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 p

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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?

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. 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

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.

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. 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?

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.

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...

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

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?

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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?

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 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.

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.

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%.

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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 a

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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?

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 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.

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?

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.

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. 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?

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?

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 t

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?

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 ow

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

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

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 communi

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?

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?

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?

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 cor

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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 advan

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 d

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.

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 Intern

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 f

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

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

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 hypothe

Okay, moving down the dais, Commissioner Sherman.

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

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.

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-

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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. 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. 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?

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 structu

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

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?

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

Madam Clerk. Can I offer a friendly amendment?

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

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?

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, 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?

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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 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?

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 a

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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. Commissioner Landry. None. Commissioner Roth.

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

Neither. Neither. Okay. Number 12, commission members' time. Coming back to you, Commissioner Scheifler.

Do we have a date on the Yorkshire Small Area Plan community meeting? I saw, like, fall 2021.

Well, it's been 3,600 days since it was initiated.

Stick a fork in me. I'm done. Okay. I'm passing.

It's Commissioner's time. Commissioner Landrum.

Time for us to all catch some Z's, right?

Okay. I just want to briefly say we are sorry for your loss. We heard about your loss. So we wish you and your family our dearest sympathies and condolences. And moving on to Vice Chair Justice.

Yes, echoing that sentiment. Dr. Jack, I could send an email, but I heard somebody make a comment that he's in the hospital. Yeah, that's a concern. We all wish him well. He's done a lot of work for the community, and I'll try to reach out in the next couple days. Yeah. Make sure he's okay. Speedy recovery, Dr. Jack. Yeah, absolutely.

All right, Commissioner Shaik. Similar comments. I'm so sorry for your loss. Please accept our condolences. And also, we definitely will reach out to Dr. Jack and check on him. Thank you.

All right. Commissioner Carroll. No, Commissioner Sherman.

Are we creating an October work session for that, or are we?

I'm trying to figure out if one was already planned, and you're just adding a subject to it, or if this is a new one. Either way, I'll be here.

Okay, we'll take it under advisement and then try to work it out. A day that works for us. Everyone, perhaps. Okay, anyone want to make a motion to adjourn?