Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

the invocation held by Dr. Bell and remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Eternal God, our Heavenly Father, we thank you for this day and hour. We thank you, Lord, for the meeting of the Planet Commission as we serve and work for the sake and glory of the people. We ask you, God, to be with us now, be with those who are on their way. Let this commission meeting move smoothly, O Father God. In your name we pray. Let the hearts say, Amen. 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.

So we have a quorum this evening. I'd like to go ahead and review and approve the minutes from the July 15, 2026 meeting. Do I have a motion?

So move.

Go ahead and vote. Second, second.

So it's not working.

I don't think it's working.

Do a roll call.

Mine's not working. And neither is Dr. Bell's.

Mr. Wood?

Yes.

Ms. Fergoso? Aye. Mr. Phelps?

Aye.

Dr. Bell?

Abstain.

And Mr. Bullock? Abstain.

Minutes were approved for ayes and two abstain. Are there any announcements? Three to five, excuse me. Three ayes, two abstain, one absent. Are there any announcements for this evening?

Thank you. We have one community meeting that is scheduled that was sent out to all of the Planning Commission members via email, but I'll just announce it this evening. This is for a telecommunications tower, a 199-foot wireless facility proposed on 6330 Old Morris Road. The community meeting is scheduled for August 20th at the Thornburg Middle School cafeteria, and there will be a balloon test that will be August 12th. And as far as your next meeting, we do not have any public hearings scheduled. And tonight is actually your last work session for the comprehensive plan. So we don't have any, you know, administrative items. So the planning commission may want to consider canceling your next meeting. I'll just say looking ahead at the September 2nd, I don't have anything finalized. There's possibly a public hearing opportunity, but I don't have anything finalized yet. So I'll be in communication with the chair if we need to cancel that meeting. The chair may do so at that time.

So, Mr. Chairman, are we going to cancel that meeting?

What did he say?

Are we going to cancel the meeting, the next meeting?

Did you just bring it up? Yeah, I'm asking you. It's fine with me if it's fine with you.

There's nothing on the agenda for next meeting.

Any consensus for the board? Do we have to do anything to turn the chair back over to me or no? Anything formal? Okay.

All right.

Considering I walked in on the tail end of that, what's the date of the meeting we're canceling?

It's August 19th, August 19th.

Okay, I guess my question would be if because the board meets between now and then correct. So, is there any possibility that the board. Does something at their meeting that we might need to meet for on that day? That would be the only thing that I would wonder.

It would probably be too short of a notice at that point to advertise it and hold it. So. I'm just guessing on that.

Well, I'll say this. There's no public hearings scheduled. We've already passed advertising deadlines. So I'm not worried about that. And of course, your calendar has already been published. So if you would rather hold off until after the board meeting to see if there are any discussion items or work session items that they refer to the planning commission, we could certainly wait to cancel it. The chair could do that after the board's meeting on the 11th.

I don't think we need to hold off. If we decide it's needed, I'll make sure everybody's contacted by me or by staff, and if we can get four, we'll do the business then. Okay, so the 19th is canceled. Sorry for being a little late for everybody, but the first meeting since school's back in, and Cortland Elementary has got something going on tonight, and they're backed up past the sheets on Spotsylvania Parkway, so it's real slow going. Where are we at in announcements? Reports of standing committees. Okay, Mr. Wood.

So Transparency has not had a meeting since our last meeting. It's later this month, so I'll have an update after that one.

Okay. Well, we have sort of an ad hoc committee of myself, Mrs. Alexis, and Mrs. Pomato on the bylaws. And I know it's been redistributed and Has everybody gone over the bylaws, the red line changes? Most of it is just to make us more compliant with state statute, county statute. The one significant change is votes will not be required to have a second. So, it'd be following what the board of supervisors do. We don't need to advertise this to my understanding. This is just our personal bylaws change. So, if there's any questions now, please bring it up and let Mrs. Alexis address them, please.

I think my question, Mr. Chairman, was we're prompted to look at the bylaws.

I've been looking at it for the last two and a half years, Dr. Bell. They've added a little section concerning Robert's Rules of Order just to make it a little clearer about what motion has present, a friendly motion. Again, the friendly motion, I don't think we'll find that in Robert's Rules of Order, but the board does it also. So it's just letting you know it's a slight change versus a substitute. But if there's any objections to it, please speak up now. If not...

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to also answer the question. I'll share with you that Chairman Grinnell, before I took over duties as a... Ms. Alexis, can't hear you. Oh, sorry about that. Mr. Grinnell, Chairman Grinnell, before I... Uh, was assigned to support the commission. I know he's been looking at the bylaws for a while, but I also share that once I was assigned to support the commission, I reviewed the bylaws. I saw that there were some elements of the bylaws that were actually contradictory to county code and county code does. dictate and it would take precedent over any sort of purported policy or bylaw that was in contradiction thereof. And so when I saw those inconsistencies with county code in your bylaws and some other things that I thought weren't addressed that were important, I then too had some suggestions. So just by happenstance, Chairman Grinnell and myself, in having some conversations, realized that we both had issues that we think the commission would be served by some changes.

Okay, did that help? I know Debbie and I had spoke because she called me the other day and we talked. She said, well, it looks like we're not following Robert's rules of order. So, when then we discussed that. Our bylaw state, we start with Robert's rules of order, but then that is secondary to our bylaws and our bylaws are secondary to county and state code. So, uh, depending on which 1 is present for each use that it would vary.

I'll share with you mr. Chairman Since since you're on this issue. I see that it was added to the agenda after the comp plan review But since we're talking about it I will share with you that in distributing a copy of the proposed changes to the Commission members vice chair for go So did ask some questions and she made a suggestion to me that I do think is a good idea I'd like to One additional change is on the first instance on page one where it talks about, you know, a motion that passes when there's a majority of all present and voting, which is what county code says. She asked if maybe I could drop a footnote or put clarity that present means voting. either physically present or electronically present consistent with the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. So I'll share with you the only red line you don't see before you is a very good idea that Vice Chair Fragoso shared with me within the last couple work days about dropping a footnote about what present means. Present meaning both physical presence or lawfully electronic presence. And so that would be only one addition that I would ask, that if in the end you come to a vote where you accept the red line and whole or in part, that you allow me to add that footnote for clarity. That's a very good idea of the vice chairwoman.

Okay. Are you suggesting we add that footnote and consider this at the next, well, the next meeting won't be until September now?

No, you could add it now. In other words, if there's a motion to adopt the bylaws as presented with the red line accepted, and also adding the footnote that Vice Chair Fregoso helped develop and that I recited tonight.

And to be more specific, I know it's elementary, but electronic present means what?

whatever the Virginia state code says. And I think state code provides a mechanism where folks can call in telephonically. I think you guys have done it before. There are certain procedures that have to happen under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act where the person has to let you know where they are. And there are certain housekeeping matters that are in the state code. But nonetheless, in the event... as you have in the past allowed one of your commissioners to appear telephonically or otherwise electronically meeting that state code as you've done in the past, that also means present. And I'll share with you, it's in the word, but I think it's clear not everyone might know that present means both physically present and as state law allows.

How do we determine if a person stays electronically present if I call in How do you know if I'm attending the entirety of the meeting?

So I'll share with you where it's relevant is if you're electronically present, pursuant to state code, which you guys have done, and if that person electronically present cast a vote, meaning when the vote's done, then the secretary, I think pursuant to the rules, has to say, hey, commissioner, who's on the phone or on the video, compliant with state law, what is your vote on this matter? And when you cast your vote electronically, all these rules are saying is that When the rule says a motion is successful when there's a majority of those present and voting, everyone will have clarity that even that person who appeared electronically, who met all the rules and the secretary polled them for their vote electronically, that vote counts too. Okay.

Okay, I have a follow-up question to that because, again, through my conversation with Debbie, I was always told that an electronic presence could not make a quorum, that a quorum had to be hot bodies here on the site. Is that true or false?

So that's not an issue for the written rules. I'll share with you, I'll have to, I wasn't prepared and didn't know if anybody was appearing, wasn't alerted that anyone was appearing electronically. So whether someone appearing electronically is accounted for in

establishing a quorum i can have that answer for you at your next meeting it isn't pertinent to the actual bylaws for you today okay that's just something i'd like into that for you because we always i was always told that if you had four people here and one person went out to get a coke their lungs are still in the building you had a quorum but if you left left the building you no longer had a quorum but he could be out there electronically in his car is that a quorum

I'll make sure to have a written legal memo to you guys, and I'll answer that question at the next meeting.

Good. Then I'd entertain a motion, please, since you had some questions.

I can't hear it.

No, to adopt our new bylaws. And then we do that. Please.

I'll make a motion to adopt the new planning commission bylaws.

Second. Motion made and seconded. Is there any further discussion?

For clarity, is that with the footnote?

With the footnote.

Excuse me. Yes, with the footnote. Thank you.

Second. Mr. Wood, do you have a question? Okay. No further discussion. Are these working tonight?

I think we maybe. Let's try again.

Let's try again, and if they don't work, then I'll do roll call for the remainder of the night.

All right. Looks like you're working now.

I don't think Debbie's is working.

What number do you have on? What's that? I'm 17.

I'm 16, 15.

That's 14. 15.

15. Yeah. But there's a matter what number I don't 18 18. I think we got to take a roll call to see where our electronic voters are now. Do we need to do that again?

For clarity, I would take a roll call. Okay.

Okay. Mr. Wood?

Aye.

Ms. Fergoso? Aye. Mr. Grinnell? Aye. Mr. Phelps? Aye. Dr. Bell? Aye. Mr. Bullock?

Aye.

Okay. Mrs. Fergoso, if you'd like to make a motion, please. Yes.

I'm going to make a motion to adjourn into a closed meeting, whereas the Spotsylvania County Planning Commission desires to adjourn into a closed meeting for consultation with legal counsel. employed by the county regarding specifically identifiable legal matters and legal questions requiring the provision and receipt of legal advice by and from such counsel, specifically regarding the duties and rights of the Commission and possible causes of action, and whereas pursuant to Virginia Code 2.2-3711 , such discussions may occur in closed meeting. Now, therefore, be it so moved and resolved that the Spotsby Commission does hereby authorize discussion of the after stated matters in a closed meeting.

Okay. All those in favor of adjourning to a closed session?

Is there a second?

Second. Oh, we just voted. We didn't need a second in the bylaws.

Okay.

Okay.

All right. All those in favor?

I'll, you want me to do a roll call or are you going to try that? We'll try these again. Okay.

Yeah, let me try it.

While you're in closed session, we'll see if we can't fix the issue. Debbie still isn't working. Okay. Mr. Wood.

Aye.

Ms. Fergoso. Aye. Mr. Grinnell. Aye. Mr. Phelps. Aye. Dr. Bell. Aye. Mr. Bullock.

Aye. Okay. Okay.

by this board that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law, including but not limited to, that to the best of each Commission member's knowledge, only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, and only such public business matters as were identified in the motion by which the closed meeting was convened were heard, discussed, or considered in the closed meeting by the Commission. Now, therefore, be it so moved and resolved that the Spotsylvania County Planning Commission hereby returns to open meeting and certifies by roll call vote that to the best of each member's knowledge, only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion to convene and to closed meeting were heard, discussed, or considered in the closed meeting.

Mr. Wood? Aye. Ms. Fergoso? Aye. Mr. Grinnell? Aye. Mr. Phelps? Aye. Dr. Bell? Aye. And Mr. Bullock?

Aye. Okay. I neglected to state earlier that we had amended the agenda, and I jumped down to the plan commission bylaws prior to that. So we have amended the agenda for the night. And we're going to proceed to discussion item CPA 25-0002. And then the public comment will come after that at that time. So at this time, we want to proceed to the comprehensive work session. Mr. Passwood, good to see you, sir.

Hey, you too. Good evening, members of the Planning Commission, public here this evening and watching on television as well. Today is the last planned work session on the Conference of Plan. After going through Chapter 2, Land Use, tonight, we will have effectively gone through all of the chapters and subchapters with work sessions. I did want to let anyone know that the materials that have been previously presented to the Planning Commission, the draft materials, executive summaries, any applicable information, Um, from those prior meetings are available on the agenda for the respective meetings. Um, then also, uh, that we have a conference of plan update website that's been, um, in development for some time that has presented all of the draft materials online that have been discussed prior. Uh, once we get through this this evening, I'll have those available for the public. Um, so all the materials will be available well, in advance of public hearing, um, those that website also includes in addition to the draft materials themselves. It includes the, um, agenda links, uh, links to the live video recordings of these planning commission meetings. Um, so those things can be easily accessed on that planning commission, um, or on the conference plan update, uh, website. So with that, today's focus work session is on Chapter 2 land use specifically. The Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2223 and 2224 sets the framework for development of Chapter 2 land use, including consideration of existing conditions and future land use vision. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality oversight review as required under the Code of Virginia results in addition of a zoning map as an exhibit. So if you've looked this evening at the packet materials at the end, we have 11 by 17 maps. There are two maps still yet to come. They're in development right now. They resulted from DEQ oversight review. One of them is a zoning map, and I wanted to be clear the zoning map is a whole separately approved, it's part of the zoning ordinance. It's being provided as an exhibit. The comprehensive plan itself does not establish zoning, so I wanted to be clear on that. That will be shown as an exhibit showing the county zoning, as well as there's an existing land use map that DEQ has requested as well, which basically will reflect the existing land cover, forestry cover, cropland, things that are in impervious surfaces. Things like that. It's just an account of the existing conditions countywide These maps under are under construction at the moment and we will be adding them as appendix 2-1 and 2-2 within the chapter following this meeting So for chapter two, land use, this includes subject matter deep dives that we had discussed prior on housing, economic development, and tourism, as well as utilities, telecommunications, and internet infrastructure. Those, as I had noted in the prior meetings that we had with you all from for work session, were relocated out of the land use chapter. The 2021 comprehensive plan had those elements all embedded all within the land use chapter. We saw value in separating them out for subject matter, kind of deep dive specific analyses. The results of those informed number of policy language and land use designations within the actual land use chapter be discussed this evening. Just for background. The economic development and tourism sub chapter was discussed on July 15 housing was on June 17 production of food fiber and silver culture, agriculture and forestry was on June 17 and then the utilities content was discussed on June 3 at work session. One of the main aspects of the land use chapter update has to do with the primary development boundary because this is a real driver of what our land use recommendations are. Just for some background, the primary development boundaries established as the county's public water and sewer district. And as such, this is where our county utilities departments plans for infrastructure. It plans its capacity as infrastructure enhancement based on the service of this area. Some areas are still in process of being served and others need to be upgraded to serve additional development. The primary development boundary in the county acts as a growth management boundary. The existing primary development boundary is approximately 18% of the county's land area or 73 square miles. Approximately 25% of the primary development boundary remains potentially developable either in an undeveloped or underdeveloped state. Those are five plus acre parcels that don't have much by way of development footprint on them. They're not in subdivisions. They're not on any major investment. They tend to be just sizable parcels that you may see infill development within the boundary. The result includes prior approved projects not yet built out and it does not account for smaller infill opportunities and redevelopment areas. So there are planted lots for instance and this comprehensive plan does focus on promoting efficient use of the primary development boundary as a means for staff not promoting expansion of the primary development boundary at this time. So there are planted lots, for instance, that have not yet been developed. Sylvania Heights area, Lafayette Boulevard, there are pieces that have not yet developed out and those are obviously not accounted for each and every little lot that's out there. This also does not account for collecting a series of smaller parcels to form a larger project area and at times we do see that as well. There might be a four and a five acre parcel that are collected together and then we have a development proposal on nine acres. With that being said, the primary development boundary as part of this comprehensive plan update is not being proposed for expansion at this time. Again, as a growth management boundary, the intent here is to try to manage growth and keep it located within a centralized location. And at this time, we don't see need to propose any expansions. This is just a picture of the primary development boundary as it appears in the Conference of Plan draft. The area that's in this kind of lime green color is the primary development boundary that's considered more easy to serve. It has favorable topography, for instance. And then the areas that are in salmon color have been identified by the Utilities Department as more difficult to serve areas. They just require additional infrastructure investment. There may be topographic challenges. This is a way to be fully transparent with the development community, anyone looking to develop these areas, that there may be additional infrastructure necessary to serve some of these areas. The difficult-to-serve areas were identified in the 2021 update of the comprehensive plan originally to be, you know, fully transparent on some of the areas that are considered more challenging to develop. However, they are still within the primary development boundary. It's just a heads up. Key land use themes with this update includes emphasizing efficient use of the primary development boundary that's existing, as I had stated earlier, to promote infill development, redevelopment, secondary or subordinate residential, potential in traditionally developed areas historically limited in zoning, and one-dimensional land use restrictions. So when we've had discussions on this in the past, we looked at areas that have been developed solely for commercial development, or they've had land use designations that have been specific to non-residential, Route 3 corridor, area near the Spotsylvania Mall, areas around exit 126 that have been really one-dimensionally developed as strip retail centers. Mall areas, and this is an opportunity with this update again trying to promote infill development redevelopment opportunities. We looked at these areas as a means to potentially introduce housing opportunities as secondary or subordinate uses within areas that otherwise would be solely commercial. This introduces the prospect of housing. It creates a more 24-7 type of environment and utilizes existing developed land to promote the potential for housing development as more of an infill and reactivation of some of these areas. We've seen some interest in redeveloping some of the old hotel motels and the Route 1 corridor, for instance. There's actually developers that look to some of these sites. They're looking at potentially redeveloping them and bringing mixed type of development projects to them. And having a land use support that could potentially enable that would be very helpful. I wanted to be clear that these land use designations in the comprehensive plan really have no say over the existing zoning of the property. So if, for instance, you have existing industrial zoning, a land use designation that may conflict with that. doesn't change that buy-right development potential of the land that's zoned. It simply states if you have, say, industrial zoned land and a land use designation supports commercial over that industrial zoned land, it simply supports the concept of if we have a developer that comes forth and wants to rezone that property away from industrial, for instance, there's some land use support exhibited to potentially do that. that's also what we have within the primary development boundary in some areas out old plank road way out route three. The primary development boundary was expanded in 2013 west of and or a drive out as far as mclaws and a lot of the land out there still has rules owning. That rural zoning was in place prior to the primary development boundary being expanded to that area. So that's why we do see residential rezoning requests out on those pieces of property. They've been targeted for higher intensity single family detached development in general at four units per acre. And so in order to do that, developer would have to actually up zone the property and would have land use support to do so within the confines of the low density residential land use designation. Additional key land use themes include reduced lot yield expectations based on a net calculation for guidance. If you recall, when we had our housing discussion, there was a methodology that we had gone through where historically what we've seen in the county is, you know, if you have 100 acres and I have four units per acre. that calculation for net or for total lot yield that we ultimately see proposed may be based on the total gross acreage that whole hundred acres regardless of the fact that say 40 of those acres are undevelopable it might be street infrastructure it might be steep slopes it might be wetlands rpa area All of those areas that would otherwise not accommodate a house are being credited towards additional units within that site. And that's why one of the reasons you end up with higher lot yields and that postage stamp look that we've been routinely hearing concerns about within the county. So we had presented with the housing element. taking a net based approach, basically calculating your density based on the area truly occupied by residential housing and not taking account for additional lots that would otherwise not be developed. So that reduces lot yield expectations going forward and what we hope to do is result in smaller lot yields and more predictable lot sizes, get away from some of that postage stamp lot that we hear a lot of concerns from the community about. We've heard it from the board. We've heard it from planning commissioners. This has been information that has not only been collected as part of this comp plan update. It's really been going on for the last five years. We hear it through routine public hearings. So that's one of the things that we've been doing. Additionally, we've added the flex unit option to encourage a mix of smaller units in exchange for greater lot yield. Again, as we had talked about prior, we have lowered the lot yield expectation. We've built in an option for more affordable, smaller units, more cottage-style units that gives a potential for a density bonus, but still stays within a lower lot yield than what's currently being calculated under the growth scenario. So we hope that helps introduce some smaller cottage-style homes. I know a lot of the homes that are constructed tend to be, you know, out of... out of affordability for a lot of folks the comprehensive plan surveys and the small area plan surveys made that known as well there's interest in more affordable housing in the county for folks they just don't have an ability to get starter homes and so we're trying to promote that as an incentive based option it's an option as well it's not regulatory required We've also sought more predictable lot sizes, larger lot sizes in low density residential areas specifically. So four units per acre equates to more lots more like quarter acre lot sizes as opposed to the postage stamp with open space. New residential land use tiers have been with scale backs and housing types and yields in new residential hamlet designations, as well as the long established lower density residential. And I'll go through that here shortly as we go through the land use map. But ultimately we've proposed some changes to our lower intensity residential land use designations. within the primary development boundary, to promote preservation of kind of historically larger lots, semi-rural locations specifically, especially in the Jackson Gateway area, but then also to rein in some of the low density residential expectations as well. The comprehensive plan has historically said low density residential includes single family detached or townhome type of developments. That's created a lot of land use conflicts in low density residential areas. Low density residential is the most prevalent land use designation within the primary development boundary. With the revision, the low density residential land use designation accommodates single family detached as the primary with an option for duplexes of more of a subordinate or secondary type of use. It removes that townhome use altogether from low density residential areas. We've also expanded land use guidance related to impact mitigation for certain uses and provided greater policy guidance on land use transitions and project aesthetics as well. So for redevelopment and infill potential, there's more efficient use of existing space within the primary development boundary is what we've sought to promote redevelopment and or infill of areas surrounded by residential already. So if you look at the Route 3 mall area that I had mentioned earlier, you have these really solely commercial type of areas along the Route 3 corridor and your mall area. That project actually did introduce an apartment complex a few years ago to it. We had a land use support specific to the mall, but what we've done is we've actually expanded that to a mixed use high land use designation instead of being one dimensionally commercial. Obviously, you can see on each flank of Route 3 in this example, it's all single family detached housing, single family detached housing. on the north and south side. This option provides the ability to have housing mixed in all throughout the area. I'm not saying single-family detached necessarily fits in with strip retail, but it gives an opportunity for maybe secondary type of housing, whether it be a second floor or a small apartment building, what have you. Same thing applies in the Four Mile Fork area, Route 1, South Point, and Cosner Corner area, as well as within the Spotsylvania Industrial Park. Housing diversification and attainability options are provided here and growth from within developed areas as opposed to outward. That's something that we did here with the comprehensive plan surveys is try to work within the areas that we already have and promote housing and infill development within those areas as opposed to further expanding out with more and more greenfield development that ultimately will threaten the primary development boundary and warrant further expansion out in the rural areas. small area plans small area plans this is the first time that we've introduced them within the land use chapter here we've introduced five small area plans in the future land use chapter this process started in 2022 really the guidance for small area plans was originally assigned in the 2021 Conference of Plan as a major initiative action item. We started the process in 2022, developed a conference of plans, a survey specific to small area plans, collected over 500 responses on that. There were town hall meeting on the deep run small area plan area. We had work sessions on this subject matter. There's a fairly extensive one with the planning commission on November of 2024. Um, I would refer anyone to that was, uh, things 2, 2 and a half hours on those small area plan proposals. The areas that have been identified and added to the future land use map include 4 mile fork. Crossroads VRE and a LaVue sub area. Lake Anna at route 208. Thornburg and Jackson Gateway, as well as Deep Run. Deep Run, also known, if you're familiar with the Bowman Center or the Sylvania plant area there, Spotsylvania Industrial Park, the Shannon Airport, that's that Deep Run area. Small area plans provide additional vision and guidance concerning development, uses, character development, redevelopment, and infrastructure. Initial proposals covered in detail over a two-hour presentation, like I said, November 20, 2024, at the Planning Commission. Major insights gained from the small area plan surveys that garnered over 500 responses, as well as that deep-run town hall meeting. This is just a quick view of the small area plans, starting with the Lake Anna small area plan. These are zoom-in maps that are within the land use chapter draft. at a countywide scale or even focused on the primary development boundary, it's a little bit more difficult to interpret. So we've created these zoom in maps. At Route 208, Lake Anna, what historically we've had was this area fully outlined in blue, and we've maintained this area outlined in blue, but the mixed-use designation has been proposed to significantly scale back with this update by 725 acres. So this area up to the north, north of Douglas Creek, I believe it is, along the Route 208 corridor, has been removed from the mixed-use land use designation, and that came from direction that we received from the Board of Supervisors. We've remained a mixed land use designation at the lakefront and Route 208. This area is outside of the primary development boundary. It's not planned for public water and sewer. There's no infrastructure there to support it. And in discussions with the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, the support for this mixed use area is aimed at well and septic supported, single family detached type of housing, as well as commercial, whether it be commercial in support of the rural population, you know, for services, medical care facilities, pharmacies, things of that nature, and also tourism kind of attractions and things of that nature in the commercial. So that's really the focus with this. It really reigned in the scope of what's expected here to develop And again, we've scaled back that area significantly. This area is not new for a mixed-use type of vision. Note the Route 208 area near Lake Anna goes back to the 1994 comprehensive plan. At that time, it was referred to as a village center. So this vision has carried on over the years, but with this update, we've significantly scaled it back. The small area plan does remain in this area outlined in blue. A commercial corridor was pulled down from up in Lawyers Road area down to the creek and maintains the potential for commercial development. Again, you would have to zone into that likely unless your property is already zoned commercially. The remaining area is either open space or rural residential. The second area here I'll focus on is the Four Mile Fork small area plan. This is the area Route 1, 208 exit 126 on I-95. This area transitions exclusive commercial land use to a larger area under mixed use. There have been mixed, commercial heavy mixed use is what the designation was up in the Four Mile Fork area near Hood Drive. We've actually expanded that boundary and the land use to that mixed use that that having mixed use designation to include the entirety of the area that had been commercially land use designated specifically in support of infill high redevelopment opportunities and introduction of residential a secondary or subordinate use. An example of this in this area is the Lakeside Townhomes and the recently opened assisted living facility or age-restricted apartments, I'm sorry, in the area of Spotsylvania Avenue. Third area I'll focus on here is the Crossroads VRE and LaVue small area plan. This is near the county's VRE station on Crossroads Parkway, the Route 17 corridor, Mass Ponics Church Road. It's the area that's outlined here in blue. The LaVue area, is on the west side of the RF&P Railroad corridor on the opposite side of where the VRE station is and extends as far as Massaponix Church Road. This area has been envisioned as a traditional neighborhood development focused mixed use area that takes advantage of sweeping views utilizing the historic Levue property and the topography that looks to the east over towards the railroad tracks and the station. But you can see actually outside of the county from that perspective. It's a National Register site with a lot of opportunities there for viewshed and interpretation of that historic resource. And this area has been historically identified as a growth area. We hope to build on that with the traditional neighborhood development. which is a mixed use development that we also promote urban design plans to go with. So if development were to occur, we would see a development proposal here. We'd actually be looking for a pattern book, somebody to come forward with an actual development plan to really vision out how the project looks, feels, its character, the intended uses, density. We'd have much more of a vision on what this type of area would look like. That guidance is outlined within the small area plan for the LaVue sub area. Additionally, it sets land use support for a variety of potential uses on the north side of Route 17. This is in the area of Eagle Drive. This area has industrial zoning in place already and certainly could develop with industrial use potential. However, if there was a proposal to try to rezone it for something else, the comprehensive plan would show potential land use support for mixed use development, which would be something more along the lines of what you see either horizontally mixed use if you look at where the Spotsylvania Regional Medical Center is. You have a mix of uses scattered about. You have apartments, you have a medical center, you have Sheetz gas station, you have assisted living facility, bank and financial institutions. all horizontally spaced within a walkable area. Or alternatively, those mixed use designations could develop something more along the lines of that you see in Spotsylvania Courthouse Village, which are more of a mixed use type of buildings. You have commercial ground floor, residential upstairs. You may have town homes and commercial buildings scattered about. that would potentially lend itself for that type of development if not developed industrially. So when you see these land use designations as well, I want to be clear they're not to be interpreted as zoning lines. Zoning lines are very specific and interpreted specifically to their location. Per the land use map, the comprehensive plan in general is a guide. It is not a requirement. It lends support. The land use designations are not meant to actually be parcel specific or even, you know, the color doesn't necessarily have to be strictly interpreted to its location. Multi-colored to a specific parcel really gives flexibility for a multitude of uses to be located in an area. In the VRE station, specific on the east side of the railroad corridor, that mixed-use area has fairly significantly built out. With the amount of residential that's already been built in there with a mixed land use designation, we frankly have suggested that there's no more space there for residential development. Any additional efforts to develop that area or rezone it, In our interpretation would warrant commercial or other non residential type of development, and that's what we've tried to focus on here. We have the village at Crossroads Station and the Crossroads Village project in this area already approved. We don't have a lot of room for additional development. There's also Fredericksburg Christian with what land remains. If we were to accept additional residential it would really make a fairly one dimensional development area and that would not be in keeping with the mixed use designation. The last two I'll focus on here are the deep run small area plan. And this is the one, like I said, Shannon Airport and the Sylvania plant, which has been recently identified as part of the Natural Register of Historic Places. That occurred with the Upper Spotsy Redevelopment Project. If you're familiar with where Maltese Brewing is, that's part of that project and all the apartments that went in there. The main focus here is on enhanced access and land use vision for the historic Sylvania plant area. and Rappahannock Riverfront, where 60 or so acres owned by the county are being planned for a decommissioning of the FMC wastewater treatment plant to be decommissioned by the county. This area promotes streetscape beautification, creation of a hybrid industrial and mixed-use district, entertainment venue, riverfront access, and that's something that we heard from the conference plan surveys on the small area plans was interest in access to the riverfront. One of the main things that folks said when asked what are the main attractions of this area was the Rappahannock River. But interestingly enough, there's not a lot of means to actually access it in this area. It's there, but it's inaccessible. So we've actually proposed things like outdoor amphitheaters and river walks and scenic bluffs overlooking the river with development up at the top. All those details design concepts have been laid out within the small area plan content. And what we'd like to see is if we have development proposals to develop these, they generally can try to achieve those goals. Again, this is another area that we would be hoping to see an urban design plan. So you don't just see a real generic generalized development plan with no detail in terms of the look and character of a project. We actually have design renderings and real architectural look and feel and amenities that are really outlined to create a vision for this area going forward. The last one is the Thornburg and Jackson Gateway small area plan. This is an area that's been historically identified for employment center land use. If I go back to the county's 2002 comprehensive plan, it was identified for being a sleeping giant for the county in terms of job creation and employment and fiscal sustainability for non-residential growth. And so that 2002 vision carried into the 2008-13-21 comprehensive plan, and we have seemed to maintain that vision. Because when the county establishes these land use visions, things like our county utilities proactively goes and plans for infrastructure to serve this. This is in the primary development boundary. There's investments made in infrastructure and roads, planning to try to see these areas to come to fruition. Obviously, if you're probably aware too, we have new concept roads that have been developed to serve these areas with inland routes away from Route 1 corridor. But with this update, And I'd also note this area is within a tourism zone. So with Kalahari and Dominion Raceway, there's obviously interest in developing tourism attractions that can co-locate in the area of that at the Thornburg exit. With that being said, there's been a lot of resistance to the broad brush land use designation that had been historically applied to the Jackson Gateway area that really had extensive mixed use areas along the western boundary of the corridor. It really painted the whole area under an employment center land use designation, but for those mixed use land use designations. With this update, we've proposed one of the residential changes is the residential Hamlet areas. These are residential carve-outs of existing semi-rural clusters of homes in the area of the Po River, for instance, and up near Hickory Ridge Road. We've proposed to downgrade their land use designation so they're no longer under employment center. There's the ability for those areas to potentially expand and have similar development in their proximity, in their universe, while still promoting the ability to develop the area as it's long been planned for, which is that employment center land use designation area. This really does look to maintain that more rural character along Hickory Ridge Road by not proposing significant increases in density and land use. A lot of these areas were either identified as employment center or mixed use, and those designations have been removed in exchange for these Hamlet designations that you see in yellow. So one of the major parts of the future land use chapter is the actual future land use map. And I'm going to give you a zoom in view of the primary development boundary. And then I'm going to give you one at the countywide scale first. And I'm going to step you through here utilizing stars to try to give you some bearings on this. So, first of all addition to the future land use map the stars here that you see the four of them and off the map is that lake Anna are the small area plans that I just focused on we just have them outlined in the plan. Secondly. yellow stars, this is the new land use designation for residential hamlets the aim is to preserve semi rural residential clusters within the primary development boundary. These carve out areas aim to protect existing single family detached residential while allows it allowing for similar. In the immediate area single family detached housing ranging from one acres to five acres would would be the vision for these these locations. In Jackson gateway it's been proposed to maintain some of that historically established residential core areas and similar similar character, while also being cognizant that the county has long established the area for employment Center commercial growth. To quote the county's 2002 comprehensive plan 24 years ago, the area within the primary development boundary down here in Jackson Gateway was often referred to as a sleeping giant. The Interstate 95 interchange has the potential to become the next employment center with Spotsylvania County. This land use vision has been maintained, again, in all subsequent comprehensive plans updates until this point, as well as infrastructure planning and investment. In addition to the Jackson Gateway, there are some of that Hamlet designations on the periphery of the Spotsylvania Courthouse District on the west side of Lake Anna Parkway. Also on the outskirts of the primary development boundary that was expanded in 2013 out to McLaws in some of the areas here north and south of Route 3 that were considered difficult to serve from a utility standpoint and already have some existing more semi-rural residential land use character. There's also a small area here on the downward side of Thornton Rolling Road as well. There's a cluster of housing within the primary development boundary that we don't plan for any major large-scale overhaul or change in land use. The next one that we have is the Tan stars that you see scattered throughout. This is that low density residential land use designation that I had previewed earlier. Low density residential, its focus is now going to be on single family detached and potential for subordinate or sub secondary duplex style residential. It removes reference to townhomes and instead focuses on detached style housing within the primary development boundary at densities of four dwelling units per acre. Lot yield and sizing guidance focused on net base calculations and more predictably seeking average lot sizes at or above quarter acre lot sizes. We've heard repeatedly in these areas that lot yields are too high and projects are too dense. Even with open space and postage stamp lots and townhomes have resulted in density and lot yield concerns. So we note the low density residential designation covers the greatest land use area within the primary development boundary. The next one here is this reddish orange color that you see. This is the mixed use high land use designation. I had zoomed in briefly on the Route 3 corridor in the mall, but these are the areas that we've proposed to convert from a strictly commercial land use designation to the mixed use high. Again, allowing for the potential introduction of residential as a secondary or subordinate use in traditionally commercial areas. The lavender stars that you see, this purple kind of color here, this is the employment center land use designation. It's focused on industrial office and tourism attractions. It's also supporting commercial development. The focus has been on job creation, economic development, and fiscal sustainability. Focus areas have been in traditionally zoned industrial areas and or areas that have already been developed industrial areas. So there are industrially zoned properties that have not developed and there's areas that we actually have active industrial parks such as this on the west side of the Route 2A corridor. if you're familiar back behind formal fork shopping center that's a lot of industrial already developed there some of these land use areas for instance out here on smith station road you have the lidl warehouse and an active quarry operation there's other areas like the cosner drive industrial park northeast drive you have a developing industrial park there there have been some data center developments also improved immediately adjacent to that And then there's some areas that have industrial zoning but not yet developed. And so those have been reflected within these various employment center land use designations. I wanted to note that with this update, significant scale backs of mixed use land use designations have been proposed along the western edge of the primary development boundary. Again, this gets back to that area we talked about in the Jackson Gateway area. and per direction from the Board of Supervisors on January 29, 2026 work session. That's ultimately what resulted in that change. We've also proposed in the new post area as in addition to the area that I covered on the Eagle Drive side, introducing a land use designation that would support either employment center or mixed use type of development in the Belvedere Plantation area as well. So it could be more of an either or mix to develop going forward. The next one that I have here is the salmon color. This is considered the mixed use low designation. This is chiefly aimed at mixed residential housing, but also supporting of commercial developments along major corridors. So instance, we actually have this designation here in Lafayette Boulevard area. Lafayette Boulevard and Route 1 corridor obviously have a lot of commercial development along that. The intervening cross-connecting streets tend to be on a more dense traditional residential type. Like Tidewater Trail and Lafayette Boulevard, those are my examples on why this land use designation exists where it's proposed. This is the Sylvania Heights area. Housing types for this land use designation include single family detached, single family attached, duplex, and standalone 8 to 10 unit multifamily type of buildings as opposed to really large apartment complexes. Quarter to one-eighth acre lots have been envisioned. The next land use designation that I want to show you is actually a land use overlay that we're proposing to depict. This is actually not a new overlay. As part of a 2023 update to the comprehensive plan, when the data center policies were added to the comp plan, there was a text description of this land use. It just was not included as a land use overlay visually. We did provide a visual reference at the time. But with this comprehensive plan update, we figured since the language is in there and is effectively a land use overlay, we would depict this in these textured brown stars about the periphery of the primary development boundary. The depiction of the data center land use overlay, it was described initially via a comprehensive plan amendment in 2023. So it's actually not new. It establishes potential land use support and prospect for public water and sewer extensions to serve data centers for domestic services. Reuse water supplies also potential to serve these uses until they are tapped out. And that's really something that's coordinating with the utilities department to determine. On data centers, I wanted to state that this is the only area outside of the primary development boundary that's considered potentially supported by land use policies. We don't have land use policy supportive of data center development beyond that one mile buffer. within the primary development boundary. Otherwise, data centers would really be envisioned and limited to the employment center land use designation. No other land use designation at this time would support the development of data centers if someone had to go through a special use permit or rezoning process. The only supporting land use designation would be the employment center one. Data centers at one time had been identified as an office use. That's been changed with a zoning code update. So the support for office in, for instance, in the mixed use areas would no longer apply to data centers. It's specific to employment centers at this point. The other land use overlay, and this is something that's actually newly proposed, is an economic development overlay here that really takes advantage of the existing rail corridor. The rail corridor in this county is limited really to the extreme east of the county. There's limited rail mileage and a lot of the rail corridor that we have is constrained by environmental features preserved national park battlefields other existing development open space areas it's not a lot of opportunity for economic development interest tied to the rail corridor With that being said, we consulted with our economic development staff and this is the Berkeley district. We also had initial consult with our board member looking at this area to introduce a overlay really within the same constraints of the data center overlay, but just on the east side of the county, east of Massaponic Church Road within that mile buffer and then also along the rail corridor itself for the potential development of additional industries beyond just data centers. These are land use overlays. They are use-specific overlays. They're not aimed at a full-fledged expansion of the primary development boundary. And the reason for that is if we expand the primary development boundary, this is something that county utilities then will have to be proactively looking to plan for and invest in that infrastructure. These use-specific overlays outside their primary development boundary are aimed at development that would have to go through an enabling process. They have to be rezoned or go through a special use permit. And they would also have to pave their way in terms of their infrastructure costs and to actually serve those sites. So it's by no means is this a opening the door for buy right development by any means in these areas. Again, the proximity to the primary development boundary, the proximity to the existing overlay, access to the rail corridor were key with this one. And this is what the proposal is on the east side of the county. The last one that I'm going to show here in relation to the primary development boundary are the two tourism overlay zones. These are economic development overlays called part of the tourism zone. These are areas, the tourism zone actually extends within the primary development boundary, but we wanted to symbol the areas that are specifically outside of the primary development boundary because land use direction related to this specific small area plan calls out the intended types of uses that could potentially be located, avoiding intense development. So, for instance, if you're in the tourism zone outside of the primary development boundary where we don't have planned water and sewer services, things like an outdoor golf course, more Less buildings and more open space type of recreation. Obviously, Indian Acres is a campground that could be obviously reinvested in, revitalized. There could be opportunities in that area as well. These are economic development overlay zones. We want to make sure that our land use chapter has consistent visions to what our other economic development interests have been, and the zones have been reflected in that way. We do have a request that I wanted to bring up to you this evening. This is something that is not in your packet or the map that we have proposed. We had received a request to consider expanding that Hamlet designation that I had mentioned earlier in the area of Hickory Ridge Road and Route 1 to include a number of these small parcels here along the Route 1 corridor. There's a number of residential parcels. These are Route 1 fronting parcels just in front of the Spotsy Tech campus, industrial development. There's also some land up along the Nye River on the south side of the Nye River that we've been asked to consider expanding that Hamlet designation. Our proposal would be to provide a Hamlet designation to Potentially support similar character development more of a rural residential in this route one hickory ridge road area we would maintain the commercial. Crossroads type of designation, where you have an intersection with a planned extension of hickory ridge road the county has been. seeking to have a signalized intersection in that location ultimately. So what we would do is have a hamlet extension in this area, also still support the proposal to have employment center land use designations where development can kind of go either way if we had a development proposed. And with that one, we're actually seeking guidance this evening from the Planning Commission if you would support a slight expansion of that hamlet designation on the other side of Route 1 into this kind of hamlet area.

Are you through?

Just on this slide, yeah. I have some more to go. But we were kind of interested to see your feelings on whether you would support more of a rural residential type of development as an option north of Spotsy Tech campus.

Okay. Is there any questions from commission members on this Hamlet extension?

So I think you just kind of answered the question I had. It would give more flexibility for multiple options in this case.

It would.

Jacob, has the River Protection Overlay District ever been extended to any other rivers since this is running right parallel?

No.

Joining the river?

Our River Protection Overlay District is north of Route 3 up the Rappahannock River.

But it's never been considered on any of the other rivers?

No. Okay.

Has any supervisor, this is getting off a little bit, but it's all with this land use theme. Any of the supervisors in the last 40 years? Since we passed the rural protection overlay district considered extended it into the Lee Hill district. Has there ever been a consideration? I am not aware of that. I know you've been around 20 years, I think.

Almost 20 years. Yeah. I'm not aware of that myself. No.

Because, uh, it might've solved some of the issues we're looking at in the Lee Hill district. Uh, how some of the housing even got close to the river down through there. Uh, I was just wondering if it had ever been followed up on. Okay. So it has not.

No, with that being said, we do have an environmental codes division here. Obviously, the county is a resource management area. It's all underneath the Chesapeake Bay ordinance. We do have resource protection areas. There's federal wetlands protections. So there are environmental protections out there for development and along these corridors in general. and our Environmental Codes Division would have regulatory authority over those.

Right. Well, the River Protection Overlay District requires five acres of water and sewer, unless the board votes to change it, which they have a couple times.

Yeah. There is an exception, I believe, for subdivisions. It can go down to two. I think we recently talked about that.

Yeah, but they had to have a certain higher percent of green space. They went down to two and a half acre lots. That's right. I'm just wondering if it had ever been considered to be extended into Lee Hill, which it was not originally.

Not that I'm aware of.

All right. Well, that would be my only concern about making that a hamlet, if it would allow... On the other side of that river would be the Lux Stone property?

Yeah. So the north side of the river is the Nye Village project that was a rezoning from back in 2010-2011 timeframe. That's an enabled project. That applicant, it was a mixed-use project with, I believe, up to 950 residential units, office commercial development. Right. They had submitted a re rezoning to that project in 2020. And my understanding is that applicant is actually considering bringing that project off the ground and going by right to was originally approved for. we're waiting that one out, we may see some development in that night village project, but that one's already. land spoken for in a way. These parcels here north of Spotsy Tech Campus really have been in question recently on whether they go more industrial or do we promote more of this kind of hamlet development and step down some of these development intensities and maintain this Hickory Ridge Road corridor more so. And that's why this idea came up where a developer could come potentially here with an employment center-friendly land use designation. There's limited acreage here, honestly, but there's two sites that could potentially develop. There's been talk of employment center type of industrial development, but... You know, there are a number of houses here. There is the potential development of a more semi-rural housing character, which would maintain this character that's already been established on the Route 1 corridor and kind of preserve that going to the west.

Yeah, I think my primary question there is, if the Luckstone property got developed, how easy would it be for water and sewer to be extended to the other side of the river into this little hamlet area? and then there wouldn't be a hamlet anymore.

To that point, this area would still be within the primary development boundary. It would have the ability to access public water and sewer. To that point, I don't want to speak for utilities. However, with the river corridor here, I would speculate infrastructure would come more so from the direction of where spotsy techno campus is getting their services from. I know there's been a number of developments here approved down North Roxbury mill spotsy techno campus is 1. we also have Roxbury commons just to the South of that. That's a residential project right across from the schools on North Roxbury mill. the actual provision of those utilities and where they ultimately come from would have to be worked out with the utilities department. But it would be supported.

As a follow-up to the Hickory Ridge line, it looks like to me it catches part of that property that came in for a warehouse rezoning previously.

That's correct. So on January 29th, of this year, we approached the Board of Supervisors about land use direction in this area. This project was known as Commerce Gateway, Gateways Commerce, I believe it was.

That's close enough.

One of those two, close enough. It is a Virginia Economic Development Partnership site, so it has been historically identified for economic development. The question had been asked at that time on whether there was interest in making this entire area a residential hamlet or making it mixed use or having more of a residential flavor to it. The feedback that we received was there wasn't interested in more housing. I mean, that's one of the things that we've also seen is there's a lot of resistance to housing in the county as well. There wasn't interest in promoting more housing in this area. So as a result, we have maintained the employment center land use designation on the south side of Hickory Ridge Road. I will tell you with that Commerce Gateway project though, in the interest of Hickory Ridge Road and knowing that where this lavender color changes to green, that's the edge of the primary development boundary. It is a rural two-lane road. There has always been interest. And if you look at the generalized development plan, we've promoted extensive forest preservation along Hickory Ridge Road to maintain that more rural character there. So even with a land use designation doesn't mean we wouldn't try to promote the preservation of the character along that road. But the direction that we received was to simply maintain this as an employment center land use designation. And we worked around it, though. Um, what this hamlet designation to try to catch these. Rural semi rural, uh, cluster areas and that's where this hamlet extension request came from as well.

Okay. Any questions. Okay, Mr helps commissioner phillips.

Thank you for the presentation. This kind of goes along the lines of Mr. Grinnell's question. In those small areas, especially this, this is Thornburg, correct? The small area plan?

Jackson Gateway area. Yes, Thornburg, Jackson Gateway.

Yep. What's the residential commercial mix right now? Do you have an idea for all the small area plans?

In terms of land use designations, we can calculate that. I'd have to get back to you with that information.

And actuals, yeah. I mean, not like that little hammer that would break the bank, you know, putting that in there.

I'll say it this way. If I were to – here, actually, let me – I would put the employment Center designation, this is rough estimating it based on what i'm looking at it probably 60 60 ish percent of the land use area within that small area plan thornburg Jackson gateway that's that lavender color there is very limited. mixed use land use designation one of them is here near guinea guinea station road this is reflective of the nye village project this area we've we view as effectively spoken for in a way with the nye village project and the patriot crossing project that were also approved And that's something that we emphasize when Patriot Crossing came in about a year or two ago was that we've effectively built out that mixed use once those two projects have constructed. In terms of mixed use supporting of housing, there's limited ability to do housing within this mixed use high designation on the backside of the Route 1 corridor that you have in proximity to Morris Road and Route 1, as well as a small area near Tavernier subdivision. And then we have these residential hamlets are really preservation areas of a similar type of development that's historically been established there, so a majority of it still focused on commercial non residential type of uses.

that's the only question I had for that particular side.

And again, to that point too, I had mentioned earlier, there's been a significant scale back. So if you look at the comprehensive plan as it's currently adopted, we have mixed use land use designations all along the western edge of the county primary development boundary currently. From Hickory Ridge Road all the way down to Morris Road, there was extensive. And those are apartments and townhomes and single-family detached at a higher density. Those have been removed. So the focus area really here is on preservation of that existing character with a couple clusters of mixed use still left over from either existing development patterns that have been there or already enabled projects.

Okay. Any other questions? I personally have no problem with extending the village concept across the road, but the final decision would come from the Board of Supervisors, correct?

It ultimately would, yes. But this is at least the comprehensive plan development really is, if you look at the Code of Virginia, it's the planning commission's baby, if you will. I mean, this is why all the work sessions are coming through the planning commission. Yes, we've consulted with the Board of Supervisors, especially on that for real kind of high thematic themes of this comprehensive plan. But all the chapters and sub chapters have been specifically taken through the Planning Commission because this this is like the formative Means of building this plan is through the Planning Commission.

What's the feeling of the Commission about extending that Hamlet area?

i'm in support of it too because i mean it gives you flexibility and allows a better decision to be made for the county as opposed to kind of handcuffing us into one specific thing which then we might not get the best option coming before us which obviously we can always vote that down but i think the more options we can give to better the county to come before us is a better way to approach this okay

I agree. I support the Hamlet extension to give us more opportunity for different development there, giving us more choices.

Well, that's three. Is there a fourth person that thinks it's a good idea?

I do.

Okay, that's four. I don't think we need a motion. You got a consensus?

That sounds good to me. We're happy to make that change. Thank you.

Yes, sir. Thank you.

Okay, moving on. I'm going to look at the future land use map at a countywide scale now. I'm stepping away from the primary development boundary. I wanted to note that the agricultural and forest land use designation was significantly expanded in 2021 Conference of Plan update. That was the last major five-year update to the Conference of Plan. The agriculture and forest land use generally discourages rezoning activities and promotes agriculture, forestry, open space, and ag supporting businesses, as well as buy-right development potential. It does not support upzoning for more residential lots. So the area that you see here in this darker green, not the real dark green, the real dark green are open space designations reflective of environmental corridors, streams, wetlands, RPAs, and areas like the state park and areas that also are under conservation easement like the wildlife management area at Oakley and the National Park battlefields. It's this darker green that's throughout here. This whole area is agriculture and forestry designation. Agriculture and forestal is the largest land use designation in terms of geography within the county. It covers over 38% of the county's land area. And secondarily, this lighter green color that you see about the periphery of the primary development boundary, north of Route 3 up to the river, down Catherpin Road area, some of these areas, again, outside or along the periphery of the primary development boundary are rural residential. That's the second most prevalent land use designation within Spotsylvania County, and about 25% of the county's land area covered in that designation. Rural residential also supports agriculture and forestry, but additionally, residential dwellings at a density of one dwelling unit per two acres or greater. And again, that agriculture and forestry designation really Basically says stay status quo as owned. And with this update, we've proposed no land use changes but for adding recent conservation land, soap, and space. So we've actually proposed no changes outside the primary development boundary other than that area that we showed you earlier at the Lake Anna mixed use area. These areas remain constant. The next thing that I would want to focus on with this update is the Courthouse Historic District Proximity Overlay. So the county does have a regulatory authority over the Spotsylvania County Historic District. This is actually a code-based district that has certificate of appropriateness requirements associated with our Historic Preservation Commission. That's the area in the Courthouse District that you see here in this tan color, okay? The area that you see outlined in blue are basically the approach areas to the historic overlay district. These are areas that include the Marshall Center and another number of other historic resources that are contributing to the historic district but are not within it. They don't have that regulatory oversight. They don't have to go through HPC review. The HPC had considered, the Historic Preservation Commission had considered proposing expanding the historic overlay district to include this area. It was ultimately not supported as a regulatory expansion that would actually require of landowners to consult with the Historic Preservation Commission. With that being said, that boundary inspiration work that came out of the Historic Preservation Commission in 2025, was presented to the Board of Supervisors as a concept of, hey, what if we were to introduce this as a land use overlay on the outskirts of the primary development boundary, or I'm sorry, the historic overlay district, that we could promote consult with the Historic Preservation Commission and promote enhanced aesthetics and viewshed analyses for projects that would have to go through a rezoning or a special use permit. This wouldn't apply to buy right projects. This wouldn't apply to trying to improve your existing building with building permits or anything of that nature. This would apply to projects if they required public hearing engagement. We did receive positive feedback from the Board of Supervisors when we asked them about that to include this area as a land use overlay as a guide within the comprehensive plan. So this is a land use overlay without regulatory authority, as would be a code. The overlay would promote voluntary consult with the Historic Preservation Commission for rezoning and special use permit applications within the land use overlay zone. And the concept would promote enhanced aesthetics and historic resource and viewshed sensitivity as a guiding policy. One of the inspirations for this, I would say, and probably familiar, was a project. It was the Fairchild rezoning at the intersection of Massaponics Church Road and 208 Business. This was a... residential proposal and there was concerns raised at the time about the view shed towards the historic district and the entry to the historic district. You have historic church here and what a new build project would look like in the approach to the historic district. So it's reasons like this that we've actually proposed adding this land use overlay to the comprehensive plan. And with that being said, that concludes the main bulk of my presentation on the land use chapter. All of the materials are available in a red line in a formatted version, all those edits. I did want to just give a brief kind of history here, just noting there's been a – going back to 2022, there have been an abundance of – board communications, committee meetings, transportation committee, ag forestry, board work sessions, planning commission work sessions that have been working through this document over time, going through all the individual chapters, transportation, parks and recreation, historic preservation, our public facilities subchapters, all of these have been ongoing. Again, I've tried to document all of this within the Conference of Plan Update website that I mentioned earlier, where you can have access to this information and what has been proposed. Here we are on August 5th. With that being said, this is the last work session that we have planned on the comprehensive plan. We'll take any guidance that we've received, make any final edits within the document, and do final formatting and editing. work with the county attorney's office on advertising and resolution drafting and prepare this for public hearing. So tonight concludes our planned work sessions. Staff will make any revisions. The Conference of Plan Update website will be updated with tonight's draft materials, leaving all draft materials now available online for review. This is well in advance of public hearing. Final edits and formatting for public hearing packaging will be underway. We'll prepare advertising and resolutions in advance of public hearing. Planning Commission public hearings we're estimating for October for the conference of plan and as we have stated since the beginning of this process of this five-year update to the conference of plan the plan remains on pace for fourth quarter of 2026 adoption at least at public hearing again as you know we had built this document to celebrate America's 250th, and that would be in this year, 2026. We're trying to land this well in advance in time to bring this to you all in October, now that all the materials have been vetted. And with that, I'll take any questions you may have. Thank you.

start from my right mr commissioner wood any questions please um yes so i know there's been concerns brought up about data centers obviously so my proposal was for us to have a discussion on maybe putting some language in that limits the square footage of data centers as we've had in the past with other uh development yep

So is that just a general recommendation going forward, or is that something that you all have a specific recommendation for at this time? There's two main things when it comes to... So to your point, the conference and plan does have an example of that. We had presented it to the board in January based on what happened with solar energy facilities. So when the S Power project was approved in the western end of the county, that was a project over 6,000 acres in size. Now, the entirety of that was not under solar, but I believe over 3,000 acres was in solar. The question was asked, and probably rightfully so, how much solar before it's no longer rural and agriculture and forestry anymore. And a... comprehensive plan land use policy was adopted at that time to suggest a cap. Again, it's the comprehensive plan. It's a guideline. There's nothing regulatory saying you must stop at. However, if we did have a public hearing case for another solar energy facility, we can confidently say we have a suggested cap on these. And I believe the remaining acreage was 1800 more acreage in project wide solar. So that would include the open space and transitional buffers, but it sets a parameter. I don't presently have that for data centers other than those employment center land use designations that I talked about. And right now that one mile buffer that's around the entire periphery of the primary development boundary. I believe the board of supervisors may be discussing this on the 11th as well.

Yes, Mr. Wood, I would say that, you know, as Jacob said, we did discuss this at a work session in January and asked if there was interest. At that time, there was no direction given to staff. So we don't have anything drafted or any recommendations to provide you tonight. However, staff is providing a presentation to the board at their meeting next week on the 11th, where this will be the subject of discussion. So I would say if there are any recommendations that the Planning Commission does have on either a number or a methodology to setting that number, then please share that with us tonight so I can relay that to the board on the 11th.

So my question currently, because I know that there have been a number of data centers approved even prior to 2026 or prior to this year, what is the current acreage of already approved data center in Spotsylvania County?

So, Mr. Wood, I don't have the acreage handy as far as the breakdown per project and totals. I can give you square footage if that would help, and then I can follow up breaking it down by acreage. So, for approved data centers... And I'll make the distinction between you have some projects that went through rezoning and were approved and via their proffer commitments, they committed to only be a data center. You had some projects that went through the rezoning process and proposed to be a warehouse, a data center, science research center. So I've got it broken out that way. So for approved data centers, In Spotsylvania County, where they proffer committed to only be a data center, the total is 12,194,212 square feet. Those were the maximum square footage, so it could be less than that when they ultimately construct. I would say that of that 12.1 million, there is 5.2 million already under the construction phase or at site plan stage. This does not include that $12.1 million. That does not include the Mattamede campus, which is in Caroline County, which you'll recall the county did approve a rezoning for property within Spotsylvania County as a support infrastructure for the data center in Caroline. But Spotsylvania does have a revenue sharing agreement with Caroline County. for the 4.5 million square foot data center that's being constructed there. They do have their site plan already approved, and I believe one building permit has already been issued, which is approximately 250,000 square feet. Of your approved potential data centers, so these are the projects that said we may be a data center, we might not, that is 3,275,696 square feet. So those are those that's what you've got approved of the pending you've got a number of rezoning applications and special use permit applications that are pending those pending applications total 16.4 million square feet approximately.

I know in conversations, I think one of the numbers that had been discussed as a potential number is to cap it at 20 million square feet for right now, especially given the fact that we don't have any up and running currently. And so until we understand exactly what they will bring to the county or what their impacts will be, i know that there has been a big push to obviously slow them down and say hey let's pause on this for a little bit to see what the ones who are currently already approved are going to do before we start approving more things without having that knowledge so 20 million would be a number that i would start with to recommend per the board obviously input and just for context i would say that 20 million square feet would include all of the projects that have been approved

committed to data center all the projects that were approved and said they might be a data center and it would also include that four and a half million square feet in caroline county that gets you right about to 20 million that's not counting the 16.5 million that are pending correct okay so that would take it to like 32 33 million in total

I mean, I kind of agree with the concept of that restriction, but at the same time, I don't feel so comfortable about setting a restriction because it's not really the data center's fault where we're at right now with the concerns, you know, again, it goes back to something that. has not been planned properly for for the last 30 years. And all you got to do is look at the statistics on the agency websites that monitor all that. And, you know, you want to talk politics, it's on both sides of the aisle that have allowed this to occur where we're at such a large gap. And, you know, recalling what REC had said during their presentation, I mean, we could say yes to every application, no matter if it's a data center or not. And then when it comes time to issue that certificate to operate, I'll stop. And, you know, they made that very, poignant statement saying that by the end of 2026 we could be looking at something like that I don't know what those those two proposed power lines are proposing as far as making up whatever that you know they get the gap is I know what the cap is but how much of a gap how much excess are we going to get with those power lines coming if they do get approved And to put it on solely the shoulders of the data center industry, I don't think that's particularly fair. So I don't know. I don't know if I'm in full agreement with it, but I like the idea of trying to help slow things down until the higher-ups in government have a better plan in hand. So that's my take on it. Thanks.

Do we know how many of these status centers that were approved are on a waiting list for power?

I only have minimal information. Now, of course, with the new legislation that the state provided, we do require before the board takes action on any new data center projects that they provide, the utility retailer provide a letter to say this is how much power, this is how much substation is going to be needed for this facility. But then where they line up in the timelines, we don't have that.

Are we adding to, like, a package to submit time to take to the board?

No, we're just discussing now just Mike's proposal about that. Mike, I understand where you're coming from. And I've been giving this a lot of thought. You know, we're kind of, in my opinion, state of flux with what's going on between us, the board, They're losing one member, and come November 5th, we might be losing another board member. And depending on how the appointments go and what happens, come the first of the year, it's a possibility that the SVPs might be done away with, just depending on who gets appointed. And then all this industrial land could be by right again. I think we need some tremendous guidance from the state, our board, from the Fed. I was shocked reading a newspaper article that Cynthia was at. I was surprised I wasn't invited to it down here, but I was surprised that – which delegate was there? Scott? No, he – an article was read. stating what they should have done at the state level. And in reading the letter, it got a great applause about what they should have done. They didn't do a damn thing. And then, you know, that delicate coals out here for the board, two meetings back encouraging the board to implement a 1% tax for schools. Well, if we needed a 1% tax for schools, why didn't the state people do it? I don't know. We're just getting no support and I don't know what's going on in the county about these data centers now because things could change drastically with two appointees coming up and based on an election. I can't support 20 million square feet suggestion because the Crossroads project, which I know everybody here is against, and they are so deep into it financially. i could support something say 20 to the range 20 to 34 million or something like that and then let's put a cap on this and set back to what's going on i i personally believe that crossroads will get approved if not by our board i believe they'd get approved in court because they started as a buy right project purchase the land got millions of dollars put out for equipment and power and and i think like it or not i think we're going to see crossroads even if it's a point of our court to go through. So it would make me happy if we don't have any more hearings at all on battery centers or data centers until the first of the year. And let's find out where our board's going to put this because all we do is hear it, we get the input, but they make the decisions. And I don't know which way their decisions are going. I have no idea. And if somebody could enlighten me on this, I'd greatly appreciate it. But I have no idea. So like I said, I'd prefer not have another hearing on data centers until 27.

so no i cannot support 20 million square feet sir and that's fine and so i'm happy to you know any other number that people might have had in mind because my understanding is too is that this is a this is a recommendation per our plan and so it kind of puts it out there that hey we just want to slow things down a little bit so i'm happy to go with a different number if somebody has a different number in mind that they would be oh i i agree clearly we need to slow it down i just don't know when they're going to hit the brakes

Mr. Grinnell, the other thing I would introduce this evening is, in addition to having, you know, the potential like you brought up, the idea of a suggested square footage cap. Can we do floor computer, please, one more time? I did want to bring this up again because this does involve the comprehensive plan, the land use chapter, and geographic extent. I mean, that's another major question. Where you have potential support exhibited, you've exhibited potential support for a type of use. And the other part of this has to do with the data center overlay district within a mile buffer of the entirety of the primary development boundary. And if it's The question then I would also ask the Planning Commission is whether there's interest in maintaining this buffer along the entirety of the primary to Walton boundary. We start pushing up into the River Protection Overlay District. It goes in proximity. And I'm not saying data centers are developing on National Park battlefields, but it involves Chancellorsville, Spotsylvania Courthouse Battlefield, proximity to Nye Reservoir. these areas are all within that potential area for consideration, at least, of a data center application. Is it the interest of maintaining that geography, or is there also a suggestion to potentially, in addition to maybe a square footage cap, rein in the geographic extent as it relates to this one-mile buffer? And that's just a question as well.

Yeah, I think that would be a good idea, especially given those areas that you mentioned.

Okay.

I would be in support of that because the Gateway Commerce project came to us, and it's a hard-to-service area for water. Data centers use a lot of water.

Yeah, and in that case, that's actually – that particular project was within the primary development boundary, and I have that. Like I had mentioned earlier, the board didn't want to move off the employment center designation. That's not to say that it has to be a data center. Employment center – But at the same time, for an employment center designation, at times it's also be careful what you wish for, because employment center designation could be a warehouse distribution facility, it could be a manufacturing facility, it could be a whole host of industrial type of uses. It could be scientific research development. There's a whole host of things that could go on an employment center land use designation. Data center is just one of them because it happens to be an industrial type of use. Specific to my question is When we go outside that primary development boundary, this one mile buffer, and if the planning commission had any direction on that as well, because, you know, in advance, selfishly speaking, if I'm going to bring the comp plan back to you at public hearing, it'd be best to address this issue now. So we can make the appropriate changes. and this obviously is a question that can be discussed with the Board of Supervisors as well at their upcoming meeting, but if it is the Planning Commission's wish to look at restraining that area, scaling it back, I'd be interested in feedback from the Planning Commission on that as well.

I do support scaling that back in those areas. I had a question about that and inside the primary development boundary, In the case of that crossroads site, I mean, it's no fault of anybody sitting up here or on the board of supervisors or even the last iteration of it. I mean, we're talking over, you know, 30, 40, 50 years of the landscape changing in this area. And we have the whole chicken and egg thing going on here with that particular site where it was designated industrial how long ago?

The 2002 comprehensive plan had identified it as an employment center area Jackson Gateway as far back as 2002. The 1994 comprehensive plan, I think it was, had identified Jackson Gateway-Thornburg as an area in transition. Obviously, that land use designation employment center that was established in 2002 took a while to get going. But boy, when it hit, it really has hit in more recent times, obviously. But yeah, 2002 was when that initial vision was established. From a long-range planning perspective, it's difficult to establish a land use vision in start pursuing infrastructure like utilities is doing, then all of a sudden go in a whole different direction because you never achieve your vision. You start mixing land uses and going in all different directions. So 2002, though, that's when the groundwork was set for this.

So like I was just thinking of like prior applications like the one right here down the road at the end of Massaponix Church Road where we were talking about that continuous use of land. Would that break that inside that buffer with all the gold stars there or brown stars? It's rural residential land.

Yeah, it is rural residential. That's correct.

But putting that one-mile overlay would kind of break that contiguous land use.

Oh, for sure it would. I mean, that's the thing with the land use overlay district. It effectively trumps that established land use vision by accommodating. And data centers were identified in these areas because they are a county's targeted industry. They were identified as a targeted industry, I think, through economic development as far back as 2012. The interest in them has come, obviously, in more recent times as demand has increased for these type of facilities. But yeah, ultimately, it would be, you know, and one of the... One of the reasons for it is for a very large industrial user, targeted industry, large revenue generator to help public services, they tend to be lower traffic generators. And if you're going to put a large generator – large economic development generator with low traffic, data centers was viewed as the best fit type of use to target just outside of the PDB where there was land available for these type of uses. But obviously introducing a data center, yes, like you said, it breaks up that character and raises the question kind of like the solar energy facilities, at what point are you no longer rural? So with that being said, when we've had data centers proposed outside of the primary development boundary, we have made efforts to try to make sure that we secure transitional screening and maintain as much forest buffer as much as possible, view shed analyses, things of that nature. But at the end of the day, yeah, there may be a 300-acre site in a rural residential area that is now a data center. And that's what that land use overlay enables the potential for, at least.

I did have a question based off of that. you said there was 25 of a area left to develop in the pdb yes if we were maintaining a two percent growth rate we we would potentially be able to fill that in if there was only applications inside the pdb in 12 years hypothetically

Yes, that growth rate is more so based on population. So it's residential growth. Some of those land use designates, when I'm looking at that raw acreage, I'm also looking at areas that have employment center or commercial land use designations on them. So I wouldn't expect necessarily population growth from those, at least from a land use perspective. Some of the areas, though, also have higher density thresholds. So the mixed use areas have that, you know, it could be 10 units an acre type of thing where we expect population centers and obviously you boost your residential numbers in those areas. We do believe there's enough here within this next five year update to leave the primary development boundary as it is.

Do we have a similar county in Northern Virginia that has filled a primary development boundary, and what did they do afterwards? Do we have an example of that?

Typically, if you're going to build out your primary development boundary, obviously we already have housing affordability issues. When there's high demand and there's no new units coming online, it really creates a big problem. surge in housing values just from lack of housing. If you talk to the housing folks, and we did have them here for the housing discussion, one of the concerns is the lack of housing that's being constructed. I would also venture to say that a lot of the housing that's being built is Not the smaller, you don't see bungalows in Cape Cod being built anymore. Those tend to be homes, you know, that are, I would say, more affordable in the area, but historically developed many, many years ago. Lafayette Boulevard, side streets, things of that nature. A lot of the homes that we see are... bid up and they're large and they're very expensive, even the smaller homes tend to be out you know unaffordable for folks but in terms of if you look at building per square foot smaller home is going to equate to a smaller you know sale value compared to a larger one. Ultimately, what happens is, if you build out the primary development boundary at that time we'd be looking at expansion of the boundary. we'd be looking at expanding the primary development boundary.

I don't see a lot of support about extending that mile out from our primary boundary. I think we leave that up to the supervisors that they feel like it's necessary.

Okay.

Am I correct in this?

Pass along the idea of scaling that back and the board can... Let them establish it. Okay. Okay. That sounds good. Thank you. I mean, that's ultimately what it would take for us to have that direction. And it's ultimately an edit to the future land use map. It's ultimately an edit to the land use policy regarding the data centers and the land use chapter, and that would address it.

Well, since data centers has been the topic in the data center section of the red line, There's mention of the tier four generators.

Yes, sir.

considering the whole national federal powers act or whatever it's called uh that 2032 reference i made the last meeting could we move that outside of the data center uh or include it in the i don't know the industrial commercial zoning where it covers all industry because there seems to be like there's a there's a likelihood that we we would have a national uh in order to fire up the emergency generators at a time when the grid is stressed out. So I figured, and also, is there anything retroactive with anybody who has a generator that's less than a tier four standard? Do we bring them up to the standard at some particular point? Is there anything in that matter that we've dealt with in other, I don't know, mechanical devices?

There's nothing that we can do really retroactively. If there is a code requirement, which you'll recall there was, you know, the development standards for data centers had included that tier four or better equivalent. Those were pulled from the code. Now, some of the data centers that had been approved may have had a vested interest where they wouldn't have had to have complied with that requirement where all the new ones would have. I mean, so there's There may have been some opportunity to capture those but they're not that's not in the code anymore, so this is just policy language that would then be employed, you know with any new projects that come before you and proper sup condition mitigation.

MR. PHELPS, TOO, THE OTHER THING I WOULD NOTE IS SOME OF THOSE DATA CENTER POLICIES THAT WERE ORIGINALLY ADOPTED IN 2023, I BELIEVE IT WAS WITHIN A SUBSEQUENT UPDATE IN THE CONFERENCE PLAN, I THINK IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN 2024, WE DID EXTEND THOSE OVER TO MORE BROADLY INDUSTRIAL FOCUSED. HOWEVER, THIS TIER 4 GENERATOR ONE IS A NEW ONE IN TERMS OF TIMING. WE COULD CERTAINLY APPLY THAT OVER THERE AS WELL FOR A BROADER ARRAY OF INDUSTRIAL. NOT A PROBLEM.

Okay. Jacob, if that's all? Yes, sir. Thank you so much. Bearing down on public comments, and before we start, to always ask commissioners, if anything in your district you'd like to bring up or mention, I'll start with Mr. Wood.

Not currently.

Okay. Ms. Fragoso?

I don't have anything.

Mr. Phelps?

Oh, wait a minute. There is one. Okay.

There's a big pothole over at Spotty Parkway and Route 1 in the middle lane. It'll take out a tire easily. It's probably about six inches deep.

This is right at the Spotsylvania Parkway approach to Route 1?

Going westbound from Cosner Corner, heading towards Courthouse Road, but via Spotsylvania Parkway. Right past the white line when you're underneath the light.

That sounds good. I have an electronic means to file and basically a maintenance request to VDOT, and we'll be able to take care of that for you. We'll submit it. Thanks. Dr. Bale?

Commissioner Bullock? Okay. I got a couple of quick things before we get into comments because I know some of them will be covered. And one of them was about the meeting down in the city of Fredericksburg. And I was kind of surprised when I read the paper. I hope the reporter didn't cover it correctly because I was kind of shocked by one of the participants' comment that projects in spots may include clauses that could allow eminent domain to acquire private property if needed. And that's just kind of hanging out there. And, uh, that's very true except the clause of status is for the widening of the roads where the applicants have agreed in their profits to widen the roads, like summit crossing road, in their profits of getting their rezoning. And if they couldn't acquire the land directly themselves and purchasing it, that the county would consider eminent domain and helping them obtain the land for the widening of the roads. There's no suggestion in our contracts or clauses to suggest we're gonna use eminent domain to build data centers. It doesn't say that was it, but it was just hanging out there. That was eminent domain to acquire property. I wanted to clarify that because, uh, I got a couple of calls on that already since the article in the paper. And I thought it was, I hope Scott Shank misquoted or didn't complete that, that, but it was, uh, after meeting twice with groups from Lee's Hill, I kind of took offense to it that it wasn't brought up at either one of our meetings about eminent domain. And I'll just leave it at that.

Mr. Grinnell, I have a sign-up sheet. John Dominski, followed by Cindy Statz. Is Mr. Dominski still here? Cindy Statz, followed by Kelsey Payne.

Can I answer your question about the quote? So that was me. And I did actually in the meeting specifically specify that it was for land or for road improvements, but it was not quoted in the article that way.

I appreciate that because after meeting with you twice, I thought you'd be much more upright than what he quoted in the paper.

Yeah, correct. No, I did specifically say that it was for road improvements. Thank you for clarifying that. Can I get a full three minutes since I answered his question or no?

You got a full three minutes, so rock and roll.

Thank you. Hello, my name is Cindy Stotz. I live in the Lee Hill District. There are quite a few guidelines on location size and overall impact of solar energy facilities in the land use chapter being reviewed this evening. In December 2021, solar facilities outside the PDB received 5% acreage cap for a total of about 10,000 acres in the comp plan amendment. In the June 3, 2020 Planning Commission meeting about the solar cap, it was discussed that the county should reasonably accommodate the potential for solar facilities while actively preventing the widespread proliferation of such facilities within close proximity to rural residents. In the current land use draft of the comp plan, there is a 3.75% acreage cap for solar equaling 8,200 acres to maintain the, quote, historically rural character. The draft states, quote, preference for separation of solar energy facilities of at least two miles from another facility to reduce the impacts related to the frequency and scale of such uses in rural area and solar facilities of no more than 1,800 acres are preferred over larger facilities. In the June 3rd meeting, quote, staff emphasizes support for small-scale solar energy facilities. These projects are ultimately less impactful in terms of their geographic scope and scale of potential impacts. Small-scale projects from a county resources side are also more manageable to review and develop recommended conditions or mitigations and to monitor during the construction period, end quote. It appears that the county was recognizing its own limitations to develop and monitor large-scale projects. With regard to data center development in the land use chapter, there are fewer guidelines being proposed as to location, size, and development impacts. I am requesting that a cap be placed in the updated plan for data center development, much like a cap on solar. I propose square footage cap, given that it is the buildings themselves that are the issue with the production of noise, air, and water pollution. Currently, we have approximately 15 million square feet of data center buildings approved. If we expand to 18, that would equal approximately 30 million square feet total on about 4,000 acres of land. I believe a 17 million square foot data center building's cap is more than reasonable as a first step. This would include crossroads. Water and other concerns are too voluminous to address here, but they are in the packet that I provided. The plan also addresses the electrical grid. I urge this commission to consider the plan's guideline. Lastly, Crossroads Massaponics area is under a rezoning application for a data center for 6 million square feet. I highly encourage the commission to consider the suggested small area plan for the given historic home on the property could be preserved for the enjoyment and use of county residents. I would love to see the same thought and consideration that was given to the impact of solar development in our county to be applied to the data center development in the county. I feel we have already reasonably accommodated the potential for data center facilities with the eight. Now is the time to prevent the widespread proliferation of such facilities within close proximity to all residents. I leave you with one of Mr. Pastwick's comments in the June 3rd Planning Commission meeting. Quote, the overreaching question is how much land area the county is willing to devote to this land use. End quote.

Thank you.

Kelsey Payne followed by Kelly Schaefer hi I'm Kelsey Payne and I live in the Lee Hill district the special use permitting requirements to exist to protect the community and specifically the municipal code of Swatsylvania chapter 23 requires that the permit not be granted unless the Planning Commission and the board find a number of standards are met. For example, the use will not hinder or discourage appropriate development and use of adjacent land or impair the value thereof. It will not affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing beside it. It will be appropriately located with respect to transportation, water supply, and other facilities, and it will have no undue impact on the environment. I know there's been a lot of talk at previous meetings that there's at least questions whether data centers can meet that standard, and definitely not without safeguards. Currently in the special use policy provision in the municipal code, there are no specific requirements that data centers must meet. This is actually contrary to several other special uses. Automobile repair shops, wineries, churches, private schools, they all actually have their own section in the special use permit code of requirements that they specifically have to meet. Solar facilities is another one. Yet data centers don't, despite having many more drawbacks and potential risks to the public than some of those other types of uses. I know that the planning committee is working to develop some standards, but that's not enough. It needs to be codified in the municipal code so that the standard is visible to everyone so that the public can review it so that the public can have a say. Because right now we get three minutes at the end of a meeting and really it's not a meaningful opportunity to engage. Whereas the data center providers, you know, backed by big tech, they're working with the committee to put in place these requirements. And that really isn't setting us up to protect the public in the best way. And if you look at the the solar panel requirements in the code currently, that actually is a place where we can start. I know at the last meeting they had mentioned that they hadn't had any plans so far for decommissioning. I think that's a really good place to start. Currently, solar fields are supposed to provide a and it's equivalent to the cost of removal of the equipment so that we are not left with an empty facility when they inevitably move on to a new piece of technology because it moves very quickly. And this needs to be paid before the permit is issued and then reassessed every two years, so that if the value increases or they make some changes that changes the value. We can we can account for that when it comes time to decommission that property. Some other things have already been mentioned, caps on square footage, some limits on how much, how often the diesel can run because Dominion's already said they can't power these. That's a huge risk to safety and public health. So in closing, I would just like to say we should have a formal policy because we want to stay in protecting our own neighborhood and our own community for our children. Thank you.

Kelly Schafer followed by Case Schafer.

Hi, my name is Kelly Schaefer and I live in the Lee Hill District. I know you've seen and heard the extensive pushback against data centers from citizens, but we want to make sure that we're heard. As stated in the very document you're holding a work session on tonight, the land use chapter exists to ensure that the appropriate use of land, water, and other resources are consistent with the interests of the citizens of Spotsylvania County. The citizens have overwhelmingly rejected the use of our county's land, water, and resources for data centers time and time again. We have brought forward evidence of environmental impacts as well as the impacts on the health, safety, and the quality of life of residents living next to these facilities. We have even proposed solutions and protections to keep these facilities away from residential areas. Yet the response from county staff has consistently been that this is inevitable and that the developers are graciously working with us. That is not a substitute for enforceable protections. Take the Crossroads project, for example. When asked to implement stronger regulations to protect the land and people of Spotsylvania County, Kettler responded that it agrees to implement where feasible, which is a legal escape hatch, not a commitment. Kettler has also pointed to the GMU property value study to argue that proximity to data centers does not impact home values. But if you read beyond that talking point, one of the study's own researchers, Director Clower, Cautioned, you should always be careful what the data says and what it doesn't. The study aggregates across regions, not the immediate property line effect at a specific subdivision next to a specific data center. And that's exactly our concern. We're not talking about homes somewhere within a county that happens to have data centers. We're talking about neighborhoods immediately adjacent to multiple hyperscale campuses, backing up to one another and creating another data center alley. We are not anti-growth. We understand the tax revenue and proffers data centers can bring to our county. The issue is where we are choosing to place them. We're putting them on agricultural land, near wetlands, and beside neighborhoods. The areas our own comprehensive plan identifies as part of what makes Spotsylvania County the county we know and love. growth should not come at the expense of the very character the comprehensive plan is intended to preserve we need to establish a data center ordinance for an industry that has the potential to permanently reshape our county we need a square footage cap we need clear definitions of what emergency use actually means for example it should not simply mean a delay in utility power dominion has stated that 2031 is the time frame to determine whether service can be provided not a guarantee that power will be provided so if these facilities are built before then what prevents generators from operating around the clock under the claim of an emergency developers continue to rely on vague language and i ask that this county do the opposite we must use specific enforceable language that require clear answers not vague assurances like where feasible So I'll end where I began. Show us that you hear us. Tonight in discussing the future of our land in Spotsylvania County, I ask that the people who live here carry more weight in those decisions than the company seeking to profit from it. Thank you.

Kay Schaefer followed by Maureen Nevins.

Good evening. My name is Case Schieffer, and I live in the Lee Hill District. Last month, the Planning Commission meeting had a topic of discussion that was after the public comment period, which was the mix of tax revenue sources in support of the in support of the county's plans. It was mentioned that the ratio of these resources need adjusting and that the revenue from data centers would help to balance that out. One way to accomplish that with a lesser impact on the community would be to raise the tax rate and achieve the same balance with fewer data centers. If the argument against this is no, we have to strike while the iron is hot, then that implies that it might not always be. Urgency to profit before the opportunity passes by. If that is the motivation here, then it seems very short sighted of a plan. My plan is to live in this community for decades to come with my family. I did not want the community to be left holding the bag after a flurry of growth that comes to a grinding halt and leaves us with shells of massive industrial buildings and water depleted roads worn and in the environment damage. Let's not let the motivation to balance the mix of tax revenue sources come at such a great cost to the community. Raising the tax rate for the data centers will make them more profitable for the county, and reducing the number of data centers necessary for the county to achieve its goals will benefit the people, the infrastructure, and the environment. Thank you.

Maureen Nevins, followed by Catherine Williams.

Hi, good evening. I appreciate being able to come here and hear some of your concerns as well around this topic of data centers. So while I don't have prepared remarks, I wanted to ask if anybody, I do live in the Lee Hill area as well. Been there 32 years, I believe. There's a cemetery behind St. Jude and it's, I think it's I don't know how it's registered. Someone is going to get back to Cindy about going down to Richmond and understanding this cemetery and how long it's been there, who is in fact buried in that cemetery. Are you all familiar? Have you understood anything about it? It might be Yerby Cemetery, but I'm just posing this as a thought. I know that one of the priests, I happened to attend St. Jude, and they were asking my husband and I to get more involved in it. But I thought, while I've got the opportunity now, I just want to understand if you all are familiar with this particular cemetery near or behind St. Jude. It may be dated back to the mid-1800s. So, I thought if I could suggest that some more research is done on our behalf by the Planning Commission, is that a reasonable ask to understand? Okay, very nice. Thank you so much for your time.

Catherine Williams, followed by Tony Hernandez.

Hi, good evening. I don't think I'll need my glasses, but my name is Catherine Williams, and good evening, members of the Planning Commission. I reside in the Lees Crossing subdivision, just a stone's throw away of where Crossroads Data Center is proposed to be. i have continued with my pos in my petition excuse me in opposition of crossroads and out of 273 homes in the lee's crossing only two residents are in support of a data center tonight i am asking you to pause on crossroads to listen to what our community especially here tonight has been saying and we've been saying all summer There are good things that can come from pausing, reflection on what matters. I know you all have a job to do in planning for this county, but as I stood here previously and said, it's time to make smarter economic decisions that support our community, the county, yes, and the county is the only one, not the citizens, that tend to gain from having a data center in Spotsy. especially Crossroads. I hope that you all have been following the news that State Senator Glenn Sturgevance, sorry if I said that wrong, has called to the governor to impose a moratorium on the construction of new data centers. That would include Crossroads. Please pause on this special use permit. As I have stated before, Crossroads is dangerous for our community and our wildlife. Think about the coyotes and the foxes and everything that lives there and calls that home. Is there a plan to rehome them? We don't know. It's not in the permit. Just today, in addition, just today, the Board of Supervisors is putting forth a resolution to impose a moratorium on new data centers. If he were here tonight, I would say thank him for hearing the community's concerns. He is putting us first. I personally have contacted Abigail Spanberger in support of the affirmation moratorium, but she didn't reply. I know she's busy. It's okay. Crossroads Data Center should not go forth. The time is right for this pause. The time is now for the Planning Commission to reevaluate the strains that data centers have on our community. Thank you for your time.

Tony Hernandez followed by Robin Castles.

So the... My name is Tony Hernandez. The commission threw a bomb into the pond tonight, just now. I was wondering if that was going to happen. I'm still submitting my original comments or the proof of media and investigation on those comments for the record. I was worried about this with Mr. Jakubowski's statements that this would come. And the only thing I can tell the commission at this time is you don't get to swing and jump out the ring. This commission and this county for now, our county government had no problem authorizing these. And it cannot abdicate all of its responsibilities, seemingly, to the state when it has helped dig this grave. OK, the county had no problem not only authorizing many of them, but I was hesitant to say doing so with a former member who had overt conflicts of interest, a company that services data centers, Mr. Childress. OK. To answer someone's earlier question, 178 square feet, that's the equivalent of, if you put it, I think it was about 20 million square feet had been stated. That's 114 Walmart super centers. That's already, we're being told, we're not even going to try to do an SUP apparently. We're just going to push that over to the state maybe. Okay, where are we on all that? By the way, I did want to make mention of something. It doesn't seem I'd ever want to buy a car with a member of county government. It is not my responsibility nor responsibility of any citizen of the county to endure the problems of the data center industry. If something's unfair to them, well, then they needn't do business here. It is not my responsibility, my analogy earlier, I don't have to worry about the dealer's problems if he wants to sell me a car. He has to tell me why I should buy it. And that seems to be the entire problem. The entire AI industry has been in the news, number of reasons, the disaster that happened in Loudoun just recently, but more importantly, how the entire system seems to be under collapse. Every data center, I'm sorry, every AI company right now is losing share value because it has produced nothing other than investment. The entire, and when the entire data, I'm sorry, the entire AI industry is under collapse, last thing it should be asking about is how it, you know, we should bail it out. This is our- Sir, your time is up. This is your responsibility, gentlemen and ladies.

Robin Castles, followed by Jennifer Child.

Hi, Robin Castles from Caroline County. A friend of mine often says truth is stranger than fiction, and I'm going to say I agree. There's a 2009 psychological thriller starring Cameron Diaz and James Marsden called The Box. In the movie, a stranger drops a box off to the suburban couple's door. He says if they push the button on the box, they'll receive a million dollars, but someone they don't know is going to die. The husband has a science background. He works at NASA. He says, who is this person offering the money? The stranger says, I can't tell you that. He digs in a little bit more and decides the benefits are not worth the risk. But the wife thinks that all the things she could do with the money. She could buy things, pay bills, and do other things she wants to do. Spoiler alert, she pushes the button and quickly learns how the consequences get out of control and can't be stopped. I think of it a lot like the data centers. Someone comes to you with a proposal to build a data center. They say they're gonna give you a lot of money, but there's gonna be consequences. We ask who the owner of the data center is, but they won't tell us. It's shockingly similar to this movie. Yes, there's going to be a lot of money to do things, infrastructure, schools, things you all think we need in this county, but there's going to be consequences, and among those consequences are the greatest gifts in the world, land, air, water, and health. You seven have been appointed to make important decisions, decisions for the people that your election districts represent. Every meeting, your people come up and tell you with great detail, with great thought and research, and with heartfelt love for this community, the reasons they don't want data centers. So while there will be money from the data centers, there will also be consequences. And like in the movie, there's no turning it around after it begins. It's a permanent decision that will leave a mark on this community forever. In conclusion, the stranger says, if human beings are unable or unwilling to sacrifice individual desires for the greater good of their species, you will have no chance for survival. The data center owners are telling us the same things. They are saying AI tech may end our civilization, and yet we are still considering this? You all have the power to stop reckless data center growth in our community. Please make the best choice. Please put a cap on data center growth. Thank you.

Jennifer Child followed by Christina Leak.

Thank you. Thank you.

Ma'am, you can go ahead and start speaking.

Sorry. Hi, my name is Jennifer Child. This is not my first time speaking. I spoke in 2023. I got a public hearing notice for Hunter's Ridge, and then I had gone to that public hearing, but then I also made myself to a Board of Supervisors meeting. and that information about some concerns including a peer-reviewed study of That would affect every single district in the county The notes on that are in my personal letter on the end tonight. I specifically want to talk about My daughter we went out for hers. I mentioned this last time I was here and I played a recording of the noise at a thousand feet from data center alley and how DBC levels were needed, and I am so very thankful and heartened that you all listened for multiple reasons, especially the concerns outlined in my comments made on my son's birthday, which I missed to make those comments on 10-10-2023. and the study that I sent along with that which was sent and is in the legislative record being sent that morning before the Board of Supervisors vote on the very first data center and I believe around 1015 I have a timestamp if needed. But the main thing that I want to talk about right now is that Within that packet that I gave out, there were some notes. We went to three data centers during what's called a temperature inversion, which happens at night. It is a physics problem where low hums bounce up and then come down, and they come down really far. So the hums that would cause vibration and sleep disturbance can project really far. John Liver had a study that said they could travel in excess of 2.5 miles. I believe that we're seeing that with a lot of data centers that are being built all over the country is that the acoustic constructive interference of those specific homes are magnifying and clawing out into the neighborhoods nearby them. It's a very new distinct problem with data centers. It wasn't something that happened 30 years ago or 40 years ago. I am not necessarily anti-data center. I obviously use AI, but I do think that we need to look closely at where they are placed and if they are placed in appropriate locations. And if someone has decided to place one in an inappropriate location when their lawyer was present during concerns that were listed, including a peer-reviewed study that is highly respected that would affect everyone in the county, maybe that person should be angry at their lawyer and not at the county. Included in this, I'm out of time, but this one was quieter than this one. My daughter couldn't hear this one, but we could hear this one from 3,900 feet away that night. Both of those, these data centers were quiet at 4560, so it is within a realm that they can make. Yes, thank you. Thank you for your consideration.

CHRISTINA LEEK, FOLLOWED BY DAVID HALL.

I'M THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE FREDERICKSBURG HOME SCHOOL ASSOCIATION.

COULD I PLEASE HAVE FIVE MINUTES?

I'm sorry, but I could not hear what you were saying.

I apologize. I'm the vice president of the board of a nonprofit, the Fredericksburg Area Homeschool Association. May I please request five minutes on their behalf and mine?

Yes.

Thank you very much. I feel like I would like to look into your eyes, but I'm very nervous. My name is Chrissy Leak. I live at 1003 Benchmark Road. I I'm lucky enough to have nine acres there for my family. It is directly across from the proposed Crossroads Technology Campus. I'm here tonight, not just as a taxpayer, but as a mother carrying a profound sense of dread. My family has lived on, loved and cared for this land since my great grandparents. We've built our lives here. My 10 year old son, my youngest, is absolutely married to this land. His roots, his security, his entire world are anchored in this soil. His name is Forrest Emerson, and he spends nearly every waking moment exploring our woods and visiting the half acre pond with his best friend, our next door neighbor, every single day. Tonight, we feel completely under threat. We feel trapped in our own home with no recourse for our safety or health. While I do not oppose data centers universally, putting a massive 12-acre electrical substation less than 1,000 feet from my home is a direct assault on our family. I need to correct also a dangerous assumption. The elevated CSX railway bank will not shield us. The ground rises sharply again exactly where the substation is planned. My home, my yard, my son's bedroom have a direct unshielded view of heavy industrial infrastructure, exposing us to 24 seven low frequency humming and noise. The developer's council will surely claim the railroad track already creates noise, but the train is intermittent and infrequent. It passes in less than two minutes and what is left is absolute peace. This substation home will be relentless. It never sleeps. It will invade our home, destroy our property value, and kill our homeschool community's dream of building their home on our land, a dream we've collectively worked endlessly at for the past year, dozens of families contributing. Additionally, the seeming loophole, allowing development so close to the homes on our side just because there is a thin strip of train tracks, dividing their edge from ours. It's unjust and unfair. My son wanted to stand up here and speak with me tonight, but he is at home, terrified and devastated. In his own words, he told me he was too scared because he believes you, the board and the commission, will tell him that he does not matter. I'm pleading with you tonight to prove to a frightened 10-year-old boy that he does matter. Prove to us that our multi-generational legacy in Spotsylvania counts more than data center footage. I desperately ask you to at least mandate two specific protections before approving any special use permit. Relocate the substation inward. Move it away from our property line and the railroad track, shifting it into the interior of the 633-acre campus, not to be switched out for a data center building that is just as dangerous to our health and well-being. Number two, expand the buffer. Enforce a heavy, continuous buffer of mature evergreen trees, at least, and a structural earthen berm to shield my child and my home from this noise and onslaught. I represent 400 families that homeschool in our area. We are an inclusive group where the other major group is not necessarily. We have to teach our children what you represent for them, what local government is. They ask, why can't we just turn to them? Why don't they stop this? And I can't give them an answer. have no idea. None of the reasons stated make any sense to me. We should not be the guinea pigs that show how dangerous this is. Thank you.

David Hall, followed by Karen Prossy.

Good evening. David Hall from the Livingston District. I signed the paper and didn't realize I was publicly speaking for that. But here we go. We've made a deal. Now we have to deal with it. Please review and get out of any contract you can for future data centers until you know what kind of results they have. The 765 line was supposed to go less than 1,000 feet from my house. Every board of supervisors out of the eight, out of nine have opposed it. We need to. And it was for data centers. The line, you know, it's going through the center of Virginia and has no benefit for us. And. Like I say, if you can get out of the contracts, pause them, please do, because lawyers love money and data centers have plenty to spend. And as a county, we do not. If there's a way of keeping them in an industrial district, but make the district smaller, maybe just west of, or not west, do not go west of US-1. Keep it over near the railroad tracks. Keep it over near the highways. And I am sorry for my friends and neighbors that live over that way. I do thank you very much. Please come up with a good answer because I was looking at losing land and my family is on those lines as well. And we've been here for just 30 years. Thank you.

Good evening. After reviewing the draft comprehensive plan update, I am concerned that the county appears to be planning primarily for high-intensity development, particularly data centers, rather than maintaining a balanced vision for residential, commercial, mixed-use employment, and agricultural needs. The draft reports that roughly 25 percent of the primary development boundary land area remains in undeveloped or underdeveloped status. Underdeveloped properties are described as acreage with parcels of at least five acres with an assessed building value below $20,000 per acre, such as a single family home on a farm. Due to their lack of significant development, these parcels have been identified for their potential to be developed at a higher intensity in the future. The plan states that there are significant areas intended for residential commercial employment center and mixed-use development that remain undeveloped or underdeveloped, but no expansions to the PDB were recommended with this update. The Commission should include how the plan will protect farmers, rural residents, and private property owners from pressure to convert their land to intensive industrial uses. Productive farmland is not vacant land simply because it does not have a high assessed building value. The draft also identifies difficult to serve areas where providing water and sewer would require substantial infrastructure and capital expenditures. It acknowledges that those costs may not make financial sense for smaller projects. That raises an important question. Does this policy effectively favor extremely well-funded data center developers that can finance utility extensions while residential, commercial, and locally owned projects cannot? That concern is especially serious because our water and electric systems are already displaying warning signs. Virginia's DEQ's July 2026 groundwater study found that the Potomac Aquifer, which is the primary source for large water withdrawals across much of the coastal plain east of Interstate 95, cannot sustainably support additional industrial withdrawals under existing conditions. Independent researchers have also identified serious gaps in Virginia's disclosure, monitoring, and cumulative analysis of data center water consumption. PJM, the organization responsible for managing our regional grid, has warned that electricity supplies are not keeping pace with rapidly growing demand, particularly the data centers. Its 2028-2029 capacity auction fell 6,831 megawatts short of its reliability requirement. While a 6.8 gigawatt shortfall does not guarantee immediate blackouts, it indicates that the power grid is operating with dangerously slim backup margins during extreme weather events. Before this comprehensive plan is advanced, I ask the Commission to hire outside experts to conduct studies of Spotsylvania County's water availability, wastewater capacity, electric capacity, transmission needs, cumulative approved data center demand, and effects on household utility costs. Thank you. My official comment, I emailed to you guys, and I'd like to request it to be put into the record.

Thank you. Karen, I just want to say it's been distributed to everyone and will be put in the record. Okay, thank you. Mm-hmm. Is there anybody else in our audience that has not signed up to speak and has not spoke that would like to speak at this time? I think I recognize you.

I didn't plan on speaking. Yeah. I never do. My name is Trillane Ballar. I live in Leesville District. And again, I had not planned on speaking today. I think that one of the things that we tend to lose in all these discussions is how this affects people's mental health. I've seen a lot of people today come up here, and I'm emotional myself, and I can see that this is a very negative impact, and not just people here. When you talk to people on the street, talk to my neighbors, it is hard. And it's hard when you feel like you don't have any control of what's happening. And it's a bad thing. I recognize that this board is largely advisory and requires the board supervisors really to make the final decisions. That said, I do think that putting a cap in, making that suggestion, even though it is a suggestion, shows that we're taking a stand. We are recognizing that we may not have the power right here, right now, but this is the thing that we should work towards. So I feel that these suggestions, a lot of these put forth, again, I recognize they cannot be put into law through this body, but do the right thing. You know, stand up. Thank you very much.

thank you troy is anybody else at this time at cnn we have closed public comments uh i want to mention a couple of things i think lieutenant colonel merrick is that you over there uh probably never seen a deputy at our meetings before but a few staff members got a little worried about our last meeting with a couple aggressive speakers so now we have a deputy with us at night and I'm sure he shoots straighter than me so I'd probably spray the whole room with bullets but I'm sure he can take some out if we need it but uh on the serious side of it I'm sorry to say we have to have a deputy here but uh several staff members were a little intimidated so maybe in the future we will have maybe we can tell him to stay home with his wife and family like I wish I was tonight But you've been heard as usual. I think what Mr. Wood mentioned for a cap, I think something like that could certainly work. I myself, I think I've expressed that I'm tired of data center hearings and battery meeting hearings and everything. Unfortunately, the stuff that is hot on the plate right now, I think we're a little behind the curve on, but I think it's all coming. And, uh, I hope it is cause, uh, I've been in the county probably pushing 50 years and, uh, uh, my parents, sisters buried here and I expect I will be too sooner or later. Uh, hopefully later, but, uh, it's, uh, it's something we're moving towards. Uh, any comments from any other commissioners before we close and adjourn?

Thank you for your comments tonight. Everyone was very respectful, and we look forward to working with you in the future.

Mr. Phelps. Just a quick note based on a few of the comments. In our municipal code collection, we did work on some data center ordinances about, what, a year and a half, two years ago. invite everybody to take a look at that. And we definitely have an opportunity in the future to revisit that. But I invite everybody to go take a look at what we had done in the in the recent past.

Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I did want to say any written correspondence that's submitted, we do print copies and place it at your seat. So you did find written correspondence that had been received that had not been included in your packet. That's our common practice and procedure, all of which is compliant with state code and FOIA requirements.

Okay. Thank you. Seeing no other comments, I'd entertain a motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

So moved. Any discussion on adjournment? All those votes say aye. Aye. Any nays? Okay, we're adjourned.