Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I'd like to call to order the uh April 15, 2026 meeting of the Montgomery County Planning Commission. And before we get started with the process, I'd like to introduce a new member of our group, Mr. Steve Stradlin, uh, formerly of the Board of Supervisors and the Board of Zoning Appeals. So, I don't know if this is a step up or a step down, but it's great to have you here. Welcome. Have you got anything you would like to say?

Uh, well, thank you, Bill. I appreciate it. I look forward to serving with everyone. I would just think it might be a lateral move because we're all here to work together and make McGomery County better. And uh I'm actually, just to give a little history, uh uh local boy, born here, raised here, and I plan to be planted here at one some point in time. So, uh I look forward to serving with everyone here on the planning commission. Thank you. Well, welcome. Miss Sharp Robinson, would you determine a quorum, please? Sure. Uh, Commissioner Spradlin, present. Commissioner Croll here.

Commissioner Rice here. Commissioner Miller here. Commissioner Workman here. Commissioner Simpkins here. Vice Chair Lincoln here. Chair Foster here. And me. Yep. We're all here. We have 100%. We do. Yeah, we do. Probably should note that in the minutes. Next item is approval of the agenda. Is there a motion? Second. Second. Second. Mr. Lincoln seconds. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Motion carries. Next item is approval of the consent agenda. Is there a motion? I'll make a motion.

Second. Mr. Workman and Mr. Miller. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I.

Opposed. Motion carries. Next item is a public hearing. Um, Rez 26-2 request of Carolyn Flinchum to reszone 6359 acres of a 15.79 acre parcel from manufacturing M1 to agricultural A1. Property is located at 1220 Panorama Drive and is further identified as tax map 029- A8. Parcel ID is 025376. Miss Wright.

Thank you, Chair Foster. Tonight we have the resoning in front of you that includes the property highlighted by the star on the left. It's located in the top cornerish of the county right outside the town of Blackburg limits. And then on the right we have a zoomed in aerial map that shows that it is near Mount Taber Road. On the left is the property outlined in yellow is what we're talking about tonight and it is on Panorama Drive which is a private road. On the right is the zoning map and you can see that everything in the area of the zoning map is green indicating agricultural and then there's that little purple L-shaped area. That is what we are talking about tonight. that is zoned manufacturing with profers and it was done so in 1998. As I said in 1998 the board of supervisors voted to reszone a 0.6359 acre portion of the parcel from A1 to M1 with profered conditions. And they also approved a special use permit for a contractor's storage yard to be used on that reszone property. The property use is no longer commercial and the use of a contractor's storage yard was um ceased more than two years ago and is used private use only now. So the special use permit is now void. The owner's nephew would like to subdivide the parcel to create one new lot for himself and that is what initiated this process. A single wide manufactured home exists on the property, but it is not

habitable, and the applicant's nephew, Mr. Rackcliffe, plans to replace that single wide in the future. On the left is a picture of the garage that was used for the contractor's storage yard, but is now exclusively used for private use. And on the right is a picture of the 15 foot private access ement that you see um that you'll see on the plat that was provided in your packet. That 15 ft access, it provides um access to the substation at the rear of a property as well as a home that's located adjacent to the property. This is an aerial of the property showing the garage which is in the lower leftand corner. The non-habitable single wide that is to the right of the garage and then that access to 1216 Panorama Drive which is the um manufactured home on the or the home on the left with the pond as well as the substation on the rear of the property. on the left is a sign posted at the site um showing you can also see the natural landscaping that that is there and the nonhabitable single wide that was mentioned and then on the right is the sign that was posted at Mount Taber Road and Panorama Drive to announce that there was an application Impacts are minimal because the 15 foot rideaway provides access to the home and the adjacent pro parcel with substation. The site is served by private septic and well and any future traffic or infrastructure needs for a new lot would

be evaluated during the new plat process. No changes or improvements are being proposed. The comprehensive plan designates the parcel as resource stewardship, which is defined as a high resource value based on soil types, environmental sensitivity, or other unique characteristics, and includes land preserved through public or private conservation easements. Although this parcel is not in an AFD, several parcels parcels that are located on Panorama Drive are enrolled in agricultural and forestal districts. There is a goal that's being met by reszoning this that supports resource stewardship area land uses. Staff analysis found that the proposed downzoning does meet regulations and creates fewer impacts. significantly the the application would mean that it is significantly more consistent with the goals of future land use designation map and reszoning this parcel eliminates a split zone parcel and returns the parcel to a land use that is more reflective of its current use. Staff recommends approval of the request to downzone the parcel or the portion of the parcel from manufacturing to agricultural. All adjacent property owners were notified in accordance with county and state code. Public hearing signs were placed at the property and at the entrance onto the private drive. Legal ads were properly published in the local media and staff has received no inquiries related to this request. Additional comments may be received during the public hearing. And Mr.

Rackcliffe, who is here on behalf of his aunt and who will be the recipient of the new lot when it's created, is here to answer any questions that you may have. Excuse me. Are there questions of Miss Wright or do you wish to pose any questions to the applicant? I don't think so. Comments, observations. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Miller.

Just a question. Um, Miss Flinchum owns the property and is there some presumption that she will sell or deed this property to her nephew or is does that make a difference to us? It it doesn't really make a difference. Um, so the reasonzoning as it was approved had a profered condition that stated it could only be used for the business that existed at the time of the approval. That business no longer exists, right?

Um, so technically there's no use currently for the property. Um, so reszoning it brings it into compliance with its current use um, regardless of whether she she deeds it to her nephew or not. Um so but that is how it started um is she was wanting to divide this off to give to her nephew and we said whoa it's manufacturing and we then started this process. Thank you Miss Wright. Uh are there any uh conditions attached to this recommendation? No. Since this is a resoning any conditions would be voluntary profers.

Okay. And um there are none. Okay. Just wanted to be sure. Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments? Is there a motion for the staff recommending? Do what? Open public hearing. I thought we had already done that. I apologize. I'm moving ahead faster than I should.

That's okay. So we will now have a public hearing and invite anyone who wishes to address the planning commission on any topic or not any topic on this public hearing please come forward and seeing none we will close the public hearing. Now, is there a motion to um with respect to the staff recommendation? I'll make the motion for approval of the reasoning request. There second. Second,

Mr. Rice and Mr. Miller, Miss Shar Robinson. All right. Commissioner Sprdlin. Uh, Commissioner Croll. Yes. Commissioner Rice, yes. Commissioner Miller, yes. Commissioner Workman, yes. Commissioner Simkins, yes. Vice Chair Lincolnis, yes. Chair Foster, yes. Secretary Robinson, done. Yes.

Thank you. Motion carries unanimously and we will move to public address and the floor is open at this time for any comments from the audience on any topic other than the public hearing. And seeing none, I will close public address. Let's move now to item seven, work session. Discussion of Montgomery matters. Is there a motion to go into work session? So move. Mr. Miller, is there a second? Mr. Lincolnis. All those in favor? I I opposed. Motion carries.

Okay. So, I do want to remind everyone before Justin gets started, um, these work sessions are very important to us as staff as we go through them. And it's not just for the McGomery Matters, but for any of the things we bring to you in work session. This is a time for you all to ask any questions, um, voice any concerns, and it's really a time for you all to discuss so that way we can fine-tune everything before we put it out to the public and then before we take it to public hearing. Um, that ensures everything stays on a timeline. Um, the only time, um, it also helps us when we get to public hearing. nothing gets held up in public hearing unless it's something new um like the applicant has presented a new plan or um citizens have brought forth something that hadn't been considered before. So, please use this time to give us your feedback um to tell us your concerns, to ask your questions. We may not always know the answers, but we will definitely go find them for you. Um but this is your time to to give us your input um so we can move this process forward. Justin's going to talk to you about the Shawville and Ellison Lefayet village plan um because we did have our final open house out that way two weeks ago um now and so we've received all the input from the citizens. We have already identified one or two little things I think that that need to be updated um in the latest information and then this will be your first indepth look at the future land use map. Please keep in mind that this is still a draft. It has not been it's not anything in stone. It's not even like a final draft. Um this is a rough draft of the future land use map. We're here to get input. It could change. We have not been to Auburn yet and we have not been to um Prices Fork. So after those meetings there could be some changes to the areas and then of course

if you all have some suggested changes there could be some changes there too. Um, so we're we're wanting to get your input on both of these this evening and have a discussion so we can move forward. Justin, thank you.

So, as Brie mentioned, we were back in Eastern Montgomery uh two weeks ago uh sharing uh our findings from both Shawville and Ellison Lefayet. Um what we found going through the process is that um because we held those meetings separately um when we did engagement back in the fall of last year, a lot of the recommendations, a lot of the same citizens were coming to both meetings. Um so even though they're distinct separate villages, there's a lot in common uh between the two villages. Um I think that should be apparent because they share the same transportation corridor. I think what we've seen uh with responses from members of the villages, they're maybe living in Ellis and Lefayet but going to Shawville through things and vice versa. Um and even folks that maybe live on those fringes are sort of living between both villages and interacting in those villages. So as I go through the separate plans, you'll notice a lot of similarities. Um and it'll uh we'll discuss a little bit more how that looks in terms of land use. Um so we'll start in Shawville. um wanted to pull some uh items out of the engagement report that you were sent. Um so we asked some key questions really to get an idea from the citizens in the villages of what sorts of land uses they wanted to look at in the villages, what sort of densities they wanted to look at. Um so we have a couple of statements here. Um villages are mainly residential and serve as a focal point for rural areas. The majority of folks agreed with that statement. Um there was a an overwhelming agreement that villages are where limited mixeduse development could occur. And we'll get to the nuance of that as we go a little bit further. Um and something that we heard resoundingly in all of the villages is that every village should be looked at as an independent entity. We shouldn't treat all villages the same and we shouldn't treat the villages like miniature versions of the towns. So go back. Okay. Make sure I didn't skip a slide there. So, um, going through the

process, there were some key concepts that were identified through our village engagement, through the surveys that were done. Um, and these are the five top qualities that really emerged for the citizens in Shawville that they wanted to ensure was reflected in their village plan, um, and in the county's plans for growth in the next 20 years. We heard a lot about community and relationships, that it's a small, close-knit community, that the residents enjoyed the rural and natural environment of Shawville, that there was a really rooted sense of history and a pride in being from Shawville, that Shawville offered small town feel with good quality of life, and that residents thought that they had good amenities and wanted to see those continued forward and more investment in those areas. Um and in the word cloud here you can see some of the words that sort of came up the most in our discussions with the citizens. Community that rural nature that sense of home. So going a little bit further in the types of amenities that the citizens wanted to see in the village. Uh we asked these questions and got responses back. So the majority of the citizens felt that trails or a greenway system would be nice to have uh or must have more shopping and food options. As you can see, there's pretty overwhelming response there that they would like to see a few more options in the village. Um, this one was a little perplexing. I'm not sure why vegetation and tree cover was was a little bit divisive for 10% of the population, but there were some folks there that felt like we didn't need more vegetation in the area. Um, community center, again, very highly ranked. Major employers, this was an even split uh between the three answer categories. Um, I think here what we saw is that people just didn't want to see a lot of people coming into the village to work during the day and then immediately leaving. There was some sentiment that there's not a lot of investment in the community if you're just coming in to work and then immediately leaving the village. Um, pretty overwhelming uh that that parking should be considered. We had a

good amount of people that said we should avoid additional parking. Some folks that said that nice parking would be nice to have. What we found there is people just wanted to see the existing party parking utilized better uh in the village and making sure that there was parking available for the resources that they were visiting. Arts and cultural events were pretty overwhelmingly popular and then uh again protection of historic sites was very high uh on the musthaves list for the citizens there. Um and then I listed out those percentages there for you as the must-have amenities. So, excuse me, Justin. Can I do you mind if we interrupt along the way? Absolutely.

Um, so it seems like there's a bit of a contradiction between these answers and the wanting to keep things residential within the villages. How so what we found through conversations and digging a little bit deeper with folks is they wanted to see

re revitalization, infill development, uh, and and using the resources and the assets that were there. when we started talking about growth, um, people were very immediate to dismiss this idea of new construction, new development in the village, but when we started getting a little bit deeper and talking about the other ways that the village could grow, people were much more receptive to reusing the existing building stock that's there, infilling in areas that were already a little bit dense uh, in the village core. So, there's there's again some nuance in the answers there, I think, between new construction and using what's already in existence. Mr. Sanders. Yes.

Is there an area, a street or multiple streets that you identified as quote commercial? That is coming in the presentation. So, if you don't mind giving me a couple of slides to get there, we'll talk about that specifically. I have another one. Your major employers question. You indicated that there was not a lot of interest in having people come in and not be invested and leave. Correct. Um if everything's breaking down in thirds, how did you draw that conclusion?

So again, it's the conversations that we're having with people at the meetings and the survey comments that we were receiving. Um, what we were getting from folks was that they wanted mom and pop stores, locallyowned and operated. When they heard that term major employer, they were thinking industrial uses or big box stores, and they wanted to avoid that. But when we dug down again a little bit deeper in the conversations with folks, we saw this trend that it was small community-based businesses that they wanted to see in the village. All right. Were these people that you spoke with at the uh evenings with with the stickers and

Yes, sir. So, those were at countywide meetings. We had village participation in the village itself and then also through both the social pinpoint survey that we did for each village and then the larger community survey that we did at the beginning of the process. Thank you. Yes sir. I have a question. um on the protect historical sites. Is that people that that are saying that um I've got a historical site and I need help protecting it? I mean through grants or or

there's a bit of that. There was a lot of conversation around historic tax credits and the designation of a local historic district. There was a lot of conversation centered around protection of individual residential properties that may have a history in the village. But there was also a piece of that that was historic cemeteries, ag um archaeological sites that could potentially be in the area that folks wanted to see those items protected. Um but really that question really got to again that reuse of historic buildings but also a protection program um for landmarked buildings. Um a lot of folks were very afraid of some of these older residential structures that have history um falling into disrepair and then being a blight in the community. Um, so there was a lot of conversation that was had with citizens about what tools and resources would be there um to help them with that protection. And again, that goes back to the overarching historic preservation goal in the main comprehensive plan.

Yeah. So So as long as somebody's saying, "I I want help protecting what I own or or then then I'm I'm all for that trying to help protect and give them the avenues for protection that they they need. But if it's somebody saying, "I don't want somebody else to develop their property and calling it historical," then, right? And and the way that the the programs and the grant funding opportunities and the designations work, there would have to be property owner buyin for any of that to happen. That couldn't be enforced by the county or state government in any way. Thank you.

So, um, as with the larger comprehensive plan, each village is going to have a vision statement. And again, this is crafted from phrasing and words that we we got in the village meetings, in the larger county meetings, and the surveys. Um, so I won't read it to you, but it was provided to you in your packet. And then again, some key takeaways that we got through this village engagement. um established a defined commercial village center, restoration of the Metobrook Library and Community Center with additional features and amenities, modernization of the middle school, revitalization of Oldtown Road area and restoring those historic buildings, park amenities. Uh again, more trees and landscaping. Uh focusing on lowdensity neighborhoods. That's something that we heard really resoundingly from the citizens that they did want to see growth, but they wanted it to be single family, two family, maybe even some town homes, but nothing like large apartment complexes in their in their area of the village. Um, small local businesses that got to the point that was asked earlier, uh, manageable growth at an appropriate scale and then preserving the history of the area. Um, something that we were able to do working with the consultants is we were able to to use some uh photo manipulation and sort of reinvision some of these historic buildings uh to see what new life could bring there uh into the core of the village. So, looking at the land use map, Mr. Foster, to your question, uh, this is based on our existing zoning within the Shawville village of what would be allowed. Um, we'll get to this when we get to the future land use conversation later, but our existing future land use map and our existing village maps have a number of different land use categories. Um, something that staff really wanted to do was in any way that we could to simplify those maps to make them more interpretable for developers and citizens. Um, and to we had a lot of land use categories that were basically saying the exact same thing. Um, so we really wanted to pull back and really

take that down to as few land use categories as we could. So based on the current zoning, the current land uses within the village. Um, you see here a breakdown between what we're calling the downtown areas of Shawville and the suburban areas of Shawville. Um, and I'll just point out a few landmarks for you. This is again route 11460. Um, we have a large mobile home community at the corner at the edge of the village. Uh, that's uh that it's identified here. We have residential along this area here as well. Um, and you can see lots of open space uh in the rest of the village. So, we did an exercise at our village meetings and at the u larger meetings here at the government center where we asked people to show us where they would want to see commercial development, where they would want to see housing, and where they would want to see preservation of open space uh in vistas. And you can see here, that's where these dots come in. If you've heard anything about our open houses, you know that people got a lot of sticky fingers from all the dots that we asked them to place. Um, but again, you can see a concentration here in the middle of the village. Again, establishing that downtown core within the village that's mostly commercial or mixed use. And then we have some areas that were identified for housing. And then when you get to the uh eastern portion of the village, you start seeing a lot more of those yellow dots come in. So what that looks like graphically on a map is here. Um so again we have kind of that defined commercial core. We have some residentially um categorized areas here. Um and so we looked at that against a number of different metrics that we had already established in terms of flood planes, steep slopes, um infrastructure availability, a variety of different factors. and we've come up with this map. Again, much more contained along Route 11460, a much more defined commercial core in

Shawville. Um, and then we get up to this portion of Shawville. This is out at OldTtown Road. Um, and then we get again into the suburban areas. Again, these are those larger residential areas. Now, all of this to say and to Breeze Point, there are some other factors that we still need to factor in with these village land use recommendations. the majority of this area is in flood plane. Um, and we know from our conversations with the citizens in our best efforts as staff to not recommend development in hazard areas, we're going to really need to be sensitive about any recommendations for growth in that part of the village. There's also a concentration here along Reife Street with the opening of Creedfields Park um that there's maybe some more appetite for some more residential development in that area in the next 20 years. So is there a reason possibly to consider excluding flood planes from the village boundary instead of doing it through a land use designation?

So I think it's important to keep it within the boundary but through the UDA. Yeah, keep it in the boundary of the UDA because again that qualifies us for funding opportunities that we wouldn't have if it was outside of the boundary. Um but the other thing is we also don't want to make the villages only commercial and residential. We want to make sure we're balancing that open space. Um, and those areas could be potentially looked at for other uses. We can look at storm water um, mitigation strategies in those areas. And again, those being within the UDA, to your point, Mr. Cole, opens us up for other funding opportunities.

The other thing we want to remember is how it has developed. We don't want to ignore what's already there. So, if we have an area that's developed in that suburban way, we want to recognize that, hey, it's already developed in that way. It doesn't mean that there's going to be new development, but it means maybe they want to revitalize it. Maybe they want to do something to enhance it or to improve it. And if it's not within that village area, then it might be hard to get funding from state grants and things like that to help do that. Um, but it could also be hard to make it through any type of zoning process if we have said absolutely no development. So, for instance, with the mobile home park, it is in the flood zone. It's not in a flood way. So, it can be developed. It just has to meet a certain criteria and as they have been replacing units there over the years um as they pull one out when they come in the office we do make them meet the current flood zone criteria. So we do make them go and have an elevation certificate put in the flood elevate flood foundation elevate the home where it's supposed to be. Um but this this just adds that other layer of of protection for those areas. um and gives us the ability to recognize, hey, we know that there's development here. Yes, it's a flood zone. Um it's still a suburban development as it exists today. Um that doesn't necessarily mean that we want it to get any denser. So just because you see that doesn't mean it's necessarily going to grow any more than what it is today. But we do need to accurately reflect what is there.

Yeah. And I think this map reflects and what we've been talking about through this entire 2-year process is that that highwire we are walking of balancing the need for future growth but also recognizing what we hear resoundingly from our citizens not only through this process but what we hear at public hearings when we get new development proposals is that they want the rural nature of the county to be showcased. That's the reason they love to live outside of the towns. Um, and so it's finding that balance of recommending a growth strategy that is compact, that is logical. And you can see here in Shawville, a lot of this land that people talk about with the farmland, they talk about with the open vistas, the viewsheds, the majority of that within the village boundaries is going to be recommended to be maintained. So we're again striking that balance as much as we can.

Is uh water and sewer available throughout the whole area? Yes, water and sewer. So when we when we look at the village boundaries um with two caveats of the later villages that we'll talk about that area that you see is the area that is served by public water and sewer. That's why the village boundary was drawn in the way it was uh the last time we did the village plans and we're recommending carrying that going forward. So what we're looking at here that that is the total village right there. That is the that is everything that's designated as village and village expansion in the current comprehensive plan. And and so we have the we have the blue and then the gray blue. What what is the the vast majority of that that color there kind of

so it would be open space uh preserved lands uh in the in the village.

So there could be some rural development. There might be a single family home or a duplex or something that could go in those areas, but you're not going to see the type of density low density residential, medium density residential that you'll see in suburban. Um and then in downtown and I've actually referenced the handout that you were given. Um we tried to create for you like to like um in the new recommended future land use map and our existing land use. So uh village downtown would be our mixeduse civic and highdensity residential in the existing plan and then suburban would be that low density medium density civic and open space in the existing plan. So again, simplifying the map down um as much as we can and then recognizing what we've heard from the citizens and the other analysis that we've done. I I will say it should be noted too some of these properties that are in this open space are in AFD district

or in conservation or in a conservation easement which is why they're shown um as not being colored is is because a lot of that ex especially the Waldron area the what the around the Waldron farm most of that area um up spring branch is in an AFD district right and so there were the little 11 Route 11 sign is where is that right there? That seems like there's a So, you're saying that there's water and sewer potentially available there, but we're taking it off off.

So, again, there's there's a couple of different layers of analysis that's in this map. So, there's area there that's in conservation easement. There's area there that's in AFD. Um there's other restrictive covenants that are on the land there. Um and again in order to concentrate everything and and get that density there, that's the recommendation that's being put forward. So yeah, there there might be public water and sewer access there that would be uh favorable for development, but there's another restriction that has caused that land to be excluded from that overlay.

Okay. Is there also a um are you still working through the nomenclature? I mean, when you're calling this a downtown area in a village that specifically is not intended to be a town, per se, uh it seems like that if if we're already settling on that, um nomenclature and also suburban um you know, is or would it be better to look at something like village mixed use for the develop commercial residential development

and we're certainly open to other suggestions on the naming. Um, again, we tried to capture the land uses in the existing village map under those categories, but we're not married to the name downtown or business. But I would say that when we present this in a staff report, it would be village, downtown, village, suburban, not just downtown or suburban. And Justin, when when we have when we have these meetings, you said 30 people. I think I saw 37 people show up. Do we know if they've got land use u experience or or or education or are they neighbors that are

I mean they're property owners, they're business owners. Um not just within the village meetings, but we had representatives on the steering committee from the villages as well. they were having conversations in the community. Um, and again, I want to come back to again the mandate that we were given by the board of supervisors was a citizen-driven, citizen-led plan. Um, so yes, the citizens are in all of the other factors that we're weighing, they're having a say in what they want to see in their village. Okay, Justin, could I ask a question, please? Sure.

You you're at a learning curve here. You've not been with us for the past two years during this exercise. Uh what was the determining factor to cause the large trailer park and refeed to be included in the Shawville village plan and not included in the Alist plan? Because to me the uh the natural boundary would be the Ronok River where you cross right there right below Hail's restaurant.

Right. So when when we began this process uh and I'll I'll admit from the staff perspective when we were getting our initial feedback from the village engagement because again as I mentioned everything was so similar between the two

um we had a conversation of does this merge into one large village route 11460. Um but when we get to those edges those were pretty um pretty well held by the citizens that they wanted those boundaries to stay as they were. Yeah, the exterior boundaries of the villages actually has not changed. Um, and and we did we we talked at length about eastern Montgomery Village and and just having one village because it's all right there on the 4611 corridor, right?

And you could still have that middle area shown as open space. Um but the the citizens were were not um at all receptive to that. Yeah. Um and they very much said no we're Shawsville and they are Elliston Lefayet and so we we maintain that are in the trailer park and RIFE Street. Yes. I always thought when we when I cross the bridge I'm in Elsa and that's actually where the sign is. Yes. Um but yes, so we we um we we did not um further push that issue. Okay. Okay. I just thought

it's a great question though because again it was I thought that was interesting. Our thoughts at the beginning of the process were were leading us in that direction but the citizens quickly made sure we course corrected on that. We had the best idea. Mr. I can assure you that you did not based on the citizenry. It's not too many years ago the chainsaws were involved in cutting down each other's signs. I remember that. Mr. Sanders. Yes, sir. Do you know what the population of the Shawville villages? That's a good question. I'm not sure if the census tracks down to that level, but we will we will pull that answer if we can.

I'll ask it again for Alist.

Um, the other thing, Mr. And and again, we're open to discussions about the nomenclature. I I want to warn us from going too far in saying that suburban is just residential because what if there's a community business that wants to go in that area? Um really when we were thinking about suburban and downtown, it was more of a density question as opposed to a type of land use question. Um that mixeduse commercial development really was what the citizens were telling us they wanted to see. in what we're labeling the downtown areas. Um, but it wasn't, you know, with suburban, you could have a home occupation, you could have a small country store, um, something that's serving maybe a smaller demographic than what you may be seeing in the downtown area. So, I would I would be very cautious with saying it's just residential or it's just mixed use, but again, we're open to to how we name those that make the most sense. So I have a question on Shawville and Elliston and I kind of heard Brie say it.

They identify as I am from Shawville. Yes. There's not separate pockets. They are all Shaw villians I guess I would say or Shawville villagers unlike Price's Fork which is built on five different like Wake Forest, McCoy, Long Shop. Okay. Correct. All right. And when we get to the future land use map, Miss Sharp Robinson, we're going to get into more of those distinctions, particularly around prices fork um with recommendations in the land use map regarding settlements and rural development areas. Not trying to get ahead of the game, but I was just trying to understand that

yeah, it's very different like they are an entity obviously to themselves as is Ellist and Lefayet. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Foster. You were gonna ask a question. I'm sorry. I did already. Okay. Thank you. All right, I'm gonna go ahead and move on to Elliston and Leette.

Yes, sir. Uh I was at the dual meeting and uh talked with several friends at one time I spent my working day in that area. uh many compliments to you and to your consulting firm. Uh the miniatures for example where you took the derelic buildings on Oldtown Road and showed them as a theater or you know or restaurant or whatever you know that that for a lot of people that built excitement in the whole process. So

yeah, again it's that what could be. Um obviously there are a lot of decisions that have to be made over the course of the next 10 to 20 years to make that a reality. But again showing what could be for folks I think gets them out of this well this is how it is right now and or maybe this is how it's always been since I've lived here. Um but it's again introducing that idea of possibility. All right. So again, moving into Ellison, again, a lot of what we're seeing is going to be comparable to what we saw in Shawville. Um, in Ellison, again, villages are mainly residential. We had a little bit more of a break here. There were a little a few more people that said no here. Um, which I thought was interesting. I I do want to caveat this with we we did do this meeting in the fall and as you'll remember, we had a pretty controversial housing development proposal in that particular village during that time. So we we acknowledge that some of the results could have been skewed because of proximity to that event. Um again kind of a split here on mixed use. Uh 50% of folks said no, we don't want to see mixeduse development. Um but again that nuance of when you start having the conversations with the respondents, they don't want to see new construction, but they do want to see revitalization of what's already in the village. Um and again pretty overwhelming response to the villages are unique from each other and unique from the towns. So, the things that came to the top here in Elson Lefayet, community and people, um, a community that cares about each other, close-knit relationships, again, that rural and natural environment, wanting to ensure that that's protected, uh, a sense of home and history, uh, amenities and services, and then economic opportunity. And again, this is where when we get into the conversations with folks, you had 50% of folks that said they didn't want mixeduse development, but then economic opportunity really rises up. So I think again it really goes back to scale and it goes back to local ownership of the

businesses that you're seeing within the village is the desire of the residents there. Um and again the word cloud community was was a really big response beautiful people home. Um and again going into the amenities that folks would like to see protection of historic sites again very big uh in Elliot. Um a community center uh ranked fairly high. What we found though is a lot of folks in Ellison Lefayed are going to the Metabrook Center. Again, kind of that back and forth between the two villages. Um, arts and cultural events ranked fairly high. Again, more shopping and food services. Uh, a little bit lower here for the trail system than what we saw in Shawville. Um, and again, uh, more trees and vegetation. Um, we saw here too, parking, really wanted to avoid parking. Um, big sentiment there. We had a lot of folks uh in Elson Lefayet that were very concerned about runoff um from paved areas and asphalt. Um so that I think was probably what skewed that one a little bit more as well. Draft vision statement there for Ellist. Again, while it is similar to Shawville, we wanted to make sure that there was a unique vision statement for each village. Um takeaways, wanting to see redevelopment in the village, supporting new local businesses, especially in the village center, new affordable housing at a sustainable pace, finding opportunities to add more recreational opportunities, expansion of travel options. Uh this was, I think, particularly around folks that were talking about multimmodal transit. Um being able to have a bus connection to either the two towns or even over to Ronoke. Um and then protection of farmland and historic resources. So again based on our existing zoning map this is uh what we're seeing in terms of the land use map based on existing zoning. Um again couple of different centers

here in Ellison. You have sort of um the historic Ellison area. You have up here at the interstate at um and then you have the area here um yes Cove Hollow Road. Um and then the actual village of Lefayet. So we did the exercise with them as well uh during our village meetings and our county meetings. Um again shouldn't surprise you all. A lot of yellow dots on the portion that was added to the village um in and around father and gay. Um housing opportunities here. Uh this is uh the corridor. I'm trying to sorry trying to remember which corridor that is. Bri again the commercial though cluster here in in what would be called downtown Ellison. Um some commercial cluster here in the industrial park in the old canery facility. um and then up here at Toronto. But you could see housing was uh more in the eastern portion of the village, middle and eastern portion of the village. But we did have some respondents that said they wanted to see some housing uh here in the western portion of the village nearest Shawville. So when that's mapped out, this is what that kind of looks like in terms of the the downtown versus suburban. Um that was Callaway Street, Bri. um where that cluster was. Uh again down here in and around this the two schools u was an area that was identified for potential housing. Um here again um portions of near the industrial park. Um and then interestingly up here at Toronto people were a little bit divided. Um there are some folks that really don't like the loves that went in at the interstate interchange and we heard that from some folks during the village engagement process. So that

maybe have skewed that a little bit. Um but again sort of trying to find a compromise approach trying to find a balance of the growth and the open space. Um this is the recommendation. Um so again uh having much more of a downtown density development feel in Lefayet uh here in this area central to the village the old uh downtown part of the village. Um and then we paid a lot of attention to our recommendation in this section. Um obviously we heard a lot of feedback during the father and gay uh conversation and expanding the village. Um so the recommendation that's going to go forward um is sort of a balanced approach containing that development closer into the schools making sure that this open space area uh stays preserved in and around the father and gay estate. Um and again looking at where we can recommend some limited housing um to meet the needs of the village. So, I'll stop there because I have a feeling we'll have some comments here as well. Okay.

And I will say that one thing we talked about um up off of the interchange and we would like your input. Um Justin and I have thrown that around. It has mainly developed as commercial. I I don't see it developing in a suburban way. I see it developing more as that commercial. So, maybe that should be the darker color. Um but we we wanted to get some feedback on that um to to see what your thoughts were.

I I agree 100%. I think that you know just by definition being at a major interchange off of the interstate it and also they had the special um zoning for mixed drinks. I I don't advocate interstates and alcohol going together, but that tells me that we're talking commercial. And I think even the quarter mile radius might be a little bit tight for that. But I think that people need to expect when you have a major interstate, that's got to be a cluster of commercial development for the county because

you don't want it in these other areas. Where else is it going to go? And that's where the demographics for the decision makers for building those types of facilities are going to want to put it. And we we can't land use them out of that.

And if you look at the existing zoning in that area, a lot of that area is already zoned general business. So there's a lot of by uses that can automatically come in there that are commercial. Um, I think when we think back a few years to when you all looked at travel centers, uh, with much more intensity, there was an overlay that was created along the interstate interchanges. Uh, I think it is a quarter of a mile um, within an interchange. You would qualify for a travel center. So, that already lends itself to being more commercial. Um, so again, we're going to revisit that area and and the recommendations there to make that more commercial. Well, and there's also some prime developable land on the south side of North Fork Road and on the south side of the railroad tracks. Once you get on the north side of the railroad tracks along North Fork, it you know, you've got the river crossing and some other physical barriers. But, you know, I think that property that VOTE owns, you know, I I would imagine once the interstate project is finished and they don't need that as a layown yard in the future, that is going to be prime development area as well, just because it's already graded out, it's flat, already has utility service there. Um, so I I think we definitely need to earmark at least that area for uh consideration for commercial. Um the other thing you'll see similar to what we saw in Shawville, this portion of the county, there are a lot of conservation easements. There are a lot of agriculture and forestal districts in this portion of the county. Um we looked again at steep slopes uh in this area. We looked at flood plane. So again, that that analysis also factors into the recommendation and a lot of that area that gets excluded gets included as open space preservation. Justin, that would be uh interesting to see a map and perhaps an

overlay to any of these villages showing um the restrictive covenant lands whether whether they're and what we can do is um between now and our next meeting, we'll send out um those available lands maps that we did for all of the villages that took that into account with other factors, but we'll get GIS to make um some restricted some deed restricted parcel overlays that we can send out as well for that.

Thank you. Uh Justin, how how uh as a professional land planner, you know, when you're faced with developable land that's that has roads and uh water and sewer and close to schools and has all these amenities. And so from a professional land planner, you'd think, well, that's that's where we need to have residential. It just lends itself to residential. But then you have a small group of people that say, well, we don't want residential. So what how how do you balance how do you balance that? You got

it's the tight rope that we walk as I mentioned. Um I I think again what we're trying to do is as much as we can as profession prof professional planning staff putting that lens on everything that we're getting from the citizens again looking at all the constraints that we have. So so they they say um some of them say we want uh affordable housing but we want big lots you know. So, it's like, how can you have big lots and and affordable housing and then we want Starbucks and and Olive Garden? Yeah. Right. But there's

I mean, and there's and what we've found particularly around the issue of housing is that there's a huge educational component to what we need to be doing to have that housing conversation. Um, and we have been talking with Mr. Foster about an opportunity for you all to get a presentation um from the homebuilders association that talks about the various factors that go into the price of construction. Um but it it's not just build one type of housing. It's not just build only affordable or only senior. It's a gambit as you all know. Um, and so for for this exercise, really what we're talking about with folks is we're looking at a very very macro level of densities that they want to see and areas that they want to see. Um, that is going to end up in conflict with some folks. Um, so what we've tried to do throughout this entire process is obviously taking what the citizens are telling us. We feel that through all of the opportunities that we have provided for folks to provide input to us that we have a good representative sample of the county and a good representative sample of the villages to be able to make recommendations. Part of the reason that you are seeing the recommendation to uh take Belleview and Plum Creek down to a rural village is because we didn't get that same level of engagement. We didn't get that same level of feedback in those areas. So, it would be, I think, bad professional practice of us to recommend density and growth in an area where the citizens just didn't show up to to give us any counterpoint to that.

Mr. Sanders, um, statistically speaking, do you feel like the numbers that we got that you got skewed the results in any way, one way or the other?

I don't believe so. I think again it's a representative sample and I think there were voices on both sides of the conversation uh in all of our village engagement. People that were more prog growth and people who were more pro-preservation. Um and again I think that's reflected not just in the people that showed up at the meetings but the survey responses the map comments that we got. Um again, what you're seeing as the final result is again our way of trying to balance those perspectives with the realities that are in the ground uh and the infrastructure to support the development.

And I would add to Mr. Rice's comment. I think you're dealing with three constituencies in his question. The developer, the buyer, and the current residents. Yes. and the three are it's I don't think it's a so the other thing that that I'll point out and I and I've not mentioned it in terms of all the engagement that was done um both on the steering committee and in our individual stakeholder groups the development community was very well represented and that was homebuilders that was engineers that was developers that was surveyors um so this is not just nimbies coming out to say we don't want any growth in development we balance that with the other perspectives that we received through other areas of the process

and and even through our stakeholder groups, we had those um those areas represented. But, you know, going back to your original question, housing is hard. Um and it's hard for people to understand, I I will say, um at every village meeting, I had housing conversations. Um, and at the last Ellison Shawville Village meeting, I had multiple, but I actually talked to two people. Um, we actually sat down at the end of the meeting and and Justin can tell you, I sat there with them for probably 45 minutes, um, talking about housing and and trying it. It It's an education thing. Everyone wants affordable housing, but you're right. They want the big lots. They don't want density. They want um you know, they want these nice little stick built starter homes that you just can't build for $150,000 anymore. Um you you can't do it. But that's what they want. Um but part of what they have a hard time is they say, "We don't want you to build these big houses that are three and $400,000." Well, what they don't realize is we have a market for the three and $400,000 houses and it you can't have affordable housing without having housing stock.

Correct.

And so until you have housing stock, even your starter homes that were built years ago are going to run two three $400,000 because there are no houses. And so it's a supply and a demand. Um, and that's what I spent this 45 minutes explaining to this these two people. Um, you know, yes, I get it. You don't want tons of $300,000 houses, but here's what'll happen. You have people who live here that can afford the $300,000 house. So, they're going to leave their $189,000, their $200,000 house to buy their $300,000 house because they need something bigger. Their family's grown. And then that's going to open up that $200,000 house. And so it's not necessarily you're building the affordable housing, it's you're starting to free it up.

Um and then there's another whole conversation when you get into short-term rentals. Um you all are not a stranger to the number of short-term rentals that are coming through here. Um these short-term rentals are taking those long-term rentals off the market. So now that's another form of affordable housing that you're removing from the market. And and as an owner, I I get it. If you've got a house that you can rent for three nights and make $1,800, why wouldn't you when that's what you would have to charge for a whole month? Um, so you're, you know, you're essentially tripling your income by converting it to a short-term rental. So that's that's another thing that that has to be considered and a lot of that we have to address through the zoning ordinance. Um, but in terms of housing, yes, it's it's just hard. It's it's hard to educate the public um because they see these large houses coming in. No, no, we need affordable housing. Well, we we totally understand and we don't disagree um that you have to get housing in order to get affordable housing. So, all the years I've been on the commission, there's one thing that I've learned, and that uh the only the only thing that neighbors will agree to is no change. No change. And and I'm just a concern or I'm afraid I'm I'm hoping that that we don't take a small sample of people that are saying no change and extrapolate that into a plan for the county when we've got people that need housing. Well, and what I think is reflected in the product that's being brought to you is taking those voices into consideration, but also moving forward. Um, we are throughout the county providing more opportunities for growth. It may be in a more limited area, and that's the piece that Bri was alluding

to. We still have to do the zoning ordinance. Um, we have to look at density uh in all zoning districts. Um there's gentle density that we can introduce. Right now in our A1 district, you cannot build a duplex by right. Um that's a simple way to get density. Uh in uh some of these areas that are being identified as suburban, you know, we're talking low and medium density. Um that's going to be defined by the zoning ordinance and what densities you put in the different zoning districts. So, um, I think that for this exercise, we're really looking at where it should go, not what it should look like, not how dense it should be. That's going to be when we get to the zoning ordinance piece and how these two items work together.

Justin, we also need to look at um the issue of accessory housing.

Yes. Because there are lots of grandmas who are living in a five- bedroomedroom house somewhere where they shouldn't be and where the market should be adjusted accordingly and we could do a better job encouraging that. that in addition to we've had developers come to us for years wanting to develop tiny home communities. Um wanting to reinvision how we look at manufactured and modular housing communities. Um and our zoning ordinance simply just doesn't allow that without going through the text amendment process. Um and we have always referred to that as that you start pulling a thread from a sweater and the whole sweater is going to unravel. Um, so again, I think with what we're what we're doing through this exercise, through updating the comp plan, through updating the village plans, is we're setting a framework that we will have to narrow even further when we go through the zoning ordinance update.

Mr. Sp.

Yes, Justin. I'd like to go back to the question that uh, Mr. Foster asked a while ago relative to, correct me if I'm wrong, could these these numbers in the meeting be somewhat skewed? And I don't think that that was completely answered. Uh and the reason I'm asking that is if I'm not mistaken at the beginning of the of your presentation relative to the plan and the Shawsville plan, I think you made the comment that there were a lot of citizens that that attended both of the meetings. Do you have any hard numbers relative to how many citizens did attend both meetings? And why would those numbers not or those not be skewed if the same people were putting input in this in the two different village plans?

So we captured two data points related to that. Everyone did sign in. and they said which community they lived in. Okay.

They also did an exercise where they showed us where they lived, where they worked, and where they recreated. And we could actually track those individuals on those three dots that they placed. Um, again, there was some overlap, but again, we have property owners in both villages. Somebody who might live in one village and own property in another, they have a vested interest. Um, we had a number of citizens who owned a business in one village but lived in another. Um, and we have some folks again that just live in the village and they don't work in the village and there so there's a variety of different perspectives. Um, but again I don't want to focus too much on just the meeting being the only way we got feedback. We again we did the online input through social pinpoint and we did the larger village plan and the the large county meetings. So while I'm pulling um the information from our engagement efforts from the meetings, that's not the only source for where we we got feedback. Okay. Okay.

And we do have all of those attendance numbers.

Um the one thing we are really proud of is the amount of participation we got this go around. Um you know normally when you do a planning meeting and it's an open house I have been to them where we have literally sat there and just talked to each other because you've had no one attend. And I can say we have not had one single public meeting that that was the case. Um most of them we were like talking to people after it was supposed to be over. Um we exceeded our attendance numbers for any public open house three different occasions. Um so we we had a lot of participation. Now and I will say with Shawwell Elliston we did have some overlap as Justin said. Um, and honestly, the two people I was talking to about housing, they were two of the people that were in support of like an Eastern Montgomery Village because they said, "I don't know why you're separating us apart. Like, I think of it all as one." And I said, "Well, I'm glad you do, but your neighbors do not." Um, so there was some of that, too. We did have a couple of people that felt like it was the same thing. Um, and then we did have a lot of people that said, "Well, I live in Elliston, but like I go to Shawsville to do, you know, I to use the the library or that I use that Dollar General instead of the one in Ellison because it's closer." And so, so there was a lot of that, too. There was a lot of there was some overlap. Um, I will say at every public meeting we had, we had at least a handful of people who had never participated before. Um and that included even the last one. So um we were very proud about that too that you're bringing new people in that haven't participated before because it means you're getting those different voices

and you know and I want to go way back to two years ago when we designed this process to start. Um we know that people don't come to public meetings. Um and we know that there's an there's a there's a chance that the the feedback that you will get is going to skew in one direction. And so that's why when we designed the process in the beginning, we provided written opportunities for people to give us comment. We had dropboxes at the libraries. We had dropboxes at multiple locations throughout the county. We had postcards that people could take and they were pre-stamped and they could send their feedback into us. Uh we had the online survey. We had public intercepts where we went out into the community and we were at local events and people could come up and talk to us. Um, we were very intentional from the beginning of the process to take down every barrier of entry from someone sharing what their feedback was. Um, and we did something and it was it was a pretty significant expense, but every person who had an address within the village received a postcard telling them this meeting was happening and if they couldn't attend the meeting, here's the URL where you can go give anonymous feedback to us. And no one took advantage of that opportunity. um sans's three or four comments that we got through the mapping exercise. Um so there was the process was open and people could come and express those different perspectives. I wish more people had um but again I think the people who came gave us a representative sample that we can make these recommendations with confidence. two comments. Um, Parks and Recreation, which is working on their plan, uh, worked hand in hand with planning and GIS in the entire process and I thought that was an amazing diversion as to what we've normally done. And the other thing I would

comment on, all of the staff was there in large large numbers. And I think it's incumbent on us as planning commissioners to show up at a significant number of these meetings. All right. Shall I move on? We have a bit more to cover still. Um so again we've zoomed in on the two villages. Our plan in May um we will have concluded our RER and Prices Fork village meetings. Um by our May meeting we will bring those plans to you um for review and discussion at that time. Um but we wanted to go ahead and start having a conversation zooming out to the full land use map for the entire county. Um, and I've sort of alluded to this as we've gone through, but I wanted to kind of go through the different lenses that were looked at and the recommendations that you're seeing in the future land use map. Um, we firmly believe in starting with the historic precedent. So, we took our existing future land use map uh and looked at that. Um, as I mentioned earlier in the villages, we have a lot of different land uses, but I think you as commissioners have seen over your time on the commission, we have a lot of different land use designations, some of which were sort of doing the same thing, some of which we didn't even know what they were doing. Mr. Rice, I think to your conversations about resource stewardship a lot when we had this conversation. Um so we really went into it with an idea of trying to simplify the number of designations again to make the map more user friendly, more developer friendly and more citizen friendly. Um so then we again as I mentioned we looked at the existing limitations and constraints that we had. So we looked at our existing and planned public infrastructure to support growth and development. We looked at our transportation infrastructure. Um, and as a reminder, two years ago, we did a very in-depth review of all of our transportation infrastructure here in

the county as part of the transportation matters process. We looked at our geographical limitations with steep slopes and flood planes. We looked at ecological limitations in terms of impaired waterways and wetland areas. And we looked at conservation easements and agriculture and forestal districts when making these recommendations. Um and then again the public input that we received on desired growth through our survey responses, our map exercises, our open houses, and our village meetings. So again, when we adopted the larger McGomery Matters uh parts one through four, um we had this organizational structure for growth. And I'll remind you again um the reason that these particular tiers emerged as the recommendated strategy recommended strategy recommendated what a word is that um we really heard from the villages primarily we understand that the existing policy is if it's not going into the towns it's coming to the villages. They wanted an intermediary area to receive some of that growth to take the development pressure off the villages. And so what emerged from that process was the idea of these growth areas and the two growth areas that we've identified in Mid County, which we're calling the Marramac growth area, and down on the 177 corridor, which we're calling the Bethl growth area. Um, I'll note that those two areas are already designated as urban development areas in our existing future land use map. So, we're not recommending growth where it's not already recommended. We're just changing that prioritization of where that growth goes to give the villages that breathing space that they asked for. Then we have the villages. Then we had the designation of a rural village. Um, again, this is where we're placing Belleview and Plum Creek. Um, again, we didn't get a lot of robust engagement in those areas. When you think of Belleview

and Plum Creek, they don't have that core that many of the other villages have. They aren't very residential in nature. Um, and they really function as a corridor between the town and the city of Radford. Um, so we looked at that land use category again as a as a way to recognize that we still want to promote growth in Belleview and Plum Creek, but that that needs to look a little bit different than what's being recommended in the villages. Then we have our settlement communities. Again, this is analogous to our rural communities designation that's in our existing future land use map. We don't talk about these much because we don't get a lot of requests for development in those areas, but these are our historic settlements throughout the county. Thinking Pilot, McCoy, areas that have some residential concentration, um, but may also need an amenity like a country store or some small commercial to support the people that live in that area of the county. Um, I'll also note when we originally presented this, uh, and we were wrestling a little bit at the staff level about what to call these last two designations, um, we heard a lot from the citizen input that we received that people really wanted to make sure we were making an effort to preserve our farmland and our open spaces. Um, but again, that that meeting that in the middle and being able to still recommend some limited development in those areas, um, these were originally called farm preservation areas. Um we've kind of renamed those areas as rural development areas. So that's going to be areas where we're promoting agricultural development and agricultural land uses. Um but we're also going to be recommending some of that more rural scale development that you see throughout the county existing. And then outdoors and natural preservation areas. This is sort of that um analogous to our resource stewardship areas. These are areas in the county that uh people are recreating in. uh people are experiencing the natural

environment. Um what we wanted to make sure with this land use classification is again getting that recreational uh component in here. Um so you may see development in these areas that is supporting that recreational or outdoor culture. Um but again that's going to be where we get into the zoning ordinance and what sort of uses we allow in those areas. Um speaking of dots, this was a map that we took around with us over the last two years. every public intercept that we did, every meeting that we did, this was here at the government center for people who came into board meetings and planning commission meetings um to place where in the county they wanted to see growth and development. Um and you can see we had a pretty strong consensus in the midcount area. We had a pretty strong consensus in some of the villages. Um, and again, you can start to see what emerged is this idea that even with all of this no growth, people still wanted that core within the village to be able to provide some growth and some services.

It'd be interesting if you could take the the attendance that put these dots and and get a different color and put where they live, you know. So, yeah. And what we saw um and again, I can guess where they live

because our because our town residents are also county residents. they participated in this exercise as well. So maybe they were saying they wanted growth in the villages and not near the town boundaries. Um but again it was it was an interactive map. We were able to see the trends as we went on as we went to different villages about how those dots went on the map. So I wanted to to start again since we started with our existing future land use map. I wanted to pull that up here for you um and show you the different categories that we have now um collapsed within some of these layers. Our rural communities are not listed here, but again, that's a land use. Um, our village core is not reflected here, but that's a separate land use. Um, so again, as we started the process, we wanted to try to simplify the land use map as much as we could. Um, combine land use designations that made sense to be combined. And again, I wanted to make sure you were referencing um, your matrix that we provided to you of what in the new land use map is analogous to what we currently have. Justin, the one that's on the screen is that what how how does that relate to the one we've got in front of us?

So, this is the existing map. I'm getting ready to go to this map that you have in front of you. Okay. So, that's this is this is the existing land use map in the current comprehensive plan. So, I wanted to go through and so this is a sideby-side comparison. Okay. Thank

um so what you're seeing um again the locations of our villages are staying the same. Um this map does not reflect the change in the Ellison Lefayet village that was uh done last year. So that brings in this portion here. Um so that's existing village that's carrying over. Um again the boundaries in Shawville are not changing dramatically. Reiner grows a little bit and I'll get into that here in a minute as to the justification for recommending that change. Um you can see here this is Belleview and this is Plum Creek. those villages change a little bit and I'll get into that here in a moment. Um, but we'll go kind of step by step into the changes that you're seeing and the justification behind that recommendation. So, we'll start in and around the town of Blackburg. So, in our existing future land use map, everything that you see in yellow is an area called residential transition. Everything in the orange is urban expansion. And the blue down here south of Blackburg, that's our urban development area in Mid County. So, we looked at a variety of different factors here. Um, limited water and sewer infrastructure. Um, I've mentioned to you several times over this process. There was an agreement many years ago um that county residents could connect to the town of Blackburg system and get water and sewer service. That agreement has lapsed and was not renewed. Um, the town of Blackburg has no appetite to renew that agreement. Um so any public water and sewer to service density in those areas would have to be done by the public service authority. Um there's limited transportation infrastructure that supports development in these areas. These are mostly rural two-lane roads and then connections to town streets. And again because we don't maintain our own roads and the town does, there's a natural uh tension there between vmaintain roads and townmaintained streets and the way that we can connect to that network. There's topographical

challenges north and east of Blackburg with steep slopes. There are a number of ecological features um east of Blackburg um that needed to be avoided due to habitat areas and we're going through that now with the capstone development. Um there's a species of bat that lives in that part of the county that can't be disturbed during certain portions of the year. Um we also looked at the public support that we got for limiting growth east and north of Blackburg. So that was sort of again the tiers that recommended uh that change to the land use outside of the town of Christiansburg. Um everything that you see there in sort of the whitish gray that's our rural land use designation in the existing comprehensive plan. Again yellow is residential transition, orange is urban expansion. Um and then everything you see in green there is res uh resource stewardship. So again, uh, water and sewer infrastructure capacity, anything that happens adjacent to the town of Christensburg, we can connect to their water and sewer system. However, our residents pay a 200% markup for those connections and that service. Um, we also know that the town of Christiansburg is evaluating their existing system um, and there has been discussions about that changing in our ability to be able to connect to their system in the future. Um, again, limited transportation infrastructure along Radford Road and Peppers Ferry Road. Um, I know we hear that a lot when we do public hearings on development proposals that the roads just cannot handle the density that's being proposed in those corridors. So, that was taken into account. Um, available land near town limits uh continues to decrease. We do have agriculture and forestal districts and conservation easements in this area that also are taken into account. Um, and again, we got strong public support for limiting growth outside the town of Christiansburg. So, looking at our growth areas, as I noted, these are already designated on our existing future land use map as

urban development areas. Um, we have received over the past several years a number of development inquiries in this area of the county. Um, so there is interest in developing here, but again there's the component of the zoning ordinance to allow the density that's needed to make the finances make sense for folks. Um, so we took the the original urban development area and we looked at where that could be expanded where public water and sewer service was available. Um, you'll see that the Marramac growth area actually crosses over 460 to the Cinebar area. As you'll remember, when the self-s storage units were built along Cineabar, there was an extension of the water line um to be able to service that property. So, that opened up more development potential along Cineabar Road. The Highlands at Huckleberry Ridge continues to expand and that is included in the Marramac growth area. Um and there's a lot of area there around Lewis Gale Hospital um that's in the county that is really prime for redevelopment. And we have the transportation infrastructure along 460 business to support it.

How how far down Marramac Road does that go? I can start it. And I can pull this up to the parcel, but it goes down to the hightop Marramac intersection and pulls in coal miner Heritage Park um as part of it. And then it goes up and captures uh everything along Marramac Road near the Highlands at Huckleberry. Okay.

Um and then along Marramac Road up to the town of Blackburg um there's a recommendation. Um I I want to acknowledge in this area this is an area of of some transition with the county and the town of Blackburg. We've had a number of developments um along Marramac Road um that have been constructed but then taken into the town of Blackburg um because those developments can qualify for different funding sources that are available to the town but not the county through community development block grants, affordable housing grants. Um, so we've got a really good working relationship and partnership with the town of Blackburg to be able to get that development started there on the edge of the town boundary. Um, with Bethl, you'll see again, we took the original urban development area there around the interchange. Um, and with conversations with the city of Radford, we have recommended expanding that growth area um, along Tyler Road all the way to the Radford jurisdictional boundary. Um, when we get into snapping this to individual parcels, we have some very large parcels located along that corridor. Um, but again, in an effort to recommend really concentrated development in the corridor, we're keeping it really along Tyler Road. Um, in the recommendation that we're providing, and this goes all the way down to the hospital and the parcels there at the interchange that have been reszoned for general business. Um again the growth areas are meant uh to relieve some of the development pressure from the villages and again the public really supported growth in those two areas.

And so this Bethl area we're talking about we're envisioning commercial right? I mean this not really set up for residential. Um so we're visioning it to be residential, mixeduse and commercial kind of the gambit. Um really in in these villages and again this is going to come down to really the decisions that are made in the zoning ordinance update. Um, I think both of these growth areas lend themselves to mixeduse development. Maybe you have commercial along Tyler and residential behind. Um, thinking of the Clifton Town Center model along Pepper Ferry Road. That sort of development could really work in both Marramck and Bethl.

The problem I see with the Would you return to the Bethl map? Thank you. with the uh proposal. There is that virtually all of that land between the interstate and Food City uh is u held in large parcels by families and I see no certainly no immediate future in that land getting released.

Right. Um, the other thing that this does, it does allow the county to look at infrastructure investment along that corridor to plan for any future changes of ownership. Um, so moving on then to the villages. As I mentioned, uh, in the the recommendation, um, we're looking at four villages again, Ellison, Lefayed, and Shawville. Those boundaries are are staying pretty much exactly as they currently are. Um again I'll I'll mention that this piece was the one that was brought in during the father and gay request. Um Prices Fork again those boundaries pretty much are staying the same. Um with Riner we are proposing a small increase of the village boundary up to Derry Road um to bring that into the village and the UDA to help us qualify for some transportation funding. Um we know that is a problem intersection in the village. This also brings the new park and the fire station into the village boundary. It's currently outside the village uh boundary area. Um so again uh what we heard a lot from the villages is emphasis on revitalization, adaptive reuse and infill, limited mixeduse development and medium density residential and then balancing that open space and development. I'm going to move on from this because we've talked about this pretty extensively with the two villages um with Belleview and Plum Creek. Again, um in looking at how those villages functioned, there really wasn't a defined core like we saw in the other villages. Um the engagement that we got in those villages was was much more suppressed than what we saw throughout other areas of the county. Um and there are a lot of limitations uh in these two villages uh due to topography um and due to flood plane particularly in the Plum Creek village. Um, so we were looking at the existing future land use map, looking at those growth areas outside the town of Christensburg. Um, and really started to think of Belleview and Plum Creek more as corridor areas. Um,

again, focusing that development along the corridor, but doing it at a density that is lower and more sustainable for the existing traffic infrastructure. Um, as well as the public infrastructure that's available along those two corridors. Settlement communities. Again, these are identified as rural communities in our existing comp plan. These are historic communities that have their own identity. They're primarily residential, but may have some small cluster of development like a community center or a country store. I really think about pilot when I think about this one in the pilot community center and how there's sort of a a little nexus of of activity there in pilot and then the residential is more spread out. Um, but as you can see in the majority of these areas, Alagany Springs is primarily surrounded by that outdoor and recreation preservation. But with the other villages, you can see there's this gradual transition into a less dense land use recommended in those rural development areas. You have a little bit more of a concentration when you get to the settlement and again it fades back out to less dense development in the other recommendations.

Question. Yes sir. Uh again, return to that last. You're too quick for me, Mr. Hey. Um I've lived in the county for quite a while and I've never heard of Taylor. Can you help me with that? Yes. So, one of the things, one of the rabbit holes that we went down during this process was looking at a lot of historic maps, uh and identifying a lot of historic communities. The Taylor community is from the mid-9th century. Um, and I had one or two participants at the Blackburg Stepping Out Festival that said, "What part of the area do you live in?" They lived in Taylor.

So, there are people who identify as living in Taylor in this part of the county. This was a learning process for everyone. We we had some other names uh that were historic names here in the county that did not make it on the future land use map. Um, I will tell you some of those names after the meeting when we're not being recorded. Ironto is in here as well. Could I do a quick survey? How many of the commissioners have heard of Taylor before tonight? How many have heard of Mr. Mr. King? Have you ever heard of Taylor before? He has.

The supervisor representing this portion of the county has heard of Taylor. Yes.

All right. Moving on uh to our rural development areas. Again, these are areas in the county where the soils uh facilitate agricultural uses and farm preservation. Um but again, we wanted to look at smallcale development. Um again, our rural residential um and our A1 zoning is really what aligns with these areas. Um, but you'll see they're primarily uh in the western portion of the county in and around Reiner and Bethl. Um, we also have some here outside the town of Blackburg and then there's some that's that are interspersed throughout the eastern portion of the county. Um, but again, there's limited public infrastructure that would support development here. These are going to be developments that are going to primarily be on private well and septic. Um, so again, not really encouraging that density. Um and then again we had public support in in maxim in minimizing development in these areas and again preserving farms where possible. And last but not least, this has been a pretty lengthy presentation. Um our outdoor and natural preservation areas. Again, these are analogous to our existing resource stewardship areas would support agriculture and conservation land uses and recreation. Um, it conserves a lot of the ecological features, viewsheds, and open space that were identified by our residents as things that they wanted to see protected. Um, again, no public infrastructure in these areas that would support really dense development. Um, and again, we heard a lot from the citizens about protecting these areas. Um, and then I'll note lastly, um, we have a large swath of the northern portion. doesn't um that last the um in this area will it be similar to the like the sliding scale that's under the agriculture now is there

so again that's a zoning ordinance consideration that'll need to be considered um one of the tools to ensure that this area does not grow and become dense is going to be looking at the sliding scale

um we have not looked at sliding scales since the zoning ordinance has been adopted so I I think in this area particularly when we're talking about rural residential and agricultural looking at the ways that make sense to maybe introduce gentle density in those areas that's the accessory dwelling units that Mr. Miller was talking about. Um the impacts of a duplex are not going to be much greater than a single family. So maybe that's a recommendation that we can do in the rural development area. Um but again we're going to be looking at limiting that because it's going to be on private well and septic. there's going to be fewer opportunities to to do so. Okay. But but residential will still be allowed. It's just not in the bigger developments. You're saying

again, it would be a scale concern. Again, that's where we'll have to get into with the new zoning ordinance, identifying what land use categories in the zoning ordinance would work in those areas as they're identified in the comp plan. Um so again referencing the table that we gave you. Um the the uh rural development area was really most aligned with rural rural communities and resource stewardship. And the most dense uh residential development that's currently allowed in those areas is going to be rural residential. Mhm. Okay.

And that's a minimum lot size of 1.5 acres currently. Um one dwelling per per acre. And then at uh over five acres, you could have a second dwelling in not in rural residential, sorry, that's A1, right? That's A1. So for rural residential, it's one and a half acres is the minimum lot size, but that is not subject to the sliding scale. Um so if you reszone a rural residential and and you've got how many 15 acres, you can do 10 lots. Yeah. Um so versus agriculture, you would only be limited to to four lots.

Um so that's the difference with rural residential. Um, we do allow accessory dwellings with rural residential, but I think it's a two lot minimum or two acre minimum before you can have the second dwelling. Um, in our A1, you have to have um five acres to have a detached accessory dwelling. You have to have two acres to have an accessory dwelling within the existing primary.

And the cluster clustering would still be allowed where you cluster over and have that open space. Again, looking when we get into the zoning ordinance, the other piece that I didn't mention in those areas, we also have transportation restrictions in those areas as well. Um, because again, because we are subject to VOTE road regulations, you are limited to the number of residences that can be on a private road. Um, until that road has to be upgraded to one that would meet the VOTE requirements to enter the system. That's going to be another uh element that's going to really limit the type of development that can happen in that part of the county. Last but not least, on our existing future land use map, everything that we have absolutely no jurisdictional control over is also included in resource stewardship. We felt that we needed to differentiate those areas in the northern portion of the county um that are in the national forest or federal lands. Um so identifying them separate from our outdoor and recreation areas as identified on the comp plan. That is a very very quick summation of all the changes that are recommended. Um, we did give you a larger printout of the map. Um, if you all want to go into any specific area, I also have the digital version that we can zoom in and look at the parcel level if you want. Um, I will send that link out to you so that you all can explore after the meeting and look. Um, I want to be intentional about how you look at that information though. Again, we have a lot of parcels that are very large um that may be split because of how we've drawn those areas. Um again, promoting those corridors, having development be closer to the road, allowing someone to potentially develop along the corridor, but have the remainder of their property remain agricultural or remain uh in open space. Um so, when we get down to the parcel level, it gets a little bit wonky. It looks a little bit jagged. Um but we'll provide that to you so that

you can go and look there. Um and then we will have for our homework to follow up with those maps that we were asked to provide in terms of the conservation easements and areas um as well as the the calculations that we did earlier in the process on available lands and I do have population numbers if you are interested just add them to the

so according to the US census um Shawsville has 1241 um people but that is so that's not the exact exact village boundary that is based on zip code. Um so that's the Shawville zip code. Elliston 952 and then Lefayet. It depends on where you say if I say it wrong I'll be in trouble. 459. Um and I'm not sure how they broke that down because I think they have the same zip code but somehow the census had that broken apart. So

Justin, as we're going through this and and thinking about the the map, I don't you say this kind of preliminary and I'm I'm thinking that um since development sort of follows water and sewer and water sewers in the town, I think we ought to have maybe not be so rigid about the stopping point right at the town limit because, you know, you may have somebody that's got uh acreage right outside the town and while they don't have water and sewer on their property today, in in the next few years they could work that out. You know, the town county sewer agreements and all that's political. It changes, you know, and and so um and I'm I'm thinking about uh um like on on Route 114 just right outside of the town limits, there's still development pressures out there. I think it was a parcel that just recently came up for sale that's right outside the town limits and and so may not be there today. Mhm.

Well, can you put that side by side comparison back up, please? I'm sorry. Go ahead. I just wanted to look at that map while you were talking. Uhhuh. But um but as we're looking at future future growth um the water and sewer is in the town limits and for the most part and and so I can conceivably see you know some development happen out just right outside the development part or right outside the boundaries of the town but can still access water and sewer. So I will say part of the stakeholder engagement was representation from the towns. So from town administration and from town utilities. Yeah.

Their recommendation was that growth should not be recommended in those areas because that's not going to be on the table for the towns in the next 20 years. Mhm. So, the areas that are currently designated um like on the existing land use map, they're bordering the town of Christensburg where it's kind of orange and gray and now it's all in uh outdoor natural preservation areas on the future land use map. So, all of that.

So, you're talking on this this side of Christiansburg? Uh, no. Right there where your cursor is there. Just to the left. Move to the left a little bit further. Yeah. Right there. Along that whole boundary that th those areas were previously designated for future growth. Urban expansion. Yes. Village. Yeah. Expansion. And on the future land use map that's all green now which is the

and there is there is some um there is some recommendation on uh rural development area at that border of the town of Christensburg. Um, let me pull up. We'll get on the the digital map and we can look at the

You know, when I go home, I drive up Harkrader Street and and there's like four stubouts going into the field on the other side of Harkrader Street, which is the county now. But but at some point in the past, they somebody had envisioned those streets running into that field. And of course, you know, it it it may be a farmer that owns it today, but but I' I've learned in real estate, you know, forever is five years. You know, I'll never sell at five years. So, so you know what I I think it might be shortsighted of us if if we don't realize that that's where growth, you know, could happen, could feasibly happen and and go ahead and make

So, something that I've I've not touched on that I just want to remind you, there is a mechanism for a developer to come in and request an amendment to the land use designation on the comp plan. Um we are through the recommendations that we're making f the future land use map trying to prioritize that growth in areas that we've identified that it makes the most sense based on all of those constraints that I've mentioned. But if a developer really wants to develop in an area they think we got it wrong then the onus is on them to come and say I believe for these reasons we should amend the land use map. Um if and to your earlier point, if that agreement were to ever change with the town of Christiansburg, we are required to look at this every 5 years. We can make those incremental adjustments as we go along through the policy that's established um to make those changes. Um but again, with all of the data, all of the input that we've received, these are the recommendations that we're making. Um Mr. Cole, I think to your to your question, there is a portion with the expansion of the UDA area for Marramac that brings in some of that area outside the town of Christensburg.

Um, but there is a lot of that area that is uh being recommended to go into that outdoor uh land use, outdoor and preservation land use. Um, again, there are topographical constraints as well that led to that recommendation. And and this is the map you said you'll send us a link to to where we can we can zero in on actual parcels and that's what I've got pulled up now. So just as you interact um you can get down when you uh toggle you can toggle off.

You know I I think I saw a parcel come up on on route 8 just on the other side of uh exit 114 that landed for square church owned some land in there and I think it's like 80 acres or something. is a lot of acres and I saw kind of a kind of a mockup or whatever and it had single family houses and and that kind of excited me from realtor because it's not town houses, it's not, you know, it's single family houses and and that's what we have a shortage of and and so I want to make sure that that's included in some type of a growth area. So, and again, uh kind of going back to the the recommended change where we had urban expansion and residential transition along 114. Um we're recommending that there is still a growth area there, but again, we're recommending that to be lower density because of the transportation infrastructure questions as well as the availability of public utilities through that corridor. Um when we had originally discussed this and were going through the process, these were not proposed as corridors at all. They would have actually stopped at the village boundary. Um but recognizing that we still wanted to encourage some growth along 114 and Radford Road, that's why they were elongated to make them more corridor approaches

to respond to that feedback that we were getting. Mr. Rice in response to your comment earlier about the ridge along uh Hark Crater out there. My recollection is that that was not available because there until a couple of years ago, there was no public sewer on that side of that ridge. Of course, there is now all the way out the right.

Well, there's water all the way. I'm not sure. I'm not sure where the sewer line is, but I'm saying that those those change, you know, developer maybe maybe 5 years ago couldn't afford to run, you know, but but now today with houses being 500,000, maybe they can run a sewer line now and

affordable things change over time. So yeah, we'll send out these resources to you. But yes, what I'm hearing is Belleview and Plum Creek though there were rural villages with less participation that was their own choosing doing through surveys, community whatever we are not really looking to develop those areas because of lack of water and sewer and roads. Oh, no. There is there is public water and sewer available in Plum Creek and in Belleview, right? However, taking them down to a rural village, right,

is not recommending more density. It's recommending moderate to lower density. But if they have space, why aren't you using that? Well, there's other things to factor in. So, that's what I'm asking. What are the other things? Yeah. So, so Belleview for instance, um the one thing we heard from that community was our public safety response time is 15 to 20 minutes to get fire and rescue here because they're Christiansburg.

So, because they come out of Christiansburg. So, we can't recommend a 400 unit residential development in Belleview and say, "But by the way, you're only going to get fire and rescue in 15 to 20 minutes." um for an issue. So, so again, it's those other factors. In Plum Creek, you have a huge flood zone issue there.

Um so, you don't want to put a lot of density there, especially dense residential. That's not saying these places won't grow. It's saying that it's probably going to be less dense than what you're going to see in some of the other areas, especially the two growth areas that we've designated. Um you're going to have a much much less density. I do think the um Bethl growth area, I think it will lend itself more to a commercial type growth just because the interstate's right there. Um and that's why we really wanted to limit it to that corridor, the Marry growth area. I think that's where you're going to see dense residential development because that's what we're hearing from developers now. They want they want to do dense development there. Um, we've we've had one inquiry, they come in, they wanted to do highdensity residential, and they said, "We need X number of units per acre to make this work based on the sale price of the property and trying to get water and sewer to it and any other improvements we have to do to to satisfy slopes and and that type of thing. And we were about 10 units per acre low on our zoning ordinance at the max that we would allow. Um, so that's that's one of those considerations we have to make when we start to go through the zoning ordinance. Um, is how dense we can go, especially in in those areas where we know that we have capacity. Um, we know we can get it, but we've got to give the developers the density they need to make it work. Um, we're not going to get that type of density in any of our villages, but we are particularly particularly not going to get it in Plum Creek and and Belleview.

The other component of elongating those rural villages to include the corridor um is again currently all of our villages are urban development areas. Again, funding. So again, extending the village out along that corridor could open us up for transportation funding opportunities that we don't currently have under the existing land use designation. Um but again, we're we're again weighing all those factors um in recommending those changes there.

Looking over the crowd, I think I want to thank you for what you Absolutely. and we will get an email out to you before the end of the week with these resources. I'm going to get GIS on the maps for the conservation easements. Those may be bit delayed, but all the resources that we currently have, we'll send over to you. Um, we did not give you a hard copy map with the parcel lines on because at this scale it's un it's unreadable with the parcel lines, but we will make sure that that layer is included on the electronic map so you can zoom in on individual parcels. Thank you very much. Thank you all very much. Is there a motion to leave the work session?

Second. Meer and Mr. Lincoln. There is uh no old business and there is no new business.

So I will go now to liaison reports. Mr. King, do you have any comments you wish to share with this group? Just a reminder, we are going through our budget process and we have a meeting on the 20th, which is this Monday. So, if you have any input you'd like to put into it, feel free to email, call, or even come down. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Um, utilities. We have a new name. Blackburg Planning Commission. Miss Shock Robinson.

Yep. Uh, okay. At their last meeting, they discussed So, we're Kroger's. I'm trying to describe it. Gable Shopping Center in Blackburg. Uh, and then Yes. Well, I didn't want to say that, but yes. Gucci Kroger as people refer to it as who live in the area um for the recording purposes. Um but then uh then you have um the elementary school Margaret Beaks and then there's Rugby Drive is that strip that currently has Kinderare and one hotel. There was a proposal for a second hotel in there and they had to discuss parking and the location of that and that was approved. Um, I didn't know there was a going the hotel has not been done yet, but they're doing the parking first. So, that's been approved and then they're revising the flood plane uh revisions and doing a watershed study coming up for them. So,

thank you, Mr. Rice. Christensburg. Uh, I don't believe they've had a meeting. Uh, I see on the on the calendar they have a meeting on the 20th of this month. So, no report. Okay. Thank you, Miss Simkins. Ratford Planning hasn't had a meeting either. All right. Um, Mr. Miller, tourism.

Tourism. Lots of reports from the lodging, food and beverage folks. uh obviously talk about current and coming events like spring football. Um, so, um, I gave a brief report to them about, uh, Montgomery Matters and and our, uh, our comprehensive plan and, you know, where we are and that we're we're ahead of the ahead of the curve. So, and we meet again at the end of July. So, thank you.

Thank you, sir. Mr. Workman. Yes, just a plug for an openhouse event on April 30th between 4 and 7 regarding their master plan. I think Mr. Miller alluded to it earlier. Um, so yeah, it's all got Where is that going to be? Uh, let's see. That'll be at the at the government's No. Yeah. Yeah. In Yeah, it's here in in multi-purpose room too. Miss Hopkins,

um, a few brief things. We are currently conducting interviews for our planner position. We have one remaining tomorrow. Um so hopefully by next meeting we'll have an update for you and and we'll have a new planner. Um I do want to remind everyone of the regional planning commissioner training that is next week. It will start here at 5:00 um with a social followed by dinner and then training. Um, if you have not RSVPd and you want to attend, please let Amanda know by the end of the night. Our Riner Village plan meeting will be April 23rd, the following night. So, we're going two nights in a row. And, um, that will be out at the middle school. And, um, it'll start at 5:00 and end at 7:30.

So, that's Auburn Middle.

Auburn Middle School. Yes. Um, that's where we will be. Um staff has submitted three smart scale projects um for pre-applications. So the one is the intersection of Mary Mack and Price's Fork. You may remember we submitted it before. It did not score well. We're hopeful something may change. Um so we submitted it again and then we were able to break apart the OEI study that we had submitted last time for the 114 corridor. So we have submitted two applications there. Vicker Switch East um intersection reconfigurement and then Vicker Switch West that also includes Cole Hollow Road um a whole reconfigurement of that area as well and um we will see how they score individually this round because overall the score was not good based on the amount. Um I think that's all I have. I'm looking at staff to make sure I don't have any more reminders. I think we're good. Can I just say one thing? Whoever has connections to the school board, whoever would plan Blackburg High School's prom and Christiansburg High School's prom the same weekend that you have spring game and family weekend and baseball and softball. Like that is the worst planning ever. And I I don't even have kids in school anymore, but I don't know where those little kids are supposed to take their lovely dates to go have fun because you're gonna have 40,000 fans here. So that that is another good reminder. Um so this weekend is spring game for Virginia Tech. Um they are expecting a huge crowd and then they also do have both Christiansburg and Blackburg Prom that evening. and the town of Christiansburg. They are hosting two tournaments

um in town. One at um Hark Raider Park and one on the Huckleberry I think at Huckleberry some somewhere. So yeah, there's there's two additional um things. So So if you need to go to the grocery store, do so now um and stay out of Blackburg on Saturday because it's going to be touchy. be a good time to bring Metallica to town. It would. I mean, why not throw something else in? No problem. Are there any other observations or comments for the good of the order? This meeting is adjourned.