Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the Prince William County Planning Commission. We will now call this meeting to order. At 6.45 we had an agenda review of our current agenda today which we have three items on our agenda all with the same applicant. We will now move on to item two and do our please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Just wanna make a brief mention to the people in the chambers if you, and everyone, if you would please put your phone on mute and or silence your electronic devices so that we can get through the hearing undisturbed, we'd appreciate it. Next we will have, we'll go to our Madam Clerk for the roll call.

Chair Brown?

Yes, here.

Vice Chair Justice? Here. Commissioner Carol?

Here.

Commissioner Landrum?

Here.

Commissioner Ross?

Here.

Commissioner Scheifler? Commissioner Shaik? Here. Commissioner Sherman?

Here.

We have a quorum.

Thank you. Moving on to item four, Mr. Venegas, do we have anyone on remote participation requesting? We do.

We have Commissioner Scheifler who would like to participate remotely. Okay. Okay.

I'd like to, should I make a motion? Yeah, go ahead.

We need a motion on the floor.

I'd like to make a motion for Commissioner Scheifler to participate remotely. Second.

Thank you. The motion for remote participation for Commissioner Scheifler has been properly made by Vice Chair Justice and seconded by Commissioner Shaik. Can we please have the roll?

Chair Brown?

Yes.

Vice Chair Justice? Yes. Commissioner Carroll?

Yes.

Commissioner Landrum? Yes. Commissioner Ross? Yes. Commissioner Shaik? Yes. Commissioner Scheifler? Commissioner Sherman?

Yes.

The motion carries.

Thank you. Is Commissioner Scheifler on the line? Ah, okay. Welcome, we weren't able to hear you before. Welcome. Okay, moving on to item five. Mr. Venegas, do we have anything on the, any items on the consent agenda?

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

Thank you very much. Moving on to item number six. Do we have anything on the expedited agenda?

Chair Brown and commissioners, we do have three items. 10A. comprehensive plan amendment cpa 2026-0002 prologis 66 item 10b the rezoning rez 2026-0008 prologis 66 logistics park and the 10c the special use permit sup 2026-0005 of the same application.

Thank you. Is there anyone signed up to speak? Commissioner Carroll?

I actually don't have the sign-in sheets.

Okay.

We didn't have anyone outside, but we did have one person online.

Okay. Is anyone in chambers wishing to speak on the three items? Are you for or against the project? Okay is there anyone else who would like to speak on these three items. I guess is there a way we can check the virtual to see if they're for or against.

Yeah can we have the virtual person. Do we have a name of the who's speaking virtually. Mr. O'Brien, are you on the line? Excuse me, we have nobody online right now. Oh, okay, thank you so much. Okay, so then since this is in the, actually, do you want to have the speaker come or me turn it over to you now?

Yeah. So, um, just for clarification, if there's two or more people against the project, we pull it off and we'll hear it normally. But since we don't have that number, we're going to keep the items on the expedited agenda if that is amenable to everyone. But we will still allow you, um, your opportunity to speak. And I guess we can do that now if the public hearings open, um,

Are you okay with that, Commissioner?

I recommend opening the public hearing for all three items.

Okay. The public hearing is open. Okay.

So if you can just head to the back and just name, if you can provide your name, magisterial district, or generally where you live. Yes, that microphone. And then I guess since there are three applications, technically you would have up to nine minutes to speak. or if you're representing an organization or an HOA, you would have 15, which would be five minutes apiece.

So what's the minimum number of minutes?

Three, yeah. Three, okay.

Well, my name is Christopher Brown. I live about 100 yards from this development, and I live across the street from the NTT data center. and the ESA hotel building. And this tract of land, as you probably know, is 23 acres of green, moist forest teeming with animals and insects. And I'm against it just in fact that you would just pave over that property and drive out the animals and the insects, the ecosystem for another patch of asphalt and concrete in an era when we're complaining about global warming. This will definitely warm the planet, those 23 acres, but mostly it will screw up the traffic patterns because there'll be extra truck traffic everything else this is a tract of land that is best left in hay to be undeveloped and I don't think the property owners have a right just to develop it so they can get rich and they can use the money to buy condos in the Bahamas and yachts and like the family trust that owned 103 acres that is now the NTD data center they're sipping cocktails off the fan tails of their yachts in the Bahamas, and we're left with the dirt, dust, and traffic of the NTT data center. And not to get off topic, but they haven't even given us a traffic light at Dave's Store Lane in 55, and they're not going to give us a traffic light. So just 100 yards down, you guys are going to be voting on more development. And how many of you actually live across the street from this development are impacted by it? you know, I've come all the way in from Gainesville tonight to protest this, and I would ask you to vote no on it, and I hope the board votes no on it, and this is not something we need in Gainesville. It's better left in hay, all I can say.

Thank you, sir. Commissioner Carroll, back over to you. I'm sorry, I'm looking at Commissioner, I missed Commissioner Harrell, that's what it is. Commissioner Ross.

One of the two of us is insulted.

No insult intended.

All right, since we have no one else to speak tonight, I recommend we close the public hearing for the comprehensive plan amendment.

The public hearing is now closed.

Okay, I am going to make a motion and then after that I'll have a few words to say during the discussion part that comes after the second before we vote. Okay, the motion is I move that the Prince William County Planning Commission recommend approving the comprehensive plan map amendment CPA202600002 Prologis 66 Logistical Park. Second. The motion.

I'm sorry. The motion to approve comprehensive plan amendment number CPA 2026-00002 Prologis 66 Logistical Park has been properly made by Commissioner Ross and seconded by Vice Chair Justice. Do we have any discussion?

If I may be recognized. If I may be recognized.

Yes. I'm sorry. I was looking at you. Go ahead, Commissioner Ross.

Okay. First, thank you, Mr. Brown. We spoke earlier about this as well. And the concerns you raise, I did let you know that they are very much on the minds of myself and Supervisor Stewart. We're just – the thing that we have to figure out is – Do we slam on the brakes now? Do we tap the brakes now? Or can we continue for a fair period before we start to need to alter course? And what we need to be able to take those decisions is data, data that we don't have yet. But it's on our minds to get it. And then separately I would say that right now the CPA, is about changing the long range land use map. The zoning and the current long range land use map both allow the types of development that you were recommending we avoid. So it's not like we're going from a hayfield allowed to what this applicant wishes to do being allowed. Instead, it's two very similar uses, but still with slight differences that we're being asked to swap out for each other. I will say, I agree with the MAP amendment that we're being asked to approve, but I worry that when a rezoning application comes before us at the same time as a comprehensive plan amendment, it creates the illusion that a rezoning request is enough of a justification to change the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan is built on completely, not completely, but almost very different metrics and has a different purpose. It's supposed to look out to 2040. It's not about what an owner immediately wants to do to change a use on a piece of property. And if this were a radical change, I would be far less likely to support it. But the change in size is small, and it's fairly consistent with the amount of error and uncertainty that goes into creating the map at all. The past decisions in this area have put an industrial use next to this site on one side, and made it a poor location for the housing part of its current mixed use long range planning. For that you can look at figure 80 in the comp plans land use section. We're opening the door to light industrial uses that embody good character location and extent compromises I believe between the sites surrounding industrial uses and the nearby public uses and residences. Mr. Brown, I agree with you that this is, if the choice was between a Hayfield and this, that would be a different compromise. But it's between one type of existing development that's on the books and this type of development. And so the choice of the Hayfield versus this is actually a false choice. I wish it wasn't, but it is. The neighboring sites have all been given opportunities to weigh in on the merits of the change. Our school system does not object. And my motion will recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve this change when we get to the rezoning, only if any new structures on the site don't interfere with the adjacent fire station. So I believe that this will create measurable traffic, noise, visual, air quality, watershed, and all the other effects. But what I'm thinking about is not the rezoning application, but whether or not this long range land use that we're proposing versus the one that exists, whether or not there's a great difference between them. And I don't believe there is. So I yield the floor.

Okay, thank you for that wonderful commentary. Any other comments along the dais? Seeing none, we'll turn it over to Madam Clerk. Will you please call the roll?

Chair Brown?

Yes.

Vice Chair Justice? Yes. Commissioner Carroll?

Yes.

Commissioner Landrum?

No.

Commissioner Ross?

Yes.

Commissioner Shape? Yes. Commissioner Shifler? Yes. Commissioner Sherman?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Back to you, Commissioner Ross.

Okay. For the rezoning, I recommend we close the public hearing on REZ 2026-0008.

The public hearing is now closed.

Okay. I move that the Prince William County Planning Commission recommend approving the rezoning application entitled REZ202600008 Prologis 66 Logistics Park subject to One, the Prince William County staff and the applicant agreeing upon a way to satisfy the fire and rescue station's needs and subject to the application's other unrelated proffers and conditions dated June 18th, 2026.

Do we have a second? Second. Thank you. The motion to approve rezoning application REZ 2026-00008 for Prologis 66 Logistics Park has been properly made by Commissioner Ross and seconded by Commissioner Landrum. Madam Clerk, is there any discussion? I'm sorry, any discussion?

Not as much as before.

All right, Commissioner Ross.

Yes, for the rezoning side of this, tonight's business. This opens the door to a light industrial use that will be consistent with and in some cases less than the amount of traffic, noise, visual, air quality, watershed and other effects that were already approved by right by the existing zoning. This request doesn't dramatically alter the location's anticipated uses except by recognizing that past decisions have made residential use inappropriate and have made commercial uses difficult to implement successfully. With that in mind, we're asking for, been asked for permission to create what I think will be an appropriate transition among the surrounding uses. And I'm optimistic that approving this application will result in Prologis following you through on their site plan uses. And so I yield the floor and call the question.

Thank you. Any other comments on the dais? Seeing there is none, I'll turn it over to Madam Clerk. Will you please call the roll?

Chair Brown?

Yes.

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

Yes.

Commissioner Ross? Yes. Commissioner Shaik? Yes. Commissioner Scheifler? Yes. Commissioner Sherman? Yes. Motion carries.

Thank you. Back to you, Commissioner Ross.

I recommend we close the public hearing for special use permit SUP 2026.

The public hearing is now closed. For the SUP.

All right. No speech this time except to refer to the things I said about the rezoning. I move that the Prince William County Planning Commission recommend approving the special use permit application entitled SUP 2026-00005 Prologis 66 Logistics Park subject to the Prince William County staff and the applicant agreeing upon a way to satisfy the fire and rescue station's needs and subject to the application's other unrelated proffers dated June 18th, 2026. Second. Thank you.

The motion has been properly made by Commissioner Ross to approve special use permit SUP2026-00005 Prologis 66 Logistics Park and properly seconded by Vice Chair Justice. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Chair Brown?

Yes.

Vice Chair Justice? Yes. Commissioner Carroll? Yes. Commissioner Landrum? Yes. Commissioner Ross? Yes. Commissioner Shaik? Yes. Commissioner Scheifler? Yes. Commissioner Sherman? Yes. Motion carries.

Thank you. For those who want to exit the chamber, you may do so now, quietly. We will be moving on to item number seven, public comment. If there's anyone in the chambers that would like to speak on items that were not on our agenda tonight, please feel free to do so. Is there anyone in the chambers wanting to speak on an item not on our agenda tonight? Okay. Seeing that there is none, we're going to move on to item number eight for deferrals and continuations. Mr. Venegas, do we have any...