Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We are about to begin the 04/22/2026 planning commission hearing. We just had our agenda review at 06:45 this evening where we discussed, some cases that are actually gonna be expedited and another case is gonna be deferred. We will now stand for the pledge of allegiance. Thank you. Madam clerk, will you please call the roll?

Sheriff Brown?

Yes. Here.

Vice chair justice? Here. Commissioner Carroll?

Here.

Commissioner Commissioner Schiffler?

Here.

Commissioner Shaikh?

Here.

Commissioner Sherman? Here. We have quorum.

Thank you. And since everyone is here, that means we have no remote participation. So moving on, do we have any items on the consent agenda?

We have no items for the consent agenda.

Okay, moving on to item number six. Mr. Venegas, do we have any items for the expedited agenda?

We do. We have two items for the expedited agenda, item 10 a special use permit s u p twenty twenty 6 Dash 00025 Robert Trent Jones flag s u p and item 10 c proper amendment and rezoning PRA and REZ twenty twenty five dash zero zero zero zero five Bristow Point.

Thank you, mister Venegas. Do we have anyone signed up to speak for those? Commissioner Carroll?

Just real quick. Did we wanna open did we open the public hearings?

Oh, sorry about that. We will now open the public hearing for special use permit SUP twenty twenty six dash zero zero zero two five for the Robert Trent Jones flag SUP and for proffer amendment and rezoning PRA and REZ 2025 Dash 00005 Bristol Point.

Perfect. So for a, the special use permit, Robert Trent Jones, there's no one signed up to speak. Does anyone wish to speak against that case tonight? K. And just make sure there's no one online. K. So with that, I'd like to close the public hearing.

The public hearing is now closed.

And I recommend approval of special use permit SUP2026Dash00025. Robert Shunt Jones flag s u p subject to the conditions dated 04/02/2026 with the following condition, further define the lighting requirements and time frame of light use prior to BOCS hearing.

Second.

Thank you. The, motion has been made and proper made by commissioner Carroll and properly seconded by commissioner Sheik to approve special use permit SUP2026Dash00025 for the Robert Trent Jones flag SUP. Madam clerk, would you please call the roll?

Sheriff Brown?

Yes. Vice Chair of Justice? Yes. Commissioner Carroll? Yes. Commissioner Landrum?

Yes. Commissioner Ross?

I agree with, commissioner Carroll about the further definition of the lighting requirements, and I'll be talking to Supervisor Stewart about my ideas for how to do that in a way that is safe for the environment and reduces unnecessary light pollution. With that, it's a yes.

Commissioner Shake? Yes. Commissioner Scheifler?

Yes.

Commissioner Sherman?

Yes.

Commissioner Carries.

Thank you. Is there anyone signed up for the proper amendment and rezoning for Bristol Point? Commissioner Carroll.

There is no one signed up for Bristol Point. Is there anyone in chambers who'd like to speak against Bristol Point? Yes. Are you speaking for or against? Okay. Is there any other speakers who'd like to speak against? Okay. And just to confirm, no one online. Okay. Sure.

Yeah.

Good evening. Would you like me to ask Jessica to unmute for her to say whether she's for or against item agenda 10 c she is in the room?

That would be great if you could ask her.

Yep.

Jessica, I'm asking you to unmute. There you go.

Oh, sorry. I wasn't supposed to be for the flag. Correct? Is that what this is?

This is for Bristow Point.

Oh, for Bristow Point. Actually, yes. This this project is actually seems to be okay. It's about I'm pleased that the density has come down and that the developer has been able to work with everyone to make sure that it's a it's a suitable spot for a nice community. So I appreciate that. Thank you.

Okay. Perfect. So with that, with just one speaker against, yes, director Washington.

Did you wanna make sure you got the speaker's name?

Oh, Jessica, can you just give your full name and Magisterial District, if you're still there or able to be there.

Maybe not. Okay.

Well, I guess going off the list, that was Jessica Grove from the Gainesville Magisterial District.

Okay.

So with that, with just one speaker against, we'll keep it on the expedited agenda. Yes. And so we will let you speak now. And just if you can head to the back microphone, just name Magisterial District and generally or generally where you live, and you'll have three minutes to speak or five minutes if you're representing an organization.

Okay. Thank you. Can you hear me okay?

Yeah. You wanna pull the mic down, please. Better? Thank

Yes? Okay. So my name is Tricia Sutherland. I am a resident of New Bristow Village. I live in the Brentsville district.

I am here today in opposition of this proper amendment because I currently live near Bristow Road where they have done so much blasting that it took me communicating with the fire marshal because my supervisor would not communicate with me about the blasting that was occurring. I have no less than three dozen emails between myself and the fire marshal who, as a courtesy, was notifying me of the blasting. So this will position me between the the new development that's being made and the blasting that has been occurring on Bristow Road and all of my community members. And I just wanna say thank you so much for taking a moment to listen to people who live there, and I'm one of those people. And I really do hope you listen for a moment.

I understand this is not necessarily about the development of that area, but I do ask that we consider perhaps what this is doing to our community. We have multiple veterans in our community. We have active duty military in our community. And the lack of communication about when the grounds are going be shaking so much that things fall off of my mantle is really, really concerning. We don't have good community partners on the project on Bristol Road.

I would love to know that we have better community partners in the project in discussion. Bringing to the point of it being changed from a mixed use to residential only is yet another threat to our community. It's going to be more of a drain on our resources and Brett instead of bringing office space and retail in and mixing it which is much more preferred when we are going to be sandwiched between all of this activity. We know that bringing more residents and only residential is going to be something that is going to be more of a drain on our resources, more of a drain on our infrastructure and something that I as a community member oppose that's just that much more traffic, which office space and retail space may not be as much of a problem. So I'd like that to be considered as somebody who lives there and as somebody who lives right near Bristol Road where things are often redirected.

I'd also like to just make note that my aunt Caroline passed away last week. She lived ninety eight years. And in her obituary, it said that she was a frequent and vocal participant in meetings just like this when her community was threatened, and that's how I feel today. So I hope that you take that time to listen. Thank you.

Thank you. And I guess just quickly, would the applicant like to respond, especially on the blasting or potential blasting?

Sorry, I just wanted to confirm that it was okay during expedited, but yes, I just wanted to hit a couple of points. So we are not anticipating any blasting for this site. It actually has already been pre developed and graded with the plan when it was going to be officer commercial in 2002, so there's not any blasting that is anticipated with this site, and the proposal is actually significantly less trips than what would be generated from commercial, and I can give you those numbers if you all would like it.

Maybe.

For this project, we had to do actually a trip generation comparison chart, so what you can see on this screen is that we're 166 less AM peak hour trips, three forty nine less PM peak hour trips, and then 3,805 less total daily trips.

Thank

you. Thank you for that. And just to make note too before the motion, I presume, which is standard if blasting would have to happen, those notifications would be transmitted through the proper channels.

We would will be willing to add in the proffers notification in the event that there is blasting that we would provide notification pre blasting to the neighbors.

Okay. Perfect. Okay. So with that, I'd like to close the public hearing.

One moment, please. I have a question. Sure. Applicant, can you please step we have a question on the dais for you, please. Go ahead and ask your question.

During our during our conversation about this project, we discussed the applicant making a change to the architectural siding on the short edge of the protruding townhome units to wrap the stone or brick facade all the way around on that short edge. Has that has that change been made?

That we would

I'm sorry. We committed when we talked to you that we make that change between the planning commission and board.

Got it.

So we are going to make that change for you.

Very good. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Okay. Sorry about that. Commissioner, he had a question he wanted to ask.

Yes. Yes. There's another person that would like to speak on time c by the four.

Okay. I think we're good. I don't think we need them.

No. Okay. Go ahead.

Alright. Thank you. So I'd like to close the public hearing.

The public hearing is now closed.

Thank you. And I'd like to speak to thank the resident for coming out to speak. You know, definitely hear your concerns, you know, one on the blasting, and I think the notice, you know, hopefully, that will help if it is needed. And I I definitely understand your concerns in terms of the the traffic concerns in that area as, you know, that intersection is kind of getting new development on three of those four corners right there. So I I definitely hear you, and and I understand those concerns for this project.

You know, I I think we have done a good job coming down in the density, so I will be supporting it tonight. But I I definitely encourage you to continue to voice those concerns to the supervisor's office and just make sure that those are continually looked at prior to the board hearing. So with that, I recommend approval of proffer amendment and rezoning PRA and REZ twenty twenty five dash zero zero zero zero five Bristow Point subject to the proffers dated 03/10/2026 with the following condition. If blasting is needed, proper notification will be provided ahead of time to the HOA.

Second.

The motion has been, made by commissioner Carroll to approve proper amendment and rezoning PRA and REZ twenty twenty five dash zero zero zero zero five for Bristol Point and properly seconded by commissioner well, vice chair justice. Clerk madam clerk, can you please call the roll?

Sheriff Brown?

Yes.

Vice chair justice? Yes. Commissioner Carroll? Yes. Commissioner Landrum? Yes. Commissioner Ross? Yes. Commissioner Shake? Yes. Commissioner Scheifler?

Yes.

Commissioner Sherman?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you. We will now open up the floor for public comment for any, any commentary on items that are not on our agenda for tonight. Is there anyone in the chamber that would like to make a public make make any public comment on items that are not on our agenda? If so, you may go back to the microphone in the back.

Just to confirm, there is no one signed up.

I was gonna ask that.

There is one person virtually. I'm not sure if so I think we're good.

Okay. All right. Moving on to the next item eight. This is for deferrals and continuations. Mr. Venegas, do we have any deferrals or continuations?

Chair Brown, we do have one item, item 10 d, rezoning the proper amendment to the project industry REZ 2025 dash three to date certain 05/20/2026.

Okay. Thank you very much. This is in the Brentsville Magisterial District, so I will is there anyone signed up to speak on that?

I think they are, but I think we're not gonna have them speak tonight.

Okay. Just let them know. So I will move this over to you.

Thank you. I recommend deferral of rezoning twenty twenty six dash zero zero zero zero three project industry to date certain 05/20/2026.

Second.

Thank you. The motion has been made to defer by commissioner Carroll to a date certain of 05/20/2026 for rezoning and proper amendment r e Z2025Dash00003 for project industry and has been properly seconded by commissioner Sheikh. Madam clerk, will you please call the roll? Sheriff Brown?

Yes. Vice chair of justice? Yes. Commissioner Carroll? Yes. Commissioner Landrum? Yes. Commissioner Ross? Yes. Commissioner Shake? Yes. Commissioner Scheifler? Yes. Commissioner Sherman?

Yes. Motion carries. Thank you. We're moving on to item nine and on the on the agenda to planning director's time. Director Washington, do you have anything for us today?

Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the Commission. Tanya Washington, Director of the Planning Office. I do have a few updates. First, I wanted to note that last night, the Board adopted the FY twenty seven budget for the county including the planning office and we are very pleased that our budget request that was included in the proposed budget continued into the adopted budget. Among the additional resources we will be provided are four new positions, four additional positions.

Three of those are for the land use review division that is led by Alex Planning Director. Additionally, we will be receiving an additional position for our community revitalization community planning and revitalization division. That is the team who is responsible for small area plans. And also have a very busy workload as well. So very excited about that.

Additionally, I wanted to note a number of things that are coming up. On May 12, we will be at the board to hear the board issue a resolution declaring May as historic preservation month, so we're very excited about that. Additionally, this month and next month, the planning office will be involved in several speaking engagements at different conferences and events. This weekend, actually this Saturday, the American Planning Association's National Planning Conference will be starting in Detroit going through early next week. And I will be attending as well as some other staff, including Keisha Hall, who is the assistant planning director for our community planning revitalization division.

And she will be leading her own session called How Planning Makes Sense that talks about strategies for strengthening collaboration between planning and economic development agencies to better align vision policy and capital. And then shortly after that, in early May, I will be attending another conference in Nashville. This is the Urban Land Institute spring meeting. This is one of their two annual conferences. And I am also a member of ULI's Transit Oriented Development Product Council.

There are multiple product councils that meet on the last day of the conference, and they put together their own programming. And I will be moderating a panel focused on Nashville's transit initiatives and transit oriented development that will include representatives from the city of Nashville as well as their transit authority, so very excited about that. And then, also later in May, the American Planning Association's National Planning Conference has a online conference portion where I will be, a panelist on a a panel called, Black Women Leaders, Stories of DC Region Planning. I will be one of four black women planning directors from the DC region representing Maryland, Virginia, and DC on that panel. So I'll be very excited to share our stories and our experiences there.

So, that concludes my updates for tonight. Thank you. Interesting.

We appreciate you giving us your updates, and we look forward to you sharing with us after you come back all the wonderful conferences you're attending. Moving on to item number 10. Chair? Yes.

I have a question for the plan director.

Sure.

Okay. Remember at the Commercial Development Committee meeting last week, someone asked about one of the things that would be a DPA? I forget exactly which topic it was. And so I decided I hadn't done well enough at pulling on that thread myself. So I went to what I thought was the right web page, saw a list of in progress DPAs that were in links that would take me to the e portal. So I followed those. But when I got to the e portal, I only saw the the top level descriptive paragraph. No attachments, no other documents except for one case. Did I take the wrong path?

It would be helpful if you can send me an email with a specific so I can check what it is you're looking for because DPAs can refer to multiple types of ZTAs, DCSM amendments, so I'm not exactly sure which one you're referring to.

All of them. Is e portal the place we should go to find out more about those, or is there another repository?

Yes, there should be a case record in ePortal. However, with those with ZTAs because that can include ZTAs as well. So there may be materials in other places. So I think if you can follow-up with me, we can look into the specifics of what you are looking for and see what the issue is.

I'll gladly do that. Thank you.

Sure.

Item 10, public hearings. We will now open up the public hearing to hear item 10 b, rezoning REZ twenty twenty four dash 21 for the hydro property. Is the applicant ready to present? Come on down, mister Stewart.

Commissioner Landrum the brand new Planning Commissioner here. So this is the HAJO property. It is approximately 23 acres, and it's located directly next to the Public Safety Training Center. And as you're going to see a little bit later on in the presentation, this area hasn't been effectively industrial for quite some time. Before we begin, I would like to introduce Elder Ramos, who is the owner one of the co owners of Heijo Construction.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Corey. Good evening, everyone, and thank you for your time. So as Corey stated, my name is Elder, and my father-in-law is Richard Hoffman. And I'm standing here in front of you guys to kinda explain myself. I've been in the county since I was 14 years old. I came away from Columbia and started a business, went to middle school, high school here, and I still actively work at I have helped Brainsville. I have helped at Woodbridge. I have helped up Atomic, Garfield, Forest Park, and Sanders Middle School with a wrestling program. So I'm very embedded in the community and giving back. In addition to that and here's my I have six kids, by the way.

Sorry. I have six kids. Very busy between chilling and wrestling. I'm not just your regular contractor, and all my customers know that. I'm ethical, and I run my business the same way. When we bought the land, as part of the growing as a small business owner I'll try to be quick on how much time I have, but, part of growing is, being successful. And for me, it came at a long time. Had two jobs, made the business work. My father will support him a 100%. And today, we're looking to for me not to get in trouble with my HOA anymore.

They say, hey, you can't park those trucks here. I wanna do everything correctly. I wanna make sure that I do I park the truck where it's supposed to be. And I'm following the law and by doing so, sometimes a little challenging. I'm here four years later after we purchased this land to continue to do that because that's part of what I do, being consistent on asking for the right approval. Again, I'm not just a regular contractor. I'm in a community. We're just trying to grow. Part of that is having the property reason for us to park our equipment. You know I mean? And I don't wanna do it like other people. I don't wanna cut shortcuts and do it illegally. No. I'm here doing it right. And sometimes, I personally feel by doing it right, it it feels like a punishment sometimes.

And I'm running out of I I don't know what to do. I'm begging you for your help. I wanna grow my business in the county, contribute with my taxes, but I feel like I'm hitting a wall every single time. I don't know what else to do. I don't know the coast. I don't know that. I just bought the land set, bought my equipment, and go. Far from the truth. Okay. Four years later, we'll face the music. We'll do it. You know what I mean? But I don't know if you if the building needs to look so wet. Okay. It has to be a 100 feet. Okay. Whatever it might be, I just want to be able to run my business and continue to grow. Some of you have said, hey, I've seen your science here. I've seen I work in Brainsville a lot. I work in all the communities around here.

And they don't know me by age or they know me elder because they know my story. And sometimes I coach their kids. So that's why I'm here tonight. I don't know how much time I had Corey, but I'm sorry I do talk a lot. I do support a lot of military families. A lot of them move and they call me again. You know what I mean? And so I build these relationships with my customers because I'm ethical. And by doing so, I have to also control costs, not only for us, but to keep my people employed and to continue to seek business. As the counties continue to grow, we have to have the places to park.

I'm not the only one. I'm probably the only one here tonight, but there is a lot of people like me that their landlord has sold their land and these people are being pushed. So they don't know where to go. There is no M1 lots. We can't park our equipment and we can't afford the land. If you go M1, we can't afford it. So what did they do? They go and park where they live and the HOA gets upset. So I'm not alone with that. It's an issue that is continually growing as data centers have taken most of the land that can be used for other resources.

Okay. Thank you. Mr. Stewart, do you have a presentation? Click the That's okay.

That's why I do concrete.

Yeah. That's alright.

Here you go. This is a sample. I do decks. I don't know. Click was the other one. Here you go. I did a screen porch and open deck. I did a stamped concrete and a deck over there, and Corey has

Alright. Mister Thanks

a lot.

While you're giving your presentation, can you please, probably explain a little bit more what Mr. Elder said in relation and incorporated into your presentation?

Sure, absolutely. Thank you. Okay. So here's the site. It is right over here in what we would call the Noakesville industrial area.

Some of you might remember, some of you might even have been on the commission at the time. But especially with the rise of data centers in the county, there's just been a disappearing amount of industrial land available for just regular contractors, your small business people. And so the Board wanted to create kind of a home for those folks, and it created these acreage West of Noakesville. It's right on the as you can see, it's on the county line. And in the case of this site, we are right there highlighted in yellow, and you will notice that the racetrack not the racetrack, but the track This is where the police officers and the firefighters go to learn how to drive emergency vehicles right there.

Across the street over here, this is Energix, the solar farm. Across over here, you will see this has already been some of it's already been zoned industrial since the year I was born, nineteen sixty eight, M1. It's owned by Vulcan or its affiliates. Over here, we've got a couple of neighbors who there's a lot of dog barking going on over there, just put it that way. And then right back here is this is a site that was identified by the staff as being residential.

It is technically, but it is being effectively used, as you will see, for parking equipment, materials, that sort of thing. It's effectively used as industrial as it is. This is the aerial. You'll see that here again is the track and and then the site. And then behind us, this is that that that so called residential property right here.

This gives you a good idea of just how industrial this is this property is, in fact. Right next door, again, the public safety training center, we have these you got a you got a dog kennel here. Heidelberg Materials is related to Vulcan, and they own all of these properties. Energex is here. You got the county line, and then Jefferson Farms is is over here.

It doesn't directly border the site. Across the street, this is the entrance for Energex. This is the public safety training center. Some questions have been raised about the potential height of a future. We're not going to discuss it today because we're not this is not a rezoning to permit a silo or even a small batch concrete plant.

That would have to be a separate SUP. But just to give you an idea, these are the high tension power lines right next door. Here's the site the the water tower for the county. And if you if you've ever been out there to the public safety training center, there's actually a three story burn building, which our firefighters use to train to learn how to put out fires. So this is the GDP.

It's very simple. It is. And one of the comments from staff is there's not enough detail. Well, that's because there is not a lot of detail. There's not a lot of detail because it's basically pad sites for contractors like HAYJO and others to put their equipment, to put their their vehicles, to put their materials.

And it's really that simple. Staff asked us to put exactly kind of location where a future building might go. We don't even know if it's going to be built. But if it if it is, it's going to be it's going to be here. We you're not going to see you're not going to see any sort of a facade or anything like that because we don't know what the needs are going to be of the of in the future.

However, staff did ask us to commit to certain architectural the use of certain high end materials, which in fact, we took that word for word and proffer for, which you will see. We also committed to various other restrictions. This is the illustrative plan. As you can see, there's a lot of green space that is being preserved here. All of this is being preserved.

This would be for storm water retention in these two ponds here. And up here would be for a drainage site. If if in fact a building is built, we we do have the ability to put the drainage site. One of the things that we wanted to do, and we've met with some of some of you, we were able to meet with you, and that is commissioner Landrum said, well, what can we do to, you know, really try to keep it as attractive and as much green space as possible? Now there is a 50 foot buffer around the site, but in addition to that, we put the drainage field here, which in light on all likelihood is not going to be developed at any time for a drainage field.

And even it when it is, it's going to be green, and that is up toward the front instead of back there someplace. So you've got additional space between the road and the the pad sites. And, again, here, there's a 20 foot landscaping strip as part of the buffer. Commissioner of justice asked, well, what could it look like? And my client went to work. This is what they do for a living. This is what their business does. They produce just this sort of thing. So this is something that they think it would look like. It's possible they're going to have customers on-site.

If they do, in fact, build a building back here and bring them into their office, they want to it needs to be pretty. It's got to look good because that's part of that's what they're selling at the end of the day. So the staff recommendation, there were two things. Basically, one was the lack of the detail on the GDP, which we've already discussed. The other one was the inconsistency between the I two, which is light industrial, and the zoning category, which is m one.

Now this bears for explanation, and it goes a little bit ways back. So let me explain. So back in 2022, when the board decided we needed to create this area for our contractors or other light industrial users aside from data centers, and and it created the I 2. But even then, we identified together with staff, there was a problem, and that is that the m two zoning category is defective. It's defective because it doesn't work for most light industrial users in this county.

It might work for some where you're going to put a warehouse and you're going to have incidentally to that some storage, but that there's a whole lot of contractors who are moving out. In fact, our Rodney Reyes is with Bowman. He's working with a lot of his clients, businesses, small industrial, light industrial, who are moving out of Prince William County right now because they cannot find land to put their equipment or materials, etcetera. So what what was said at the time is by senior staff was, look, there's a couple of options. Either one, the board could replan this instead of to light industrial to heavy industrial, but it kind of gets away from what the board was really trying to create there.

Not big smokes back stacks, not big heavy industrial, but light industrial. We or the board could modify through a zoning text amendment the m two zoning category, which created a whole other series of problems, ramifications for every other m two zoning classification across the county, which would take years, and it hasn't even gotten started from what I understand. Or you could zone to m one, but effectively have light industrial by by proffering out a lot of those intense heavy truly heavy industrial uses. So that's what we did. The first submission was in 2023.

We have zoned we have proffered out over we have proffered out 80 industrial m one uses from this this application. This is m one in name, but in effect, it is m two. So we as you can see, it meets every chapter of the comp plan except for two. We we disagree with the community design because this is what it is. It it's going to be an empty pad site.

And we have committed that if we are going to build a building, it's going to meet those architectural standards put forth by the county. With regard to land, you know, we just discussed the the inconsistency between the I two plan and the m one zoning classification. Here we are in the comp plan. We're in the I two. This this whole area, as you can see better here, that was replanned by the board.

You're going to see a lot more applications over the coming months as applicant or landowners here are starting to get going. There there because there's such a demand for light industrial space in the county, and they're going to need to but they're going to have the same issues. I know because a couple of them are my clients, but they have the same issues. You can't store your stuff in M2. But this is the final slide, and I want to highlight it because this is from economic development.

The whole purpose of creating this area was economic development so that we're not losing all of our contractors to other counties. Or worse yet, when your contractors have no place to go, so what do they do? They park their vehicles in front of their their roads or somebody else's residential neighborhood. So economic development recognized that, recognizing that it attracts just the sort of businesses for which this area was created. It's the right location.

It's effectively already light industrial as it is. It balances your tax base. Instead of just data centers, you're now getting other and including with employment in this case. And these are the words of economic development, but is consistent with the strategic plan for the county in terms of business development of the county. So that's that. We also have our engineer here as well. And Mr. Ron Esherick, who works with me, and Rich and Elder are here to answer any of the questions that you might have.

Thank you for your presentation. We'll now hear from staff.

Just one moment. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Harrison Premon. I am a staff member with the planning office in Land Use Review, and I am the case planner for rezoning twenty twenty four dash zero zero zero two one, hydro property. So I am gonna go real fast to these first few slides since the applicant, covered, very well the overall request location and surroundings of, this area is along Wharton Road, which is a sizable gravel road, nearby the solar facility that was already mentioned, a rezoned m one parcel that has not been developed, and multiple other vacant forested properties and, residential uses.

Moving right along, as already, discussed by the applicant, it is in an I two zone that is shown as being a future a future industrial zone. The only other designation that is nearby is the training center, which has a PL, public land designation. Going over to zoning real quick, it is currently surrounded, by other a one zones minus the nineteen sixty eight m one m one zoning for a quarry. Moving right along the to the conference of plan sections, as stated by the applicant, staff is recommending, denial based off of the long new long range land use plan, section and the community design section. Before I get into detail over why we did the recommended denial based on these set those two sections, I do wanna highlight some of the sections that we did find consistency in.

We do agree with the applicant that there is a need for land for non data center uses. We have no disagreement with that. Additionally, we do wanna point out with environmental that they did avoid most, if not virtually all of the wetlands on the property, and we do wanna give them accolades for that. Additionally, in regards to transportation, there is a proffer that says that they will restore the gravel road to its restored the gravel road after construction. Just wanna give out those highlights.

So regards to the long range land use comprehensive plan section, the applicant is proposing a higher intensity zoning district m one, And our the our determination was since a lot of the primary uses, we feel go beyond just light manufacturing, small assembly businesses, start up businesses, flex, that is not compliant compliant with the, intention of the I two. Additionally, they we do have target building heights in the I two being one to three stories. At the time of this application, a a 70 foot silo was incorporated in this application. Now hearing that it is not, that does bring it more much more close to the target building height. I do believe the structure is supposed to be around 45 feet, I do believe.

I will say if they are to remove the silo from this application, they will have to re amend the proper statement that was submitted to the to the planning office since the proper statement does mention a 70 foot silo. Other aspects of the I two that they do meet, they do meet the, targeted non, residential FAR. They do meet the targeted land use, and they do meet the minimum open space requirements. Moving right along, I have compiled a list of the heavy industrial m one uses that would still be allowed with this rezoning that would not be allowed in the M 2 Light Industrial District. Just to read off a few, we have building materials in a sales yard, coal, wood, lumber yards, company vehicle service facility, trailer sales, lease storage repair maintenance, tool and equipment rental service, and repair heavy, motor vehicle repair.

Additionally, there would be two conditional uses that would still be allowed through a separate conditional use permit being a concrete plant and then motor vehicle storage yard. It was the opinion of staff, reiterated in different in multiple different, submissions that we thought that more uses should be proffered out to keep it as less impactful on the surrounding area as possible. Moving right along to community design. As Abkin stated, they don't know how many buildings are gonna be on the property. It is staff's opinion that if if they're gonna offer to the future lessees that they're that they could have a building, that staff would be comfortable with seeing where generally those buildings would be located on those leased sites as well as what those buildings could generally look like.

I will state that the rendering that was showed during the Atkins presentation was not submitted to the planning office before this public hearing. Additionally, I wanted to call out zoning code section 32 dash seven hundred twenty one seven, which goes into how we require to see all buildings, all aspects of the GDP. This was in reference not only to the hypothetical buildings that could be on the property of that they would provide to the lessees of the property, but also to that 70 foot silo, which now sounds like would not be a part of this application. Moving right along, this also would not align with comp plan, policy one, community design policy plan policy one and also DES 1.1, which is an action policy which is an action item of that policy. As you've already seen, this is the GDP of the applicant.

They do pro they do show, one structure. However, I do wanna mention, I know this is not visible on the screen, but under note two, it does say, let me I just wanna make sure that I read it word for word just so, it is accurate. Give me just one second. I do apologize. Sec note number two says the number, location, size, and location of buildings on-site is to be determined at final site plan.

That wording is not something that staff is supportive of and is very uncomfortable with. Based on that wording, even this shown building right here could possibly be something completely different in terms of location or size. We feel as though in order to meet with that zoning code section previously referenced and the conference of plan goals, that that kind of wording that puts a huge question mark over how this site will be developed should be addressed. And then finally, to the recommendation, we do recommend denial of twenty twenty four zero zero zero two one res twenty twenty four zero zero zero two one hydro property subject to the profits dated 03/13/2026 for the following reasons. First one being land use, being inconsistent with the I two industrial transect two long range land use designation in the comprehensive plan for the subject property and surrounding area.

The m one standards desired are not aligned with the anticipated zoning district uses and height of the I two designation. This does not conform with land use policy two and action strategy l u 2.2 of the comprehensive plan. For community design, the current general development plan, GDP, labeled hydro property general development plan and dated 03/13/2026 contains omissions of required elements of the GDP, preventing staff from conducting an accurate analysis of potential impacts. This does not meet zoning code section 32 dash 700.217 as well as community design policy plan one and the action strategy DES 1.1 of the comprehensive plan. Staff do does believe that this, rezoning can eventually be something that it can support, but as it currently stands, we think that we still need more provided by the applicant for the office to be comfortable with recommending approval.

I am here to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you for that presentation, Mr. Premen. Appreciate it. We will have any other anyone signed up to speak? Anything else?

Yes. We have one individual signed up, Joel Becker. If there's any other individuals here wishing to speak on this application, you guys can just kinda line up in the back. Just kinda keep it in groups of four or five, and then just name magisterial district or generally where you live. And then, you'll have three minutes to speak or five minutes if you're representing an organization.

Yes.

My name is Joel Becker from the Brentsville district. I live on Carriage Ford Road, just a very short distance from this area. The one thing I'm hearing tonight is I don't think this is ready for prime time. There's so many questions, so vague questions. And I'll be honest with you, the community doesn't trust anything with Corey Stewart's name attached to it.

We have seen in this area approaching landowners left and right, trying to upsell on zoning for whatever use. The Knoxville community in general just does not trust because I don't I do not trust this vague plan that, first of all, should be through a CPA first. We should be getting we're getting the cart before the horse. Do the first step that everybody else has to do, Do a CPA. And first of all, many of the Nokesville community fought the last comp plan to make sure this stayed at the type of zoning it is.

Originally, there was some talk of it already being up zoned, and we fought tooth and nail to keep it where it's at. And we will fight again because that is not what the community that lives right there wants. We

need

to make them follow follow the steps that everybody else does because this is gonna be a can of worms that opens up. He already mentioned other land other land owners, and if you open up that can of worms, you're gonna set a precedent. We need to keep with the regular order of things. This is gonna open up the Vulcan land. They're gonna see this.

Every every other the Madera Farm is gonna see this, and it's just gonna be open season. The other thing that they're talking about fixing the road, yeah, they'll fix the road for about two weeks because I think you need to go out and see what Warrington Road is. Warrington Road, if we get any rain, will wash out, will get soft, will rut, and then the county has to keep going and then fixing it. You start putting this type of traffic on that road, and that's gonna be a daily occurrence. We need to start sticking. We we made a comp plan for a reason. I don't know why we can't get landowners to stick with it. That's what that's what they bought the land under usually, and that's what they need to build on.

I feel like I need a step stool. Sorry. My name is, Mindy Kenny. I actually live in the Coles District. I'm here because I grew up in Noakesville, and I my family's been out there since the seventies, so I've seen a lot of changes come to Noakesville. One of the things that concerns me is just because we can doesn't mean we should. We've done that a lot in Noakesville. We've done it a lot in Prince William County. Just because we can have data centers coming in doesn't mean that we should. One of my dear friends was Bob Weir.

I spent a lot of time with him. He taught me a lot on my sorry. He taught me a lot about land use, and he's the one who got me active years ago in looking at things and figuring out if it was right for our community. I remember his fight initially with data centers and his comment was just because we can bring them in doesn't mean that we should because are we going to be asking them to support the community in the way that they should? And while this is a great business, I applaud him. This is a phenomenal business and I support the business. What I don't support is changing land use designations to get an exception because it's a great business. That's what we did with data centers. And that's really all I have. Thank you.

If somebody's to holler. She'll go last. Susan

Tibbs. I'm a landowner on Carriage Ford. I am strongly opposed to this. This area is not actually or effectively a heavy industrial use area. I applaud my neighbor who said come and look at it.

This is a sleepy, backwoods, dirt road, but the closest paved access is off of Carriage Ford. If you've seen Carriage Ford, it is a small country, two lane, no shoulder, very tight space road. Access to Carriage Ford off of Aden is a tiny, barely two lane, tight squeeze to get through that tiny bridge to get further into the community. Carriage forward, residential, agricultural, horses, beekeepers, hobby farms, agricultural use. The the classification that that Noakesville is is a, and then let me just read it, is characterized as an industrial area is beyond false offensive and just darn wrong.

Approving this request would infringe upon my rights to use my land in the way that I purchased it for and in line with the comprehensive plan. This is not an industrial area. This is a small sleepy town with people who have the right to rely on the comprehensive plan for their use and enjoyment. Not only is the is the representations here lacking sufficient detail, it's also allowing for the lease of this property to other have unknown heavy industrial uses. This would significantly change the character of the entire area.

While right directly behind the public safety area, this is not an industrial area. The present other uses right there that were shown on their map, there's no traffic. There's a truck or a car or something, I don't know, once a month or so. Nothing in a daily kind of use. Nothing that would come close to what the applicant is saying that they will use the property for.

And we ask where will the industrial and the business owners and the craftsman and where will they go in Prince William County, where will the homeowners go? Where will the people who want to live here and establish community and network and and grow this area? Where where do they live? They certainly wouldn't wanna live on Carriage Ford anymore. Thank you. Appreciate your time.

Travis Plummer, live in Noakesville, just on Warrenton Road. And like everyone's described it before, it is a dirt road and folks have approached VDOT in improving that road. And the easement is not there to widen it, even to cut the ditches, so they can't even do, like, a pave in place. So having this industrial equipment run up and down that road, like you described, you know, a heavy rain, even a light rain will washboard it out, and it's miserable. So I applaud him for one to fix it after they build their do their construction, but just the day to day wear on that road is not there.

Carriage Ford is the closest paved road. You know, you have the fire trucks coming in there to the warranty training center or sorry, to the Prince William training facility. And, you know, sometimes you have to pull over for them in somebody's driveway to let them go by. You know, this is large enough with between a school bus and you. Carriage Fort is also a very popular cyclist place, And it's just not conducive to, you know, increased traffic of heavy equipment.

You know, I I purchased my land knowing that it was agriculture. You know, I have my horses. I have my bees. I have my cats, my dogs, and I enjoy that. So I I appreciate the fact that he had a business and he wants to grow it and everything like that, but he should have purchased that land with the zoning in mind and knowing that this is my end use with it, and I should have purchased appropriate zoned land. So coming here and asking to change the total environment for him to grow his business, I find offensive, and I thank you.

Hi. Good evening. My name is Jessica Wagner. I live in the Brentsville District close to Wellington Road. The main thing that I'm asking for tonight is I'm recommend requesting that you guys recommend our disapproval of this proper. As many of the residents have said before, this is not part of the comprehensive plan. There's not been the proper procedures done in order for this to be done. I understand that, you know, he's trying to grow his small business. And one of the things that he noted on is that he wants to do things correctly. Well, this is not being done correctly.

And if anything, it does a disservice on himself and a small business because he's looking to be an exception to a rule rather than do going through it the correct way. And that would be even better for his business because he shows, yes, I'm doing it the correct and honest way. And it's just not being done that way as the residents have said. And then as just as as a side note to them, I'm they use veterans a lot and what whatever they were, you know, saying as their thing, I'm a veteran and I don't appreciate them using myself and my peers to justify doing something incorrectly. Thank you.

Hello. It's me again, Tricia Sutherland from the Brentsville District. I'd like to just offer support for my neighbors in Knoxville. Bristow and Knoxville are right next door to each other, and I can also attest to the fact that this is not an industrial area. And the fact that mister Stewart made one reference to a residence and said, it's basically a dog park or what did he say?

Kennel. Sorry. Is lots of dogs barking. It's basically a kennel over here It's a really good reflection of how much they care about the residents of this area. And I hope that you will consider that statement in and of itself as a dismissal of this community and the people that are already there. Thank you. Good

evening. My name is Sarah Terrell. I live on Parkgate in Noakesville. I've lived there for about twenty years. Carriage Ford, I would not even classify that as a two lane road.

There's no center line. It's too small to get a center line, much like Parkgate is. I recently went through a long period of time where we had massive numbers of dump trucks going up and down my road directly in front of my house, and it was dangerous. It was reckless. The road wasn't built for that level of industrial vehicle usage, and it was a problem for the entire community.

And I see a similar thing happening here, except now we're on a gravel road. And we all know how hard it is to stop quickly on a gravel road. And that happened many, many times on Parkgate. So I don't know what kind of trucks we're gonna have on on this road. I don't know how many trucks.

We don't know really anything other than they have some great ideas that they haven't fully formulated. And it to me, giving them an m one designation for some great ideas they have but they cannot articulate is dangerous. That's like writing a blank check. Now in Noakesville, everybody that lives there primarily is on well water. So, what is the impact to the water table and to our water quality?

Apparently, whoever on the staff looked at this application decided it met their requirements, But how can it meet their requirements for the water safety if they don't even know what's going in there? And, oh, by the way, there were only two categories that the staff recommended, yeah, it doesn't really meet our needs in these two categories. But all the rest of them that got listed and they put up a really nice table up there, all the rest of them, it met their requirements. How can it meet requirements for staff review when they cannot tell us what they're gonna put in there? If he wants to put some business equipment and do some stuff, I have no issue with that.

That's an I two. It's already designated that. That's an easy thing. If his plans change in the future and he can finally articulate what he wants to do, have him come back and apply through the regular process. But writing a blank check now in an area that is dependent upon groundwater and air quality and noise and all of that, it's an issue. That blank check does not serve the community in any way, shape, or form. And quite frankly, economically, it does not either. Thank you. I appreciate your time.

Thank you. Are there any other speakers? Were there speakers online?

Good evening. We have two speakers on. The first speaker will be Rachel Ellis.

Good evening. Rachel Ellis, Gainesville District. I'm asking you to say no to this rezoning. This rezoning, it's kind of a ridiculous request. It is agricultural. M one is not in line with the comp plan, and I I kinda I give credit to the previous speakers. Like, why do we have a comp plan if we're not gonna follow it? Staff is recommending denial, and that's kind of slightly unusual because I feel like they approve a lot of stuff, but they are recommending denial. I'm asking you to listen to the residents. Quite a few of them came out tonight.

I applaud them for coming out and listen to them. They're the ones that are gonna live adjacent to this. And I'll be quite honest with you. Corey Stewart, he has no real answers. He has no real answers. And I'll tell you what, this property was on our radar over a year ago when Corey Stewart was trying to, you know, assemble land over there. So I I don't trust what we're being told tonight because we're not being told anything. It's all just vagueness. And so, you know, please deny this. Again, staff is recommending denial.

It needs a CPA if you're gonna change the comprehensive plan. Do the right thing and go about it the right way if that's what he wants to do. Or like the one, resident said, when they come back with real answers, then resubmit it. But this blank no real answers from mister Stewart? No. Thank you. Our

next speaker is Jessica Grove.

Good evening commissioners. My name is Jessica Grove and I live in the Gainesville district. Also to reiterate what Rachel just mentioned, this property has been on the radar for quite some time and for it to be reason a comprehensive plan amendment is, backwards. And I I am troubled by the presentation that was given by Corey Stewart that effectively it's already being used as this, and effectively it's this, and effectively it's that. That is not what it is because you just heard the residents who actually live there say that it is rural agricultural two lane dirt road, and they don't want this next to them.

Also, the the staff recommended that they include some other uses to be proffered out. Might I remind you, proffers are not legally required. So he can tell you anything he wants tonight and change it in a heartbeat for millions of dollars later on for data because that is what his origin was originally on his radar. So please keep in mind that the reputation of mister Corey Stewart is not in the highest standing of the residents who live anywhere nearby the Nokesville area and that he did not have real answers. He did not have a plan, and he has to have a CPA to change the comprehensive plan.

Please deny. Thank you.

We have no more speakers. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. With that being said, this is in your district commissioner Carol. I'll pass this over to you.

Well, did we want to let before we ask our questions, did we want to let the applicant and staff respond to public comment?

I'm so sorry. Commissioner Carroll has reminded me that we need to give the applicant and the staff a chance to respond. So applicant, would you like to come forward and respond, Mr. Stewart?

Okay. Thank

you. And thanks for my comments from my fans back there. Appreciate them. But a couple of things we want to address in particular is, one, we've been through three planners on this. We submitted this in 2023.

There's been apparently some misunderstanding here. This application has never been to authorize a silo. The only in fact, a silo or any other sort of small batch concrete facility requires an SUP. That proffer that is being referred to is if we do come back to the commission, to the staff and to ultimately Board of Supervisors, we have to get an SUP. But to avoid having to also amend the proffers, the proffer two, which is the building height currently reads and it has since the first submission, the maximum building height on the property shall be 45 feet.

Notwithstanding, the maximum height of a silo with related structures shall be 70 feet. Now if it would make the commission more comfortable, we could reword that just to make it absolutely clear and to staff to read as follows, the maximum building height of the property shall be 45 feet. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that a silo and associated structures are proposed in conjunction with an SUP with a special use permit, the maximum permitted height of such silo and associated structures shall not exceed 70 feet. So it makes it very clear. It does require, in fact, there's we an STP is required no matter what in order to do a structure like that.

Secondly, staff's review of the TIA deferral was granted because this is projected to generate 62, that's right, 62 vehicle trips per day. That's it. Now one thing I know, there's always concern with traffic. But keep in mind that the way it is right now with with the simply pad sites and store material and equipment, you're not you don't have any full time employees on staff on-site. If in fact this was going to M2 and we wanted to put a factory there or something where that storage was an ancillary use, you're looking at a lot more vehicle trips per day than what is planned right now.

So I would just offer that up. And also, I wanted to invite Mr. Ramos up. He can explain the where this traffic goes, not down Carriage Ford Road, but actually, safe the quickest way from the site to anywhere basically is through Fauquier County to 28. But Mr. Ramos could explain that.

Thank you, Corey. So just to probably answer a couple of different questions, and thank you for everyone that came out because I consider you guys my neighbors as well. So the first one is there's a couple of that, hey, we don't want that in the community. And I go out with my truck towards 28 to go to the fastest Road, which takes me to Cuyahoga County. That's where I go to 28. So that's where I'll be going out of that area. Secondly, the reason if you have seen me in the Carriage Fort Road or Hazelwood Road or Parkgate is because I'm working for your neighbors. I'm literally building the Sam Nance who happens to be F. H. Bird.

I build their pools and their patios and their decks. And on Hazelwood, I have Todd Commer. I have Dave. I have at least seven customers on that road. So I'm there, so I can't go any other way. So it's not like I'm trying to generate more traffic. I'm at work and I have to go to those neighbors. And that's to kind of answer the question on the heavy traffic that will come in. From my property, when I come out, I'll be making a left, which it transitions to Fauquier County, which is a paved road. I would be less than a mile on the Prince William County Road.

I happen to own 67 acres on the other side. That's how I know. So I'm in Flacquer County. I'm not on Prince William, and that's the fastest way to 28, which takes me to Bristol Haymarket or Gainesville. So I wouldn't go backtracking because that cost me more money on fuel. I don't know what else I can answer. I do appreciate everybody's feedback. I appreciate you guys listening to me. I know I talk a lot. But one thing I didn't mention to you guys before and the gentleman and the lady whoever's on the line. I'm a true believer. I tell this to my customers every day, even my kids. You're in position to make a decision with county and protect the land. I want that. I want miniature highland cows. I want donkey. I want the whole thing. Trust me. I do. I live in H.

A. K, and I can't have it. I do want to do the right thing. That's why I'm here. And that's why I bought the property four years ago, and I'm still here in front of you because I want to do it right. And being ethical, I am being ethical. I'm in front of you. I don't want to park trucks illegally. So that kind of touches me because that's my integrity. But second, I'll be quick. A lot of people don't believe about the American dream. I do. I came here when I was 14 years old, and I learned English at 14. I came here, and it was no Latinos in the wrestling team. I was the first one at Ripon Middle School. Then I was the captain at Forest Park for four years. I learned English. None of my family members went to college. I did. I got a scholarship for what I thought I was fighting.

It was wrestling. And then in addition to that, I'm still coaching these kids. They're in college. I'm mentoring my own kids. The American dream is so alive, but people don't see it because they can't they can't limitations on their own. You can't believe that. I don't believe that. I didn't come here to believe the limitations. I came here to be successful. Why was the state broke in Colombia? I came here to be successful, and I'm begging you to see my dream. You don't have to believe me. Those are the facts. People are standing in your neighborhoods illegally. I'm doing it right.

I don't want to break the law. I'm here. I work hard. I have two jobs to start my business. This man right here, my father-in-law, he played and borrowed $800 for me to start my job. I didn't go to the neighbors. I didn't steal it. I didn't know. He let me borrow my $800 because I couldn't afford that. Then he let me borrow $1,200 to do my second job. And he's here with me because he believe in my my my dream. I want you to believe that as well. I wanna do it right. That's all I have to say. Thank you for your time. Mister

Stewart, do you wanna address anything? Do you wanna address anything in this?

No. I've already addressed those two comments. And if there's something else that the commission would like to hear about, I'd be happy to do that as well.

No. Alright. We can have the staff address, and then we can have comments from the dyers.

Yes, commissioner. The only two the only things that staff can, address at the moment were, in regards to the public comment about why the other sections were labeled as yes, that is in conjunction with the review agencies that went out that also reviewed this application. So this was reviewed by Prince William County, DOT, the watershed division of public works, etcetera. Through the lengthy review process, the most different submissions, eventually, all the other agencies got to a yes or we have no problem with it. That is why that is shown as a yes.

Additionally, while staff does appreciate the the the mentioning of rewording that one proffer regarding the silo, it staff is still unsure why he even mentioned the silo in the first place because it seems like then it just sets it up for an SEP in the future. And that if there is gonna be no silo at the in regards to this rezoning, it should just be completely separate and be a part of that SEP in the future. But those are the only, things staff can comment on at this moment. I can answer any questions if you have any, or I can go sit back down.

We will now open up the questions, for the commissioners. Does anyone have any questions? Alright.

Oh, I

didn't see your light on. Oh, okay.

There you go.

Yeah. Go ahead.

During during the meeting with the applicant, we had discussed the option of increasing the 50 foot buffer on the front of the property along the roadside to a 75 foot buffer. Would the applicant be willing to proffer that as a condition on this?

So what we can do is between now and the hearing with the Board, we are open to that. The 50 foot buffer is, as you'll note on the GDP itself, is actually more of a buffer other than the 50 foot effectively. But if that's going to be a condition to the approval by the board, that is something that we would consider.

Is that a yes or a no?

To do this tonight? No. We're not going do we can't do that tonight, but we're willing to work with Commissioner Landrum and others before it's heard by the Board, if that's necessary.

Okay. I just want to piggyback briefly because when we met and we met together with you, you said you would check with the engineer? Is it the engineer? Engineer. Engineer. So did you check with the engineer?

Yeah. Would you like to hear from the engineer on the buffer? He's here.

Sure. Sure. Mister Reyes, would

you mind coming forward, please? Thank you.

Because to me, it would be either yes, you can do it or no, you can't do it. But, mister engineer, let's hear from you.

Do you provide an additional buffer along the frontage?

Or

Along the frontage. Yes.

I mean, it's it's possible. The the biggest thing to look at is, you know, with the entrance and site distance, you know, so we can look at increasing the buffer. I think the limits of disturbance is set at 50 feet right now. I think we only need a 20 foot landscape strip, but that's something we can work out with some do a little bit preliminary engineering grading to look at it to see if we can provide additional 75 foot buffer. I mean, I would have to coordinate with the applicant to see, you know, what that would do to the circulation of this parking area and stuff. But it is possible.

Okay. Did that answer your question?

Just for clarity, we're not talking about an additional 75 foot buffer. This would be the from the 50 feet, which is the current buffer on the road frontage to 75 feet just for the the obfuscation of of use for cars that are driving by.

Correct. So increase it by twenty twenty five more feet.

Yes. Correct. Correct.

Okay. Turning it over to vice chair. Justice?

So Yeah. I'm sorry. If there's one more I'm sorry. Did you have a question?

I was going to.

Okay. Go ahead, commissioner. Yeah.

Okay. So my question is either for staff or director Washington. This came up several times, and it was about why not a comp plan amendment. And I know that we've gone through this on other projects, but I just wanna make sure we clarify that.

Good evening, members of the Planning Commission. I'm a chair. I'm David McGetigan from the Planning Office. So in the comp plan update, we were looking in this area for a light industrial, low impact industrial as far as buildings go. And but we didn't have a zoning district, an industrial zoning district that really matched that vision.

We did have the board initiate a zoning text amendment to look at the industrial classification. We still haven't gotten to that amendment yet. It's on our to do list and in part of the comprehensive zoning ordinance update. So the path forward at this point in time until we get that done is to do M1 but proffer out all the industrial uses to allow the outdoor storage, which is something that could be low impact visually in, that industrial area.

Okay.

So no zoning district to match the desire that they had when they set the comp plan, essentially. Alright. My next question, would be for staff. And I'm trying to understand, just looking at the surrounding area, I understand that you've got a training facility next door. You've got solar farm essentially, and then you have Vulcan across the street. What is Vulcan currently approved for on that piece of land? Or, like, what what uses can they have or not have?

So they can do m one uses, but the the quarry requires a special use permit. So that's why they aren't quarrying it right now. They did back in the mid two thousands submit a special use permit for the quarry, but they ended up withdrawing it because of so much opposition from the community at the time. Okay. So right now, it's it's just m one uses, but they really want to quarry the land.

Okay. And then my third question, for that piece of property under m one uses, what types of things could they do by right or by through through the m one use? Give me the worst of the top five.

Oh, I'm I'm trying I'm still trying to I was just hired back in October, so I'm still trying to memorize the whole zoning ordinance. But there are a lot of heavy industrial uses that would I unless somehow that rezoning has specific proffers, I I we I have not looked at the file for the Vulcan rezoning on if it they're proffered specifically for a certain use. But, hypothetically, if it turns out that it's just a blank m one heavy industrial zoning, there are a wide range of uses. I'm trying to think off the top my head, a lot of heavier industrial actually, let me pull up my PowerPoint. So this is a general taste of some of the things that would be allowed, which is, again, also what the applicant still wants to allow.

I think in the proper statement, the applicant also lists a whole bunch of uses that they will not do, and I'm gonna just take a look here real quick at a lot of the things that could or could not oh, thank you. So out of the things that are proffered out, I will say in that proffered list, it doesn't state which ones they're proffering out. That would be a special use or by right. But some of the things that come out are, like, assembly, hazmat, cold storage, data center, distribution fulfillment center with a certain amount of square feet outside the ecommerce district, dry cleaning and garment processing facility, distillery, let's see here, janitorial service, laundry industrial, a lot a whole slew of other manufacturing uses, whole slew of other motor vehicle uses, etcetera.

Thank you. Those are my three.

Okay. Moving down to dais. Commissioner Carroll.

Yes. Thank you. Just wanted to, I guess, follow-up with staff on that answer regarding the CPA. I guess I'm not really understanding that response because, I mean, consistently and I say that based on the common reports that staff has been providing on this application where, you know, it's repeatedly said, you know, you need to either do a CPA to get more in line with the long range land use, or potentially, can look at that zoning tax amendment to to make it more amenable. And it seems like that was also the guidance provided several years ago.

Now you just said that isn't the case. Like, I see you're confused. I'm just as confused because you just said, well, CPA is not required. We don't really have the zoning for it, so we're just kinda doing the best we can to to go higher, up zone it, but take out certain things that may not be applicable. That that doesn't really match with prior guidance that staff has been giving in terms of needing a CPA for this area.

Well, we wouldn't want, this area to be intensely developed in an m one, you know, height or FAR. Matter of fact, the the maximum FAR would be point two three we'd want, and the m one, I think, is up

to

point seven, and it's higher height. So the and that that way, the m one or the I three, which would allow, or I four would allow m one, wouldn't be appropriate long range land use for this. So the comprehensive plan amendment wouldn't be, something that would be acceptable in the area either. So, the I two, was supposed to be low intensity, low FAR uses, but certainly contractors yards and storage yards and things like that were acceptable uses in there. But the they can't get there with that the the way the m two two zoning is written.

So absent being able to use m two, the only, option really is a heavily proffered m one. That to bring it it down to an intensity and to proffer out the the heavy uses that we we wouldn't want to.

Now did the staff consider a concrete plant to be less intensive? No. Okay. And that by keeping the silo in there is allowing the potential for the heavy m one usage? Right. Okay. Alright. That's my three for now.

Okay. Thank you. Moving down the dais.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Same line of questioning, some of the questions have been answered, but I'm also still confused on the M1 zoning requirement Because if I too can allow for a storage yard, the applicant is my understanding is looking for a storage yard more than anything else. I don't know if the applicant want to answer that or the staff answer.

So the M 2 Zoning district limits the amount of outdoor storage to 40%. So they couldn't do what they're proposing in the M2 Zoning District.

And what are you proposing? What are they proposing if you want to answer that? I mean, I thought 62 trips per day can't be a lot of vehicles.

They're proposing outdoor storage for most of the site.

Yeah. Can I answer?

Yeah.

So basically, the usage would be for 57 gravel, recycled concrete, raw materials that I don't have to go to Lockstone or Stone Center or anything else to pick up. So that is, so just to help you a little bit, sir, I do steam concrete majority of my times. So I have to use recycled concrete of 57 gravel raw materials. So by me going to a third party, right, by by the shovel per se, by me having it in my yard, I'm more efficient with my trucks so I can load up my trucks early in the morning and now they're gone, the guys are gone. But I'm also being more efficient by being able to buy in bulk

so I

can control the cost and keep the rates at the same cost for my clients. So I'm looking to store raw materials such as natural thin stone chocolate gray, which is flagstone for vertical areas, pavers that I need to do a paver patio, no cement. I don't own cement plants. I I literally hired a contractor to labor concrete concrete to my jobs. I don't have cement trucks either. I can't afford them. So I my biggest truck is a f four fifty and a f one fifty, f four fifty, three fifties. So I'm not having a I'm not Vulcan. I'm no nowhere near there. So you're looking at gravel, recycled concrete, sand, pavers, and stone.

That's it.

So when Mr. McGilligan said 40% use, how much are you trying to use? Is the 40% for a small business like too little?

So the objective on using it is to grow to be able to have it where we won't have no limitation in terms of how much land I can use. My idea is to definitely keep most of the land if allowed. And again, I don't know codes here, please take my answer the best unofficial possible because I have to consult with Corey in terms of that. But my goal is to I want to keep part that we're not using for buffers and things like that to be appealing, but use as much of the allowance to be able to allow me to grow within coming back in front of you. But that's what I do, buy some decks. I'm going to store the railings. I'm going to store the decking boards, the gravel. That's all I do.

I see. Another thing, since it's a new business, you're only storing and you will be using additional materials, will you be willing to keep it as I2 for now? And then if you need to increase business in a year or two, if business grows that much where a different land designation is needed, you can come back?

I appreciate your feedback. But my question would be is that I've been on this process for four years. So they still have no plan on who's going to run it, how we're to change it. I might die before that happens, right? So I'm getting up there with my blood pressure going up after this But I don't I don't have that freedom, and I don't have those deep pockets to continue to pay court. It's quite expensive. That's the truth. As a bloke you know how many parties have to do to be able to come and afford lawyers? It's expensive, sir. I didn't even I never knew I could hire a scientist, and I needed a scientist to tell me my wetlands.

So I'm committed to do it right, and I'm hoping that you understand my vision. And like I said earlier, I understand what you're saying way into so, but the county has not changed their rezoning in many years before I was born. That's not my fault. I'm trapped in between that. Thank

you so much. Yes, That will be my three for now.

Okay. Going down to commissioner Sherman.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, if I could explain that. The I2 is the planning designation. So right now, they can't store anything right now. It's zoned A1. So we have to go to the zoning category that's going to allow them to do that.

And right now, in terms of the pads, most as you saw, most of the site is remains green. You have 30% designated open space on top of the other land that is part of the development, but is not going to be developed. The pad sites, at least as you start off with, are 100% storage, outdoor storage, gravel, etcetera. So it's that's not allowed on M2, unfortunately. M2 more envisions you've got a small business, maybe you could do some light manufacturing, something inside of a building, and then you have auxiliary to that, then you have some outdoor storage.

But right now, especially out this area, there's no sewer, there's no water, there's nothing like that. It you're the very first use until some day in the future where you can do something more intensive, The very first use that any industrial user or most industrial users in this county who need the space is to store their stuff rather than moving out of the county or being in the neighborhoods. And if I can address one more one of the questions that came from Commissioner Landrum and Chair Brown, as we are definitely willing to commit to working with you on the expansion of the buffer in conjunction with your supervisors between now and that hearing. One of the things is that we if we expand the buffer, there are going to be implications for the size of the drain fields, etcetera. One of the other things is we could commit this evening to an expansion of the landscaping strip that's within the buffer.

It's currently at 20 feet. We could we could work with you on that.

Madam chair? Yes. May I please just interject. Think it helpful, would Harrison, if you could bring up the slide that shows the other uses that would still be allowed that were not proffered out.

This is it.

Oh,

yes. So these are all there's a lot more uses, but there are uses that are, you know, are by right in the m two that would be allowed with this rezoning. There are uses that are secondary in the m two that would be allowed with this rezoning or conditional in the m two that would be allowed with this rezoning. Just for full transparency, these are all the uses that would not be allowed in any way, shape, or form in the m two that would be allowed with this rezoning, and then the two, special use permits that would not be allowed in the m two but would be allowed with this rezoning that was not profitable.

So one point I just wanted to reiterate that staff noted that, a significant improvement that this application could do would be to proffer out these additional uses so that if the intent is really to provide to allow for outdoor storage for this business, the issue one of the issues is that approving this rezoning would still allow all of these other uses as well. So I think that's just something important to keep in mind while trying to find a, you know, look for a solution for this type of business. That is still a significant issue with this application.

If I could just add one quick thing. So basically, what would happen is if this passes as is, then all these uses could come in with just a site plan change through the buy right development process.

If not proffered?

Yes. Since these are uses are proffered when they if a lessee if one of the lessees wants to do one of these uses, it just have to be a site plan change since the current GDP would show outdoor storage. But since the re rezoning would allow these uses up there, then it would just have to be a site plan change, I do believe.

I I

hate to disagree with county staff. Okay. But that is just not the case. The prohibited uses in the proffered statement, these are legally binding on the lander, as you as you all know, that cannot be site planned out. These these the proffers then become now if we wanted to do one of these 80 items that have been proffered out, we got to come back to you, we got to come back to staff, we have to get a proper amendment that ultimately goes in front of the Board of Supervisors.

For the and again, there still seems to be some confusion about a silo or concrete plant that is not allowed via this rezoning. It requires an SUP. Again, planning staff, planning commission, and the county board has another bite at the apple before that could ever happen.

If I can just add, just to reiterate that what mister what Harrison was speaking to is that these uses that are listed here, if this rezoning application were were to be approved by the board, the property owner could go and seek a site plan application for any of these uses at any time. That is the point. We're not referring to the uses that are proffered out. These uses would still be allowed if this rezoning application were to be approved as it stands right now. But again, what staff have noted is that if the applicant were willing to proffer out these additional uses, that would make the staff more comfortable supporting this application if the intent is truly to allow solely a on-site storage.

Think, madam chair, I had a couple questions.

Okay. Let me ask one question. Mister Stewart, I know that you guys have proffered out many uses.

Yes.

Are you amenable to proffering out all of those?

We've we've proffered out 80 m one uses, 80 of them. There's 13 remaining that are not an m two. 13. And if you go through that list that mister Kremen has provided you, you will see these are these are things that are it could be used, but the question is this. Because you have to think about this as a as a commission from a policy perspective.

Some of these uses, you may want. The the the commission, the board, the county may want them. If you overly restrict this property, you are forever, you know, stuck into outdoor storage. The idea eventually for anything out there is for a higher and better use. If if one of these particular uses was a no go for the commission or the board, then that's something we would talk about. But just, just blank prohibiting all of those, that's not something we're willing to do.

Okay. Commissioner Sherman.

I think that answers one of my questions that but I I had more of a a question for staff. Why is it taking so long for us to get to this? Is this a systemic issue on these type of uses? And what's the volume that we expect? Like, I'm just trying to get an order of magnitude. Know, This is not a one off application, but I don't know what the volume is or the

problem I'm we're trying sorry, if I can just jump in. Can you just clarify what you mean by your question?

So this storage, that's in a simplified zoning category, outdoor storage. Are we seeing a lot of these type of applications to the point that we need to really look at the zoning and if so, why haven't we what's taking so long? It's sort of

a

So there are currently five applications related to outdoor storage And, I would say that, as noted earlier, this is to fix this issue is part of the comprehensive zoning ordinance update project that we have underway right now. Mhmm. And, there are, I would say, multiple ZTAs that have already been initiated over the last few years that have been in the queue, some that have moved forward and others that have not for a variety of reasons.

Similar to these?

Not specific to this particular one, but addressing this issue, this is amongst other already initiated ZTAs. But again, because we are now doing the comprehensive update to the zoning ordinance, this is our opportunity to get those fixed and to address this issue.

And, I guess the only other question I have, and maybe I missed it, but what gives me a little pause is in the description, it says, that specifically the applicant is seeking to use a portion of property for equipment and outdoor storage, blah blah blah, and lease the remainder of land for other industrial use use uses users. What's what's intended behind that? What other uses aren't sort of thinking about in terms of leasing?

We'll let the applicant respond to that, but the other uses would be limited to these 14 uses.

Understand, but what is the applicant intending for leasing the other property?

So in this area, the Knoxville Industrial Area, unfortunately, we have more need we have more land than we have owners. So in this case, you've got 23 acres and so this the idea here is to provide a solution to other similarly situated contractors in Prince William County who are looking to put their business or keep their business in Prince William County, lease it up, they're going to be under whoever that is. They're they're under the same restrictions for whatever is adopted ultimately by you and by the board ultimately. That's not a bad thing. And the reason is we need more solutions for more contractors.

There's a lot of people than just than just, hey, Joe. There's a lot of contractors out there who are moving out of the county or trying to make do by storing their equipment and materials right, you know, on their home sites or in the residential areas.

Yeah. If If I may add to his answer as well, sir. Similar when Corey says similar contractors, I'm referring to for and I'm going back on my list, for instance, of people that have the same problem as me. And you're talking about your electricians, your plumbers, people that are they're fixing our toilets and getting our lights on. They cannot park or I cannot park my truck or their box truck.

Think in terms of like a regular minivan, think in terms of that, that has logos. If those vans have logos, they're not allowed in 90% of these HOA communities. So therefore, they're parking it elsewhere. So my idea is that they can park where I park, right? But that's also increasing the revenue because I'm paying taxes and they're going to pay me to store their trucks there. That's coming back to the county. So that's a source of revenue as well.

So Thank if I can summarize, you intend to lease similar other storage? Correct. And so they have similar materials?

Yes, sir.

And are those trips included in the estimates for your this is more for staff,

I guess,

in the as part of the analysis?

I think in regards to VPD, that might be more of a PWCDOT question in regards to whether that is accurate or not.

Good evening, members of the Planning Commission. George Phillips, Prince William County DOT. When we did the traffic study deferral, which we granted them because of their low trip generation, we asked them to provide information on their number of employees as well as just the number of trips. And it was something I don't remember the item number, it was under 70 daily trips. And the number of peak hour trips is relatively low. And that accounted for people

I think they quoted 62 I guess what I'm asking is that 62 trip including the anticipated increase if the land is leased?

Yes. Yes, that was all incorporated into the number. And it's a very low number. Just to give you an idea, one single family house generates 10 trips per day. So this is like the equivalent of like, six, maybe seven houses of traffic, just to give you an idea.

Thank you.

How are doing? My name

is Rich Hoffman with Hey Joe as well. On the trips, I just want to say that we're probably working three projects, you know, a week or whatever. So with the most traffic, Heijia would generate, if necessary, which probably not, we might have three trucks come out in the morning and three trucks come back in the evening. So that's six trips of this estimated 62 or 70, whatever the number is. So that number would definitely include any additional contractors that would be leasing the land.

Thank you. You're welcome.

Okay. Moving down to Commissioner Ross.

Thank you. Corey. My question is similar to what just got answered and that's the mister Eldridge has done an excellent job of portraying his initial use of the property as a valuable asset in our community. But the that 40% storage use that the staff cited, was that accounting for the size of all three of the pads that are shown in your current diagram? Or is that just for the one initial use on the property?

Right. So Commissioner Ross, the 40% number is what it could be if it was M2. You could have up to 40% outdoor storage use. But that doesn't satisfy what we're trying to do because all three pad sites, at least initially, are for 100% outdoor storage.

Okay. So the three that have been illustrated, are they going to be begin to be used as soon as the property puts goes into use?

Yes. And I think that Mr. Ramos could explain that there is an absolute huge need for outdoor storage among the light industrial users contractors. And he's got a long list, he can explain it. It's

Okay. Really quite So then if another user came in to lease part of the property, Heijo would have to abandon their use of one of those pad sites and let the other user begin? The

first pad site is for Heijo's use. The pad sites two and three that go further back are for leased users.

Okay. I misunderstood earlier.

Okay.

I yield chair. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Going down to commissioner Scheifler.

So I'm I'm still confused. You know, it sounds like the the the need now is to get outdoor storage. So I'm still confused why you wouldn't want to proffer out everything not related to outdoor storage. You know, I think that probably has the best opportunity of of moving forward, at least with what I'm hearing and what I've heard from the I'm just trying to figure out how do we get there. If it sounds like the staff understands the issue, but it seems like we're adding all these extra things in here that aren't related to per se outdoor storage.

I'm still confused why there's a reluctance to not do that. And then if there is a as things change over time, you guys come back and allow more uses potentially based on what's going on that time. But it seems like to get outdoor storage, I'm confused why we're not trying to proffer out the rest of them that aren't related to outdoor storage. Is that just Sure.

So this is this goes back to if take a look at the second paragraph of the recommendation for approval by the Department of Economic Development. The second paragraph, the property is part of the Knoxville Industrial Area. Helps, sorry, but helps which restricts non which is restricted to non data center uses, restricted to non data center uses, we need to emphasize that, helps the county attain a more balanced commercial tax and employment base. So the idea is is that we're trying to get away with you know, commercials you know, we can talk about data centers all day long, but the county wants not just a diversified tax base, but employment base as well. So these additional things.

Now if there's one particular that you say, my gosh, we can never have that in this area, that's one thing. But the whole idea here is eventually to create more employment. Right now, not a lot of employment because it keeps the business there. It allows the business owner to keep their storage space in the county and not to move out of the county. But one of these things later on, somebody comes back maybe at the behest of economic development and says, hey, we want to bring this business in.

So what we're loath to do and even the county economic development department, I think if they were here could explain, we don't want to inadvertently cut out a type of a business that provides a diverse amount of employment, a type of employment that we currently don't have or we need more of. So that's the flip side of that argument. It's like if you ban all those, you're never going to get them because the the landowner has to go through the whole process again to to get a proper amendment. So that's that that would be the main reason.

Okay. But it sounds like that, you know, kind of staff would prefer m two, you know, and that's where we're trying to figure out how do we get to a storage yard for you for that's not allowed now. So I'm just that's why I'm I'm I'm struggling with that is that, you know, the sounds like staff is not recommending M1 based on all these additional potential options. So

We that's kind

of where

had I can't even tell you how many meetings we've had with Tony staff over the years, starting way back in 2022 when there was the replanning by the Board to create this area. This problem has been recognized forever. And we even offered to support a comp plan change. But as Mr. McGetigan explained, would really change the whole character of that area.

What we're trying to do is effectuate a modified M2 that would allow for these lesser uses, these less intense uses of electro storage. But you can't do it in M2 because it's prohibited. But what we could do is bring in M1, proffer out all the truly nefarious heavy industrial uses that people don't want out there. So effectively, you have M2, but with those additional uses.

Understood. I mean, just listening to the residents, I mean, sounds like they'd be comfortable with the storage yard, but that's about it. And that's kind of what I'm hearing at least what I heard is that all these other uses, they don't know what that could be. And I think that's what their concern is. That's kind of what I'm hearing at least. That's I mean

That's right.

I like to go. It's like to get you what you need. But again, I just want to hear the residents. If it's a storage yard, I think that's okay. But all these other uses that is, I think, creates more uneasy about not understanding what these could be and how we move forward.

Yes. Well, I mean, if you have Mr. Ramos primarily is creating patios, etcetera, that sort of thing, you can see that some of these uses are very similar. And like where does that cross the line over to if you wanted to do, you know, some marble tile processing, cutting, polishing, or let alone the masonry and stone working? Where where do you draw the line there?

These uses get there's a lot of overlap. There's a lot it's not a it's not a clear line. So do you want to inadvertently cut these off when they're not necessarily more intense than what they're already planning to do there? I mean if there's one in particular that just jumps out at you, what we did is we went through that whole list and we cut out 80 uses. We kept these in thinking, well, we might use some of these things. It's conceivable, and we don't want to proffer it out. But I mean, if there's one thing in there that jumps out to you that you'd like us to remove, we're certainly open to that discussion.

I guess my last question is for staff. I mean, where's the line at? I I know it's kind of a I mean, where's the line between acceptability and not acceptability? I mean, that's kind of where I'm trying to better understand. You guys recommended Nile. Where is that line at? If you think that, yes, the storage is a concern, mean, storage is potentially something that we may recommend, but where is that where could that line be, I guess? Or what have you recommended to say that this would be acceptable based on kind of where we're at with, you know, trying to meet the economic development needs of the applicant?

So I can start. Again, with regards to a rezoning application, what matters in the end is what the prophets say. The applicant can express this is what the intent is, but at the end of the day, what matters is what the proffers say once every zoning application is approved. And so anything that the proffers would allow is allowed. And what was noted earlier are, again, two fundamental sort of high level issues.

The proffers would still allow a greater range of uses beyond outdoor storage. Additionally, as was noted earlier, the GDP has a lot of unknowns, a lot of unknowns. And so this application, we definitely as noted earlier, need for additional property for industrial uses, especially light industrial, that is not a question. The county staff is very consistent, and that is very much a need for the county. But when we're dealing with land use applications, we're dealing with what the specific request is at that specific site.

And there are a lot of unknowns that are still in this application. Beyond the fact that the GDP lacks a lot of information, there's some language that gives them a lot of flexibility to sort of figure out what to do later, and it includes multiple other uses beyond the outdoor storage, which the property owner has stated that's what his intent is. So the staff have noted that the issue with fixing the issue, that is something that can be fixed, but the staff have already noted there is an interim solution, which is to address those issues. So if the true intent is to allow for outdoor storage, we'll then make the proffers focus on that, fill in those other unknowns so that the staff can adequately not just review the application but that the community understands what is exactly what is being proposed so that they would know what to expect if this application were to be approved. And so I think those are the really the fundamental issues and there is room for the applicant to make further changes.

Those are questions I know that you all have been asking, but so I don't want to say, take out this one use or take out that one use. It's really those two big issues in terms of why we are recommending denial for this application in addition to the specifics that are listed in the staff report.

Okay. I wanna kind of summarize to make sure I understand what's going on here, and then I'll go to you guys that still have your lights on. What I'm hearing is that you have a contractor who does home improvement work. Is that correct? Mainly decks and patios.

And so with that, you think about the type of materials that you would use in constructing decks and patios and maybe even pools, and you need somewhere to store the materials that you're using. But storing the materials does not mean in a facility. Is that correct? Because you are a small contractor, a small business, You buy this land that consists of 23 acres with the intent of storing your material, but not thinking about constructing a building because you're not there financially yet. So so then you say, what do I need to do to rezone this property because I'm light industrial, but only heavy industrial allows you to have outdoor storage unless you have a big old building and some other operation, and it's ants the outdoor storage is ancillary to the main function.

Is that correct? Okay. So then the question becomes, what does the what does the county zoning allow someone like Elder in this position? It doesn't sound like there's really a real solution. And I say this, and correct me if I'm wrong, because I have a neighbor.

I am the HOA president who is a contractor just like, mister Elder, and he also has a similar problem. He cannot store his commercial vehicles. And when he was looking and he it took months, and I'm sure I don't even know where he's storing his vehicles now, but it took months, maybe even a year for him to find somewhere. And he too bought a property and realized that he couldn't store his vehicles. So what is the solution?

And I'll direct this to the staff. When you have a small business that doesn't have quite the money to spend on a industrial building, but yet only needs a particular plot of land for storage of his equipment and equipment and vehicles?

Commissioner and rest of the planning commission, I do believe that the staff response to that based on what mister McGinnigan was saying earlier was that we provided that solution of to rezone to that m one, but the proffer down towards the use that you would want, which in that case being the outdoor storage. And that in regards to the other uses that are still being shown, the fact that if those uses are to be allowed and there's potentially gonna be a building associated with those uses if the lessee desires to, staff would wanna see generally where they think that that building would possibly be and look at some of those and to try to foresee some of those impacts. Because once this gets approved, this just becomes simply a site plan aspect, and we can't look at some of the more details that we can do at a rezoning. And I invite any of the other staff with me to jump on in if there is more to say on that.

Oh, so what happens if I don't have the money? I'm just a business person. I'm trying to store some land. I bought a lot. I'm trying to store some materials and equipment with the intent to lease part of my land because I don't need 23 acres.

So then why would I cut off my nose to spite my face on the potential lessees I could get since I am trying to get this m one heavy industrial use that I don't need? Like, why why would I restrict all of these potential uses that I could get revenue from for land I'm not gonna use? Why would I do that? Like, what's the point of that? No questions from the no questions from the chamber, please. I'm asking the staff. But we hear you.

At the end of the day, the applicant can make whatever request the applicant wishes to make.

Mhmm.

But, you know, the particulars will depend upon the specifics of the site, what the current zoning is, what the context is, and other considerations that go into the review of these applications. And, again, if an applicant wants to include multiple potential uses, what the staff are saying is please provide those details. That's the issue is that it leaves open a lot of unknowns with regards to other types of uses that are not all the same in terms of what the potential impacts would be, where they could go, all the specific considerations that end up being addressed through proffers or if it's an SUP through conditions, there are still a number of unknowns. So again, the applicant can make whatever request the applicant chooses to make. But in terms of trying to address what the particular need is, just generally speaking with land use applications, our office does try to work hard with applicants to try to get applications if it's something that can't if there are issues that can be addressed to try to address that.

So it's not that the staff are saying, you know, either you do it or you don't. But if, you know, the staff have made recommendations and to try to address those unknowns and to reduce those unknowns and if an applicant is not willing to do that, that is not something the staff can can force them to do.

I understand that, but addressing the unknowns will require some sort of illustrative design of potential buildings. Is that correct?

Well, it it depends on what the specific request is. And the other piece is it depends on what it is they're asking for. It may it may be something that may require rezoning. It may be a by right. It really it really just depends. And so I can't give a blanket statement that would apply in all of those circumstances because, again, with land use applications, it really depends on what that ask is and what the context is.

Okay. So so I I I I understand all of that, but I'm still not understand well, what I understand is that we don't have a

specific zoning category for what he needs and other contractors. We don't have one that would work as a straightforward, but there is a there is an alternative solution able. That does have reiterated that can be pursued which is to pursue what is being requested here but to proffer out all the other sites so that what would be allowed is what the applicant actually intends to do on that site. So that is an interim solution that is available right now.

Okay. Go ahead, David. Sorry.

Just an example not only do we not know

what

the layout would be for any of these other uses that they're proposing, but the traffic generation that they got a waiver of a TIA for 62 trips per day is based on it being a storage yard. If we look at some of these other uses, they could generate hundreds of trips a day, and the the infrastructure is not there to accommodate it. And so why would we recommend approval of of all these uses when the road hasn't been, know, isn't adequate to to take and they only told us they were gonna be 62 trips a day. They come back with one of these other uses and it's gonna generate hundreds of trips per day or or more that can't be accommodated on this road. So we need to proffer out things based on what their commitment is, and their commitment is that they're only going to generate 62 trips per day.

That's just an example of some of the information, the lack of details that we would have with all these other uses other than the outdoor storage, which they're proposing.

And then just to add, I will say that the list you see up here on the screen are just the uses that would be allowed that are currently not allowed in the m two. There are other uses that would still be allowed with this rezoning that are not listed up there, but that is because those uses that are allowed in m one are also allowed by right in the m two. So there are still other uses that would be allowed with this rezoning. Staff only put up these uses because these are the uses that would not be allowed in any way, shape, or form in an m two zone.

Madam chair, if I could. Of the roughly 1,200 acres or so that was replanned by the County Board, the vast majority of that land is owned by one user, and that's one owner, and that's Vulcan and its affiliates. Then you have the remainder. And of that remainder, there are only a handful of properties there are only a handful of properties that are large enough to do anything like this, to do any sort of that. So if you limit this and we have to prescribe the individual uses, the exact uses that are going to happen, then all that does is provide a solution for only that handful of landowners.

But it doesn't provide a solution to those dozen probably hundreds, if not thousands of additional businesses that need land for which the landowner right now doesn't know who's going to come in through that front door and need land and what they're going to use it for. We do have the site plan process to help with any of those. If you look at most of these uses, it's hard to imagine a significant amount of additional traffic. If there is one up there that says, holy smokes, we're going to have just a massive increase, well, then we can talk about that. But we can't overly prescribe and overly limit each and every site because that precludes all those additional small businesses and contractors who need a solution in addition to the landowner.

Okay. Commissioner Ross.

Thank you. Will, I don't want your night to be completely wasted. Everyone that's here is actually doing something very valuable, right? Okay. Seriously,

do you

know the height of the wooded of the woods that is on the property today roughly?

Tree height approximately? Yeah. The trees are approximately 50 to 55 feet in height.

Okay. That was it. Thank you. Thank you chair. I'm done.

Alright. Commissioner Landrum.

So the two questions. The first is of the uses that are listed, only three really stand out to me as uses that wouldn't really have much to do with what you all would like to Given that you're talking about the storage and storage of equipment and storage of materials, building materials sales yard, you want to sell off some of the stock, it makes sense to want to keep that use for sure. Catalog sales, you know, that's such a small business that that wouldn't create a traffic concern. Coal, wood, and lumber yards. The one that sticks out here is coal.

You know, I I used to live in in Norfolk, Virginia where Norfolk Southern would send coal trains through and they would keep them uncovered. And the coal dust that would permeate was was was pretty pro was profoundly corrosive to plastics and other things. And so for anybody living in the vicinity of the storage of coal, they would be dealing with the corrosion of paint on the surfaces of their buildings, the corrosion or the pitting of plastic lawn furniture, etcetera. So so one thing that I I would ask that you proffer out here would be the storage of coal. It doesn't sound like it has anything to do with what you hope to do with the property, and I think that that's the kind of thing that we'd like to keep off of this property for future landowners for the sake of the community that surrounds this.

Now the manufacture and and and fabrication of signs and the manufacturing and fabrication of metal, I I can kind of see how that might be relevant here, but it but I I I would like if that is the case, if that is a use that you would hope to keep and not profit out, I would like to know more about how that would fit in with the business that you plan. That's the first question. Yes.

Go ahead.

Yes. So you're asking us to whether we'd be willing to profit off those three items? The one is the coal, wood and lumber yard?

Specifically coal, not the wood

and Coal, lumber yes. The coal I got you. The coal and then the fabrication of signs and then fabricated metal.

Correct. I ask about those simply because that's an inherently noisy use.

Okay. I got you.

What was that?

Okay. Go ahead. Why don't you address it?

So just to answer your question, so in particular, the cold, I don't really care. Don't deal with that. I'm talking about the manufacturing of metal. So to kinda walk you through my day to day. Mhmm. So I come into your home and you say, hey. I'm looking for a screen porch with a wood burning fireplace. Mhmm. So by code, I have to make it noncombustible. So that means that the entire fireplace has to be made the structure is made out of metal.

So to be efficient, I have to make the metal in the actual structure what it's gonna look like in my yard. In this case right now, I buy the metal, I carry it, I take it to the homeowner's yard, and there I am doing my magic. So but it's a fish it's not efficient with the labor cost. But if we have that in my facility and I can fabricate it, make it, it's by hand. There's no computer. I don't have that. It's by hand and skill. Make it that it's gonna be seven feet tall, eight feet tall. I make it out of metal, and then I call for an inspection. And then they can say, hey.

If something happens, it's not gonna cut on fire because it's metal. Then I can pass my concealment inspection. And then what they asked me to do is make sure that I cover it with non combustible materials. So that's the reason I put in there.

Well, thank you for the thorough answer. So you'd be willing to proffer out the use of a coal storage yard? Without consulting with my help of Corey, I

need wood and lumber yard just because I

Sure. Need coal.

But coal, I'm good. Don't need that.

I can

buy it at the store. I'm okay.

But I appreciate your explanation on the manufacturing and fabrication of signs and metal that makes sense.

Yes, sir. So as an upshot, I've just also discussed it with Mr. Hoffman. But yes, so just to be clear, we are willing to proffer out the coal yard. Great.

And my other question is you mentioned that you might be willing to work with that planted that planting buffer because there's the 50 foot buffer and then there's the 20 foot planted line.

Which is which is within the 50 foot buffer?

Right. Would the applicant be willing to proffer that the 50 foot buffer along Warrenton Road be a tree preservation area to ensure that those mature trees have to be kept. So this is this is for, you know, line of sight, etcetera, and noise.

Yeah. I'm sorry. We're gonna invite mister Reyes up, the the engineer on that.

We were consulting about the trees out there. I mean, the trees aren't really hardy type trees. I think there's a lot

of overgrowth

there. I mean, I think the applicant will prefer to proffer the 75 foot and replant if they have to, if they clear the some of the vegetations through there. I think it will be easier and and it'll look a lot better to to be able to, you know, landscape that area instead of trying to preserve small trees that may end up falling down and and and you gotta you know, those can be bare anyways.

Yeah. I I just wanted to second that. If you've driven down that road, there's some ugly trees. You know, the forest needs a little fertilizer, I think, or something to pick it up. So I would recommend replanting. You know, we would like to present, you know, an acceptable, area in there. So I think replanting would bring the best remedy for that.

The the only concern with replanting in this instance is that you'd be talking about small spindly little trees that wouldn't really do much in the way of a visual barrier. Mhmm. So and and so what I'm getting at is the preservation of larger, more mature trees would be desired here, at least, you know, from my perspective and I know certainly from my appointing supervisor's perspective.

Yes, maybe an option we could do a gradual phasing of it. I understand, but the trees are really there's not much vegetation to it. You have these high lumber looking trees leafless, they have leaves at the top, but most of the vegetation there is rubbish and vines and leafy poison ivy of stuff.

Moving down the dais to Commissioner Carroll.

Yes, thank you. I guess this will be a question for staff, but could we put up the slide with the GDP?

Which slide again, sir? With the GDP? Yes. So

when we talk about an M2, if outdoor storage is allowable up to 40% as kind of the secondary use, is that 40% based on like the acreage of the site?

I do believe so. I do believe that is the case. Okay.

And then in terms of a secondary use, in terms of, like, what would would the building that they're proposing with the storefront and everything, would that be enough to then have the secondary use qualify based on that kind of storefront building area?

Unless I am mistaken. David,

would you like

to say something then? Or

Sorry. So generally, when we talk about secondary uses, we talk about 25 versus 75% primary uses. But I think that in this case, the primary use is gonna be outdoor storage. So it's not gonna be a secondary use situation on that.

Well, I guess, in theory, it'll be outdoor storage.

Yeah. Okay.

Yeah. Just for, an example is, like, say, like, a car dealership. You know, when the car dealership is having their sales on the property, then the secondary use would be the storage of those cars on the site. So that's the example I can give for that.

Perfect. Gotcha. And then in terms of the FAR in terms of the proffer on the FAR, it states in the proffers that the FAR is 0.23 for cumulative total of the property and not a percentage of each subdivided parcel. This might be for the applicant, but what exactly are we talking about there?

I will definitely leave it to the applicant to provide further description, but I will say I think what they're saying is that for the overall site, for the whole entire thing, the overall is gonna be point two three. But I do believe based on that wording, it would be like, say, one lot might have more of a Florida area a higher Florida area ratio while another one might be less, but that the overall for the whole entire site would equal at max 0.23.

Yeah. The yes, just to give you a little context, under M1, it's 0.5. That's not my question.

I'm talking

The comp plan calls for 0.23.

I'm talking about

the specifics of Which is what we proffered down. So we've proffered down quite a bit, but it isn't the whole site.

Yes. You. I understand that. I'm talking about specifically what are you referring to, to subdividing the parcel? That was my question.

Ron, do you want to explain that?

Ron Esfridge. That only means that if a user comes along, decides he wants to buy one of those sites instead of just lease it, then he can buy it and the FAR is still 0.23 for the whole parcel. See what I mean?

Yeah, I see what you mean. I mean that

That's a normal thing done with all these parcels.

I mean, I can say I don't know if I've ever seen that. But I mean that frankly raises a whole other host of issues about having people basically come in with a blank slate. I mean, that that gives me a lot of concern on that.

Well, for for instance, take a shopping center. A person can come in and buy a building with the land on it, and that's it. And it's a tremendous FAR. A lot of shopping centers do that. They just sell a pad site with the building, just the building, so that that if you didn't have that wording in there, they couldn't do that because they're they'd have to include all the parking, which the shopping center wants to keep the parking. They're just selling the building. That's a similar type of thing.

A follow-up to staff, just to make sure I'm understanding. So if that with that proffer, that allows the applicant, if they want to, at a later date, sell, you know, half the property, they're able to do that. And as long as the FAR stays at in totality under the 0.23, they basically have a blank slate site plan approval of an M1 project of all those 14 allowable not an m two and then any other m one items available.

The way I think it'd be looked at by staff, whether it was through a future rezoning or, like, in land development down through a site plan process would be like, okay. Based on the proffers, there is no FAR restriction for that one small property, but we gotta take a look at to to all the properties pertinent to that rezoning. And if the proposed new FAR of this new thing would add and would mess with the values enough to that the overall area would be above point two three FAR, then it would be a no go.

Right. In turn Yeah. But that would be at the site plan.

Yes. Because it would Unless they were trying to do a use that was not listed in this reason. Yes. Okay.

Think that's for me for now.

Okay. Going back to Commissioner Roth.

Will, another quick one. Thank you, Chair. While you're walking, I may have put too much emphasis in the limits of disturbance on the plan we're looking at there. I assume that the vegetation along Warrington Road would be undisturbed. But I also see that there's some buffer types listed like down the bottom right.

Well, I agree with

the applicant that what's there has got a lot of scrub at the bottom. I'm curious which one of those annotations on the map is going to have to be followed? Is it going to be that you leave it undisturbed or that you disturb it enough to put in a landscape strip?

So, of course, you know, tree preservation is preferred method according to DCSM. It's not required. We do ask for it though. We have put language in where if it's a landscape strip or buffer that the county arborist is in consultation during land clearing activities to see if any trees can be preserved on-site before any clearing activities is partaken. So that could be something that could be profit. We've done that before where there's a profit that specifically calls out the county arborist would go out and mark trees with the applicant. So it's not just my opinion. I would work with applicant before any clearing activities would be started.

Okay. So in the future when I see limited disturbance that doesn't mean that the vegetation will be truly undisturbed. If it's just a big pile of poison ivy, it's okay to clear that out and replace it with an ornamental bushes or shrub.

Right. And so we do obviously even in established buffers we do allow dead, dying and noxious vegetation to be cleared even after the buffer has been finalized and installed. You you might not like poison ivy, but it does have its benefits to wildlife and to habitat.

Birds eat the seeds.

Being that it's along a gravel road, along Warrington Road, you're going to have some of those impacts of full sunlight on that side. So you're gonna have a lot more undergrowth and what some people would call scrubby vegetation. I don't have my field notes directly in front of me, but there is stuff out there worth saving. And plus if we're going to be extending it out to a 75 foot buffer, once you get ten, fifteen, 20 feet off that road, it becomes a oak hardwood forest with a sub component of Virginia pine which is a preferred forest type in this area and is healthy.

Thank you. Yes. That's it, Chair.

Okay. Moving now, commissioner Landrum.

So the the questions I've been asking, you know, pertaining to the to the front buffer because this is not being used for or or the proposed the proposed use that the applicant has for this site is not not anything that really requires a beautiful front yard. This is an equipment storage yard. And so, you know, I I personally don't see any problem with wanting to store equipment and materials outside. I think that that's a a great business, and I think that, you know, this county ought to ought to protect and promote those sorts of business uses. That being said, nothing about that sort of business use requires it to be pretty.

And I think in this case, having the the front vegetation remain intact to the extent possible so that people that are driving down this road don't see a big flat lumber and storage yard would would be would be ideal. As as as much as I I love the idea of of a use like this, I I really truly do think that, you know, as far as the community surrounds is concerned, and and also just generally in this county, we we've done a pretty bad job of maintaining tree frontage along roads. And so it would be nice to see, especially for a use like this where you don't need that cleared, it would be really nice to see those trees remain. Supervisor LaCroix has talked about this extensively. She's met with constituents.

It's something that we're focusing on a lot in the Woodbridge District, but it's applicable to the entire county. And so, you know, we we just heard some very helpful information about the the the county arborist process. So I'll I'll I'll this will be my final ask on this, but this is very, very important to me. It's very important to supervisor Lacroix, and that is would the applicant be willing to proffer that for the 50 feet within the LOD on the front facing side of the property along Warrington Road that the county arborist have final selection over the trees that can be cut down?

Yes, we're good with that. Okay. Yes, I think work on the language there, but probably something like a tree survey in conjunction with the county arborist office, something like that. And then they could both agree what's worth saving. Obviously, when you for a larger tree too, there's another consideration, which is when you start developing behind it, the pad site, the roadways, and you just serve the roots, the Kearny arbors would also be in a good position to determine whether or not that tree is going to survive the construction as well.

Very good. Thank you.

Okay. Seeing that there are no more lights on, this is a good thing. We will pass this on to Commissioner Carroll since it's in your district.

Yes. I guess I would like to close the public hearing.

The public hearing is now closed.

Great. Thank you. So, you know, this is kind of a tough one for me tonight because, you know, as the applicant stated, you know, local small business is exactly what we want to support with the dearth of industrial land in this county. But what we have here tonight is, you know, a a whole host of unknowns in terms of what this is going to be, what it could possibly be in the future, where things are gonna go. It's just all unknown.

And I think Steph laid it out repeatedly during the review process on how to get there to an acceptable place, but we're not there. There's still M1 uses in there beyond just your typical storage yard. And those M1 uses, I think, cause a lot of concern for myself and as we heard the community on what those uses could potentially be in the short term, in the long term, whether the impacts of those uses have been properly evaluated, which we heard tonight. Some of the transportation concerns and the infrastructure concerns. We don't know the full impact of what that might be.

And if those M1 uses remain a possibility, I'm still of the mindset that a CPA should be required to support those uses if they're not going to be proffered out. So with all that said, I'd like to recommend deferral of rezoning twenty twenty four dash twenty one Heijo property to date uncertain to give the applicant more time to review, narrow down those lists of acceptable uses, and hopefully get a firm plan. It could be a phased plan, but a firm plan of what we're really trying to do with this parcel both in the short and the long term.

Second.

Okay. The motion has been, made for deferral for rezoning, REZ two zero two four dash zero zero zero two one for the Hajio property by commissioner Carroll and properly seconded by commissioner Ross. Madam clerk, can you call the roll?

Sher Brown.

I do not agree with the deferral unless it's requested by the applicant, so I will say no.

Vice chair of justice?

Because our zoning classifications don't only provide the zoning district to match the comp plan, allowing a business owner to have some flexibility and also, again, what the comp plan has in this area along with goals that economic development has. And I like the fact that it's not another data center, I'm gonna have to say no.

Commissioner Carroll?

Yes.

Commissioner Landrum?

No. And and echoing what commissioner justice stated and and and by the way, the applicant has done a very good job, I think, of explaining how some of these uses could fit into their business plan in sensible ways. The fact that a a concrete plant, for example, would require a special use permit, would require another layer of review. It would not be just a by right use. And and the fact that coal storage was specifically agreed to be removed by proffer, I I I think that those are satisfying at least to me. And so for that reason, I don't support deferral.

Commissioner Ross?

Well, since we're doing our discussion during voting, I will say, I think that the use that is right in front of our noses is excellent and that the application could be constrained to, make that use, sail through this process. The unconstrained future uses that remain are just too many pigs in the poke for me. I would love to see Heijo contracting be able to get going on that immediate use, but I agree that the application needs to have some of these unknowns screened out of it. And for that reason, I'm a yes along with Commissioner Carroll.

Commissioner Sheikh?

I am also struggling with this application. A small business, I can understand applicant stands, been there for four years and still trying, And I know they're very, very close. I hate to put them on a date uncertain, so I'm gonna be a no for the floor.

Commissioner Scheifler.

Yes. I do have concerns about, kind of the unintended consequences of having these extra M1 uses, that are non storage yard related. So I'm a yes.

Commissioner Sherman?

This is a tough one for me because I want to support small business and take them at their word and what their intended uses are, but also agree with the staff. A lot of unknowns and, I just think there should be additional time to think about this. So I'm going to vote yes for deferral.

It's a tight vote. Motion fails.

I'd like to make a motion to approve with the following amendments. The items that commissioner Landrum mentioned, as far as working with the county arborist, ruling out coal on that list, and working closely with the board of county supervisors between now and the hearing to see if there's any other items on that list that we can x out. Additionally, provide staff, if possible, with some additional notes about building or buildings and their locations. Am I missing anything? I think that was it.

That was it. Second.

We would agree to that amendment, by the way.

You'll prepare it? Is that what you said?

Yeah. We would accept that amendment. Okay. That amended language.

Thank you.

As a point of order, can that be repeated Sure. What we're doing?

I'd like to make a motion to approve. Let me make sure I'm on the right one here. Hold on a minute. Is the date of zoning r E Z 202400021. Hey, Joe property with the proffers dated.

Mister Venegas? March 13. 2026.

March 13?

March 15. Yes.

Okay. 2026.

And

include commissioner suggestion about having the county arborist involved with the buffer section and when the roads are laid out and such as far as tree removal.

Striking coal.

Yeah. Take coal out and work with the board of county supervisors between now and the supervisors meeting to see if any other items on that list can be x'd out. I know that there was one on there that had to do with car sales, things like that that would increase trips on this road. And one more thing, there was something that oh, removing the silo completely out in the proffer and the location of building or buildings more clearly stated. I think I got it all.

Okay. Seconded.

Alright. The motion to approve rezoning REZ 2024Dash00021, the Hazel property has been properly properly made by by vice chair justice and properly seconded by commissioner Landon.

Chair, I wish to propose an amendment.

Is this a friendly amendment?