Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Alright, I'll call the July 8th Planning Commission meeting to order. The Code of Virginia requires local governments to have a planning commission, the purpose of which is to advise the Board of Supervisors on land use and planning issues affecting the county. This responsibility is exercised through recommendations conveyed by resolutions or other official means and all are matters of public record. The commission is comprised of seven citizen volunteers appointed by the Board with one representative from each voting district and two at-large members. Roll call, please.

Mr. Chamberlain. Here. Mr. Titus. Here. Mr. Brooks. Here. Mr. Butler.

Here.

Mr. Borelli.

Here.

Mr. Smith.

Here.

Mr. Wassmer.

Here.

Mr. Chair, you have a quorum.

All right, please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the flag

All right next on the agenda is approval of the minutes from the last meeting any comments on the Nets Mr..

Chair I'll move to approve minutes all right roll call please

The motion by Mr. Wessmer is to adopt the minutes of the regular meeting on June 10th, 2026. Mr. Titus? Yes. Mr. Brooks? Yes. Mr. Butler?

Yes.

Mr. Borrelli?

Abstain.

Mr. Wessmer? Yes. Mr. Smith? Yes. Mr. Chamberlain?

Yes.

Motion passes.

All right. Next is the election of officers. We'll turn it over to the Deputy County Attorney.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, we are up this evening for an election of an incoming chair and vice chair for this commission to serve during fiscal year 2026 and 2027. On behalf of staff in the entire county, I humbly thank Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Brooks for their service over the past year. And at this time, I ask if there are any nominations for the office of chair to the Planning Commission for York County. I'll nominate Mr. Brooks for chair. Any further discussion amongst the members or any other nominations? I will call for a vote. Madam?

The motion by Mr. Chamberlain is to nominate Mr. Brooks as chair of the York County Planning Commission. Mr. Brooks?

Yes.

Mr. Butler?

Yes.

Mr. Borrelli?

Yes.

Mr. Smith? Yes. Mr. Wasserman? Yes. Mr. Titus? Yes. Mr. Chamberlain?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Thank you and thank you Mr. Brooks. Is there a nomination for the Office of Vice Chair to serve on the Planning Commission for the County of York?

I nominate JP Smith for Vice Chair.

Any discussion desired or any further nominations by this Commission? There being none, I'd request a vote.

The motion by Mr. Titus is to nominate Mr. Smith as Vice Chair of the York County Planning Commission. Mr. Butler?

Yes.

Mr. Borrelli? Yes. Mr. Smith? Yes. Mr. Wassmer?

Yes.

Mr. Titus? Yes. Mr. Brooks? Yes. Mr. Chamberlain? Yes. The motion passes.

Likewise, thank you, Mr. Smith, for your upcoming service, and I will defer to Chairman for the next portion of the agenda.

Now we're open for citizen comment period. Anyone who has anything to say, not regarding the public hearing, is open to come up and talk about anything you want. Okay, with that, I'll close the citizenship. And now we'll have our public hearing with staff.

Okay, thank you, and good evening. So this application is a request to rezone a portion of 200 Water Country Parkway. The request is to rezone a 22-acre portion of a 32-acre parcel located at 200 Water Country Parkway from conditional economic opportunity to planned development mixed use subject to voluntary proffered conditions. The subject parcel is designated Economic Opportunity and the Comprehensive Plan. Surrounding development includes Water Country USA and the Marquis Shopping Center to the east, Wyndham Garden Hotel and Enterprise Fleet Management to the south, and Whitaker's Mill Plan Development and Miscellaneous Industrial Uses across Panaman Road and Cheetah Manix Rail Spur to the west. The proposed project, Marquee Crossing, is projected upon completion to have a maximum of 125 townhouse units, a convenience gas and food use, and two additional commercial out parcels. So the property has been zoned EO since 1995 and designated economic opportunity in the comprehensive plan since 1991. A mixed-use overlay was applied from 2013 until it was removed with the adoption of the current comprehensive plan in 2023. In 2014, the 32-acre parcel was rezoned from EO to conditional EO in conjunction with the adjacent Whittaker's Mill development. The proffers included preparing two commercial pad sites and dedicating right-of-way for the planned Water Country Parkway realignment. In 2017, the Board approved a proffer amendment at the request of the Whitaker's Mill developer to require $150,000 to be contributed to the county for road improvements in connection with the Water Country Parkway realignment in lieu of preparing the commercial pad sites. The Water Country Parkway realignment project was later canceled because the property owners decided not to participate because the design had to be changed to meet VDOT concerns. In February 2024, the Planning Commission considered an application to rezone the subject property from EO to PDMU to allow 314 luxury apartments, three and a half acres of convenience gas and food uses, and 15 acres of commercial development. The Commission recommended denial, after which the applicants requested an indefinite deferral. And under the terms of the code, the application expired one year later. So during the last comprehensive plan update process, There was significant discussion on the part of the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee of this property in particular. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the subject property as being potentially appropriate for mixed-use development, but with the caveat that residential development should be part of the development or redevelopment plan for the marquee. In making this recommendation, the Steering Committee's principal concern was not to promote any more purely residential rezonings such as Whitaker's Mill in this area. So let's take a closer look at what's being proposed. Land Bay B, a 13.2-acre portion of the property, is proposed to be developed with 125 three-story townhome units, a pocket park, and a community green, including a stormwater retention pond. Land Bay A, a 3.3-acre site, would be set aside for a Sheetz convenience store, gas station, and food use. The applicants have proffered that a site plan will be approved and a foundation poured for a commercial use in Land Bays A or C prior to the issuance of more than 80 final certificates of occupancy for townhome units on the property. Land Bay C, which is 5.4 acres, is planned for future commercial development, including approximately 4,000 square feet designated for fast food restaurants. The sketch plan is illustrative only, and the final mix of uses will depend on market demand. The remaining 10 acres will remain conditional EO with no proposed development. The PDMU district guidelines The PDMU district includes guidelines, not requirements, for the mix of residential and commercial uses, which the Board may modify during rezoning. Because marquee crossing encompasses less than 50 acres, it's classified as a minor PDMU and is subject to the following guidelines. The guidelines for the commercial component recommend at least 1,000 square feet of non-residential floor area per developable acre. With 8.7 acres designated for commercial use, the guideline is approximately 8,700 square feet. This proposal includes approximately 10,150 square feet of commercial space. Guidelines for the residential component include a maximum density of 10 dwelling units per developable acre. This proposal includes 125 units on 13.2 acres, meeting the 10 unit per acre guideline. The guidelines also call for at least 40% of dwelling units to be located above ground floor commercial uses. The proposal does not include this type of building, reflecting limited local market demand for such development on the proposed density, or at the proposed density. PDMU regulations require 10% of the gross site area to be reserved as open space, preferably in central areas that serve as community focal points. Much of the reserved open space is located in required landscape yards and buffers, including a 45-foot greenbelt along Marquis Center Parkway, a 35-foot buffer along Water Country Parkway, and a 20-foot setback along Penniman Road. The 22-acre site requires 2.2 acres of open space, and the proposal includes 2.7 acres, including a 2.4-acre community green and a 0.3-acre pocket park. According to the applicant's narrative, the community green would include benches, walking paths, and a historical interpretive display. PDMU standards require shared recreation areas and encourage walkable mixed-use development. Although the proposed commercial uses are primarily automobile-oriented, the plan includes sidewalks connecting residential and commercial areas. It also includes a bike lane connection to a possible future bike lane located outside of the subject property and not associated with the applicant's proposal. PDMU standards require high quality, cohesive architectural design. The applicants have submitted residential, commercial, and signage guidelines that provide consistency throughout the residential and commercial components through shared materials and design elements. The design guidelines for signage are acceptable, but do not stipulate the size or height of signage. Language has been included in the resolution that would limit signage to ground-mounted monuments no larger than 32 square feet and 10 feet in height. PDMU regulations require an approved phasing plan to ensure both residential and non-residential components are developed. The applicants propose constructing the townhomes and preparing a 3.3-acre pad-ready commercial site, possibly for sheets, and most proffered traffic improvements immediately following rezoning and site plan approval. Development of the commercial pad sites in Land Bay C will occur as tenants are secured. The applicant's Traffic Impact Analysis, or TIA, Estimates that the fully built project will generate approximately 8,510 daily trips. Staff submitted the applicant's TIA to VDOT for review. Based on the approved analysis, the following improvements are recommended. They plan to upgrade the existing traffic signal and turn lanes at the intersection of Route 199 and Marquee Parkway. At the proposed entrance of Water Country Parkway across from the Wyndham Hotel entrance, a full access driveway is proposed. A full access driveway for the residential site entrance is proposed off Water Country Parkway. The final recommended improvement is to extend the northbound left turn lane at the intersection of Marquis Center Parkway and Water Country Parkway. The Route 199 access road, the entrance from Water Country Parkway into Land Bay A, and an extension of the northbound left turn lane at 199 and Water Country Parkway must be completed before a certificate of occupancy is issued for Land Bay A. The residential entrance from Water Country Parkway must be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Land Bay B. So the proposed development is estimated to generate 47 public school students. While the York County School Division expressed concerns about additional enrollment in schools that are currently near or at capacity, particularly Magruder Elementary, The applicants note that the project is not expected to be completed until 2030 when, according to the most current data published by the school division, enrollment projections indicate sufficient capacity at the affected schools. The Code of Virginia permits localities to accept cash proffers to fund school upgrades or new school construction required as a result of new residential development. The applicants contend that a school cash proffer is not warranted because enrollment projections show adequate capacity at project build out. Although they acknowledge the development may create a need for an additional special needs bus. The proposal meets the zoning ordinance parking requirements, providing 308 spaces for the townhomes, including visitor parking. Parking is also shown for the commercial areas and a condition of approval requires all residential and commercial uses to meet applicable parking standards. The applicant's fiscal impact analysis estimates that the development will increase county operating costs by $1,475 per household and $925 per business, while each household would increase school costs by $1,160. However, it will also generate real estate, personal property, sales, and meals tax revenue. The analysis projects approximately $410,000 in annual real estate tax revenue, which it concludes would exceed the estimated general government and school costs associated with the development. The proposal generally meets the intent of the PDMU district by providing a mix of residential and commercial uses, open space, pedestrian connections and adequate transportation improvements. It complies with the residential density guideline and exceeds the minimum commercial floor area guideline. The primary issue is whether the proposed land use is appropriate for this location. So the comprehensive plan provides mixed guidance, suggesting that the property's suitability for mixed-use development, while stating that the residential development should occur only as part of an overall mixed-use strategy for the marquee north pod, which is commercial. The comprehensive plan supports mixed-use development, but emphasizes that it should include a genuine commitment to both residential and commercial uses. It acknowledges the challenges of achieving this balance, given the current market demand is greater for high-density housing than it is for commercial development, and recommends that the future mixed-use proposals receive careful scrutiny to ensure they create cohesive, walkable communities where people can live, work, and play. Relevant considerations in evaluating this application include the following. The county has an abundance of EO zoned land relative to demand. Although the proposal would convert 13.2 acres to residential use, 19 acres would remain available for commercial development and substantial vacant commercial land exists nearby. The marquee continues to struggle due to the lack of food uses and surrounding residential density. Approval of this application would increase nearby housing units and likely add at least one food use. helping support existing and future businesses in the area. While the application has several positive features, including potential fiscal benefits and a commitment to commercial development, staff find it inconsistent with the comprehensive plan's guidance. Therefore, staff recommends denial, but has prepared resolution number PC26-17 should the Commission choose to recommend approval. Thank you. We did receive some A comment from the public. So letters were sent to adjacent property owners, three signs were posted on the property, and two advertisements were published in the Daily Press. Staff received one email from a citizen regarding this application, which was forwarded to you all on Monday. The citizen requested you vote no, arguing that the proposal does not meet the intent of a mixed-use development. She raised concerns regarding increased traffic and limited sightline distance on Water Country Parkway. So I'm happy to answer any questions, and the applicants are here to answer your questions as well.

Okay, do I start on this end, Tom?

Okay, I've got several, and you can defer to the applicant if you want to. Who owns what streets? So what streets are going to be VDOT, and what streets are owned by the HOA?

So some of the streets are private. Let me see if I can pull this up. So they're actually marked on here. You'll see this, the one that's at the top, that one is a public street. These ones below it around Land Bay B, or where it says that, are private streets. And I believe this one coming down onto Route 199 is also public, but we can ask the applicant to be sure.

Okay. And the private streets are 26 feet? Yes, sir. If I read that correct. And the public streets are 50 feet right away? Yes. Okay. So we've got roughly a couple of blocks of streets that this 125-unit group is going to be responsible for maintaining then?

Yes. Right.

Okay. And then can you explain how setback is measured?

Generally from the building to the edge of the property line. Oh, you're talking about in front of the house?

Yeah.

Yeah. From the building to the edge of the street, I believe. Is that right? Yeah.

We do have allowances in the ordinance for like eaves to go into the setback sometimes, or you can have a stoop, but nothing with a roof usually. Okay.

All right. And then I saw the sidewalks. You talked to that. And probably it's best for the applicant, but I really want to understand how they're getting the number of parking spots that they're claiming to have. The math doesn't work to me. And that's all I got for staff.

Thank you. TP?

Nothing for staff. I'll save my comments for a few minutes.

Jeff?

Nicholas? I've got quite a few questions. I'm going to make sure I tailor them to staff first as best as possible, so bear with me for a second. Staff, real quick, VDOT, has that application approval come through?

Yes.

So it can't approve probably yesterday or today?

Yesterday.

Okay. Can you elaborate a little bit more on the criteria that we decide how we decided to identify this as a minor mixed use and kind of in regards to the decision that we made to refer to only the commercial aspect of it when referring to the rezoning as opposed to the entire lot when we're doing the calculation for the 10,000 square feet as opposed to 22,000 square feet or whatever it would be?

Yeah. If we had included the entire lot, then they would be allowed to build a lot more houses in a smaller area. So this was really to limit the amount of development that they would allow, that we would allow. And your other question, would you please repeat that?

It's similar to that same guideline, right? So if we've got 22 acres total is actually what's being requested for the PDMU, then would that not be what the 10% criteria is? I'm sorry, 1,000 feet per acre. So that should be 22,000 square feet. But as opposed to our submission, which is actually 8,700, that's because you were using the commercial exclusively. I think you just answered that.

Okay. I think you also asked about what was it, about the EO zoning? I don't know.

Yeah, it's just the the fact that the entire thing is going to be identified as a pdmu as opposed to oh it was not just commercial minor pdm oh yeah because it's um less than 50 acres 50 yeah okay all right that was 50. oh that's right okay all right i'm gonna go through my list here um sheets is a contract question uh the tia um so if the 80 townhomes get built, because I know that's a criteria here, if the 80 townhomes get occupied before that 199 signal turn is completed, has the TIA included an evaluation? As I read it, it does not include that interim evaluation. So I just want to make sure that we've kind of analyzed the possibility of a partial completion being done and then the design of the roadways meeting that criteria. And part of that comes into the fact that As I read it, we don't have any control in this or this document doesn't identify the total occupancy. It's not like 80 on the east side are going to be built first, occupied, and then the west side will be completed. It is completely up to the applicant to build all 125 or 123, whatever the final number came out to be. So there's no identification on the occupancy side of it. I just want to make sure that if only 80 are met and then that groundbreaking doesn't happen if we don't hit that secondary threshold, that the interim build-out associated with the TIA is appropriate. Does that question make sense?

I understand the question. I did not see that analysis in the TIA. We did send this off to VDOT and they approved it. The traffic engineer is here tonight if you'd like to ask him any questions.

Okay, great. Can we finalize it as 125 units or 123 was the final?

They have told us that it's going to be 123, but you can ask them for that as well.

That's an applicant question. When we, so regarding the North Pod side of it, the overall mixed use, when that last comprehensive plan was done, the language in there was clearly written at length, right? There's clearly a desire to be pretty specific on it. I'm not sure if staff was in the process at that time, but when we're talking about in the 2040 plan, the north pod, we're really referring largely to the south side of 199 when that's generally being discussed. The issue would be to make sure we have a clarification or if there is a clarification possible for Um, the ability for this to be, um, how do I want to, how do I don't put this? So the overall mixed use strategy will overall, do we expect an applicant to not only develop the north side, but also simultaneously develop a South side? Like there's a, there's a pretty difficult hurdle there in that regard. So while the language in, you know, it's the 2040 plan is a pretty big plan. So of course we're not going to get every word. Perfect. But in that regard, I want to make sure that there's no comments that were associated during that timeframe that meets that need for the possibility of an applicant to not be such an overall strategy that says, not only are we going to develop the north side of 199, but we're also going to do north pods as well. It doesn't read that way to my eyes, but I just want to make sure that that's appropriately read that way as well.

Well, you're right. I wasn't there when they talked about this. However, really, we can go on the guidance that it gives us. And that's what we've done here. It says that there is a that they're looking for an overall strategy for mixed use with the North Pod. And we're recommending denial because it doesn't meet that fully. It says that mixed use is potentially appropriate in this location. in the context of that strategy with the North Pod. So they're meeting part of that, but not all of it. And that's why we've recommended denial.

And I think, just to jump in, so that I think the big phrase there is it should not be purely residential. It should not be purely residential. And with the application that you've gotten here, they could build 80 townhomes, and it could be purely residential without any commercial. But if they go over 80, then you have the potential to have some commercial injected in there to make it mixed use. So that's the language, that purely residential piece is kind of why we have written that denial.

Okay. And similarly to that point, my last question would be your county's history on success in vertical. So this is a horizontal development. In comparison, as I understand it, we only have one successful, semi-successful vertical development, what I call a four-in-one, commercial on the bottom and then residential above, is that a correct understanding of the history of York County's overall vertical use, as this applicant doesn't include a vertical use?

Yes.

Okay. And if that's the only one successful, have there been others that have been attempted that have been fully converted that I'm not aware of?

I've been here five years, so I don't have a full historical background, but maybe our director can answer that.

I think Commonwealth Green had one set of, townhome type developments where you had a business commercial on the bottom floor and then residential above. But we have not had a development where, you know, the bottom floor is purely commercial with residential above it. The closest you could get would probably be Nelson's Grant, which was a little smaller, but none of those residential units have commercial at the bottom. But if you look at it from the street, but yes, you're correct we haven't really had any vertical development where you have purely commercial on the first floor with residential above we really haven't had any of those proposals that i other than that one live above unit is kind of what we called it in commonwealth green and that wasn't as successful because the developers ended up coming back and asking for that to go away because they couldn't sell the units. But, no, we have not had any vertical development. Most of our mixed uses have been the horizontal, as you're saying, where the commercial is separated from the residential component in some way, in some way. You know, they're connected via, you know, sidewalks and roadways and things, and architecturally, and that's what this development has. I mean, everything is kind of conceptually together. with sidewalk connections, bike connections, things of that nature. But yes, no. No, we do not have any vertical development, as you defined it.

I just want to make sure I'm painting the picture clearly for our historical use and expectations for an applicant. So I have no further questions for county.

Thank you.

No questions for staff.

No questions at this time.

Okay, with that then, let's see. Yeah, I'll close the public hearing and then do the applicants. Open the public, I'm sorry. Yeah, open the public hearing and then we'll have our first applicant who is Vernon Getty. Mr. Getty, please state your name and your address. And remember, you have 10 minutes. And anyone else associated with you, do you want to speak? Understood.

Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I am Vernon Getty of 1177 Jamestown Road in Williamsburg. It's a pleasure to be here representing the applicant. A number of folks are also here tonight. The development partners here are Roca Partners and Dan Hargett, the owner of Roca, is here. And Stanley Martin Homes and Hunter Taylor, the division president of Stanley Martin, is here. Our civil engineer, Timmons, is here and a representative of the traffic consultant. So you have seen the new plan. And a little bit about ROCA. ROCA Partners is a highly respected real estate development investment firm. They're based in Richmond. They've developed over 5 million square feet of commercial space and now own and manage 70 properties with 2.2 million square feet of commercial space. And here in the county, they developed the Wawa and Valvoline at Route 17 and Theater Road and the CVS at Route 17 and Lakeside Drive. Stanley Martin Homes is a Virginia-based home builder celebrating nearly 60 years serving communities in Virginia. They too have an established track record in York County and Pocosin, including the for sale townhomes at Kelton Station. development and construction of Celestial Way and TAB, and the recently completed Quarter Creek Community in Pocosin. They focus on creating quality neighborhoods that complement the character of surrounding communities while providing new housing opportunities. Their homes are thoughtfully designed for today's lifestyle and feature open floor plans, flexible living spaces, and modern amenities. Roka Partners has been working on this property, say, here over five years. I think it's closer to almost nine years. This property was the subject of a prior zoning application filed in 2023 and heard by the commission in 2024. It sought to rezone the EO property, the entire property, from PDMU to PDMU from EO to permit 320 multifamily units, the 3.5-acre sheet site, and 15 acres of commercial development along Marquee Center Parkway frontage across from Marquee. Based on feedback received during that rezoning process, including the results of the Planning Commission hearing, ROCA has gone back to the drawing board and partnered with Stanley Martin, significantly revised the scope of the project and the residential development product and density. The message was clear then that apartments were not a desirable use on this site. And what was needed was moderately priced for sale homes. We had any number of people make the comment we want somewhere our children can buy and have home ownership here in York County. So the apartments have been eliminated from the proposal and replaced by up to 125 for sale townhomes. The 3.5 acre sheet site has been retained and 4.5 acres of commercial uses, two out parcels along Route 199 have been retained. The portion of the parcel not subject to this application will either be subject to a future rezoning application or potentially developed under its existing EO zoning. But I do want you to know that ROCA is buying the entire parcel, so they will be the owners, and they are long-term owners. They will be the ones that ultimately develop that portion that is not subject to this application. You can see the differences between the new and old plan. Here is the excluded portion. area, really the only thing that's the same is the sheets, which is right here. The town homes here in lieu of the apartments. And again, instead of this, what was admittedly speculative commercial zone land, we're going to wait and see what actually comes and makes sense to go there. We agree with almost all the staff report, frankly, except the ultimate conclusion. The comprehensive plan did eliminate mixed-use overlay in the county, but it has been noted it did specifically recognize mixed-use on this site could be appropriate. The county has more EO zone land than is needed to meet demands in this corridor and in general. The comprehensive plan specifically recognizes the lack of residential customers in this area hinders efforts to attract retail to the marquee, and it also notes a major drawback as a lack of any gas station convenience use or any food uses in this corridor. This project will address both needs. brings quality, moderately-placed for-sale housing, much-needed gas convenience, food use, and would be the first commercial development in this quarter since the marquee was built. We agree with staff that this does meet the intent of the PDU-MU ordinance and have proffered the phasing plan that's been described. ROCA, at this point, has a signed lease with Sheetz and work on that parcel will begin immediately after the rezoning. They are marketing the other two sites and have a signed letter intent on one of them for a food use. You'll see these are the elevations for sheets for this site and some internal shots. This is their coffee bar and some of their food shopping area. This will provide quality, moderately-placed, for-sale housing with attractive amenities and a walkable community, and as I noted, creates the opportunity for home ownership in the county. The project has a positive fiscal impact. Needed traffic improvements have been proffered. By the time the project's built and students are entering the school system, the affected schools will have capacity to accommodate those students. This would have been, I think, the fourth town hall meeting we've had with our friends at Whitaker's Mill, three in the earlier case, but one for this one specifically. very positive sessions, and you'll see in staff notes there are several proffers that are addressed to specific items that the community wanted to see that the applicants have included. This is a well-designed project that meets the comprehensive plan goals of bringing additional customers to support the marquee and commercial development on this site, brings the gas, convenience, food uses to the corridor, which will benefit the marquee, local residents, local attractions. Folks leaving water country will now have a place to get gas and have a bite to eat before moving on in the county as a whole. We will respectfully ask you to recommend approval of this case to the Board of Supervisors, and Hunter Taylor is going to address you briefly, followed by Dan Hartman. Good evening.

Thank you for letting us speak and make an appeal for your support of this project. I'm Hunter Taylor, the division president for Stanley Martin Homes. I live in here in all opinions. I live just across the county line in York, James City County, and I have for 20 years. I am deeply passionate about home building and I want to see good development brought to to our area. I have a long history. Is it Mr. Borelli? I tried to redevelop the marquee. Back when the comp plant was being updated, I worked for three and a half years. My church was trying to buy the JCPenney building. I personally tried to buy the master parcel from the master developer. I tried to put Sam's Club parcel under contract. It is too complicated and too difficult of a nut to work from an economic standpoint with unwilling and too many separate entities to. And we need to create a spark and we need to create more demand and show some more what can work, and I would love to say it's possible to get something going in the South Pod, but I just don't see how we need to bring more traction to the area to create an economic stimulus to the current owners within the marquee. The comp plan itself, just real quick, well, it says, while the immediate focus of a such mixed-use strategy must be on the North Pod, it could be ultimately extended. It doesn't say it has to start on there. It leaves a little bit. And again, the comprehensive plans are always guidelines. And, you know, further on in the comprehensive plan objectives, identify opportunities to improve the aesthetic appeal of new development and redevelopment. There's nothing more unsightly than the marquee right now. I drive through it. We shop there. It's terrible, and I desperately want to see it improved as a resident of the area. And then for just housing, we have a crisis in the United States. We have a crisis here on the peninsula. Attainable housing is very difficult. Our homes are going to start in the 380s. The average rental for a 2,000-square-foot home right now in the area, York County, James City County, is $2,700 a month. On a VA loan, fixed loan, 6 percent, the principal, interest, taxes, insurance payment would be $2,500. So, we need to get people owning homes. We need to create, that's how we create generational wealth and stability. We need to get people in homes earlier. The average age of the first-time homebuyer has increased significantly over the last five years. The average first-time homebuyer now in the U.S. is 40 years old. Mr. You need to finish up, sir.

Thank you. We'd be glad to answer any questions. Okay. Nick?

This application has, so your past 2023-2024 had sheets exclusively and since then it has not changed in your plan? Is there ever consideration for exclusively the Sheetz property, since it apparently has some appeal or some design attraction? Has that been considered for exclusively submitting? Just a standalone Sheetz? Just a standalone Sheetz.

Yeah, that would be very difficult with the infrastructure cost to put that in without the surrounding development to help support that. Okay.

ROCA is buying the entire property or has bought the entire property?

Okay, it's subject to this.

Okay, regarding the 10 acres to the west, that'll be left alone. So looking at your initial plan, you had kind of a good chunk of that left aside, and cross-comparing that to the terrain features, I want to make sure the use of that 10 acres, once it's left to a future EO use, doesn't have some sort of concern from the development standpoint for the property that will be left over, essentially maximizing the use of that side. As I look at it, the terrain in that eastern portion is more significant than the western portion, and we're developing the western portion here. So in that regard, do we have or does ROCA have any considerations for the lot overall after that?

In terms of the developability of the 10 acres?

Correct.

No. They would have an entrance here aligning with the Water Country entrance and extending this road into the property and you'll see how it laid out before.

So if sheets goes in or some sort of commercial use in that property in particular on the other side looking at your map I'm not seeing some sort of significant. So there's there's great green space in between the roadways and whatnot but across from that ponds you're basically backing right up to that commercial property. What's the intention there for if property if this was approved and properties were developed there. what what the mitigation would be to separate that commercial from the residential.

I'm Dan hard I'm CEO of roca partners, the applicant. I would tell you that obviously we want to do whatever we can to make it as appealing as possible for the residential to coexist with the commercial part of our site plan approval process will be going through the landscaping requirements under the county and going through that design process to make sure that there's adequate buffer. and that we're landscaping in a way that really gives them the type of product that Stanley Martin really needs. So, that's part of that site plan process we'll be going through. Male Speaker 1 No other questions?

Male Speaker 2 I just have one question. This is mainly for the food use portion of your proposal. Can you explain how the proposals phasing will give confidence that the commercial portion of the compound will be developed alongside the residential portion?

Sure. I think the greatest assurance is the fact that Sheets has signed a 50-year lease for the property and will go there, and their presence will make this very attractive for other uses, And as I mentioned, there is another, it's a fast food use. It has a signed letter of intent with Roka now. So I think they're well on their way to.

So beyond the sheets, though, like obviously sheets is comparable to a Wawa. You can go in there, you can get a sandwich or whatnot, but a sit down restaurant or sit down facility where people can. ENJOY A MEAL. I THINK THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT KEPT POPPING OUT TO ME THAT I HEARD IN THE PROPOSAL THAT STAFF WAS SAYING THAT FOOD WAS ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT THE RESIDENTS WANTED.

Over the course of working on this for the last four years and those multiple community meetings, that is something that's continually come up, food and specifically gas and gas convenience and the ability for the residents in the area to grab a bite to eat before a Little League game or conversely grab a cup of coffee before they hop on the interstate and commute in. So I would say equal to the sheets, there's also a desire for additional food uses, which is what we're working on today.

Can you just make sure we get your name for the record?

Oh, sure. Thank you. It's Dan Hargett.

I do have one more question now that you just kind of said that. I'm not sure if staff would be able to help with this. Could we go back in the slides just a little bit? I want to look at the slide where we talk about the economic impact, the taxes. So the fiscal impact per household is saying $1,475 per household, $925 per business. You're projected to bring in a real estate value of $410,000. So there's 120, how many? 23? 123. Okay. Just one second. I got it. So the increase for schools The increased school operating costs is the $1,160. And from what I heard, because the schools will be able to absorb these 47 children, there won't be any additional funding for that. Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay. The increased operating costs from the schools comes from the increased tax revenue that this project is generating.

Got you.

Okay. Thank you. That's it.

I've got several. Can you explain the parking setup? How are you going to, where are people going to park?

My name is Steve Miller. I work with Stanley Martin Homes. Our office is at 11820 Fountain Way in Newport News. The parking, all of the, these are all garage townhomes. So the county's parking calculations for townhomes are You get a half a credit for each garage, and you get a credit for each full-size parking space in a driveway. So a number of the units are rear-loaded garages. So they have a two-car garage in the back plus a two-car double-width driveway. And then all the ones that are single-loaded have a garage on the front and a single-width driveway. So it's one and a half spaces for each one that's got a front-load garage, three spaces for each one that has a rear-load garage. Plus, we've got about 60 spaces that are spread out within the community, around the community, green spaces and places like that that will accommodate that. That's one of the reasons why what we show on the site plan doesn't match what the maximum density is, because we've done a conceptual layout, but until we get all the utilities placed in there and all the storm structures and things like that, go through the full development plan approval we won't know exactly how many excuse me how many units we'll get um and then we'll end up with however many we can make it work to make sure that we have the parking but at the site plan process we have to make that parking ratio work so so you've got a 20 foot setback from the curb correct um from the from the property line yes from the property line and the car and the curb is typically under another five or ten feet from that property line so The sidewalk is on the right-of-way side. And I'm sorry if I jump ahead. The way we've laid it out is that 20 feet is from the property line to the front of the house. So that unless you have a car that's longer than 20 feet, which there aren't many of those these days, then you won't encroach on the sidewalk with your vehicle when you're parked in front of your house.

Right. But if I'm in one of the single garages, I don't have room to park my two cars.

have to go on the street and with a street that's 26 feet wide where am i going to park the ones that are 26 feet wide are only the rear loaded garages so those have all got a garage coming in the back all of the ones on the that are front load garages are on the public streets with a 50 foot wide right away and you'll have parking on the streets

They're they're parking it they're gonna be parking spaces throughout the community as well around the green spaces and things like that well what I'm concerned about is Whitaker's Mills right there and There's a huge parking spot parking problem in Whitaker's Mill. Yeah, and that's why I'm concerned about this because there's in my opinion I can't see how you got enough parking And and I just I just don't see it second question I've got is I In the economic analysis that was done, I know he's not here. Why are we looking at Suffolk Public Schools? Page four of your economic development.

Our consultant, Ted Figueroa, does studies like that in many different jurisdictions. We think that was a typo. We used ones that were consistent with York County.

I think what he did is he took another one and just slapped numbers in it. One thing that isn't considered in your economic development plan is capital costs. The reason these schools will have capacity to build out is the taxpayers of York County are spending roughly $85 million on school construction. That is taxpayer money that's going out because of all these developments that were built that we never required the developer to put up or include in the economic analysis the capital cost. And so all you're showing is the operating cost. My numbers on the back of a napkin show this thing is going to cost anywhere from $2,000 to $4,000 per unit. year to the taxpayers of York County and it's that it's just a bad investment so the other question no that's it parking that that's good I'm good thank you thank you very much

Please state your name, address, and you have three minutes.

Good evening. My name is Don Klein. I live at 117 Clements Mill Trace, Williamsburg. I live in the Whitaker's Mill community off of Penniman Road, and thank you for the opportunity to address you all tonight. I oppose this application to rezone a portion of the 32 acres to PDMU. I have a couple of reasons I'll point out to you. One, the area traffic flow plan needs to be closely examined. Water Country Parkway is a winding, site-blocked road. Adding two access points will not improve it. Today, Water Country Parkway is at capacity with local commuters. Steady tractor trailer traffic from Bush Industrial Park. Enterprise Corporation traffic in Wyndham Hotel, if you haven't seen that, their occupancy has spiked recently. Their only access point to their business is Water Country Parkway. And let's not forget the WADA bus stop near the location of the two new access points. That's going to be a problem. Also, the dangerous intersection of Water Country Parkway and Penniman Road is not even addressed in this application. If you want to turn left or right at this intersection, it's dangerous. Sight lines are obstructed in both directions and prudent acceleration is required to navigate that intersection. Secondly, The property has significant history. In August of 2016, a phase one archeological study concluded the site had low information potential. I'm not sure what that means. And further, archeology was not warranted. For your information, a significant African American freedom event related to the emancipation occurred on that property on May 5th, 1862. It was also the site of Union Army headquarters during the Battle of Williamsburg on that same date. And I provided a copy of Private Robert Knox Sneeden's sketch of the site that we're talking about tonight to you all and hope you have a chance to look at it. This site needs to be honored. It deserves to be honored. Perhaps further archaeology can be considered. As you can see from the sketch, it was a busy, consequential place in anything but And it's anything but low information potential. So in summary, I'm opposed to this zoning, rezoning and development project. And thank you very much.

Thank you. Martin Bank. State your name, address, three minutes.

My name is Martin Bank, 129 Clements Mill Trace. And I'd also like to thank everybody for allowing us to speak. Mr. Klein used his time on some of the items I was going to talk about. But to Mr. Borrelli's question earlier regarding the VDOT, there's no lights on that street. And we're talking about sheets in this subdivision having two entrances exits that will dump more traffic onto a S street that has little visibility in each direction. And I supplied everybody with some pictures. Those pictures were taken today. Also today at about 8 o'clock this morning, we had some pretty good rain last night. The intersection of 199 and Water Country was like a water country. It was flooded. Now, two or three hours later, it had receded, but it's also dangerous. Also on 199, which has no lights, on 199, Right across from the hotel entrance exit is the bus stop Mr. Klein talked about. And I took a picture today of a bus stopping at that. I was standing in the driveway of the hotel. So I believe that from the traffic standpoint, on an already dangerous road and intersection, we're going to have additional issues. Thank you for the time.

Thank you.

the two gentlemen turn my light to the two gentlemen just up here what would you like to see that developed on that on this property either one of you you said what would excuse me what would we like to see yes oh like a new road that road is terrible on the property itself not the roads the property itself yeah i don't want to see anything And you agree with that?

I do agree with that, although lesser of two evils. The housing is not so bad, but I don't think that gas station has any place there. As a matter of fact, I think I put a copy of a thing that was in the newspaper on May 1st about a sheet in James City County right down the street two hours away.

Please speak into the mic. Viewers at home won't hear.

Okay, thank you.

We're good. William Miller. Please state your name, your address in three minutes.

Bill Miller. I reside at 108 David's Way in Yorktown. Here's my takeaways from a review of the EAH application. It's 316 pages in length, including 11 pages of the county plan review. It's a skinning down version of the application that was rejected in February of 2014. There were 314 apartments in 2024. Now there are 125 townhouses featuring cookie cutter designs marketed by a Northern Virginia builder. The property is classified as economic opportunity by York County, but the landowner requests zoning the property, rezoning the property, planned development mixed use in order to sell townhouses. The rationale is to change the rules if you can't conform to the prescribed criteria. A gas station included in the 2024 application has now been marketed as a Sheetz gas station. But the Sheetz facility won't commit to construction until 80% of the townhouses are committed with certificates of occupancy. The PDMU zoning is touted by the landowner to help the economic recovery of the failing Marquee Shopping Mall. In the past several years, 447 multi-family housing units have been constructed behind the failing mall for the avowed purpose to spur recovery. Is it reasonable to assume that a mere 125 townhouses will spur the recovery of the mall? 185 of the 316 pages of the application are devoted to traffic impact analysis. The TIA is currently undergoing its third revision by VDOT and is not yet approved. The property was occupied by the Union Army during the Civil War. It has historical significance related to the establishment of the Emancipation Proclamation. The property or a significant portion thereof must be preserved as the only place where the emancipation initiative is publicly interpreted. Out of the 316 pages of self-serving documentation, there are only 46 words that voluntarily proffered in the application to depict the historical significance of the property. That's a shameful oversight. Thank you.

Thank you. Daryl and Tanya Henson. Please state your names, address, and three minutes.

My name is Daryl and Tanya Henson. We live at 204 Galt's Mill Arch in Whitaker's Mill subdivision. There were a couple things and I think I'm hoping I'm not forgetting them. I was going to say that I agree with this gentleman here. I've been living in Whitaker's Mill for six years now and I'm borderline embarrassed at times to bring people back to the community because of how badly it looks in that area when you come off 199 coming down that side road headed back towards Pennamon. A number of times I've come down that road and there's quite a bit of trash and debris along that road. It's quite unsightly on that corner on Pentamon where you before you come into the back side of our subdivision where VDOT fails to cut the grass and trash is dumped there by people along Winchester Road, businesses and trucks and that. They go down that back road and dump trash back there. As far as Mr. Klein and Mr. Banks, I'm very familiar with all of them. I'm not here in this capacity, but I am the president of the Whitaker's Mill HOA. And so we have, as far as the gentleman who came, first of all, I'll say that I am in support of this project. One, we at one point had the road to the gas station, the Wawa, that we have to go down, was blocked off completely, I want to say, for several months. We had to get on 199, go up the road, go down just to get to the gas station. In addition, they've also now changed the landscaping of the road along Penniman. As we go to the Wawa, we now have to stop at the school, the elementary school there, while all other areas of that traffic get the opportunity to transverse. And that blocks that road up quite a bit. There was one additional thing I wanted to say, but I forgot. I'm sorry. Go ahead.

Thank you for your time. I'm Darrell Henson, 204 Galt's Mill, Arch and Whitaker's Mill. I had a three-minute speech, but now I've got to cut it short. But in the interest of time, I'll try to read some of it. In our opinion, the proposed development near Water Country Parkway and Route 199 represents a significant positive step forward for York County community, transforming an unmarked and inaccessible wooded area that's consistently used for drivers throwing trash in the area, as they drive by into a vibrant, economically productive neighborhood. By bringing the modern sheets into a thoughtfully designed townhome community to the area, the project will generate substantial new tax revenue and create local jobs while replacing neglected, brushed, and cohesive, visually appealing architecture and professional landscaping. Critically, while the site currently hides important historical elements, including the Whitaker's Mill Archaeological Complex and Revolutionary and Civil War remnants, the wooded landscape offers no current markers to educate or inform the public. Rather than leaving these milestones forgotten into overgrowth, the developer's formal commitment to install a dedicated bench and commemorative plaque ensures that this vital history is actively honored and integrated into the community's daily life, finally giving the site the public recognition it deserves. Without this developer's funded marker, the 13.2-acre historic site will remain completely hidden in overgrowth, entirely unknown to people passing by. The plaque will transform a vacant, unmarked patch of woods into an active educational monument, ensuring the residents and visitors alike can learn about the incredibly diverse history right beneath our feet. That's a portion of it. Time's up, sir.

Time's up. Thank you. All right, thank you. Ann Gregorian, did I say it right? State your name, address, and three minutes.

Ann Gregorian, 117 Baldrick Place, Yorktown. I would like to speak primarily about the schools and the concern I have on some of the analysis that I think was lacking. The analysis didn't include what percentage of the housing would be exempt from taxes, real estate and property due to the disability tax exemption and the surviving spouse tax exemption. $1,160 seems a little low. I think it costs on average $12,000 for a student to attend one of our schools, and that's just without any special education or special needs. There's school capacity data. It makes a disclaimer at the bottom of the chart and also in the school data itself that it does not include enrollment data for new developments currently being under development. So, that could push boundaries for the schools. I know that the county administrator has recently sent out a memorandum for a 1 percent additional tax, sales tax, to promote specifically and set aside for school capital improvements. So, this development concerns me in that I feel like the analysis doesn't include some of these county and state, new state specific tax exemptions that are imposed on our locality. unfunded mandates, basically. And I'd also like to express concern that any increase in revenue for the marquee, I believe until 2041, will go to the CDA and not come back to York County with that revenue. So any increase that we'll see from this development that they spend at the marquee actually, I believe, is supposed to go back to the CDA until 2041. could have that wrong but that's what i believe and the last thing i'll say is um no school proffers um and i i'm not i think that there should be school proffers uh if this development goes forward and i'm not too excited about six plex homes i just think that's for york county not really You know something that we want to endorse if they're gonna put townhomes in maybe you know No more than two three in a row because a six plex. That's all that's a there's I think the majority of them are six plex like row houses So thank you very much.

Appreciate your time Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this hearing With that I'll close the hearing And what's the pleasure of the commissioners?

So I think this was hastily thrown together proposal to see where it would land. And the economic data is bad, which is typical of the person that did it. So I can't support it at all.

yeah i've got quite a few comments um and i i'm torn i'll tell you it this is a development that not just the commission but the county has been working on for what 10 years 12 years we currently have a unsuccessful venture right there in this particular area right now i hear The concerns about traffic, and I agree 100%. That road needs replaced, period. It was outgrown five years ago, or even further back than that. At a minimum, the shoulders need to be widened. But again, VDOT is engaged in that, and I have to trust the process for that. I understand the staff's position of not strictly adhering to the comp plan, which they exhaustively reviewed this area specifically i know personally that they spent a lot of time but they also suggested flexibility to help sustain this investment that the county already has so i can't ignore that you know this has been zoned eo since 95. there's been multiple rezoning efforts initiatives board of supervisors even approved a proper amendment at one time to do road improvements, which never came to fruition because the development never happened. So there's, again, a lot of effort has gone into what is going on there now. Two years of work went into the comp plan. The steering committee focused on this area, as I mentioned specifically, talked about the mixed-use village, combining apartments and other types of high-density housing with shopping and dining. But residential development should still be considered to help this struggling zone. Those words are actually in a comp plan. And I'll note, a comp plan is, I think somebody made the comment earlier, it's our guideline. It's not an ordinance. A comp plan is an exhausted review put together by a very large group of very dedicated people, very experienced people with recommendations. This is a tiny parcel in this county. This is not representative of the entire county and the entire commission efforts. I want to focus on what's for the betterment of the county and this particular piece of property. It's a very unusual piece of property in size and shape. You can't just put anything on it. I don't disagree that I think some of the work in the application is lacking. I think the natural and cultural resource considerations are not thoroughly vetted. That should be vetted as part of that. Lighting concerns, I always have lighting concerns when it comes to developments. I agree with that 100 percent. But all of this comment and information that we've received tonight will go into site plan development, to the next steps in these types of developments. So I look at it from a commission standpoint on looking at zoning, permit modifications. As it said in here, everything has to be done on a case-by-case basis. So that's what my step back is. I'm not looking at this as a Kiln Creek. I'm not looking at this as a large development. I'm looking at this as a very specific, unique development designed to address a particular niche that we need in a struggling area. The gross acreage of land is a minor development. Check. Got it. Consideration of character of the property and the surroundings. Check. We've done that. Suitability for potential of the property for intensive commercial use if not developed as a mixed-use project. Check. I mean, again, I'm going through what we have to look at as a commission and not just, again, as a large-scale review. Establishing a maximum number of dwelling units, check. The anticipated fiscal and service impact of the project. The school system, that has been addressed. We may not agree. I certainly, being in that position in the past, agree that the numbers are low. But these are the numbers that we're given, not by the developer, but by the county. The York County School Board looked at this as well when their response back was that by 2030, by the time we'll have residents, they will level out and they will be able to absorb. It's a net zero. So if they say they can maintain additional 78 or 48, whatever the number of new students would be, that's because they're that many less that they have today. So it's gonna be a net zero impact. We're not throwing more students in an already burdened system. It's going to level out. So again, we have to recognize those projections, and that's what we have those experts for. I could go through, again, a lot of the other things that I would check off. But the bottom line is there's more positive features, in my opinion, in my review of this, and I've looked at this very, very deeply, more positive features to this application than there are negative, most of which come from our subjective comp plan, which is a guideline for the county as a whole. But it is built for flexibility where it makes sense. And in my opinion, this is one of those areas where we have to be Smart with the use look at all of the pieces and not just at comparing it to other developments But look at the net result as a positive for the county in general It's good for the current use at Marquis It adds convenient and access to needed services and expands our housing opportunities to this area of the county that is lacking That could support Cheetah Manix Camp Perry and the other potential and future needs of that area that is lacking So the end result to me would be an addition of more townhomes with a positive fiscal impact to the county in general. And for those reasons, I feel supported of this particular project as a unique consideration on a case-by-case basis. Thank you.

Yeah. Yeah, I think mixed-use development always has been challenging because when does the commercial part come in as opposed to the residential? So I heard somebody said sheets would not come in until 80% of the homes were built. I also heard that it would come in immediately. So, you know, it is a unique piece of property. I do appreciate the parking issues because we've seen the townhome issues before where parking has not been addressed and it gets crowded, it gets, you know, kind of, cumbersome a little bit. I don't know that questioning the folks in the public hearing, and I hear like, what would you want built? The fact that we just celebrated 250 years, we can all buy the property and do what we would like with it if that's our choice. But I do appreciate the homeowners. You didn't come as a homeowners president, but I appreciate your perspective as a tenant. or a neighbor and a property owner there. So I agree exactly with what JP said. It's a unique piece of property. Again, it's been scaled down from what its initial use was, and I would be supportive of this. Thank you.

Mr. Smith, you referred to this as a little bit of a torn situation. I kind of feel that as well. I've put some time into this. Yeah, there's a difficulty there in a balance. Maintaining that balance is ideal. Taking with the great assaults, the potential for that 2040 plan to be perfectly written, of course, it's not going to be. There are things in here that talk about, right out of the plan, while the additional 447 housing, obviously it's slightly different, but it's referring to the same area, while the additional 447 housing units will certainly bring more business to the stores of the marquee. They're probably not enough to reverse the shopping center's downward spiral. And then it goes on to refer to, ironically, it talks about the weak demand for commercial space and the low density population around the center, et cetera, et cetera. So it's a bit of a catch-22. It's not straightforward in any sort of sense. But it is also, the plan's a guideline. It's a plan. And I appreciate the comments from the public regarding their views in the historical. It's really always lovely to really see York County, we really seem to lean into our historical values pretty hard. So I don't know if that's a little leftover from the 4th of July, but no, I appreciate that nonetheless. And then also at the same time, the applicant is many years down in working on this project. So you've got to balance that, right, and the reasonableness to it. And I did ask about that gas station in that regard, since it is the only item that seemed to carry through, I find that interesting. You know, if you look at the surrounding gas stations and we had a member of the public actually mentioned the difficulty of the transition to another one, it doesn't seem inappropriate to have a gas station right at that location. But now we're talking about the greater issue being the introduction of the residential aspect of it. So comfort to a simple answer here, I certainly don't have. Thanks for making this first meeting of mine a little bit challenging in that regard. But yeah, no problems there. Again, I just appreciate the staff's submission as well and all the work that was done on your part as well. So thank you.

I appreciate the presentation. the team gave today, and I appreciate everyone's comments who got up and spoke on behalf of whatever they felt and believed at that point. I personally do not believe that there has been enough demonstrated in this proposal for me to go ahead and approve.

People that know me when I sit up here is going to be surprised. I really don't have a lot of questions or comments. I do not particularly like PDMU developments, because I don't think they ever turned out the way they are originally designed or reasonably put for it. But I thought this was a reasonable approach to that particular piece of land, and they addressed some of the things that were brought up in the 23-24 proposal. So that's all I have to say.

Well, I too appreciate everybody's input from everybody in the room. It is, I have some concerns and I'm kind of torn myself. Cultural and natural things are very important for our county and our history and I look at that as something we need to abide by. But I see positives of this document and I see some concerns in this document. But at the same time, you know, We're going to make a decision here. So with that, I'm asking...

I just want to make two clarifications real quick before you guys do your vote, because there were some concerns about lighting on Water Country Parkway and the safety there. So I will note, and we didn't highlight this too much as staff, but they have proffered to put streetlights on Water Country Parkway, and they have proffered to reduce the speed limit on that road. by changing out the signs, working with VDOT to do that. So those are two things that they did put in there. We didn't really highlight that too much, but I know it came up from the citizens from that. And Ms. Carner did say this when she was up there, but the traffic impact analysis has been approved by VDOT. They did approve it on Tuesday, if I'm remembering correctly.

Yesterday?

Yeah, yesterday. So yes, those things have been done. So I just wanted to make sure the citizens were aware there are those elements in their proffers for that. Thank you.

Tom, you want to say something? Yeah, I'll move PC 26-17.

The motion by Mr. Chamberlain is to adopt PC 26-17 to classify a portion of 200 Water Country Parkway from EO to PDMU. Mr. Borrelli?

No.

Mr. Smith?

Yes.

Mr. Wasserman?

Yes.

Mr. Titus?

Yes.

Mr. Chamberlain?

No.

Mr. Butler?

No.

Mr. Brooks?

no motion failed all right with that we got any old business

We had, I thought, as an old business item, talking about time of our meeting.

Oh, yes, yes, yes. So at the last meeting, I had said that your bylaws kind of outlined the time frame at 7 o'clock. And I had suggested maybe we change the bylaws to make that change. But after some conversations with our deputy county attorney, she did say if you wanted to go ahead and change your time, you could make that vote tonight and make that change. But we also think you should take a look at your bylaws in the future. So maybe if you all were open to creating a subcommittee to kind of look at those bylaws. It would be great, I think, to kind of update them. I think it's been about 10 years since we updated them.

Mr. Chairman, can I make a motion that we change our time to 6 p.m. and also form a subcommittee to review the bylaws? I agree.

Two motions at the same time?

We have two motions at the same time.

Okay, I'll start with 6 p.m.

Okay. 6.30, right?

Okay.

6.30? 6 p.m. 6 p.m. Yeah.

Do you want to discuss it? Do you want to discuss it?

Yeah, I'll throw a comment. I'm concerned about moving it that early from the county resident availability standpoint. I don't know if the last time you've gone up 17, but if you're coming home from work and if you plan on attending this in person or even online, which I'm not saying we have a huge audience for how exciting our meetings are, but I've been in other associations that have done just that. We've backed up the time for the convenience of the group for the most part, and we lost a lot of attendance because of that. I'm concerned about that. I would, 6.30 is about as early as I would be comfortable with trying to push that to, but I'm still fine with 7 o'clock, I think. Again, for the benefit of our citizens and access to us, I just think that that time was there for a reason, but that's

I think it's a reasonable approach as well that the 630 conversation regarding citizens as well I have the same impression so I agree with you there I Would suggest that we Look at the bylaws and table changing it to our newest members have a chance to attend them a couple of meetings and then and then look at it so I that that's just kind of my thought on it is let's not change it right off the bat and let the new members and maybe form the committee to look at it. And I don't know if anybody's talked to the Board of Supervisors what their thoughts are on us changing this meeting either. I do know that all their public hearings start at 7 o'clock or shortly thereafter, so that time frame. And I've not been on this that long, but I just would suggest we hold back a little bit.

I like the committee idea.

can I change my motion to form a committee to look at the bylaws and include the time change I don't know that we I don't think you need a vote to form a committee so I think you're okay I just need to know who wants to volunteer folks I could do another committee fine

Who do we have now, Glenn and Jake? Anybody? Nick? Jeff, do you want to do it? Jeff, we've got four people on this committee. This is good.

Well, I've just been informed that if we go above two, we're going to be having to advertise. So I would say just two, please. Oh, boy. Who wants to fight it out? I'll put my name in the hat. That's fine.

You want me on it?

Sure, I'll do it.

So maybe one new and one, okay.

All right. And thanks again for stepping up as Vice Chair and to Tom for serving as Chair and for Mr. Brooks for taking the leadership.

Okay.

All right. So we have Mr. Borelli and Mr. Smith. Thank you, gentlemen. We very much appreciate that.

Okay. Staff reports?

All right. So I wanted to just give a big welcome to Mr. Butler and Mr. Borelli. Uh, it was, it was great to have them come on board. Uh, we had really good orientation. Um, uh, Mr. Bareilly, I think you hold the record for the longest, uh, orientation I've ever given to a planning commissioner. Um, and we had to, and I had to cut you off because I had to go to a meeting. So I think it would have been longer, but I mean, I very much appreciate that. It's always great. Um, when we have citizens are very excited about serving, um, in a voluntary capacity. So very much appreciate that. You all had some great questions for your first meeting, and wow, what a first meeting you had. Um, but thank you for your, your stepping up and helping to serve your committee. We very much appreciate it. We appreciate it as staff. I know that we're, we're here for you anytime you need us, just give us a call, shoot us an email. Um, and I'm sure the, the commissioners that are been on here a few years, you know, would be more than welcome to have a conversation with you too. If you ever had questions about something that was going on in a meeting or something to that effect too, but I won't offer that up. I'm sure they will, will tell you themselves. Um, so for the development activity report, um, I'll just report the applications were recently approved at the Board of Supervisors. Dr. Gould's application for a short-term rental on Hornsbyville Road, that was approved after some very interesting dialogue between the board members. It was a 3-2 vote for his approval, and they actually switched it to a whole house short-term rental for him.

I was going to ask you, because I watched that, are they changing their policies?

I don't know. They're going to have a discussion is what we've been told. They're going to discuss it and try to solidify it a little bit more. So hang on. We'll keep you updated as we hear from them on what they want to do there. Mr. Bindle had kind of an accelerated application, but his application was approved also for Industry Drive to move his auto repair garage there. And then lastly at the board meeting was the inpatient substance abuse treatment centers, moving those into bringing that use into the ordinance and that was approved also by the board. One of your applications that was supposed to go to the July meeting, the short-term rental in Middletown Farm, that was actually withdrawn by the applicant. After some additional research, we found out that the accessory apartment wasn't authorized, that we could find evidence that it was an actual accessory apartment. So she is going to go back, withdraw from that, and come back to you're more than likely with a request to make it an accessory structure. So you'll see that in the future. But the Mike's towing and the other amendment to the cargo sheds, those are all going to the board on the 21st of this month. Other things of note, you have one application for your August agenda. It is for a towing operation off production drive. So where Mr. Bendel's auto repair garage was, is now coming in for an application for a towing service. So you'll see that in August. Um, and then just of note for site plans, it might be interesting for you. So, um, for those of you familiar with Pocahontas trail, um, or Kings mill area, uh, where the old, uh, I think it was a KFC Taco Bell mix store. Um, they're going to be putting a Panera in there. Um, so they've submitted their site plan for that site. Uh, we also received site plan for Lafayette gun clubs expansion. I know that's Mr. Butler's heart. He had spoken at the board meeting about that. So yeah, that application has come in to put in the indoor firing range and to move the shotgun range a little further south. And then lastly, we got the site plan submittal for the sheets application. They're on Route 17 at Fort Eustis Boulevard, so that's come in, so we'll be reviewing that soon. And if there's anything else on there, please let me know if there's any other questions. But again, very much welcome to the new members. We are very happy you're here. That's all.

No commission reports? I think we're adjourned.

Finally.