Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone, welcome to the Prince William County Planning Commission July 15th, 2026 hearing. We had our agenda review at 6.45 and now we'd like to start with the Pledge of Allegiance. Before we start, please silence your electronic devices and now let's stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right, we are now moving to item three on our agenda, the roll call. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Sure, Brown.

Here.

That's your justice here. Commissioner Carol here. Commissioner Ross here. Commissioner shake here. Come with your Sherman here. We have quorum.

Thank you. Um, do we have anyone, um, on for an item for anyone requesting remote participation? Okay. Is Shifler on the line? I'll now take a motion to approve Scheifler for remote participation, please.

Motion.

Second. Thank you. The motion has been made by Vice Chair Justice and seconded by Commissioner Shaik. Madam Clerk, can we please call the roll?

Chair Brown? Yes. Vice Chair Justice? Yes. Commissioner Carroll? Yes. Commissioner Ross?

Yes.

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

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

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

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

We do. We have items 10A, 10B, I'm sorry, 10A, proffer amendment, REZ 2026-00015, Canfield Crossing. Item 10B, proffer amendment, amendment to the declaration, REZ 2026-00042. Item 10C, proffer amendment, rezoning 2026-00043. Item 10D, rezoning 2025-00032, Manassas Tech Center. Item 10E, Proffer Amendment RUZ 2026-00022, Manassas Tax Center. Item 10F, Special Use Permit 2026-00021, Truist, Smoketown Station. And Item 10G, Special Use Permit SUP 2026-00028, House of Bubble Pet Grinding.

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

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

Okay.

In terms of signing up? Yes. Okay. Yes.

I saw a couple things.

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

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

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

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

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

Chair Brown?

Yes.

Vice Chair Justice? Yes. Commissioner Carroll? Yes. Commissioner Ross? Yes. Commissioner Shaik? Yes. Commissioner Scheidler?

Yes.

Commissioner Sherman? Yes. Motion carries.

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

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

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

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

Hold on one second.

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

Absolutely, the public hearing is now closed.

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

They are.

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

Can I get a second?

Second.

Thank you. The motion has been properly made to approve Proffer Amendment REZ 2026-0015, Canfield Crossing. Proffer Amendment REZ 2026-00042, amendment to the Declaration for Property of the Board of County Supervisors of Prince William County. Proffer Amendment REZ 2026-0043, amendment to the Declaration for Property of the Board of County Supervisors. REZ 2025-00032, Manassas Tech Center, Proffer Amendment REZ 2026-0022, Manassas Tech Center PRA, Special Use Permit SUP 2026-00021, Truist Smokedown Station, and Special Use Permit SUP 2026-00028, House of Bubbles Pet Grooming, with all the proffers and conditions contained in the staff report and it has been properly seconded by second yeah properly made by you made it okay commissioner thought we're starting all over no properly made by commissioner ross and properly seconded by vice chair justice can we now have Roll call, please. Or vote, sorry. Yes.

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

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

Commissioner Shea?

Yes.

Commissioner Shifler? Yes. Yes.

Thank you. And that motion was so eloquently made by Commissioner Ross.

Thank you so much.

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

There is no one signed up for online.

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

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

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

Thank you, good evening Commissioners, Tanya Washington, Director of the Planning Office. I do not have a presentation today. However, I do want to note a presentation that I made yesterday at yesterday's board meeting. I provided an update on the Planning Office related to plan use applications, workload, board directives, and the comprehensive zoning ordinance update along with other planning initiatives that we are working on that we have underway. And so it's a lengthy presentation, so we're happy to share the link with you. It is part of the board's agenda from yesterday's meeting, the July 14th board meeting. So it is available online and there is video if you would like to watch the full presentation. I did want to mention a couple of data points that I shared during that session yesterday. And we have some data related to land use applications during FY26 since that fiscal year just ended at the end of June. And so for FY26, the board approved 5,192 new housing units along with 11.3 million square feet of commercial and industrial development. So just to give you a sense of, you know, The Planning Commission reviews cases that go to the board, and the board ultimately votes on those cases, but just to give you a sense of the scale of development that has been coming through for each of these hearings. Additionally, for the Planning Commission, this body reviewed 82 land use cases during FY26. 48 of them were expedited, which is 59% of all of the cases that you all reviewed over this past fiscal year. So again, my presentation has a lot of data, a lot of additional data and other information across a wide variety of efforts that the planning office works on, so definitely recommend that you go ahead and take a look at that for more details. And that's my update for today.

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

Good evening, my name is Reza Ramiar. I'm the case planner for this ZTA and tonight I'm going to present the ZTA DPA 2026-00006 Data Center Opportunity Zone Overlay District This slide provides a brief background of this CTA. Data Center Overlay District was established in 2016 to guide data center development toward land location with adequate infrastructure, and in 2019, THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD WAS ADDED TO THIS SECTION. ON MARCH 3, 2026, THE BOARD INITIATED A ZTA TO REVISE DATA CENTER OVER THE DISTRICT BOUNDARY, AND FOLLOWING PUBLIC AND INDUSTRY FEEDBACK ON JUNE 9, 2026, THE BOARD INITIATED A NEW ZTA AND RECENTLY THE MARCH INITIATION. STAFF HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO GIVE THE ZTA HIGHEST PRIORITY WITH THE TARGET OF RETURNING TO THE BOARD IN SEPTEMBER FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND POTENTIAL ADOPTION. THE STAFF UNDERSTANDING OF THIS CTA, THE PURPOSE OF THIS CTA IS RECOGNIZING A DEFINED SET OF QUALIFYING PROPERTIES, REDUCING AND REDEFINING THE DATA CENTER OVER LATE DISTRICT BOUNDARY AND TRANSITIONING FUTURE DATA CENTER DEVELOPMENT TO A SUP FRAMEWORK. Based on this ZTA, the properties that will remain in the overlay district should meet one of these five criteria. They should have approved proffers identifying data center use or approved preliminary development for a data center or approved final development plan for a data center or final zoning determination for a data center. or have a pending legislative or land use application for a data center. If a property meets one of these criteria, then it will remain in the overlay district. And any property that meets criteria one to four, then they can pursue data center development by right. And if they meet criteria five, it means that the property has pending application. So they need to get board approval if they have rezoning or SUP or proper amendment for a data center. And they need to get approval from the board or PC if they have PFR for public facility for an electrical substation. Any property out, if they don't meet these five criteria, then they will be out of the overlay. And if a property out of overlay zone industrial or office, B1, OL, OH, OM, OF, M1, M2, and MT, then they can apply for SUP if they want to have a data center development in their property. So this slide summarizes the data center development based on this ZTA. You see, if the property meets one of the five criteria, then it could be in overlay. And for the property that meets criteria one to four, data center development is by right. For the properties that have pending land use application, then staff would review their application and board need to make a decision for them if they want to have a data center. For properties that are out of the overlay district, then if they have eligible zoning, like if they zone industrial or office, then their property is subject to SUP to have a data center development. And if no, then they're not eligible to have a data center in their property. THIS SLIDE SHOWS, IT COMPARES FRAMEWORK BEFORE THE EXISTING PROCESS AND THE ZTA PROCESS. AS YOU SEE, THE STRUCTURE DOESN'T MAKE CHANGE. SO WE HAVE SAME PROCESS, BUT THE MAIN CHANGE IS ON THE OVERLAY DISTRICT BOUNDARY. WITH THIS ZTA, WE REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE, SO IF THE BOARD ADOPTS THIS ZTA, THE BOUNDARY WILL and the function of data center overlay district is only legacy, only keep the property that has by right or has pending application for a data center. Staff recommend three key revision on the initiated ZTA. The initiated ZTA provide boundary determination and development right in one section. Staff separate these two function in the recommended ZTA. REVISED VERSION. AND ALSO STAFF RECOMMEND CLARIFYING ON CRITERIA 5 TO LEASE ALL APPLICATION THAT MUST BE FOR A DATA CENTER PROPOSAL. AND ALSO STAFF RECOMMEND CLARIFICATION ON BOUNDARY INTERPRETATION AND TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA APPLY ONLY FOR THE PROPERTY THAT ARE WITHIN EXISTING OVERLAY. This slide shows the area of data center overlay district. As you see, we will have 64% reduction in size of data center overlay district and only 3,500 acres. This will be updated based on our current map. THIS DATA IS AS JUNE 30, SO ANY UPDATE, ANY IMPACT ON THIS INFORMATION. AND THESE 3,504 ACRES PROPERTY, 45% OF THEM MEET CRITERIA 5, WHICH MEANS THAT THEY HAVE PENDING APPLICATION. 54% OF THEM MEET CRITERIA 3, IT MEANS THAT THEY SUBMITTED THEIR SITE PLAN OR THEY DEVELOPED They have a data center development in their property. 0.6% meet criteria. Six means it has proffer or SUP for the data center. And only 0.4% meet criteria. And we don't have any property that meet criteria, too. This slide shows the boundary area of existing data center overlay district and this slide as June 30 shows the properties that meet these five criteria and will remain in the boundary. Staff recommendation, the Planning Commission approved the ZTA and also approved staff recommended changes to the ZTA. That ends my presentation. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair. Yes. If I just want to just put a more detailed point on something Mr. Remillard noted with regards to the map, the proposed map.

Sure.

So as he noted, the five criteria to remain within the overlay district, and sorry, I'm going to repeat my name again, Tonya Washington, Planning Director. So this map is still, this is not a final map upon board adoption because the criteria allows for, as he noted, data centers with approved offers or SUPs, final site plans, zoning determinations, as well as pending cases. For the pending cases, they are eligible if they submit, not only submit an application, but pass QC within three months after board adoption. For the other criteria, they have to meet that criteria by the date of board adoption of the CTA. But the key point that I wanted to make is that between now, yesterday, after the CTA was initiated, up until board adoption, Properties, if they get, say, approved rezoning or get a final site plan, there's still an opportunity for properties to meet that criteria through board adoption and then for pending applications up to three months after board adoption if they pass QC. So the point being that this map is not final because properties still have the ability to meet that criteria if they take the actions that would meet the criteria. So that's why we're making a point that this map is as of that date. It represents the properties that met that criteria as of that date. But since then, there may be properties that may have met the criteria. And so when we get to the board public hearing, we will have an updated map representing any additional properties that may have met that criteria by the time we submit the staff report.

And that board public hearing is going to be when? In September?

It's going to be in September.

Okay. Thank you for that clarification, Director Washington. We will now open up the public hearing. Do we have anyone signed up to speak?

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

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

Hello, I live in the Bethlehem Road area. And I'm mainly here because I'm trying to find out if this overlay, data center overlay, is going to raise my real estate taxes. The property has been there since 1901.

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

No one here has that information? Well, they don't want to say? I was hoping to find that out. That's why I came.

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

I'm in the Bull Run Bethlehem Road area. I can't elaborate on all of that.

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

Chair, thanks for the help.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, Commissioner Ross?

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

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

it's kind of new to me a little bit here. Um, one of the problems you guys are considering in the overlay area, it's up off, uh, two 34.

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

My name, my name is Scott Kelly.

Thank you.

Uh, one of the, the properties are in the overlay area off two 34, um, right by the landfill. And, um, I know that's an overlay area, and I think that's a suggested area that they're going to be looking into doing a data processing center. If we're actually able to get rid of the recycling yards that have been there for the last 50 yards, 50 years, I think it would only benefit the county as far as... It's not the most desirable looking of all the properties, and if we're able to go in their dated processing center, a lot of people have misconceptions about that or their own opinions about it, but it's got to look 100 times better than what's currently there. So I'm all for it. I can't wait for them to come in and take that place down. That's all I have to say. Thank you.

Good evening. I'm Mike Kitchen. I'm with IMAG. I live in the Brentsville District. I'm here representing CREDA. It used to be NAOP until the beginning of July when he changed her name. But just here to speak to say thank you for allowing NAOP slash CREDA to provide input on the overlay. As many of our members are impacted by these changes. for a number of reasons. And really here just to kind of reinforce what Planning Director Washington had said, there are a number of properties that still, the list of properties that will be impacted by this district will need to be updated between now and the board hearing. So just wanted to come here to point that out. So thank you for your help.

Good evening, Madam Chairman, members of the board. I'm the Planning Commission. I'm Gifford Hampshire with the law firm of Blankenship and Keith, and I'm here representing a property owner with M1 zone property in the Brentsville Magisterial District. We're very interested in criterion number five that Director Washington talked about. As we understand it, that criterion allows an owner who is already zoned M1, for example, to submit a final site plan within 90 days of the date in September, presumably that the Board of Supervisors passes the ordinance. And we just want to speak in favor of that 90-day period. That 90-day period is critical. As Mr. Kitchen knows and any other engineers in the room know that it takes quite a Herculean effort to get a final site plan in within 90 days with all the surveying and all the tests and to pass the rigorous quality control that this county has and rightly so. So we would not want to see that 90 day period shortened in any way, if anything lengthened, but certainly not shortened. Thank you very much.

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

I had some general questions just about the process. Okay.

Go ahead, Commissioner Sherman.

So if we had a speaker from NAEP, I was just curious, were there other outreach efforts to other industry sectors as part of the outreach efforts?

So, um, as, uh, Mr. Ram yard noted, um, this, uh, CTA was initially, uh, the original version of the CTA was originally initiated in March. And it was, you know, for myself and other staff with the planning office, we meet regularly with NVBAA NAOP members. And so we definitely use those opportunities to let people know about the ZTA. Additionally, in April and subsequently in May, We discussed, again, the original version of the ZTA to DARAC, which is the board-appointed entity that focuses on and provides feedback on zoning tax amendments and DCSM amendments. And then subsequently, when the latest version of the ZTA was initiated, which was last month, We have, again, gotten some questions that have come in from the development industry And then additionally, earlier today, we also, we shared this exact same presentation and had some discussion with the Commercial Development Committee, which is another board appointed entity. So we have, you know, endeavored, you know, even given a shorter timeframe for this CTA to make sure that industry and other stakeholders and residents were aware of this. the CTA. One other thing I wanted to note is that the planning office also sent notifications to all the property owners in the current overlay district as well about the CTA.

Thank you.

Commissioner Carroll.

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

So at this time, we are focusing, following the Planning Commission public hearing, getting this to the board in time for their September public hearing, which will likely be, I think it's the September 22nd board meeting, and there is a timeframe about a month in advance of that by which we have to submit our materials for that board meeting, so we don't really have a lot of time to do additional, sort of to set up a community meeting and have kind of a separate meeting. But again, there will be another public hearing after the one here today at the Planning Commission at the board meeting. when this will be scheduled for public hearing, I also will note that, um, assuming we, uh, we get in on the September 22nd agenda, there is another board meeting earlier that month as well. And the board, um, has, uh, open public comment time, um, as well. And so, uh, even though the ZTA may not be on the agenda for that day, um, you know, members of the public can still come in and speak if they, if they wish to do so on that time as well.

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

So if you look in the staff report on, looking at page three, so following the resolution, there is an attachment, and it's the text itself that is being modified, and if you look under section 32-509.03, uses permitted by rate, Mr. Ramyaar, sort of summarize those, but we can pull it up so you can see the exact language.

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

Yeah, thank you, Commissioner Carroll. My name is David McGettigan from the Planning Office. Just to clarify the steps in the process for reviewing new development after the rezoning or special use permit, then typically there's a development of a new development A FINAL SITE PLAN. THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO A SKETCH PLAN OR A PRELIMINARY PLAN THAT HAS LIMITED DETAILS, AND THAT IS IN OUR, WE DON'T DO THAT MUCH ANYMORE, SO THAT'S WHY THERE WEREN'T ANY CASES THAT SHOWED UP UNDER CRITERIA TWO. Land Development Division of the Department of Development Services reviews and sent it out to all review agencies, the site plan, which has details on the grading, erosion and sediment control, all the utility infrastructure that goes in there. And so that is all in the final site plan. That has to be approved. That also constitutes a zoning approval of the development. Then there's a process where bonds are put up and plats are recorded and then the site development permits are issued so that they can go out and start moving dirt and constructing the site. That begins the process of several inspections, site inspections during the construction process and then building permit is submitted and also it needs to have plan review of the building permit. A building permit has to be issued so they can start construction. At the end, the final close out of everything when it's done, they get a certificate of occupancy and then that establishes the use.

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

So yeah, the final development plan is the site plan, is the site plan, or one and the same. The zoning determination is a request for a determination from the zoning administrator that a data center could go on this property. So it's not really, it's a separate process. part of the development site plan process. It's a separate process that someone submits a letter to the zoning administrator requesting a determination that the site plan, that the property can be used for a data center. And that would constitute a zoning determination and meet criteria four.

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

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

Yes.

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

So under the existing regulations, if they're in the overlay district and they're zoned one of the office or industrial districts, then they can do what we call it by right. They go directly to site plan and get their approval and do that. And they don't have to come to the planning and conversion board. And that's what we call by right development. So that's what they can do in the existing overlay district now. And that's what they can do in the new overlay district, but they have to be qualified to be in the new overlay district. And basically the new overlay district is going to be somebody that already has put time and money and commitment into developing a data center on that property already by filing a site plan, by... getting proffered, being proffered to, specifically for data center use, or if they request a zoning verification letter. So those are the things that would qualify them to be in the zoning, under the first criteria, to be in there. If they have a, submit a final site plan, or rezoning or special use permit, then it gets accepted, gets through quality control check and is accepted for review before 90 days after this is adopted, then those projects would get put into the overlay as well.

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

So what I would say, just to answer your question, is that the CTA was initiated by the board and was largely drafted by the board. And so our responsibility as staff is to, and it's part of what we're going through right now, make recommendations to for any clarifications to make sure the ZTA represents staff's understanding of the board's intent. But with regards to potential burden on staff, that is for us to work out in terms of operational matters. If we need to do anything different to manage additional applications coming in, but for us as staff, that is not something that we would provide feedback on the board in terms of whether or not to include that provision. It's not a question we can ask? It's a question. You all are board appointees, and so that is completely within your purview to have those conversations, but that's not something for us as staff that we would make a recommendation to the board about specifically.

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

No, because they would have had a site plan for a data center QC accepted. I'm saying if it wasn't. So once it gets into the process, then it's good.

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

That's a, yeah, to make sure it's complete, it's a complete application. So it's, there's a checklist that they have to submit all these items for the site plan and that's what QC is. And that's not a process that takes a long time. Okay. It does, it takes for the planning office It takes about 10 days. I think the site plan review is quicker than that. So it's just a check and make sure that everything that they are supposed to submit is submitted. There's no other review agencies involved in that. It's just the intake people making sure that the application is complete and has all the things that it's supposed to have in it. So you can't submit a blank piece of paper and call it a site plan. You have to have at least half a site plan.

Okay. So just to clarify, so what Mr. McGettigan is talking about, it's pending land use applications, rezoning applications, special use permits, PFRs for electric substations, and site plans. So we manage the rezoning applications, special use permits, PFR applications, development services manages site plans. And so for that criteria five, it's any one of those as long as it is not only submitted but passes QC, either our QC for the applications we manage or the QC for site plans that development services manages up to the 90 days after board adoption. But to your point, what if it gets QC rejected because we do, our departments do have clear standards around applications and making sure that they are complete because that way all the relevant agencies can actually conduct their appropriate reviews. I guess what we would say is we would encourage any property owners if they do not already have approvals within the criteria of one through four, whether it's an approved, you know, approved profits with the rezoning or conditions with an approved SGP, a final site plan, a zoning determination. So basically sort of kind of to hope maybe to simplify it, criteria one through four is you already have like existing approvals, essentially. Criteria five is a way for pending applications to still get in so that they can stay within an overlay district if they pass QC within 90 days after board adoption. But with that, you know, we would, Any property owners that wants to pursue being able to stay in an overlay district through criteria five, we would just encourage them to submit their applications, whatever the application is, as soon as possible so that there is sufficient time to get through QC and get QC accepted before that 90 day window after board adoption ends. That helps, thank you.

Okay, Commissioner Landry.

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

No. No, we don't really have any. numbers on that. We do have a pre-application process that might catch some, but a lot of times there's no pre-application meeting held. They just submit them. So, because they're only required for planned districts to have a pre-submission meeting, pre-application meeting. So, we do not have any pre-application meetings. ACCOUNT OR METRICS ON HOW MANY MIGHT COME IN. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER ROSS.

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

We have a page, or used to have a page, on the land development process, and that would be the only one. I don't know how much explanation is in there, but it at least shows the steps in order of what all those parts of the process are. It's the land development processing steps page.

Okay, I'm only asking.

It's part of the planning office website.

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

I also wanted to note that the types of applications that fall within these criteria are ones, again, that are managed by either your planning office or the Department of Development Services. And so we can check with them to see what information they may have on their website with regards to site plans zoning determinations because they're the ones who manage those.

Thank you, Chair.

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

Is that something that... That is ultimately up to the board because they're going to make the final determination. And one thing I will also note that the resolution that accompanied both versions of the CTA not only noted that staff should bring the CTA back to the board with any recommended changes, by September, it also says a substantially similar version of the ZTA. And so, again, the latest version of the ZTA does lay out that 90 day window as part of criteria five, the 90 day window after board adoption. If the Planning Commission has comments related to that timeframe that you would like to provide to the board in their consideration, this is definitely the opportunity. But for staff, we did not make any recommendation related to that timeframe.

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, this recommendation kind of builds on what Commissioner Schreifler just mentioned, and that is this is such a huge update that I think it should be more than just sort of public notice and more of a communication plan to sort of articulate this to the public and other stakeholders on what the implications are, what this is, and how it should go forward, the timeline and everything, more than just a typical notice. So just recommendation, maybe that's for supervisors to consider, but I think being proactive, I guess, is my point about articulating the changes.

Thank you. Commissioner Carroll.

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

So, yeah, no, it's not through... If... Many of the rezonings and special use permit proffers and conditions that were for that would have already had a site plan submitted. So if it has a site plan submitted, then we didn't duplicate it right here. It already has a site plan approved, rather. So... It would have, or it would show up in criteria five. So there's some that, there's just very few, this may only be one case, that has a proffer or special use permit that specifically says it's for a data center. But it doesn't meet any of the other four criteria. So that's why there's so few of that.

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

Accepted for quality control.

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

If the rezoning application requests to be rezoned to one of the qualifying zones for data center development along with the SGP.

Gotcha. And also we would need to be consistent with the comprehensive plan or ask for a comprehensive plan amendment.

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

Okay, Commissioner Justice, or Vice Chair Justice.

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

For Criterias 1 through 4, so for example, Criteria 1, It is if you have an approved proffers or proffered conditions by the date of ordinance adoption. The same for criteria two with preliminary subdivision plot. Criteria three, same, by date of ordinance adoption. And criteria.

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

Yes, whenever the board approves, whatever date the board approves the ZTA. So the other criteria are tracked with the date of board adoption. It's only criteria five that has. Only five. Only five has the 90 days after board adoption window.

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

We can look into it.

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

Okay, Commissioner Landrum.

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

So the map shows the property that meets criteria five. So it means that they pending cases.

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

We don't have these calculations.

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

We can look into it, but it's really dependent upon whether or not those property owners actually submit an application for either entitlement or for a site plan that gets QC accepted. So you can have X number of properties that may not fit the other criteria now, And depending upon the project, and depending upon the existing zoning, they actually have multiple paths that they could take. So they may or may not go through the entitlement process. They may or may not take the path of criteria five. Maybe they may decide to, depending upon the specifics of their property and what the existing zoning is, they may choose to go through getting a zoning determination letter, for example. So all of these, all five of the criteria provide different pathways for a property, you know, even after today to see if they meet that particular criteria for inclusion. So that's why it's, it's hard to come up. Like we can, there's X number of properties, you know, within the overlay district now, but in terms of which ones may choose to take one of those paths, if they haven't already, um, and which path they may take, it's really, it really depends on a property. So it's kind of hard to say exactly.

Okay. Thank you.

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

It is for any potentially potential. potential new applications, but if they are not submitting for a new entitlement or a new site plan, if they meet one of the other criteria, then the cutoff time period would be September, assuming the board takes action.

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

No other questions or comments, okay Commissioner Carol Thank you

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

Yeah, so if the board adopt this DTA, so we will have new boundary. And based on zoning ordinance, if a property out of the boundary and they want to have a substation there, they need to submit the SUP plus PFR.

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

So there is already an existing board directive for staff to look at the development standards for data centers, both in the zoning ordinance and in the DCSM, the design and constructions manual. And so we have a separate project that's already underway to look at those specific standards and ask for all data center development.

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

No, it won't come before this CTA gets to the board. We do hope to have those recommendations moving forward to public hearing later this year, but it won't be before the CTA gets to the board.

Okay. Thank you for that. And then my last kind of concern is kind of echoing what commissioner Ross just brought up. You know, I, I know we, are talking about the 90-day period. I mean, I would honestly like to see us do as a county mirror what Loudoun did. And, you know, they cut it off right on the date of the board approval. So they didn't have any sort of window. And I think that's definitely a cleaner way to do it. And, you know, they even went steps as far as potentially not even grandfathering any applications in. Like you were approved or you weren't. And they included exceptions in that grandfathering period where applications that were within 500 feet of residences that they weren't even being grandfathered. They were being heard. So I would definitely look to swing that other way where I think, like Commissioner Ross said, I think Industry has known where this county has been heading for a long time. I don't think this is gonna come as a surprise. And I think we should mirror Loudoun in that aspect and kind of cut it off the same time as the board and really take a look at what we're grandfathering in and how those projects near homes, projects near schools really are being grandfathered in. So I'm not sure if we as a county have kind of looked over what Loudoun has done. I know it was fairly recent, but I think that would be a strong suggestion to take to the board.

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

So I would say that, again, because this ZTA would end the ability to do by right projects for any properties currently within an overlay district that don't meet the criteria to stay in an overlay district, and then also creates a pathway for future data center development applications, but only through SUPs and only in certain zones, we will still get applications as long as there is an interest in data center development. And so I would say, you know, It depends on how the industry moves, but it doesn't mean that we won't necessarily get data center applications after this ZTA. In terms of what the level of the volume is, it's hard to say, but this ZTA does provide a mechanism for future data center applications to be submitted. It's just that none of them would be by right. Brand new ones would not be, they would not have any ability to be by right. They would have to go through ultimately board adoption.

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

I wouldn't say that. What I would say is we don't know because it really just depends on what happens in the data center industry itself. We are still seeing, you know, we still get applications. Now the overlay district is a mechanism for properties that are within our overlay district to do by right development. The planning office doesn't see by right projects, but as you know, there are some properties within our overlay district currently, that could build a by-right data center but they still submit an SGP because they want to build it bigger or taller or some other standards that are different than what the zoning ordinance would allow for by-right data center. And we also see data center applications outside of the overlay district. So we're already, so the county already has applications both inside the overlay district and outside the overlay district for data center development. And so this change will primarily impact obviously the Overlake District. But in terms of what the volume is, for us it's really kind of hard to say. It just depends on, again, what happens with the data center industry and their interest in continuing to build data centers in Prince William County.

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

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

We don't know what their time frame is before they talk to us, either for a pre-application meeting or sometimes potential applicants will reach out to us to let us know that they plan to submit an application or the first time we see it is when they first submit it. But the time frame that they spend before that, because that's not something that we're involved in, we don't really have data on what those time frames might be.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioner Ross.

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

Sure, yes, you can. always request a CPA, but it has to be initiated by the board.

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

We have an application, a request form that you would fill out and say, I want to do that. But yeah, the board would have to initiate it. And then you could move forward with the hearings for the rezoning and submit your rezoning. And yeah, and an SUP, so yes, it could be there.

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

I would say yes, that's correct. It's mostly shutting down the opportunity to do by right development. And there's always that opportunity in any land use case to get something approved by the board.

Right.

Yes.

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

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

Nothing this time.

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

This industry is surrounded by controversy. As an engineer, I can imagine a well-designed, not gargantuan, not noisy, et cetera, et cetera, data center energized by clean energy that would be, that should be welcome in most places in the country. Our design criteria do not Our ordinances, our design criteria do not put this industry in that box. And that is a source of much of the controversy. We have in our pipeline millions and millions of square feet of projects from this industry. And to a very large extent, I believe we're in danger of becoming too dependent on the revenue from this source. And so I would much, much rather see us hit the brakes as hard as is possible and focus our attention and energy on continuing to diversify our economy because there are going to be very few residents that I have met that are going to be eager to encourage additional data centers to be permitted in our county. I'll yield to Commissioner Carroll.

Thank you, Commissioner Carroll.

Yeah, no, I appreciate that. And, you know, I echo much of what Commissioner Ross just said, and I think I'll just add to that that, I mean, especially in the Brentsville District, I mean, we're hurting now with data center development. I mean, we, and it's not necessarily even the data center development. It's all the other things that come with that, and specifically now the electrical infrastructure. I mean, we have a Dominion meeting tomorrow on two projects. That's right through the Brentsville District. We have another Dominion next week on a major new project that's in the Brentsville District. So, I mean, we need some relief, which is why I think I have a different approach to that grandfathering kind of aspect of it. And like Commissioner Ross said, the long lead time of some of these projects with the power, I mean, even the one we approved tonight, the Manassas Tech Center, they've got a building up built you can't plug it in because the power's not there. So I think there is an over reliance now that needs to be looked at. So I think that's where I'm coming from in terms of the lessening of the period.

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

I was referring to updates to provisions in the zoning ordinance and the DCSM that pertain just to data center development. The DCSM covers all kinds of development. But this effort I was referring to focuses just on the standards that pertain to data center development.

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

Uh, staff, actually, we've already been working on it. Um, and we hope to complete it, um, before the end of this year.

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

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

Yes.

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

There was a different time frame. The site plan, there was a time, there was a, I'll let Reza answer this question. There were changes made to that section. I don't believe it was 90 days.

We add calendar day. It was 90 days. We only add make it clear.

And it previously, so the first version of the ZTA for Criteria 5, it only included site plans, site plan applications that went through QC. Oh, you're talking about March 3? Yes, the first version, not this version.

Okay, March 3.

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

No, it was not. No, in March 3, we didn't have 90 days, I believe. Because the board... to initiate the new ZTA so we don't work on the rescinded one. But we didn't have 90 days on the original.

Yeah, I'm trying to find it up, pull it up.

So yeah, that was added on the June version of the ZTA. So in both cases, in March and in June, the board gave us the text and said, don't stray from this. No substantial changes from this text. And the second one is the one that had the 90 days in it. And so we haven't changed anything. We haven't changed the number of days.

Right.

So just not recommending changing the number of days. We're just recommending that we specify as calendar days as a clarification.

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

Right.

Okay. Thank you.

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

The first version of the ZTA included the criteria one through four that's in the current version, that was already in there, and then there was a criteria five, but it only focused on site plan applications that went through QC up to, and there wasn't a specific defined timeframe, and that's where staff would have had to come up with a recommendation. And so it was, And moving to the current version of the ZTA, as staff understands it, some of these additions, so including pending land use applications, not just pending site plan applications. And then the 90-day window after board adoption, that was included based off, as we understand, feedback from stakeholders and other interested parties. That was conveyed to the board.

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

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

Commissioner Ross.

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

Chair Brown, may I offer a suggestion? Absolutely. Given that there are differing viewpoints amongst planning commissioners related to that 90-day timeframe, what we could do in our staff report to the board is just to make note of that, that there are some commissioners who are in favor of shortening that timeframe and others who are in favor of of either shortening or eliminating that timeframe and others who are in favor of lengthening it. And that way the board will have all those viewpoints shared with them and then they can decide how they would like to proceed. But we can definitely capture. So just to say, I don't think you, if there isn't consensus amongst the planning commissioners on that point, unless you all do come to some consensus, we can just capture the varying viewpoints that we've heard from the planning commissioners and share that in the staff report to the board.

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

I can offer one comment on the 90-day as well.

Yeah.

Again, going back to my recommendation about communication, I think that 90-day window could be well used to also communicate to the public and the industry these changes. So, you know, not saying it's right or wrong, but I do think that 90 day window is an opportunity to help communicate these changes.

Yeah, go ahead.

along with the community, that's, that's where my hesitation and concerns coming from. Uh, if you're making notes for the board, not only is it the communication aspect and as commissioner Ross brought up, I understand that this discussion started in March. Um, but being involved in real estate transactions, contracts, deed research, proffer research. I mean, there's a significant amount of time that go into those items and coming up with agreements. And what I don't want to see is this comes out and then there's this big rush to just let's throw it at the wall and see what sticks kind of thing. Um, which is what my concern is. That's, that's coming in our direction. I don't think, Uh, so many of these data center projects do come to us, uh, as planning commissioners and then to the board. Uh, so that's, that's where my hesitation comes from for those three different reasons. So thank you. I appreciate the solution. Director Washington. Yeah.

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

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

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

It would be So whatever date the board adopts the CTA, the 90-day window starts after that.

And that's anticipated to be in September, is that correct? Yes, yes. Okay, and it's about three months from now. I'll just offer a comment, if I may. Given that an application prior to submission for QC is not an instantaneous process, and there may be some that are currently in development, there may be some that aren't, but I could anticipate sort of a mad dash by the development community, which would then put a lot of strain on the planning office, because three months between now and passage, starting that 90-day clock, WHEN A PROJECT AT, YOU KNOW, ACCORDING TO SOME INDUSTRY CITATIONS ON THE INTERNET, NOW, GRANTED, THIS IS NOT AUTHORITATIVE, AND WE DON'T HAVE DATA TO SPECIFIC PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, BUT THIS WAS FROM LAND DEVELOPMENT FIRMS. SIX MONTHS SEEMS TO BE KIND OF THE MINIMUM FOR HOW LONG IT TAKES A PROJECT TO EVEN GET TO QC. SO, YOU KNOW, YOU THINK ABOUT IT IN THOSE TERMS, The idea of shrinking that 90 days seems like it would cause problems and extending it might solve them. So that's the extent of my comment.

Thank you for that. And that's actually where my mind was. where I was thinking as well, because it's not a... I mean, a data center development is not a quick action. It's a very extensive process. Sometimes the public is not aware of how long it actually takes, but it takes a long time. It seems like they're cropping up everywhere, but it really starts years, a lot of times, before. And that's... I can't even tell you how... how long some data centers take. Some are a little bit faster than others, but going, just trying to identify the land, trying to negotiate maybe even the purchase of the land and all of these things that have to take place before it even comes to us. So, That definitely was my concern with the 90 days as well. And in terms of, I do agree that there needs to be more community outreach. I think the fact that we are hearing the zoning text amendment now, it's summertime, people aren't really paying attention to the... Well, you guys are paying attention, and I'm so glad that you all came to see us. We haven't had this many visitors in a while. But most of the time, people aren't paying attention in the summer too much. This is actually our last meeting for the summer, and then we get a break and we come back in September. With that being said, I don't think people are thinking about – the zoning text amendment and the data centers and how would it affect the community so I really would like for like to see more community engagement and outreach on this because data centers are important to lots of people for lots of different reasons but certainly I think this is something that the community needs to be aware of and know that they've developed an approach for how we then consider data centers and that should that's important for residents to know. So that's my take on it. Commissioner Carroll.

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

Thank you, Commissioner Carroll. sort of language is straight from state law. So there's, you know, case law, there's state has always had that sort of language in there. So I think there's precedence to vet that and decide if it's substantial or not. But there could be A site plan that was submitted for QC, accepted for QC, that's already in the system. It's been sitting there for six months with comments, and they've never been responded to. So, I mean, it might be that lack of activity is sort of an indication that, hey, this isn't, you know... going to continue. But it's not an easy question to answer. I can just say that there's lots of legal precedent for how that is defined in state law.

Gotcha. Okay. Appreciate that information on that.

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

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

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

I'm good. I'm ready to make the motion.

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

Yeah.

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

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

I need a second.

I'd like to make a friendly amendment.

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

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

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

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

I'd second that friendly amendment.

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

Madam chair before, before you vote, I actually have a, just a clarifying question related to the, um, commissioner Landrum's friendly amendment or a proposed amendment to extend to the 180 day window. That's specifically for criteria five.

That's correct. That's correct.

Okay.

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

Okay.

Looks like I have to beat that horse. The industry does not need that extra time. This subject has been coming at them since before March. When you make a change like this zoning text amendment, if it is passed, will make, there are going to be a few oxes that get gored. either a landowner who thought they had five more years to consider selling their land to a developer or to a data center enterprise that thought they had two more years to line up their funding and submit their site plan. But I agree. with what I believe was the original intent of the motion, which is we are receiving and approving, well, we are receiving too many by-right applications. And the purpose of the original supervisor's directive, as I understand it, was to limit those, not to open the door wider, wider, wider, so that more and more and more can get their nose in the tent. It was to close the door on the tent, the metaphorical tent. And for that reason, I oppose the amendment to the original motion.

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

Your thoughts go with the industry. I'm a huge proponent of property rights, and I look at property owners, and I do, I look at the process and I think about, you just said it, somebody might have thought that they had a longer time horizon to make this decision. They thought they could hold out a little bit longer. And now this is coming down the pipe and I don't think it's fair to put somebody in a position where they're now having to negotiate and review contracts with an industry that's got a substantial amount of money, have time to work with their legal representation to get the right options figured out. It's just, you know, those, although I understand the data center issue, we also have to understand that these property owners are our constituents as well. And it's a, it's, we're lessening the data center overlay area and kind of taking something away, which is fair because of the issues that we have across the county. But I think we need to take into consideration, you know, somebody that owns a piece of farmland or somebody that owns a piece of property, and they need time to do their due diligence and make the right decision. I don't believe in pushing something that's way faster than normal. I mean, even the average time to do title deed proffer research, you're probably looking at 10 to 14 days. And that's if they don't find anything that could be an issue. that needs further investigation. So now in the 90-day process, you've already cut out a huge chunk of that time just in that background research. There's all different things that can come up on a site, and I just want to make sure that there's ample time. And again, I don't want to see stuff just getting thrown at the wall to see what sticks, if you will. So that's my two cents. That's where I'm coming from. But I do understand where you're coming from, Commissioner Ross and Commissioner Carroll.

Yeah, and I just want to echo what Vice Chair Justice said. I'm just thinking about not just... the data center developers, but the land owners, as well as the Office of Planning staff, as well as other stakeholders that may want to find out more information. I just think that the time is a little too quick, and I think extending it would benefit I understand from you guys' perspective, you want to basically put the ax down on the industry. And I can understand that. But there's more stakeholders than just the data center developers. And so that is why, for that reason, I think it just would benefit people to have more time in general because there's other stakeholders. In addition to data center developers, sometimes... They run into roadblocks, and sometimes those can't be resolved in 90 days. So just to be fair to all the stakeholders who may be involved, as well as being able to get the public involved and getting notice and information out to them, I just think that is why I'm in support of 180 days. So that's my take on it. Commissioner Landrum?

Yeah, I'd just like to add that to Vice Chair Justice's remarks, due process is a foundational principle in the American legal system. And this is an outcropping of the American legal system. We're talking about in three months' time, if the schedule goes according to what's been forecast, in three months' time, Property rights that landowners have enjoyed for quite some time are going to be significantly restricted and largely eliminated. And so we're talking about significantly curtailing landowners' rights in a process of time in about three months. And I have no doubt that there are folks out there who, you know, we may not like the uses that people want to put on their property. Um, I, I'm certainly no fan of, of seeing large swaths of, um, of the county turned into concrete. Certainly there are environmental concerns. There are, uh, use and enjoyment concerns for, for landowners with this specific type of use, but that doesn't change the fact that people currently have the right to pursue that development. And we're taking that right away in this county in approximately three months if this passes. So with that being said, there are doubtlessly existing developers, landowners that have expended money, expended capital and expended time. And certainly time translates to additional capital when you're talking about attorneys and engineers and surveyors and everything else. that are working on applications now based on the rights that up to September they have enjoyed. There are very, very few other examples of where we've established an overlay district in this county and then abolished it. There's an e-commerce overlay that was created in the 1990s for the dot-com boom, and that thing's still in place. And it's causing issues today, but we haven't eliminated it. We're talking about eliminating a by-right development use. And that carries with it a need for due process. And if we don't, in the interest of just fairness and due process, be willing to consider that these timelines are not arbitrary, that there is significant capital that's being expended by people that are just intending to exercise their rights, whether we like it or not. Um, that we have to consider the weight of that. So that's, that's all I, uh, that's all I'll add this time.

Thank you. Commissioner Ross.

Uh, thank you. Uh, chair, I'm, I believe I'm hearing a lot of false choices presented and some straw men propped up here. Anytime the legislature makes a change of this type, property rights are affected. So if that's always true, this is not a special case in which property rights are being affected. This is just business as usual. That's what legislative changes do for property rights. So again, let me emphasize, this is not a special circumstance. This is an ordinary circumstance. There's no special victim here. All stakeholders. I am thinking of all stakeholders, including the ones in residential neighbors who, if we extend this out, might thwart the intent of the directive and have an industrial, noisy, ugly building parked right next to their residential neighborhoods. The stakeholders involved are not just the people who want to develop this land in this manner. The stakeholders are also the people who want to keep the watershed unaffected by the possibility of too much impervious surface screwing up watersheds and groundwater tables. They're the people who don't want the possibility of noise polluting industry Uh, except for ones that have been, uh, projects that have been properly evaluated through an sup process. The door is still wide open for developers to get their projects done. The, the door is already open, but this is reducing the number of places where those projects can sail through by right. Okay. Uh, property rights. I think I've touched on that already. And so for that reason, let's not, well, staff, staff workload. If they get hit with a giant workload, a Calgary stampede of applications right at the deadline, And if I were on the Board of Supervisors, I would try to find some way to ensure that their personnel managers within the county executive's chain of command give every employee who does more than their usual above and beyond effort, compensates them in some way for having to deal with that because they were at the end of a Board of Supervisors decision. In my career, I have been through periods like that myself, and I've been through periods that were slack. That is not a reason to extend this deadline in order for more people to get across it. I'm going to finish by saying a couple three years ago, my property, which had been a part of the rural crescent, was in my mind devalued by the board's action. That's what I mean when I say that every one of these legislative actions has pluses and minuses. It has costs and benefits that vary from stakeholder to stakeholder. Nobody came to my door and said, hey, Mr. Ross, we'll give you an extra 60 days so that you can protest. And nobody came to my door and said, we need to compensate you because we're taking away some of the value of the land and some of the reasons why you bought it. So with that said, I am ready to vote. And I believe my vote will reflect the intent of the Board of Supervisors and my recommendation that aligns well with that for the directive to go through unchanged.

Commissioner Sherman, sorry.

Point of clarification, do we take a vote on the amendment separate from the... main motion just from Robert rules of order procedure. I just want to just clarify. So we have to take two votes, right? One on the amendment and then one on the main motion. Correct. And, uh, just want to, for the record, associate myself with, um, commissioner justice and Brown's comments about, uh, 180 days. If for no other reason, I think making sure that we communicate to the public, uh, and all stakeholders what this amendment actually is. And we all know how misinformation can muddy the waters, and I think having more time to clarify and communicate that to the public is appropriate.

Madam Chair? Yes. May I just speak briefly to that comment? So the timeframe that we're speaking to does not relate to community engagement. It only speaks to the time period that an applicant would have to submit a new rezoning special use permit or a site plan application for a property currently within our overlay district up to currently in the ZTA 90 days after the board adoption. And so any changes to that timeframe is completely separate from a time period to do community engagement. So I just wanted to make that clarification. It only relates to the window of time that an application could be QC'd, accepted, on a property within an overlay district and still be able to stay within an overlay district.

Yes, I understand that. And I, I just want to recommend that that period also be used for as much community engagement and communication as possible.

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

Sure. The only thing I would say at that point is that the board would have adopted the CTA by that time. So it would only be, you know, information. but not an opportunity for community members to weigh in before the board would vote.

Okay, thank you. Commissioner Carroll?

Yeah, thank you. And I appreciate all my colleagues kind of showing the support for the commercial community. I mean, it should go without saying that I don't support the extension. I'm always going to support the community and the residents. When we're talking about sunk costs on projects, I think we also need to look at sunk costs for the community in terms of what we're paying for the watershed, what we're paying for electrical infrastructure, electrical bills, property value decreasing next to some of these buildings. other residents' property rights who have now a by-right data center going up next to them with no review, no board review, no proffers to help alleviate that. And I think if we are going to lengthen that time, I think we need to put some more of those protections in to help protect us if we're not even taken a look at the development standards now. So, you know, I'm always going to, especially in Brentsville where we, again, are getting by right data centers left and right and residents and community members are seeing these pop up everywhere. I don't think the intent of the board was to lengthen that to allow more of these by right projects to come in and really affect us in that way. So I, Again, I won't be swearing in the extension. I would like it to be shorter, as I said, but that's my two cents.

Commissioner Scheifler, any comments or questions?

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

I'm sorry. Say that again.

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

Okay. All right. All right, Commissioner Landrum.

I would just say that with regard to the 180 days versus the 90 days, it's not a question of positives for the developer community, negatives for the residents. There are certainly... Plenty of people with a lot of money that can pay for the services required and expedite those services to try to get things in at the 90-day deadline. But I do have concern that that would result in substantially lower quality projects that take less of the concerns of the community into account or less of the concerns of the county into account. where they just try to rush them through 180 days would give projects more time to mature into something that would draw less opposition. Certainly, we don't want a data center to be a rushed project. And if they can build them by right and sneak them in at 90 days, There has to be the question of, but would it be a better project if they had more time? And I think in the long-term interests of the county, we want to make sure that projects that are built are the best that they can be and have the most I guess, methodical planning baked into the process. And so because of the three months until the likely completion of this process, this would provide the time for projects to come to a better maturity. And realistically, anybody that wants to go in and build is going to try to scramble to do so either way. But we want those projects to be as good as they can be.

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

Commissioner Ross, go ahead. Commissioner Landrum and I, we spent quite a few hours together lately talking about planning business. And it's good that we're having a nice, strong debate right now. Okay, and with that said, I don't think that extending the deadline has the effect that he described. Extending the deadline would have that effect only if the number of applications that were being produced was limited or if the production of applications was halted at some point like tonight. But if we create... If we add another 90 days onto this window, we will get 90... The first set of applications that would have satisfied the original 90 days, they will come in. And then more applications that will come in in the next 90 days. And if we made it 270, we would get still more applications in those next 90 days. So we're not... By creating a 180-day window versus a 90-day window, I don't believe that we will be improving the quality of the applications so much as increasing the quantity of the applications. And as I said before, I don't believe that was the intent of the directive that the board decided to send out. And my interests align more with the intent of that directive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First?

Correct.

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

Okay. Thank you.

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

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

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

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

Okay. Chair Brown? Yes.

Vice Chair Justice?

Yes.

Commissioner Carroll? No. Commissioner Landrum?

Yes.

Commissioner Ross?

No.

Commissioner Scheifler?

No.

Commissioner Sherman?

Yes.

Motion carries.

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

Yes.

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

Chair Brown?

No.

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

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

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

Okay.

Scheifler's main motion said 90 days.

Yes.

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

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

Correct.

Everything Scheifler said.

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

Vice Chair Justice.

Yes.

Commissioner Carroll.

You know, so, I mean, I had... I think concerns on this even before we're lengthening the time. Like I said, I think we should be taking a page from Loudoun here and cutting it and really looking at what we're grandfathering in. uh i have major concerns that we've are recommending swinging the other way um and while i definitely appreciate all staff's work on seems like a very short timeline deadline that the board has imposed i think incorporating those higher development standards now as part of this process i think would be very beneficial for the zta i think looking at the map of where the board intends to want data centers in the future, I think should still be included. And then I definitely also still believe that we really should be sharing this with the public in advance of any sort of public hearing to get public input. We've heard from the commercial side, the businesses, but we haven't heard from the people that live here that are being impacted by this. So with that, I'm a no.

Commissioner Landrum?

Yes.

Commissioner Ross?

In its current form, I vote no.

Commissioner Scheifler?

Yes.

Commissioner Sherman? Yes. Motion carries.

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

I'm all good.

Okay. Commissioner Carroll?

No, I'm good.

Commissioner Sherman?

I'm good, enough.

Commissioner Scheifler, old business or new business?

None.

Commissioner Landrum?

None.

Commissioner Ross?

Neither.

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

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

Well, you'd have no competition here.

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

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

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

Perfect.

Yeah.

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

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

Yes.

Okay. All right, Commission Member's Time. Going back to Commissioner Scheifler, you have anything to say for Commissioner Member's Time?

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

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

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

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

Yes, I just want to thank the staff for all their hard work, both on the zoning text amendment and also their presentation last night at the Board of Supervisors. I would encourage everyone to go back if you haven't. Take a look at that? Take a look at it.

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

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

Commissioner Roth?

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

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