Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone, welcome to the Prince William County Planning Commission July 15th, 2026 hearing. We had our agenda review at 6.45 and now we'd like to start with the Pledge of Allegiance. Before we start, please silence your electronic devices and now let's 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. All right, we are now moving to item three on our agenda, the roll call. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Thank you. Um, do we have anyone, um, on for an item for anyone requesting remote participation? Okay. Is Shifler on the line? I'll now take a motion to approve Scheifler for remote participation, please. Second. Thank you. The motion has been made by Vice Chair Justice and seconded by Commissioner Shaik. Madam Clerk, can we please call the roll?

Thank you. Moving on to item five, do we have any items on the consent agenda?

Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Venegas. Moving on to item number six, the expedited agenda. Back to you, Mr. Venegas. Do we have items on the expedited agenda?

We will now suspend our bylaws, which generally, I'm sorry. Let's just find out if we've got people that want to speak. Do we have anyone, oh, I forgot about that. Do we have anyone signed up to speak for any of these items that Mr. Venegas just mentioned?

There is no one signed up virtually tonight. And the only, we have one speaker for item F. But if anyone has arrived late, does anybody wish to speak in opposition for any of the agenda items 11a through 11g?

Yes, we do have speakers for item H, which we will hear the full hearing for the data center opportunity zone and zoning tax amendment.

Open a public hearing and I'll make a motion. For all of them? Yeah. Okay, thank you.

Okay, seeing that there's no one against, we will move on and open up the public hearing for the expedited agenda. And I'll now turn it over to Commissioner Roth.

Thank you, Chair. I move that we suspend for the duration of tonight's meeting any planning commission bylaw that would prevent considering more than one application at a time during the expedited part of tonight's meeting.

Second. Second. The motion has been made by Commissioner Ross and properly seconded by Vice Chair Justice to suspend the bylaws. Can we please have a vote, Madam Clerk?

Thank you. Can I please now have a... vote. Would that be you, Commissioner Ross?

We need one more motion and I'm able to give it if you like.

Absolutely. We'll turn it over to Commissioner Ross for the motion. Thank you, Chair.

I move that we recommend the following applications with each being subject to the conditions identified in their respective Planning Commission staff reports.

Before we do that, I recommend that we close the public hearings.

Absolutely, the public hearing is now closed.

And I still move that we recommend the following applications, with each being subject to the conditions identified in their respective Planning Commission staff reports.

Proffer Amendment REZ-2026-00015 Canfield Crossing. Proffer Amendment REZ-2026-00042, Amendment to the Declaration for Property of the Board of County Supervisors of Prince William County, Virginia. Proffer Amendment REZ-2026-00043, Amendment to the Declaration for Property of the Board of County Supervisors of Prince William County, Virginia. Item D, rezoning REZ 2025-00032 Manassas Tech Center. Item E, proffer amendment REZ 2026-00022 Manassas Tech Center PRA. Item F, special use permit, SUP 202600021, Truist, Smoketown Station. Item G, special use permit, SUP 202600028, House of Bubbles Pet

Thank you. The motion has been properly made to approve Proffer Amendment REZ 2026-0015, Canfield Crossing. Proffer Amendment REZ 2026-00042, amendment to the Declaration for Property of the Board of County Supervisors of Prince William County. Proffer Amendment REZ 2026-0043, amendment to the Declaration for Property of the Board of County Supervisors. REZ 2025-00032, Manassas Tech Center, Proffer Amendment REZ 2026-0022, Manassas Tech Center PRA, Special Use Permit SUP 2026-00021, Truist Smokedown Station, and Special Use Permit SUP 2026-00028, House of Bubbles Pet Grooming, with all the pro

To the audience, we're trying out a new process to speed things up, and my vote is yes.

Thank you. And that motion was so eloquently made by Commissioner Ross. Good job. Now, if anyone wants to exit the chambers, feel free to do so. Please so quietly, please. And we will now move on to our next item on the agenda, which is going to be item number seven, public comment. If there's anyone that would like to make a public comment, you can please feel free to go to the back for any of the items that are not on our agenda for tonight.

Okay. Seeing that there's no one signed up or online, thank you very much. And there's no one making their way to the back. We will move on to item number eight, deferrals and continuations. Mr. Venegas, do we have any items for deferral or continuation?

Okay, thank you very much. We're now moving to item nine on the agenda, planning director's time. So I will turn it over to Director Washington.

Thank you, Director Washington, we appreciate that. Okay, we will now open up the hearing. We're moving on to item 10. And the only item that we have on the agenda today is 10H for the zoning text amendment DPA 2026-00006 for the data center opportunity zone overlay district.

And that board public hearing is going to be when? In September? Okay. Thank you for that clarification, Director Washington. We will now open up the public hearing. Do we have anyone signed up to speak?

As of now, we had two speakers. It's like Scott Kelly and Antonio Douglas or Antoine Douglas. If you still wish to speak, if you can head to the back microphone, you'll have three minutes to speak and then just name, magisterial district or generally where you live. And if anyone else would like to speak on this case, you can head to the back now as well. Yeah, and someone can step up and kick us off.

First, excuse me, are any of the speakers in the chamber that he called their names for? Okay. Okay, so go ahead on and speak, please. Thank you.

Well, you typically don't answer any questions, but you can continue to express your thoughts. That's my question. If you have questions, you can probably contact our Office of Planning, and someone can probably provide you more details on that.

Typically, during public comment time, we hear your questions and concerns, and it's not a Q&A session. But what magisterial district are you in, sir?

We can definitely make a note and look into it and then get back to you.

Sir? Sir? Using the list of properties that are identified in the material I have, I can help you see if the property you're thinking about is in that list. And I could do that after the meeting. I'd be glad to do it with you.

Thank you, Commissioner Ross. Okay, next speaker, please.

If you could just, just name magisterial district or generally where you live, just state your name.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to go to the mic and speak or have public comments about this particular case? Dr Jack. No. Okay. Okay. We'll now move to if there's anyone that has questions on the dais. No questions.

Thanks. I guess to that end, continue on the thought in terms of the stakeholder input and outreach. I guess we've reached out to the business community, real estate stuff, commercial stuff, but or are we gonna plan to have like a public community meeting? Because I mean, to me, they're kind of the biggest stakeholders in all of this being impacted.

Okay. Yeah. I mean, that's a fair answer. I just think, you know, the public has been clamoring for this for years, and to not allow them a seat to provide input for something so major, you know, I definitely think it's a missed opportunity. And then in terms of the five eligibility criteria, could that be walked through, like what exactly each one of those five criteria means?

Yeah, no, I've read the language. I guess I'm just need help understanding what's like a, I think it was like a final site plan, an approved site plan, just like the distinctions of what each means.

Okay, so just, so in terms of that process, where exactly for criteria three and four, so where does like the approved final development plan fall versus the final zoning determination?

Got it, okay. I'll have a follow up later, but that's my three for now.

Okay, Vice Chair Justice. Thank you. So I think you had a slide that, I think it was the next slide after this one, and I don't know if you can blow these back up. They're a little bit hard to see. Thank you. So am I right in understanding, I'm just trying to figure out timelines how these tracks. So if you meet certain criteria, you're in an area where by right, you're not coming to the planning commission, you're not going to the borders of county supervisors for approval. Those data centers are taking a track to go directly towards zoning approval and site plan, correct? Correct. And then y

Okay. So the determination of those two separate tracks, what determines which track they go on? Is it whether or not they're looking for changes?

My concern is coming in on the timeline. That's what I'm trying to figure out because the applicant having to have something submitted within 90 days is one thing, but you've got two separate parties here that have to be involved because you're saying it has to be accepted by the county within the 90 days as well. So that's putting County staff on a timeline as well. Is that normal for projects? Is that, I mean, do we, I mean, we have timelines that we'd like to see, right. And I'm sure there's, uh, property owners and applicants that, uh, you see what I'm trying to figure out is what burden i

Can I ask one more question? So let's say theoretically somebody comes in a property owner in the County and they move forward with a data center project and they want to see how it goes. So they have to work through titling. They have to work through deeds. You know, they're, they're going through this whole process and they submit the plan. Is there a, I guess I'm concerned about the timelines. Let's say that they get everything submitted and they're on track, but day 85, they come back with a denial or there's something that wasn't quite right that staff wants them to work on. They have fiv

I'm saying if it wasn't QC accepted. You're saying QC accepted, has somebody looked it over?

Does the planning office have some kind of estimate or modeled number of the count of projects that would likely be submitted under criteria five, either projects that have already, you know, where the applicant has already been in preliminary discussion with the planning office or otherwise?

WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING WHAT EACH OF THE TERMS MEAN IN THE CRITERIA SUMMARIES THERE, I'M CURIOUS IF THERE'S JUST AN INFORMATIONAL WEBSITE THAT THE COUNTY HAS THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF THAT TEACHES SOMEONE NEW TO THE PROCESS how those string out through time, and what each step means. Are we lucky enough to have that?

I'm only asking because I hope that it, helps Mr. Carroll with his questions or the people who are similarly motivated. Okay.

Okay, I have a question about the 90-day timeline. Is that something that is hard? Is it chiseled in stone or...

Does the staff have any comment on the timeframe? No. No, okay. Just checking. I will say that 90 days does seem awful fast. And just given the workload that the planning office has now, it seems that that would place an incredible burden. So certainly I would definitely express my sentiments to my supervisor about that and see, because that just seems like that could be a disaster, but we'll see. Going back, Commissioner Shifler, do you have any comments?

Yeah, my only comment was in relation to, I guess. Public notice kind of this action. Again, this affects a lot of properties and I know that doesn't make sense to post signs for everything. But again, just. better understanding of how to make sure that the public can get the outreach they need to better understand what is happening. And that was my only comment, if there's better ways to advertise it other than this meeting or future board meeting in September.

Okay. Do you have any other comments or questions for the staff? Commissioner Scheifler?

Yeah, that was my only comment. I wasn't sure if there were other opportunities for public notice, at least, of this action occurring.

Okay. Thank you. Moving along the dais, Commissioner Sherman.

Yes, thank you. Just following up on the questions I had before, just going back to these five criteria. Just I'll read it real quick and then if we can go to that slide with the pie chart. So criteria one is the approved proffers, the approved projects, rezonings, what have you. Criteria three is the approved site plans. So if we can go to the slide with the pie chart. So we only, of all the data center cases the county has heard, there's only one of those cases that has been approved that's lacking the final site plan. Because right now on the pie chart for criteria one, we just have one. So

Well, isn't criteria five, those are filed for quality control?

Okay. So those could be site plans that have been on approved projects? Yes. Okay. Okay. Okay. I think that helps me there. And then going to, if we can go back a couple slides to the, kind of the, yeah, this one. So just, when we say that it's on the right-hand side, it's the property ineligible zoning districts for data center use by SUP, and we say no, and that it's not eligible for data center development, I guess on the surface that's true, but if an applicant was to come in with a concurrent rezoning and an SUP, essentially any parcel in the county could be then eligible. Yeah, that's co

Right. Okay. Yeah. And I think that's one of my big concerns with this is Whereas we are taking basically all these parcels out of the overlay and leaving essentially those data center projects in. And we're essentially leaving the map wide open now. So I would like to see the county still identify where the county believes data centers should go in the county and identify those in the overlay still. and then just scrap the buy-write portion of it. But in my view, we should still be identifying where we think the data center should go and be proactive in that instead of allowing these applicat

Okay, Commissioner Justice, or Vice Chair Justice.

Thank you. So one question is, are there any other time frames in this document elsewhere other than the 90-day?

You said by date of ordinance, so that would be September when it goes to the board.

Okay. And then my next question, I guess this one's a little bit tricky because it's a recommendation or a, what if, if it can be done between now and the board, uh, I think we've all talked about the community involvement. You've got seven districts. Each of those districts probably has, at least to my knowledge, has a civic association. Is there any way that the planning office could work with those civic associations and host a meeting or work with the civic associations and do like an online presentation one evening to where, you know, the civic groups, they have their emails or newsletter

Yeah, okay. I think that would be great. Thanks.

I certainly echo Commissioner Justice's thoughts on working with community organizations to get information out. Now on page, I believe it is, page 31 of this document, It's mentioned that with the 64% reduction that what remains are 130 parcels eligible under Criterion 5. That includes projects that have already been submitted for QC, or is that all eligible or potentially qualifying parcels?

Okay. Um, but, but criterion five is also a catch all within 90 days for anybody else that submits to QC. So what is the number of parcels excluding the 130 that would technically be eligible should a project be submitted?

Okay. Is that information that will be available to the board?

I'll play Jeopardy and phrase this in the form of a question. By my count, since the March 3rd Board of Supervisors meeting, when this topic came up, if we assume that it wasn't discussed before that meeting, Until the end of the 90-day window on the schedule we think will follow, there will be 10 months, almost a full year. Is that close to what you think the duration is? March through late December?

Okay, understood. My point is, this is not a surprise. And I wonder if 90 days might be excessive. If that was but supervisor Gordy submitted the directive Enough said Thank You chair Commissioner Scheifler, do you have any comment or questions?

No other questions or comments, okay Commissioner Carol Thank you

Just to make sure I'm understanding on substations. So in essence, assuming this passes in September, a year from now, we get a substation. So since basically the parcels wouldn't be in the overlay, any future substation would need an SUP in that case?

Okay. Perfect. Tracking that. Likewise, on my concern on the map, I have, I guess, concerns and questions on the design standards portion of the ZTA. So, you know, those standards were established seven, ten years ago at this point. And, you know, as a county, we're benefited from seven to 10 years of data center developments where we've learned a lot of lessons in terms of buffers, noise issues, sustainability measures. Why are we not using this opportunity to take advantage of all those lessons learned and updating the design standards portion of the ZTA to really drill some of those pieces

Okay, is there a timeline on, is that coming, I guess it's not coming before this ZTA to the board?

Okay. Thank you for that. And then my last kind of concern is kind of echoing what commissioner Ross just brought up. You know, I, I know we, are talking about the 90-day period. I mean, I would honestly like to see us do as a county mirror what Loudoun did. And, you know, they cut it off right on the date of the board approval. So they didn't have any sort of window. And I think that's definitely a cleaner way to do it. And, you know, they even went steps as far as potentially not even grandfathering any applications in. Like you were approved or you weren't. And they included exceptions in t

Okay, so I have a question for This is for the staff. What impact will this particular passage of the zoning text amendment have on your operations, if any?

Okay, so I guess my second question is you don't necessarily see an influx of applications once this gets passed.

Thank you. I'll move on to Commissioner Landrum.

Some of the industry information available suggests that for a data center development application typically takes about six to 18 months from sort of conception to submittal for QC. Is that in line with what you all see at the planning office? Do you all have any Prince William County specific data on that part of the project timeline?

Reza or perhaps David. I live right now on a piece of A1 property in the northwest corner of the county and I believe that I could request that my supervisor initiate a CPA and then if successful, submit a rezoning application and a request, an SUP request to build a high energy consumption project on my property in a data center. Am I correct about that? Today.

I'd have to go to my supervisor or some supervisor and submit the paperwork.

Okay, thank you. And so I asked not because I intend to or I thought anybody was really interested in the nuts and bolts, but it's just that I don't feel like this change that's proposed at the moment, the one that's in front of us, is opening the door in other parts of the county any wider than it was already open. Am I correct about that?

The board, as it evolves over the next 50 years, it'll be in their hands and ours to a certain extent. Thank you. Thank you, chair.

Okay. Thank you. We won't be here for the next 50 years, but at least I won't be on this board. But you might, Commissioner Ross. Commissioner Scheifler, coming back to you, do you have any questions or comments?

Okay. All right. Seeing that there are no lights on, I think we can... Although I do have a question actually for Commissioner, it was a statement that Commissioner Carroll made as well as Commissioner Ross in that you guys were thinking a shorter time period. I was thinking a longer time period. And so help me to understand why you think the shorter period would work or what we didn't accomplish, I guess.

This industry is surrounded by controversy. As an engineer, I can imagine a well-designed, not gargantuan, not noisy, et cetera, et cetera, data center energized by clean energy that would be, that should be welcome in most places in the country. Our design criteria do not Our ordinances, our design criteria do not put this industry in that box. And that is a source of much of the controversy. We have in our pipeline millions and millions of square feet of projects from this industry. And to a very large extent, I believe we're in danger of becoming too dependent on the revenue from this sourc

Yeah, no, I appreciate that. And, you know, I echo much of what Commissioner Ross just said, and I think I'll just add to that that, I mean, especially in the Brentsville District, I mean, we're hurting now with data center development. I mean, we, and it's not necessarily even the data center development. It's all the other things that come with that, and specifically now the electrical infrastructure. I mean, we have a Dominion meeting tomorrow on two projects. That's right through the Brentsville District. We have another Dominion next week on a major new project that's in the Brentsville D

Well thank you both for explaining that. I don't know if that gets me where I need, where I'm trying to get to with thinking a proper balance, if there is a proper balance. I don't know. I guess in some respects the data center overlay is essentially shrinking, right? So that would be a good thing for the people who are residents of the county who don't want to see any more data centers. And then we're establishing some criteria. So I guess that's a good thing as well for partials that are already in the overlay to meet. My question is to Director Washington. When you mentioned the update to t

Thank you. And someone may have asked, but I'll ask again, do we know how long it'll take to complete the updates?

Okay. Thank you. I think I'm done with my questions.

So commissioner Landrum, um, the, the original, um, ordinance was, um, that, that was the product of work by the board.

And in their draft that was submitted to the planning office, was the 90 days included in that draft?

But the 90 days in some form was in the original draft that was submitted to the planning office?

Right. So just to clarify, the 90 days was a number that was conceived by one or more of the supervisors and not the planning office itself?

So let me ask the question to clarify that. So are we saying then that the first version of the CTA was just going to be grandfathered in, well, was there no grandfather provision or they were just, I'm trying to figure out what was the rationale for the first and then why did they change it? Do we know?

Okay, thank you. Any other questions, comments from the dais? Yes, Commissioner Landrum.

I'd just like to offer one comment, if I may. Respectfully to Commissioners Ross and Carroll, I can appreciate the consideration of the broader industrial development trends, the tax base, and some of the desire to pump the brakes on development that has in a lot of ways scarred parts of the county and residents. But I would be very hesitant personally to supplant my views as a planning commissioner in suggesting that that 90-day be shrunk, because clearly there was an impetus for including it, some kind of grace period to facilitate the planning office's work or to provide more of a, I guess,

The board appointed me to this position. And in this position, I make recommendations to the board. I do not replace the board. And I do not have any motion in mind, but if I were to have an opinion about this that I wanted to share now rather than between now and when the board votes, because I'm certain that Supervisor Stewart and I will speak, I would not hesitate a bit to offer it in our recommendation and see what my peer commissioners think about my opinion.

Yeah, I definitely would appreciate that because I'm struggling with the 90 day. Actually, I feel like that's a little too soon. I've heard and I understand my fellow commissioners point in terms of Carol and Ross and what they're saying. But I'm thinking about just in general, the workload that the office has and for people who already have property that's in the overlay district, I think that... You know, it takes a long time to get things done. So I would like to see the timeframe longer, actually. At least 120, if not 180. But that's just my thought. I don't know of other.

along with the community, that's, that's where my hesitation and concerns coming from. Uh, if you're making notes for the board, not only is it the communication aspect and as commissioner Ross brought up, I understand that this discussion started in March. Um, but being involved in real estate transactions, contracts, deed research, proffer research. I mean, there's a significant amount of time that go into those items and coming up with agreements. And what I don't want to see is this comes out and then there's this big rush to just let's throw it at the wall and see what sticks kind of thin

Let's get a motion on the floor. And then after that motion is seconded, we can have discussion and debate right now. We're discussing. I'm not sure what, because it's all hypothetical until we put a motion in front of ourselves.

Well, we're actually just addressing, like, maybe the 90-day issue and having discussion with staff and Director Washington. So I will go ahead on and move to Commissioner Landrum.

I have one question, just for clarification purposes. heard a couple numbers floated around for timelines. I know one is for the revision of the design standards. The other is for the zoning text amendment. What is the anticipated, just for my own mental note, what is the expected amount of time before the 90-day window would take effect by the passage of the zoning text amendment?

And that's anticipated to be in September, is that correct? Yes, yes. Okay, and it's about three months from now. I'll just offer a comment, if I may. Given that an application prior to submission for QC is not an instantaneous process, and there may be some that are currently in development, there may be some that aren't, but I could anticipate sort of a mad dash by the development community, which would then put a lot of strain on the planning office, because three months between now and passage, starting that 90-day clock, WHEN A PROJECT AT, YOU KNOW, ACCORDING TO SOME INDUSTRY CITATIONS ON

Thank you for that. And that's actually where my mind was. where I was thinking as well, because it's not a... I mean, a data center development is not a quick action. It's a very extensive process. Sometimes the public is not aware of how long it actually takes, but it takes a long time. It seems like they're cropping up everywhere, but it really starts years, a lot of times, before. And that's... I can't even tell you how... how long some data centers take. Some are a little bit faster than others, but going, just trying to identify the land, trying to negotiate maybe even the purchase of th

Thank you. No, I would just, I definitely agree some community outreach, community engagement, I think definitely critical. I mean, I will still stand by the zero days. I mean, if it's good enough for Loudoun, it's good enough for me. But talking about this, it did bring up one last question I wanted to ask. In terms of that whole 90-day section of the proposal, there's an and to that clause, and there's a second piece of that. And the applicant incurs extensive obligations or substantial expenses in diligent pursuit of said rezoning, SUP, site plan, et cetera. How are we defining extensive ob

Gotcha. Okay. Appreciate that information on that.

Okay. Commissioner Ross, you had your light on. You changed your mind.

I think I would continue beating the dead horse, and I'd rather not.

Okay. All right. One last time, Commissioner Scheifler, any comments or questions?

Okay. All righty. I am, uh, we don't wait. Oh, it's for him to make the motion.

Okay. All right. We will go ahead on and entertain a motion.

So I'd like to close the public hearing. The public hearing is now closed. So, I recommend the Prince William county planning commission recommend that the board of company supervisors approve. DPA. 2026 dash 0 0 0 6. Zoning text amendments to the data center. Opportunity zone overlay district county code section 32 dash. 509 dash 1 say. And corresponding. overlaid uh district map amendments uh which were initiated by the board on june 9th 2026 by adoption of resolution number 26-374 and recommend the board incorporate and approve the county staff recommended changes to DPA 2026-0006 and the p

I was going to do that, but I think we have to wait for a second. Okay. Did you second, Commissioner Ross?

No, I said you amend a motion only after it's been seconded.

Okay, I'll go ahead and second it and then hear.

I'd like to offer a friendly amendment to Commissioner Scheifler's motion, which would be to make a recommendation with that recommendation of approval to make the additional recommendation that the 90 days be extended to 180 days for the purposes of both developer applicants and the planning office caseload.

Okay. The first motion to approve Zoning Tax Amendment DPA 2026-00006 has been made by Commissioner Scheifler and seconded by Commissioner, I'm Chair Justice and now we have a friendly amendment to that approval and the friendly amendment was to extend the 90 day timeframe to 180 days by Commissioner Landry and properly seconded by Vice Chair Justice. Madam chair, can we, uh, madam clerk, can we take a vote?

I'd like to, uh, engage in discussion after of the motion that's on the floor right now.

Looks like I have to beat that horse. The industry does not need that extra time. This subject has been coming at them since before March. When you make a change like this zoning text amendment, if it is passed, will make, there are going to be a few oxes that get gored. either a landowner who thought they had five more years to consider selling their land to a developer or to a data center enterprise that thought they had two more years to line up their funding and submit their site plan. But I agree. with what I believe was the original intent of the motion, which is we are receiving and app

Can I speak? OK. Vice Chair Justice, go ahead.

Your thoughts go with the industry. I'm a huge proponent of property rights, and I look at property owners, and I do, I look at the process and I think about, you just said it, somebody might have thought that they had a longer time horizon to make this decision. They thought they could hold out a little bit longer. And now this is coming down the pipe and I don't think it's fair to put somebody in a position where they're now having to negotiate and review contracts with an industry that's got a substantial amount of money, have time to work with their legal representation to get the right op

Yeah, and I just want to echo what Vice Chair Justice said. I'm just thinking about not just... the data center developers, but the land owners, as well as the Office of Planning staff, as well as other stakeholders that may want to find out more information. I just think that the time is a little too quick, and I think extending it would benefit I understand from you guys' perspective, you want to basically put the ax down on the industry. And I can understand that. But there's more stakeholders than just the data center developers. And so that is why, for that reason, I think it just would b

Yeah, I'd just like to add that to Vice Chair Justice's remarks, due process is a foundational principle in the American legal system. And this is an outcropping of the American legal system. We're talking about in three months' time, if the schedule goes according to what's been forecast, in three months' time, Property rights that landowners have enjoyed for quite some time are going to be significantly restricted and largely eliminated. And so we're talking about significantly curtailing landowners' rights in a process of time in about three months. And I have no doubt that there are folks

Uh, thank you. Uh, chair, I'm, I believe I'm hearing a lot of false choices presented and some straw men propped up here. Anytime the legislature makes a change of this type, property rights are affected. So if that's always true, this is not a special case in which property rights are being affected. This is just business as usual. That's what legislative changes do for property rights. So again, let me emphasize, this is not a special circumstance. This is an ordinary circumstance. There's no special victim here. All stakeholders. I am thinking of all stakeholders, including the ones in resi

Okay. Did you want to respond to that or director Washington?

Yeah, thank you. And I appreciate all my colleagues kind of showing the support for the commercial community. I mean, it should go without saying that I don't support the extension. I'm always going to support the community and the residents. When we're talking about sunk costs on projects, I think we also need to look at sunk costs for the community in terms of what we're paying for the watershed, what we're paying for electrical infrastructure, electrical bills, property value decreasing next to some of these buildings. other residents' property rights who have now a by-right data center goi

Commissioner Scheifler, any comments or questions?

I'm generally, as my original motion was, I'm comfortable with the 90 days.

I just say, as my original motion stated, I am comfortable with the 90 days.

Okay. All right. All right, Commissioner Landrum.

I would just say that with regard to the 180 days versus the 90 days, it's not a question of positives for the developer community, negatives for the residents. There are certainly... Plenty of people with a lot of money that can pay for the services required and expedite those services to try to get things in at the 90-day deadline. But I do have concern that that would result in substantially lower quality projects that take less of the concerns of the community into account or less of the concerns of the county into account. where they just try to rush them through 180 days would give proje

Okay. Well, I echo what Commissioner Landrum is saying, and I don't really know what the percentage is that we have for buy-right data centers, but I just know that since I've been on the Planning Commission, we've reviewed a whole lot of applications because there's a whole lot of modifications that data center developers want. So I would go out on a limb and say they're far, far fewer buy-write data centers than we have that come to us for some sort of modification. So in any event, that's just kind of my spiel.

Commissioner Ross, go ahead. Commissioner Landrum and I, we spent quite a few hours together lately talking about planning business. And it's good that we're having a nice, strong debate right now. Okay, and with that said, I don't think that extending the deadline has the effect that he described. Extending the deadline would have that effect only if the number of applications that were being produced was limited or if the production of applications was halted at some point like tonight. But if we create... If we add another 90 days onto this window, we will get 90... The first set of applica

okay thank you commissioner ross um seeing that there are no other questions and then i'll go back one last time to commissioner scheifler because we want you to know you're included any comments or questions thanks chair uh

No additional comments. I mean, at the end of the day, the applications have to meet the zoning ordinance if they're by right. I mean, that's all they need to meet. There's no special, like, make it nicer if it's by right. They just have to meet what's in the zoning ordinance. So, you know, prolonging that, I mean, I don't really see too much of a benefit. But I'll leave it at that. Okay.

Thank you very much. All right. So we will now take a vote on the original.

On the friendly amendment. Did you accept my friendly amendment? I'm sorry?

I believe we should take a vote on the proposed amendment, Chair.

Well, the first question would be, does Commissioner Scheifler accept my friendly amendment? If he accepts my friendly amendment, then it becomes part of his motion. Otherwise, there's a vote for it. So that would be the question. That's true.

Commissioner Scheifler, do you accept Commissioner Landrum's friendly amendment? Since there's been dissent on the amendment, I do not accept it. Say that again. I couldn't hear you. Since there's been dissent on the amendment, I do not accept it. Okay.

So we vote on the amendment, correct? Yeah. So we vote on the amendment.

Okay. Okay. We will now, do you want to, do, Ali, do you need him to say it again? Or you, you have it.

All right, so we have the friendly amendment on the table now for vote. The friendly amendment is to approve the zoning text amendment with the extension of the 90-day timeframe to 180 days.

Yes. With one point of clarification, Chair Brown, that the Amendment itself, I said a couple of additional things in addition to what I had intended as the amendment is simply the recommendation that it be extended to 180 days and not any reasoning that I may have offered afterwards.

Okay, so it's been, the Friendly Amendment has been properly made by Commissioner Landrum and properly seconded by Vice Chair Justice. Correct. Can we now have a vote?

So is this strictly on the Friendly Amendment? Yes. And then we'll have a second vote on? Yes, on the original one.

Thank you. We will now take a vote on the original amendment made by Commissioner Scheifler and seconded by Commissioner, who seconded? Mr. Mays? Yes.

And so taking a vote on the original amendment which was made by Commissioner Scheifler to approve zoning tax amendment DPA 2026-00006 for the data center opportunity zone overlay district. And I said it's been seconded by Vice Chair Justice, right? Yes. Okay. Madam Clerk, can we now take the vote?

your justice the original motion because we already passed it's the original motion that includes the amendment I thought we just voted on the amended motion right now we're voting on the main motion which now includes the friendly emotion okay so we just voted to amend and now we've got the motion plus the amendment That's my understanding. Somebody can correct me.

I thought we just voted to change it from 90 to 180, 100. We did. We did. And now we're voting on Commissioner Scheifler's original motion, but instead of 90, it has 100.

Yes, sir. Just to echo that, point of information.

The main motion before us now says 180 days. Gotcha. Otherwise, everything Scheifler said.

Yes. Okay. All of his other things as far as the staff recommendations going in and 180. Okay. Thank you. Correct?

Except the 180. Plus the 180. Plus the 180. So then my vote would be yes. You're welcome. Thank you.

You know, so, I mean, I had... I think concerns on this even before we're lengthening the time. Like I said, I think we should be taking a page from Loudoun here and cutting it and really looking at what we're grandfathering in. uh i have major concerns that we've are recommending swinging the other way um and while i definitely appreciate all staff's work on seems like a very short timeline deadline that the board has imposed i think incorporating those higher development standards now as part of this process i think would be very beneficial for the zta i think looking at the map of where the

Thank you. If anyone wants to exit the chambers, you may do so at this time. We will now be moving on to item number 11, planning commission procedures. Anyone have old business and or new business? I'm going to start with Commissioner Justice. I mean, Vice Chair Justice, old business or new business?

Commissioner Scheifler, old business or new business?

Okay. I will have a little bit of a new business, and this is because Commissioner Ross did so well with the expedited agenda cases. I wanted to know if Commissioner Ross would, from now on, do the motion for our combined expedited agenda. Okay.

I'll arm wrestle Shufler for it, and the loser has to do it.

All right. Yeah, I can take that on, but if Mark wants to spend less time with his children, he can do it.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Just as a quick question to that, I know we had talked about this briefly when we had originally talked about this, but have we decided if we are putting conditions in a motion, how that would then be handled? Because I know sometimes even on the expedited, we'll include conditions as part of the motion.

So I think what we discussed before, and correct me if I'm wrong, Director Washington, but if there's any kind of special conditions that needs to be attached to something on the expedited agenda, then we would take, it would still be expedited, but we would pull it out of the bigger, yes.

One motion for the clean ones, individual motions for things that need to be modified.

Yes, and is that correct, Director Washington? Yes. Okay. All right. All right, great. Okay, so we got that out the way. Now moving on to Item 12, Commissioner Member's Time. Wait a minute. I did ask Commissioner Scheifler before, right? Commissioner Scheifler, did I ask you if you had any old business or new business? Okay. All right, Commission Member's Time. Going back to Commissioner Scheifler, you have anything to say for Commissioner Member's Time?

I just hope everybody has a good summer break and hope to see everybody in September.

Okay. Don't know what you said, but you can say it. Can you repeat that, please?

I just hope everybody has a good summer recess and hope to see everybody in September.

All right. Thank you very much. Same to you, Commissioner Sherman.

All right. Sounds good. Commissioner Carroll. No? Vice Chair Justice. I'm good. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Landrum.

I'd just like to echo what Commissioner Scheifler said.

I'll point out that to get the word out to the public, if we're talking about ordinary residents, not businesses or whatever, about this action or any other, All we have to do is go talk to our supervisor's office and say, hey, there's something that we need to hold a town hall about, a public meeting about. I don't believe that in the way that I'm thinking about it, I don't believe that burden should rest solely on the shoulders of the planning office. They have statutory obligations that are enough of a burden already unless they just want to tell me I'm wrong. And with that said... Supervis

Thank you, and that's a great suggestion. And I just want to say thank you to my wonderful colleagues up here. Everybody's worked hard. Please enjoy our break. And hopefully you'll have some vacation time to take in some sun and the heat. And thank you, Director Washington, Mr. Venegas, Mr. McGettigan, and our wonderful clerk, Ollie, for all of your hard work and all of the wonderful information you impart to us. on a regular basis. We really appreciate it. Wish you all a wonderful summer, and we look forward to seeing you guys in the fall. And now, a motion to adjourn someone? Motion to adjou