Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I don't have a presentation or anything. Was for you to

through this entire document and providing your feedback from the planning office perspective. I think we've talked about the bylaws in that way in some instances, and I think that gives us some clarity. I think in terms of the bylaws, and this is just my reflection on it, it's that yes, there are some things that we may need to tweak and clean up, and thank you for your thorough review. I think what it allowed us to do was to go back and say, Oh yeah, maybe we can tweak this in this way, but we don't need a wholesale rewrite. That's kind of where I am on it, and so hopefully we can get to that place tonight where those tweaks, based on your input, and what we have appear, can occur, and also at least capture the spirit of where you were trying to get us to.

So that's all I've got for that opening kind of thing. And I hope my

Let's go to the next section, if no one else has any opening comments.

I'll just say that in this first box that we just did a red line version, and we didn't try and make any changes or text changes. This was just comments that we added.

Which Internet did you log

on to? Pardon me? Which Internet did you log on to? There

were a couple questions. Did you have any? The question is this the section you're okay with?

I think we want to try to go to the red lines items.

The two questions.

Do you wanna look at the two questions?

Yeah. So, yeah, I think we've just got majority vote on you answered that question, number one, whether or not we can use anything. So we're not in the place of a of a kind of a what am I thinking of?

Super majority.

Anyway, majority vote is it because what I was thinking of just escaped

me. So bear with me And in the the bullet that's there is the reason I thought of this. Our current bylaws, I believe, have at least one, maybe two or three places where they say that for internal matters, not voting on an application, we are requiring of ourselves more than a majority to adopt a change. And if the the Virginia code applies to those internal matters, we would need to change our current bylaws. So there's there's no disagreement there.

Just Go ahead. Just the recognition that we need to change our bylaws in accordance.

Let's see.

Is everybody good with that response?

Yes.

Let's see. As I when I read that, I don't disagree with getting rid of old old material that isn't relevant anymore. But I was thinking about the there's a bigger subject of ensuring that everything is consistent with a comprehensive plan, but that may just be something we should expect coming in the door, not right any end of our by laws. I don't know if anybody else cares.

Okay.

We've we've skipped one, haven't we, David? Way up at the front. That one. Yeah.

That's about removing the appendix?

Correct.

So so did you have something? I'm sorry.

Well, I'm just saying that this is one that I I disliked that opinion. I believe that that appendix is valuable and useful.

I think it's valuable and useful too, commissioner Ross. And my proposal would be to make the appendix a separate handout that every planning commissioner would get, you know, when we get that planning commission handbook. And so it wouldn't be a part of the bylaws, but it would be a useful reference tool, so that you know where those citations are. Can you go with that?

Well, if we scrub all of the unnecessary references out of the by laws. That was my original suggestion months ago, and the objection was we have to leave that there because rookie commissioners or anybody who wants to refer to the bylaws would use that information to understand what the commission's job is. And I said, I I'm all for educating commissioners, but I'm not for putting educational material and or leaving educational material and the rules and regulations that govern our business. That's two different birds of different feathers.

So are we saying the same thing?

Well, you said have a have it hanging around as a separate educational document and say, yeah, great. I'm not sure how you feel about removing all of the references that I removed because the appendix would exist.

Can't we just reference Virginia code without putting the code numbers and everything in?

We certainly could, but the code numbers were the best way I thought to give people a pointer that wouldn't be a misleading pointer. We wouldn't wouldn't try except in the skinniest, thinnest sense to tell people what's inside those, sections. It'd be the the code number, the title, and Google would take them to read the text whether it's five words or 5,000.

So I think the planning commissioners that are appointed to come on are astute enough to refer to the code as necessary if we have the code references in there. So whether the table is there or not, it's just kind of a handy dandy piece of paper. But I I don't think we shortchanged them at all Alright. By keeping the references in there and taking this out as an appendix.

Alright. Let's let's let's move. There's a second part. I think that what we're talking about now will probably shake out very shortly when we get into section two. There's a second part of this comment that says, bylaws giving the bylaws the appearance of being a legal document. I just don't understand what distinction is being meant here by legal versus not legal documents. The I believe that our bylaws are binding, and I believe they are called for by the Virginia code. I don't know what the why the adjective legal is there.

So I am just the facilitator of staff's comments on these things, and and, so I'm not here to debate the legality of the bylaws or am equipped to do so, and it's not really my place. So you'll have to take the comments as they are and and decide yourselves whether, you know, whether you agree with that or not. Okay.

Alright. Thank you, Dave. Now let's if we're done with that one, I think we are ready for the third. Third or fourth.

I agree with David's assessment bylaws to supplement the code. I mean, there are guidelines for us to govern our meetings and to govern this body. So I think that remains, understood.

Well, they're actually I don't believe they are guidelines. I believe they are the regulations that govern the conduct of the Planning Commission's affairs. That's something that we're required to create by Virginia code, or we're required to create regulations that govern the conduct of the Planning Commission's affairs. We're not required to create guidelines.

Well, regulations are it's a term of art with defined meaning within the state of Virginia. And so this isn't a regulation. Regulations require going through, a process that this commission isn't going through. They're creating the guidelines by which it will operate, which it will be its officers will be established, the duties that they conduct. So, yeah, if you can show me something that says it's regulation, I'm willing to concede that, but I I don't think in terms of the term regulation, I don't think that's the case.

Let's look at fifteen two dash twenty two twenty one. And I understand that there are some regulations that have where that word is given special meaning. I think here it's just look it up in the dictionary meaning. 15 to twenty two twenty one. Alright.

Right there.

Yeah. But that doesn't say that's what this is.

Then where are our regulations? If they're not our bylaws, what are the regulations that govern the well, the regulations for the administration of our affairs?

So if it's just a word, then I won't fall on a sword about it? Uh-huh. Put it in regulations for the administration of its affairs.

Like we could say, has adopted these bylaws to regulate the conduct of the commission's affairs. We can even have a reference to fifteen two twenty two twenty one. My my point is that I understand that the bylaws are not a the Commonwealth constitution. They're not a general assembly law. They're not a planning they're not a county ordinance. They are, more than a guide is what I believe.

I won't fall on my sword about it so that we can move forward. If you wanna keep regulation in there, we've got a long way to go.

Yeah. Well, the yeah. The question is what we replace supplement the Code of Virginia laws with and Just

bylaws that regulate plant planning commissions, just

All right. I look I think we can do that.

Any other comments? All right.

So, on Article article two, I'm in agreement with those edits, the deletions in this section?

So miss McGinnigan, is that comment line up with those deletions?

Yeah. The this that's that's fine to make these deletions. And then just to make it clearer to no, I guess it won't let me do that.

So unless

the commission shall review, unfortunately, and make recommendations on the strategic plan inputs, which is a separate. And everything else was crossed out in there. So that was the only thing. There would be two-one as amended there, and then I guess two-two would be about the strategic plan.

The next comment says that the strategic plan two two is not needed or useful. The only reason I left it in my suggestions was because it was in the original bylaws that we're operating under today. And so if that is dross to be chucked out, then I'm okay with chucking it out.

Any comments?

Let's see.

Are we Are we on to the this one here?

We're at three

The one that's visible on the screen? Yeah, I say the material I put into this part of the suggested revisions was not anything about who might or might not appoint an advisory member to the body. My suggestions were to create a description of how we, regulating our own affairs, would handle the presence of an advisory member? Do they count towards quorum? Are they allowed to vote on applications?

Do they initiate main motions or other motions? Or do they or what I imagined was they would participate in discussions but not vote or initiate motions. And so again, it wasn't about who appoints them, it's about what happens after they're appointed, what authority they have after they're appointed.

There's there's nothing in the existing bylaws about advisory members.

That's correct. Is

there a reason to add that?

Because the Virginia code says that well, is the the section of our bylaws called members.

Uh-huh. Right.

And the Virginia code says advisory members are a possibility and there are there's at least one planning commission I found in Virginia that has a nonvoting member. They didn't describe it specifically as an advisory member, but has a non voting member. So I thought it would be good to plug this hole before rather than after an advisory member shows up.

So oh, sorry. Just my, thoughts on that. So we know that the commission may have an advisory member appointed. I believe there's somewhere maybe in section eight or nine, don't quote me on that, that says only members of the plant members of the Planning Commission votes? And since this advisory member may be appointed, they're a nonvoting member. So that is a moot question.

I disagree, but keep going.

Okay. Well,

the so if you want to put in a line, a nonvoting advisory member may be appointed for a specific purpose. I'm I can't think of what that purpose might be, then maybe. But other than that, I think that that what we have in our our original bylaws is sufficient. We know we we need to address it if somehow an advisory member comes in, but in my mind, that's and we've talked a little bit about this before. It's a it's a solution looking for a problem, I

No. It's a solution preventing a problem. You you and I just hold different opinions about this. I'm curious how the rest of the membership

Okay.

Perceives it.

Anyone want to comment before I make mine?

Go ahead.

My comments are the board appoints the commissioners. Now a statement has been made about this is not about who would appoint an advisory member, but because the board appoints commissioners, so comes the responsibility of making the recommendation to the board from the planning commissioners and no one else. Our recommendation on the dais, we own that. No one else.

The recommendation of what?

Whatever it is. If we're making a recommendation to the board because the board appointed a commissioner, the board appointed the commissioners, so the recommendation that goes to the board is owned by the planning commissioners. If an advisory person to help with a particular subject was appointed, that person was not appointed by the board, so then they are not part of the commission. They are an advisor. And so they have no responsibility to vote.

But wait a minute. The supervisors appoint members, including advisory members. Once a member is appointed here today, if the if the supervisors decided to appoint one at their next meeting, the authorities and responsibilities and overall status of that advisory member would be undefined except for the fact that because they're a member, I presume they would receive all the same rights privileges that a member receives. Now when when the board when the commission creates recommendations like we recommend approving an SUP, what I've suggested here is that we stake out a position that the advisory member doesn't vote on that recommendation. They advise, but they don't vote.

I think we're saying the same thing. Unless the board gives direction to the advisor that they are a voting member. But under normal circumstances, again, the recommendations that come from the dais is owned by the commission and not an advisor, not the staff, no one. It's direct we own that.

Yeah. I'm I'm making that clear. Now if the commission if the supervisors want to appoint a voting member to the commission, they just appoint a new member. Commissions can have between five and fifth Planning Commissions can have between five and fifteen members appointed by the supervisors. Now here in Prince William County, we have practice that each supervisor nominates a commissioner, and the other supervisors generally do not object. You know, it'd be a little bit impolite to object. But there is nothing preventing the current board of supervisors from appointing five more commissioners at their next meeting.

Okay. And I don't disagree with that. But we're not talking about adding commissioners. We're talking about an adviser.

We're talking about adding an advisory member. The state code describes this person as a member, an advisory member.

Okay. Again, I think that would be something that the board would clearly define as what the roles and responsibility of that individual would be.

Or we could define it when we describe under the heading of members how we are going to operate when we have an advisory member present. You know, the the the title the heading of this section is members. I don't see any reason to avoid describing what the rights and responsibilities of a advisory member are. I feel like I I'm starting to repeat myself, so I'm not gonna continue that out of respect for the rest of the group.

Okay. Does anyone else have a comment?

Yeah. I'm just wondering, is there I mean, our bylaws versus the rights of the board itself, we can't supersede board's rights. If the board is within their right to ask for advisory member or add more commissioners, I'm just not understanding how can we have a bylaw they can come back and ask us to remove it or just add another set of planning conditions.

The suggestions I wrote do not do what you're concerned about. They do not say whether the board may or may not appoint anyone. It just says that if the board assigns an advisory member to us, here's until a superior authority overrules us, here's how that advisory member will operate as a member of the Planning Commission.

Any other comments?

No. I I agree with, Chair McPhail. If the board somehow sees fit to give us an advisory member, they would have a specific purpose for it, and would set the parameters for which that advisory member which they designated would operate on the commission, how far its advisory capacity reaches. So I think if I heard you correctly, that's

what I Yeah.

You are correct.

Okay. Not I don't want to go down this rabbit hole, so I'll I'll just say it but not debate anybody about it. I don't know for sure that the Board of Supervisors would have the authority to describe how an advisory member of the commission would be able to operate. There are so many things in the state code that define how the Planning Commission operates, and I don't recall any of them saying that the board gets to, you know, rearrange our internal affairs. It'd be an interesting topic to research.

Commissioner Brown?

I'm gonna direct this question to mister McGedigan. Has there been an advisory member of the Planning Commission before to your knowledge?

No. Okay. And your comment, mister McGedigan, I mean, I think that's what's informing us here. Is there anything to to add to that at at all that takes us outside of what we're talking about right now and where the conversation is headed.

I I can't offer any more than, you know, that than what's written there. That's

like, yeah,

it was not a solo effort. Okay? I I worked with the county attorney's office and and others in our office to develop the comments, and I can't expound on on all of them to to that extent. I I think that your an committee member and not certainly necessary at this point in time.

Okay. Let's move on.

So in four dash one in four dash one, our original bylaws, our most current bylaws have have not deleted that elected by roll call vote annually from the membership of the commission, and you advised that we take that out. But then we add in four dash two. You kind of break it up. Was there any reason for that, or is that just

Let's see. I'm trying to get caught up.

And I think that was mister McGetigan's delete when I look at it on the on the track changes.

Yeah. Which I should not delete thing. This was this was the deletion because it was

Okay.

I I didn't delete or strike through anything. Anything that struck through was a change that from the proposed version. Oh,

okay. Alright.

I'm thinking that that simply got moved to another section where I described the annual rhythm of our operations in the same way that our existing bylaws have got a order of business for an individual meeting. I created a similar order of business for the entire year so that items like this would not be scattered around. They would be concentrated in one easily understood location.

Well, it was. Actually, this that four dash one was written as it is and in the strikeout in our current bylaws. So I just didn't

Well, that's what I'm saying. And there are other places in our current bylaws where something happens annually or something happens during each meeting. And so I took all of the annual activities and put them into one spot. And in fact, in the version that oh, look at four two there.

Well, that's what I was saying. You just took it out and put it in four two and I just didn't Just

I've been trained all my previous career to have every item like this talk about one thing. So four one says, we have two officers. Four two says, we elect them annually. Just split them

up. Okay. Alright. Four dash three, seemed, I just proposed just a little less convoluted way to say that. So if I may read that proposal. Sure. In the event of a vacancy at the chair position, the vice chair will move into the chair slot. In the event of a vacancy at the vice chair position, the planning commission shall elect a vice chair as soon as possible or at the next regularly scheduled meeting.

Okay. The the movement of the vice chair up to the chair position is part of our parliamentary guide.

Exactly.

So it wasn't necessary, I didn't think, to insert it into our bylaws into this part of our bylaws. And and the word vacant, a chair a position could be vacant for a meeting, could be vacant for a month, or it could be vacant because somebody has resigned. So I wanted to be really clear about what vacant means. And then, yeah, it I felt like it was a little bit convoluted myself, but it was complete at the end of that convolution. And so that's why I wrote my sentence the way I wrote it.

We could probably mash our two suggestions together and come up with a unified one.

Okay. I I just think there's a difference between absent and vacant, so

That you know what? I think I do too, and that's why I attempted to define vacant clearly enough so that no one would confuse vacant with absent.

Just an organization thing. As far as how they're labeled out, Should the section about the vacancy be moved down in the election step by step being moved up? Just so that I think that's how I know that's how it's not on the current bylaws, and that's not a big deal if that's the case, but just an idea. And then I don't know if you guys are good going to the next

That that wouldn't bother me at all.

Okay.

Are we ready to move forward?

Yeah. 44Dash four. I think that sorry.

One second.

The current bylaws An open, an open office and after the nominating closes,

conduct

a vote for in an attempt to fill the office. I I just thought a simpler way is selection of officers shall follow the nomination and roll call vote. Is there something else And just in four dash just four dash four.

Well, nomination of officers would if you did a strict reading of that, it would be we nominate chairs and we nominate vice chairs all at the same time. And then we have an election or elections plural using that pool of nominees for both offices. So I said, let's do this one office at a time and then I I think I recall looking through Robert's rules about how nominations can be handled and finding more than one option in the parliamentary guide. So I said, let's be specific. We'll solicit nominations from the floor.

When the nominating and then when the nominating process closes, conduct a vote. That seemed straightforward enough to me and a and not too convoluted. It just lists a series of steps. You could put them in bullet points even if we we wanted to. So I liked my sentence.

Just an idea to take some of the wordiness out and simplify it. Couldn't we just say, we'll follow the election procedure in Robert's rules based on roll call and then it's just done?

That was what I'm saying. I when I looked in Robert's rules, I I wouldn't bet my paycheck on it, but I believe that there are two or three different methods outlined Correct. So that a body can choose one of those. And I thought, let's choose one.

Right. So if you put on there Robert's Rules roll call method, that that tells the bylaws that we're following the Roberts rules election procedures via roll call. And that eliminates everything else because you've said which method you're choosing.

There's more than one nominating process outlined also, I think. And so roll call is how we vote, but it's not how we nominate.

Here comes the book.

Yeah. I don't have to think.

Any other comments? I think we need to Yeah.

What's Go ahead, ma'am. What's the next step in this process of the bylaws? Because it's 06:40

and We're gonna run out of time.

We're gonna run out of time. So

But the recommendation is currently is that we're gonna vote on the bylaws at the next meeting. We we wanna have this working session, and then the next step is that on the what's the date of the next planning commission meeting hearing? Public hearing?

The twenty fifth.

The twenty fifth that we were gonna vote on the twenty fifth. That's the recommendation.

I'm not

saying that's that's what that's what we're currently involved in.

Chair McPhail? Yes, ma'am. I may make a suggestion.

Please.

Tanya Washington, planning director. You could, if you are interested, schedule another work session prior to voting so that you can complete your review

Yes, ma'am.

Of the draft. Okay. So I think the twenty fifth, we don't have a work session schedule. Do. We have the

school CIP work session on the twenty fifth. And then the next meeting after that in March, have the county CIP work session.

Carla. Would one idea I don't know we have a work session next meeting, and we've been working through it. But since we've gone through, like, the first part of the document, I would say to we wanna work on an updated. Is it possible to have two versions of the bylaws? Because if we just vote on this one, there's so many questions that it'll result in most likely a no vote. I can't speak for any of my colleagues. Well, we're not

oh, I'm sorry. That's okay. Go right ahead.

I'm sorry.

We're not voting on this one. Would be a good plan, like what you were saying, to work on one more time. But when would be the next availability?

Oh, what would be the next available date? Staff, director, or mister McGetty?

I believe your second meeting in March may be open. Believe that's

Who comes in?

March 25.

March 25. That would be another work session to complete this review. And then that would push the date to vote out into sometime in April, either the first or second meeting in April. That's if we get through with the review on March 25.

My question will be since there are some state mandated updates, do we have enough time to continue this or we just do the minimal to meet the state requirements and continue to work on this since it's going to take a while?

I don't know if any state mandated changes to your bylaws that

Are required? Okay. Then we have time, I guess.

Okay. So we've only got two minutes left. Commissioner, did you have another statement you want make?

No. This might not be a popular one. I didn't know how early we anticipate getting out tonight.

It should be a short meeting, I believe.

And we don't have to make it a long meeting, but take an hour to go through the last part? Because we're in section four. I don't have a lot more, changes. I I agree with the deletions. I think I think we've massaged it enough that we kind of almost came to a meeting of the minds, commissioner Ross. And, so section nine seven and nine, on the updated bylaws are the only places that that I have additional comments, I think.

Well, I'm sure the next chair will make a decision on that. It could be covered under old business. Mean, that's the way I see it if that's the Commission wants to do. If you want to continue this, it could be continued under old business or we could pick another date for another working session. But again, that's not going to be my call in a few minutes.

So let's move over to the conference Room for our agenda review. Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the 02/11/2026, Planning Commission public hearing. At six p. M, the Planning Commission had a working session on the Planning Commission bylaws. At the conclusion of that forty five minute working session, we had an agenda review at 06:45 in the Potomac Conference Room.

I would like to invite everyone to please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you very much. Madam clerk, would you please call the roll?

Sheriff McPhail?

Here.

Vice chair Brown? Here. Commissioner Moses Smith? Here. Commissioner Carroll?

Here.

Commissioner Justice? Here. Commissioner Ross? Here. Commissioner Scheifler? Here. Commissioner Shape? Here. We have quorum.

Thank you very much. Our next agenda item, agenda item number five is remote participation. I see we have a full diocese, Mr. Venegas, there's no need for me to pose the question to you this evening.

Thank you.

Our next agenda item is item six, and that is the nomination and election of the chair and vice chair of the planning commission for 2026. This item will be facilitated by our planning director, director Tonya Washington. But director, before I turn the floor over to you, I'd like to make a quick statement because I don't know if I'm going to get a chance to make it later on in the public hearing. I am a sort of a lifelong resident of Prince William County. I grew up in Gainesville, Virginia.

When Gainesville was not rule, it was the country. That's what we called it. And we started our life, my brother and I, we started our life in Prince William County in the days of segregation in Virginia and right here in Prince William County. So I've served as the vice chair and the chair of this commission for four consecutive years. And to have this privilege, this honor, is something that I never imagined.

Okay? I am truly living a dream, but it's certainly not my dream. And I just wanted to thank all those who I have served with, all the commissioners, those that are here, and those that are not here because I've served with commissioners that have resigned over my time sitting on the dais. I want to thank all the citizens that have come out and participated in county business, because that's truly how municipal business gets done. Our citizens are a valuable part of how decisions are made for our county.

Now decisions aren't made here, only recommendations. Let me say that. And I also want to truly thank and appreciate our professional staff, Director Washington, Mr. McGetigan, Mr. Venegas, Ms.

Pena for their constant and consistent professionalism. I have said it ever since I've been a Planning Commissioner. And I've said it not just to these people, but for everyone that is on the planning staff, everyone that participates in our public hearings, all the other departments that are a part of what we do here. These are some of the most professional people I have ever had the privilege to serve, to work, to stand beside. I have grown in my own personal and professional life by the influence that these people have given me.

So thank you very much. Thank you very much for this opportunity. Thank you very much. And I look forward to continuing to be a citizen here in Prince William County and seeing the great things happen here in Prince William County. So Director Washington, the floor is yours ma'am.

Thank you, chair McPhail, Guantanu Washington, planning director. So good evening, planning commissioners. To start, I would like to thank you, chair McPhail and vice chair Brown, for your hard work and service as chair and vice chair of last year and this year. Tonight, the Planning Commission will nominate and elect officers for the Planning Commission chair and vice chair positions. The Planning Commission bylaws state that nominations for officers shall be made annually from the floor at the first regular meeting in February. Tonight is the first regular meeting, and I will start by asking for nominations for the chair position.

I'd like to nominate commissioner Brown.

Second.

Commissioner Brown, do you accept the nomination for chair? Yes, I do. Are there any more nominations? Seeing no more nominations, nominations for chair are now closed. For chair, the following is nominated. Chair Brown excuse me.

Commissioner Brown,

we will now move to a vote. In accordance with the Planning Commission's bylaws, we will take a roll call vote. The candidate receiving a simple majority vote of the members present and voting shall be declared elected and shall take office immediately. Miss Pena, would you please call the role for the election of commissioner Brown as chair?

Chair McPhail?

Yes.

Vice chair Brown? Yes. Commissioner Carroll? Yes. Commissioner Justice?

Yes.

Commissioner Ross? Yes. Commissioner Mosesnett? Yes. Commissioner Shaikh? Yes. Commissioner Scheifler?

Yes.

Motion carries.

I am pleased to announce that commissioner Brown has been elected as your chair. Now I will ask for nominations for the position of vice chair. Are there any nominations for the position of vice chair?

I would like to nominate Commissioner Justice as vice chair.

Second.

Are there, before I move on, Commissioner Justice, do you accept the nomination for vice chair? Yes. Are there any more nominations?

I'd like to, nominate commissioner Ross.

Commissioner Ross, do you accept the before I do that, is there a second? A second. Commissioner Ross, do you accept the nomination for vice chair?

Yes.

Are there any more nominations? Seeing no more nominations, nominations for vice chair are now closed. For vice chair, the following are nominated, commissioner justice and commissioner Ross. We will now move to a vote. In accordance with the planning commission's bylaws, we will take a roll call vote. The candidate receiving a simple majority vote of the members present and voting shall be declared elected and shall take office immediately. Miss Pena, would you please call the roll for the election of commissioner justice as vice chair?

Commissioner McPhail?

Yes.

Sher Brown? Yes. Commissioner Carroll?

Wait. So okay. Point of order. What are

we Do for vice chair.

So this is

We're we're doing the vote Yeah. Per person. Okay. Starting with commissioner justice.

Okay. Abstain.

Commissioner Justice? Yes. Commissioner Ross?

Epstein.

Commissioner Moses Smith? Yes. Commissioner Shake is absent. Absent. Commissioner Scheifler.

Abstain.

Motion carries.

Miss Pena, would you please call the roll for the election of Commissioner Ross as vice chair?

Commissioner McPhail?

No.

Sher Brown?

No. Commissioner Carroll?

Abstain.

Commissioner Justice? No. Commissioner Ross? Yes. Commissioner Moses net?

No.

Commissioner Schieffler?

Yes.

Motion fails.

I am pleased to announce I am pleased to announce that Commissioner Justice has been elected as your vice chair.

Thank you, ma'am. So for our citizens and others in the diocese, we're gonna play a little musical chairs right now. Commissioner Brown, because the gavel's here, I'm gonna switch chairs with you. It's okay. It's okay. They know who you are.

Okay.

Hello, everyone. I am now the new chair, Commissioner Brown, or I should say chair Brown. Right? I'm sorry. And I introduce you to our new vice chair, commissioner justice Thank you. Or vice chair justice, Justice, I should say. See, we got to get used to these titles now.

My

goodness. Okay. Moving forward, we're going to move to item seven on the consent agenda. Mr. Venegas, do we have any items on the consent agenda?

Chair Brown, we have no items on the consent agenda.

Okay. Thank you very much. Moving on to item number eight, we are now moving to the expedited agenda. Commissioner, I'm sorry. I'm getting confused again. Mister Venegas, do we have anything on the expedited agenda?

We do. We have two requests. One for, item 12 a proper amendment rezoning 2023 Dash 000173909 Old Bridge Road. And item 12 b, special use permit, SUP2026Dash0002, Dumfries flagship car wash.

Let me check with commissioner Carroll. Do we have anyone signed up to speak on those two items?

We have, I think several against Old Bridge Road a. Is anyone here to speak for item b, Dumfries flagship? So we'll have to pull off a to the regular agenda, and b can stay on. Are

they for or against?

Yeah. Several against.

Okay. Alright. So what we will do is we will move, proper amendment for Old Bridge Road to the regular, public hearing. However, we will go ahead for move forward with the special use permit for Dumfries flagship car wash, and this is in the Potomac District. So we will take, I will now move this over to commissioner.

Oh, okay. We will now open the public hearing for special use permit SUP2026Dash00002, Dumfries Flagship Car Wash, and that is in the Potomac District. So

Thank

you very Commissioner McPhail?

Thank you very much. Before I make my recommendation, I wanna make a statement, And this statement is not against the application or the development of this particular business. My statement is really to the development community as a In Prince William County, it could be said that we have too much of the same things in concentrated locations. While there is a reason for that, and while businesses like the flagship car wash, they bring employment opportunities to our citizens, they help with the commercial real estate table, again, we tend to have this appearance that we have too many of the same things in Prince William County in concentrated locations. Too many convenience stores, too many vape stores, too many car washes.

And that is the appearance. And so what I would say to the development community, again, while there is a strategy for why we have these businesses in concentrated locations because they are being established in communities that will be growing in Prince William County, what we would like to see from our development community is more innovation in design, more flexibility, more of those types of things when applications come before Prince William County as a whole and especially in the Potomac And so with that said, I would like to recommend approval for S U P 20260002 dump freeze oh, I'm sorry. I'd like to close the public hearing.

The public hearing is now closed.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much, commissioner justice. I'd like to recommend approval for S U P 20260002 dump free dump freeze flagship car wash with the conditions dated 02/10/2026.

Second.

Thank you. Commissioner McPhail it's so hard for me to say commissioner now. Commissioner McPhail has, made the motion, and the motion has been, to approve s u p twenty twenty six dash zero zero zero zero two, and it's been properly seconded by vice chair justice. Madam clerk, can you please call the roll?

Sheriff Brown?

Yes.

Vice chair justice? Yes. Commissioner Carroll? Commissioner.

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you. Moving on to item nine. This is the public comment period. So we want to open up the floor for public comment. If anyone has any issues that are not or comments that are not on the agenda tonight, you are welcome to make your way to the mic and make public comment. Is there anyone that has a public comment that they wanna speak on that is not on our agenda tonight?

We have no one signed up or and no one signed up online.

No one for public comment. Okay.

Oh. Excuse

me. I'm sorry. May I say something? This is I'm the gentleman that holds the Hold

on one second. One second. We have someone online, and then we have someone in the chamber. Item nine is public comment. It's public comment. So if you have a comment about anything other than Old Bridge Road, which is on our agenda. Okay. Now we're gonna divert to the someone that is virtually signed up?

Yes, ma'am. There was a person who has virtually signed up for item 12 b, that you guys excited, he was against it. But he was the only person signed up for it. Okay. So I was asking if he'd be able to make his comments for the public comment time since it is not on agenda 12 a.

Okay. Let me just ask. Was he he was against it? We unfortunately, we've already, voted and approved. But if he want to make his comment, we would certainly allow that if he's online.

Yes. I'm I'm online. I'm sorry. I'm not sure what happened administratively there.

That we're so we apologize, sir. I was not aware that you were online, but please go ahead and give us your thoughts.

Yeah. That's okay. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Matt Waben. I'm the marketing director of construction for JPMorgan Chase Bank.

I'm representing the neighboring property at 4421 Fortuna Center Plaza, the Chase Bank that recently opened. I did wanna air out that we do have some concerns with the proposed drive through car wash at the neighboring property. We've identified an issue with access as the current private drive is for emergency use only. And we've also found that our pedestrians have to traverse across the drive aisle currently to our main entrance. Also, some of our client parking may be back out into that private drive.

And then we we just feel that the possibility of queuing during, high peak events for the car wash may also affect our operations at the neighboring property.

Okay. Are you finished, sir?

I believe I am. Yes. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you for making your comment. I do want to give staff a moment to address his comment, please. So

this application needs to move forward. It's going to move forward to the board, so the individual will have another opportunity to speak at the public hearing, but what I would suggest for the individual is to reach out to the planning office as well as the applicant to discuss their concerns so that we can capture that and work with the applicant to see if there's any mitigation that can be done to address that concern.

Thank you, Mr. Venegas. And, sir, did you hear that? That was online, sir?

I did. Yes. It, if I could maybe get, an email or something with some some timelines or contact for the board, that would be great. Can

you reach out to our office of planning? It's the Prince William County Office of Planning, and someone can help you.

Yes. I sure will. We'll also reach out to the applicant's civil engineer who

Yes.

We've also worked with in the past.

Okay. Thank you so much. We appreciate your comments.

Chair Brian, if I can make a quick suggestion.

Sure.

Since the individual signed up for virtual testimony, we should have an email address for him so we can get that and then put him in touch with the appropriate staff.

Thank you so much, director Washington.

Did you

hear that, sir?

Yes. Thank you very much for that.

Okay. Thank you, and thank you for your comments. Okay. Moving on. Since I don't think there's anyone else that has any public comment, we're going to move on to item 10, deferrals or continuations. Mr. Venegas, do we have any deferrals or continuations?

Chair Brown, we have no items for deferral or continuation.

Okay. Moving on to item 11 is planning director's time. So I'm going to turn it over to Director Washington.

Thank you, Chair Brown. This is Tanya Washington, Planning Director with the Planning Office. Just a few updates. The first is that we have four public meetings or community meetings coming up over the next few weeks. Three of them are for and resilience comprehensive plan amendment, which was initiated by the board and we launched last fall.

This is an effort to modify and add policies to the county's comprehensive plan to support more resilient and sustainable development. And so this is a significant effort that we have embarked on with the consultant team. So we are conducting three community meetings to introduce this project to the community and to start to have conversations about particular issues to explore as part of this comprehensive plan amendment. The first meeting is a virtual meeting, and it will take place on Wednesday, February 18 at 06:30PM. We have two in person meetings.

The first is on Thursday, February 26 at 7PM at the Occoquan Elementary School cafeteria, and the second in person meeting will be on Wednesday, March 4 at 06:30PM at the Sewala Gilbert Ellis Elementary School gym. If you are interested in, getting that additional information, you can contact the planning office. Additionally, we also now have on the county's PwC Works website, a page that is dedicated to the sustainability and resilience CPA. We're happy to provide those links as needed. Additionally, I wanted to also highlight that recently the planning office, in collaboration with other departments, such as the Department of Development Services, completed a data center map that is available on two platforms.

It is available on County Mapper, which is a GIS mapping platform, as well as on the planning office's online build out analysis platform, which they can access from our website, which is pwcva.org/planning. The build out analysis page for the data center map has additional information. It has actual data tabs with tables of information about specific projects. But both platforms have interactive maps with other information that will pop up as you search through the JIS maps. But these projects include the full gamut from pending applications.

So these are active data center applications that are undergoing county review right now that have not come to the Planning Commission or to the board, as all the way through to completed data centers. So again, we wanted to make the community aware that this resource is now available. We do have an email address on our build out analysis platform if there are questions or feedback about the maps or the data tables or questions. But again, this is a resource that the county will be updating on a regular basis as projects either get approved by the board, when they get building permits, and also when they get occupancy permits, which is the last step for operations. So that concludes my presentation for today.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Does anyone have any questions for Director Washington? Yes, Commissioner Ross.

At the beginning, you said there were going to be four community meetings soon. What's the fourth one?

Thank you.

The

fourth one is for a different project. That is for the mobility chapter updates. There's a mobility chapter comprehensive plan amendment related to Sudley Road, Heathcote Boulevard, and Manassas Battlefield Bypass. That will be a joint virtual town hall between a planning office and a department of transportation. It will take place on Thursday, February 19 at 06:30PM. And, again, we're happy to provide links or you can contact the planning office to get information about how to sign up for any of the meetings.

Thank you, Director Washington and Chair.

Okay. Any other questions for Director Washington on our presentation? Alright. Seeing no other questions, we will move on to item 12, and this is for public hearings. So we will start by, opening the public hearing for twelve a, which is the prior amendment for rezoning 2023 Dash 000173909 Old Bridge Road. May the applicant step forward?

Good evening, madam chairman, members of the planning commission. My name is Noah Klein. I'm with the law firm of Venable and Tysons. Here to present the proffer amendment at Old Bridge Road. With me tonight is representatives on behalf of the applicant, Vergario management.

We have our full team here. We have our transportation consultant, Grove Slade. We have our civil engineer, Panoni, And we have our project architect, Rupo Seven. We are very excited to be here to talk to you about this project. This is a project that's been a long time coming, and we feel that this is something that is going to help invigorate an already pretty hectic commercial corridor.

And so with that, I will if I can oh, there we go. So this project is located at the intersection near Old Bridge Lane and Old Bridge Road. This parcel is known as Parcel 4 of the overall Glen master zoning plan, and which I believe also includes this is the Chick fil A. I think that's the Apple credit the Federal Credit Union that's also part of The Glen. The Glen was a a master zoning plan that was approved back in the late eighties, early nineties.

It is, as you can see, a pretty sprawling mixed use development centered around the central commercial core that includes the Safeway. There's a mix of residential on opposite sides of Old Bridge Road. There's commercial on the opposite side of Old Bridge Road, as I mentioned, with the Chick fil and the Apple and and the Apple Credit Union. Both of these were similar similar to what we are proposing here as a proffer amendment. And that leaves us with our piece, which is the last unimproved piece of The Glen.

This property is zoned b one, and it is currently allocated under the master zoning plan for 43,000 square feet of development. And the proffer that we are seeking to modify primarily is the proffer that addresses the use mix of this parcel. It is currently proffered for a multistory office building with ground floor restaurant and retail. I'll point out that this triangular piece here, it's part of the parcel. However, it is not under the governing zoning documents, which we aren't amending here, is allocated zero square feet of development.

So this is gonna remain unimproved. So we're really looking at this property that is right along the bend of Old Bridge Lane and along Old Bridge Road. The planning designation is MU 4, and that is the general overview. We will have a better look at the architecture in a minute, but you can see what we're proposing here is a very modern shopping plaza at this at this location. It is it finalizes the build out of the Glen.

It is less impactful and less intense than what is currently allowed by Wright. And again, it further invigorates an established commercial corridor. So we heard from commission from excuse me. Commissioner McPhail, we heard about sort of pushing the envelope when it comes to design. And we feel that this project will will move that ball forward.

We'll have a closer look at that in a second. This project we've had community engagement. We held a pretty a well attended open house meeting at Chin Center in November 2024. We had a sign up sheet. We gave the sign up sheet to Locopel to the land use advice citizen advisory group within the within the area to include folks who signed up on Locopel meetings where the project was discussed.

We've had four meetings with Locopel. There may be a representative from Locopel here tonight, but they've sent their correspondence that they're in support of the project. So here is the design. It is, as I mentioned, it's and as it appears, this is a modern design that really takes commercial development, I think, step further. It uses as inspiration elements that are currently in the Glenn, the more modern development in the Glenn.

Particularly if you look at the Apple Federal Credit Union, you can see some of the modern touches. We've got wood paneling. We have pretty decent fenestration. It's a mix of stucco and concrete with that is bounded on one end by a sit down restaurant with outdoor seating, and on the other end, a Dunkin' drive through. And in the interior, we have tenant retail spaces that were in the mold of neighborhood commercial.

This is an example of sort of the materials and textures. We have a pergola that we are featuring within the within the development adjacent to the restaurant space. So something that's inviting and something that's new and something that frankly just hasn't there really isn't a lot of precedent for commercial development in the county. To give you a sense of where things stand between the proposed development and the buy rate development, as I mentioned, the proposed buy rate, the proffer allows for a mix of office and retail. It's a primary office proffer that is allocated up to 43,000 square feet with a height of 45 feet.

We're proposing a commercial development with a drive thru that is essentially a quarter of what can be allowed by rate. So less impactful, a much lower FAR, a lower height, And you can sort of see the difference here. And I think I may have let me say, may have skipped a

slide.

Apologies. Okay. Here. I wanted to show you just the landscaping and layout in in a little more detail. So as I mentioned, here is the stand alone restaurant space where we have outside seating. Here's the pergola that I alluded to earlier. We have in line tenant spaces here with a drive through on the end. And I'll I'll note, if you look closely, it says restaurant these aren't going to be a rest it's not gonna be a restaurant purely centered location. We listed these as restaurant merely to have the most conservative parking calculation. So we are parked at really what would be the most intense for the project.

But these spaces and then the submission application documents make clear that this is really just parking purposes. We have it's really unique, this property. The topography of the property slopes from the rear down to Old Bridge Road, And the architecture and design takes advantage of that. And in one of the ways primary ways it does is to add what we have a tier what we have here is a tiered outdoor seating arrangement, which gives, you know, an element of place making that is something that is, I think, it's strive for for these projects. But finding an opportunity to do something a little more meaningful than adding additional patio area is something that, again, sort of sets this project apart and, again, pushes the ball forward in terms of design.

We have a right in, right out entrance configuration on Old Bridge Road. We have speed tables in the interior here to control for safety purposes and to control speed. We have a dual lane drive through configuration without the need for any waivers or modifications in terms of stacking, for instance. We have mentioned an access off of Old Bridge Lane. There was a comment in the staff report that we are working with VDOT to resolve an issue as noted in the transportation component.

We are currently doing that. This entrance in the final analysis will very likely need to be shifted over. VDOT came in at the very last minute to tell us that they wanted us to improve the site distance here. So we're going to be moving this axis over, but that's the only real adjustment. Nothing is changing to the drive through configuration to affect any of the on-site circulation.

We have landscaping around the bend on Old Bridge Lane. And so one thing that had come up when we had our community meeting, we met with folks who lived along the stretch of Old Bridge Lane. And one of the concerns we had heard was, if we have the drive through here, are we going to be seeing headlights or traffic lights or lights, essentially, from cars into our property here? And so one of the things that we talked about and one of the things that I'll identify here is that, as I mentioned, things slope down from the rear of the property to the front. And so the drive through here is at a lower elevation than the the this rear of the property.

But more so than sort of the physical condition of the property, we added a row of evergreens that you can see dotted along here along the along the the the perimeter of the parking. And all this light green here is existing vegetation, existing trees, existing brush. And with the road, and then with the homes here, which sit at a very slightly lower elevation than Old Bridge Lane, we feel that the drive through being at a slightly lower elevation with the additional screening we're adding with the existing vegetation here, because things slope upwards as you go from the lip of Old Bridge Lane to the property, that helps achieve additional screening and buffering through a mix of what we're providing and natural elements. So here are our renderings. We just talked about those.

The materials, these are elevations. And again, it's modern mix, some corrugated metal. There might be some adjustments to this as we move forward, but essentially, this is framework for the project. And this is the traffic breakdown to give you a sense of what we're looking at in terms of what's allowed by rate versus what we are proposing. By rate, as I mentioned, it's 43,000 square feet of office of a multistory building that features office and restaurant and retail.

Typically, we look at traffic at their highest points, is the peak times, AM peak time, PM peak time, AM being roughly 6AM to 9AM, PM being I believe it's 4PM to 7PM. And so by right with the office and additional commercial of 174 trips in the morning, 169 trips in the evening was what we're proposing with even with the drive through, it is a 45% decrease over what is permitted by rate and a 25% decrease over what is permitted by rate in in the PM peak. So in terms of what is existing, what can be developed currently, and versus what we're proposing, it's less impactful.

So

that concludes our main presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have at this stage. I know there's some folks who have signed up. So if there's any issues arise there, I'm happy to come back and discuss that as well.

Thank you, Mr. Klein. You can have a seat, and then we'll have the staff present their presentation, and then we'll have questions after that, or comments.

Just give your name.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Mike Modesto with the planning office. It is the recommendation of staff that the planning commission recommend approval of proffer amendment rezoning twenty twenty three dash zero zero zero one seven thirty nine zero nine Old Bridge Road subject to the proffers dated 01/06/2026. Thank you. This is a request to amend the proffers associated with PLN 200600525 to allow for the development of a shopping center type a featuring a drive through facility and four additional spaces for retail, neighborhood commercial, or restaurant tenants.

This proffer amendment amends and supplements the proffer set forth in PRA PLN 200600525 as they apply to Parcel 4. This site was originally a part of rezoning nineteen eighty eight zero zero five two and underwent three previous proffer amendments. This site remains the last undeveloped portion of the original rezoning, which has been developed into housing, commercial, and office buildings. This site was designated as office and commercial use in the original rezoning as well as in the previous proffer amendments. The subject property is approximately 3.55 acres and is located at the south corner of the intersection Old Bridge Road and Old Bridge Lane.

The site is addressed as 3909 Old Bridge Road and is identified on county maps as G Pin 8193711918. As shown on the zoning map on the left, the site is zoned b one general business and and is surrounded to the east, west, and south by a one agricultural with r 16 suburban residential to the north across Old Bridge Road. The site is surrounded by residential uses and is near Merchant Plaza. As shown on the long range land use map on the right, The site is designated MU 4 mixed use community with a transect four in the county's comprehensive plan. The site abuts R N 2 residential neighborhood to the East and South and MU 4 to the West and North.

The proposal's commercial uses align with the targeted uses for both the long range land use designation and the B 1 Zoning district. Oh, I think I double clicked. Thank you. Staff believes this request is generally consistent with the development standards of the zoning ordinance. Shopping centers types a through d are by right in the B 1 General Business Zoning District.

District. Drive through facilities are a special use in the B 1 District. Although section thirty two four hundred point o 7.2 a permits drive through facilities through a proffered rezoning as long as it is specifically identified in the proffers or on the generalized development plan, and this project satisfies both of those requirements. This application requests several modifications to the d s the DCSM buffers to allow easements, prior retention under underground stormwater management, and the dumpster to be located within or encroach on the buffer areas, and this shows the landscaping. This project has a few transportation aspects that should be mentioned.

If VDOT determines a signal is necessary at the intersection of Old Bridge Road and Old Bridge Lane, as shown here with this top red arrow, the applicant is proffering to make a monetary contribution towards this improvement. If a signal warrant study determines a signal should not be placed at this location, the applicant will contribute a $110,000 to the Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission towards establishing a micro transit service area within the Lakeridge District, and staff believes this is a strength. This project also has two transportation weaknesses. The applicant has one unresolved comment from VDOT to relocate the entrance and exit on Old Bridge Lane, which they addressed in their presentation with this lower located at this lower red arrow. The applicant has assured staff they will work with VDOT to address this issue before being heard by the board of county supervisors.

And the second is Prince William County's Department of Transportation did request a sidewalk designation along the site frontage on Old Bridge Lane to facilitate pedestrian access to and from the site, and the applicant has not provided this request. They did partially address this in their presentation. The applicant has proffered substantial conformance to the elevations. Staff finds the proposed design to be consistent with land use policy 4.2, which states, encourage the creation places with distinctive identities using high quality design features consistent with the character of the community. The applicant has proffered the use of high quality materials, such as those shown on this slide.

Staff finds the project design to be consistent with design policy policy four, upgrade the the visual quality of county gateways and major travel corridors along Old Bridge Road. Staff also finds the project to be consistent with the community design objective to utilize high quality architectural and urban design to create a cohesive and attractive environment for people who live, work, and visit the county. Staff recommends that the planning commission recommend approval of proffer amendment rezoning twenty twenty three dash zero zero zero one seven thirty nine zero nine Old Bridge Road subject to the proffers dated 01/06/2026 for the preceding and following reasons. The proffers associated with PLN2000Dash00525 reserved this site for an office building with retail permitted on the Ground Floor. Staff finds the proposed use to be lower intensity, and the applicant did touch on the reasoning for that.

And the community design, the proposed center and drive through facility will be constructed in substantial conformance with the elevations. The applicant proffers the use of high quality materials and design features in line with the land use policy 4.2. Thank you for your time. And we do have transportation if there are any questions on that.

Thank you. We will now open up, the floor for public comment because we want to give the public time to, express any, sentiments that they have. Do you have, commissioner Herro, we have anyone signed up to speak?

At this time, we have two individuals signed up, and I think there are a few others who wish to speak on it. So I'll call the first two names. If you can go to the back, Carla Cristiano and Alexander. You will have three minutes to speak, five minutes if you're representing an organization. Just name Magisterial District, generally where you live, and, like I said, three minutes or five minutes if representing organization.

And if there are any other individuals who'd like to speak, you're welcome to head to the back. Let's just kinda keep it at four or five people in the back queued up, for the fire people. Okay. Go ahead, sir.

Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair and Commissioners. My name is Alexander Martinusen. I am one of the neighbors that are affected of this right across on Old Bridge Lane. I have multiple issues. Some of them have already been addressed today by staff. One of the things is noise. There is a road that goes by and then there is traffic, obviously. The challenge is noise of the drive thru itself. Amplified speakers facing our buildings, our homes.

The bedrooms in my house is facing that property, facing Old Bridge Lane. They're concerned about that. The dumpster location, another thing. It is in the back of the proposed building, but it faces our homes. Concerned about noise of that and what time that will happen throughout the day or early, early in the morning as it is.

Traffic is the biggest issue that I have with this. Pedestrian traffic was already mentioned by staff and said that was going to be addressed. There is no sidewalk along Old Bridge Lane right now, and that would be very, very dangerous. Old Bridge Acres is where our properties are. Then you have Old Bridge Estates behind our homes.

I am seeing probably increased pedestrian traffic trying to cut across our property to get to this site because there is no sidewalks along Old Bridge Lane. Left turns is horrendous in that area. Coming off Old Bridge Lane, making a left turn onto Old Bridge Road heading west towards Manassas. That backs up specifically when there is morning traffic and afternoon traffic. You're crossing two lanes with heavy traffic. Traffic light down at Westridge backs up all the way past that entrance. Danger situations will arise. People are trying to cut across. One lane is stopped. The other lane is going fast because they have a green light.

The left turn into Westridge backs up as well for people that are turning in there. The other thing is left turns from Old Bridge heading into the Old Bridge Lane because that's the only entrance they can use going west because the other one that is further down, you can go down to Touchstone Circle where the CVS is, make a U-turn, come back in for the right turn into the property. Creates dangerous situations again. I am worried that traffic will back up and block our driveways to get out when we need to. So those things are concerning.

I know that there might be a traffic light study. I know they're very close to Westridge entrance as well as the Touchstone entrance as well. Timing of the lights that are along that whole stretch is is is very interesting to say the least. If it clears out right in front of you going east on Old Bridge, then people are going west on Old Bridge, and you can't really get across. Across. With the right turn exit from the property in front onto Old Bridge Lane on

Thank sir.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Carla Cristiano, and I live in Old Bridge Estates. I am in the Occoquan District. I live about a thousand feet from where this proposed development's gonna gonna be or wants to be anyway. I have attended multiple meetings of, like, local pelt and I've spoken to mister Klein, and I am I am not in favor of this proposal. Here are some of my issues. Increased traffic on Old Bridge Road, it's really bad right now. I can see that this is going to even worsen it. Additionally, is not a traffic light there and the developer is not anticipating a traffic light being there. It's just gonna make that much harder to get in and out of that property.

The turn lanes that they proposed are not wide enough, and to get in and out of that property is gonna be very difficult for traffic to move. Increased traffic on Old Bridge Lane. Now Old Bridge Lane is a two lane curvy road with no sidewalks. It's dangerous now. There's a lot of traffic going in and out of Old Estates on that road.

The road can't handle the current traffic, and now you're adding additional plaza that's gonna make it that much worse. The there's pedestrians that travel that way, and I can see it being a safety issue because you have increased traffic. And increased noise in the community surrounding this proposed plaza. This there's they're proposing a Dunkin' Donuts that's gonna be $24.07. It's just gonna increase the activity and the noise and the surrounding communities are gonna be negatively impacted.

The developer has proposed a plaza that's already filled with plazas. There there are four Dunkin' Donuts within a two mile radius of this. Do we need really need a fifth? I don't think so. So I would hope that you would address these concerns regarding traffic and safety, and please do not approve this. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Renata Grooms. I live in the Glen 2, which is right across the street where this project is supposed to build, which means we would have the smell whenever they bake or something. We would have that traffic. We have a lot of young people living in our community. If there's a Dunkin' Donut, they're going to try to cut the street across. There's no lights. They don't go all the way to Touchstone to cross. They just want to cut over. We're going to have more accidents.

And if we're talking lives, not just cars, we already have a lot of accidents in that section anyway. I don't think we need to put any more effort in it. And if this is a fast food place, we got tons of them within short amount of space. Unfortunately, this is my first time I heard about it. I'm very concerned because we need more of peace and this would make more traffic and more trouble for our community. We live there. That's pretty much it.

Please hold your applause. Thank you.

My name is Kathleen Harding and I am representing Locopelt here tonight. Doctor. Jack could not make it because of another commitment. I'm secretary of Locopelt. We met with mister Klein on several occasions.

We met with him three times, 03/28/2024, 01/20/2025, and 01/29/2026. We met with the neighbors on face to face meetings on November 24 at the Chin Aquatics Fitness Center. Approximately 30 neighbors showed up and provided feedback on the need for landscaping buffers noise and all the things that you've just heard already. But anyway, on behalf of Doctor. Jack, Locopelt and its committee supports the project and the current architectural adjustments and representations that were finalized by the applicant.

The applicant has agreed to a courtesy another courtesy review with local pelts committee prior to finalizing the site plan on architecture, signage, lighting, and landscaping, and the transportation features of this project. Thank you very much for hearing us out.

Evening, Madam Chair, commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this evening. My name is John Komisky, and I live in Old Bridge Acres directly across the street from the proposed development. We actually have an adjoining property boundary with the triangle that's not being developed across the street. The the one particular concern I have is with the entrance and exit on Old Bridge Lane. It's directly across the street from my property. And if it's relocated because of VDOT's concerns,

it

would be moved in directly in front of my driveway. I have a disabled son that rides the bus to and from school every day. That's his bus stop right in front of the driveway. There's a lot of traffic there. A lot of people drive by the bus already as it is without stopping when the emergency lights are activated. I have concerns about the odors that would be coming from the dumpsters regardless of where they're located on the property. It's not a very large property. When we bought the house more than twenty years ago in 2002, we knew the zoning of that property. We knew that we had a common boundary with it, and we knew that it was going to be an office building. And now the rules seem to be they're attempting to change the rules for us.

We knew we accepted that there might be an office building there one day. We know that office buildings are busy in the morning and in the evening when they open and close, but they're closed at night. There's no traffic at night. There's no traffic on office buildings on the weekends. There's going to be traffic seven days a week, all day long, morning, noon, and night on this property. This is not a less impactful development on this property by far. I I it's it's just not true. It's inaccurate at best. I'm concerned about rodents and like I said, the odor, trash, traffic. We can't get out of Old Bridge Lane to make a left turn toward Manassas as it is.

When I left this evening, we had to go up to the next traffic light to the right and make a U-turn so that we could go west because we couldn't get across the road. There was an elderly gentleman or who appeared to be an elderly gentleman with a cane standing in the dark on the corner as we left this evening, and he didn't get across the road after we made our u-turn. He was still standing there trying to get across the road, and he couldn't because of the traffic. And with the entrance and exits as they're proposed for this property, it's inadequate. VDOT didn't approve it approve of it originally when the traffic study was done during COVID, and the traffic's way worse now than it was then.

I just I'm out of time. I I just I have two pages here. There's nothing about this property that is similar to anywhere else in The Glen. It's completely surrounded by what was previously zoned as a one properties. We're grandfathered as an a one property. We are not I think it's RN or I'm not sure the change in the master plan for the zoning, but it's it's inaccurate, and it's just not appropriate development for this property, in my opinion. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other individuals who like to speak? No one for a.

Okay, Mr. Klein, would you like to come back to the podium and address the comments?

Sure. And there are a couple points, both to follow-up Ms. Modesto's presentation and some of the comments we've heard from the public. So the first thing I'll mention and because Ms. Modesto touched upon it, we have a very we understand there's transportation here.

It's tough. It's Old Bridge Lane and Old Bridge Road, there's not a signal there. Old Bridge Lane, there aren't sidewalks in Old Bridge Lane, and we understand the condition. We heard about it when we had the community meeting, and I recall talking to some of the folks that are here. We are proffering to do, based on our traffic study, to do a signal justification study for it to put a signal at Old Bridge Lane and Old Bridge Road.

We are proffering that. We are also proffering to do our share of the cost of that improvement, which is which is not an insignificant number. What we are also doing, and which was alluded to earlier, is it could be a situation where a signal would improve the condition at that intersection, but VDOT may not ultimately desire to have a signal there because it's too close to the signals at Westward Drive and the signal at Touchstone Circle. It's too constrained an environment. So what we looked at there was, well, if VDOT ultimately decides that it's too close to the other signals, so it might improve the condition, but again, the proximity is not within not something that it wants to see on an arterial road like Old Bridge, is we look at other solutions.

And so one of the solutions, through discussions we've had with folks, is to look at transit. And that took us to talking with the Occoquan District and also with Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission. And one of the things that came up is microtransit. And microtransit, for folks who aren't aware, is essentially it's a public Uber or Lyft option. And its purpose is to get people who may live in environments that are not conducive to reasonable access to fixed routes, fixed bus routes, to get them to those transit nodes and to commercial nodes.

And frankly, what turned us to this idea was we have a bus stop right in front of the property. It's the 92 line. It takes you from Lakeridge to the Woodbridge VRE. So we looked at that, and there is an interest from PRTC to start a Lake Ridge micro transit service area. They've had a lot of success in Dumfries and Triangle.

The ridership has increased every year since that's been in effect. The ultimate output of the micro transit service is to reduce vehicles on the road. It's to get people to transit nodes. It's to get people to commercial nodes. It's certainly a benefit to to this project and a larger benefit to the community that lives at Old Bridge Lane and Bear Pond Court, where similar to some of the environments you had in Dumfries, which made it very successful, you have a lot of cul de sacs and a lot of communities that can be hemmed in and to have that access to ridership and to transit.

So that is something that we're doing in the event that VDOT says we a signal here, while it might be a great thing and a beneficial thing, it's too close. We're not going to authorize it. So how do we then account for impacts? And that's the solution that we determined. The there was a comment about the sidewalk along Old Bridge Lane, and I'll just address that really quickly because it ties into some of the comments we heard.

I mentioned previously that we have we are maintaining this or it's outside our limits of of development, the existing vegetation along Old Bridge Lane. And if you see a a street view of Old Bridge Lane, you'll see that things slope up this way, slope slightly down on the other side of Old Bridge Lane. And the request was to have a sidewalk along Old Bridge Lane. And because of the grade, that would necessitate a considerable amount of clearing of this existing vegetation. And that's something that we were not inclined to do based upon what we heard from those community meetings.

We want to retain as much of that screening and natural buffering as we can for the reasons you heard previously. We heard a comment about noise. We are not under the proffers. We no noise can escape sort of the the edge of the property boundary, which is in fact more strict than the noise ordinance. So any noise here emanating from the drive through is going to be limited to the property.

It's proffered that way. And plus, we know from the operation of the Duncan that the noise is regulated that way. So it's not traversing the property lines. And certainly with the additional buffering and natural screening we have here, that helps, of course, not just light, but also noise as well. The entrance here, I believe the gentleman driveway is somewhere here.

There it is. So we understand we heard that concern. This is our current configuration of the access, though, as I mentioned, VDOT wants us to take another look at sight lines, which means this access is gonna be shifted over. We're sensitive to having an alignment with that driveway. And so we when we adjust the access with VDOT, we are going to be looking at an access that is not aligned with that driveway.

Unfortunately, we can't put the access along Old Bridge, this area of Old Bridge Lane. That was something we initially looked at and VDOT said, not a chance. So we moved the access further down this way and we're going to adjust it so it's off the line with the driveway. This property is a mix. It's currently allowed, as you heard me say before, it's a mix of office and retail restaurant by right, not just office.

And one of the last things I'll point out is that VDOT is very they're not the easiest group to work with. And working to get right in, right out access along Old Bridge Road, a lot of that was predicated on the fact that this is a commercial project and not a primary office with commercial. Because if it was primary office, VDOT would likely take the position that there's no need to have a direct access off of Old Bridge Road, and so the access would have to go through Old Bridge Lane. And as you saw previously the figures I had, that is a pretty substantial

Old Bridge Lane, Old Bridge Road. Has there been any discussion about potentially connecting Old Bridge Lane with, Chin Park Drive? Because I know that seems like it used to exist, but I think it was removed. I'm just concerned if there's an ability to create more of a street grid within this neighborhood to kind of dissipate traffic on this on this road on this in this area. Has that been discussed with VDOT at all or anything?

Actually, no, commissioner Scheifler. And I guess I'd like to see a larger map, if that's possible, to see the grid that you're referring to. Oh, I see. It's further up. Yeah.

I I see what you're referring to, that that that connection's further, I guess, to the Southwest.

That Again, would just again, I think, you know, there's just issues about whether they even can have a traffic light there because of the proximity to the previous one. And is there a way I mean, I'm always in favor of creating a street grid, you know, trying to mitigate traffic. Think, know, that's why the mature woods are so packed because we don't do that enough.

I I will say in terms of VDots and really our view as well, Old Bridge Road being the primary road in that area, the idea is to move through traffic. And the more signals you have, especially when they're not spaced properly, slows that down. Mhmm. So

So I'd I'd encourage you to look at, you know, that potential connection to create, you know, an access point to the park for these, you know, these residents. They don't have that act now. So if they have to go the far way around or, you know, just just I think that could help mitigate that traffic on that that choke point at Eldridge Road and Eldridge Lane as more traffic is coming into that area with this project. So

That's a good point. I will say it looks like it would involve obtaining right of way through there to punch that through.

It looks like VDAT owns that. What it looks like for me. They're the people I want to talk to.

Thank you. You. Moving on, Commissioner Ross.

Noah. The, the people that you took away my map. The folks that are, let me see if I can hit it here, directly across the street from that exit, entrance exit area.

I

think they are likely to have cars' headlights. When cars reach the exit of the parking lot and they're waiting to turn on the road, it looks like there's a good chance their headlights will be shining at or very close to those homes. And do you think that I'm interpreting the geography correctly and the placement of those homes correctly?

I I think in light in light of that, that's sort of the the thinking that we have by off aligning the access as best we can so that the lights are not coming directly out through the driveway to the house and then offset from that.

Okay. So it's not there was a concern from the resident about the driveway alignment. The houses are aligned differently than the driveway. So you'd have to miss the house as well as the driveway. And then at the end, I believe, as the cars turned on the old bridge lane, the headlights would sweep across the houses. Have you do you see any opportunity to cooperate with either the homeowners or make adjustments to the landscaping on your site to block those sweeping lights?

I think that's something we can absolutely take a look at.

And

see what see what improvements we can do to to mitigate that and and take a closer look. Absolutely.

Alright. Was there a third? That'll do. Thank you.

Thank you. Moving down the dais, commissioner Moses Neck.

Thank you, madam chair. Mister Klein, question for you. Are there two entrances off of Old Bridge Road into this?

There is only one entrance off of Old Bridge Road. It's the right in, right out exit on, entrance and exit on Old Bridge Road.

Is there any way to, if this project were to go forward, to, you know, terminate the entrance on Old Bridge Lane and kind of almost create a circular driveway through there with two exits from Old Bridge Road? I

so I think that is something that had come up in through the the review of the project. VDOT, this is why we have two access points there. It's a VDOT. I believe it's a VDOT requirement. Can confirm with our traffic engineer. But we do need to have, and and I believe at the county level too, we need to have two access, two ways of in and out of the of the project.

Well, I'm asking, is there any way for those two entrances to be off of Old Bridge Road rather than

Unfortunately, it was we we work to get the write in, out access that we have right now. And the problem that we would have to put another access point on there is not just overcoming VDOT's sort of institutional reluctance to have another access on Old Bridge Road, but you're also having access management issues. There would be too many entrances off of Old Bridge Road too close together. We wouldn't get authorization to do that. Because you have one entrance off of Old Bridge Road and the next entrance off Old Bridge Lane, but you're unable to get another access point off of Old Bridge Road.

Okay. Because Old Bridge Lane is right there.

That's that's right. Yeah. It's an access management, issue, and I can tell you without even bringing up our transportation consultant that that wouldn't be something Navita would approve.

Oh, thank you. I was thinking it might be a, a design, possibly a design issue, but I hear what you're saying with 0 Bridge Lane being so close.

We do have I do wanna point out, though I was remiss to to mention it previously, just in terms of transportation mobility. In addition, we're obviously talking a lot about vehicular traffic. We do have two pedestrian access entrances off of Old Bridge Road, off on either side of the entrance on Old Bridge Road. We have speed tables we have in the in the project to manage speed in light of the pedestrian traffic that we would like to facilitate. We have the outdoor seating area, which is intended to draw people to come to the site, not just in vehicles, but also on foot or by bike.

We are widening slightly. We have the sidewalk in front of the along the frontage is not in bad condition. VDOT wants us to expand that. We are expanding that as part of the project. So there's other mobility related improvements we're doing here in addition to what we discussed as far as our transportation mitigation.

And I I know when we met and someone also brought it up tonight that the young people in the adjacent community are going to try to traverse down that hill and into the property. What is the, I guess, the safest route behind that community, and how will you address that safety issue of of individuals who may just try to take their chances down the hill?

So one thing that we we can look at to see if there's an opportunity for better pedestrian mobility from the Old Bridge Lane entrance. And that's something that we're happy to take a closer look at. Old Bridge Lane, I may have mentioned previously, it's when you enter it from Old Bridge Road, it sort of gives the appearance of sort of a rural type dissection road. So there are no sidewalks along Old Bridge Lane. So it does have a bit of you know, in terms of pedestrian mobility, it's it's it's not ideal.

But to that concern, I think that's something we can take a look at. We wanna balance that with trying to maintain as much of the existing vegetation as we can in light of the the reasons that, commissioner Ross was, discussing. So that's certainly something we're happy to take a look at and follow-up with you on.

Thank you. Moving down the dais. Commissioner Carroll.

Yes, thank you. I think these will both be for you, Noah, and I appreciate the questions from Commissioner Moses Net. I was going to ask too about kind of closing that entrance out. I guess, first, could you speak to I know you kinda mentioned it. VDOT is a hard no with VDOT just in terms of moving that ingress, egress closer to Old Bridge Road. Is that kinda just not having, like, the turn lane? Is it because of the curve, sight lines, all the above?

So I will I'll give my my response. And if I if I'm missing any detail, I'll bring up our transportation consultant. The problem with having access here, because originally, we did propose us that. We did propose access a little further north. But we did get pushed back, so much so that we had to move the access all the way down here. It's the proximity to the intersection. It's for cars that are turning right. This is too close. And particularly, the Old Bridge Lane is going to be a full access intersection, so it's not a matter of cars turning right. It's a matter matter of cars making a left out of the site.

And around this bend, it's too close. And as it happens, as I mentioned, retaining as much of this existing vegetation is something that, again, is something we've we we talked about and something that we wanna do to help help mitigate some of the sort of the exterior impacts of of what we're doing.

Gotcha. Okay. Perfect. And then my second question, has there it might already been in the proffers. I I might have Mhmm. Missed it. But is has there been any consideration to putting crosswalks across Old Bridge, either at Old Bridge Lane or Old Bridge Road? Yeah. Like, having them kind of because that Old Bridge Lane is coming into Old Bridge Road, and I I don't think there are crosswalks there

now.

Crosswalk at the entrance of Old Bridge Lane. I don't think you'll have a crosswalk along Old Bridge Road, certainly not at an unsignalized intersection. But there is there is this existing crosswalk along

Old Bridge Lane.

Would that be something if the traffic light study

Crosswalk study. Okay.

If the traffic light does kind of warrant that study Mhmm. Would it then a crosswalk be

So crosswalk, everything is done by studies. So you'd have a signal warrant study. VDOT would want a crosswalk study.

Got you. Okay. So it potentially be looked at. Yes. Got it. Thank you. Okay.

Any other questions? Commissioner Hsieh? Thank

you, Madam Chair. Mr. Klein, thank you. I know we met before, and you have answered several questions from the dais. Just confirming, so by right, it's a 45 foot high office building with a restaurant on the main level?

That's correct. That's what's currently allowed by right.

And then you're building about 10 one fourth of what you are already by Wright, and it's also half the size in height.

That's correct.

Can you talk a little bit of the screenings? Because I hear a lot about the drive throughs. I know my colleagues have talked about the drive through. The main thing what I see still is how can you address those flashing lights at night? What kind of screenings and materials are you using?

We have So let me break that down into two aspects. There's the general lighting of a commercial development. There's the ordinance lighting standards, which, you know, require, you know, building mounted lighting that need to be full cut off. One thing I'll mention is that I mentioned in terms of noise, we have a standard that is more strict than the noise ordinance. It's the same thing with lighting.

So we're amending proffers. And so some of the proffers that means that proffers that have been on the books for thirty plus years are going to remain. One of them includes lighting. We didn't touch that. We have we're not permitted to have lighting over 20 feet, which is less than what the ordinance allows. So we're more restrictive currently than what the ordinance permits. The in terms of the screening, and I mentioned that previously, and it you know, we talked about the existing vegetation that we're we we want to maintain.

We

and we

pushed back against the sidewalk. The row of evergreens here, that was that was not on our initial submission. That came directly after we had that meeting with the community. We were looking at a fence. A fence didn't really work. We thought evergreens, You get similar screening, and it is more aesthetically pleasing. And we have the natural topography here. It's a higher elevation. Things slope down. So this, what you're looking at here, is at a lower elevation than what is back here.

So there's a few elements here that combine to offset what we're proposing, offset the impacts of what we're proposing. And I think one of the big items certainly would be height. We're half of what would be allowed here by right. So those are some of the elements that we are incorporating into the project to help that issue of screening.

Thank you, sir. I have no further questions.

Okay. Commissioner Ross.

Yes. Thank you, chair. The traffic on Old Bridge Lane, when I zoom out and look at the roads there in the county map wrap, it looks like it is almost exclusively coming from a fairly large subdivision community of townhomes that are to the right and bottom right of our what we're seeing. Mhmm. That your understanding of who traverses that road? Because it's not really connected to any other major So roads.

The the closest connection, if you head down Old Bridge Lane and you head to Bear Pond Court, you have to travel further up Bear Pond Court, past Old Bridge State, and then the next sort of arterial road you're gonna hit is Smoketown. Okay. And I would say, I I don't know the exact distance, but it's could be might be about a mile, less than a mile.

Yeah. And the residents are still describing traffic problems there. The other thing is, would you contact me afterwards? There's a I don't want to put you on the spot by throwing out some what might be wild suggestions, but I've got a couple of ideas that might help with some of the residents' concerns.

Happy to.

Please, thank you.

Okay, moving down the dais. Are there any more questions? Alright. Since there are no more questions, we can move on to this is in the Akwa Kwan Magisterial District, so I'll move it to commissioner shake.

Thank you madam chair I would like to close the public hearing.

The public hearing is now closed.

Thank you I recommend that planning commission approve the proper amendment REZ 20230173909 Old Bridge Road with proffers dated January 6, and also with recommendation what our colleagues have added for the improvements at Old Bridge Lane and traffic mitigation and pedestrian mobility on Old Bridge Lane.

Second.

And addition and look look at the additional lighting opportunities. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. The motion was made, to approve proper amendment REZ twenty twenty three dash zero one seven for 3909 Old Bridge Road by commissioner Shake and properly seconded by commissioner McPhail. Madam clerk, can you please call the roll?

Sher Brown?

Yes.

Vice chair of justice? Yes. Commissioner Carroll? Yes. Commissioner Ross? Yes. Commissioner McPhail?

Yes.

Commissioner Moses Smith?

I just wanna say when we when we look at the the buy right, which I think commissioner Shaikh pointed out, the buy right development that's allowed and the project that's here, while it makes this a difficult decision when you look at what could go here without some parameters around it, retail and office, this might be the best of the two decisions. So with that, I will say yes.

Commissioner Sheikh?

Yes.

Commissioner Shifler?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you. This concludes our public hearing. We will now, go to item number 13, Planning Commission procedures. If anybody wants to exit the chambers, feel free to do so, but please do so quietly. We are now at item 13 a for old business, and this is to approve updated request to participate remotely policy and form.

Is this something that you have, madam clerk? We do have it. Okay. Does anybody have any questions about the form that madam clerk email, sent us via email?

No questions.

No questions? No questions? Okay. So shall we take a vote to approve it? Alright.

There to

you go.

I recommend that planning commission approve updated request for participate remotely policy and form.

Second.

All right. The motion has been made by commissioner Shaikin properly seconded by commissioner justice to approve the updated request to participate remotely policy and form. Madam clerk, please call the roll.

Sher Brown. Yes. Advisor of justice. Yes. Commissioner Carroll? Yes. Commissioner Ross?

Yes.

Commissioner Mosesnett? Yes. Commissioner Shaikh? Yes. Commissioner Scheifler?

Yes. Motion carries.

Okay. Now moving on to item b, new business. Does anybody have any new business?

Well, before you before you extend from old business, I know, everyone may be exhausted, but I have to explore, simply because we, talked about it earlier in our work session, the possibility of finishing up the bylaws. And I'm fine either way if we delay it. But since it was, even though it feels a whole lot later

Mhmm. I know. Right. Is alright. So

I'll throw that on the table.

Okay. Does anyone have any objections with going through the remaining points of the bylaws maybe for the next ten, fifteen minutes?

We can cap it for fifteen

minutes.

I was

gonna say, I think it would work if we set a time limit. 09:00. Once we get to that, then it goes on to some another day. Well, let's I'm good with that.

Yeah. Or we can just put it to another day. I mean, we can come early.

Actually been

a long week. It's been cold.

I mean, I I understand, but we did start out with this, and it would be nice to try to get through, you know, at least a significant portion of it if we can. If well, let's let's get it until let's at least deal with it. It's what time is it now? 08:30. 08:30. Can we give it twenty minutes?

I'm good. Sure. Because you asked so nicely.

Because I said first fifteen, and then she said thirty, so I figured a compromise would be twenty. So at 08:58 fifty, we will table this, but we at least try to plow through it. Is that okay, commissioner Ross?

Yes. Alright.

Since you're very new to the being the chair, so sure.

Okay. Here we go. I know. I know. I know. Right? Trying to be a nice chair. Okay. Let's let's plow through it. So we left off at section 4.4 dash three. Four dash three. Okay. Mister McGetigan, me see what you got there.

Chair.

Four dash Four dash three.

Okay.

Commissioner Ross, yes.

It might be useful to, instead of looking at the red lining to just look at the consequences in black and white text.

The comments stay?

The comments would stay, yes.

Okay.

Actually, I think it might be more efficient to look at the comments. Think there's a way you

can show this document where it shows mister McGedigan's deletions. So it only shows what would be left and then the comments show up on the right side. If you go into review up top.

Mister McGeadigan, did you do do any deletions?

He has a problem because he's got an unlicensed product. Look at the top left of his window.

Unfortunately, that is not available, to me on this,

Oh my god. The county

I apologize. I forgot about it. Let's not waste any more of our thirty or twenty minutes.

How about reading through mister McGetigan's comments first because that may give us more direction on whether we could accept or not.

Mhmm. Well So on 4.2, mister McGetigan's mister McGetigan is address addressing the fact that deleting this will not change the fact that the commission may be provided an executive secretary and, from the planning office staff, which, of course, missus Pena is our clerk. So if we wanted to say clerk slash executive secretary because the the state code says executive secretary. So clerk slash executive secretary, I think would suffice. In my mind, that's the same person.

Yes.

And we keep it at we keep it at the original language and just make it clerk sec exec slash executive secretary.

I don't have a problem with that. Although, I will ask, Commissioner Ross, was your intent to to What was your intent here? Let me ask that. Because we Okay. We don't have a a budget or anything. So they'd have to be from the planning office.

Actually, we are allowed to request a budget. We are authorized to hire consultants and other employees and

But where we could

do that. But also, in my in my comments that I wrote to guide my what I was gonna say tonight. Mhmm. I think it would be very very unwise and foolish for any commission to turn down the offer of a clerk like miss Pena. So in no way am I saying, let's go out to, you know, a Home Depot parking lot and find somebody to be our clerk. I just wanted to write our bylaws to match the responsibilities and authorities listed in the Virginia code.

And I think that gets us there, clerk slash executive secretary, simply because that's the language we've used in Prince William County, but I think it serves the same intent and spirit as the Virginia code.

Did yeah. You said the code has executive secretary?

Yes. Hold on one second. If I could jump in real quick. I think that the clerk should be completely removed. Everything should be removed out of this section other than chair, vice chair. Because if you go down, there's an article seven, and it's about appointed position duties, and there could just be a comment that planning staff provides a clerk to do the following duties. I mean, that's just my idea.

If we

It's just completely removed out of section four because it's not an officer.

If we could collapse the deleted text out of here, you would see that it has been moved in the underlying document.

I mean, let me just ask this because was from what you said, commissioner Ross, I understand that your intent was to reflect the planning commission have the ability to do x, y, and z because that's what the Virginia code does. But the reality is we don't have a budget. And even if we request a budget, we may not get it because of money. So I'm not I mean, there's I get where you're going and saying, oh, the Virginia code allows us to do x, y, and z. But the reality, in fact, may be even if we request it, we might not get it because we don't have it.