Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

[Music] We will call the April 9th meeting of the planning commission to order. Um the code of Virginia requires local governments to have a planning commission the purpose of which is to advise the board of supervisors on land use and planning issues affecting the county. This responsibility is exercised through recommendations conveyed by resolutions or other official means and all are matters of public record. The commission is comprised of seven citizen volunteers appointed by the board with one representative from each voting district and two at large members. Roll call, please. Mr. Chamberlain here. Mr. Titus here. Mr. Brooks here. Mr. King here. Mr. Kryer. Mr. Smith here. Mr. Wasmer. All right, you have a quorum. All right, please stand for the pledge of allegiance. Okay. Um, next on the agenda is the uh approval of the minutes for the last meeting. Any corrections to the minutes? Mr. Chairman, I've submitted motion to accept the minutes as presented. Any discussion? Roll call, please. Sorry, Mr. Titus.

Epstein was not here. Okay, Mr. Brooks, yes. Mr. King, yes. And Mr. Smith, yes. Hey, motion passes. You forgot me. Chamberlain votes yes. Sorry, Mr. Chamberlain. Excuse me. Thank you. That's okay. All right. At this point, um the we'll open it for a citizen comments period. This is a chance for citizens to talk about anything that's not on the agenda this evening. So if anybody wishes to speak, I don't have any cards from anybody. Seeing none, we will move on. So the next is the first public hearing. Um for those you have an agenda, we're going to do the first three items with a single presentation from the board, a single public hearing, but we will have three separate votes. So staff Didn't realize I was all queued up here. All right. Uh so good evening. So um this is going to be you see a little trifecta of applications there. Um two of these UP 10225 and 104325 were continued from your March meeting. um are having those public hearings now in addition to that third application which is a resoning application. So I'm going to kind of get into the meat of these proposals that resoning application and what we're expecting. So just to refresh your memory on the property it's comprised of two parcels smaller one 2100 George Washington Memorial Highway and then the larger one which is address is 2044. Combined they make up a little over 7 acres in size. Want to describe a little bit what's around this particular subject property. We have the Tab Lakes residential neighborhood. To the east there to north we have Sims Metal and then Bottomline Salvage directly north.

Cross 17 we have Autobell the car wash and then the animal emergency clinic. Immediately south we have M&J Motors and then here is that K9 off the leash dog training. And he owns this whole property back here. The rear is undeveloped and that ab butts the subject property right there. properties designated GB general business in the comprehensive plan. It's zoned that as well. To the east here, Tab Lakes is zoned high density single family residential R13. And then all the surrounding property and across 17 is also designated GB and zone GB. I want to note a 4acre which again alluded to in our March presentation. This 4acre portion of the property is zoned conditional GB with profers. I'm going to pause there. We're going to discuss a little bit about the proposed uses and then we're going to revisit that conditional zoning, some aerials of the property. This is looking at it from 17. So, just refresh your memory. This is the site of duties. This is standing I'm looking north and south of the site driveways. Across the street there's the animal emergency clinic autobell. This is a view into the property a bit. I want to note that most of what you see here is going to be if these applications are approved, removed, and then it's going to be redeveloped. This is kind of just a top-down Google Earth view. I've outlined the property there in cyan. This gives you a nice view of kind of the mature woods and trees and then that buffer against the residential neighborhood. So, I want to get into a little bit about we have our two proposed uses, the mini storage and the RV storage. So, the applicants provided a sketch plan. And this is also in your read ahead. I overlaid it onto an aerial to just kind of give you a little visual context of what's around it. We're a little zoomed out here. So, we're going to zoom in on different parts of that site and see what the components are of this. So, up here you can see the applicant's going to propose a couple of

things in the sketch plan. We've consolidated the entrance. Currently, there's two entrances. This doesn't really comply with VOTE standard or county standards. Those are going to go away and we're going to have that single entrance into the property. I want to point out the front facade facing 17. So this property is also subject to the route 17 overlay corridor standards. Kind of dictates that said again we want our buildings to look nice. We want them to aesthetically sort of improve 17. And so the applicant produced some really nice renderings for you. Again all those are in your read ahead as well. Um this kind of shows you what the front of that's going to look like from 17. So I want to know this is all single storage mini storage. So, what this is you're looking at is kind of like a facade parapet wall. You're also going to see there's a nice row iron fence. Um, what we've conditioned um is going to be rot iron fencing gate on 17 on the front. And then in the sides and rear where you can't see, it's going to be black vinyl coated chain link. That's just another view. This is like looking south applicants rendering there. So, you see where it kind of drops from the facade and it goes down to that level single story. I want to talk a little bit about the mini storage. Again, single story, mini storage, there's going to be a combination of climate controlled units and not climate controlled units. Total about 572 storage units that does have a parking requirement. Now, there's three spaces that are going to be up by the office, but the majority of the required parking by the zoning ordinance is going to be past that gated area. It's going to be parallel parking in these drive aisles. We've included a condition of approval that that parallel parking can't really block any egress or ingress from the storage units, but it's all going to be located near the climate control. So, you're not going to have it in front of any rollup doors. That's just another applicant's rendering of the not climate controlled units. So, it's kind of your traditional rollup garage

style. Right. I want to talk a little bit about this section of the site. So again, the rear portion of the property abuts the storm water common area for Tab Lakes and then two residential homes here. So that does invoke that 35 foot transitional buffer. Again, that's wooded right now. There was a burm also that was put in with that 1993 resoning that occurred. It's just kind of giving you a little better view. There's the two houses to protect those houses in addition to the mature wooded buffer with the 1993 resoning. Part of those profers was to put an opaque fence in. We've included a condition of approval for that opaque fence that's 8 ft high. So the current one is, you know, might be in disrepair or state. We want that to be refreshed and rebuilt to be a nice screening mechanism for these people right here. All right, I'm going to dig a little bit into the resoning application. And so the name's a little bit of a misnomer in that a reszoning action is required to amend profers because when you reszone and you have profers and they're approved, they run in perpetuity with the land. You have to come back to you and the board of supervisors to amend them. That's what that application is. I alluded to this in the March presentation, but what triggered this was this RV storage component in the site. And so again, shown in cyan, this 4acre portion got reszoned in 1993. And with that were a series of profers. The majority of those were to really prevent it from becoming a junkyard. Again, however, this first profer has a statement that all vehicles have to be titled in the name of the current property owner. That kind of conflicts with the applicant's proposal to do IV storage because again, you're going to have customers bringing their vehicles on at site and storing them. Due to that conflict, there's a conversation with the property owner and what kind of came out of that was a proposal to amend the profers to only

strike this first part of the first profer here. The rest of these are going to remain because again, they prevent a junkyard from occurring. Those are good things. However, removing the requirement for vehicles to be titled owner's name would allow that RV storage use to occur and wouldn't really impact what we're trying to prevent, which is again junkyard reoccurrence. Again, I want to reiterate here, we're not changing the GB zoning or proposing to do that. It's just minor profer amendment. Speaking of the RV store, I just want to give you a view of that. This the applicant's proposed rendering. It's going to be a canopy with full cut off light fixtures. They would pull in and park their RV. I want to cover a couple of our miscellaneous conditions of approval. Right now, the duty sign is still up. that's going to get taken down and replaced with a monument sign that's going to comply with the Route 17 overlay conditions. You'll see a couple conditions in there for emergency access. These are for NOX boxes and so the fire department has access behind the gate to the units. Um fire flow, we need to make sure that those hydrants get back there so they can put out a fire if it happens. Again, just reiterating, we have those fencing requirements again along the front of the site. We have that nice rot iron fencing and gate and then that black vinyl coated chain link on the sides where you can't see it. So ultimately this does prove an improvement to the property. It's consistent with the comprehensive plan. There's adequate protection here for residential neighbors. This isn't a very high intensity use um especially given that it's single story, not multi-story, but again we have those nice wooded buffers and the fencing to provide that separation. Very low traffic impact. you've probably seen if you've ever commuted on 17 um in at five o'clock that that area can get a little congested. This traffic's very this use is very low traffic generation. So we're not expecting any negative impacts there. So kind of all that combined staff is recommending approval of these applications. So what you will do

tonight is again this is going to be three separate actions and votes for the three separate public hearings. So, the first is going to be that resolution PC25 for the proper amendment, PC2505 for the mini storage, and PC2509 for the RV storage. That's all I have for you. Um, I'm here if you have any questions for staff. The applicant is also here if you have any questions for him. Thank you so much. All right, questions for staff. One quick question. Um, well, two the uh were there any environmental concerns on this property from its previous use spills of oils and that kind of thing from the uh so at the this stage um they've begun a little like rather the con the consultant that the applicant has hired has done a little bit of preliminary work um you know you see that on the sketch they have the BMP there so a little bit of work but they're going to do that really intense analysis when they actually move to the site plan stage they have to produce like what's called a natural resources NRI and things like that to comply ly with environmental regulation and also just for the drainage and the water quality. So you also just want to make sure nothing was going to impact the residents. Yeah, they're on site storm water is going to take care of all that. They're not going to be able to drain tap lakes. Uh and similarly to the um uh residential area that's adjacent to the east and and south side. What about the lighting? Uh are there provisions specific to directional? So it's away from Yeah. Um, so actually the zoning ordinance has a really nice section that what it does is you have what's called foot candles and that's you know how intense your light is. And so we actually have a basically when you get to a residential property line there can't be any foot candles. It's like 0.1. It's very very low. And we also require full cut off fixtures so you have down light no up light. So that's intended to kind of protect them. Thank you very much. I I just have one

question. the the existing the old zoning they were required to put up a fence and and you kind of talked about that a little bit. Is that fence in disrepair now? Is that what I'm Did I hear that or is that been I might defer that to the applicant because he's been um I wasn't able to get back that far onto the property to look at it. Um but his surveyor's been back there. Um what I recall them telling me is yeah I put the condition in there sore if any part of it is damaged again. It has to be put up. It needs to be new. it needs to be nice and do what it's intended to do. So my my question along that is how do we make sure this applicant maintains that fence and that's good going forward. Well, this would be a condition. So what happens is is annually um if a special use permit is approved that gets inspected by one of our zoning inspectors and they make sure they're complying with all their conditions. And so since we're requiring the fence as a condition, that's something she's going to be looking at. Okay, great. Thanks. Yeah. All right, with that I'll open the public hearing and I don't have any cards. An applicant is here. You're welcome to speak. Um, please provide your name and address and you have 10 minutes and you don't need to use it all. Okay, I will make this short. Great. Um, thank you uh again for the opportunity to speak with you tonight. Uh my name is Andy Bill Manis. Um I am reside at 5009 Webs Chapel Church Road. That is actually in North Carolina. Um the just a little bit about myself. Uh I am the applicant and developer. The I am a small business owner entrepreneur. The company S3 storage that you see on the application is my development company for projects such as this. And with that, I'm involved in all aspects of the project from entitlement to the design,

ventral construction management, and facility operations. Um, I feel Caitlyn has done an excellent job to summarize the uh project, so I don't feel like I need to go over it any more. I do want to address you all your comments. You I think you had a question about environmental. Um, we did do a phase one and that came back clean. There was a one done previously two and a half years ago. So, we have no issues that we are going to do a phase two just as a our own due diligence just to be safe on that. Um, so we feel good about that. As far as the fence goes, uh, there is there was one board or two boards that were damaged from it looked like a tree or a limb fell on it. So, we've talked about that to replace that, but the structure itself is standing. It's sturdy. Um, it needs to be cleaned. Probably powerw wash and maybe have some stain on it just to preserve it a little bit longer. So, uh, other than that, I want to make this real brief, but I want to highlight a few things. We do, uh, feel that this is the best use for this property for a number of reasons. First off, it'll be a significant improvement over the existing contractor and junkyard that is still there. Um also this proposed development has a reduced impact on the community in terms of the traffic but also noise uh environmental concerns, utility usage and also it does has no impact on the school systems. Um, there are some challenges with this parcel, namely the limited road frontage and then the configuration of the parcel where it's narrow in the front, widens out towards the rear, but also the surrounding neighbors of being very industriallike. Uh, this is probably most likely prevented other types of developments from utilizing this property. However, I feel that the proposed development that we have outlined takes advantage of these uh challenges but also overcomes them as well. Um, also the other thing that we feel is this could be the revitalization for

this section of George Washington Memorial Highway and we plan to do that through that modern architectural design, improve curb appeal with the landscaping, but also we strive for a high quality in every property for a free a clean uh friendly welcoming environment for our customers. Back in February when we first submitted the uh special use applications, I also met with the Tablakes community on February the 5th. Um we met at the Tab Library. I had a number of residents from the community uh come to that meeting and pretty much presented exactly what you had seen here tonight, the architectural renderings, the site layout, but we also talked about the design considerations and also the reduced impact that this would have over the existing use that's there. Now, we did receive some questions uh mainly about what's going to happen with the trees uh between Tab Lakes and the subject property, but also what do we what are our plans for storm water? And to address that, there is that 35- ft buffer there. But we also configured the property to pull the buildings away from that and put that storm water pond in the back corner to increase that buffer distance to those those residents. And of course, it'll get landscaped uh and finished off. And we plan to concentrate the landscaping that we are required in that area to improve that buffer as well. Uh along the lines of the storm water pond, there is nothing there right now. So everything just rolls right off the site and heads to Tab Lake. This is going to be a significant improvement where we're capturing storm water, holding it for the environment. And the feedback that we received during this meeting, but also uh via email was very positive. Everybody was excited about the potential for something new, cleaner, and quieter coming in place of the

contractor yard and this junkyard as well. So, with that, um it's really all I've got. I appreciate your time and consideration for this proposed development, but I'm also welcome to answer any questions you might have as well. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for that? Do you have I got to turn my mic on. I keep forgetting to do that. I'm sorry. We have uh storage facilities that you can pull the car in. Yes. So be like basically 10 by 20. Yeah. So there there there's size ranges uh you know as small as a 5x5 in a climate controlled all the way to 10 by 30 10 10 x 40 evens. I just the profer is not just for the RVs. The profer would be for anybody that had a car that pulled in there. Yeah. Removing in that property. Thank you. Do you have limitations on the size of the recreational view so be parked there on the you have size limitations on what the recreational Oh, as far as the size of the vehicle and are you going to allow them to work on them there or no? So, no. the so there will be size limitations that that canopy storage that you saw that was a those aisles are going to be uh spaces are 12x 45. So that's your traditional pool behind camper or even a motor home. The larger building could be up to as 4550 ft um 12t or 13 foot in width. But no, we do have that is one of the provisions that we put in every lease is that they cannot use the facility as their maintenance garage or the other thing is no sleeping there. They can't use it as a camping space. That's it. Thank you. Welcome. All right. I don't have any questions either. Thank you. Thank you very much. I don't have any other any cards on this

one. Does anybody else wish to speak on this topic? And Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify this is the public hearing for all three applications. So if you do have anything you'd like to say about any three of these, this public hearing is for all three. All right, seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. And what's the pleasure of the commission? M support. I think it's a great improvement for the area. I'm glad to hear the applicant met with the Tab Lakes folks. Uh they're not here filling up our room tonight. Apparently, they like what they see. I like what we saw. I think it's a great improvement. And I agree with your comment about it's has a potential, although it's a storage facility, has a potential to be a catalyst and help uh um improve the other properties along there. So, I'll be supporting it. Thank you. Just a little comment. I the storage facility is going to be a big it's going to be an improvement over over the It's not what I would have wished for the property. Okay. Because I think storage units that whole section down through there is getting to be gas stations, auto re auto car washes. I can't think of the word. Storage areas. There's another storage area less than a mile away. Uh although it's three stories or something like that, but anyway. So, it's I hate to see it turn from a from salvage yards to storage areas or gas stations and and car washes, but this is a big improvement over what currently has. So, I'm torn between the two conflicts. I mean, two uh potentials. That's all. Everyone has said exactly what I would

say. this is a fantastic uh change for that that area and I hope that it's I agree. I think it's a good change. So with that uh we'll entertain a motion they brighten. So what do you move the first one? PC25-25 05 PC25-04 04 Okay. All right. And roll call, please. Hey, the motion by I said five, so I was wrong. Oh, all right. I'll make it. I move that uh I move that we adopt PC 25-04. Is that correct? All right. Okay. Motion by Mr. King is to adopt resolution number PC uh-04 to recommend approval of an application to amend proper conditions applicable to uh 4 acres on at 2044 George Washington Memorial Highway. Uh Mr. King. Yes. Hey, Mr. Smith. Yes. Mr. Chamberlain? Yes. Mr. Titus? Yes. Mr. Brooks? Yes. Right. Motion passes. All right. We'll take an a motion on PC25-05. PC. I I'll make a motion for PC-05. 255. 255. All right. So, we have a motion on PC 255. Roll call, please. Motion by Mr. Brooks. Okay. The motion by Mr. Brooks is to adopt uh resolution number PC25-5 for a special use permit to authorize a recreational vehicle storage facility at 2100 and 2044 George Washington Memorial Highway. Uh Mr. Brooks, yes. Mr. King, yes. Mr. Smith,

yes. Mr. Chamberlain, yes. Oh, and Mr. Titus, I'll say yes, too. Motion passes. All right. And we have a third motion which would be PC 256 09 09. Okay. Why? We're challenging. You are you are all right. So PC2509. Do I have a motion on that, please? So motion. So move. Go ahead. The motion by Mr. Titus is to adopt resolution number PC25-09 to recommend approval of a special use permit to authorize a singlestory miniatur uh singlestory mini storage uh warehouse facility at 2100 and 2044 George Washington Memorial Highway. Uh Mr. Titus, yes. Mr. Brooks, yes. Mr. King, yes. Mr. Smith, yes. And Mr. Chamberlain, yes. Motion passes. All right. So with that, we'll move on to the next presentation for the American Battlefield Trust. All right. Good evening. This application submitted by the American Battlefield Trust is a request for a special use permit to authorize the establishment of a park and recreational trail at 393 and 401 Crawford Road. The subject properties consist of one approximately 4/10en of an acre property at 393 Crawford Road and one approximately 36 acre property at 401 Crawford Road. Both subject parcels are zoned RC for resource conservation. A

special use permit is required to establish a park in the RC zoning district. So to the north are six single family detached dwellings, two private roads, uh which is Giles and Muse lanes, uh Crawford Road and Colonial National Historical Park beyond. Uh to the east, south, and west is Colonial National Historical Park as well. The applicants are proposing to establish a park with a pedestrian loop and small parking lot. I've overlaid their sketch plan onto this aerial so you can get an idea of where the trail and parking area would be. Right. The trail is proposed to span both uh subject parcels. As with other projects that span multiple properties, a condition of approval has been proposed that would require the applicants to vacate the property lines between 393 and 401 Crawford Road. The pedestrian loop trail is proposed to have a stone dust surface for the first 150 ft extending from the parking lot to the stepping stones that cross the historic roaded. The rest of the trail is proposed to have mulch surfacing. Right. The applicant stated that they prefer a mulch trail to limit the visual impact on the landscape. However, mulch trails are less durable than stone dust surface trails. Mulch's ability to retain water accelerates its decomposition process. Rain and other elements cause mulch to shift and scatter, and both of these factors necessitate frequent replenishment of mulch trails. The applicants are proposing uh 2 in of granular reservoir course topped with three inches of shredded hardwood mulch. Because maintenance often falls by the wayside once the use has been in operation for several years or when ownership of the property changes, a condition of approval has been proposed that would require the entire trail to

be constructed of 3 in of aggregate under 2 in of stone dust with metal edging. So I've included an example of uh stone dust recreational trail and running man. This one has wood edging. And here's another example of a stone dust trail that was established in Tranquility. Uh these are both subdivisions within the county. As you can see, the stone color can vary. A brown shade like this one might blend with the landscape of the subject property since the applicants do not intend to plant grass. So, the property is associated with Revolutionary and Civil War events. The applicants proposed to install three wayside style interpretive signs along the trail and one sign to identify the site. According to section 24.1-73 of the uh the applicant's uh site identification sign can be a freestanding monument sign with a maximum sign area of 40 square feet and a maximum height of six uh feet or a freestanding pole sign with a maximum sign area of 12 square feet and a maximum height of six feet. Hey, so the parking lot is proposed to have nine parking spaces, including one handicap accessible parking space. The applicants proposed to construct the parking area of gravel. Section 24.1-76 requires parking areas to be constructed of concrete, asphalt, or another uh equivalent permanent dustless surface. It goes on to state that the zoning administrator may approve an unpaved or gravel parking area if it's an integral part of an overall storm water management plan for the project. The gravel parking areas not only lack durability and require regular replenishment. They can be difficult for wheelchair users to navigate due to the uneven and loose nature of gravel. Condition of approval has been proposed that would require the parking area to be constructed of a dustless surface.

The applicants proposed three entrances to the park. A driveway on 393 Crawford Road would serve as uh service access to the site. This entrance would be gated. The parking area would have two ungated entrances. Timber posts with steel collar U-bolts are proposed to be installed on either side of all three entrances. However, the applicants do not plan to install chains on the uh entrances to the parking area because the American Battlefield Trust does not have the resources to open and close the gates each day. Uh the applicants told staff that if after hour activity is observed, they plan to close the property for length of lengths of time required to deter such activity. So, the park would be open from uh dawn until dusk, and the applicants proposed no lighting for the property. Since the park will not be gated at night, uh the York County Posen Sheriff's Office has requested the parking uh lot be lit during dark hours to deter illicit behavior and allow for ease of patrol observation. A condition of approval has been proposed to require the parking lot be lit every day from dusk to until dawn. So, the proposed conditions of approval make the trail an appropriate use for the location. Though there are safety concerns regarding the lack of lighting and gates for the site, the proposed condition of approval to require lighting will mitigate that issue. The proposed mulch portion of the trail and gravel parking lot lack durability and accessibility, but conditions are included that would require the trail to have a stone dust surface and the parking area to be paved. Therefore, staff recommends approval of this application subject to the conditions set forth in proposed resolution number PC25-10. Thank you. I'm happy to answer any questions and the applicants are here as well. Any questions for staff? I'm a little confused. So, you are they is a condition to add the lighting? Yes. Okay. All right. That that's what I

want. Questions for staff? Uh yeah, I do. Is uh would it be considered appropriate with zoning or if the lighting that you've added is uh motion detected? So the lights not lit all the time all night for no reason and only there if in case someone goes on the property then it the motion detector lights up the lights. Is that possible? Yeah. Yes, that would you could add that because this is a dark area I believe if I'm not mistaken on Crawford Road and it just seems senseless to have uh lights with no one there all night long in the middle of the woods. I think the bigger concern is, you know, activity on the site and and the sheriff's department being able to drive down Crawford Road and see if any activity is going on there. So, if even if somebody's sitting in there and the lights are out, a sheriff's department deputy may not be able to see them. So, I think from safety concern that we would want the lights to be on all night. I hear what you're saying. Thank you. Uh I agree. I'm very familiar with that area. Worked at Colonial National Park for 20ome years and that is a highly visited area by people that shouldn't be visit. Uh, I would be very careful not only with lights. I would even suggest you put a camera out there. I don't know if sheriff's department would want that or not, but I I would highly recommend that. And at the same time, uh, for the interpretive markers and things like that, you better get some spare markers because they're going to get painted. I'm going to tell you that right now. And that's not You can do whatever you want, but that's going to happen. and be prepared for that. You look at the bridge right off over the French loop, you'll see how much is painted. But I definitely would recommend a

camera. All right. And I don't have any questions at this time. So with that, I'll open the public hearing. Um I've got three. Uh an applicant is first. Uh Mr. Chuck Land Lander Lodner. And if you state your name and address for us, please. Chuck Lodner, 13406 Mount Zion Church Road, Co Pepper, Virginia. Here on behalf of the American Battlefield Trust and by way of introduction, the trust is uh first and foremost land preservation served almost 60,000 acres in 25 states. core battlefield, Revolutionary War, War of 1812 and the Civil War. But once we've acquired that property, uh the next step is to make it accessible, make these things outdoor classrooms. And so part of this actually this property, this total of 47 plus acres, uh was I think the absolute last inholding inside the National Park Service boundary. Uh in the meantime, uh the Daughters of the American Revolution, uh looking for somewhere to do a commemoration married up with our purpose of uh cleaning up the site uh invasive species, dead trees, garbage, uh everything that we're still cleaning. Uh that they were looking for a commemorative site, the 250 trees planted for the 250th. And we have a site. So that is how this all began at Crawford Road. A couple of things. Uh matter of fact, uh before lunch tomorrow, there will be two cameras out there already and uh and maybe other properties up and along that

road. Maybe one permanent yard light. The rest can be motioned. Can talk about that. Uh but this is a a special site and as you all are very well aware uh and additionally it's poor battlefield but French encampment but there's also we found a Freeman site and so that was look at that map the trail out takes a bend and there's a dotted line around uh Freeman site during some of our survey work and so that the three panels, one would be for the the French encampment, one would be for the Freedman site, and obviously the third one would be for uh the commemoration, the 250 trees. So, that's our hope, that's our wish, and hopefully we can build you all something very special in your community. I want to thank the commission and thank staff for all the time, and um hopefully we can continue to work together on this. Thank you for your time. Great. Any questions for the applicant back this way? The the trails itself um and the surfaces. I don't I mean it's up to you how you do that, but we used to use crushed oyster shell shells and they hold up in a hard surface. They pack well and they hold up very well. I mean that's something you may want to consider but we probably at this we'll consider all um some of it we were trying to stay we have thousands of acres hundreds of signs uh a lot of trails and just trying to stay consistent and also maybe with what the

park service does uh some of their spots um it's it's a mix and also um the frontage of that road. We're going to add the um road snake rail fence along the road signage out front. Uh hopefully we'll hear um kind of that park service type uh signage on the road. So people and uh I don't know that it's up yet because I won't see the property next until morning, but we may already have a um some do not trespass and other signage out there. Um, we're putting the posts in soon for potential gates in the future. Hopefully, they're not needed, but at least they will be on the maintenance entrance, the number one entry way that we use right now. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next speaker is William Triplet. You state your name and address, please, and you have three minutes. My name is uh William Triplet. My address is uh 111 Muse Lane um in Yorktown. I live right down the road from where this is uh proposed. Um I think it's a good idea, but I also, as Mr. Brooks has said, um I've noticed there's a lot of people that come out there doing bad things. And I really think it would be a good idea to like limit access to that parking lot at night. It's something something it it's it's just going to create a hangout spot and

I don't think it's a good idea to leave it open. That's all I have. All right. Thank you. Thanks. Uh Timothy Cross. Mr. Cross. And again, your name and address, please, in three minutes. Thank you. Good evening, Vice Chairman Chamberlain, members of the commission. My name is Tim Cross. I reside at 109 Holloway Drive in Queens Lake. I was happy to see this item on your agenda tonight because it involves an issue that was a major topic of discussion during the recently completed comprehensive plan update. The American Battlefield Trust has acquired a lot of land in the county in recent years and there was a lot of discussion during the committee meetings about what our conservation goals should be. Do we want to take land off the tax roles just to prevent it from being developed or do we want to uh put it to some good use that direct directly benefits the citizens? I applaud the trust for bringing forth this proposal to open up this historic site to the general public. Uh I would just add one of the objectives of the land use element is to assist in preserving conservation areas and making them accessible to York County residents. This objective further states that the county should seek opportunities to make open space accessible to the general public through the development of greenways, trails, and similar facilities. In addition, one of the objectives of the historic resources element is to support and coordinate with historic preservation and tourism organizations and joint efforts to engage the public and encourage visitation to York County's historic sites. And the American Battlefield Trust is specifically named as one of the groups that the count uh county should support. With regard to the mulch trail, I don't know, sounds like it might not be an issue. It sounds like they might be uh uh uh amanable to uh doing this uh the stone trail, but uh and I I understand and appreciate the staff's

concerns, and I certainly agree that mulch trails are not desirable or appropriate in subdivisions and other residential developments. Uh the developers like them because they're cheap to install. Uh but once the developer is gone, the cost of maintaining them falls on the homeowners association uh which might not have the wherewithal to do proper maintenance. in a park-like setting like this. However, I I was would hope there might be some room for flexibility. Um my wife and I enjoy walking and hiking the trails in our various national, state, and local parks and historic sites. Most of them do not have a stone surface. In fact, just last weekend, I took a walk through couple of the trails in the countyy's new quarter park in my neighborhood of Queens Lake. And although there are some stone trails, most of them seem to be a mix of dirt, mulch, and leaf litter. Uh I think these natural trail surfaces actually contribute to the ambiance of these natural and historic settings. U so again I would hope there could be some room for flexibility uh if necessary. Uh perhaps you could if maintenance is a concern perhaps you could add a condition establishing a regular maintenance schedule that the applicant would be required to follow or have the use permit revoked. Uh just a thought, but uh either way, I encourage you to support the application. Thank you. Thank you. That's all the sheets I have. Does anybody else wish to speak to this? Please, please come up. And again, please state your name and address and you have three minutes. 111 Mtown, Virginia. Um, I just wanted to add I don't I haven't heard anybody speak about traffic or any safety as far as a traffic road. I know since I've lived there there's been a couple of severe accidents. Um, people are always speeding down that road, especially talking about putting the park. I think the walking trail is a

great idea, but I think something should be addressed as far as traffic. All right. Thank you. Anybody else? With that, I'll close the public hearing. And what's the pleasure of the commission? Well, Mr. Chairman, I I do support this use. I'm trying to balance the what the residents are talking about uh the gate at night. That seems to be an issue for me and for uh our neighbors. I agree with you. Um I don't have a solution for that. And I know you probably Battlefield Trust would like to do it, but you can't send someone out there at the evening and the morning. I don't know if there's any automated thing you could use. And I know you guys are operating on slim margins as far as budget is concerned. Um I do support I agree with Mr. Cross's comment about natural path is better, right? Um it fits in. It's already your wooded area, right? So if you wanted to walk out there, you're already walking in the leaves. So, um I mean going overboard and improving a walkway to make it look uh uh out of touch with nature, you're defeating the purpose of why you're bringing people there in the first place in my p opinion. Um, I the gate I can uh support this and I'm hoping to my fellow commissioners someone has a suggestion on how we could get the gate so we could close it uh at uh when it gets dark and then open again in the morning. So those are my comments for now, Mr. Chairman. Thank Thank you, Mr. Brooks. Yeah, I think this is a a great idea in preserving uh this area and I I understand the neighbor's point of view and I do understand the speed on Crawford Road. That has been a that's been a problem for years. That's not anything new before this even came to play. Uh everybody uses that as a shortcut and everybody knows that. Um, I don't have

an answer how you're going to correct that, but uh, you know, maybe some more patrols will help as well. I also hope with this being there, it may deter some people from not coming in those areas, but experience tells me you're you're you're going to have some issues, especially in the beginning. Um, and I I I really am I'm going to be I'm sounding redundant, but you need a camera out there uh to to do this. You need all the lights you can get out there. And the gate issue is is a problem. Uh, but I'm like, Mike, I don't really have a solution for that, but I do wholeheartly support the project. I mean, I support the project. I was a little bit concerned like Mr. across the sand whether mulch or or natural thing. If I think about wheelchairs and we're going to cut we're going to pave the parking lot because wheelchairs pushing a wheelchair down through mulch is kind of a pain. I'd much rather do it on just grass or dirt or anything but the only thing would be worse than mulch would be gravel. You know that would be very bad. So, uh, if we could see a way to get around the requirement for the, uh, sides and let let them have the bulge, uh, or natural, it would be I would like support it more. But that's all I have. Yep. Mr. Chairman, I don't see any issues myself with what the staff has recommended. I think it's it's met all of the requirements and obviously the developer has made some efforts to accommodate that as well. I on the gate uh issue. I mean, have you considered or have you talked about options of doing a partnership with the uh park service uh to have their whenever their staff goes around and closes things at the end of

the evening to add this site to their rounds possibly. I mean, that's one thing you might want to consider. That's something to address. And I too am concerned about the um um call it vacantry, I guess, with out in that area. This may actually be a contributing factor to reverse that, I would hope. Um, we're putting something there that's not there now. It's just an open area. Um, and maybe even going to VOTE and and requesting a speed hump out there wouldn't be a bad thing either. But I'm I'm definitely in support of this. So, and I'm also in support of this. I think it's a great um it's a great ad for that for that area and great use of the property. So with that, I'll entertain a motion for if I got this right now PC25-10. Mr. Chair, I make a motion for PC25-10. Hey, the motion by Mr. Brooks is to adopt resolution number PC25-10 to recommend approval of an application for a special use permit to authorize the establishment of recreational trail and parking lot located at 393 and 401 Crawford Road. Mr. Smith, yes. Mr. Chamberlain, yes. Mr. Titus, yes. Mr. Brooks, yes. And Mr. King, yes. Motion passes. Okay. Okay, the next item on our agenda is a consider amendments to certain filing and inspection fees with the York County subdivision ordinance. Okay. So, as alluded to in our application titles, this is uh two potential text amendments to the

subdivision ordinance and the zoning ordinance, specifically to the filing fees in those two documents. I'm going to talk a little bit about some background for these before we kind of get into the meat of what the proposed changes are. You might recall if you watched the work sessions for the board of supervisors on the housekeeping amendments from last year in the July, August, September time frame. There's suggestion from some of the supervisors regarding plan resubmitts and some discussion over you know plans site plans particularly getting resubmitted multiple times and this idea of maybe there be a resubmitt fee. So, we tucked that back into our brains as staff, held on to it. Um, if you watched the March 18th board meeting, you know, Mr. Bellamy did present his recommended budget to the board. Um, and part of that discussion, if you watch that presentation, was some proposed fee changes for site plan, subdivisions, and then planning applications. As part of this process, staff ran a comparison with our neighboring localities. We looked at James City, Gloucester, Isisle of White, Newport News, Hampton. And what we did there was, you know, we didn't really get into the Southside and the cities because the scale, but we wanted to see, okay, what are people charging for site plan, subdivisions, applications, where do we stack up? What that kind of revealed was, you know, York, we tend to charge less for site plans and right now a lot less for special use permit and reasonzoning applications. Conversely, and this again is more specific to these planning applications, the cost of we are required by state code to publish public notice in the daily press and that cost has increased substantially as inflation has occurred. What we did there is we looked at, okay, where can we make adjustments to again

kind of match or, you know, we don't want to be the most expensive, but we kind of want to be in the middle when we're looking at what we're charging for plan review. We also want to be able to cover our ad costs a little bit more. I'm going to cover some terminology about different kinds of subdivision and site plan. Some of you are very familiar with these terms, others might not be as much. This is kind of bring you all up to speed. So, when I refer to a preliminary plan for a subdivision, this is a little bit less detailed than a full development plan. It's voluntary. If you have a smaller subdivision under 50 lots, if you're very large, like Rose Hill size, then you're going to need to that's required that you submit that. A full development plan is required for any subdivision. And that plan shows us the construction details, storm water grading, you where the utility is going to go, and the layout of that subdivision. Once you get an approved development plan, that leads you to your final plat. And that is that legal document gets recorded at the clerk's office at the circuit court that shows your property lines. You have to record your plat before you can actually sell any of your new lots in your subdivision. We also have two kinds of site plans that are referenced in the filing fees for the zoning ordinance. There's a kind of your what you probably think of when you think of a site plan and a commercial site plan. Again, that's your layout and your site development plan. We also have a separate fee for um single family attached multif family apartments or town houses. Again, these get filed as site plans. Um terminology is a little different there, but these are like residential in nature. I'm going to dive into the subdivision ordinance. So with your memo and your proposed resolution, you also got a little chart and the chart showed you, okay, here's the different section different fees in the subdivision ordinance. What are they right now? And then what are we proposing? And that left colon's like a little Excel sheet. So again, when we compared our costs to other localities, we decided, okay, we we're not going to really mess

with the cost for preliminary or full development plans. final plats. We did propose an increase from $60 plus $5 a lot to $10 and then some adjustments to the charge for acreage. If you look at how we charge filing fees competitor localities, it looks really different. A lot of them charge these lump sums or larger amounts based on like gross acreage. Ours is structured a little differently. So, we have a smaller base sum and then we charge per lot. The idea by that is really we're not shifting too much of the cost burden on a smaller subdivision. You have these family subdivisions where it's, you know, one or two lot and maybe it's a homeowner versus again like the fentin mill of the world which is several hundred. So this fee structure is designed to do is again more of that cost burden is going to shift to the larger development but it's not going to penalize those smaller developers. some adjustments to the subdivision inspection fee, just a nominal from 30 to $35 plus $5 per lot. See, I've bold a development plan amendment. So, a little interesting uh quirk in our filing fees for site plans. We currently charge $130 if you have an approved site plan and you come back as a consultant or developer and have to amend it for some reason. These are minor changes. You pay this filing fee. We didn't have that written into the subdivision ordinance. So what's happening is development plans have been amended up to five times and so this point is like we need to charge for these and so that's why that's in there. You also see em bolded a subdivision plan or plat resubmittal fee. This would be for the third or subsequent submission. And again the idea for that is to recuse some of that cost for staff time of review. You might might or might not be aware the general assembly also did recently pass a bill that shortens our review time frame. So, it's really critical now that when we get plans or plats in from consultants that they be of quality, they have all the pieces and

parts they need and we're not going through four, five, six reviews. And so, this is kind of to do is okay, you go to a certain number of reviews, you have to start paying to kind of incentivize. We get some quality control on those plans. And last year is the archaeological study review fee, which is a deposit. Couple of years ago, we had Okay, back up a little bit. The county has a number of archaeological historic sites. When you have a property that has an archaeological site, there's a process you have to go through and a study that a professional archaeologist and their team prepares that's met criteria that's provided by the state department of historic resources. Department of Historic Resources used to review those phase they're called like phase one or phase two or phase three study like one kind of leads to the other. They would review those for us. We got a letter about I want to say year and a half ago if I'm can correct me on that exact date that for us in James City kind of our region the DHR is not going to review those studies anymore. And so what we have to do now is when we get a new phase one, two or three study, we have to call our on on call consultant and have them review that study because we don't have an in-house professional archaeologist that can review a phase one plan for compliance with all the DHR standards. So what this deposit is intended to do, again it's tiered because each of these studies are a little bit more complex than the other and it's kind of meant to sort of reflect what the average cost is that the consultant charges. The reason it's a deposit and we have a similar function for street lights is that we collect the deposit and if we the consultant doesn't end up charging us as much then we'll remit you know whatever that money is that we didn't spend. They ended up you know maybe we don't get a very good study and they have to review it three or four times and we subsequently get charged that amount then we can ask for that to be covered. So that's what the deposit function is kind of intended to

do again to kind of just cover those costs that we're being charged. Now going to move forward to the zoning ordinance and those filing fees. Um I'm broken this up into two parts. I'm going to talk about planning applications. So like SCPs resonings and then I'm going to kind of move into the filing fees for site plans for special use permits for home occupations. We're not proposing a change to that fee. However, we are proposing a increase for special all other special use permits to $750. This would match what we charge for the base fee for resonings. And again, that's really intended to cover the cost of the ad that we put in the daily press. We have to advertise twice. You know, planning commission, board of supervisors trying to recoup those costs. They've gone up quite a bit. Reszoning, we're not proposing to change the base fee, but increasing the per acreage fee. This is again to kind of match what other localities are doing where they're charging a lot more per acreage. And again, this is for every acre in excess of five. So if you have a really small like what little like you know with the case you heard last month where it was the single residential small lot we wouldn't be charging them in this case again if you're a larger development you would we do have a maximum fee though that's built in same for plan development. We also have ad fees for if you have an application that gets you know let's say it's postponed after it's been advertised at the direction of the applicant then we would we already charge for if it's has to be readvertised to the board and commission or boarding commission so we're just increasing the fees again to match the ad cost slight bump in a request to the BZA we've also increased the fee slightly from $60 to $100 for admods and then for detailed zoning letters We produce a lot of these actually out of the division of development services. These are really detailed letters that talk about like it's not just like this is what your zoning is, but you get into what's plans have been approved. They do

take some staff time to produce. So, we want that to again kind of cover that. For site plans, no changes to single family attached or multifamily residential uses. And we're not really doing much to the site plan submittal fee for commercial site plans. an increase from 60 cents to $1 per thousand square feet, but we're leaving the base fee alone. You'll see here, this is the larger one, this new fee. Again, that's that resubmitt fee. So, the third or subsequent submitt 150. Then for each one after, we're going to increase it by $50. Again, that's to really incentivize the consultant to produce a plan that is approvable. So, we're not reviewing it multiple times. And again here just that archaeological study review fee as well. That is a very quick and fast summation of all those changes. Um again this outline kind of we have the full text of the resolution and then that little snapshot there and that chart for you. And with that we're recommending approval of this in PC212. This is if you choose to recommend approval tonight, it's going to go to the board of supervisors next Tuesday for their consideration u before the budget is adopted. Comments from staff. Start this way. Quick question on re the revised section G when you're talking about the archaeological uh fees. Um the final review cost is that inhouse or is that contracted out? Is there The final review cost would be what again that consultant that's reviewing. It's whatever that final cost is going to be that they're going to end up charging us. So, it's a third party that Yeah, it's kind of unpredictable, I guess. Okay, I just want to thank you. All right, we'll start close in, Mr. Tus. Comment. I are the fees and all these things. There's it's not really a cost basis. It's kind of a windage and elevation, what surrounding

uh surrounding entities charge and then a little bit about what uh consultants would charge for archaeological things and the rest of it. I I think that's what I get out of this. There's no I can't I can't look down and drill down and say the cost is because they have 10 hours of labor and 15 hours of something else and and on and on. It's kind of a this this organization charges this and this one charges this and we're going to be good and we're going to charge in the middle. That's about right. Is that is that about right? I wouldn't say wholly. Um, since we don't do billable hours here, you know, it's a little hard to for us to me to break down exactly like, okay, I you spent, you know, this amount of exact hours reviewing this subdivision development plan. But what we're trying to reflect and what we've really seen um and I'm just going to speak to the resubmittal fee here specifically is that um the trend has been a bit lately that we've been receiving site plans that are submitted and they're missing a lot of requirements and then we're having to send that back out comes back it's still not meeting and so it's just this again three four five rounds of review and what we're trying to do is again kind of incentivize we need a bit higher quality we don't want to be the quality control for the consultant. So they're also to keep from having u bogus or frivolous things come in and let you fix them versus the people that submit them fix them the first time. So it's kind of a it's got to be high enough to keep the bogus or frivolous things out and enough to kind of cover part of the cost a bit. Yeah. That you have. Yeah. and the I can say for the planning applications that's really because of the ad costs for the daily press that's largely driving that increase. All righty. Thank you Mr. Brooks. Regarding the phase one, phase two,

phase threes, it's my understanding that Shipo does not have to review any of this anymore. They are not. Um, so you're burdened the work and the contractor whoever it is burden the cost basically. Yeah. Which personally that's a good thing. I think keep the shipo out. They have to meet the requirements but they're not reviewing. Well, you know what I'm saying. It's to me it's elim it's eliminating another layer which I think is good. Mr. Smith any comments? my king. I'm sorry. I'm looking one way and thinking the other way. Okay. Thanks. All right. At this point, I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. I've got one one sheet, Mr. Cross. Hello again. My name is Tim Cross. I reside at 109 Holloway Drive in Queens Lake. My my evening is shot anyway, so I figured I'd stick around. Might as well stick around and speak on this application. Um, I support the staff's recommendation uh especially with regard to the uh application fees for reszonings and special use permits. The proposed application fee increases are very reasonable. If anything, they don't go far enough. Uh several years ago an analysis was done uh which showed that our uh application fees were not even coming close to covering the cost of

advertising these applications. And to address this, proposed fee increases were sent to the board of supervisors for consideration, but ultimately they weren't approved. Uh probably because they were packaged with some other uh text amendments that generated some public opposition. Um, I believe the cost of advertising these applications should be borne by the applicants and not the taxpayers. And although there were some fee increases imposed a few years ago, uh, I suspect we're still not covering our advertising expenses. So, I urge you to recommend approval of the proposed amendments. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak on this item? Hearing none, I'll close the public hearing and the pleasure of the commission. We'll start down there. Mr. Hey, Mr. Chairman, I think it's uh important that we keep track. I mean, keep up pace. Uh the work the staff does is doesn't come close to the money they receive in return for anything they do. And uh it's a um it's a government function. It's not the private sector, right? So, they're not it's not even coming close. So, I support this and we're not the leader in Hampton Roads, by the way. It's several other localities, many that are some some of them twice as much as what we charge. So, I'm going to support this, Mr. Brooks. Yeah, I agree. And I actually agree with Tim. It should be higher. Uh and then the the burden should be also placed on other people paying the cost as well. versus the taxpayer. Thank you. No further comments. Okay, Mr. Miller. All right. The only comment I have is having spent a lot of time with the staff reviewing past um

development projects. I think these are very inexpensive. staff spends a tremendous amount of time not only from the developer perspective but from the public um that comes in that wants to see these documents that wants to review them that has a lot of questions. Staff is very very responsive to that and and I think these are bargain prices. So with that I'll entertain a motion on PC25-12 if I have that one right. All right, Mr. Chairman, I I recommend that we forward PC25-12 to the board of supervisors with a recommendation of approval. Roll call, please. The motion by Mr. King is to adopt PC25-12 to recommend approval to amend and establish certain fees within the subdivision ordinance chapter 20.5 uh York County Code and within the zoning ordinance chapter 21.1 of the York County Code. Now, Mr. Titus, yes. Mr. Brooks, yes. Mr. King, yes. And Mr. Chamberlain, yes. Motion passes. Mr. Smith approved, too. And Mr. Smith. All right. With that, uh, we have any old business? We got Well, it's after new business. So, we've got Yeah. Well, so we got new business. Is the CIP do we need do I need to do a public hearing on that or is it just for presentation? Okay. Just for approval. Okay. Yep. Um won't talk yours too much. What this is uh this is um annual function that you all do and this is just to certify again conformance of the proposed CIP with the comprehensive plan. Um as Earl mentioned not a public hearing but this action needs to occur uh prior to the adoption of the proposed budget for FY26. So with that, um, if you all want to adopt that resolution to certify

conformance and if you have any questions, um, you know, we're here to answer any questions you have about the CIP relation. Question. I have a quick person. No, I think the package was very thoroughly prepared. I don't see any reason of nothing here on this end. Mr. Titus, yeah, I do have a question. It's under the York County School Division projects and we're supposed to certify this that it ties in with the comprehensive plan, but there's a line item that talks about other projects. And I'm like, what is that? And it's the cost is like $700,000 next year. And I'm going I don't know how to certify something that just says other. You said that was in the school divisions proposed. Okay. A little tricky. Um, so that the school division, um, and the school board's CIP is wrapped into the proposed CIP. Um, and Earl, you can jump in on that, but I think you're all really looking at the county's proposed CIP and its conformance with the comp plan. Just tell me what page. Yeah, right here. Page 15. Oh, okay. Yeah. Page page 15 in the

attachment. Usually for other projects, it's going to be, you know, um smaller smaller items like generators being added to the schools or roof replacements. Um, it's usually different things like that. I mean, you'd be surprised how much a generator costs to put in on a building. I mean, because they're putting these large diesel generators. I mean, the one that's behind this building here was um well, you know, very pricey. So, but I mean, they're there to run the building for emergency purposes in most cases, just from the generator. But again, I I don't know uh what that line item specifically is off the top of my head. um we'd have to delve into it, but usually it's smaller projects, a bunch of smaller projects that they kind of put together into that that other category. Um I know that's probably not satisfactory. Well, it is what it is on that, but it's just the idea that that just really caught my eye. It says other and you go, what is that for? And what am I certifying that it's a part of the comprehensive plan? Would there be any reason not to include some kind of H? I'm sorry. I do have an answer for you. Um, okay. So, you attached to the this chart here, you'll see this is the actual like broken out items for the school board CIP. So, you're going to look at page Yeah, it's your very last one in that chart before you get to the individual project sheets. Okay. Okay. So you'll see there's um right under temporary modular classrooms there's the replacement of the communication system. Yeah. Oh, it is. Yes. Page 100. I guess it's on our handout, right? Perfect. That's exactly what we're looking for. I don't see it yet. Where you at? Oh, I'm looking at something else on Oh, okay.

I got a question. You're on the right page, Mr. Titans. Right there. List all the projects that are in other other projects. Oh, okay. Yeah, this answers it. That's perfect. Okay. All righty. And the only other question I have would be there's asterisk on some of the projects. Is that a for a reason? Like one that says asterisk permanent structure riverwalk stage area and it's asterisk and I can't find any I believe um in the are you looking at the individual project sheets or the table? that table. Okay. I believe so some of these um and I also grade those out in the memo. Some of these were like already proposed and the funding years have been switched. So I believe some of those the asterisk is met to indicate that this isn't a brand new project. The funding year has just been changed and the money has been shifted a little bit. Okay. All righty. That's all I had. Thank you. I got a question. Go ahead. Yeah. Um I I understand what Glenn is saying because I' I've looked at this And um for fiscal year 27, TAB High School got has got geothermal system for $16,797,000. That's a lot of money for a geothermal system and Yep. They have very lengthy I wasn't at there so I'm okay. been a and I've I've um experience with geothermal systems with the with my previous agency. I question that one and I know I'm going to go agree with everything, but I just want to hope somebody looks at that and makes a recommendation because that's just an enormous amount of money. If if you watch the rerun of the board meeting, it's in excruciating detail.

It actually does explain it as Yeah. So they did explain it. Yeah. And if So there is an answer. There is an answer. Yep. Okay. Okay. We'll have one more comment. I got I got a chuckle out of this one by the way, just because it it was so different. Um was it esports by chance? Yeah, it's it's just on page 16 there of this same piece of paper. It says uh user fees from Stephanie's cash flow worksheet. And it just I chuckled on it, you know. Yeah, that is the estimate of, you know, fees that the county might collect. Yeah, it Yeah, I don't know why it's titled might be a little tight from Stephanie's cash worksheet. You want to know who Stephanie is? Yeah. Yeah. All right. With that, Mr. King, you have anything down there? You've been All right. I And I have nothing either. So, I'll entertain a motion for PC 25-13. Mr. Chairman, I uh make a motion to adopt proposed resolution number PC2513. Over to the board. Roll call, please. Sorry. A motion by Mr. Smith is to certify conformance of the proposed York County Capital Improvement Program for FY 2026 to 2031 with the York County Comprehensive Plan through the adoption of PC25-13. Mr. Mr. Brooks, yes. Mr. King, yes. Mr. Titus, yes. Mr. Smith, yes. Mr. Chamberlain, yes. Motion passes. All right, with that, we've got the staff reports. All right, so um we you you will notice that Miss Miss Tardini is missing tonight. Um she is uh spending some time with her mother who is in hospice now. Uh so uh we staff has stepped up to to help out with that, but

our our prayers and wishes go out to Kathy as she's going through this time with her mom. Um as far as the development activity report, just some things I would note to you um at the board's meeting next week. Uh we'll have the uh Carver application which was for the chicken coupoop being closer to the property line. Um and that will after that case is decided, the board will look at the actual um uh zoning ordinance change that we have brought forward to them that you all approved um to basically remove that setback special use permit requirement from that section. So, but the the carvers get to have their their day in court kind of before we make the change to the ordinance. Uh the other thing I would note is uh your meeting next month u uh have the Virginia natural gas um application on there. This is at a site up off of Centara. It's basically a regulator site for them. They're putting in it's not very large. It's kind of small there off of u um the the circle that goes around Cantara up at the hospital. So they'll be uh putting they're it requires a special use permit for them to to do that. So, you'll see that at your next application. Uh, the only other two I would uh note is on the back of your report at the bottom, the land disturbing activity permits, one for the Riverside Heating and Air Office warehouse and the other for the WA transfer station. So, those land disturbing activity permits were granted um in early March. And so, if you have driven by those sites, you would notice that they are uh being under development. Uh the Wada actually had their ground breaking last week and then the Riverside heating air, that's the one that's there near Cliffs. Um they put up the silt fence. They've been taking down trees and starting the site work there. So uh you'll see that um office warehouse going in on that site here soon. Other than that, um we we

have hired a um a new planner and she will be joining us at the uh planning commission meeting in May. So we'll get to introduce you to her. Um she will be a familiar face uh as she was one of our interns last summer um Madison Scoff. So she'll be here and she'll um you'll be able to see her again next month and that's all we have. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Um do any reports? Not aware of any commission reports and requests. Um with that we stand adjourned. [Music]