Remarks by Brian Landrum
49 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 1 of 2
- Play at 20:29
“So is it correct that these, you said largely mirror the board's language? Well, I mean, one of the things that I think that this would benefit us for is that predictability for when staff or applicants come to speak, just following a similar procedure to that of the Board makes a lot of sense, just so people aren't caught off guard and wondering what on earth is going on at these Planning Commission meetings that the procedures are so different. Do we have any really, I guess, codified process to follow currently? Well, in the interest of predictability and consistency, I think that having a…”
Planning Commission · Sep 16, 2026
- Play at 43:46
“I would just offer that if we're going to do that, we would need to find a time to schedule it when we could have a work session beforehand just to go over it. I mean, if it's identical to what was presented before, I wasn't there for that presentation. I've certainly sat down. We've discussed it one-on-one. But having that refresher beforehand, we would want to have that time budgeted, I think. That's just my two cents.”
Planning Commission · Sep 16, 2026
- Play at 53:39
“Nothing in particular to add, but I would just offer that given that there's the mandatory waiting period prior to any amendment to the bylaws being made, it's not unusual or irregular to have a motion made by a member of a board or a commission to propose such an amendment, nor is it irregular to simply make a motion on something temporary and vote on it in the same meeting. And we may not always agree with things that are moved on. We may not always agree with the outcome of the motion, but certainly that's not unusual procedure for a board or a commission such as we are.”
Planning Commission · Sep 16, 2026
- Play at 1:37:44
“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?”
Planning Commission · Sep 9, 2026
- Play at 1:38:07
“Do any of the parcels in the revised zone, I guess, carry that status?”
Planning Commission · Sep 9, 2026
- Play at 1:38:33
“I'm sorry, I should have clarified. Currently built homes or schools, not zoning classifications.”
Planning Commission · Sep 9, 2026
- Play at 1:53:17
“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…”
Planning Commission · Sep 9, 2026
- Play at 1:55:41
“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?”
Planning Commission · Sep 9, 2026
- Play at 2:00:47
“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?”
Planning Commission · Sep 9, 2026
- Play at 2:01:30
“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?”
Planning Commission · Sep 9, 2026
- Play at 2:01:58
“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?”
Planning Commission · Sep 9, 2026
- Play at 2:03:47
“Commissioner Scheifler, I'd like to offer a friendly amendment.”
Planning Commission · Sep 9, 2026
- Play at 2:04:00
“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.”
Planning Commission · Sep 9, 2026
- Play at 2:10:58
“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.”
Planning Commission · Sep 9, 2026
- Play at 2:11:51
“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.”
Planning Commission · Sep 9, 2026
- Play at 2:13:08
“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…”
Planning Commission · Sep 9, 2026
- Play at 2:21:37
“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…”
Planning Commission · Sep 9, 2026
- Play at 2:26:03
“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.”
Planning Commission · Sep 9, 2026
- Play at 2:32:08
“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…”
Planning Commission · Sep 9, 2026
- Play at 2:36:01
“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.”
Planning Commission · Sep 9, 2026
- Play at 2:42:34
“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…”
Planning Commission · Sep 9, 2026
- Play at 2:44:42
“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.”
Planning Commission · Sep 9, 2026
- Play at 2:46:34
“Go ahead. If I may. Dividing the question requires there to be two separate questions. two separate items to be...”
Planning Commission · Sep 9, 2026
- Play at 2:46:46
“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.”
Planning Commission · Sep 9, 2026
- Play at 2:50:44
“And you would ask that I restate that motion?”
Planning Commission · Sep 9, 2026