Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the September 9th, 2026 Planning Commission hearing. We just had our agenda review at 6.45 to go over the items on our agenda today. Just some housekeeping orders. We ask that you please silence all electronic devices if you can. And we will now stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Moving on to roll call, which is item number three on our agenda. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Chair Brown?

Here.

Vice Chair Justice? Here. Commissioner Carroll?

Here.

Commissioner Landrum?

Here.

Commissioner Ross?

Here.

Commissioner Scheifler?

Here.

Commissioner Shaik? Here. Commissioner Sherman? Here. We have quorum.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Since we are all here today, we don't have any remote participation requests, which is on item number four. So we will now move to item number five, the consent agenda. So I will now turn this over to Mr. Venegas.

Yes, Chair Brown, we have four items, briefs and resolutions from the Planning Commission public hearing May 20th, June 10th, July 1st and July 15th, all 2026.

Okay. Can I get a motion perhaps from commissioner Roth?

So moved.

Second. Thank you. We have a motion that's been made to approve items brief and resolutions planning commission public hearing May 20th, 2026, June 10th, 2026, July 1st, 2026, and July 15th, 2026. That motion was properly made by Commissioner Ross and properly seconded by Vice Chair Justice. Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll?

Chair Brown?

Yes.

Vice Chair Justice? Yes. Commissioner Carroll? Yes. Commissioner Landrum? Yes. Commissioner Ross? Yes. Commissioner Shaikh? Yes. Commissioner Scheidtler? Yes. Commissioner Sherman? Yes. Motion carries.

Thank you. Moving on to item number six, we have our expedited agenda. So we will now ask Mr. Venegas, do we have any items on the expedited agenda?

So we have a request for expedited item 10A rezoning 2025-00030 Potomac Lofts. We have a request for expedited zoning map amendment 10B DPA 2026-00007, e-commerce overlay district, as well as item 10D, special use permit, SUP 2026-00016, restore physical therapy, Pilates, and fitness.

Okay, we will now... open up, well actually, we'll go to Commissioner Carroll. Do we have anyone signed up to speak on those items?

So in person for B and D, we have no one signed up. For A, we have three people signed up. Let me call your names and if you can, if anyone is against the application, if you could just wave your hand for us. Michael Simulowski, Clancy McQuigg, and Kevin Parker.

I'm neither for or against it. Michael Simulowski. Okay. I just have some opinions.

Okay, and it's Kevin Parker. Are you speaking for or against?

For and against.

And then Mr. McQuig, you're just representing Loca Pelt? Yes. Okay. It seems like no one's against it, but I'll defer. And then actually we do have a couple speakers online as well for A and B for that matter. Well, I don't know if they're online, but they're signed up.

Is there a way we can check? Ollie? Madam Clerk? Give us a moment, ladies and gentlemen.

Chair Brown, may I make a suggestion? Sure. So we have to open up the public hearing anyway, and we can let all the speakers speak. And based on their feedback, if no one's against it during their comments, if they just have ways to improve it or whatever, we can take that into consideration. And then if it warrants a full presentation, we can do that. If it's just to succinctly cover those topics that they mentioned, we can do that as well.

Yeah, I was thinking that same thing. And thank you very much. Okay, so... And there's no one against A. No one against A? Okay. And B? There is one person for B...

And for Dee? There's no one online for Dee.

Probably not, right? OK. OK, while she's checking that, what we'll do, I'm sorry, go ahead. Okay. That's fine. Okay. So what we'll do is we're going to go ahead and open up the public hearing for the expedited, the items that are on the expedited agenda. So that's going to be 10A, rezoning, REZ 2025-00030 for Potomac loss, zoning map amendment number DPA 2026-00007, and item 10D, special use permit, SUP 2026-00016. Commissioner Carroll, can you please start with anyone who wants to speak for 10A?

Yes. So when I call your name, if you can head to the back, Michael Simuluski, Clancy McQuig, and Kevin Parker. If you can just, before you speak, name the magisterial district or generally where you live. If you're here to speak for yourself, you'll have three minutes. If you're representing an organization, an HOA, you'll have five minutes to speak.

I'm in the... I am here representing, I'm the board president of the Prince William County HOA Association across the street. So I'm requesting the five minutes.

And then if you could just state your name for the record.

My name is Michael Simileski. Thank you. Apologize. I was a little concerned that we're not getting a presentation on it. So I'm going to go with based upon what I know versus what I've heard. So I have to apologize. I'm here to speak. And I asked if I was pro or con, and basically I'm bringing some experiences to it, so I'm bringing some recommendations. The fact that we need housing and stuff like that, I can only bring the personal experience of what we have across the street. At the county center, we do have 47 two-over-twos. So we have condos there. We have an experience. We have about 600 units all total in the complex. The condo association is its own association as part of a sub association. They do not have on-site management, which was one of my points i want to bring up about uh... atomic losses that you really need someone on site uh... we do have for the rest of the association and on site we get constantly from the folks from the condos coming over and say hey i have this problem hey this is going on and we have to say we apologize we can rent you the clubhouse if you have a question about the fitness center we can help you with that give a question with the tennis courts we can help you But you need to contact your association. And they have what's called a PM, which is a portfolio management agreement. So a portfolio manager manages half a dozen to a dozen properties a month. So what they're getting is they're getting a couple hours a month from somebody who is remote. They're not on site. They're not there to deal with the day-to-day issues. This is my third... Association that I'm a member of, an own-in. I've been a board president, and I am the current board president of the Association Across the Street. I've been a board president of two of the associations. One of them had an onsite before this, and there was no issues. The other one had a PM. It was a mid-rise with 104 units. Since I was the board president, I became the superintendent. And when anything was wrong in someone's unit, the faucet wasn't working, the electric went out, the light bulb went out, there was a water leak, they come knocking on the door and they wanted me to go fix it. I would refer them to the portfolio manager and they'd say, well, we can't get a hold of them. So I offer that when you do planning, when you look at the number of units you have, sizing a condominium association so it's not big enough to have an onsite is actually gonna create problems for those people down the road. Last winter, They needed to bring in somebody to fix, do a repair on some type of storage tank of some kind. So they brought, someone came out, unlocked a secure door, propped it open during the winter, and you know what? A whole bunch of pipes froze. They went on weeks of fire watch. No one was there to monitor it. There are still people that come complaining to us that they still have down to the studs and have not been fully fixed. So I offer that it's very important from a planning perspective to look at the situation and see what's appropriate or what can be done in a certain area. Certainly on-site management, my experience now over 15 years, is you really need that to help the people. When you look at, I know the two over twos have a single garage each. Well, are you planning on Two plus cars, because my understanding was, and I'm also a member of NIDCO and a member of Local Pelt, that these are designed for dual income, no kids. Well, you're going to need at least two vehicles. Dual income, by nature, means you're going to have two people commuting. Do you have enough parking for that? Are the garages big enough? I have a two-car garage across the street that is 19 feet by 19 feet. I cannot put my Ford Explorer in there, and that's not even a big SUV. And it's storage. So take that into account. I'm just saying that we need to be smart about how we're planning. I'm not saying I'm against or for Potomac Lofts. Just I look at that and go, we have some experiences here that show that not having on-site management is going to be problematic. So thank you. And I appreciate the folks who do the planning. It's a tough job. And I hope that you take that into account. Thank you.

Good job. Good evening, I'm Clancy McQuig from the Lake Ridge Occoquan Civic Association. Dr. Jack was going to be here tonight, but he spent the week in the hospital, so he wasn't available. We have spent, Jack and I and the other people in LOCO, spent the last 50 years making sure we had livable communities in Prince William County.

And other than the disaster across the street here, I think for the most part we've succeeded.

This place, this project is definitely not ready for prime time. It's not livable, it's not survivable, and it's, I don't know why they call it DINKS, double income, no kids. That doesn't mean double income, no cars, too. We are not providing in this locus and a long list of things that we didn't think was right about this. And that's why we're asking for a deferral so we can work it out with the developer in our next meeting, which will be in this month. Personally, I don't think that's gonna work out very well for them because this thing is way too high, way too dense, and way too out of place. It's not in the right place. We don't think that we should be sticking residential opportunities in the middle of a commercial zone where traffic is running all the time and the security is weak at best. nor do we agree with the idea that they want waivers for our road design. We spent a long time trying to get the roads in the county livable with some kind of a buffer between the highway and the residents, and now suddenly, somebody wants to do away with that so I'll just summarize it one time it's not ready for prime time that doesn't mean it can't be ready for prime time but not at this density thank you Kevin Parker in the obscure district

This is, in general, as a concept, I think a great idea to have a place where someone could possibly live and not need a car with so much amenities around it. This fits in with the Prince William Conservation Alliance's vision of the three Rs. re-imagine, reinvest, redevelop. It's one of our areas that we believe should be developed. But it's really important that the applicant stay involved and make this work because there is a challenge of making a place that was a commercial area and making it a place that people will want to walk or bike around. Sometimes you have areas that have everything that you need right there, but if It doesn't feel good to walk around in. You'll still jump in your car. And then if that happens, then we're going to have more traffic and all the things that people might fear with a project like this. So I really want to plead basically with the applicant to not just say, these areas are not my property, there's nothing I can do about it. This is what I hear from other developers too. We ask them things and they're like, this is not on our land, so what can we do about it? They are part of their community. There's a lot of places that aren't my land, and I think that I want to ask and have it be better. I don't just say, well, it's not my property. There's nothing I can do about it. And it's really important that this succeed if we're going to make the Potomac Mills area a more dense, walkable, and livable area. One opportunity that I see would be to amenitize the cemetery that is nearby, near the gas station at Costco. There's a patch of trees there that would be a place you might want to be able to walk over. That's just one idea, but I just want to say please, Please do a good job for the community and make it as good as you possibly can. It's really important. Thank you.

Good evening, can you guys hear me? Yes. Perfect. Our first speaker is Ms. Jessica Grove.

Hi, good evening. I'm not sure, can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay, okay. Hi, this is Jessica Grove. I wanted to speak on some loss. And all I wanted to say was I, the same as before, that I appreciate that this project is part of the, is working with ours and reimagining and reinvesting and redoing. I would, this is an area, I'm from the Gainesville district, this is not my area of town, and so I would appreciate that Mich listens to the residents who are nearby and who have specific input into this project, and I would think that the applicants, if they want to be a good neighbor, they will listen to the feedback that is provided, create a

Did we lose her? Jessica, are you still there? Sounds like we lost her. Yeah.

Yeah, I'm going to. There we go.

She's back?

Oh, I'm back. Yeah. Really, all I was saying was that I would like the Planning Commission to listen to the feedback that the residents who live nearby are giving because it's them who have to live with the project. I like the idea that this is reimagining and redeveloping an area that is not being used right now. So I like that. But the community that lives there is crazy. you have to be able to incorporate new folks into an area and make it livable for everybody there who have made it a great community and the new. And that's it.

Thank you.

Our next speaker for A is going to be Ms. Rachel Ellis.

Hello. Rachel Ellis, Gainesville District. I appreciate the idea of Potomac Lofts. It is smart growth reflecting the three R's, reimagine, reinvest, redevelop. Taking a vacant building and It's law and turning it into housing, it's near jobs, transit, shopping and existing infrastructure. I do have a couple of concerns. I wish there were more units being designated as affordable. These homes will create more traffic congestion for the area and ultimately I, I don't live there. And so I would request that the developer. really work with the adjacent neighbors regarding their concerns and work to address those. But otherwise, I think it has the possibility to be a really good project. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is for item B. Excuse me, I'm sorry. It's Nathan Gribosh.

Hello, we're not, I'm sorry, we're not on B yet.

Mr. Graves? Yes, my apologies. I thought we were doing both B and A. I apologize for that. We will wait our turn. Sorry.

No, no, no. Is there anyone else signed up for A online?

No, that was our final speaker for A.

Okay. Give us just a moment. Do we have anyone signed up in the chambers for B?

There's no one signed up in chambers for B or D. Okay.

We're back to you, Mr. Graves. Is there anyone there to speak on B or D?

We have one person to speak on B. That's Mr. Nathan Greenbosch.

Okay. We'll now hear him. Thank you.

Hello. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Excellent. Well, thank you. I'll keep this short. I just wanted to voice my concern. My name is Nathan Griebesch. I live in the Brentsville District, and I live in Bridalwood neighborhood, which is directly adjacent to the overlay for the data centers. And, you know, my concern is I think what a lot of people are concerned about is the proliferation of data centers and their supporting infrastructure. And, you know, noting that times have changed since the original planning was done. And, you know, it looks like that there's going to be more action taken to sort of further restrict that and just would express the concern and encourage the planning commission to pay particular attention to each and every application to make sure that we're following the procedures and, you know, with the understanding that, you know, it looks like the county board is going to take action, which I would, of course, encourage to restrict what's going on to protect our neighborhoods, and in particular, mine, which is affected, and also it'll affect the schools that support our neighborhood. So with that, I'll end. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And if you're still online, can we get clarification from you, Mr. Rebosh, that you were speaking about the data center opportunity zone overlay?

Yes. Okay. Correct. That's what we thought.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Madam Chair, that is item 10C.

Yes. We know. Thank you. We realize that. Okay. So since there's no one signed up for... Item 10D, we have heard the comments for rezoning item 10A for Potomac loss. No comments for B, the zoning map amendment, and no comments for 10D, which is the special use permit for restore physical therapy, Pilates, and fitness. So now we will turn it over to Commissioner Ross.

Chair, given the comments that we heard about Potomac Lofts, are we going to keep it on? Do you intend to keep it in the expedited group? Yes, we do. I honestly would want to learn more about Potomac Lofts before I vote.

I was going to add a friendly amendment to the motion expedited with that between now and the BOCS, the applicant should work with local appellate to address these concerns. That will give it enough time. They can also go back to local appellate, look at the recommendations. As of yesterday, they added additional parking, and they were also willing to enter into a parking agreement with the Haverty's next door to address the parking issue, even though they are over-parked currently with the county ordinance. But even though they were willing to go above and beyond, But even though if you still like, I think we can give them the opportunity to work with local appellate and address the rest of the issues. It's a good development. It's the triple R's. We have been looking forward to it. And the supervisor's office worked on it for months, several months. It's a lot of work put into this development.

Okay. What do you think about the on-site management topic? I'm not even sure that's something that the county gets involved in, but...

Correct. So that's again up to the applicant to work with the feedback, and then they can come back and contact and see if it fits their model as well. I live in a community we do not have on-site management. I'm very happy with it. I think it's a personal choice more than anything. If it was like 200, 500 units, I'm with you. 600 units across the street from here in the Prince William County Center, they need it. But these are 130 units. They're not enough to have on-site management necessarily as we can enforce it.

Thank you, Commissioner Shaikh, and thank you, Chair, for indulging me.

Are you comfortable with that?

I am.

Okay. The floor is yours.

Using the item numbers from tonight's announced Planning Commission agenda and the item names to identify each, I move that we recommend approving the following items, with each being subject to the conditions identified in their respective Planning Commission staff reports. A, rezoning number REZ2025-00030, Potomac Lofts. Item B, zoning map amendment number DPA-2026-00007, e-commerce overlay district. And item D, special use permit number SUP-2026-00016, restore physical therapy, Pilates, and fitness.

Second with the friendly amendment to the rezoning REZ 2025-00030 that the applicant work with local appellate and the resident's feedback between now and the BOCS hearing.

If no one else objects, I would accept that amendment.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you. The motion has been made to approve the items identified by Commissioner Ross for the expedited agenda, and it's been properly made by Commissioner Ross and properly seconded by Commissioner Shaik. Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll?

Chair Brown?

Yes.

Vice Chair Justice?

Yes.

Commissioner Carroll? Yes. Commissioner Landrum? Yes. Commissioner Ross?

Yes.

Thank you. Moving on to the next item on the agenda, we are now moving to item 7 for public comment. If

If there's anyone in the chamber that would like to express any kind of public opinion for item that is not, any item that is not on our agenda tonight, you're welcome to go to the back and state your concerns or comments.

No one had signed up, but there were a couple individuals signed up virtually. That we'll have to check. For public comment? For public comment.

Okay. Ali, do we have someone signed up? Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Carroll. Okay, thank you. Okay, let's bring them up.

Good evening, can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay, I have one user to speak, which is Elizabeth Rima.

Oh, okay.

I want to speak on C, on the data center overlay.

Okay, ma'am, we have not actually gotten to that item yet. So do you have time to hang on? Because that's going to be our...

Yes, yes.

Okay.

I wasn't sure what happened.

Okay. Okay, no problem. We'll get back to you, okay? Okay, I'll mute me. All right.

Madam Chair.

Yes.

Just wanted to go back to the last speaker who spoke when 10B was under consideration and you confirmed his comments were related to 10C. The staff recommends that if he is still online, that you invite him to speak when the public hearing for 10C is open so that his comments can be included during that public hearing.

Absolutely. Thank you, Director Washington. Do we have someone else signed up online to speak for a public comment time for an item that's not on our agenda?

I have one more user, which is Jessica Grove.

I actually would like to speak on 10C on the zone and text amendment, so I'll hold. Okay, thank you.

We'll circle back to you.

Okay. We have no other speakers, thank you.

Okay, Chris, we're going to put them on hold because we're going to make our way to 10C very shortly, okay? We're now moving on to item eight, deferrals and continuations. Mr. McGettigan, do we have any deferrals or continuations?

No, Madam Chair, we do not have any items for deferral or continuation. All right, thank you very much.

Moving on to now the planning director's time. So we'll turn it over to Director Washington.

Good evening, Madam Chair, Commissioners, Tanya Washington, Director of the Planning Office. Just a very short update. Earlier today, I had the opportunity to speak as part of a panel at an event called the GeoGov Summit, which was focused on the use of geospatial technologies for public sector and other sectors in terms of providing public services and other benefits to the community. I was part of a panel that was titled Geospatial and Public Policy and Decision Making, and that included myself, the mayor of Union City, Georgia, a representative, a GIS professional representing Westchester County in New York City, sorry, in New York State, as well as a representative from a federal agency who also is in the GIS field. And we were asked to speak on how spatial computing helps communities formulate policy, engage the public, and make informed infrastructure decisions involving energy generation, transmission, data centers, and critical supply chains. and I was asked to speak about the county's experience with data centers as well as how we have used GIS technology to inform, to share information about development including data centers and just all the various aspects of Prince William County's experience with data center development and I also noted that We have the zoning tax amendment coming up that is board direction to start to shift direction in terms of how the county will be managing data center development into the future. IF THE BOARD ADOPTS THIS ETA. SO IN GENERAL, IT WAS A VERY GREAT PANEL, LOTS OF REALLY INTERESTING INSIGHTS FROM OTHER PANELISTS, AND I ALSO STUCK AROUND FOR MUCH OF THE DAY FOR SOME OF THE OTHER SESSIONS AND GOT SOME REALLY INTERESTING, HEARD SOME REALLY INTERESTING INFORMATION ABOUT HOW A GIS TECHNOLOGY IS BEING USED FOR A NUMBER OF PURPOSES TO, AGAIN, BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY. SO THAT'S IT FOR TODAY.

Thank you, Director Washington. We will now move to item number 10. This is gonna be the public hearing for item 10C, which is DPA 2026-00006. That's the Data Center Opportunity Zone Overlay District. The public hearing is now open, and we will now hear from staff.

Thank you, Madam Chair. If you could give us a few minutes to load up the presentation. Sure. Thank you, ma'am.

Madam Clerk, can you check to see if Mr. Graybash is still on the line? I think he was the one that made the comment about 10C, but he thought it was B. Okay. Okay. We apologize for the delay. They were loading the presentation, so we should resume shortly.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for your patience.

No problem. Thank you, audience, for your patience. We appreciate it. Go ahead.

You're up. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS REZA RAMIR WITH THE PLANNING OFFICE. I AM THE CASE PLANNER FOR THIS ZTA, DPA 2026-00006 DATA CENTER OPPORTUNITY ZONE OVERLAY DISTRICT. THIS SLIDE SHOWS A BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THIS ZTA. THIS ZTA INITIATED, THE BOARD INITIATED DATA CENTER OPPORTUNITIES OVER THE DISTRICT ON MARCH 3, 2026, AND PLANNING OFFICE PRESENT THIS ZTA TO DORAC ON APRIL 23, AND FOLLOWING GETTING FEEDBACK FROM INDUSTRY AND PUBLIC, THE BOARD initiate a new ZTA on June 9, 2026, and rescind the March 3 ZTA. And also the board direct the staff to give this ZTA a high priority and bring it back on September for a public hearing and potential adoption. Staff after that had another meeting with DORAC and with CDC on July 15 and with DORAC on July 23. Staff understanding the primary purpose of this CTA is defining a set of qualifying properties and reducing the overlay district boundary and also transition future data center development to a SUP framework. With this CTA, this CTA defines five criteria and any property in the existing overlay, if meet one of these five criteria, they will remain in the boundary. The first one is if the property has approved proper identifying data center use by date of ordinance adoption. SECOND ONE IS IF THE PROPERTY HAS APPROVED PERLIMERALLY DEVELOPMENT, SITE PLAN, PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT FOR A DATA CENTER BY DATE OF ADOPTION. THIRD ONE IS A PROPERTY HAVE APPROVED FINAL SITE PLAN, FINAL PLAN, FINAL PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT FOR A DATA CENTER BY DATE OF ADOPTION OF THIS CITY. AND THE FOURTH ONE IS FINAL ZONING DETERMINATION FOR A DATA CENTER USE. AND THE LAST ONE IS A PROPERTY LEGISLATIVE OR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS ACCEPTED FOR QUALITY CONTROL REVIEW BY 19 DAYS FROM DATE OF ORDINANCE ADOPTION. So if a property meets criteria 1 to 4, then they definitely have by right data center use in their property. But for criteria 5, if they have pending site plan, it means that they have their property zoned industrial office, so they have by right data. data center development in their property. But if they have pending land use or if they have pending PFR, public facility case in their property, they need to get approval from board or PC for PFR to have development in their property. So it's not by right for pending land use cases. For any property out of the overlay, if the property is owned industrial or office, B1, OL, OH, OM, OF, M1, M2, MT, or have industrial or office land use designation in PBD or PMD, PBD or PMD land use, then if they want to have a data center, they need to have a request as SUP for a data center in their proposal. This slide summarizes the process. So as you see, if properties meet one of these five criteria, then that property will remain in the overlay. And if it doesn't, it will be removed from the overlay. For the property that remains in the overlay, for the FOR THE ONE THAT ONLY HAVE PENDING LAND USE APPLICATION OR PUBLIC FACILITY REVIEW APPLICATION, THEY NEED TO GET APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD FOR OTHER CASES THAT HAS CRITERIA ONE TO FOUR AND ALSO HAVE PENDING SITE PLAN IN CRITERIA FIVE. then the data center is by right. For pending application, they need to get the review. They need to submit their case to staff, to county, and get county approval for their request. For any property out of the overlay, if they zoned industrial or office, then their property is subject to SUP if they want to have a data center in their property. This slide summarizes the framework for current regulation and proposed regulation. As you see, there is no change on the framework. The main change is with this ZTA, the ZTA removed almost 60% of property from the overlay, so reduced the size of the overlay. With both existing and proposed framework, any property that are industrial and meet the criteria in the overlay, they have by right development in industrial and office land use. And for any property out of the overlay, if they zone B1OH, OLOM, OFM1M2MT, their property is subject to SUP if they want to have a... A DATA CENTER IN THEIR PROPERTY. STAFF PROPOSED THREE KEY REVISIONS TO THE INITIATED ZTA. THE FIRST ONE FOR THE INITIATED ZTA COMBINED THE BOUNDARY DETERMINATION AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHT IN ONE SECTION, HAVE THESE TWO FUNCTIONS IN ONE SECTION. to separate these two function in two separate sections to reduce confusion. And also on criteria five, staff recommend that all listed application must be for a data center proposal, so we propose some minor change on criteria five. And also for overlay boundary interpretation, we recommend some changes to the ZTA to make it clear that eligibility evaluation only apply to only properties within the overlay. This slide summarize the graph, how this ZTA impact. We are processing to get new application, so this is not final document. Almost 36% of property that are in the existing overlay meet the five criteria, and then they will remain in the boundary. And from that 36%, almost 0.6% meet criteria 1, 54% meet criteria 3, 0.4% meet criteria 4, and 45% meet criteria 5. And for criteria five, that is the criteria that you talk about pending application, and you see almost 85% are pending site plan, so it means that 85% of those property are zoned industrial, and they have by right use. Only 6% of them are pending land use application, and 2% are public facility review for electrical substation. Staff recommend approval of this ZTA and also incorporating the staff recommended change in the CTA. That's in my presentation and I will be happy if you have any questions. I will be happy if you have any questions.

Okay, thank you. We'll now go ahead and hear from the public. Commissioner Carroll, do we have anyone signed up to speak?

Yes, for now we have four individuals in person. When I call your name, if you can head to the back microphone, Mark Dixon, John Foley, Gifford Hampshire, and Jessica Wagner. And then just name magisterial district or generally where you live and you will have three minutes to speak or five minutes if you're representing an organization.

Go ahead. Good evening, planning commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to stand before you and talk about this very important issue in not only Prince William County, but in the district.

Excuse me. Move the mic up so we can hear you better. There you go. Thank you.

I live in the Brentsville district in the Bridalwood neighborhood. My wife and I have lived in Bridalwood for almost 30 years. We chose this community to raise our family, and we spent almost three decades building our lives there. For many years, there's been a small private data center across the street from us. It was quiet, unobtrusive, and barely recognizable as an industrial operation. As we all know, that's changed. The data center industry has transformed into a massive hyperscale industry that can bring enormous buildings, substations, transmission infrastructure, noise generators, cooling equipment, and the industrial scale development directly into communities that were never designed for it. And I'm here tonight to say Bridalwood should not be sacrificed into this industry. Our zoning code needs to protect established residential neighborhoods before the damage is done, not after. I'm asking you to take a clear and unequivocal position. No new data center should be allowed by right. Every new data center, regardless of size, should require a special use permit and public scrutiny. And please do not create grandfathering provisions that allow additional data centers to be built by right under yesterday's rules simply because an applicant has an existing entitlement or property designation. That would defeat the purpose of protecting our communities. We've watched what has happened in Loudoun County. Their Board of Supervisors recognized that their communities needed stronger protections, and I urge you to follow their example and put the interests of residents that have the unchecked expansion of this industry. We're not asking you to stop technology, we're asking you to make responsible decisions about where industrial scale technology belongs. Bridalwood is a residential community. Families live there, children grew up there, people invested their savings, their time, and their lives there with the reasonable expectation that their neighborhood would remain a neighborhood. Please don't allow by right data center development to change that. You have an opportunity and responsibility to fix the zoning code now before another neighborhood is forced to fight this battle after the fact. require special use permits, eliminate new by-right data center development, reject grandfathering provisions that perpetuate outdated entitlements, and put real protections in place for existing residential communities like Bridalwood. Please protect our homes, protect our neighborhoods, and protect the character of Prince William County before it's too late. Thank you. Thank you again for giving me this opportunity.

Good evening, Madam Chairman, members of the Commission. I'm Gifford Hampshire. I'm with the law firm of Blankenship and Keith, and I'm here tonight as I was on July 15 when you considered this last time on behalf of a property owner who's interested in this zoning text amendment. And I'm going to repeat the message I gave on July 15 with respect to item number five, if you will, which is actually subsection E in the staff recommendations. uh... and with respect to the ninety day period which as i said on july fifteen really ought to be extended and as the planning commission recommended on july fifteen was your recommendation was to extend it to a hundred and eighty days and the reason for that is because uh... it takes time for owners to go out and do the tests that are necessary in order to develop a plan a site plan that is worthy of securing quality control in this County. And so more than 90 days is needed. There was some discussion last time, uh, that, well, why should we do that when this is well advertised and all the owners really know about this? They know this is coming. I suggest to you that you connect, you can't legislate that way. You can't presume that everybody in Prince William County knows what's coming. And you certainly can't presume that this zoning text amendment is going to pass ahead of time. Otherwise we wouldn't be here tonight. Uh, the gentlemen spoke rightfully about, uh, property rights and how people have invested in their homes. Well, there are other owners in the county as well who have invested in property. who have borrowed money and made investments based upon the existing zoning and their rights need to be protected too through reasonable grandfather provisions like you have in subsection E or item five in the staff presentation. The question is what is a reasonable period for that grandfathering? We suggest to you that 90 days is not sufficient. It should be 180 days and we ask you to make that recommendation again tonight. Thank you very much.

Hi, good evening. My name's Jess Wagner. I'm just here this evening because I'm requesting that the planning board not recommend anything for approval that would allow for more data centers to be built. We have the largest concentration of data centers in Northern Virginia. on the whole planet Earth. And I think there's already enough. And allowing more wiggle room to allow more on, as the gentleman said before me, outdated laws is simply not correct. If you guys saw recently in the news, Dominion Energy was $900 million short this year. in terms of money that they said that they would earn. And why is this? Because they're allowing data centers to get passes and not pay their bills. But somebody has to pay those bills, and who pays those bills but the citizens. and the citizens who have to pay these bills for data centers that we did not choose to have there. And so data center by right, but what about my right to pay only for the electricity that I use? What about paying for only the water that I use at my house? So I'm just requesting that the planning board really take a look and make sure that There is no wiggle room allowed for more, especially since the citizens clearly do not want more of this. Thank you.

Please refrain from clapping. Thank you. Commissioner Carol.

Um, yep, you can go ahead. If anyone else would like to speak, that was everyone signed up in person. So if anyone else is in chambers wishing to speak, you can congregate in the back groups of three to four

Good evening. Madam Chair and members of the Planning Commission, my name is Mike Kitchen with IMEC. I'm here representing CREDA, formerly NAOP. And as Mr. Hampshire had said, I was also here back in the June hearing and really here just to reinforce what was said at that time and what Mr. Hampshire had said as well. We totally understand the need to... uh to bring a little bit more for lack of a better term control you know to the data center approval process and so we are in support of the changes that are being proposed but we would recommend that uh that that grandfathering period be extended to 180 days as it was during the hearing back in june just to This provides more predictability, not only for the folks that are in the data center industry, but industry as a whole. The county is looking for additional investment in the county and to change rules midstream, so to speak, puts in predictability into that process. And so we just want to make sure that there is a system in place that when folks do invest a lot of money to come to the county, that they know that things aren't going to be changed midstream. Thank you.

Hello, everyone. My name is William Alston from Manassas, city of Manassas. So a little bit further out on Prince William, but hello. Thank you, everyone, for speaking here today. I'm very much in line with many of you. Frankly, I would wish it was 100% if we could have that. But trying to be realistic here, I was worried to see how many options were there for zoning in the first place. By right, shouldn't be a case. These massive buildings, we've learned the kind of damage that it does to communities, that it does to our environment, and that it doesn't bring any money back to us in the first place. It helps out the initial construction. That's it. I have friends in IT who work in these areas. By me, I've got four data centers. Two of them are coming up right next to a school. The fact that that was even able to happen is wrong. These things, they run their diesel engines to keep them going. My IT friends, their work across four, five, six of them, they're not employing that many people. All they're doing is taking from us. They're taking our power. They're taking our water. They're taking our nature. They're taking our air. And it's wrong. And these things should be classified as such. These should not be anywhere near residential areas, let alone a school. These things should be kept far away from people, if at all. As one person already said, we have the largest amount of data centers per capita. We won. We won data centers. We don't need any more. And I would implore you all to think about not just today, but tomorrow, 20 years from now, 30 years from now, when your children, your grandchildren, your great-grandchildren will have to deal with these things. And we'll have to deal with potentially tearing down these massive buildings because likely these things will be dead within a few years with the way the technology is moving. They're building up, they're wiping out our lands, they're over costing us and pushing us out. Please be far more restrictive than you are in this current bill. Thank you for your time and I really hope you consider this.

Thank you. Are there any other speakers who'd like to speak in person? Okay, I know we had a few speakers online.

Good evening, Planning Commission. Our first speaker is going to be Mr. Nathan Rebosh.

Yes, thank you. And thank you again for the opportunity to get my comments on the record. And I want to promise all of you that the sequel will be just as good as the original. My name is Nathan Gribash and like our first speaker, I too am in Bridlewood and that's the Brentsville district in my neighborhood is directly adjacent to the overlay district. I want to focus my comments, you know, like our first speaker, you know, one, no new data centers by right, you know, responsible decisions and increased protections for our neighborhood. But I really wanted to just quickly focus on the grandfathering provision. I think as the others, you know, supporting the data centers spoke, you know, they were talking about expectations. And what I wanted to point out to the Planning Commission is they still have the ability to develop these as industrial sites. It's just the question of data centers. And, you know, but for a, you know, a 180, you know, sort of grandfathering provision or a 90-day provision for grandfathering, the adjacent neighborhoods will have to live with this forever or for as long as these are, you know, functionally able. touching on what the previous speakers mentioned about the obsolescence of it. So, you know, number one, recommend no new data centers by right. eliminate the grandfathering because their provision you know the these folks still have use of their land still for industrial purposes not just for you know not just the uh data centers you know there are appropriate places that don't impact neighborhoods where that can happen and then just encourage the board to make responsible decisions and want to thank you for the opportunity to speak again and get my comments on the record thank you thank you thank you

Our next speaker is Jessica Grove.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Jessica Grove, and I am a director with the Coalition to Protect Prince William County. So I'd like five minutes, please, even though I might not use them. Is that going to be okay?

Yeah, that's fine.

OK. OK. My name is Jessica Grove. I do live in the Gainesville district. And I am deeply concerned that this has been a topic of conversation to allow the data center industry to have plenty of time to get their applications in because The Board of Supervisors and you as Planning Commissioners, you work to represent us as residents and our investments, our quality of life, our water, our air. And I feel like you are taking advice from an industry who has clearly taken so much of that away from Prince William County. They've polluted our air. They're taking our water. They're taking our land, they're taking our wildlife, and they're taking our quality of life, most importantly. And you guys aren't really listening to that, or at least the Board of Supervisors isn't listening to that. They have only said no to one data center project. They did just deny a CPA recently, and thank goodness for that. But to allow for by right data center blight over and over and over again is... I mean, the people who own houses in Gainesville, they're being inundated. And I don't know if you guys know this, but the JLARC study that came out in 2024 used Prince William County as an example of what not to do. What not to do. We are the example of the entire country, the entire world of what not to do. And you're allowing, you're continuing to allow data centers to... come into the county by right. And then they have the audacity to ask for SUPs for every single one saying they need more height, they need a substation on the side, they need this or that or the other. And then they threaten you with, I'm going to build an ugly data center or we're going to do this or we're going to do that. And somehow they get what they want because somebody is too afraid to tell them no. This is your opportunity to tell them no. The Digital Gateway was coming through. So many people who were in favor of the Digital Gateway were using Loudoun County as an example of, oh, we want these schools or we want these parks and Digital Gateway is going to bring that to us. Well, now look what's happening. Loudoun County is now going back on what they have done and they are taking away the grandfathering time period in. And in a time when state after state after state and county after county and township after township are putting a moratorium On all data center growth, we're allowing for 180 days for an industry that is ruining our county. I implore you to take every single measure you possibly can to get this to as strict as possible, to not allow another single data center in this county, let alone by right or SUP. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Rachel Ellis.

Good evening, Rachel Ellis, Gainesville District. I am asking you to take this opportunity to put the residents of Prince William County over the data center industry. While I agree with the zoning text amendment, we need one that is stronger than the one that is presented. I am respectfully asking you to eliminate all by-right data center development and eliminate the existing data center overlay zone. require all data center developments to submit a special use permit, an SUP, allow the public to have a say in what is being built adjacent to their neighborhoods. There should not be a grace period for developers to submit site plans, rezonings or proper amendments. Since this ZTA was initiated on March 3rd, 2026, the industry has been well aware of the intention of the Board of Supervisors. Do not grandfather in any applications. Prince William County is well aware of the impacts of data centers. Our whole state is aware. There have been by right applications that have had devastating impacts to adjacent communities, schools, and parks. Now is the time to do better as a county and as a board and as a planning commission. Now is the time to add design guidelines that reflect better projects for the community. And this one fails miserably. Over 18 months ago, Loudoun County ended by right development with no grace period and blocking any site plan within 500 feet of residential homes. But now they recognize the issue with applications that are grandfathered in. This county, Prince William, has the ability to learn from Loudoun and do the right thing now. While we cannot put the genie back in the bottle, we do have the opportunity to put up guardrails to limit the future impacts to our communities. Respectfully, we as residents see who is sitting up there tonight making the decisions on this ZTA and which district you represent. The majority of this overlay and the data damage is not in your district. I am asking you to vote as if this overlay was in your district and coming after your communities. Prince William County can't present a ZTA that is stronger than this one, one that prioritizes the residents over the data center industry. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Elizabeth Rima.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, we can great.

I'm Melissa. I live in the Brentsville community. In went with green, a community that's threatened by data centers. I'm also the president of the condo association. We chose this community to retire part of our wealth is our homes that are you are affecting. We are a neighborhood. We aren't being offered billions for our properties with acres attached, but we have to deal with the effects of these data centers that you keep approving. I'm asking the Commission to take a bold and meaningful step to strengthen the currently proposed text amendment to include language that would protect my neighborhood and all the residents from the impacts of buy-write data centers. This text amendment is an opportunity for Prince William to finally prioritize homeowners over developers. I'm asking the Planning Commission to recommend eliminating all by right data center development, eliminate the existing data center overlay, which is across the street from my entire neighborhood, require a special use permit so the public has a hearing and can be heard by the board. No grandfathering in process site plans and applications that would place a data center within 500 feet of residential areas as Loudoun is doing. In fact, we believe a setback of greater than 500 is necessary to provide a meaningful protection for our community. There should be no grace period for developers, period, bottom line. The current text amendment allowing a 90-day grace period for more application and site plans to be submitted further threatens my community. At the last meeting, some of you voted to extend the grace period to six months, 180 days is six months. This is just another example of this committee and the board showing their concern for developers instead of the actual residents that have to live with these things. Developers don't need more time. Providing an additional 90 days or more would simply create another opportunity for applications to be put forward. Learned from Loudoun County, Prince William should be known as a place to start and raise a family, retire, start and grow a small business. Instead, we are known for data centers and the local government that disregards its citizens in favor of developers. We are the very epicenter that has awakened the entire country to the devastating effects of these and communities like mine. You have a chance to finally change that and listen to your residents. Put residents first over developers for once. Make this amendment stronger and protect communities like mine. Thank you. Have a good night.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Laura Harders.

Hi, good evening Planning Commissioners. My name is Laura Harders and I live in the Gainesville District. I'm speaking tonight because although I can appreciate the efforts to rein in the data center proliferation by examining the data center opportunity zone overlay district, and I see that there's been a reduction by 60%, I still feel that this is not where it needs to be. We need stricter. We need it to be stricter on the zoning text amendment. I'm asking you to not allow any by right data centers. And I think there needs to be a moratorium. There are calls for there to be a statewide moratorium on data centers, as well as in other parts of the country right now. I'm also asking you not to allow even lengthier time for the developers to get those applications and proffer amendments and other items turned in. It is not changing course midstream. I would say. you need to actually write the course of this ship um so thank you so much for um the time to hear this and discuss this and i i hope you planning commissioners will um not approve this because although we need changes we need to stop the data center development we need to pause thank you

We have no more speakers, thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. We're gonna go back to the chambers one more time. Is there anyone, because there's a lot of you here today, so we figured there would be tons of people speaking, and so far we've just had a handful. Going once, going twice, anyone else? Or the speakers that spoke spoke for you, is that it? Okay, all right. You had some very well-versed speakers, I will say that. Okay. Thank you. We're now going to go to the dais here and see if we have any questions for the staff. If you do, feel free to turn on your microphone. And that's Commissioner Ross. Go right ahead.

Let's see. Yeah. When the parcels were being taken out of the current data center overlay to reduce the, I guess it's the acreage by roughly 60%, you said? What criteria were used to decide which ones to remove? How did you determine that a parcel could be or should be removed?

So if any property meet one of the five criteria, then we define a layer, so we have a new data center overlay district layer. So if any property in the existing overlay meet one of the five criteria, so it will be in the proposed overlay.

Okay, and so to be clear for the audience about what the ZTA does and does not do, right now if there was an empty industrial parcel in the current overlay district, that satisfied one of the, otherwise satisfied one of those five criteria, regardless of whether it's next to a park, a school or a residential neighborhood, the staff recommended version of this text amendment would keep that parcel in the overlay district and would allow that industrial parcel to be transformed into a data center campus. Am I right?

I, I, I would like to address that question. I want to clarify and just make it very clear that the five criteria, the eligibility criteria that Mr. Ramna Ramna refers to that is, um, included in the board initiated CTA. So the staff recommended changes do not pertain to the criteria. We, we only provided some additional clarification. But the staff did not decide or design the criteria to remain in the CTA.

I apologize. And the overweight district. If I made it sound in any way like you guys were taking an initiative to decide what stayed in or out, I understand completely that you were following the board's direction. And so that following that board direction, did it create the result I'm describing where it was only the current zoning and those five criteria that determined whether or not a piece of land should be, uh, preserve its by right abilities. And it had little or had nothing to do with things like incompatibility with adjacent properties.

Yes, so for the five criteria, if you review the first one, if the property has a proper space that allows them to have a data center, even if they remain in the overlay or removing their overlay, the board approves to have a data center on that property. So we are talking about the overlay. have some regulation. So the five criteria define which property remain in the overlay or remove the overlay. How overlay works here, because for those property that are now in the overlay, they, some of them, has like submit site plan because the overlay allow them to have by right data center development there. So keeping them in the overlay reduce having non-conforming use because they submit They did some investment there. So this is, we believe this was the intent of these five criteria.

If I can just add to that, in terms of your scenario, what I would say is any properties, as Mr. Ramiar noted, that meet any one of the five criteria, will be eligible to remain in the overlay district. And if you look at criteria one, which speaks to approved rezonings or special use permits, there may be applications that meet that criteria that may be adjacent to residential areas. So you cannot make sort of a blanket statement as that wasn't a consideration or not because several of the criteria speak to projects that already have approvals that may or may not be in that context.

Well, okay, thank you for the clarification. What I'm trying to get at for the audience and for us is that the ZTA, regardless of who created it and what their motivations were, the result of it is not curing some of the problems that many people in the audience are very interested in, but it does reduce the size of the overlay And there's been confusion about that among the people that I've spoken to in the last 55 days since our previous meeting. And so thank you for that. I'll yield the floor if anyone else has a question.

Okay.

Let's move to Commissioner Shade.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So just for clarity, since board initiated ZTA in March 2026 and now it's If we don't adopt this or recommend approval, then the current by right development will stand. It will not reduce the development by 60%.

So the boundary will reduce. So this CTA reduced the size of the boundary. And the properties that we removed from the boundary They are not zoned industrial. They don't zone, like they don't have any proffer that specifying data center using their property. They are maybe residential. So the idea is removing those property. So data center overlay district boundary was an opportunity for that property there. So the county gave them 10 years ago this opportunity. removing 65% almost properties from the boundary make it very small. And so it doesn't impact on the land use or anything. It doesn't reduce 60% data center. It only reduce 65% of the overlay boundary area.

Which essentially will result in less data center development in future. Uh, potentially, potentially.

The other thing I also just wanted to add with regards to, um, in the, the presentation that shows, uh, the acreage that, uh, meet the criteria that met the criteria to remain an overlay district as of June 30th. As if you look at the criteria, several of the criteria, the windows for property to meet the criteria is still open. And so Mr. Remy are noted that the data on that slide that is not fixed. because there are property owners, if they don't currently meet any of the criteria, they still have a window to either, for example, if they have an approved entitlement, they can apply for a site plan. They still have the ability to take actions to try to meet any of those criteria within a timeframe. Several of the criteria, the window closes the date of the ZTA adoption, and the last one has been discussed and noted by a number of people the ZTA provides a window of 90 days after board adoption. So while there's discussion about that 65%, the general intent that staff understands is that the board's intent is to reduce the number of properties that would remain within an overlay district. But noting that the specific percentage, the specific number of properties, that will not be clear until after those eligibility windows close. And there may be properties that at the time That map was produced at the end of June that may be able to meet one of those criteria and be able to stay with an overlay district. So I did just want to clarify that to not get too fixed on those numbers at this point.

Thank you for clarification, Director Washington. Another, I guess, similar line of questioning. So... We already have had a hearing in July. So longer we take to adopt this, that window continues to extend.

No, that is not correct. The ZTA outlines what that window is. And that has not changed, even if we did not have to redo this public hearing. As Mr. Ramyar noted, the board resolution with the current version of the ZTA directed staff to bring the ZTA to the board by September. And so regardless if the Planning Commission public hearing was in July or in September, The ZTA language is what drives when the windows close. And the windows, as I noted, for several of the criteria is the date of adoption of the ZTA, whenever that occurs. And then the last window for criteria five was 90 days after date of adoption. So really the governing timeframe is whenever the board adopts the ZTA. So the timing of this planning commission public hearing did not extend the windows of time. It was directed by the language that's in this ETA.

I understand that up until September. So let's say, again, I'm not sure how everyone will feel, but if it gets deferred to work on further, then board adoption will also get pushed further, which will extend that 90-day period. So if we say defer it for 90 days, then the language will allow the board to extend another additional 90 days for adoption. So the landowners will have more and more and more time to get their applications in.

I understand what you're saying.

Yeah. I just want to make sure that this is our really first shot at trying to reduce the acreage for data centers. And if we don't adopt this, it's going to give it more time for individuals and applicants to add additional data centers by right. I understand your point. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

Thank you. Coming back to Commissioner Landry.

What percentage, if data is available, what percentage of the remaining properties in the proposed revised overlay zone are adjacent to or within 500 feet of residential schools?

We don't have these in a basis.

Do any of the parcels in the revised zone, I guess, carry that status?

We would have to look at each of the parcels in order to determine that.

But residential, you know, A1 is a residential land use. So the county, we have lots of properties that are zoned A1. So it's hard to find a property that have more than 50.

I'm sorry, I should have clarified. Currently built homes or schools, not zoning classifications.

We would have to look at the existing overlay district and look at the individual parcels in order to determine, to gain that information.

Okay, moving down the dais, Commissioner Carroll.

Yes, thank you. And speaking firsthand by the residents here, I mean, at the least there's homes next to Bridalwood, there's homes next to Wentworth Creek that will be still next to the data center. So I mean, two right off the bat, but I'm sure there's a lot more if staff were to review that. I guess my first question, when we, it was kind of mentioned a few minutes ago, that we're trying not to have non-conforming use. Can someone better kind of explain what exactly that is referring to in terms of, Because I think the non-conforming use is kind of part of the problem that the data centers are non-conforming uses.

Well, so in state code, the The zoning that the jurisdictions are allowed to impose cannot impair vested rights. And so when we're talking about the five criteria that were put into the board's initiated text, those directly came from state law. uh, that said what we, we, the state said that the county, uh, our, our county can do with the zoning as far in response to invested rights. So those are, are specifically, um, not allowed by the state to, to impose. something that is a vested right where there's been an affirmative, a significant affirmative governmental act to allow the data centers. So that's in 15.2-2307 of state code. So that's where that comes from, and that's why that language is in there and why we have those five criteria.

Okay, appreciate that. In terms of looking at what Loudoun is currently doing and kind of reexamining what they did and contemplating the removal of all grandfathering provisions by right, So if we were to recommend that provision to the board tonight to remove all grandfathering provisions of by-right site plans in progress, really that doesn't take away any property rights. They would just have to come through in the SUP process if they were to wish to continue on pursuing a data center on their parcels.

I'm not sure of what Loudoun is trying to do, is going to be able to negate the state law on this. I think that if the board initiated the text that we have that we're looking at now and I think if the board wanted to go back and look at grandfathering or other things like someone had mentioned a moratorium, which we know that state law wouldn't allow either, that they would have to have some conversations with the county attorney's office to make sure that they could do that. I don't know.

um what loudon's uh position is uh and so i can't impine on the legality of of what loudon is doing okay but assuming it is within the bounds you know where i think we're allowed to make recommendations if we make that recommendation and the board takes that up and it passes all check marks someone in that situation they would just then have to come in via an sup in order to have a data center on their parcel, which would require public notice, public hearing, public conversations.

I think at this point, if there are any major changes to what the board has initiated, that it would delay the adoption of this at all. I think the board would have to reinitiate a new zoning text amendment to address grandfathering. I don't think it's something they could do on the 22nd.

Well, I'm not really... Commissioner Carroll, can you hold that thought? Sure, yeah.

And then we can move down a little bit. Oh, okay. I mean, the question wasn't answered. I mean...

If you wouldn't mind, if I may speak, I think the scenario that you are speaking to, Commissioner Carroll, again, the Planning Commission is within your purview to make whatever recommendation you would like to the board for the board's consideration. And a county attorney's office will provide legal guidance to the board for their consideration. So I think the scenario that you're speaking to is something that If that recommendation were made to the board, then the county attorney's office would provide legal guidance on that. So I think that's not something that we can really speak to this evening.

Does that answer your question? Not really, but I'll take it. Okay. Hold your thought. I'm moving down the dais and get back to you. Commissioner Sherman, go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just had a couple of questions. Sort of order of magnitude type question. So have you been tracking the number of data center applications since the ZTA process started? I'm trying to get a sense. Have we had a rush of applications in this last six months? And just what rough order of magnitude? So what type of application? Just specific zoning, map amendments?

So in terms of... So there's... The criteria speaks to land use applications such as rezoning applications, special use permits, public facility reviews that the planning office leaves a review of. And then it also speaks to site plans. And in terms of active land use cases that we manage, because I looked at our online build-out analysis dashboard earlier today for the event that I spoke at, and there are about, I think, 13 or so active data center applications, but we would need to look go back and look at when they were submitted and accepted to see if they occurred within this recent time period. I think a number of them were probably already submitted. So, you know, Mr. Venegas isn't here. He would be the one who would probably have that data more readily at hand. We have heard informally, because several of the criteria speak to the site plan process, which is managed by the Department of Development Services. We have heard sort of anecdotally that they are seeing an uptick, but I think for our department, I don't think we have seen sort of a noticeable increase at this point.

Thank you for that. Part B, if we had the data, would be comparative over time, you know, over the last couple of years if that number stayed roughly about the same. You know, I'm just curious. Second question I had was related to the 90-day effective date. Is that 90 days for any kind of generic sort of text amendment effective date is pretty standard, right, in the planning world, right? When you versus six months, I'm just trying

Or is that an overstatement? It really depends. So, for example, there are not a zoning tax amendment, but there are new state laws that were passed during this previous, this last Virginia General Assembly this spring. And typically, new state laws go into effect July 1. There are a few that are land use laws. new land use laws that won't go into effect until January 1 of next year and one that won't go into effect until July of next year. So it really depends.

No, that's great. That's exactly what I was trying to get at. A lot of times these enactments might be a year away, six months away, 90 days away. So thank you.

Okay, moving down the dais, Commissioner Shaik.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So just following up on Commissioner Carroll's question, I understand that grandfather clause could be a state statute, but since we are an independent commission, I imagine, so we can still make the recommendation and the board will consult with the county attorney if they can remove the grandfather clause.

The Planning Commission can make whatever recommendation as a body that you all choose to make to the board.

Thank you. I would like to recommend adding into the ZTA, instead of 500 feet from a residential or school, 2,500 feet if possible. Is that something?

Is that under one of the specific eligibility criteria or just trying to understand where exactly you're looking to make that recommendation?

So the current zoning allows for up to 500 feet far from the schools and residential properties. So wherever that 500 feet applies, I would like to extend it to 2,500 feet if the rest of the board, the rest of the commission agrees.

So we don't have 500 feet in our zoning ordinance limitation, as you said. We don't have this.

So where does that come from normally? I thought we get it like advertising is done within and the buffers are 500 feet away. I remember multiple applications over the years came through. for advertising? For advertising and also construction.

No. The only thing within 500 feet recently passed by the state is the requirement for high energy use facilities which are facilities over 100 megawatts of power requiring to do a site assessment if they're within 500 feet of a residential or residential school.

A sound profile if they are within a 500 feet of a residence or a school.

Right.

If the high-energy use facility, which is 100 megawatts or more of electric power.

Well, that's a state law, and there's nothing in the current ordinance before you about a distance from residential or schools. Got you. All right. Thank you.

Okay. Vice Chair Justice. All right. Thank you. So somebody came up and spoke about Bridalwood community. And the question came up about a data center going in close by to Holmes there. Is there a way that as a homeowner, that's just an example, can go and look at this map and see exactly what properties are coming out of the data center overlay and which properties are staying in the data center overlay?

The challenge, as I noted earlier, is that the eligibility criteria, the windows to meet that criteria is still open. So even if we were to produce a map as of today, That map could change tomorrow. It could change the next week because there's still the ability for properties to be able to meet the criteria.

Let me reword that. A map that would show who would be out of the data center overlay if they don't meet that criteria within 90 days.

We won't know that until after the eligibility, all of the eligibility windows close, which will be after adoption of the ZTA.

Okay.

So that's the challenge as of today. there is no static map because properties that currently say as of today may not meet the criteria, they still have a window of time to be able to potentially get included if they are to take actions that meet that timeframe. So that's why you really have to wait until after the ZTA is adopted and all of the eligibility windows have closed to know which properties will no longer be included in the overlay district. Okay.

I just wanted to clarify, non-conforming use was brought up. Is that on one of your slides? It's not one of my questions, by the way.

No, we need to talk about non-conforming use.

Okay, because I think Commissioner Carroll brought up non-conforming use, and as far as I understand it, wasn't it brought up non-conforming use?

No.

Commissioner Carroll, did you bring up non-conforming use?

I thought so. That's not in the documents anywhere? No. No? Okay. Because non-conforming use, as I understand it, had a completely different meaning. But if it's not in there, then that works. My third question is, when we had this presentation last time, it was reviewed that this ZTA was brought forward by the board, and there was some language in there about no substantial changes. So if substantial changes are recommended... then that would require a whole new board action. Is that my understanding?

It may be likely.

Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. Moving down the dais, Commissioner Landrum.

Well, I'd just like to first state that we had a meeting on July 15th in which this was voted on. We had a very thorough discussion about this matter and extensive deliberation. and we made a decision. That decision was recorded, and then we found out, not so shortly thereafter, that the decision was nullified by improper notice. Now, this seems to be a recurring issue in Prince William County. This has had what residents would consider to be positive impacts. It's had what residents would consider to be negative impacts, but the point stands that there are a lot of folks that are here today that were not there that day because they must not have received notice. But this continues to be a recurring issue where proper notice is not provided to the public. And I'd just like to ask, given that this is a recurring issue, are there being steps taken to address this issue to prevent improper notice from being issued in the future? And have the employees that were responsible for issuing improper notice received a disciplinary action for their failures that are negatively impacting the public?

I will not speak to any personnel actions that may or may not have been taken. What I will say is that the planning office has taken steps to ensure that all of our staff have the appropriate guidance in terms of to make sure that the appropriate noticing has taken place. And what I will note, the specific issue is is that, uh, we sent, uh, the requirement written notices to all of the property owners, uh, for properties within our overlay district. The issue is that there was some, um, some specific language in terms of the, um, the date or time of the hearing, the time and the location of the public hearing that was not included. And so there's a certain types of information that need to be included to make sure that there are no issues with public noticing. And so, because of that, um, staff determined that, uh, the hearing should be redone and to make sure that the written notice had all of the appropriate information that it needed to have. But in terms of the property owners who meet, who were required to be notified, they did receive the notices at that time. And also this time as well.

Uh, well, respectfully, director Washington, the probably the most important part of a notice is where to go and how to speak. Have the relevant county departments updated their internal guidance and or put in place additional procedures and checks to ensure that notices that go out meet the legal requirements?

Yes.

Very good.

All right. Moving down. Commissioner Ross.

I hope these are simple. Thank you, Chair. In the current overlay district, Do you know if there are any buy right parcels because of zoning that don't satisfy any of the five criteria? That right now if the property owner takes no action, they would just fall off the, okay. And if the property owner doesn't take action between now and either the adoption, possible adoption, or any possible window beyond adoption, would that property then fall out of the overlay district? Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, chair.

Okay. Moving back down to commissioner Carol.

Um, thank you. So, um, so just, you know, to not to go back to the nonconforming use, but just where I had gotten that from, that's on the County project page. Um, where they are talking about the ZTA and in doing so the county seeks to avoid the creation of widespread non-conforming uses. So that's where all those references were coming from. It's on the county project page for the DCOZOD. You're welcome. And just in terms, I don't wanna get too much into the public notice, but just to make sure I'm understanding who the notices went to. So the notices for the ZTA, they only went to parcel owners who were in the data center overlay. They did not go into any sort of neighboring parcels that are within any certain threshold of notification.

No, they, they only, we send written notice to the properties that are in the existing order.

Okay. So, so we actually did not notify the public at all.

No, that's not correct. This, this public hearing was, uh, properly advertised, uh, twice in, um, newspapers. So we did do that. We also send out, uh, texts, um, alerts of planning commission, public hearings, and this, um, item was listed on the agenda on a planning commission. The written notice requirements pertain to property owners, and in this instance, because it affects the overlay district, those written notices went to the property owners, but this public hearing was publicly advertised in multiple ways.

So zoning text amendments only have to go to the parcels involved. They don't have to go to neighboring parcels. for public notice.

That's correct.

Okay. And then when we were here in July, um, you know, I asked, you know, recommended that we, we should be having a public community meeting to kind of inform the public. Um, and, you know, Commissioner Landrum just spoke about this, you know, when we were here in July, none of the public showed up. And I think as the public starts to hear about this and learn about this, I think there are a lot of valid questions that, you know, we're asking tonight that the public is trying to get clarification on. And at that time I asked, you know, when are we gonna have a county sponsored public community meeting to kind of walk through this ZTA, walk through some of the changes proposed. and it was expressed that there wasn't time. But in the staff report since then, it looks like staff has met with the Commercial Development Committee since then, DORAC since then, the National Association of Industrial and Office Parks since then. So that's three kind of industrial commercial users. Why are we finding time to meet with them and not the public?

Those meetings were already scheduled by those organizations. And so the specific request was for the county to schedule a public meeting. And as noted, we are still working under the timeframe from the board to get the ZTA back to them in September. But those meetings were already scheduled by those organizations and we requested to be added to their agendas.

And so did the board direct staff to have a meeting Just to clarify what you said, did the board direct staff to have a public meeting with the public?

No.

Okay.

Commissioner Landrum.

Just following up on Commissioner Carroll's question, even though the board didn't direct staff to hold a meeting with the public, did the board specifically direct that staff meet with those other agencies and stakeholders?

We didn't receive specific board direction, but there was an understanding given that the development industry had provided feedback on earlier versions of the CTA to continue to seek any opportunities to see if there was additional feedback. I will note that two of the organizations that we met with are actually board appointed entities, DORAC and CDC are all board appointed. So it's really only one organization that was an external organization.

Uh, just to follow up question on that was, was there any consideration made by staff to consider a, a meeting with the public or was that a, or was that option not part of the deliberations of staff?

It was considered and it was discussed with sort of the higher-ups, but ultimately this direction that was given to staff was to continue to proceed to get this to public hearing to the board in September. So that's what our focus.

Sure. Are you able to shine a little bit of light as to why staff ultimately declined to do so? Was it only a timing issue?

It's primarily a timing issue.

Thank you.

Okay, seeing that there are no more lights on. Going once, going twice, maybe. One more question, anyone, anyone? All right.

All right.

Let's go ahead and open for discussion. Oh, go ahead.

I was ready to make the motion so we could start the process. We can make the motion and then discuss.

We can make the motion and then discuss. Okay, go right ahead. Thank you, Commissioner Shifler.

All right. All right. So here is my motion. I move that the Prince William County Planning Commission close the public hearing.

The public hearing is now closed.

I move that the Prince William County Planning Commission recommend the Board of County Supervisors approve DPA 2026-0006 Zoning Text Amendment to the Data Center Opportunity Zone Overlay District, accounting code section 32-509. which was initiated by the board on June 9th, 2026 by adoption resolution number 26-374 with the exception of reducing the criteria five grandfather period to zero days or add board adoption and recommend that the board incorporate and approve the county staff recommendation changes to DPA 2026-0006.

Commissioner Scheifler, I'd like to offer a friendly amendment.

I'd like to see if there's a second first. Second.

I'd like to offer a friendly amendment that the recommendation of approval be modified to a a window of 180 calendar days from the date of ordinance adoption with a supplemental clause added to the end of paragraph 5 that reads, subject to the requirement that any such developments contain a minimum 500-foot setback of any structures from existing homes or schools.

Second.

Okay. That motion has been made by, well, the first motion by Commissioner Scheifer has been properly made by Commissioner Scheifer to approve with a change in the review period to zero days and properly seconded by Commissioner Shaik. We now have a friendly admission and also a friendly amendment. But let's go ahead and get a vote on Commissioner Shaik. Do you want to have a discussion first? I'm sorry.

On the requested amendment, I've read up on this the last couple of days and I'm First, I was wrong before when I said that we needed to have a second beforehand. These types of amendments, this is a point of order or a point of information, these types of amendments are allowed up until the time that you restate the motion. Once you restate it, it belongs to the body here. Before then, people can pop in and seek unanimous consent or a vote. So if there's unanimous consent, we don't have to do a roll call vote. But if you want to do a roll call vote on the proposed amendment, you may.

Thank you for that clarification.

Great question, Chair. Doesn't the original member, he has to accept the amendment first before we can vote on it?

That would be part of without objection.

Yeah, I do not accept the friendly amendment.

Okay, since he does not, Commissioner Scheifler does not accept the friendly amendment, we will now need to have a vote. Madam Clerk, call the roll.

Can we restate the motion with the friendly amendment? Because I'm just not clear what exactly.

He didn't accept the friendly amendment.

Well, yeah, so now we're voting on the friendly amendment. No, we're voting on his motion.

Excuse me. We vote on the proposed amendment. Yeah, I thought we voted on it. If that proposed amendment receives a second is my recollection.

Yeah, I thought that's what we did last week.

Either that or...

He didn't accept the friendly amendment.

A nuance to this is that in our parliamentary guide, if we're going to be guided by our parliamentary guide, there is no such thing as a friendly amendment. There's just amendments. Even after a second has occurred and the main motion now is owned by the entire body, someone can propose an amendment. So one way or another, I believe Mr. Landrum is going to ask us to vote on his amendment. So I would recommend getting to that point.

That's correct. Will that require a second still for the amendment or no?

It will.

Now or later, I would urge us to get a second just in case we need one.

Yes. We got one from Commissioner Sherman. Okay, just to summarize so that we're all clear on what's going on here, we had a first, we had the original motion made by Commissioner Scheifler with a slight modification. His motion was to approve the Data Center Opportunity Zone Overlay District, but modifying the timeframe, which initially was 90 days review period after the effective date. He wants to shorten that to zero days so that there's no review period for data centers that are currently under review. So it would cut off the time for them to either submit and become included, is that correct?

If I understand correctly, Commissioner Scheifler's motion, the change would be, it would relate to criteria five, which relates to pending rezoning special use permits, public facility reviews for self-stations, and pending site plan applications that are quality controlled accepted. The current CTA says by 90 days following adoption of the ordinance, which is the ZTA. So if I understand the motion from Commissioner Scheifler, those pending applications would have to be quality controlled, accepted by the county by the date of adoption.

Correct.

That's correct.

Yes. Then, now we have that straight, we then have an amendment that was made by Commissioner Landry to extend the review period, which means that instead of the original 90 days for review, which was suggested by the board in their original zoning text amendment, modified by Commissioner Scheifler's motion amending that time period to zero, meaning it would become immediately effective and essentially cut off any QC applications, right, that are under review.

It wouldn't cut it off. It would just set a different time frame by which the application would have to be quality controlled accepted. So the current ZTA gives that 90 days after ZTA adoption. Commissioner Scheifler's motion would be it would have to be quality controlled accepted by the date of adoption of the ZTA. And if I understand Commissioner Landrum's amendment, it would be extended. The pending applications would have to be quality controlled accepted 180 days after the date of adoption. Is that correct, Commissioner Landrum?

That's correct. Specifically, the amendment would create, if the amendment were accepted, the amended motion would be to recommend approval of the zoning text amendment with the additional recommendation of changing the 90 calendar days to 180 days and inserting an additional clause at the end of subsection five, which would read that Such applications would be subject to the requirement that any such developments contain a minimum 500 foot setback of any structures from any existent homes or schools.

Commissioner Landry, I just had a question for clarification. Does your motion include approving, recommending approval of the staff-recommended changes to the ZTA?

Yes, it does. Okay. Because that wouldn't be subject to, there was no red amendment to that from the original motion by Commissioner Scheifler.

Okay. Just wanted to clarify that.

Commissioner Ross, did you have something? I see your light on.

Okay.

Okay. Um, just for clarification, I just want to remind the public that we actually discussed this back in July as we stated earlier. And the reason we are hearing this again is because there was a defective notice to the property owners, correct? All right. So I would like for commissioner, uh, Landrum to, to, uh, just make sure that I understand the reasoning to extend the review period to 180 days was to give those current applications that are under quality control time to conduct some of their studies that actually take longer than 90 days and do other things. Is that correct?

Yes, because given the timeline that typically exists for these development projects anywhere, at the very earliest or the very shortest, six to eight months, many of these applications take much longer. Realistically, a lot of the applications, if not all of the applications that would be submitted within that 180-day window would already have met the legal requirement of vesting their property rights by exerting a substantial expenditure or otherwise extending detrimental reliance, so to speak, on the overlay zone as it exists today. And so curtailing those property rights that are vested in a situation like that could open the county up to a lawsuit that would invalidate any decision that the board makes and put us all back at square one.

So just to clarify, I think Commissioner Landrum, as well as myself, as well as Commissioner Sherman, we're trying to strike a balance between what the board wants, which is to reduce the overlay zone, while also recognizing that there are applications that have already been approved and at different stages of development as well as applications that are still under quality control review for data centers within our office of planning that had not submitted all the things they needed to submit. So it's a fine line trying to balance what's fair on both sides. So recognizing the public's concern about the vast amount area of the data center overlay zone I think the board is trying to respond to that by putting out certain criteria to say okay the development the data center development community we recognize that you have some vested rights so we want you to basically clean get your application through even though we're making this change kind of midway through. So for those that hopefully are in the audience, hopefully you can understand why we're trying to strike a balance here. Because one, we don't want to be unfair to the public who is concerned and the board actually is trying to address that. But yet we also don't want to be unfair to the data center development community that had their applications, um, either already approved or in process. Fair, fairly said. Okay. And the property owners as well.

If you're just asking us to speak up, I think what you're saying is misguided.

Do expand. Go ahead.

Thank you for recognizing me. The zoning text amendment's purpose is protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of you, me, and our neighbors by curtailing buy-write development before any more poorly designed, poorly located, and poorly energized data center projects take advantage of our current weak design standards. I'm glad that the planning office is working on revising those standards. Now, based on our last meeting, I think it's pretty obvious that the full commission wants the ZTA to proceed. We want it to pass. but the reasons for extending the 90-day deadline that were advanced in our last meeting had me puzzled. So I created a transcript of the meeting, and I made a summary of the various points that were raised last night. And I think it's worth repeating one more time. The transcript shows clearly that we all agree switching to the ZTA's proposed SUP process is best for our county's residents. Now, It strikes me as odd that if there's something we can do that's best for our county's residents, that we might delay one second longer than is necessary before we take that action. So with that in mind, a longer window isn't needed. The board's March directive did not have this longer window for Criterion 5. It didn't even have a window at all for it. And if the start to finish for getting a project to QC takes longer than would be available with a zero or a 90-day window, the applicant is moving into SUP territory. They're not being forbidden from developing their project. They're just moving into a different process that we all have agreed by our last meeting's discussion is a better process. Otherwise, we would have not recommended the ZTA at all. Now, some of the July 15 discussions mistakenly implied that a project is doomed and its investments will be forfeit if the applicant misses that QC cutoff, but that's simply not the case. The SUP path and rezoning paths, if necessary, will still be open. and they will receive the scrutiny that the overwhelming majority of our residents wanted placed on these types of developments and applications. I see a lot of nodding heads out here in the audience. And there never was an intention for the criterion five window to apply to a project that began today or even back in July 15th as far as, if I can just look into the board's mind a little bit They left that in there so that projects were already underway, well underway, and satisfying the Commonwealth Code criteria for having made substantial investments, for having relied on significant affirmative governmental actions, would have a reasonable time to cross the finish line. They did that for property rights reasons, they did it for the Commonwealth Code reasons, they did it for due process reasons, for any number of reasons is what I believe is going on. So anyone who waited until today or tomorrow is not a government problem. They simply apply for the SUP. And like I said, we unanimously agreed to switching that SUP process to give Prince William County better results. Now, I understand the NAIOP comment about stability is good and urging slow change. Well, this has been a slow change. And stability is good. But we're not changing midstream. That's just a non sequitur. All changes are made midstream of something. And when the overlay district was put in place, There was no 90-day window to opt out of it if you were a homeowner that was going to possibly be parked next to some giant industrial development. That and the investing topic is, well, there's a reason it's called investing and not called guaranteeing. It's investing, it's speculating in some cases, some cases it's little speculation, some cases it's a whole lot of speculation, but it's not, there's no guarantee, and it's not the county's business to make a land speculation or a land investment pay off. The county's business is following the state code, the local ordinances, and watching out for the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents. So let's do that, and let's not get tangled up in how much we need to hold the hands of somebody who doesn't want to switch to using the SUP process. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, moving on to Commissioner Landrum.

So, Commissioner Ross, I agree with so many of the points that you've made. Ultimately, approvals for a project such as a data center should go through a robust process. deliberative process, through the Board of County Supervisors, through the Planning Commission. The whole concept of by-right data center development, in my opinion, was a mistake to begin with. I'm beyond grateful to Supervisor Gordy for taking the initiative and being, in some respects, for many years, the voice of reason on this issue. and putting forward a reasonable zoning text amendment that would do away with by right data center development. I think the county owes them a great deal of gratitude. Now before us today is that zoning text amendment and although mention has been made of 90 days or zero days or 180 days, the options that have been presented thus far from this day have been either zero days which is the initial motion or 180 days and I'll explain my reason for offering 180 days as a substitute. This county has already dealt with the consequences of a decision that's made and in the process of carrying out that decision depriving county residents of their rights, whether it's a right of notice to be heard, or in this case, whether there's the potential deprivation of vested property rights. So I just want to go and lay out the reason why I'm proposing 180 days. And the reason being is that a zero day window would deprive property owners of vested property rights or certainly have the potential of doing so. And I'll tell you what would happen if that were the case. That landowner or that developer would be able to file a lawsuit against Prince William County making the reasonable claim that their vested property rights were deprived without due process and without any opportunity to exercise those rights that had vested. Were their lawsuit to be successful, the board's action in passing this zoning text amendment and eliminating by-right data centers would be overturned by the court, at which point we'd be back to square one, and at which point that 90-day or 180-day or zero-day window becomes however long it takes for that process to work its way through again, at which point the proliferation of data centers through the county becomes a fait accompli. For a property right to vest in the state of Virginia, you need three things. You need a significant affirmative governmental act, which Commissioner Ross mentioned. That took place when the county established this data center overlay zone, which permitted by-right data center development on these parcels. It requires good faith reliance. In other words, the owner must rely in good faith on that grant of right. And then they have to incur a substantial expense or obligation. Now, whether or not a property owner or developer has submitted their application for QC has no bearing on whether or not they've already detrimentally relied on that government grant and incurred a substantial expense or obligation. That could happen as soon as they start paying one of the big shot lawyers around here, because that's expensive, as soon as they start hiring an engineer. And so if we run that risk with a zero day window of depriving vested property rights, we open up a whole can of worms that could result in whatever decision the board makes in September being nullified. And then we're back at square one, and the result of that is a much uglier outcome than any of the outcomes that are being discussed on this dais today. Hence the reason for my ultimately unfriendly amendment that we are at some point going to vote on.

Okay, we're going to go down the dais to Commissioner Carroll.

Thank you. Just a quick response to that. So... Did the county attorney confirm everything you just said is fact? It's Virginia state law. No. Did the county attorney? The county attorney has not offered an opinion on that specifically, I don't believe. So when Loudoun did this a year and a half ago and they haven't been sued, thoughts on that?

As I understand it, there is legal action being considered in Loudoun County. If I'm not mistaken, I was told that that was subject to a news article that came out a number of days ago. Okay, which article was that? I'm not sure that's secondhand information, but regardless, the risk is certainly there.

And just to end that, I mean, I think if we extend that to 180 days, I think then that risk then falls to the residents.

Okay, moving down the dais to Commissioner Sherman.

I just wanted to say for the record that I concur with Commissioner... Landry's comments about the risk, but I also had a more fundamental reason for supporting the 188, and that is that that's what we voted on in July. And I was just trying to get us back to that baseline of what we...

Speak louder, please.

Get back to the baseline of where we were in July. I mean, nothing's changed in terms of the ZTA. Just time between July and that. But I think all the reasons we voted for the 180 days back in July still apply. And so that's why I'm supporting it.

Thank you. And I actually will concur with both you and Commissioner Landrum. Most of the applications take about a year or more. to go through the process of even getting an SUP. So 180 days is a lot. Actually, it's very quick given the process it takes now, the time that it takes now. So... I personally do not think 180-day review period is unreasonable. I think it strikes a fair balance. And again, I concur with both you and Commissioner Landrum. And I will go down the dais to Commissioner Ross.

OK. In reverse order. anybody were to debate me on the amount of time landowners or developers have had to react to this, I would start the clock in March. And in September, end of September will be about seven months, 90 days after would be 10 months and 180 days after would be 13 months. If they couldn't put the spurs to the horses, the SUP process is being left wide open to them. Now then, on the vesting portion, What I'm going to say comes from the training I received at Virginia Commonwealth in their certified planning commissioner course and case law that I scrounged around on the Internet to read and think about. At the VCU class fellow commissioners, I learned that a vested right is one that belongs completely and definitely to a person, that it cannot be taken away from him without his permission. and that zoning ordinances may not impair vested rights as defined by Virginia Code 15-2-2307. Now then, in 15-2-2307, there are some standards, and the lawyer who was teaching us that day went on to say rights which are limited, which vests are limited to those affirmatively acted on, and that evidence to support those claims must be clear, express, and unambiguous. This is aligned with what Commissioner Landrum was saying. But the list of affirmative governmental actions is different than the guarantee that we would be slammed with lawsuits that he described. And also, The, every zoning ordinance change, I will assert, every zoning ordinance change could be contested in court. If you rezone the land around me or the land that I'm on, as a homeowner, I could contest it by claiming that I had relied on the original zoning to my detriment. Well, we know that that just doesn't happen, at least not, if it happens, somebody's trying to push the rock uphill. So the fact that somebody might file a lawsuit is different, far different, than the scenario you outlined where you made it sound as if you believed there would be many, many lawsuits coming out of the woodwork, And if one does and we're in the right, bring it on. Waiting, if you wait 180 days, somebody can still sue for the reasons you described. If you wait 270 days, somebody can still sue for the reasons you described. If you wait 360 days, someone can still sue for the reasons you described. So let's treat this like other ordinance changes. Rely on the county attorney's advice because I'm confident the county attorney has weighed in on this already. and let's set a limit that gets us to the better process as quickly as possible. We all agree that the change is good. Let's get there as quickly as possible. Thank you, Chair.

No problem. Commissioner Landrum?

I'd just like to respond to that. By no means, if I made it seem like I was saying that that would be a determined or definite outcome, I have no way of predicting the future. None of us do. Whether somebody brings a lawsuit or not is not the concern. The concern is if a lawsuit is successful. If there is a lawsuit brought, even one, and they succeed on the basis that their vested rights were trampled upon without due process afforded to them, and the judge sides with that party in the lawsuit, then that judge would have the ability to invalidate the board's action. at which point an outcome far worse than the outcomes that have been suggested by several members of this commission as far as data centers being built or where they're built would be able to occur, which is specifically why with my proposed amendment, I'm seeking to not only make sure that that potential of an outcome does not occur but also in in turn also Recommending additional protections for property owners and assurances that projects that are built are at a minimum 500 feet from homes and schools which by the way is language that is not in here right now if this zoning text amendment is approved as is and for any parcel adjacent to homes and schools, they can build. And there's nothing prohibiting them by right from building a facility within that 500 foot ideal line of separation that has been floated around and in some counties made part of their land use policies. That would ensure that there is a minimum of 500 feet of separation. So that's the amendment that I've proposed. kill two birds with one stone, but also make sure that property owners are doubly protected from negative outcomes.

Okay. Let me respond because I just want to remind everyone, as we know that what we do is make recommendations to the board and really it's the board that It's up to the board to decide whether they want to go with their original record, what they sent down to us to consider, or whether they want to adopt the ordinance with our recommended changes. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. So it really is... ultimately up to the board to decide what it is that they want. And of course, since this was a board-initiated zone tax amendment, I'm sure that they have in their mind some idea of what they're willing to accept. So just that I said all that to say that we are making a recommendation. Whatever we do is a recommendation, but it's ultimately up to the board. Moving down the dais, Commissioner Shaik.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So since we have so many different opinions, but majority is extending the time to 180 days or zero. And the initial recommendation by the board or initial ZTA recommends 90 days. So I was going to ask if Commissioner Landrum will be willing to keep that 90 days instead of extending it to 180. So we can at least get it to the board in its form. We can keep the amendment with 500 feet also and just have this time. We already are 60 days later. So that six months is almost there. So if we keep it 90 days, it will suffice the six months what you were looking for originally. And now it will also help us with that lawsuit threat if that ever happens. So we keep it at 90 days then instead of zero.

Commissioner Shaikh, I appreciate that suggestion. For the reasons that I expressed and other members of the Commission expressed at the July 15th meeting, and for the reasons that I just expressed, I do have concerns about 90 days, and my amendment is going to be for 180 days. But thank you.

Okay, moving on down the dais to Commissioner Carroll. Is that you? Yeah.

Yes, thank you. So I obviously cannot support 180 days. You know, 500 feet, that's great. I'd almost go bigger, like Commissioner Chick said, 2,500 feet. I'd maybe consider that. But I think we're basing this on hypothetical legal cases and... You know, part of it, we're trying to provide buffer for 180 days, but like Commissioner Ross said, I mean, there's no, they could just sue the county at the end of 180 days. We're in the same situation. Much less, then we are introducing a new development guideline, which would probably be more prone for a lawsuit. So, I mean, we can think about hypotheticals all we want, but I mean, I think we just need to base our recommendation on our recommendation, thinking about the people we represent who are affected by this and the cost that they have bared in terms of decreased property values, environmental costs, the industrial costs, energy costs. I mean, that's what I'm concerned about. So that's why I would be very strongly leaning towards the original motion of zero days.

Okay, moving down the dais, Commissioner Sherman.

I had a technical question for Planning Director. When our recommendation is communicated to the Board of Supervisors, how are the concerns communicated that are not necessarily reflected in the final recommendation? Is there some summary?

of concerns that have been raised in terms of, um, concerns raised by planning commissioners during this discussion, we generally speaking, provide a summary of the discussion at the planning commission, along with, um, what the ultimate recommendation is. I will note, um, again, because the CTA is on a tight timeframe. that the staff report for this item has been submitted for the September 22nd board meeting, and because the agenda items have to be submitted early, the staff report is completed, but we are able to convey at that public hearing a summary of the discussion at the Planning Commission and their ultimate recommendation.

Thank you.

Okay. Commissioner Roth, one minute.

You're not allowed to limit the amount of time I speak, but I will be brief. One minute. You are not allowed to limit the time I speak. And if we do this for one minute, I still will speak. OK. Brian, Commissioner Landrum brings up two points that need to be separated and thought of separately by us. One is the risk of a lawsuit. As I pointed out, the risk of a lawsuit exists no matter where we set Criterion 5's window. They just exist. Commissioner Carroll echoed that a minute ago. Separately from that, We ask ourselves, why would we vote to approve this zoning text amendment at all? Because it makes things better. So let's make them better more quickly and not. in my mind, improperly mix in the risk of a lawsuit as a justification for delaying making things better. That risk will exist no matter what timeframe we choose. And to the folks who have said we talked about this back in July, I agree. And so that's why I took the time, and it was a lot of time, to go through the entire transcript and examine the arguments that were advanced then And I'm prepared to discuss any of them with any commissioner here who has still got an open mind on this topic. You know, there were the need to inform residents and civic associations, the longer window that we focused on tonight. What will the planning office workload spike? Do we need to ensure due process and property rights aren't violated? My research tells me that we're not in any danger of denying anyone the process they are due because the process we are following is the one mandated and constrained by the state law and the county law. So if we are following those processes, we are giving everyone the process they are due. Substituting our opinions for the boards came up. Abolishing overlay districts is rare came up. Applicants might submit low quality applications. That came up. If we'd like to discuss, if anyone here still has an open mind, I'll be delighted to discuss those with you. And I'll yield the floor again. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Okay, I think we've had a robust discussion here. And so now we will go ahead and call for a vote.

I'd like to divide the question. Commissioner Landrum's motion affects two significantly different topics. One is the 500-foot setback, and the other is the extension window. And so I'd like to vote on those two items separately.

Commissioner Landrieu.

Respectfully, Commissioner Ross, both of the textual changes offered as a substitute motion recommendation to the Board of County Supervisors. Both of those are simple textual edits to the same subsection of the same section, or the same sub-subsection of the subsection of section 32-509.03. Specifically, it would be a textual change in one sub-subsection, or sub-sub-aim, if you will. And so I would disagree with your characterization that these are separate issues, rather they are concerning the amendment of text, or the recommendation, I'm sorry, of amendment of text by the Board of one sub-subsection.

Chair, I would disagree with that analysis. And if Commissioner Landrum wants to guarantee that I oppose his amendment, he might stick with what he just said. But I think that there are two separate, definitely separate, useful topics in his motion and that the question should be divided. And I'm not sure, but I'll double check. We may have to vote on my request to divide the question.

What we have here is an amendment, uh, amendment that was made by commissioner Landrum. Uh, essentially commissioner Ross was asking him to amend his amendment and commission. No, ma'am.

I wasn't. No chair. I was not. I was, I was asking the body to agree to divide the question.

Excuse me.

So Commissioner Ross is asking that the same amendment, but since there are two edits in it, so we vote on each edit separately, which is fine. I think it's very normal. One may get approved, one may not.

No, that was not Commissioner Landrum's motion, though. His amendment contained both of those items.

Madam Chair, the opportunity does exist to split these questions, and that would be for members who didn't want to consider these questions. Two, you know, changes to the exact same subsection, really a proposed amendment to a single subsection could simply vote against the amendment that I've presented, at which point we'd be back to square one.

Point of order. Division of a question must be seconded, is not debatable, is amendable, and requires a majority vote. So we should not be debating this. We should call for a second. If one exists, we vote.

Point of order? Yes. I'd like to call for a vote on the first motion. We need two-thirds to agree, and then we'll vote on the first motion. Or the second motion. Whoever wants to agree on what we vote on. Okay.

I agree that we vote on something.

Well, according to Commissioner Ross, I second his motion to split.

Okay, but I'm calling a vote on the first motion, and we have to have a two-thirds.

No.

Is that how Robert's Rules works?

Nope.

Somebody could call for the motion and then two-thirds agree.

You can call the question. I'm calling the question. For the motion that is on the floor. The motion that is on the floor at the moment is Commissioner Landrum's most recent one.

That is true.

Go ahead. If I may. Dividing the question requires there to be two separate questions. two separate items to be...

It's not debatable.

We just vote. Correct. I understand that. But there aren't two separate questions. There's one question contained in one motion to make a textual change to subsection 5 as I outlined. Specifically, that textual change concerns a change from the number 90 all the way to the word approval. And so I'm proposing in my motion to amend the original motion a single line item change to the original motion's recommendation of approval concerning subsection five. These are not separate divisible issues under Robert's rules.

They are. And let's see if the commission agrees with you or me. That's why it's not debatable and we vote. We just find out if the commission agrees.

Okay. We are going to vote on the amendment brought by Commissioner Landrum that is on the floor. Can you restate your motion, please? Thank you very much.

Chair, I appeal your ruling. I would like for the commission to vote on your ruling. Point of order.

No, we're not going to do that.

Chair, are you going to be guided by our parliamentary authority or are you going to ignore it?

Commissioner Ross. Yes. We're going to move forward.

Chair, are you going to abide by our parliamentary authority and be guided by it or are you going to ignore it? Commissioner Ross. You can talk to me in a calm voice as long as you want, but it will not change the fact that you are exceeding your. I am the chair and I am guiding this. I know what a chair does and is. Okay. And we have a parliamentary authority that also describes that. Okay. And you do not have the authority to do what you are trying to do.

I called for the vote prior to the second. Correct.

Commissioner Ross, we're going to move forward with the vote, whether you agree or not. We're sorry.

This is being recorded, and I'm sure it's going to come up at some point in the future.

That's fine.

So just a point of order. So Commissioner Justice just said she called for a vote before I seconded Commissioner Ross' motion. That is correct. So if I had seconded before, then you're saying that we would have been able to split it.

No, I'm saying that it's not debate.

I'm just wanting, is that what you're saying?

I know that we could take a moment and we can look through Robert's rules. But my understanding of Robert's rules is that if somebody calls for the vote at that time, the board, the commission can make a vote to decide to call for the vote. And if two thirds agree, then we vote on the motion that I called.

Right?

So his motion was not finalized at that time.

That's not the question I'm asking. I'm asking should it have been seconded, then you're saying that's fine to split.

That I don't know. I would have to take a moment, and I would have to look through Robert's rules. My point right now is that I called for the vote prior to your second.

Is that correct? You called for the vote on the main motion, which is not what is on the floor at the moment.

The main motion or the second motion? And I put that to the chair to call a vote. So we could take a moment of recess. We could flip through Robert's rules if you guys would like to make sure that we're all on the same page. But that is at the discretion of the chair. That is my understanding of Robert's rules. I could be incorrect. Somebody can let me know.

I think. it is time for us to take a vote on the motion that is currently on the floor, which was made by Commissioner Landrum.

And you would ask that I restate that motion?

Would you please restate your motion?

My motion is to amend Commissioner Scheifler's motion to approve his original motion, which was to recommend approval of the ZTA with a textual change from 90 days to zero days. My amendment would result in a... modified motion that would modify, which would recommend the approval of the ZTA subject to the modification of the text beginning with the number 90 and ending with the word approval such that 90 is struck and replaced with the number 180 and the end of that line is extended to read subject to the requirement that any such developments contain a minimum 500-foot setback of any structures from any existent home or school.

Do we have a second? Seconded. You seconded. Okay.

Okay.

I just want to make sure that Commissioner Sherman is still seconded. All right. We have a second. The motion has been, this amendment has been properly made by Commissioner Landrum, properly seconded by Commissioner Sherman. Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll?

Chair Brown?

Yes.

Vice Chair Justice? Yes. Commissioner Carroll?

No.

Commissioner Landrum?

Yes.

Commissioner Ross?

No.

Commissioner Shaik? No. Commissioner Scheifler?

No.

Commissioner Sherman?

Yes.

It's a tied vote. It fails.

Okay. We are now moving to Commissioner Scheifler's original motion. Can you please restate your motion so that we don't lose track?

The basic motion with changing the... criteria 5 to 0 days instead of 90.

Okay, so Commissioner Shriver is recommending approval, changing the review period from 90 days to 0 days. And we have a second from Commissioner Shaik. Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll?

Madam Chair, sorry to interrupt. Yes. I just want to be clear. Does your motion include recommending approval of the staff recommended changes? Yes. Thank you.

I'm sorry. Yes. And recommending approval of the staff recommended changes.

Madam Clerk. Can I offer a friendly amendment?

Go right ahead.

Or an amendment. Amendment. Can we also include in that the... distance requirement of 2,500 feet that Commissioner Shake brought up earlier.

Did you say 2,500?

Yes.

Okay. Do you accept that, Commissioner? Somebody has a second. And somebody needs to second it?

Second. All right. But you can go quickly by saying... Without objection, you know, does the commission agree? And if no one objects, then boom. That's what makes it friendly is the lack of an objection from any commissioner.

Okay. So, but Commissioner Schreifer, you do accept that amendment?

I'll accept it.

Okay. It's almost unanimous. All righty. The motion has been properly, well, we have an amendment that's been made by Commissioner Carroll. It has been accepted by Commissioner Scheifler, and that is one, to shorten the review period to zero, meaning it becomes effective upon passage of the amendment. ordinance of the ZTA, and also now adding a 2,500 foot setback to any schools. From the structure, right? From the structure. You got it? Got it. All right. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Chair Brown?

No.

Vice Chair Justice?

No.

Commissioner Carroll?

Yes.

Commissioner Landrum?

No.

Commissioner Ross?

Yes.

Commissioner Shaik?

Yes.

Commissioner Scheifler?

Yes.

Commissioner Sherman?

No.

It's a tie vote. It fails.

Chair, can I make another motion? Go right ahead. Can I make a motion that the Planning Commission is going to take no action and this can move to the Board on the 22nd of September? Do I have a second?

I'm sorry, who's second?

I'm second.

Okay, absolutely. We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Scheifler. I'd like to discuss that briefly.

Have we done that before?

I'm not understanding what you're trying to say.

Well, usually if you don't take action, there's a 90-day period before the board can hear it.

I'm just saying that if you would just let the motion fail and nobody would make another motion, you wouldn't motion to enact that occurring.

I'm trying to avoid whatever, if there's a period after, if we don't take action, we have 90 days to make a decision. And I'm just saying we're going to avoid that 90 day period so the board could act on the 22nd of September.

The 22nd of September is shorter than 90 days. I believe that. That's why I'm trying to waive that.

If there is a waiver, I just want to make sure we're not holding up the board's action on the 22nd. That's really what I'm trying to get at.

In order for the CTA to move to the board, the Planning Commission has to take some type of action, whatever that action is.

Yes, so it has to be either approve or deny. Recommend denial or recommend approval.

Folks, I think there's a way out of this, which is we have acted... the heck out of this tonight we had a public hearing we had a robust debate we uh voted the recommendation can i mean the uh the report can now go to the board saying that the planning commission did not recommend approval i i would i don't do it four four time

No, go ahead, but that's not how...

The Planning Commission, if the Planning Commission as a body does not recommend approval, then you would have to take an action. Correct. You have to pass a motion that says that the majority does not recommend approval.

I understand that interpretation, but the recommendation is different from actions.

The issue at hand is that, again, in order for this to move to the board, the Planning Commission has to take some type of action regardless of what that action is. And to speak as a body to make a recommendation to the board, then you would have to act as a body in terms of what that recommendation is. So I think in terms of the staff can certainly share with the board the variety of perspectives and opinions in terms of the discussion, but the planning commission would need to take some type of action in order for this to move to the board.

Correct. And Ali, generally when there's a tie, we have 90 days, correct?

If the Planning Commission takes no other action.

Correct.

If I may, while we certainly have heard a variety of opinions about the timeframe that would apply to criteria five, we would ask if we can at least make sure that the staff recommended changes, if the Planning Commission is amenable to that. If you have a, it sounds like you all are in support of the staff recommended changes. So again, if you would consider potentially making a motion to at least move that recommendation forward. Whatever else you wanted to include is, frankly, even what your motion is, is fine, but at least I do at least have heard some consensus that you all are fine with the staff recommended changes.

Can I, I can make an amended motion that focuses just on, you know, the amendment, I mean, the amendment and just excludes that there's no recommendation on the timeframe for criteria five.

Can I take a look at that? May I? Sure. Okay. As soon as I'm recognized.

Go ahead, Commissioner Carroll. I mean, yeah. I mean, Commissioner Ross, sorry.

Let me see if I can do this without becoming tongue-tied. I move that the Planning Commission report to the governing body that we recommend adopting the zoning text amendment as modified by the staff suggestions but we have been unable to reach agreement on whether or not Criterion 5 should have any, should apply beyond the date of the zoning text amendment's adoption. So I'm saying we like the core, idea here. And I'm trying to slip in sideways that we weren't able to reach agreement on Criterion 5.

I think that's the, if we had to put a gun to our heads, I think that's what we would say. Is that right? No. We've not done that before. I agree. And we either, it's an up or down vote as to the core of the zoning text amendment that was sent over by the board for us. So we either go up or down.

We made a motion. We made a motion that we were making no recommendation on the timeline for a criteria file. Not zero, not 90, not 180.

But we are recommending adoption of the text amendment. I'm now looking for a second. If I get a second, we could discuss.

I don't understand your motion. I don't understand. You're either voting yes to approve it or no to decline it, and if you're voting yes to approve it, and then you have recommendations within your approval, your recommendations within your approval are 0 to 180? Is that what I'm understanding?

I tried to be silent on that topic, but we could... Vote to recommend the text amendment. I had a thought there for a minute.

Let me just interject for a minute while you're thinking because typically we either vote on the zoning tax amendment as it was sent to us or we modify some portion of it and we vote up or down. And so in this case, since we are unable to come to a majority, then I think that puts us back to the zoning text amendment as it is from the board.

My brain is grinding its gears, but I will just throw out that if we were to vote for an unmodified, except for the staff recommendation, ZTA, I would vote favorably. That would be the one that has 90 days, and that echoes what I said in July.

Okay. Is that a motion? I would like to make a motion. I think I understand, and I'm going to do my best to make a motion.

Hold one second. Did you have something to say, Commissioner Sherman?

I thought we were still in discussion, and I wanted to get clarification. Yeah, go ahead. I think I know the answer, but I want to ask it for the record. Can we make a motion on accepting staff recommendation as is, except for Is that for Criterion 5?

Yes.

Criterion 5 was not a staff recommendation. Can we have an exception?

I guess the question is, can we have an exception policy as part of our recommendation? I just don't know the answer from a Robert Rules or even practice of this commission.

I've not seen that. I will say I've not seen that since I've been on this.

I've seen it on other boards, planning boards.

That's sort of where I was headed is rather than saying anything about that criterion five, just vote for the amendment and each one of us go back and talk to the supervisors and tell them that they should think about it because we thought and we did not reach agreement.

I'd like to make a motion.

Go right ahead.

I'd like to make a motion that we approve DPA 2 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 6 data center opportunities zone overlay district with staff recommendations. And instead of 90 days, make it 120 days and keep the part in about 500 feet away from homes structures and schools structures, 500 feet. Can I get a second on that?

Second.

Okay. We now have another motion, a new motion on the floor. That's been made by Commissioner, I'm sorry, Vice Chair Justice and properly seconded by Commissioner Landrum. I do like the part, the addition of the 500 feet. Okay. From structures, from homes and schools. I like that. Okay. Everyone understands the motion that's on the floor? We're now at 120 days with a 500 feet setback. Correct. Correct. From homes and buildings. 500. Okay, we have a point of discussion. Yes, go right ahead.

Just a reminder to the audience and also to the Commission that if we are not able to take action tonight, if we're not able to find agreement on some reasonable compromise amongst ourselves, then there is, as I understand it, by this body not taking action, it starts a 90-day clock, at which point we either, at some point in the future, take action, have this meeting again, which could potentially not bear fruit a second time, a third time, I suppose. and also pushes the board's ability to act forward by three months, meaning that there would not even be the possibility for this zoning text amendment to be passed by the board for another three months when it's supposed to be voted on this month, which provides 180 days to the development industry in addition to whatever they ultimately decide. So I just want to put that out there that it is imperative, if we want, for this zoning text amendment to proceed that we do take action tonight and we find some way to compromise amongst ourselves.

And I would add that we originally passed 180 days as part of our July recommendation.

Yes, we did.

Well, to that point, we were missing a member that night, so I think it's important to remember that.

Okay. Okay. Your light is on. So you didn't have a comment. Okay. Okay. Okay. We're ready to vote.

Yes. Okay. All right. Um, the scenario outlined, uh, by the other commissioners recently is too dire. The 90-day clock started when the matter became part of our workload. And we could have a special meeting at any time that satisfies advertising requirements and reconsider this. Failing to reach an agreement tonight does not just drop the ball guaranteed for 90 days. Um, we could still, uh, act much far quicker than that if we could negotiate a compromise in between now and that next event. Uh, so it's not quite as dire as it described.

If I may add, um, if the planning commission were not to take action tonight and were to schedule a special meeting at some date, um, that would impact the ability for this to go to the board on September 22nd. Public hearings have to be advertised at least two weeks in advance. And so that would impact, it would delay when it would go to the board.

Agreed.

Okay. Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll? We are now voting on Vice Chair Justice's motion. which it's a motion to approve the zoning text amendment with a change of the review period being 120 days and the addition of a 500-foot buffer from homes and buildings. Homes and schools. Homes and schools, I'm sorry. Structures. Structures. Madam Clerk.

Chair Brown. Yes. Vice Chair Justice? Yes. Commissioner Carroll? No. Commissioner Landrum? Yes. Commissioner Ross?

No.

Commissioner Shaikh?

We had so much discussion on it. For this to get to the board, I think I'm going to say yes. I think it's a good compromise.

Commissioner Shifler?

No.

Commissioner Sherman?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Okay, now that we've gotten that out the way, and that was a very robust discussion, which we hadn't had in a while. But thank you all, commissioners, for that.

I appreciate everyone's input.

We are now moving on to number 11, planning commission procedures. So we have a old business and new business. We're going to go down the dais. Commissioner Sherman, do you have any old business or new business? I do not. All right.

Commissioner Carroll. There's a meeting on our agenda set for October 18th. Is that a typo?

It was. I saw that. It was. Okay. It is. So you have your planning commission public hearing on the 14th, and then you have the planning commission again on the 18th? Sorry. Second. Second.

I see October, oh, wait a minute.

I just want to pull it up so I can.

Which ones did we actually do?

On Sunday's meeting. Me neither. Okay, sorry. So yes, planning commission public hearing on the 14th, then you have your legal training work session on the 21st, and then another planning commission public hearing on the 28th of October. Okay.

Okay, great. We got that straightened out. Okay, coming down the dais, Commissioner Shaik. Wait, did I get you, Commissioner Carroll? You said no old business, no new business. Commissioner Shaik. Vice Chair Justice. No, ma'am.

Thank you.

Commissioner Landry. None. Commissioner Roth.

Ask Mark. Let me check my written memory here. None, Chair.

Okay, Commissioner Scheifler.