[00:00:01]
[CALL TO ORDER]
I'D LIKE TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER, AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MR. JOYNER TO DO THE PRAYER AND MR. BRESKO TO DO THE PLEDGE.ROLL CALL, MAKE CERTAIN WE GOT A ROLL.
ROLL CALL, PLEASE. MR. SIMMONS. HERE.
MRS. ELDER. MRS. ELDER IS HERE ON ZOOM, CAN YOU STATE YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE? 10409 OLD STAGE ROAD, PRINCE GEORGE, VIRGINIA TWO THREE EIGHT SEVEN FIVE.
ALL RIGHT. OK, WE DO HAVE A QUORUM, AND SO I'LL ASK YOU AT THIS TIME TO STAND WITH US FOR THE INVOCATION AND THE PLEDGE PLEASE.
AND I'VE ANNOUNCED WHO'S GIVING IT.
OH, HEAVENLY FATHER, AS WE GATHER HERE TONIGHT TO CONDUCT THE BUSINESS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY.
DEAR LORD, WE ASKED YOUR GUIDANCE AND YOUR DIRECTION IN THOSE DECISIONS THAT THEY MAY BE THE RIGHT DECISION FOR THE COUNTY, FOR OUR COUNTRY.
DEAR GOD BLESS PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY AND BLESS AMERICA.
AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD TO ANYONE WHO WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON ONLY ON TOPICS THAT ARE NOT ON THE AGENDA.
AND PLEASE STAND AND PRONOUNCE YOUR NAME ADDRESS AND YOU HAVE APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK. OK? IS THERE ANYONE? IS THERE ANYONE ON ZOOM WHO WISH TO SPEAK.
FOR ALL ZOOM PARTICIPANTS WELCOME TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION OF TONIGHT'S MEETING.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK ABOUT TOPICS THAT ARE NOT SCHEDULED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING LATER TONIGHT.
TO BE RECOGNIZED, PLEASE PRESS THE RAISE HAND BUTTON ON YOUR ZOOM SCREEN NOW.
ALL RIGHT, I SEE AND WE'LL WAVE AT THE SCREEN.
I SEE NO ONE WISHING TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME, MR. CHAIRMAN. OK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT.
MS. WALTON, YOU HAVE COMMENTS, PLEASE, MA'AM.
THANK YOU, MR. BROWN, CAN YOU CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS? YES, MS. JULIE. ALLOW ME TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME AND THEN I'M CALLING ON YOU TO SPEAK. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.
[DIRECTOR’S COMMENTS]
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.COMMISSION MEMBERS, MR. WHITTEN.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY THIS EVENING.
MONDAY, AT YOUR WORK SESSION MEETING, I HAD THE PLEASURE TO INTRODUCE TO SOME OF YOU, OUR NEWEST EMPLOYEE IN THE PLANNING DIVISION.
AND TONIGHT I WOULD LIKE OFFICIALLY TO TAKE A FEW MINUTES TO INTRODUCE HIM AGAIN TO YOU AND TO THE PUBLIC AND TO THE CITIZENS ATTENDING EITHER ON ZOOM OR IN PERSON.
WE ARE HAPPY TO ANNOUNCE THAT MR. ANDRE GREENE HAS ACCEPTED THE POSITION WITH PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY AS A PLANNER 2.
ANDRE JOINS US FROM HIS PREVIOUS WORK IN SUSSEX COUNTY, AS A DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT THERE, AND ALSO HIS PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT HERE WITH PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, WHICH HE STARTED MANY YEARS AGO.
AND MR. CHAIRMAN BROWN AND I BOTH WORKED WITH HIM AT THAT TIME, AS WELL AS SOME OF YOU OTHERS MAY
[00:05:01]
HAVE REMEMBERED HIM, BUT ANDRE CAME TO US FOR FOUR YEARS OR SO AFTER OBTAINING HIS MASTER'S DEGREE IN RURAL AND URBAN PLANNING.SO AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE MR. GREENE TO COME UP HERE FOR JUST A SECOND SO THAT WE CAN ALL BE INTRODUCED TO HIM.
AND AGAIN, I THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE HIM WITH US.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THIS ONE BRIEF STATEMENT.
I AM HAPPY TO BE BACK HERE WITH THE COUNTY OF PRINCE GEORGE AND I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU AS WE PLAN FOR THE FUTURE GROWTH OF PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY.
THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY.
MR. GREENE FROM THE COMMISSION HERE WE DO WELCOME YOU AND WE HOPE THAT YOU ENJOY BEING WITH US. OK, THANK YOU, SIR.
[ADOPTION OF AGENDA]
DUE TO THE WITHDRAWAL OF ORDINANCE, THAT'S AMENDMENT OA-21-01.MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO AMEND THE AGENDA FOR THE OCTOBER 28TH, 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AND I REQUEST A MOTION AND SECOND.
MOTION, PLEASE. [INAUDIBLE] TO AMEND.
I GOT YOU. MS. ELDER, THANK YOU.
I'LL SECOND. THANK YOU FOR THAT MOTION AND FOR THAT SECOND.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.
[ORDER OF BUSINESS]
AND THE ADOPTION OF THE AMENDED AGENDA, AND MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE AMENDED AGENDA FOR OCTOBER 28TH 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.TO APPROVE THE AMENDED AGENDA.
SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOTIONED AND SECOND THAT WE APPROVE THE AMENDED AGENDA.
CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE? MR. JOYNER.
OK, I WOULD MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME, AND THIS ANNOUNCEMENT IS THAT THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT.
OA-21-1 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT.
THE ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS CASE TONIGHT HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA.
OK WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT? ALL RIGHT. ANY CORRECTIONS TO THE.
TAKE A LOOK AT THE MINUTES FROM OUR LAST MEETING FROM AUGUST 21ST 21 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY CORRECTIONS, I ASK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE AS WRITTEN.
I MAKE THAT MOTION MR. CHAIRMAN. IT'S BEEN MOTIONED.
APPROVED. AND APPROVED DO I HAVE A SECOND.
SECOND. AND SECONDED. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.
[PUBLIC HEARING]
NEW BUSINESS AND PUBLIC.LET ME TAKE NEW BUSINESS AND PUBLIC HEARING.
FIRST, THERE'S A REZONING REQUEST RZ 21-04 REQUEST OF DWIGHT
[00:10:08]
NELSON CUNNINGHAM TO REZONE SIX POINT EIGHT ACRES FROM M-1 LIMITED INDUSTRIAL TO M-2 GENERAL INDUSTRIAL.THE SUBJECT PARCEL IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF CHUDOBA PARKWAY, WHICH IS WHERE IT BEGINS TO PARALLEL INTERSTATE 295 AND IS IDENTIFIED AS TAX MAP 340(19)00-001-0.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INDICATE THE PROPERTY IS SUITABLE FOR INDUSTRIAL USE.
MR. GRAVES, WOULD YOU? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, FOR THE INTRODUCTION AND GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
ALL RIGHT. SO THIS IS A LOCATION VIEW OF THE PROPERTY.
IT'S IN THE CENTER OF THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU HERE.
IT'S HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE. IT'S TRIANGULAR PARCEL HERE, ABOUT 6.8 ACRES.
AS YOU HEARD, LOCATED ON CHUDOBA PARKWAY TO THE SOUTHEAST OF THIS IS SOME LARGE, PARCELS WHICH YOU WOULD RECOGNIZE AS THE FORMER ROLLS ROYCE PROPERTY AND ALSO SOUTH POINT TO THE EAST AND NORTHEAST.
ALL RIGHT, IT'S ANOTHER THE SAME VIEW WITH THE ZONING MAP TURNED ON HERE.
THE DARKER GRAY COLOR IS THE MEDIUM.
FORGETTING THE TERM, BUT IT'S THE M-2 ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE BASICALLY THE MEDIUM INTENSITY INDUSTRIAL AND THE LIGHT GRAY IS THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.
SO THIS PARCEL, AS YOU CAN SEE, THEY ARE REQUESTING CHANGE FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO MEDIUM INTENSITY INDUSTRIAL.
YEAH, SO THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY ON THIS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 295 IS ALL INDUSTRIAL.
I'M SORRY, WITH ONE PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT'S ZONED RA TO THE WEST THAT JUST INTERSECTS AT A VERY SMALL POINT IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER.
ALL RIGHT. SO HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY.
IT'S CURRENTLY COVERED BY TREES.
AND YOU CAN SEE THE PERDUE CHICKEN PROCESSING PLANT ACROSS THE ROAD THERE.
SOME HISTORY ABOUT THIS PROPERTY, IT WAS REZONED TO M-2 IN THE YEAR 2000 TO PERMIT A SPECIFIC LAND USE THAT WAS CONTRACTOR SALES AND ASSEMBLY, AND THE CONDITIONS OF THAT CASE PROVIDED THAT IF THE PROPERTY WAS NOT USED FOR THAT PURPOSE, IT WOULD REVERT TO AN M-1 DESIGNATION. SO THIS WAS PREVIOUSLY M-2 FOR A TIME PERIOD, BUT IS IS NOW M-1.
AND SO THIS APPLICANT AGAIN IS LOOKING TO TURN IT TO M-2.
THE APPLICANT'S GOALS ARE TO NUMBER ONE RELOCATE THEIR AUTOMOBILE RESTORATION BUSINESS FROM CHESTERFIELD COUNTY.
THEY ALSO, IN THE FUTURE WOULD LIKE TO BUILD ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS, SPECULATIVE BUILDINGS ON THE PROPERTY. SO THE FIRST BUILDING ON THIS PROPERTY WOULD BE FOR THIS THE PROPERTY OWNERS BUSINESS AND THEN FUTURE BUILDINGS WOULD HAVE TENANTS OR OWNERS FOR FUTURE USES.
AND SO OF COURSE, THEIR REQUEST IS REZONE THIS PROPERTY FROM M-1 TO M-2, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THAT AUTOMOBILE RESTORATION BUSINESS AND AS WELL AS ANY OTHER USES THAT ARE PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN M-2 AS WELL AS M-1 AS WELL.
THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL VIEW OR CONCEPTUAL PLAN OF THE PROPERTY.
YOU CAN SEE THEY'RE PLANNING TO RETAIN VEGETATION ALONG CHUDOBA PARKWAY ON THE EASTERN OR THE RIGHT SIDE OF THIS IMAGE AND AS WELL AS IN THAT SOUTHWEST CORNER WHERE THE PROPERTY ABUTS A RA ZONE PARCEL.
SO YOU CAN SEE THE FIVE BUILDINGS IN THIS PLAN HERE.
AGAIN, IT'S CONCEPTUAL, BUT IN THEORY OR WHEN IF THIS REQUEST IS APPROVED, YOU KNOW THAT FIRST AUTOMOBILE REPAIR BUSINESS WOULD BE IN ONE OF THESE BUILDINGS.
AND I'LL GO INTO STAFF COMMENTS.
WE HAVE IDENTIFIED HERE THE PROPOSED LAND USE FOR THAT FIRST USER, WHICH IS FALLS IN THE CATEGORY OF AUTOMOBILE ASSEMBLING, PAINTING, UPHOLSTERY AND REPAIRING AND REBUILDING, RECONDITIONING, ET CETERA.
THIS FUTURE USES ON THIS PROPERTY, AS I MENTIONED, WOULD ALSO BE PERMITTED IF THEY'RE
[00:15:06]
ALREADY PERMITTED IN THE M-2 ZONING DISTRICT.THERE COULD BE ADDITIONAL USERS IN THE FUTURE FALLING INTO THAT.
THAT SAID, EVERY STEP OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY WOULD HAVE TO START WITH A SITE PLAN PROCESS WHERE IT'D BE REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND, OF COURSE, OTHER STAFF REVIEWING IT AT THAT TIME AS WELL.
THIS USE APPEARS TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES, WHICH ARE SOME VACANT LAND, AS WE SAW IN THE AERIAL VIEW AND ALSO AN INDUSTRIAL PARK.
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CALLS FOR INDUSTRIAL.
PLANNING STAFF NOTED THAT TRAFFIC IMPACTS SHOULD BE ACCOMMODATED WITHIN THE EXISTING ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S IN PLACE THERE, AND THAT MAY ENTAIL IMPROVEMENTS THAT COULD BE REQUIRED BY VDOT DURING THE SITE PLAN REVIEW BASED ON TRIP GENERATION AT THAT TIME.
THE STAFF ALSO NOTED THAT THERE COULD BE CONDITIONS FOR THIS REZONING REQUEST PERTAINING TO RETAINING THE VEGETATED BUFFER YARDS.
AS WE SAID, THERE'S EXISTING TREES NOW, SO THEY WOULD JUST RETAIN THOSE.
BUT IF THEY CAME DOWN TO THE FUTURE, THERE WOULD STILL NEED TO BE SOME VEGETATION TO SCREEN THE USE OF THE PROPERTY FROM THE ADJACENT RIGHTS OF WAY ROADS, BASICALLY, AND ANOTHER CONDITION WOULD BE TO PROHIBIT EXTERIOR STORAGE UNLESS IT'S COMPLETELY SCREENED.
AGAIN THIS IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN THAT THEY PUT FORWARD, AND ANOTHER CONDITION WOULD BE TO RESTRICT ACCESS TO THE SECONDARY, THERE'S AN ACCESS ROAD THAT'S LIGHTLY MAINTAINED BY VDOT, I THINK IT'S GRAVEL AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME ON THE NORTH WESTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
AND VDOT MADE A COMMENT ABOUT THIS, WHICH WE'LL SHOW IN A MINUTE WHERE THEY WERE REQUESTING THAT THAT NOT BE USED AS A PRIMARY WAY TO GET INTO THE PROPERTY, ESPECIALLY FOR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES WITH HEAVY, YOU KNOW, HEAVY TRAFFIC.
THEY NOTED THAT BASED ON WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS PUT FORWARD, THERE'S NO TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REQUIRED BY VDOT, AND THEY NOTED THAT RIGHT AND LEFT TURN LANES COULD BE REQUIRED, SO THEY SAID WILL BE REQUIRED IF WARRANTED AT THE SITE WHERE IT CONNECTS TO THE ROADS THAT IT CONNECTS TO.
VDOT IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE APPLICANT CONSIDER REMOVING THE PROPOSED CONNECTION TO THAT ACCESS ROAD ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE.
AGAIN, THAT'S IN THE PRESENT TENSE.
THAT'S WHAT THEY RECOMMENDED WHEN THEY REVIEWED THIS REQUEST SOME WEEKS AGO.
VDOT SAID THAT THEY WOULD SUPPORT AN ENTRANCE THAT WOULD BE ACCESSED CONTROLLED FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES OR THAT DOES NOT PROVIDE PRIMARY ACCESS TO THE SITE.
SO AGAIN, THAT'S JUST ABOUT THAT SECOND, ACCESS ROAD ON NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, NOT THE ONE ON CHUDOBA PARKWAY.
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NOTED THAT THERE ARE ENTERPRISE ZONE INCENTIVES THAT APPLY, AND ONE INCENTIVE WAS APPLIED TO THIS ALREADY AND THAT THEIR REZONING FEE WAS WAIVED BECAUSE OF THEIR ESTIMATED CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN FOR FOR CONSTRUCTING BUILDINGS AND DEVELOPING THE SITE. SO AS WE MENTIONED THE PLANNING STAFF AND VDOT RECOMMENDED SOME CONDITIONS, WE HAVE PROPOSED THOSE TO THE APPLICANT AND TO THE COMMISSION HERE.
THESE ARE THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS THAT WOULD APPLY TO THIS REQUEST IF YOU ARE IN SUPPORT OF THAT AS WELL.
THEY ARE TO NUMBER ONE RETAIN OR ESTABLISH A VEGETATED BUFFER YARDS AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ALONG CHUDOBA PARKWAY IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN INCLUDED WITH THE APPLICATION AND CONFORMANCE WITH ANY ADDITIONAL APPLICABLE DESIGN STANDARDS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
AND NUMBER TWO IS THAT DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY IS LIMITED TO THE PERMITTED USES WITHIN THE STRUCTURES. AGAIN, IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN.
SO THIS ALSO SAYS EXTERIOR STORAGE IS PROHIBITED UNLESS COMPLETELY SCREENED FROM VIEW OF PARKING AREAS, ADJOINING PROPERTIES AND ROADS BY FENCES OR WALLS ATTACHED TO BUILDINGS.
AND THEN FINALLY, ABOUT THAT ACCESS ENTRANCE VIA F342 IS RESTRICTED TO EMERGENCY SERVICES AND NONCOMMERCIAL VEHICLES.
AND WE DID CHECK WITH VDOT ON THIS CONDITION TO SEE IF THIS IS WHAT THEY WERE GOING FOR, WHAT THEIR REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION AND VDOT WAS IN SUPPORT OF THIS.
AND THE APPLICANT REVIEWED THESE CONDITIONS AND THEY INDICATED THAT THEY ARE IN SUPPORTED OF THESE CONDITIONS. SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THOSE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS AND THE BASIS FOR THIS RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE FOUND THAT THE REQUEST IS
[00:20:03]
COMPATIBLE WITH CURRENT AND FUTURE SURROUNDING USES AND ZONING.WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY NEGATIVE FEEDBACK AFTER ALL THE REQUIRED ADVERTISEMENTS TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AND IN THE NEWSPAPER AND THE APPLICANT AGREED TO THE CONDITIONS.
AT THIS TIME, I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, AND ONCE YOU'RE DONE WITH ME, [INAUDIBLE].
MR. HAWKINS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING? ALL RIGHT. SO I THINK THE APPLICANT CAN COME UP AND SPEAK AND AT THAT POINT, WE CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE TO EITHER ONE OF US.
GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
I'M DEAN HAWKINS, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, AND I'M THE DESIGNER FOR THIS PROJECT FOR MR. CUNNINGHAM. FIRST OFF, A COUPLE OF THINGS I'D LIKE TO THANK JULIE WALTON AND HER STAFF FOR THE REVIEW THAT WE HAD PRIOR TO EVEN FOLLOWING OUR CASE.
IT WAS VERY HELPFUL TO GET ALL THE INFORMATION THAT WE NEEDED TO DO THE CORRECT PROVISION OF INFORMATION SO THAT THE STAFF REPORT COULD BE BETTER PREPARED.
AND ALSO, I THINK TIM GRAVES HAS DONE A VERY GOOD JOB IN A VERY COMPREHENSIVE STAFF REPORT. IT'S EASY READING EVERYTHING THAT YOU WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THIS SITE IS PROBABLY THERE, AND WE HAVE AGREED TO THE STAFF REPORT WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
WE UNDERSTAND THE CONDITIONS AND LOOK FORWARD TO BEING A NEIGHBOR HERE IN THE COUNTY.
SO WITH THAT, I'D BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY AT THIS TIME.
OK, SIR. ANY QUESTIONS? WELL, THIS SLOT IS UP THERE, WHICH OF THE FIVE BUILDINGS IS TO BE THE INITIAL BUILDING FOR RESTORATION OF AUTOMOBILES? IN MY DISCUSSIONS WITH MR. CUNNINGHAM FROM THE VERY START, HIS THOUGHT WAS TO BUILD BUILDING D, WHICH IS THE ONE BACKING UP TO THE FRONTAGE ROAD.
THE FRONTAGE ROAD IS A PAVED ROAD AND IT WAS THERE BEFORE CHUDOBA PARKWAY WAS HERE BECAUSE IT WAS BUILT ALONG WITH 295.
IT'S BECOME LESS IMPORTANT NOW BECAUSE OF CHUDOBA ROAD BEING IN PLACE, AND VDOT HAS TOLD US THAT WHILE IT'S TAR AND GRAVEL, SO IT IS USABLE PASSABLE, BUT IT STOPS THERE TO THE NORTH EAST PART OF OUR PROPERTY AS IT MERGES WITH CHUDOBA.
SO IT'S GOOD TO HAVE BECAUSE IT WILL BE A GOOD ACCESS IN AN EMERGENCY TO HAVE A SECOND ACCESS INTO THE SITE.
I DON'T KNOW THE TIME FRAME FOR THE OTHER BUILDINGS, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF INFRASTRUCTURE TO BE PUT IN INITIALLY WITH DRAINAGE, UTILITIES, ET CETERA, TO SERVE EVERYTHING.
AND BUT INITIALLY, I THINK THE LOCATION THAT HE WOULD PROPOSE TO USE IS BUILDING D, WHICH IS THE FURTHEST ONE AWAY FROM CHUDOBA OPPOSITE THE MAIN ENTRANCE, BACKING UP TO THE FRONTAGE ROAD. OK, ONE MORE QUESTION AND I'LL SHUT UP.
THE ENTRANCE FOR EMERGENCY USE ONLY.
AS THAT PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED.
WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IS IT GOING TO BE TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT ENTRANCE DOESN'T BECOME A SECOND MAIN ENTRANCE? WELL, IN CASES LIKE THIS, AND I'VE DONE ANOTHER SITE IN PRINCE GEORGE, WHAT WE DID WAS SIMPLE TO SET UP A LOCKED GATE THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS NO PROBLEM GETTING THROUGH SHOULD THEY NEED TO BOLT CUTTERS AND AND FIRE TRUCK BUMPERS TAKE CARE OF IT PRETTY EASILY, BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD ALLOW A NORMAL PERSON TO COME THERE.
OK, SIR, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
DO WE HAVE ANY. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OK. ALL RIGHT.
I WONDER IF THERE'S A QUESTION FROM ANYONE WHO IS ON.
[00:25:02]
OH. NO. OK.IT'LL BE TIME FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING, OK? PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE FROM THE AUDIENCE.
ALL RIGHT. FOR ALL ZOOM PARTICIPANTS, WELCOME TO THE PUBLIC HEARING SECTION OF TONIGHT'S MEETING FOR REQUEST RZ 21-04.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK AND YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
TO BE RECOGNIZED PLEASE PRESS THE RAISE HAND BUTTON ON YOUR ZOOM SCREEN NOW OR WAVE AT THE SCREEN. IF YOU'RE CALLING ON A PHONE, YOU MAY PRESS STAR NINE NOW TO INDICATE YOU WISH TO SPEAK. MR. CHAIRMAN, I DON'T SEE ANYONE ON ZOOM WISHING TO SPEAK.
OK, SIR. IN THAT CASE, THEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
GENTLEMEN, DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS? AT THIS TIME, THE CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION AS TO WHETHER WE APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE TO THE BOARD TO REQUEST RZ-21-04 RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THE REASON FOR THIS RECOMMENDATION IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ALL RIGHT. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.
IT HAS BEEN MOTIONED SECOND THAT THE BOARD APPROVE MOTION AND APPROVE THIS REQUEST.
YES. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH, AND THANK YOU.
AFTER YOU CHECK WITH THE STAFF AND THEY WILL TAKE CARE OF YOUR BUSINESS . THE SECOND ITEM WE HAVE HERE TONIGHT IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, AND THAT'S SE 21-06.
GOOD EVENING. AND THE CASE IS SPECIAL EXCEPTION SE-21-06.
AND THIS IS THE REQUEST OF JAIME PENNINGTON PURSUANT TO THE PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 90-243 SUBSECTION SIX TO PERMIT A HOME OCCUPATION IN AN ACCESSORY BUILDING IN A R2 LIMITED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE BUSINESS IN AN EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDING.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY FOUR POINT ONE THREE ACRES IN SIZE, AND IT'S LOCATED AT 7106 COURTHOUSE ROAD AND IN THE PROPERTY IS IDENTIFIED AS TAX MAP 240(05)00-00B-0 THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INDICATES THE PROPERTY IS SUITABLE FOR VILLAGE CENTER USES.
THIS IS A PROPERTY TAX MAP AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS BEEN
[00:30:03]
OUTLINED IN THE COLOR BLUE.IN THE NEXT MAP SHOWS AN OVERLAY OF THE ZONING DISTRICTS FOR THAT SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THE FRONTAGE OF THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED R-2 AND THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY IS ZONED R-A. THE NEXT ILLUSTRATION IS.
THAT IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE ACCESSORY USE TO BE USED IS CIRCLED IN THE RED CIRCLE.
IS THAT IS THE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING LOCATED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SECOND STRUCTURE IS THE ACCESSORY [INAUDIBLE] THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE BUSINESS. AND THIS IS SOME BACKGROUND INFORMATION.
THE APPLICANT IS JAIME PENNINGTON.
SHE IS A PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY NATIVE.
SHE'S EDUCATED, LICENSED AND CERTIFIED AS A MASSAGE THERAPIST.
MASSAGES INTENDED TO ASSIST WITH PAIN MANAGEMENT FOR MEDICAL CONDITIONS, TO IMPROVE RECOVERY POST-SURGERY AND TO SPEED UP MUSCLE RECOVERY FOR ATHLETES . MS. PENNINGTON HAS OPERATED A THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE PRACTICE IN THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD SINCE 2007.
THE USE AN EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDING WITH ELECTRICITY TO RECEIVE CLIENTS, CLIENTS WILL BE WILL BE BY APPOINTMENT ONLY WITH APPOINTMENT TIMES FROM 10 A.M.
TO SIX P.M.. THERE WILL BE THREE TO FOUR CLIENTS PER DAY.
THERE WILL BE NO OTHER EMPLOYEES THAN THE APPLICANT AND THE SITE WILL PROVIDE OFF STREET PARKING WITH A TURNAROUND.
AND ALSO, THERE WILL BE NO SIGNAGE ADVERTISING THE BUSINESS.
AS STATED THE OFFICIAL REQUEST IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR A HOME OCCUPATION WITHIN AN EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDING PURSUANT TO SECTION 90-243 SUBSECTION SIX OF THE COUNTY'S ZONING ORDINANCE.
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS WERE AS FOLLOWS THE EXPECTED IMPACTS TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES WILL BE LIMITED AND THERE WILL BE A MINIMAL INCREASE IN TRAFFIC AND THE USE IS EQUIVALENT TO A RESIDENTIAL USE.
ALSO, THE OUTWARD APPEARANCE OF THE PROPERTY WILL STILL BE RESIDENTIAL AND ALSO CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN RECOMMENDED BY STAFF TO MATCH THE APPLICANTS STATED GOALS.
PRIOR TO THE STRUCTURE BEING USED FOR THE MASSAGE THERAPEUTIC BUSINESS, A BUILDING PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED FROM THE COUNTY, ALSO A CHANGE OF USE PERMIT WILL ALSO BE REQUIRED FROM THE BUILDING OFFICE.
AND ALSO CERTAIN EGRESS, PARKING AND BATHROOM REQUIREMENTS MUST BE PROVIDED BY THE BUILDING CODE AND THE HEALTH [INAUDIBLE] DEPARTMENT.
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH HAS DONE THEIR EVALUATION OF THE EXISTING SEPTIC SYSTEM THERE, AND THEY HAVE NOTED THAT THE SEPTIC SYSTEM IS ADEQUATE FOR BOTH THE HOUSE AND THE BUSINESS TO BE CONDUCTED AT THE SITE.
[00:35:05]
ALSO, THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND HAVE FOUND THAT THE EXISTING INTEREST MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF VDOT STANDARDS.THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS BY STAFF.
THESE ARE SOME HIGHLIGHTS OF THE CONDITIONS, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE FOR THE APPLICANT ONLY WITHIN THE EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE BUILDING, WHICH WILL BE MODIFIED TO ACCOMMODATE A BATHROOM AS REQUIRED BY THE BUILDING CODE.
ALSO, CUSTOMER VISITS WILL BE LIMITED TO HOURS OF 9:30 A.M.
TO 8 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY.
ALSO, THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF CLIENTS WILL BE LIMITED TO ONLY FOUR DAILY.
AND ALSO, A CONDITION IS THAT OFF STREET PARKING AND A TURNAROUND MUST BE PROVIDED.
ALSO, THERE CAN BE NO STORAGE AND NO OTHER EMPLOYEES OTHER THAN THE APPLICANT.
AND ALSO ALL PERMITS INCLUDING BUILDING, MUST BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE ZONING TO OCCUPY THAT STRUCTURE.
AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO EIGHT CONDITIONS THAT ARE OUTLINED IN YOUR. AS OUTLINED IN THE FULL STAFF REPORT.
AND THE BASIS FOR THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, ARE THE REQUEST APPEARS COMPATIBLE WITH CURRENT AND FUTURE SURROUNDING USES.
THAT THE COUNTY SENT LETTERS TO ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS, AND WE ADVERTISED IN THE LOCAL PAPER, AS REQUIRED BY LAW, AND WE HAVE RECEIVED NO NEGATIVE COMMENTS . AND ALSO THE CONDITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RECOMMENDED WILL SERVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PROPOSED USE DOESN'T BECOME A NUISANCE.
AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION? GENTLEMAN YOU HEAR THE REQUEST COMING FROM THE STAFF HERE CONCERNING THIS REQUEST AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ASK HER AT THIS TIME? PLEASE GO AHEAD.
I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR STAFF.
THIS IS A SECOND HOME OCCUPATION REQUEST THAT WE'VE HAD IN THE PAST SIX MONTHS IN AN UNATTACHED BUILDING.
HOW FAR CAN THIS GO? I THINK OF A HOME BUSINESS AS BEING WITHIN THE HOME AND NOT IN AN UNATTACHED BUILDING. ARE WE IN THE PROCESS BY APPROVING THIS ONE? WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED ONE.
ARE WE IN THE PROCESS OF OPENING UP PANDORA'S BOX OF PEOPLE LIVING IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA AND BUILDING A BUILDING TO HAVE A HOME INTEREST.
GOOD EVENING AGAIN, MR. CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONERS.
MR. SIMMONS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WE HAVE A FEW CATEGORIES OF WHAT WE CALL HOME OCCUPATIONS. THERE'S A CATEGORY FOR RUNNING A BUSINESS FROM YOUR HOUSE WITH A CERTAIN SQUARE FOOTAGE OF YOUR RESIDENCE DEDICATED TO THAT THINGS LIKE, YOU KNOW, ACCOUNTING OR HOME OFFICE OR A CONTRACTOR.
[00:40:01]
BUT ONE OF THE OTHER LESSER APPLIED FOR TYPES OF USES IS A COTTAGE INDUSTRY OR A HOME OCCUPATION IN A DETACHED, SEPARATE BUILDING.IT IS NOT A COMMON APPLICATION THAT WE SEE.
HOWEVER, YOU ARE CORRECT, WE ACTUALLY HAVE HAD TWO HERE RECENTLY.
IT MAY BE THE DIRECTION OR A THEME THAT WE SEE WHERE PEOPLE WITH OFFICES OR BUSINESSES LOOK TO RELOCATE THOSE BUSINESSES TO THEIR HOMES.
I MEAN, WITH THE PANDEMIC, WITH THE CLOSURES OF SOME OFFICE BUILDINGS, THIS MAY BE SOMETHING THAT MAY BECOME MORE USED, BUT IT IS A LISTED OPPORTUNITY IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THIS TYPE OF SITUATION.
IT HAS JUST NOT BEEN UTILIZED OFTEN BY CITIZENS.
OR YOU DON'T HAVE A CONCERN OVER THE QUESTION OF OPERATION.
I DO NOT BECAUSE THE REASON WE LOOK AT THESE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AND WE REVIEW THEM THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE BOARD IS TO LOOK AT IT CASE BY CASE AND TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT IT IS A GOOD FIT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT IS NOT A USE THAT'S GOING TO BE DISRUPTIVE TO THE COMMUNITY OR THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. SO I FEEL LIKE GIVING THE RIGHT CONDITIONS, THE RIGHT TYPES OF BUSINESSES, IT IS A LEGITIMATE USE TO REQUEST.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTION? OK. THANK YOU.
GO AHEAD. NO, I WAS. DID YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NO, MA'AM. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU OBVIOUSLY JAIME PENNINGTON AND AS IT'S STATED IN THE CASE, I HAVE BEEN LICENSED BY THE VIRGINIA BOARD OF NURSING SINCE 2007 AS A MASSAGE THERAPIST.
I'M PROFESSIONAL THROUGH AND THROUGH.
I AM VERY PROUD OF WHAT I'VE BUILT IN 14 YEARS, BUT IT'S TIME FOR ME TO HAVE A LIFE AND THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO BRING IT CLOSER TO PRINCE GEORGE.
THAT'S ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY AT THIS TIME? THANK YOU.
I NEED TO OPEN THIS UP FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC HEARING ANY COMMENTS FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE PRESENT.
GO AHEAD. FOR ALL ZOOM PARTICIPANTS, WELCOME TO THE PUBLIC HEARING SECTION OF TONIGHT'S MEETING FOR REQUEST SE 21-06 PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK TO THE PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO BE RECOGNIZED.
PLEASE PRESS THE RAISE HAND BUTTON ON YOUR ZOOM SCREEN NOW.
IF YOU LIKE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? OK. MY NAME IS TARA PENNINGTON, AND I LIVE AT 4713 PRINCE GEORGE DRIVE THERE IN PRINCE GEORGE.
AND I CAN ACCOUNT FOR HOW REPUTABLE JAIME IS AS A THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE.
SHE'S WORKED REALLY HARD TO GET WHERE SHE IS.
SHE'S AGAIN, VERY PROFESSIONAL AND I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU GUYS APPROVE THIS.
ALL RIGHT AND THERE'S NO ONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK.
ALL RIGHT, IF NOT, WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD, AND I GUESS WE'LL OPEN THE DID WE OPEN FOR PUBLIC HEARING FROM THE AUDIENCE.
AT THIS TIME, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR YOUR COMMENTS. AND TO FOLLOW WITH THE DECISION, ANY COMMENTS, ANY QUESTIONS? I MOVE TO FORWARD REQUEST SE 21-06 TO THE BOARD WITH RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.
SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THE REASONS FOR THIS
[00:45:05]
RECOMMENDATION ARE IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND CURRENT SURROUNDING USES AND ZONING DISTRICTS.BEEN MOTIONED, AND SECOND, THAT THE REQUESTS FOR THIS OCCUPATION OR THIS TO BE FORWARDED TO THE BOARD FOR ITS APPROVAL WITH ALL OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE LISTED HERE IN THE AGENDA. ANY COMMENTS, ANY QUESTIONS? CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.
IT'S BEEN MOTION AND WILL BE REFERRED TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR ITS CONSIDERATION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MA'AM FOR COMING.
[REPORTS]
GOOD EVENING AGAIN, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF OUR COMMISSION, MR. WHITTEN. THIS EVENING, WE WANTED TO REVIEW WITH YOU SOME PROPOSALS FOR POLICIES IN THE ORDINANCE CHANGE THAT WILL ADDRESS BATTERY STORAGE FACILITIES AND THIS EVENING IN YOUR PACKET UNDER TAB SIX IS A DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON AS STAFF ALONG WITH OUR CONSULTANTS AND ALSO PREPARE IT FOR REVIEW WITH OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY, MR. WHITTEN. THE BATTERY STORAGE FACILITY, THIS TYPE OF FACILITY IS NOT ADDRESSED IN OUR CURRENT ZONING ORDINANCE AS A STANDALONE USE.THERE IS A PROVISION IN THE SOLAR FACILITY POLICY AND ORDINANCE FOR ASSOCIATED BATTERY USE WITH THAT FACILITY ON SITE.
BUT A STANDALONE FACILITY IS NOT ADDRESSED, AND WE HAVE RECEIVED THE REQUEST TO ADD THE USE AND DEFINITION TO THE CODE THROUGH ACTUALLY DOMINION POWER AND THE ODEC CO-OP, WHO ARE LOOKING TO IMPROVE THEIR GRID'S POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM BY THE USE OF BATTERY STORAGE FACILITIES. SO STAFF HAS DEVELOPED A DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR YOUR REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION, WHICH DEFINES THE USE DEFINES IT AS AN APPLICATION, AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND IN WHAT ZONING DISTRICTS, ET CETERA IT WOULD BE ALLOWED.
WE ALSO ARE RECOMMENDING AN INTERNAL POLICY FOR GUIDANCE ON APPLICATIONS, FOR REVIEWS AND FOR STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUESTS.
SO JUST TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT A BATTERY STORAGE FACILITY MIGHT LOOK LIKE, THIS IS SHOWING ONE PICTURE SHOWS THE INTERIOR OF A BUILDING HOUSING COMPONENTS AND THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT SHOWS WHAT SOME STANDALONE BATTERY UNITS WOULD LOOK LIKE ADJACENT TO A SUBSTATION.
JUST ONE IS A CONCEPTUAL DRAWING OF A FACILITY, AND IT'S SHOWING YOU THAT THESE ARE FAIRLY LARGE FACILITIES, BUT AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT, THEY DO NEED TO BE CLOSE TO THE POWER GRID OR SUBSTATIONS.
SO THEY'RE ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATED WITH OUR POWER GRIDS.
AND WHY ARE WE LOOKING AT BATTERY STORAGE IN 2021? ACTUALLY, FEDERAL REGULATIONS, AS WELL AS STATE REGULATIONS, ESTABLISHED A DEMAND FOR THE POWER COMPANIES TO PROVIDE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MEGAWATT ENERGY STORAGE IN VIRGINIA BY 2035. AND ACTUALLY, THAT REQUIREMENT IS ONE OF THE HIGHEST IN THE NATIONS OF ALL THE STATES. AND ENERGY STORAGE IS VALUED FOR ITS RAPID RESPONSE.
THEY CAN DISCHARGE POWER TO THE GRID VERY QUICKLY.
WE DON'T HAVE TO REROUTE FROM ANOTHER SUBSTATION.
WE DON'T HAVE DOWN TIMES FOR SMALL REPAIRS THAT THE OTHER NEEDED STORM DAMAGE
[00:50:02]
BROWNOUTS ARE POPULAR IN OTHER COUNTRIES WHEN THE DEMAND IS SO HIGH.BATTERY STORAGE AND ENERGY STORAGE CAN PROVIDE A RAPID RESPONSE TO THE POWER GRID TO ENSURE THE STABILITY OF THE GRID WHEN UNEXPECTED INCREASES IN DEMAND OCCUR OR TEMPORARY OUTAGES. SO SOME OF THE THINGS STAFF WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE'RE CONSIDERED IN ANY ORDINANCE THAT THAT MIGHT BE UP FOR REVIEW IS YOU HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THE FACT THAT THESE TYPE OF FACILITIES NEED TO HAVE PROXIMITY TO THE ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION OR TRANSMISSION LINE. SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO ACTUALLY LOOK AT WHERE ARE OUR SUBSTATIONS IN THE COUNTY AND WHAT POTENTIAL LAND AREA DO WE HAVE AROUND THOSE SUBSTATIONS? AND WHAT'S THE SIZE OF THE FACILITY, THE FOOTPRINT AND THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY WHERE SOMEONE MAY POTENTIALLY LOOK TO BUILD ONE? AND YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE DISTANCE TO ADJOINING PROPERTIES AND STRUCTURES WOULD BE BECAUSE OF THE HAZARD PROTECTIONS, ANY TYPE OF BATTERY, ANY TYPE OF BATTERY HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE SOME DAMAGE.
AND THEN WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT THE SIZE OF THESE FACILITIES AND THE TYPE OF ASSETS THAT MAY BE IN THEM OR SOME OF THE CHEMICALS IN THEM, WE DO HAVE TO LOOK AT HAZARD AND CONTAINMENT. YOU CAN'T FIGHT THESE FIRES WITH WATER, YOU HAVE TO HAVE SPECIAL CHEMICAL SYSTEMS. MOST OF THOSE CONTAINERS YOU SAW HAVE SPECIAL FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEMS ACTUALLY INSTALLED WITHIN THE CONTAINER.
SO WHEN A FIRE COMES OUT, IT IS FLOODED WITH A RETARDANT TO TO KILL THE FLAME, BUT THERE IS RUN OFF RISK IN HAZARD WHEN YOU HAVE THIS, SO YOU WANT TO LOOK AT CONTAINMENT ON SITE OF, YOU KNOW, ANY TYPE OF FIRE OR RELEASE OF CHEMICALS, YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE STRUCTURE AND THE OWNER OF THAT PROPERTY CONTAINS ALL OF THAT ON SITE.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ACTUALLY HAVE AN AGREEMENT IN PLACE WITH THE ENERGY COMPANY OF DOMINION OR THE CO-OP BECAUSE BATTERY STORAGE IS CONNECTED DIRECTLY TO THE GRID.
SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S A VIABLE PROJECT BEFORE WE GO THROUGH A SPECIAL EXCEPTION PROCESS OR OR ZONING AND FOR USE OF THE LAND.
AND OF COURSE FACILITY SCREENING IN THESE TYPE OF USES IS ALWAYS IMPORTANT TO THE COUNTY AND STAFF AND THE SECURITY OF THE SITE AS WELL.
SO THESE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS WE LOOK TO INCLUDE IN ANY DRAFT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE FOR THIS TYPE OF USE.
AND SOME MORE CONSIDERATIONS HERE.
YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO AVOID WETLANDS AND FLOODPLAINS, THAT'S FAIRLY COMMON AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE RISK MITIGATION AND MAKE SURE ANY PROJECT HAS A STRONG MITIGATION PLAN AND MEASURES. WE NEED TRAINING FOR OUR FIRST RESPONDERS ON THESE TYPE OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND ENERGY STORAGE TECHNOLOGIES.
AND AGAIN, THE WATER CONTAINMENT PLAN.
SO WHERE WOULD AN ENERGY STORAGE FACILITY GO? RIGHT NOW THIS IS A LIST OF THE EIGHT SITES IN OUR LOCALITY THAT HAVE A SUBSTATION.
AND THIS IS THE FIRST CHOICE FOR DOMINION OR ARE THE CO-OP OR A PRIVATE FIRM LOOKING TO PROVIDE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE POWER COMPANIES? THESE ARE THE LOCATIONS.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE CURRENT ACREAGE OF THE SUBSTATIONS, THOSE ACTUAL PIECES OF PROPERTY MAY NOT BE LARGE ENOUGH FOR THE POWER COMPANY TO PROVIDE THEIR OWN ENERGY STORAGE, SO THEY MAY LOOK TO ADJOINING PROPERTIES TO SEE IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD A FACILITY AND MEET THE REQUIREMENTS BY 2035.
SO WHAT NEXT STEPS ARE STAFF AND THE COMMISSION AND THE BOARD LOOKING FOR? WE'D LIKE TO RECEIVE FEEDBACK FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE BOARD ON THE LANGUAGE THAT WE HAVE DEVELOPED FOR CONSIDERATION AND RECEIVE YOUR FEEDBACK OR ANY ADDITIONAL ITEMS THAT YOU MAY THINK OF THAT WE HAVE NOT CONSIDERED YET AND THEN SET PUBLIC HEARINGS
[00:55:02]
LIKE WE WOULD HERE FIRST FOR REVIEW OF THE ORDINANCE FOR YOUR RECOMMENDATION.AND THEN DETERMINE IF A POLICY IS ACTUALLY NEEDED OR WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR APPLICANTS AND STAFF AND WHETHER TO INCLUDE SPECIAL EXCEPTION CONDITIONS IN THE ORDINANCE.
WE CAN DO EITHER ONE. WE CAN HAVE A SET CONDITIONS THAT WE COME FORWARD WITH EVERY CASE OR WE COULD DO A POLICY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID WITH THE SOLAR FACILITY, WHICH IS WHERE WE HAVE A POLICY THAT'S ADOPTED BY THE BOARD THAT GIVES CLEAR GUIDANCE TO APPLICANTS ON WHAT'S EXPECTED AND WHAT NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED WITH THEIR APPLICATIONS.
AT THIS TIME, I HOPE YOU'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE DRAFT ORDINANCE.
WE WILL BE LOOKING TO COME BACK TO YOU FOR DIRECTION ON WHETHER TO PROCEED WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ON THIS, OR IF YOU NEED FURTHER RESEARCH OR EXAMPLES OF ANYTHING, STAFF CAN GET THAT TO YOU.
MS. WALTON YOU SAID FIRE DEPARTMENT, OF COURSE, WERE INVOLVED IN IT.
YES, SIR. AND OUR FIRE DEPARTMENTS ARE NOT EQUIPPED TO HANDLE ANY EMERGENCY [INAUDIBLE].
THE ONLY THING THEY HAVE IS WATER.
THAT WE DO HAVE SOME FOAM SYSTEMS NOW.
SOME OF OUR COMPANIES HAVE STARTED WITH SOME OF THE FOAM CONTAINMENT AND THE TYPE OF FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT NEEDED DEPENDS ON THE TYPE OF ENERGY STORAGE.
SO THAT'S WHY WE WANT TO MAKE SURE OUR ORDNANCE AND OUR POLICY INCLUDE A GOOD FIRE MITIGATION PLAN FROM THE APPLICANTS SO THAT ANY PRE-PLANNING NEEDED TO BE DONE AND ANY RESOURCES NEEDED WOULD BE KNOWN UP FRONT.
AND IT WOULD BE TYPICAL FOR AN APPLICANT IN THAT SITUATION TO MAYBE PROFFER ANY SPECIAL RESOURCES NEEDED AND PROVIDE THEM TO THE FIRE COMPANIES.
WILL THEY USE A SPECIAL UNIFORM TO GO IN THERE PROTECTIVE FOR THE FIREMAN EQUIPMENT THEY HAVE NOW PROTECT THEM FROM THE EXPOSURE.
EQUIPMENT THAT THEY HAVE NOW WILL PROTECT THEM FROM AN EXPOSURE BECAUSE I DO NOT THINK IN THIS TYPE OF FACILITY THERE'S ANY ENTRY EVER PLANNED.
IT IS ATTACKED FROM THE EXTERIOR ONLY.
SAFETY SAFETY IS A HUGE CONCERN WITH THIS TYPE OF FACILITY.
AND AS YOU GO THROUGH THE ORDINANCE, YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S ENUMERATED SEVERAL TIMES OR ON MAINTAINING SAFETY.
OK. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I ABSOLUTELY DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO MY QUESTION, BUT IS THERE NOISE ASSOCIATED WITH BATTERY STORAGE AND INVERTERS ASSOCIATED WITH THE BATTERY STORAGE.
THERE IS AND IF YOU NOTICE IN THE ORDINANCE THE REQUIRED ACREAGE FOR A FACILITY IS FIVE ACRES CURRENTLY LISTED.
SO FIVE ACRES TO PROVIDE SEPARATION.
IT'S A HUMMING TYPE NOISE THAT YOU PROBABLY HEAR FROM ANY SUBSTATION.
I DON'T THINK THAT A BATTERY STORAGE WOULD PRODUCE ANY OTHER, ANY LOUDER THAN WHAT YOU SEE. BUT WE DO WANT THAT SEPARATION AND THAT'S WHY WE DID PUT THAT FIVE ACRES IN THERE.
THE BATTERIES THEMSELVES, I'M ASSUMING THAT THEY'RE WET CELL BATTERIES.
THEY COULD BE ANY KIND OF BATTERY.
THEY'RE ALL THERE. ARE THERE ANY EMISSIONS FROM THE BATTERIES WHEN THEY'RE IN SERVICE? I HAVE NOT COME ACROSS IN MY RESEARCH EMISSIONS, BUT WE WOULD DEFINITELY NEED DETAILED TECHNICAL SUBMITTALS FOR ANY APPLICATION.
HOW CLOSE TO THE SUBSTATION, DO THEY HAVE TO BE.
IT'S AN UNINTERRUPTED POWER SUPPLY SOURCE.
[01:00:03]
WE HAVE UPS'S ON OUR COMPUTERS HERE AT THE OFFICE.SO IF THE POWER GOES OFF HERE IN THE BUILDING, THAT UPS WILL ACTUALLY RUN MY COMPUTER FOR ABOUT AN HOUR OR TWO.
IT'S NOT GOING TO RUN FOREVER, BUT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT A WHOLE POWER GRID, THOSE BATTERIES ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT.
AND THIS IS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL ELECTRICITY IN HIGH DEMAND USES WHEN WE HAVE THOSE HOT SUMMER DAYS.
AND IT'S JUST TOO MUCH VOLUME OF ENERGY BEING USED.
THIS CAN PROVIDE SOME TIME AND SUPPORT TO THE GRID WITH EXTRA ENERGY.
AND IT ALSO CAN PROVIDE ENERGY WITH GARYSVILLE IS OUR SUBSTATION IN THE COUNTY THAT GOES DOWN ALL THE TIME.
AND ENERGY STORAGE FACILITY AT GARYSVILLE WHEN THAT SUBSTATION GOES OFFLINE, IT COULD THEN COME ON AND PROVIDE SEVERAL HOURS OF POWER TO THE ENTIRE GRID FOR THAT SUBSTATION, WHILE THE CO-OP AND DOMINION HAVE TIME TO MAKE REPAIRS TO WHATEVER HAPPENED.
SO IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH, LET'S SAY, THE ENERGY CRISIS IN TEXAS THIS PAST WINTER WHEN IT GOT SO COLD, THIS IS THE TYPE THING THAT HAS BEEN IN THE WORKS FOR SEVERAL YEARS TO PROVIDE SUPPORT TO THE POWER GRIDS TO PREVENT THOSE THINGS FROM HAPPENING.
SO AGAIN, VIRGINIA HAS PUT IN, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS PUT IN REQUIREMENTS ON THE ELECTRICAL COMPANIES TO BEGIN THIS PROCESS.
VIRGINIA HAS PUT IN REQUIREMENTS FOR OUR POWER COMPANIES TO BEGIN THIS PROCESS.
SO STAFF IS TRYING TO STAY AHEAD OF THE CURVE AND GET SOME ORDINANCES AND POLICIES IN PLACE BECAUSE IT IS COMING.
AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR OUR COMMUNITY AND FOR THESE TYPE OF FACILITIES, AND THAT WE ADEQUATELY PLAN FOR THEM AND MAKE SURE THAT OUR LAND USE IS IN PLACE AND OUR REQUIREMENTS ARE IN PLACE.
ADDITIONAL. YES, GO AHEAD, MR. EASTER. IS THERE A SITE NEAR HERE THAT HAS THIS CONFIGURATION WITH BACKUP POWER REALLY IS THERE A COMMUNITY THAT HAS CLOSE TO US OR DO YOU JUST WANT? WELL, BOTH FIRST NEARBY AND SECONDLY, OUT FURTHER.
OLD DOMINION ELECTRICAL CO-OP IS ACTUALLY DOING THREE PILOT PROGRAMS RIGHT NOW AND INSTALLING THESE.
AND THAT'S HONESTLY THEY'RE LOOKING AT PRINCE GEORGE AND GARYSVILLE AS ONE OF THEIR PILOTS. I CAN CHECK WITH ODEC AND SEE IF THE OTHER TWO PILOT PROGRAMS ARE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, YET OR INSTALLED YET.
YOU MEAN SOMEONE IS IN THE PROCESS NOW.
I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK WITH ODEC AND ODEC IS THE CO-OP.
IT'S OLD DOMINION ELECTRICAL CO-OP.
IT'S ANOTHER CO-OP SIMILAR TO PRINCE GEORGE ELECTRIC, BUT THEY HAVE THEIR OWN AREA.
I WILL. I CAN CHECK WITH THEM.
I DO KNOW THEY HAVE THREE PROJECTS.
OUTSIDE OF WHERE WE'RE LOOKING.
OTHER REGIONS? YES. IS THERE AN OPERATIONAL SITE THAT YOU CAN SEE, OR GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM HOW IT WORKS, WHAT THEIR PROBLEMS WERE, ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF.
WHAT'S THE CLOSEST ONE PROBABLY? WELL, ODEC IS IN VIRGINIA, AND THEY HAVE A SERVICE AREA SIMILAR TO PRINCE GEORGE ELECTRIC CO-OP. SO I'VE JUST NOT I'M JUST NOT SURE ON WHAT THEIR SERVICE AREA IS, BUT IT'S CENTRAL VIRGINIA.
YEAH, I WAS JUST KIND OF INTERESTED BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU START TO BUILD THESE THINGS, THIS STREET. AND WHAT HAVE THEY FOUND? WHAT HAVE THEY LEARNED? WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE? HOW DOES OPERATE ALL THOSE KIND OF QUESTIONS? YES, SIR. I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF THERE'S SOMETHING NEARBY OR AT. SO I WILL DEFINITELY CHECK WITH ODEC AND SEE HOW CLOSE THEY ARE TO EITHER HAVING ONE
[01:05:05]
DONE, IS IT UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND THEN ACTUALLY, WHERE IS IT LOCATED? I'M SURE STUFF LIKE THIS IS COMING.YOU KNOW YES, SIR. SO THIS IS COMING JUST MAY AS WELL GET READY.
YES. YES. WE ARE TRYING TO BE PROACTIVE AND HAVE SOMETHING IN PLACE FOR WHEN WE DO RECEIVE AN APPLICATION.
ANY ADDITIONAL. MS. WALTON, I HAVE THEN DESPITE WHAT FEED BACK YOU GET, ONE IS NOT ONE, BUT THE PLANTS WILL BE CONSTRUCTED ANYWAY, RIGHT? AND YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT.
THERE ARE MANDATES FOR THE POWER COMPANIES TO PROVIDE THIS TYPE OF ENERGY.
THE LOCALITIES STILL CAN REGULATE LAND USE.
SO I GUESS I'M RIGHT IN SAYING THAT ALL SOLAR GENERATING FACILITIES THAT EXIST TODAY, ALL OF THEIR ELECTRICITY THAT THEY ARE GENERATING GOES INTO THE GRID DOES NOT GO INTO ANY STORAGE ON THE SITE.
NO, SIR. SOME THERE CAN BE SOME STORAGE ON SITE.
OH, IT'S NOT REQUIRED, BUT IT CAN BE.
AND WE HAVE PROVISIONS IN OUR SOLAR POLICY ON HOW TO ADDRESS LIMITED BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE ON SITE.
SO IN PARTIAL ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS TO SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE ALL WE WOULD HAVE TO DO IS FIND A SOLAR FACILITY THAT HAS STORAGE CAPABILITY ON SITE.
YES, THAT IS ANOTHER ROUTE TO TAKE A LOOK AT.
IN PRINCE GEORGE NEITHER ONE OF OUR WELL RIVES ROAD DID NOT HAVE BATTERY STORAGE, SO WE DON'T HAVE A SITE YET AT THAT STAGE.
OK. THERE'S NOTHING CLOSE BY THAT YOU DESCRIBE THAT DOES THIS, SO.
WHAT'S IT GOING TO LOOK LIKE, WHAT'S IT GOING TO DO ALL THOSE KIND OF QUESTIONS ARE OUT THERE? WELL, AND I HOPE YOU WILL TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO READ THROUGH THE DRAFT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE AND MAKE SOME NOTES, MAKE SOME MARKUPS, WRITE SOME QUESTIONS AND BRING IT BACK TO STAFF AND WE'LL REVIEW THAT WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND TRY AND GET THINGS IN A FORMAT THAT IS ACCEPTABLE FOR YOU TO MAYBE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON AND REVIEW AND CONSIDER. OK.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, GENTLEMEN.
AND I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY.
YOU'RE GETTING CLOSER. GO AHEAD.
I'M SORRY TO TRY TO CUT YOU OFF, TIM.
I WOULDN'T HAVE MINDED TOO MUCH.
OK. ALL RIGHT, SO THIS LAST REPORT TOPIC FOR TONIGHT IS ALSO ON THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TYPE OF THINGS, SO THAT IS UNDER TAB SEVEN IN THE PACKET.
BUT ALL YOU'LL SEE THERE IS THE DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FOR PRIVATE ROADS.
SO TONIGHT I WAS GOING TO GO THROUGH THIS PRESENTATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME PRESENTATION THAT WE GAVE TO THE BOARD IN SEPTEMBER AND OR EARLY OCTOBER.
I CAN'T REMEMBER THE EXACT DATE OF THIS MOMENT, BUT IT'S THE ONGOING DISCUSSION ABOUT PRIVATE ROADS REQUIREMENTS IN THIS COUNTY.
AND THE GOAL OF THIS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT WOULD BE TO LARGELY TO CLARIFY THE EXISTING REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE IN THERE.
BUT IT ALSO OFFERS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED TO UNDERSTAND THOSE REQUIREMENTS
[01:10:02]
AND CONSIDER IF THEY SHOULD STAY EXACTLY THE WAY THEY ARE OR IF ANY CHANGES ARE APPROPRIATE. SO THIS TOPIC, I GUESS, AND THE REASON THAT WE'RE DRAFTING AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT IS BECAUSE OF THERE'S BEEN SOME NEED FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE EXISTING REQUIREMENTS.OVER TIME THERE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN STAFF AND APPLICANTS ABOUT WHAT THE ORDINANCE SAYS, AND THERE'S BEEN CHANGE OF STAFF OVER TIME AND THERE'S BEEN CHANGE OF THE ORDINANCE OVER TIME.
SO THAT'S KIND OF THE GENERAL IMPULSE FOR WHY THIS TOPIC HAS ARISEN AGAIN.
SO GOALS TODAY IN THIS PRESENTATION ARE TO GO THROUGH SOME EXISTING EXAMPLES.
REVIEW, THE HISTORY OF CHANGES TO THE REQUIREMENTS OVER TIME AND REVIEW SOME CURRENT CHALLENGES. AND TO CONSIDER SOME EXAMPLES.
AND WE'LL REVIEW THE CURRENT STANDARDS, AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO REVIEW THE DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT THAT IS IN YOUR PACKET, SO WE INVITE YOU TO TO READ OVER THAT.
THE TOPICS THAT WE'LL COVER ARE YOU'LL SEE THEM AGAIN WHEN YOU READ THROUGH THAT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT. BUT AS YOU'RE LOOKING AT IN FRONT OF YOU, IT'S IMPORTANT TO SEE THAT THERE'S RED AND GREEN TEXT.
AND THE REASON THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT COLORS THERE IS THE GREEN TEXT REPRESENTS RELOCATED PROVISIONS OR CLARIFICATIONS OF EXISTING TEXT OR EXISTING REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE ALREADY IN THERE, ALREADY CONTAINED IN THE ORDINANCES, AND THE RED TEXT REPRESENTS POTENTIAL NEW OR CHANGED PROVISIONS.
SO WE'LL COVER SOME OF THOSE WHILE WE GO THROUGH THIS.
THE REST OF THIS PRESENTATION AFTER THAT WOULD BE REVIEW REASONS WHY STANDARDS ARE IMPORTANT AND REVIEW THE POSSIBLE NEXT STEPS.
SO HERE'S AN EXAMPLE THIS PHOTO WAS TAKEN TO 2012, 2013 BUT THERE ARE OTHER EXAMPLES LIKE THIS IN THE COUNTY. THIS ROAD IS CALLED BOULDER LANE, AND YOU CAN SEE THE WIDTH THERE BETWEEN AS THE TRUCK IS DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD.
IT'S A NARROW PATH BETWEEN THESE TWO TREES.
THIS PARTICULAR ROAD SERVES ABOUT SIX LOTS, AND SO IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE FIRE AND EMS ACCESSIBLE. THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE, THIS PHOTO IS FROM 2011 AGAIN, THESE PHOTOS ARE FROM 2011 2012, BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN THE PREVIOUS, I THINK DISCUSSION ABOUT PRIVATE ROADS WAS TAKING PLACE. THERE WAS AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT IN 2013.
WE'LL GET TO THAT. BUT THIS AGAIN, THESE EXAMPLES STILL EXIST TODAY, WHETHER IT'S THIS ROAD OR ANOTHER ONE, THIS IS JUST A REPRESENTATIVE EXAMPLE.
SO THIS IS MAYES LANE IN 2011, AND THIS ROAD SERVES AT LEAST THREE LOTS.
I THINK THAT'S BECAUSE THERE'S PROBABLY ANOTHER LOT ON THE ROAD FROM MY MEMORY THAT COULD SERVE ANOTHER HOUSE.
SO THE ROAD COULD HAVE FOUR LOTS, MAYBE IN THE FUTURE.
AND THIS TERMINATES IN A FULLY CONSTRUCTED CUL DE SAC.
BUT THAT'S WHAT THE ENTRANCE LOOKS LIKE.
THIS IS JUNIUS LANE, AND IT IS PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED, SO IT'S NOT CONSTRUCTED TO THE FULL END OF THE ENTIRE EASEMENT THAT'S IN PLACE, AND IT SERVES FIVE LOTS AS OF 2020, BUT IT COULD POTENTIALLY SERVE UP TO TEN IN THE FUTURE.
THAT'S BECAUSE THOSE LOTS ARE ON THE ROAD.
THEY JUST IT HASN'T BEEN EXTENDED TO THOSE LOTS YET.
THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF A FULLY CONSTRUCTED PRIVATE ROADWAY, AND THIS ONE YOU SEE HAS A FULLY CONSTRUCTED CUL DE SAC.
IT HAS DITCHES ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND IT SERVES THREE TO FOUR LOTS AS OF 2020.
AND I SAY THREE TO FOUR LOTS BECAUSE THE ENTRANCE OF THE ROAD, THE DRIVEWAY FOR ONE OF THESE HOUSES COMES RIGHT OFF THIS THING AT THE ENTRANCE, SO FOUR HOUSES SHARE AN ENTRANCE. AND ON THE SAME ENTRANCE ON THAT PUBLIC ROAD AND THEN THE ROAD, THE PRIVATE ROAD CONTINUES DOWN TO SERVE THREE MORE HOUSES.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE YOU MAY HAVE HEARD OF IS KING DRIVE, WHICH IS ALSO CONNECTED TO WOOD DRIVE, TAYLOR DRIVE, REED DRIVE.
THERE'S APPROXIMATELY ONE HUNDRED THIRTY THREE LOTS ON THIS NETWORK OF PRIVATE ROADS, AND THIS HAS RESULTED IN CALLS TO THE COUNTY OVER TIME, REQUESTING MAINTENANCE TO THE ROAD AND QUESTIONS ABOUT WHO'S RESPONSIBLE.
AND THERE'S PROPERTY OWNER DISPUTES THAT WE'LL HERE ABOUT TOO.
BUT PROPERTY OWNER DISPUTES ON PRIVATE ROADS ARE NOT LIMITED TO KING DRIVE, BUT I JUST WANT WE HEAR ABOUT THEM OR WE RECEIVE CALLS ABOUT THEM ON ANY PRIVATE ROAD IN THE COUNTY.
[01:15:09]
THIS IS SILVERCREST DRIVE IN, WHICH WAS WASHED OUT IN A STORM IN 2020.YOU CAN SEE IN THE PHOTO WHERE THE ROADWAY WAS WASHED AWAY BY THE CREEK, WHICH HAD A HIGH VOLUME OF WATER DURING STORM, AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS PETITIONED THE COUNTY TO PAY FOR REPAIRS. AND THE COUNTY DOESN'T HAVE ANY FUNDS SET ASIDE FOR THIS, AND THE RESPONSIBILITY ON PRIVATE ROADS IS OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ROAD RUNS ACROSS OR THE FOLKS THAT USE IT OR OTHERWISE, AS DESCRIBED IN A ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT.
BUT IT'S NOT THE COUNTY'S RESPONSIBILITY, GENERALLY SPEAKING, TO PAY FOR MAINTENANCE OF A PRIVATE ROAD. SO ABBREVIATED HISTORY OF THE PRIVATE ROAD REQUIREMENTS.
PRIOR TO 2007, PRIVATE ROADS WERE NOT PERMITTED.
FAMILY DIVISIONS WERE ABLE TO BE SUBDIVIDED ON ACCESS EASEMENTS AND USE ACCESS EASEMENTS AND THEN BEGINNING IN DECEMBER 2007 WITH AN ORDINANCE CHANGE PRIVATE ROADS WERE ALLOWED UP TO THREE LOTS IN A1 IN RA DISTRICT.
IF THE ROAD WAS BUILT TO VDOT STANDARDS AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VDOT STANDARD AND THE COUNTY STANDARD WAS THAT THERE COULD BE GRAVEL ON THESE PRIVATE ROADS AND FAMILY DIVISIONS WERE ALLOWED TO BE ACCESSED BY A PRIVATE EASEMENT.
I DON'T THINK THOSE PRIVATE ROAD REQUIREMENTS APPLIED AT THAT TIME, BUT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS UNCLEAR.
BUT FAMILY DIVISIONS WERE ALLOWED TO BE ACCESSED BY PRIVATE EASEMENT OR SHARED EASEMENT IF THEY COULDN'T SECURE A NEW PRIVATE EASEMENT.
AND BEGINNING IN 2009, WE SEE A REFERENCE TO VDOT SUBDIVISION STREET DESIGN GUIDE IN THE ORDINANCES. SO NOW THERE'S A REFERENCE FOR WHAT ARE THE STANDARDS ON PRIVATE ROADS AS IN 2009. AND AT THAT TIME, FAMILY DIVISIONS WERE ALLOWED ON A 10 FOOT MINIMUM WIDTH EASEMENT.
SO THESE STANDARDS START TO ARRIVE IN THE ORDINANCE AND THEY'RE A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARIFIED EACH TIME. BUT THERE STILL HAS BEEN UNCERTAINTY ABOUT THE STANDARDS OVER TIME.
IN 2009, ACCESS MANAGEMENT STANDARDS WERE ADDED AS WELL, AND THAT ACCESS MANAGEMENT STANDARDS PERTAIN TO HOW MANY.
FOR EXAMPLE, HOW MANY LOTS MUST SHARE AN ENTRANCE WHEN THEY'RE ON A HIGH, TRAFFIC ROADWAY. CURRENTLY, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE COUNTY'S ORDINANCE REQUIRES TODAY THAT IF NEW LOTS ARE DIVIDED ON HIGH TRAFFIC VOLUME ROADS, THESE ARE CALLED ARTERIALS OR COLLECTORS. HIGH VOLUME ROADS, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A SHARED ENTRANCE IF THEY'RE NEWLY DIVIDED LOTS.
AND THAT LIMITS THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES TURNING ON AND OFF THESE HIGH VOLUME ROADS.
THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THOSE STANDARDS.
AND BEGINNING IN 2013, FAMILY DIVISIONS WERE AT THAT POINT HELD TO THE SAME STANDARDS FOR ROAD ACCESS AS OTHER NON-FAMILY DIVISIONS.
SO JUST TO RUN THROUGH SOME RECENT CHALLENGES THAT STAFF HAS ENCOUNTERED QUESTIONS THAT WE'VE HAD TO ANSWER WHILE ENFORCING THE PRIVATE ROAD REQUIREMENTS.
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DRIVEWAY AND A PRIVATE ROAD? A DRIVEWAY IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S DEFINED IN THE ORDINANCE, SO IT'S UNCLEAR WHAT YOU KNOW, ACCORDING TO THE ORDINANCE, IT'S UNCLEAR WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DRIVEWAY USED BY ONE PERSON, FOR EXAMPLE, AND A DRIVEWAY SHARED BY TWO PEOPLE.
IS THAT A PRIVATE ROAD? SO I THINK WE ALL HAVE SOME IDEAS ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE THERE.
BUT IN THE ORDINANCE, IT'S NOT CLEAR.
ANOTHER ONE IS WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SHARED ENTRANCE AND A PRIVATE ROAD? YOU KNOW IF YOU'D THREE LOTS ENTER ON OLD STAGE ROAD AT THE SAME ENTRANCE, IS THAT A SHARED DRIVEWAY AT THAT POINT OR IF ALL THEIR LOTS ARE, YOU KNOW, THREE FOOTBALL FIELDS DOWN THAT ENTRANCE ROAD IS THAT A PRIVATE ROAD OR IS THAT A DRIVEWAY? OR IS THAT JUST AN ENTRANCE? SO ANYWAY, THAT'S ANOTHER EXAMPLE.
SO ANOTHER EXAMPLE IS A SINGLE USER ACCESS EASEMENT, A PRIVATE ROAD OR IS IT A DRIVEWAY?
[01:20:03]
IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE.IF A LOT HAS A PUBLIC ROAD FRONTAGE BUT DOESN'T USE THAT FRONTAGE FOR ACCESS, DOES THAT EXEMPT THE LOT FROM THE LIMIT OF HAVING THREE LOTS ON THE ROAD? AGAIN, THE ORDINANCE RIGHT NOW LIMITS THE NUMBER OF USERS OF A PRIVATE ROAD TO THREE.
SO THESE ARE BASICALLY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DETAILS OF HOW YOU ACTUALLY ENFORCE THIS IN THESE SPECIFIC SITUATIONS.
ANOTHER ONE IS CAN FOUR OR FIVE LOTS SHARE AN ENTRANCE ENTRANCE IF VDOT REQUIRES THEM TO, YOU KNOW, DOES THAT SUPERSEDE THE THREE LOT LIMIT IN SOME WAY? ANOTHER QUESTION IS WHAT STANDARDS COULD PREVAIL WHEN THE COUNTY'S ACCESS MANAGER REQUIREMENTS DIFFER FROM VDOTS? ANOTHER QUESTION IS A ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT REQUIRED OR JUST A MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR THE ENTRANCE WHERE THEY ENTER OFF THAT PUBLIC ROAD AND THEN OFTEN ARISING ONE IS WHAT IS THE COUNTY'S ROLE IN ENFORCING PRIVATE EASEMENTS? SO THE RESULT OF QUESTIONS LIKE THIS IS IT CAN CREATE CONFUSION AMONG STAFF AND DEVELOPERS IN TRYING TO WORK TOGETHER ON REVIEWING THESE PLANS OF DEVELOPMENT OR SUBDIVISIONS. SO THAT'S KIND OF THE GENERAL MOTIVATION FOR A DRAFT ORDINANCE WHICH HOPES TO CLEAR UP SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS TO CLEAR UP THESE QUESTIONS.
AND THEN THIS IS IN [INAUDIBLE] I'LL HOLD BACK FROM GOING THROUGH THIS, BUT THIS GOES INTO MORE DETAILS, AND MORE QUESTIONS.
AND THESE ARE MORE ABOUT THE ACTUAL STANDARDS, LIKE WHEN IF A PRIVATE ROAD IS ALLOWED, YOU KNOW HOW, WIDE DOES IT NEED TO BE HOW WIDE DOES THE, YOU KNOW, GRAVEL NEED TO BE ON THE ROAD? HOW WIDE DO THE DITCHES LOOK DETAILS ABOUT THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION? THOSE THINGS ARE IN THE VDOT STREET SUBDIVISION GUIDE, WHICH IS REFERENCED AS THE GUIDE FOR WHAT THESE ROADS SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED TO.
BUT ONE MUST LOOK THROUGH THE GUIDE MATERIALS AND LOCATE THE RIGHT INFORMATION AND BE ABLE TO READ THAT IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND IT.
SO WE HAVE MADE WORK TO GO THROUGH THOSE STANDARDS AND PRODUCE LIKE A SUMMARY SHEET THAT WE WERE ABLE TO SHARE WITH PEOPLE TO MAKE THAT SIMPLER.
BUT OUR GOAL IS TO MAKE THAT MORE CLEAR IN THE ORDINANCE SO THAT, YOU KNOW, IT REDUCES THE TIME TO TAKES YOU KNOW, TO EXPLAIN THE STANDARDS, YOU KNOW, IF EVERYTHING IS IN THE ORDINANCE, YOU KNOW THEY'RE ABLE TO PROCEED AND KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT UP FRONT BEFORE THEY BEGIN DRAFTING, YOU KNOW HOW TO LAY OUT THE DIVISION OF THE LAND.
WE'LL GO THROUGH SOME EXAMPLES YOU CAN SEE THIS IS PROBABLY A SITUATION WHERE IT STARTED OUT AS A SINGLE PERSON'S DRIVEWAY AND THEN SOMEBODY BUILT THE HOUSE FARTHER DOWN AND THAT BECAME A DRIVEWAY SHARED BY TWO PEOPLE, WHICH YOU KNOW, WOULD BE A PRIVATE WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED A PRIVATE ROAD, AGAIN WE'LL HAVE TO READ THE ORDINANCE.
SO WHAT HAPPENS IF ANOTHER LOT IS DIVIDED OFF OF THE LOT IN THE REAR? OR DO PRIVATE ROADS STANDARDS APPLY? THAT'S WE'RE NOT TRYING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION RIGHT NOW WE ARE JUST LOOKING AT SOME SITUATIONS. ANOTHER EXAMPLE THERE ARE THREE AT LEAST THREE LOTS IN THE REAR THAT ARE ON THIS ACCESS EASEMENT, AND YOU CAN SEE THE NUMBERS ON THERE ONE, TWO, THREE LOTS IN THE REAR AND THEN POTENTIALLY ONE OR TWO MORE LOTS COULD POTENTIALLY END UP SHARING THAT SAME EASEMENT TO GET TO THEIR PROPERTY, EVEN THOUGH THEY FRONT ON EASY STREET SO THEY COULD HAVE THEIR OWN ENTRANCE OR THEY COULD TRY TO SHARE AN ENTRANCE.
AND IF THEY DID SHARE AN ENTRANCE, WOULD THAT BE FIVE LOTS ON A PRIVATE ROAD OR THREE? SO. THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE WHERE YOU CAN SEE A PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT OR A CLEAR PRIVATE EASEMENT AND A PRIVATE EASEMENT.
SIDE BY SIDE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE IMAGE, THERE IS A PRIVATE EASEMENT OR WHAT'S INTENDED TO BE A PRIVATE EASEMENT GOING TO THE SQUARE SHAPED LOT IN THE D IN THE BOTTOM.
AND YOU CAN SEE TO THE LEFT OF THAT, THERE'S ANOTHER EASEMENT THAT SERVES THREE LOTS ON A CUL DE SAC IN THE BOTTOM LEFT THERE.
IS AN EXAMPLE OF A PRIVATE ROAD THAT WILL NEED TO BE EXTENDED IF A HOUSE IS PROPOSED ON THE THIRD LOT, SO THERE'S A THREE IN THE TOP RIGHT OF THAT PROPERTY NEAR THE POND.
AND SO RIGHT NOW THE ROAD ENDS SULLY'S COURT ENDS AT THE HOUSE THERE 3511.
BUT SOMEONE WOULD NEED TO PAY TO CONSTRUCT IT TOWARD THE END THERE.
[01:25:02]
AND THEN STAFF WOULD, YOU KNOW, NEED A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT STANDARDS APPLY IN THIS SITUATION.WHERE I THINK BASED ON THE TRAFFIC VOLUME OF WEBB ROAD, THE FRONT TWO LOTS WERE REQUIRED TO SHARE THE ENTRANCE AS WELL WITH THE BOTTOM THREE LOTS.
NOW IN THESE KIND OF SITUATIONS, THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY WHERE THEY CAN THEIR DRIVEWAYS, INDIVIDUAL DRIVEWAYS COULD VEER OFF OF THAT FRONT ENTRANCE RIGHT AFTER THEY ENTER.
VERSUS GOING FARTHER DOWN THE ROAD AND THEN EXITING OFF OF THERE.
THIS IS A BIT OF A GRAY AREA WHETHER THREE LOTS OR FIVE LOTS ON A PRIVATE ROAD.
SURE. THIS JUST HAPPENED LAST YEAR.
MM HMM. HOW COULD WE IN A PLANNING DEPARTMENT ALLOW SUCH A SITUATION TO HAPPEN.
WHY AREN'T ALL OF THESE LOTS HAVE THEIR OWN ENTRANCE? THIS IS WHEN I WAS TALKING ABOUT ACCESS MANAGEMENT.
THIS IS ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE BASED ON THE TRAFFIC VOLUME ON WEBB ROAD, EACH LOT IS NOT ALLOWED TO SHARE AN ENTRANCE.
PARDON ME, EACH LOT? BASED ON THE ORDINANCE. THEY WEREN'T THEY NEEDED TO SHARE AN ENTRANCE.
THEY COULDN'T HAVE THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL ENTRANCE ON WEBB ROAD.
BUT NOW YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S A PROBLEM.
I'M ONLY SAYING IT'S A QUESTION OF WHETHER IT'S FIVE LOTS OR THREE LOTS ON THE ROAD.
BECAUSE THIS DEVELOPMENT HERE, IT SEEMS LIKE TO ME, WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOMETHING TO CORRECT AN UNDESIRABLE SITUATION, BUT YOU'RE SAYING NO BASED ON.
WELL, THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT IS THAT, YOU KNOW, BASED ON THE ORDINANCE, WE HAVE WHAT WE HAVE IN PLACE TO, YOU KNOW, TO ENFORCE.
AND IF THE ORDINANCE IS NOT CLEAR, THEN YOU KNOW, THERE CAN BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE DEVELOPER TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT IF THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDING OF THE ORDINANCE AND THEY CAN DEFEND IT.
THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE OF SHARED ENTRANCES WHERE THERE.
AND THERE'S AN EXAMPLE ON THE LEFT SIDE OF A DRIVEWAY SPLITTING OFF RIGHT AT THE ROAD ENTRANCE. AGAIN, THAT'S WHERE I'M TRYING TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN SOMETHING THAT IS CLEARLY JUST A SHARED ENTRANCE VERSUS SOMETHING THAT'S SHARING THE ROADWAY.
AND THEN YOU CAN SEE SOME MORE EXAMPLES OF SHARED ENTRANCE ON SANDY RIDGE ROAD ON THE TOP. SO WITH STAFFS WORK OVER TIME ON THESE DIFFERENT SUBDIVISIONS THAT HAVE COME, ALONG IN THE PAST FEW YEARS, WE'VE CLARIFIED WHAT, HOW WE READ THE ORDINANCE AND THAT AND HAVE WRITTEN SOME OF THESE THINGS DOWN.
AND SO BASICALLY, THE REQUIREMENTS SAY THAT ALL NEW LOTS IN THE COUNTY ARE REQUIRED TO FRONT ON STATE MAINTAINED ROADS, ALL NEW LOTS AND ANY YOU KNOW, RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT, EXCEPT THAT PRIVATE ROADS ARE PERMITTED TO SERVE UP TO THREE LOTS IN THE RA AND A1 ZONING DISTRICTS.
AND EACH LOT MUST HAVE ROAD FRONTAGE OF EFFECTIVELY 120 FEET OR 50 FEET ON A CUL DE SAC.
WHEN I SAY EACH LOT, I'M TALKING ABOUT EACH LOT ON A PRIVATE ROAD MUST HAVE ROAD FRONTAGE OF EFFECTIVELY 120 FEET OR 50 FEET ON CUL DE SAC, AND THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY EXEMPT THE CUL DE SAC. SO BASICALLY THEY CAN END ON A PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT WITHOUT A CUL DE SAC AT THE END OF IT. AND IF THAT MAKES MORE SENSE IN THAT SITUATION.
ANOTHER RULE IS THAT THE REQUIRED ROAD FRONTAGE MUST BE USED FOR ACCESS VIA A DRIVEWAY.
THE FRONTAGE IS THE DISTANCE ON THE PROPERTY ALONG A ROADWAY, AND IF THAT'S WHAT THEY USE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT, THEN THEY NEED TO ACCESS THEIR HOME OR WHATEVER VIA A DRIVEWAY THAT CONNECTS TO THAT ROAD FRONTAGE.
I'LL HOLD OFF ON GETTING ANY FURTHER INTO DETAIL THERE.
A DRIVEWAY IS NOT DEFINED AS WE DISCUSS, BUT FROM COMMON SENSE.
IT'S EFFECTIVELY AN ON SITE ROADWAY, SERVING ONLY ONE LOT.
I THINK MOST TYPICALLY OF DRIVING DOWN A, YOU KNOW, A SUBDIVISION STREET AND YOU HAVE DRIVEWAYS COMING OFF EACH ONE.
WE CAN CLEARLY SEE IN THOSE SITUATIONS WHAT IS A DRIVEWAY VERSUS WHAT IS A ROAD.
ANOTHER ONE IS THAT A PRIVATE ROAD IS SOMETHING THAT PROVIDES THE REQUIRED ROAD FRONTAGE TO AN ABUTTING LOT, INCLUDING A ROAD THAT SERVES ONLY ONE LOT.
[01:30:04]
SO IN ORDER TO FRONT ON A ROAD, YOU MUST HAVE A ROAD THAT'S THE SIMPLE VERSION OF THAT.AND IN ORDER TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN A SHARED ENTRANCE AND A PRIVATE ROAD, WE WOULD SAY THAT A SHARED ENTRANCE BECOMES A PRIVATE ROAD AFTER A COMMON SENSE DISTANCE, SUCH AS 50 FEET DOWN THE ROAD.
IF THERE ARE MULTIPLE PEOPLE ARE DRIVING ON THE SAME ROADWAY FOR MORE THAN 50 FEET, I THINK AT THAT POINT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S MORE CLEARLY A PRIVATE ROAD AT THAT POINT.
BUT IF THEY DIVERGE RIGHT AFTER THEY ENTER OFF A PUBLIC ROAD, THEN THAT'S MORE CLEARLY JUST A SHARED ENTRANCE.
AND AGAIN, THE WHOLE POINT OF THAT IS DISTINGUISHING HOW MANY LOTS ARE ON A SINGLE ROADWAY. ANOTHER REQUIREMENT IS THAT THE DEVELOPER MUST CONSTRUCT OR BOND THE ROAD PRIOR TO FINAL PLAT APPROVAL.
OTHERWISE, THE LOT WOULD NOT HAVE THE REQUIRED ROAD FRONTAGE.
AND AS HAS HAPPENED BEFORE, THE ROAD MAY NEVER BE CONSTRUCTED BY THE DEVELOPER.
SO THEN YOU HAVE A LOT THAT'S AT THE END OF AN EASEMENT AND NOTHING'S BEEN CONSTRUCTED AT A LOT DECADES LATER.
AND YOU KNOW, IT HAS TO DEVELOP THAT ON ON THEIR OWN.
WHEREVER THERE'S MULTIPLE LOTS AT THE END OF THAT AND SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE TO DEVELOP THAT ON THEIR OWN RATHER THAN THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPER.
BUT THE ORDINANCE BASICALLY SAYS THAT THE DEVELOPER'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE IMPROVEMENTS.
ANOTHER ONE IS THAT THE VDOT STANDARDS REFERENCED BY THE ORDINANCE ARE FOR SPECIFICALLY A TWO LANE SUBDIVISION STREET.
SO THIS IS WHERE I WAS TALKING ABOUT IT'S DIFFICULT TO KNOW WHAT EXACTLY TO LOOK AT IN THE SUBDIVISION STREET DESIGN GUIDE, WHICH IS LIKE A BOOK.
AND SO THIS IS JUST BEING SPECIFIC ABOUT WHICH ONE AND HOW WIDE THE ROADWAY IS.
ANOTHER REQUIREMENT IS THAT THE COUNTY'S ACCESS MANAGEMENT STANDARDS CURRENTLY REQUIRE PRIVATE ROADS FOR LOTS FRONTING ON COLLECTOR AND ARTERIAL ROADS.
SO AGAIN, HIGH VOLUME ROADS YOU HAVE TO.
AND THE EFFECTIVE SITUATION THERE IS THAT PROPERTIES NEED A PRIVATE ROAD WHEN THEY'RE ON A HIGH VOLUME ROADWAY.
THE COUNTY DOESN'T ENFORCE PRIVATE AGREEMENTS, BUT CAN ENFORCE REQUIRED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, SO THERE IS CLEAR LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE SAYING THAT THE COUNTY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ENFORCING PRIVATE COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS, EASEMENTS, ET CETERA.
BUT AFTER REVIEWING THE ORDINANCE CLOSELY, WE FEEL THAT THE COUNTY CAN ENFORCE THIS THE CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS THAT ARE IN THE ORDINANCE.
AND THAT THOSE WOULD APPLY AT THE TIME OF SUBDIVISION OR THE INITIAL CONSTRUCTION OF A HOUSE, FOR EXAMPLE.
SO AS WE SAID, YOU'VE GOT THE DRAFT ORDINANCE IN YOUR PACKET.
WE TALKED ABOUT HOW THERE'S CLARIFICATIONS THAT ARE IN GREEN AND PROPOSED CHANGES THAT ARE IN RED. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE CLARIFICATIONS ALREADY.
SOME OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES WOULD BE TO ESTABLISH DRIVEWAY STANDARDS, SOME KIND OF MINIMUM STANDARD SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE A SITUATION LIKE WE SAW EARLIER WITH, YOU KNOW, A DRIVEWAY THAT CANNOT BE ACCESSED BY EMERGENCY VEHICLES.
SO THERE'S JUST A BASE LEVEL RECOMMENDATION THERE.
ANOTHER ONE WOULD BE SPECIFIC ABOUT WHEN A DRIVEWAY STANDARD IS ALLOWED VERSUS WHEN A FULL PRIVATE ROAD STANDARD IS ALLOWED.
AND THAT BASICALLY WE'VE RECOMMENDED AT THIS TIME THAT TO ALLOW A DRIVEWAY STANDARD WHEN THERE'S ONLY ONE LOT SERVED BY AN EASEMENT OR TO MAKE THINGS SIMPLER, RATHER THAN READ BACK IN THE ORDINANCES ABOUT PAST REQUIREMENTS THAT BASICALLY, IF A ROAD WAS PLATTED PRIOR TO 2013 AND HAS NOT BEEN CONSTRUCTED, THEN THEY CAN BUILD TO THAT DRIVEWAY STANDARD. IDEALLY, THEY'LL BUILD TO MORE SO THAT THE ROAD IS IN BETTER CONDITION.
BUT THAT WOULD BE A WAY, A POSSIBLE WAY FORWARD.
WE RECOMMEND TO REQUIRE ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS, AND WE DON'T GO INTO FURTHER DETAIL ABOUT THAT, BUT WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE AGREEMENTS IN PLACE IF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SHARE ROADWAYS.
AND THAT'S COMING FROM A PLACE WHERE WE'VE RECEIVED MULTIPLE CALLS A WEEK ABOUT SOMETIMES ABOUT, YOU KNOW, PROPERTY OWNER QUESTIONS AND DISPUTES ABOUT PRIVATE ROADS.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE'S AN AGREEMENT SOMEWHERE IN PLACE.
ANOTHER RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO CHANGE THE APPLICABLE VDOT STANDARD TO BE BASED ON TRAFFIC VOLUMES.
SO RATHER THAN AN 18 FOOT WIDE ROAD THAT'S ONLY SERVING TWO OR THREE LOTS IN 15 FOOT
[01:35:05]
WOULD BE REASONABLE.AND THAT'S BASED ON WHAT VDOT REQUIRES FOR A ROAD SERVING LOW VOLUME OF TRAFFIC.
VDOTS WIDTH REQUIREMENT FOR A ROAD SERVING UP TO FOUR HUNDRED TRIPS PER DAY IS 15 FOOT WIDE. THE AGENT CAN EXEMPT ONE OR TWO LOTS FROM THE THREE LOT LIMIT ONLY IF THEY SHARE THE ROAD ENTRANCE. SO BASICALLY THIS IS TRYING TO CLARIFY THE SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE BETWEEN THREE AND FIVE LOTS SHARING AN ENTRANCE.
THAT'S JUST AGAIN, I URGE YOU TO GO THROUGH THE ORDINANCE AND GET A BETTER FEEL FOR IT LATER. AND THEN REGARDING ACCESS MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS, WE ARE RECOMMENDING TO DEFER TO VDOT, TO ENFORCE THE ACCESS MANAGEMENT AND WHEN IT COMES TO SUBDIVIDING LAND.
AND THIS IS ALREADY THE PRACTICE WITH GENERALLY WITH SITE PLANS.
AND THE COUNTY CAN REQUIRE LIKE A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY WHEN THERE ARE MUCH MORE HEAVY TRAFFIC PROJECTS THAT ARE PROPOSED.
SO WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH ALLOWING VDOT TO REGULATE THE ACCESS MANAGEMENT ON WHO'S REQUIRED TO SHARE AN ENTRANCE AND WHERE VDOT IS GOOD AT WORKING THROUGH THE COMPLEX SITUATIONS. THEY HAVE AN ENGINEER THAT'S DEDICATED TO THAT TASK.
SO YOU MIGHT HAVE THOUGHT OF SOME REASONS TO HAVE CLEAR ROAD STANDARDS BASED ON THE PRESENTATION, BUT STAFF'S GOALS ARE TO LIMIT THE PROLIFERATION OF ROADS THAT ARE INACCESSIBLE BY PROPERTY OWNERS AND EMERGENCY VEHICLES.
WE WANT TO ENSURE A QUALITY MINIMUM STANDARD FOR ACCESS FOR NEW HOUSING CONSTRUCTION.
WE WANT TO LIMIT ROAD FAILURES ON SUBSTANDARD ROADS AND ENSURE THERE IS FUNDING TO REPAIR ROADS WHEN THEY DO FAIL AND ENSURE THERE IS FUNDING.
THAT'S BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE THE USE OF PUBLIC ROADS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT. AND IF THERE ARE PRIVATE ROADS, THAT IS THE PROPERTY OWNERS RESPONSIBILITY.
ANOTHER REASON WOULD BE TO PREVENT REQUESTS BY PROPERTY OWNERS FOR THE COUNTY TO MAINTAIN ROADS BECAUSE THERE IS NO FUNDING.
TIM I'LL STOP YOU THERE. YEAH.
NUMBER 4. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD HAVE ON THERE WHEN NO FUNDING IS AVAILABLE.
EITHER WE DON'T FEEL THE RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN THEM OR WE DO.
I MEAN, YOU CAN'T SAY NO TO SOMEBODY BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY.
YOU SAY NO TO SOMEBODY BECAUSE THAT'S NOT PART OF THE ORDINANCE.
NO, YEAH, IT WAS JUST THAT'S JUST WORDING THAT WE WROTE AT SOME POINT, AND THIS IS JUST AGAIN REASONS.
BUT IF WE DO THIS AGAIN, WE'LL LOOK AT THAT FOR SURE.
THE MAIN POINT OF THAT ONE IS PREVENT REQUESTS OF RESIDENTS FOR THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT TO MAINTAIN THEIR ROADS. THOSE ARE PRIVATE ROADS.
WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ALLOW FOR STANDARDIZED AND PREDICTABLE ADDRESSING FOR NEW HOUSING CONSTRUCTION SO THAT, YOU KNOW, VISITORS, MAIL TRUCKS, EMERGENCY VEHICLES CAN EASILY LOCATE THE HOUSE. OR ANOTHER REASON WOULD BE TO PUT DEVELOPERS AND COUNTY ON THE SAME PAGE ABOUT THE REQUIREMENTS AND TO ENABLE DEVELOPERS TO CALCULATE ACCURATE COSTS FROM HAVING A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THEIR REQUIREMENTS ARE.
SO THE OPTIONS THAT WE WENT OVER FOR THE BOARD TO GIVE THE STAFF GUIDANCE WERE A SEEK COMMUNITY INPUT ON THE DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AND THEN SEND IT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION.
AND THIS AGAIN, IT WOULD PRIMARILY SERVE TO CLARIFY THE EXISTING REQUIREMENTS AND STAFF RECOMMENDED THIS THAT OPTION AT THE TIME.
AND OPTION B WOULD BE TO DRAFT AN ALTERNATIVE AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT PRIVATE ROADS.
THIS WOULD, IN THEORY, MAKE THINGS SIMPLER AND THERE COULD BE AN EXCEPTION FOR FAMILY DIVISIONS. AND FOR EXAMPLE, THERE MIGHT BE A MAXIMUM OF THREE LOTS THAT COULD SHARE AN EASEMENT FOR FAMILY DIVISIONS AND WE COULD SPECIFY WHAT ARE APPROPRIATE MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR FAMILY DIVISION ROADS AND ROADS THAT ARE NOT YET BUILT.
SO BASICALLY A CUT DOWN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT THAT ELIMINATES PRIVATE ROADS OR SOME VERSION OF THAT. THE POINT IS AN ALTERNATIVE AMENDMENT TO WHAT WE PREPARED.
[01:40:02]
ANOTHER OPTION WOULD BE A DRAFT, AN ALTERNATIVE AMENDMENT TO ELIMINATE PRIVATE ROAD STANDARDS, EXCEPT FOR THREE LOT LIMIT.SO THAT WOULD REMOVE STANDARDS BUT RETAIN THE LIMITATION OF THE NUMBER OF USERS ON A ROAD. SO THAT WOULD NOT.
THE CONS ARE THAT THAT WOULD NOT ACCOMPLISH THE GOAL OF HAVING SOME KIND OF MINIMUM STANDARD FOR THE ROADS.
IT WOULD CERTAINLY MAKE THE DEVELOPERS GENERALLY HAPPIER, BUT IT COULD ALSO NOT PRODUCE A GOOD ROAD ACCESSIBLE ROAD FOR THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY WHENEVER THEY ARE DEVELOPED.
STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THIS ONLY CONSIDERING THIS AFTER ADOPTING THE CLARIFICATIONS, AT LEAST. BUT AGAIN, THESE WERE JUST OPTIONS THAT WERE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD.
THIS WAS A FEW MONTHS AGO, SO WE HAVE RECEIVED SOME FEEDBACK FROM THE BOARD AND WE ARE GOING TO MEET AS STAFF AND AND PROVIDE SOME MORE INFORMATION TO THE BOARD AS THEY'RE FIGURING OUT HOW THEY'D LIKE TO PROCEED ON THIS.
AND YOU KNOW, OF COURSE, THERE'S ALL ALTERNATIVE OPTION, WHICH IS DO NOTHING AN STAFF OPPOSES THAT THAT ONE.
SO THAT COVERS THE PRESENTATION AGAIN, THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT IS IN YOUR PACKET.
THERE'S A LOT TO ABSORB, I KNOW.
BUT JUST WANTED TO GET YOU ON THE SAME PAGE AND YOUR REFRESHER ON THIS TOPIC BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO COME UP AGAIN, PROBABLY IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS.
THANK YOU, TIM. ANYTHING ELSE ON THE AGENDA? OK. RIGHT AFTER REPORTS, WE HAVE COMMUNICATIONS, SO THE ACTIONS OF THE BOARD OR ZONING
[COMMUNICATIONS]
APPEALS, THE OCTOBER MEETING WAS CANCELED AND THE NOVEMBER MEETING ALSO CANCELED.ACTIONS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
OF NOTE FOR A REQUEST THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL FOR ON SEPTEMBER 29TH, THE BOARD APPROVED REZONING REQUEST RZ 21-02 AND THAT WAS TO AMEND ZONING CONDITIONS TO PERMIT A GENERAL CONTRACTOR OFFICE THAT WAS FOR MUELLER BUILDERS, A CONTRACT PURCHASER FROM THE LAND AND [INAUDIBLE] CORP.
AND SO THEY HAVE A GENERAL CONTRACTOR OFFICE WITH A FABRICATION AND METAL ROOFING MATERIALS AND OUTSIDE STORAGE THAT WILL BE SCREENED.
AND SO THEY APPROVED THAT ON YOUR RECOMMENDATION AND UPCOMING CASES.
WE HAVE ONE CASE FOR NOVEMBER, POSSIBLY ANOTHER ONE THAT'S STILL BEING CONFIRMED AT THIS MOMENT. THE ONE THAT IS CONFIRMED IS A SUBDIVISION WAIVER REQUESTS, WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS HEARD. I THINK TWO SUBDIVISION WAIVER REQUESTS, ONE WAS IN 2012, ONE WAS IN 2014.
AND THIS IS WHEN SOMEBODY IS DOING A SUBDIVISION PLAT AND THERE IS SOME REQUIREMENT THAT THEY WILL CLAIM AS CAUSING A HARDSHIP.
AND SO THEY ARE REQUESTING AN EXCEPTION FROM THAT SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT.
AN THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT WILL BE REQUESTING AN EXCEPTION TO THE UTILITY CONNECTION REQUIREMENTS, WATER AND SEWER CONNECTION REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE THEY'RE DIVIDING 30 ACRES OFF OF APPROXIMATELY ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY ACRES TO BUILD A HOUSE ON THAT PROPERTY.
WE'LL GET INTO THE DETAILS WHEN THAT CASE COMES UP, BUT I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THAT ONE IS ON THE WAY.
AND SO I DO NOT HAVE ANY FURTHER COMMUNICATIONS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH ANYTHING ELSE FOR ANY BOARD MEMBERS DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING.
[01:45:06]
THE QUESTION IS THAT THE ITEM YOU HAVE IN CONCERNING PRIVATE ROADS, THE DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT YOU HAVE IN THIS IS FOR OUR INFORMATION.IS THAT CORRECT? FOR YOUR INFORMATION GENTLEMAN? YES, FOR YOUR INFORMATION AT THIS TIME.
CHAIRMAN I MOVE TO ADJOURN. I DIDN'T ASK FOR YET. [LAUGHTER] I'M SORRY.
THAT'S ALL RIGHT. YOU CAN'T GET ME.
ANYTHING ELSE FROM ANYBODY, FROM STAFF.
OK, CAN I HAVE A MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
FOR THE THIRD TIME? YES, SIR. I MOVE WE ADJOURN.
CAN I GET A SECOND? SECOND? YES, IT HAS BEEN MOTIONED AND SECOND THAT WE ADJOURNED.
CALL THE ROLL PLEASE. MR. BROWN. YES.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, GUYS.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.