly where we need it. I think it's great for the long term businesses in the county and the town had a shot. They didn't want to work with it, so it comes to us and our responsibility is to the county and we've I think this does meet the needs of the county going forward. I look forward to everybody's support. Thank you.

Thank you. Other comments on the motion, commissioner Barnes?

Comment. Yeah. I I I cannot support this motion because I'm still concerned about the traffic. And I've driven on it. I don't think you can do anything to calm it down because all it's gonna do add more traffic. So like it is, I see the traffic quite a bit there. And so I cannot support it.

All right. Thank you. Commissioner Myers.

Yes. I will be supporting the motion. I look at this from, you know, this particular quadrant of Purcellville has been relooked at and looked at and looked at and looked at. But when you go back to the original 2019 and even before that when you talked about choices and changes and when, I guess, Purcellville and Loudoun County used to get along, this quadrant in this area you looked at was really meant to be nonresidential. It was meant to be for the business community that was outside outside the town as it as you moved into the town.

That's why you see three corners of it already nonresidential. I also like the opportunity or the design that's been done here because when you look at the other buildings that are on the other three corners, not that I'm against them, but they are your traditional brick or butler like looking flex buildings that don't have a lot of characteristics to them. Where in this particular design, you've taken the time to really blend it into the town of Purcellville. And what it really makes me think of is, like, when you go in going into Purcellville and you go to the Harris Cedar shopping center, it reminds me a lot of the design that was picked up from there. It reminds me of the design that was even picked up over at Magnolia's and stuff.

It's really got the rule character that I think what people are looking for and wanting to preserve in Western Loudoun. And I can see by the way that you're designing it, it will allow the flexibility for those smaller users that are so desperate to find something and not I'm working with somebody that's looking at having to go to Charlestown, West Virginia because they can't find flex space here that they can that they they can afford that's the size they want. So I think this brings a tremendous benefit, to the the community. I think you've done really well in your redesign. I think the as far as a water resource and, sanitation resource, shall we say, I think this will be much better for the community than having 39 homes and a lot of wells on the property that could really be a drain on it.

So and I I'm still wouldn't be surprised at the end of the day once this gets approved to see the town of Perceval come back and say, okay. Now that we like your design, we'll lay next you in. It wouldn't surprise me at all. So I will be supporting the motion.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Banks.

I will be supporting the motion, primarily for four reasons. One, I believe that this is, much needed addition to the inventory for our businesses in in Loudoun County. Two, I think the applicant has done a a great deal and everything they presented to us seems to have done a good job at traffic mitigation. Third, they're they have really adequately addressed the water and sanitation issues, and I think they've done a very good job with that as well. And then finally, after having gone out for a site visit, I am convinced that this is the proper place for this kind of development.

I agree very much with commissioner Miller that much of this will be relatively invisible from Purcellville Road. So for all those reasons, I will be supporting this motion. Thank you.

Mister Matarati.

Thank you, mister chair. I would like to make few points in here. Until last few minutes, I did not make up my mind. There are a lot of good stuff in there. There are there are a few things that I did not like either, but I would like to stay on the positive side of things that happened with this application.

Application. Again, I know for this particular area, the inventory was low. We are looking for warehousing, and we're looking for flex space. So when this thing was proposed, I was concerned about the traffic, how it's going to impact this thing, and how the look and feel is going to be matching this kind of a setup here. There there are a lot of things I like at this point on this application.

There are some small things that you guys done that kind of a I I kind of like the direction of them. For example, specifying 5,000 square feet for the for the rural usage, for example. Conditions that impact the neighbors. You guys came up with the lighting restrictions and also with the loading timing restrictions. And also came up with a design that matches the surroundings like the rural, the the heritage kind of a building looks.

You made additional contributions to the traffic light at the Hurst Road and Purcellville Road. All all these things, know, ideally, I would like to get density a little reduced in here. But hearing the clarification from commissioner Miller and commissioner Kears. Maybe there's I I might get it without even asking for that extra 100,000 square foot reduction when the at the end of the day when you try to circums the case. So with all those reasons, I will be supporting the motion today. So

Alright. Commissioner Frank.

Sure. Alright. We're sitting this this property is on the edge of town in a JLMA, and it really should serve as a transition to lower density and a more rural development. So I appreciate the the design changes, the reduced height on the western side of the parcel, the coming out of the the tree area in that Northwest or Northeast corner. But it's still not aligned with the 2019 plan policy or uses. It's still too much too the scale isn't appropriate for where

it is.

Those other two corners we want to point to as industrial are, in fact, industrial. The two combined probably aren't 50% of this, acreage or square footage. So, I mean, the the scale is just out of place for me. And I don't think we've done enough to mitigate the impact for the folks who are on Carmichael on the road on the East. They're not gonna have a big tree buffer.

They're not gonna have the lower height buildings. They're they're it's gonna be right there. And the, you know, 80 feet of tree that's on their land is even if we plan a few new ones, you know, you the applicant showed a picture and said, look, you can see it from the the it's over by the church, Saint Francis, that industrial. That span of trees is incredibly deep compared to the 80 feet that these folks are gonna have. So if they can see it there, you know they're gonna see it at Carmichael when it's 40 feet tall. There's just there's no way around it. So while I appreciate we're concerned with the folks in Mayfair, I think we've neglected the folks on the eastern side, horribly. So I will not be supporting the motion.

Okay. Anybody else? Okay. So my comments on this from the beginning, was initially not supportive of it. And I kind of looked at with the JLMA joint land management area with the town.

And we had heard from some of the town council that they did not support this. They chose not to annex this property into the town, which is kind of the intent of a JLMA is that if a town is looking to expand its boundaries, here's the area that you can expand into. And so they chose not to. Now an application has come back to the county. In the comments we've received in our previous meetings and from what I heard when I went to the open house that the applicant had and also some council members, it's not a unanimous opposition to considering this.

And a lot of the residents I heard were not happy with the town by not annexing this in. So the opinion is to me from the community that we've heard is mixed. There wasn't a huge groundswell of we don't want this. We, you know, when you look at the numbers from the original public hearing, I think we had maybe a dozen folks speak out against it. The so I look at that and so that kind of mitigates from, you know, the consideration from my opinion it was the town input and the resident input.

Traffic problems are part of the town's own creation in my opinion by not connecting that road which forces that whole community and all the traffic to go east to Purcellville Road. We have some transportation things happening soon, is I think you probably all saw the 690 Route 7 Interchange has just been the I think it actually awarded the contract. So that is going to change some traffic patterns and I think that will put more pressure on getting that little connection made because that as it stands that would not be very useful use for these residents because they're gonna have to go east to go back to it. They won't do that. But if that road's connected, it will give them a better access to the town, the schools, and this new interchange.

I think Perceval Road itself is actually being improved to its from its current state even with the additional traffic with the dedicated turn lane into Mayfair as well as the improvements being made to Perceval Road. And also a little longer term plan is the improvements plan for Hearst and 287 and Route 7. When they come together, there's a plan to improve that intersection. So to me, the traffic is not a big concern. The buildings themselves over the time, you've dropped the heights thirty two and forty feet.

I think that is very reasonable for that area even in a semi rural area. I don't call it rural. It's just outside the town limits, which bordering it to the south is basically in my opinion suburban with both industrial and residential uses. It's more of a suburban type density. And as was mentioned, this air this quarter was always planned for commercial and a lot of legal settlements and a by right that you can't stop led to the residential on either end of it.

That doesn't change the fact that the best use for this swath of land was for an expanded industrial base. And as we all know, there's very little available anymore in the East to the data centers gobbling it all up. And where do you want to put this kind of square footage along Route 7 right outside of town that will have two interchanges that would be able to serve it fairly soon. This to me makes sense. And with the commitments of preserving that tree save area, that's kind of what put me over the top on this.

I think that's a big commitment on their part. As noted the staff report, this isn't just your typical second or third growth scrub trees. These are old growth, heavily wooded and leaving this in its natural state will be a big benefit. And so I appreciate that. And I can't see how they're going to maintain the square footage that they would like with this loss, but I'm comfortable not trying to pin them down to a number so they can manipulate it to the best that they can to meet whatever square footage are able to still fit on the property. So for those reasons, I will be supporting the motion. Anybody else? Commissioner Miller, you have a closing?

Not unless you all wanna hear me talk for three more minutes.

Alright. So we have a motion to approve. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Kay. So it looks like that will pass six two one with commissioner Barnes and commissioner Frank opposed and commissioner Jasper absent for the vote. Alright. Oh, staff, one last question. You had listed as an outstanding issue, just some technical revisions for ease of profit administration. Is that something that you guys will work out before it gets to the board? That was what you had listed? That is correct. Yes, that's what I thought. Okay.

Alright. Thank you very much. Yep. Why don't we take a quick ten minutes? We've been going for almost two and a half hours, so we'll start back up again at 08:30.

Okay. Alright. We will begin again. And our last item of the evening is Ledgy2024Dash59, Novak Demos Substation Commission permit 2024Dash10.

Good evening. My name is Erin Fisher with the Department of Planning and Zoning, and I'm here today to present the application for Novak Demos Station. The subject property is 26 acres located at the Northwest corner of the intersection of Belmont Ridge Road and Arcola Mills Drive in the Little River Election District. The property is zoned industrial park under the Loudoun County zoning ordinance. It is currently undeveloped and is being temporarily used as a construction staging area.

The site forms a boundary between the suburban suburban industrial mineral extraction place type to the east and suburban neighborhood place type to the north, south, and west. Site plans for the data centers are conditionally approved for the properties adjacent to the site's east property line, including Brambleton Shreveport South data centers, which the proposed substation would serve. The application is for a standalone commission permit to establish a public utility on approximately eight acres of the subject site as required by the zoning ordinance. By way of reminder, the active site plan application under staff review for the site is grandfathered to the revised 93 zoning ordinance, which did not require a special exception for the major utility use. So the application is not accompanied by a special exception.

On the screen, you see the proposed site layout. The substation is situated in the southeast corner of the site to avoid impacting the river and stream corridor resource area that constitutes most of the rest of the site. It will connect to the 230 kilovolt transmission corridor located on the adjacent property to the north identified in blue on the screen. Following the December 18 planning commission public hearing, the applicant made several updates to the application to mitigate the visual impact to the surrounding area. The applicant added a six foot tall berm on the south side of the subject property between the substation and Arcola Mills Drive, increased the height of the proposed screen wall to 16 feet, and relocated the wall onto the backside of the berm, providing an effective 20 foot visual barrier.

The enhanced type two road corridor buffer will soften the appearance of the screen wall as it matures. The applicant added a four foot tall berm on the eastern side of the subject property between the substation and Belmont Ridge Road and increased the height of the screen wall from 12 to 16 feet. The wall and an enhanced type two road corridor buffer plantings remain mostly behind the berm to avoid a utility easement area between the berm and the road. The applicant has proposed three screen wall facade design options for commission consideration. Option one is an earth tone masonry design.

Option two provides an architectural design matching the adjacent data center development. Option three provides a natural stone facade similar to that used for gateway signage for the Bramilton community. Note that option three would not be permitted to include wording or other aesthetic designs like those pictured overlaying the stonework without a signed permit. Staff finds that the added screening and buffering measures will effectively screen the majority of the substation equipment below the h frames from the sensitive uses on the south side of our Cola Mills Drive as well as road and trail users. Pending commission guidance on the screen wall facade design best suited to the area, staff finds the application updates consistent with the 2019 general plan policies and supports a commission recommendation of approval of the commission permit.

Staff received one public comment related to concerns of visual impact and potential business impacts caused by the perception that the proximity to the substation could negatively affect the health and safety of children attending the daycare adjacent to the southern portion of the site on our Cola Mills Drive. With that said, staff is happy to answer any questions.

Alright. Any questions for staff? Commissioner Myers?

One quick question. Pan Panavonic Panavonic, how would we say? Panovich. I'm sorry? Panovich. Panovich. You've got it all here in yellow, but isn't part of that PDIP? Because they came in for us with part of them being PDIP and then requesting the other one that abutted it to be PDIP, but this map shows it all as suburban.

So it's the place type versus the underlying zoning. So that graphic shows the place type that it's the suburban what's yellow? The

You're talking about the yellow

But the yellow is neighborhood. I mean, an IP wouldn't be neighborhood.

Correct. And that was the issue we brought up during the Panavich application was the zoning district was different than the the place

So part of it is part of it or did it all get through and it's all IP now, or is it still part IP?

It was the board did approve it, and it is zone IP.

So this isn't this isn't really suburban neighborhood. This really is IP. Where you've got drawn in red and you've got it shown as suburban neighborhood, it's not suburban neighborhood, it's IP.

The the place type remains. The board approved an IP alternative that was inconsistent with the plan, but they felt in that context, it was appropriate. And the commission felt it was appropriate.

My context. I'm just I'm just asking because to me, that's

why Yeah.

Yeah. So the the zoning didn't change the place type.

So you're telling me the place type has really changed. It's not residential anymore. The the approved use is no longer residential. The approved use now is industrial.

That's right. The approved use is residential, but the the placed overarching place type remains unchanged.

The place type is the land use that we envision as a county to locate there, which is residential. It's now zoned industrial. They're they're two different things.

I understand. But to me, you should One would change the other then because it's not suburban. It's anyway, I just wanted to verify it's nonresidential is really what is what the use is.

It's went through.

I mean, it's

really the closest piece to this property. That's what I wanted to just clarify. Okay.

The point we update the place type map, then that designation would likely change given what's been approved on the property.

Thank you.

Anything else? Nope. Okay. Commissioner Barnes?

Yeah. There are lots of housing up there right across from them on the other side that I see. And on the other side too, Evermont Terrace and these houses that I can look at the pictures here. There's the houses in there. So they were they're right close to it right across the street.

Correct. There are single family homes right across the street.

And they want to build that substation there?

Correct. He's asking you if they want to build the substation. Oh, do the residents?

I'm sorry.

We don't No, no. I'm not talking about resident. I'm talking about the applicant want to build the

substation. Correct.

That's too close to the resident. How can we approve it? It's right right next to them. That's what my question. I'm looking at homes right there and the property's right there across from it. No. That's not just residential too. And more coming down here, I see in the picture. So anyway, it looks like, I don't

John Murphy with over with is the closest residential up there. You know what that distance is? Do we have that measure? I don't know if I remember this part of the public hearing that you kind of talked about distances to did we know that?

Right. To where exactly?

So the neighborhood to the north. We're underneath in the yellow. You see where it says site, then above that it says suburban neighborhood. There's a street right there.

Yeah. It's about a thousand feet.

She meant it's about a thousand feet.

It's about a thousand feet.

Crosses the River Stream Corridor and is So the

property line is close to those homes but not the actual substation. It's at the southern end, so it's a significant distance away. Correct. Thousand feet. Okay. The other question I had, it's necessarily related just to this, but Belmont Ridge Road, as you're heading south from Evergreen Mills Road, there's you know, you got the fire department there and it tapers down from a four lane divided down to a two lane road down to Arcola Mill. Do you know what the plan is there a plan to widen that? Is that anywhere in the and I'm assuming if they were widening it, it would have walk, you know, trails on either side. Do you know if that's anywhere in the current plan?

Maria left, fortunately.

I haven't

I just answered thought this one from Yes.

Yeah. There is road widening along Belmont Ridge Road along this site, but not north of it. It's in the county wide transportation plan, but there's no plan for implementation at this time.

So there isn't a plan to widen that stretch or there is?

Only along the site. So the tech park at Bramilton Rezoning proffered to improve the road and it's either in design or under construction now.

So that that takes you almost up to because it's it's four lanes south of Evergreen Mill past the Arcola fire department there, and then it goes down to two. So if tech is widening it, then that would probably tie into the current four lane and take it down.

Correct. I can't remember if the bridge allows four lanes or not. But I think the CTP would anticipate it being four lane divided all the way down.

So that's a relatively small stretch.

Yeah. So. Okay. Yeah. There's other commitments to widen the road, but right now it's the two lane road.

Right. Okay. Thank you. So does the applicant have a presentation?

Yes, sir. Do. I think it's loaded in the system. My name is Gifford Hampshire. I'm with Blanket, Chip and Keith. Represent NOVAC. And to my right is Jake Holmes. He's with NOVAC. And to his right is Matthew McElhaney with Urban. And we're the project team.

And we were before you, as you may recall, just before Christmas on December 18. And as indicated in the staff report, the bottom line was that there was concern, as Commissioner Barnes has just voiced, about the proximity of the station to the residences to the south. And the specific thing that we were requested to consider, at that time, the wall the screening wall was 12 feet, and it was closer to the substation. We were asked to consider different treatments to better protect the residences to the south along Arcola Mills Drive, and that's

what we did.

This presentation will basically tell you that what we've done is to increase the size of the wall, as Ms. Fisher said, from 12 feet to 16 feet. But that's not all. We have also moved it closer to the road and put it on top on our Kilcola Mill side of a six foot berm, as Ms. Fisher said, with the effect increasing the height of the screening from 12 to about 20 feet, which will have the effect of screening everything but the H structure on the substation.

So that's basically a summary of what we're going to show you here. Getting To to some of the questions earlier, it is zoned IP that comes from a twenty twenty rezoning, which was ZMAP 2023 Brampton South Industrial. And it aligns with the rezone use in the area with the recognition, of course, that it is also close to some residential properties. Here's an aerial view. I need to give this a chance to work.

Our site is in the blue. The Evermont Trace community is to the north. As Ms. Fisher said, it's 1,000 feet to the north across the Rizgar and the environmental area. So that community to the north is well buffered.

To the right, we have a development undergoing, I call the Black Chamber Development, which has its own substation. And this substation will serve what's known as the Shreveport Rezoning from 1993, which is if you look to the right, you'll see a little curve in the road. That's basically the area that the data center will serve. You all are familiar with the 2232. Don't need to go over that.

Here's a summary of the elements of application. And there's a significant typo on this I just noticed. It says 12 foot wall. It's actually, as I just said a second ago, 16 feet. But you can see it aligns with that rezoning from 2020.

It's 1,000 feet from the community to the north. It's two fifty feet from the residential properties to the south. But with the higher wall, the berm and the other protections, we're going to I'm going to tell you about consistent with the plan, the Dominion power line is located just to the north adjacent property that's consistent with the comp plan idea of co locating electrical infrastructure. And it's we're using along the back of the property the risk our buffer in order to screen. That means we're preserving the natural vegetation.

The trees, as we will show, are fairly significant. They're going to be two inch caliber trees and 10 foot evergreen trees, which are going to grow in time to be some fairly significant trees as I will show you on a screen to come. And we will have safety protocols in place, etcetera. And I'll show you in a minute the stormwater runoff. Here is a slide.

A little bit hard to see in this detail, but the green is the road corridor buffer. What's significant about that is you don't have just a regular road corridor buffer of deciduous trees. You have an additional 10 foot evergreen strip in the back of that, which again is going to be on top of a six foot berm to the south and a four foot berm to the east there. The orange that you see is the 16 foot screened wall. In the back of the property, you will see and one of the reasons why we have kind of a delicate balance here is because we have to stay out and we have struggled mightily to stay out of the environmental features, yet bring the substation as far away from the residences as possible to the south.

But we will have also a six foot board and board fence to the west there, which will face the risk our buffer. We have on-site stormwater management. You can see the LID structures, which are the low impact development. But the arrows you see there will be the on-site underwater stormwater treatment. And as Ms.

Fisher said, we have following the public hearing on the December 18 where we heard about wall treatments, we are offering three different treatments that Ms. Fisher told you about. This is the first one, which is kind of the standard wall that we have used and we believe Dominion uses as well. This is one that's consistent with the development in the area. And then finally, this one is consistent with the residential community. Of course, we're not proposing the letters or anything else. But if you just look at the texture and the color, that's what we would be proposing and we're willing to do any one of those. Here's the board on board fence to the back next to

features.

And this shows you the distances, the 1,000 feet to the Evergreen Evermont Trace to the north, the two fifty feet to the there are two residential homes there to the south and there's also the daycare facility. This is the same picture Ms. Fisher showed you. You can see how the berm and the wall work together to raise the effective height of the screening to 20 feet which will, because of the higher elevation, will completely screen everything but the eight structures from the residential community across Arcola Mills Drive. Here's a view in the field.

There is some construction going on now because, as Ms. Fisher says, it's a staging area. There's some road widening going on. But you can see to the right there, that is the existing screening to the right of the residential homes, the two fifty foot distance across our Coleman Drive. So that screening that's already there in conjunction with the screening I'm going to show you in a minute will have an aggregate or symbiotic effect, if you will, in screening the substation.

Here's a view of that screening from you're looking from the site now south across Arcola Mills Drive in its current condition, which shows right of the daycare center. And here's our picture, Arcola Mills Drive. Remember I talked about the deciduous trees with the evergreens behind them, the 16 foot wall on top of berm. So this is our rendering of what it would look like in five years. And then here's our rendering of what it would look like in fifteen to twenty years.

Those deciduous trees will actually get pretty big, maybe even up to 90 feet. And the evergreens could get up to 30 or 40 feet over the course of fifteen to twenty years. You will still see the H structure there in the background, but those should do a pretty good job of a very good job, in fact, of screening it from those residential structures. Here's the same thing from Belmont Ridge Road five years after the planting. Same sort of trees are going be used there.

And then fifteen to twenty years as best we can tell. Here's the view currently from Evermont Trace. That's 1,000 foot distance away, which has the environmental features between it and the substation. So that's kind of what you see now and so rendering of what you would see in the future. You can kind of see the HVAC structures in the back.

So that's what we have to show you. In summary, we've tried to be responsive to the concerns we heard on just before Christmas on December 18. And we think we've done the best job we can given the delicate balance we have to stay out of that environmental area, but also screen the residential community to the south across our Coal Mills Drive. And we're ready to answer any questions.

All right. Thank you. Any questions for the applicants? Mr. Collins.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for listening to the Planning Commission at public hearing. I appreciate the additional height for the screening of the three options. I like the third one best, the one that matches more of the Bramilton architecture. That's good to know. I'm curious, and I think we discussed this but I could be wrong, at public hearing. Is a GIS substation feasible here?

We did talk about that a little bit. It's just not feasible. It's not something that NOVAC does at this time. It doesn't have a single substation that is GIS. And it's just not something that we're authorized to consider at this point in time. Our management is still studying the whole concept.

If, for example, and I'm asking you to speculate here, if, for example, it would be feasible because there's authorization to construct it, do you have a sense of what the difference would be in terms of screening between a GIS substation and what you're proposing here? I

have a real good educated feeling about that except that I think it would be pretty much the same. I mean, to the extent that you want the building, the GIS screen, they would need to be pretty much the same screening, I would think, given the location of the homes to the south and the proximity of other features.

Okay. Thank you. That's it for now.

Okay. Commissioner Myers?

I just wanna make sure I understand. So really the 16 foot fence wall is just on two sides of the property. Right?

That's right. And

then turn the I'm sorry.

Okay. I'm sorry. The two roads are Carla Mills Drive and Belmont Ridge.

But then as you but then on the other I mean, which is still on part of the road to the left then as you go back, then there would be that's gonna be just a six foot board on board? Like if what page

is this?