Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:01]

THE PRINCE GEORGE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FOR THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2002.

[CALL TO ORDER]

WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? MR. BRESKO HERE.

MR. BROCKWELL HERE.

MRS. ANDERSON HERE.

MR. BROWN. ABSENT.

MRS. ELDER HERE.

MR. JOYNER HERE.

MR. SIMMONS.

AT THIS TIME, WOULD EVERYONE RISE FOR THE INVOCATION BY MR. JOYNER? AND I'LL LEAD THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

OH, HEAVENLY FATHER, WE COME HERE TONIGHT TO DO THE BUSINESS OF THIS COUNTY.

WE ASKED YOUR GUIDANCE, DIRECTION AND THE DECISIONS AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THOSE DECISIONS THAT WE MADE.

GUIDE US AND DIRECT US SO WE WILL HAVE PEACE, PEACE IN PRINCE GEORGE AND ALL NATIONS AROUND THE WORLD.

AMEN. AMEN.

.

[ADOPTION OF AGENDA]

BEFORE WE ADOPT THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT SUBDIVISION WAIVER REQUESTS S.W.

22-02 FOR HANK ROSS AND DAVID ROSS ON SANDY RIDGE ROAD WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANTS AFTER WE SENT OUT THE LETTER TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.

THERE WILL BE NO DISCUSSION OR DECISION ABOUT THAT REQUEST TONIGHT.

IT HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN AND WILL NOT PROCEED.

COMMISSIONERS YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT.

IF IT MEETS EVERYONE'S APPROVAL OR ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR ADOPTION.

I MOVE. MR. CHAIRMAN.

I SECOND MOTION BY MR. JOYNER, SECONDED BY MS. ELDER. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

MRS. ANDERSON? YES. MR. BROWN. ABSENT.

MRS. ELDER? YES.

MR. JOYNER. YES, MR. SIMMONS. MR. BRESKO. YES.

MR. BROCKWELL? YES. THIS TIME I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC COMMENTS PERIOD FOR ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSIONERS ON ANY ITEM NOT BEING HEARD AS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM THIS EVENING. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU WILL HAVE 3 MINUTES TO SPEAK.

THERE BEING NO ONE.

I HEREBY CLOSED THE PUBLIC COMMENTS PERIOD.

COMMISSIONER, YOU ALSO HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU THE WORK SESSION MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 24TH, 2022.

[ORDER OF BUSINESS ]

IF THERE ARE NO ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THE ADOPTION.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE OCTOBER 27TH EXCUSE ME, 24TH WORK SESSION.

IS THERE A SECOND.

I'LL SECOND. MOTION BY MS. ELDER.

SECOND BY MR. SIMMONS.

CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

MRS. ELDER? YES, MR. JOYNER. I ABSTAIN, I WAS ABSENT.

MR. SIMMONS? YES. MR. BRESKO YES.

MR. BROCKWELL YES.

MRS. ANDERSON.

YES. MR. BROWN IS ABSENT.

ALSO, COMMISSIONERS, YOU HAVE THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 27TH REGULAR SESSION MEETING.

IF THERE ARE NO ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION. WE APPROVE.

SECOND. A SECOND.

MOTION BY MR. BROCKWELL AND BY MS. ELDER. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

MR. SIMMONS? YES, MR. JOYNER ABSTAIN, I WAS NOT THERE.

. MRS.

[00:05:01]

ELDER? YES.

MR. BROWN IS ABSENT.

MRS. ANDERSON.

YES. MR. BROCKWELL. YES.

MR. BRESKO? YES.

[POSTPONED ITEMS]

NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS THE POSTPONED ITEM WAS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION 2207 MR. GRAVES. ALL RIGHT.

GOOD EVENING, CHAIRMAN BRESKO MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION AND MR. WHITTEN. I'M JUST GOING TO SPEAK AND PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED SINCE THE PREVIOUS PUBLIC HEARING.

SO THIS IS, AS YOU SAID, A POSTPONED ITEM FROM THE OCTOBER 27TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.

AND DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE COMMISSION HEARD FROM VARIOUS MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND THE APPLICANT AND COMMENTS WERE GENERALLY IN SUPPORT OF THE OVERALL PROJECT, THOUGH SOME SPECIFIC CONCERNS AND REQUESTS WERE RAISED BY THOSE PRESENT.

THE APPLICANT REQUESTED CERTAIN CHANGES TO CONDITIONS AND ONE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC ALSO REQUESTED SPECIFIC CHANGES TO THE CONDITIONS.

AND AFTER HOLDING A PUBLIC HEARING AND LISTENING TO EVERYONE'S FEEDBACK, THE COMMISSION VOTED TO POSTPONE A DECISION TO ALLOW STAFF TIME, TO ALLOW STAFF TIME TO REVIEW THE SUGGESTIONS THAT WERE DISCUSSED DURING THE MEETING.

AND SO STEPH SUMMARIZED ALL THE FEEDBACK FROM THE MEETING AND A DOCUMENT INCLUDED WITH THE STAFF REPORT FOR THIS MEETING.

AND THAT'S ON PAGE 22 OF THE STAFF REPORT, WHICH IS UNDER TAB FOUR.

AND PROVIDED STAFF AND OR APPLICANT ANSWERS FOR EACH OF THOSE CONCERNS AND COMMENTS THAT WERE RAISED.

SO THE MAIN FEEDBACK RECEIVED IN SUPPORT WERE THAT THERE WAS GENERAL SUPPORT FOR THE PROJECT WITH NO FURTHER LIMITATIONS BY FIVE PEOPLE THAT SPOKE AND ALSO THE APPLICANT OF COURSE.

THERE WAS A REQUEST TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF SPECIAL EVENTS PER YEAR THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED BEYOND 12.

THERE WERE THREE PEOPLE THAT SPOKE IN SUPPORT OF THAT AND ALSO THE APPLICANT, AND THERE WAS A REQUEST TO ALLOW BICYCLE AND WALKING TRAILS, EVEN WHEN IT'S NOT IN ASSOCIATION WITH A COUNTRY CLUB OR GOLF COURSE.

THERE WAS ONE PERSON AND ALSO THE APPLICANT THAT REQUESTED THAT.

SO STAFF CONSIDERED THIS FEEDBACK AND REVISED THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS AND ALL OF THOSE REVISIONS WERE PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT FOR THIS MEETING AND ALL THOSE CHANGES WERE IDENTIFIED IN RED FONT AND STRIKETHROUGH.

AND A SUMMARY OF THE CHANGES I'LL GO THROUGH ALL OF THE CHANGES THAT WERE PRESENTED BY THE STAFF AT THE OCTOBER 27TH MEETING.

SO AT THAT MEETING WE HAD PRESENTED SOME RED INK CONDITIONS IN FRONT OF YOU AT THE MEETING AND WE DISCUSSED ALL THOSE.

SO ALL THOSE ARE INCLUDED HERE.

AND THE CHANGES ALSO INCLUDED PROHIBITING THE USE OF ATVS AND GAS POWERED VEHICLES OTHER THAN GOLF CARTS AND MAINTENANCE VEHICLES ON THE ON THE MULTI USE TRAILS.

ANOTHER CHANGE WAS TO UPDATE THE TURN LANE WARRANT ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS TO CLARIFY THAT IF TURN LANES ARE REQUIRED BASED ON THE APPROVED USES, THEN THE USES MAY BE LIMITED TO A SMALLER SCALE UNTIL THE TURN LANES ARE ACTUALLY INSTALLED.

THE STAFF ALSO UPDATED THE TURN LANE ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS TO CLARIFY THAT IF ANY NEW OR EXPANDED USES ARE PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT AFTER THE ANALYSIS IS INITIALLY REVIEWED, THEN THAT ANALYSIS WILL NEED TO BE UPDATED TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT.

AND ANOTHER CHANGE WAS TO ADD LANGUAGE TO MINIMIZE RUNOFF OF WATER INTO A STORMWATER INTO THE JAMES RIVER OR ANY CONNECTED WATERWAYS AS A RESULT OF ANY NEW IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREAS THAT MAY BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE FUTURE.

AND ALSO A SIMILAR CHANGE TO MINIMIZE RUNOFF FROM PET WASTE FROM A POTENTIAL DOG PARK WHICH WOULD BE APPROVED WITH THIS REQUEST.

THAT WOULD BE PROTECTING FROM RUNOFF INTO THE JAMES RIVER OR ANY CONNECTED WATERWAYS.

STAFF ALSO ADDED LANGUAGE TO ENSURE THAT A NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN IS SUBMITTED TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE STATE. SO STAFF BELIEVES THAT ALL FEEDBACK FROM THE PUBLIC HAS BEEN ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED BY THE CONDITIONS.

AND SO THE ONLY REQUESTED CHANGE THAT WAS NOT ACCEPTED OR AS OTHERWISE ALREADY ADDRESSED WAS THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE GOLF COURSE TO BE CONSTRUCTED OR RETROFITTED TO COMPLY WITH BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES OF A PROFESSIONAL GOLF COURSE ASSOCIATION.

AND THAT WAS THAT WOULD INCLUDE A PLAN PREPARED BY A CERTIFIED AND LICENSED GOLF COURSE, ENGINEER OR ARCHITECT.

IT'S STAFF'S VIEW THAT THIS CONDITION IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THIS REQUEST BECAUSE IT IS AN OPTIONAL HIGHER STANDARD THAT WOULD PLACE A BURDEN ON THE APPLICANT AS THEY ATTEMPT TO

[00:10:04]

START A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS ON THE PROPERTY.

MANY OF THOSE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE MAY ALREADY BE COVERED BY THE STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS THAT APPLY NO MATTER WHAT.

THAT BRINGS US TO THIS.

THIS MONTH AT THE WORK SESSION ON NOVEMBER 14TH, THIS PAST MONDAY, STAFF REVIEWED ALL THE CHANGES IN DETAIL WITH THE COMMISSION, AND THE COMMISSION ALLOWED THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK ABOUT THE REMAINING ITEMS THAT THEY DID NOT AGREE WITH.

THE APPLICANT PROVIDED THEIR REQUESTED CHANGES TO STAFF FOR REVIEW IN A WRITTEN FORMAT, AND AFTER THE WORK SESSION MEETING, THE APPLICANT UPDATED STAFF AND SAID THAT THEY ACCEPTED MOST OF THE CHANGES THAT WERE ALREADY DISCUSSED BUT STILL OBJECTED TO THREE CONDITIONS IN PARTICULAR.

SO STAFF REVIEWED THE REMAINING REQUESTS AND ACCEPTED DID ACCEPT A CHANGE TO ALLOW THE MULTI USE TRAILS TO BE USED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, EVEN IF THERE'S NOT A COUNTRY CLUB OR GOLF COURSE.

BUT ITS STAFF STILL DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE OTHER CHANGE REQUESTS BY THE APPLICANT.

SO TO WORK THROUGH THOSE STAFF HAS PROVIDED TWO SUPPLEMENTS FOR THE COMMISSION THAT WE PUT IN FRONT OF YOU BEFORE THE MEETING. AND THE FIRST ONE SAYS SUPPLEMENT NUMBER ONE AT THE TOP.

AND THAT'S JUST A CLEAN, CLEAN LIST OF THE CONDITIONS IN THE END THAT ENCOMPASS ALL THE FEEDBACK THAT HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND CAN BE SUPPORTED BY STAFF, INCLUDING THE CHANGE THAT I JUST MENTIONED ABOUT THE MULTI USE DRUGS.

STAFF HAS ALSO PROVIDED REVISED SAMPLE MOTIONS.

IF YOU WANT TO USE THOSE CONDITIONS IN MAKING A MOTION TO.

SO THE SECOND SUPPLEMENT SAYS SUPPLEMENT NUMBER TWO AT THE TOP.

AND WE ALSO PROVIDED THIS OUT FRONT OF THE MEETING ROOM.

IT'S THE APPLICANTS REQUESTED CHANGES.

THE THREE THINGS THAT I MENTIONED, WHICH STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND TO BE INCLUDED.

SO I'LL GO THROUGH THOSE BRIEFLY.

IN THE FIRST REQUEST, THE APPLICANT REQUESTED THAT ATVS AND GAS POWERED VEHICLES BE PERMITTED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.

STAFF DOESN'T SUPPORT THIS CHANGE BECAUSE THERE'S A RISK OF THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF NOISY VEHICLES SUCH AS ATVS AND DIRT BIKES IF IF THAT LANGUAGE WERE REMOVED.

AND THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL INTENT.

AND ALL THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT TOPIC AS IT WOULD APPLY TO BOTH SIDES OF JORDAN POINT ROAD.

WHEN I SAY WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, I MEAN THE PROPERTY ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE JORDAN POINT ROAD BECAUSE IT'S SPLIT BY JORDAN POINT ROAD.

IN THE SECOND REQUEST, THE APPLICANT REQUESTED THAT THE LANGUAGE BE REMOVED PERTAINING TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR RESTRICTING USES TO A SMALLER SCALE UNTIL TURN LANES ARE INSTALLED.

IF TURN LANES ARE REQUIRED.

SO STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS CHANGE BECAUSE IT WILL ENABLE THE APPLICANT TO OPERATE USES THAT CAUSE ENOUGH TRAFFIC IMPACT TO REQUIRE TURN LANES BEFORE INSTALLING TURN LANES.

SO STAFF HAS INCLUDED THIS LANGUAGE REALLY FOR TRANSPARENCY ABOUT HOW THIS CONDITION WILL BE ENFORCED REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE LANGUAGE IS INCLUDED.

IN THE THIRD REQUEST, THE APPLICANT REQUESTED TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF SPECIAL EVENTS ON THE ALLOWED PER YEAR ON THE PROPERTY FROM 12 TO 24.

AND THIS WAS DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY I THINK DURING THAT OCTOBER 27TH MEETING AS WELL.

BUT STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS CHANGE BECAUSE IT'S STAFF'S VIEW THAT IF MORE THAN 12 EVENTS, SPECIAL EVENTS.

AGAIN, THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE OUTDOOR, OPEN, OPEN AIR AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND INVOLVE ENTERTAINMENT AND MUSIC, THINGS LIKE THAT. SO STAFF DOESN'T SUPPORT INCREASING THAT BEYOND 12 BECAUSE THAT WOULD TRANSITION THE PROPERTY FROM A COUNTRY CLUB TO SOMETHING MORE THAN A COUNTRY CLUB.

A MORE INTENSIVE MAIN USE OF THE PROPERTY AND THAT WE FEEL THAT IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED UNDER A DIFFERENT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR A DIFFERENT LAND USE CLASSIFICATION.

AND THAT KIND OF THING SHOULD BE FACTORED INTO A TURN LANE ANALYSIS IF THERE'S THAT FREQUENCY OF LARGE EVENTS ON THE PROPERTY.

AND AGAIN, WE REMIND YOU THAT THERE'S MANY EVENTS THAT THEY CAN HOLD THAT ARE NOT CONSIDERED SPECIAL EVENTS.

PRETTY MUCH ANYTHING INDOORS AND ALL WEDDINGS AND RECEPTIONS AND ALL THAT WOULD NOT BE COUNTED AGAINST THAT NUMBER.

SO THERE'S MORE DETAILS IN THOSE SUPPLEMENTS THAT WE PROVIDED.

BUT THAT'S THAT COVERS THE THE MAIN POINTS.

SO THAT CONCLUDES MY UPDATE.

I THINK I COVERED EVERYTHING.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

[00:15:01]

QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

COULD YOU JUST COULD YOU JUST MAKE SURE? I HEARD RIGHT DURING THE MEETING LAST WEEK WHEN WE HAD THE PUBLIC COMMENTS.

YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE WERE THREE PEOPLE THAT SPOKE RELATED TO THE CHANGE OF THE 12 TO 24.

WAS THAT IN SUPPORT OR AGAINST SUPPORT? SUPPORT.

WERE THERE ANY COMMENTS MADE BY THE PUBLIC AGAINST.

I DON'T BELIEVE SPECIFICALLY PERTAINING TO THAT.

OKAY. AND THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD BASED ON THE STAFF COMMENTS, I UNDERSTAND, LIKE SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE ACTUALLY, BOTH OF THESE MENTIONED THAT THE STAFF DON'T RECOMMEND IT THIS TIME IF IT WAS NEEDED OR IN THE FUTURE OR ANOTHER SPECIAL EXCEPTION COULD BE REQUESTED AND REVIEWED SEPARATELY OR INDEPENDENTLY.

CORRECT. AND THEY CAN ALWAYS REQUEST A CHANGE TO THE CONDITIONS ONCE THEY'RE IN PLACE.

RIGHT. SO HOW DOES THAT CLAUSE IN THAT STATEMENT AND THE BOTTOM OF EIGHT.

SO IF ANYTHING IS APPROVED AS OF THIS, [INAUDIBLE] IF ANYTHING THAT'S APPROVED NOW REQUIRES A TURN LANE.

THEY HAVE 36 MONTHS TO COMPLY.

BUT IF SOMETHING IS APPROVED LATER AS AN ADDITIONAL SPECIAL EXCEPTION, IF IT'S DETERMINED A TURN LANE WOULD BE NEEDED, THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PROCEED WITHOUT PUTTING THE TURN LANE IN FIRST.

CORRECT. THERE'S NO GRACE PERIOD.

THEY WOULD HAVE AS LONG AS THEY NEED OR WANT TO PUT THAT TURN LANE IN BEFORE THEY CAN OPEN THE FULL SCALE OF USE.

OR THAT REQUIRES A TURN LANE..

OR THEY COULD ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT THAT ADDITIONAL EXPANDED USE APPROVAL.

SO EVERY TIME THEY ADD A NEW ACTIVITY, THEY HAVE TO DO A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS? THEY'LL HAVE TO WORK WITH STAFF.

AND IF IT'S APPROPRIATE, UPDATE THE.

YES, THEY'LL HAVE TO UPDATE THE ANALYSIS.

YEP. WELL, I KNOW WE HAD A WHOLE LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT SAFETY, CONCERNS ABOUT THE TURN LANES AND THE TRAFFIC.

IN OUR WHO WHENEVER WE IF WE APPROVE THIS, CAN WE INCLUDE IN THEIR, REQUESTING VDOT TO DO A SPEED LIMIT REDUCTION.

YOU CAN ASK STAFF TO SPEAK WITH VDOT ON THAT.

IT WOULDN'T BE PART OF THIS.

YOU COULDN'T MAKE THAT HAPPEN AS A CONDITION BECAUSE THESE ARE CONDITIONS THAT APPLY TO THE APPLICANT.

[INAUDIBLE] ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? CHAIR, I CAN'T READ QUITE FAST ENOUGH? ARE THESE RECOMMENDED CHANGES HERE ALREADY INCORPORATED HERE? THEY'RE ALL IN SUPPLEMENT ONE.

THEY'RE ALL IN THE SUPPLEMENT ONE.

ALL BLACK FONT IN THIS ONE ALREADY.

THAT ONE. OKAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, MR. GRAVES.

AT THIS TIME.

I WILL TURN IT OVER TO THE COMMISSIONERS FOR MOTION TO EITHER APPROVE.

OR WOULD NOT ACCEPT THIS REQUEST.

UH, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY IT'S JUST AN OPPORTUNITY.

TO TAKE 143 ACRES OF LAND.

IT'S NOT BEING USED NOW, AND IT'S ABOUT TO BECOME AN EYESORE IF IT'S NOT USED.

SO HERE'S AN APPLICANT WHO WANTS TO.

TURN IT INTO.

AN ATTRACTIVE PLACE WHERE PEOPLE CAN GO AND HAVE FUN.

I THINK A GOOD JOB HAS BEEN DONE ON REACHING A COMPROMISE ON WHAT THE

[00:20:01]

CHANGES THAT WERE RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF.

AND ALSO ADDED TO BY THE PUBLIC AND ALSO RESPONDED BY THE APPLICANT.

SO I THINK A REASONABLE COMPROMISE HAS BEEN MADE ON WHAT THE CONDITIONS WILL BE FOR THIS BUSINESS TO GO FORWARD.

ARE YOU MAKING A MOTION? SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.

FORWARD REQUEST SC 22-07 TO THE BOARD WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF SUPPLEMENT ONE.

AND THE REASON FOR THIS IS IT'S COMPATIBLE WITH THE COMP PLAN AND CURRENT SURROUNDING USES AND ZONING DISTRICTS.

IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND.

MOTION BY MR. SIMMONS.

SECOND BY MR. JOYNER.

CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

I'D LIKE TO FOLLOW UP ON MR. SIMMONS AND COMMENT ON THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOING THEY'RE DOING A FINE JOB OF GETTING.

IT'S CLOSE TO COMPROMISES AS WE CAN.

THANK YOU. NEXT IS A PUBLIC HEARING SPECIAL EXCEPTION

[PUBLIC HEARINGS]

SE22-11. HEY.

MR. GRAVES. POWERPOINT.

I DON'T GET THE PRESENTATION UP.

YOU WANT. OK.

GOOD EVENING ONCE AGAIN.

THIS IS SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST SE2211 OF JASON AND AMELIA RUFFIN TO PERMIT A FAMILY DAY CARE HOME LARGE WITHIN AND THAT'S ORDINANCE LANGUAGE.

THANK YOU. WITHIN A LIMITED RESIDENTIAL R1 ZONING DISTRICT.

THIS IS PURSUANT TO ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 92033.

AND THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST IS TO PROVIDE A CHILD CARE, PROVIDE CHILD CARE SERVICES FOR UP TO TEN CHILDREN AT A TIME AS A HOME OCCUPATION WITHIN AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ABOUT 3.37 ACRES IN SIZE, LOCATED AT 4481 BRANCH CHESTER PARKWAY, AND IS IDENTIFIED AS THE TAX AMOUNT NUMBER YOU SEE THERE. AND THE PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY PLAN CALLS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES IN THIS AREA.

ON THIS SLIDE YOU CAN SEE A LOCATION MAP, THE PROPERTIES OUTLINED IN RED.

THIS IS THE SAME MAP THAT WAS SENT TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS WITH THE PUBLIC NOTICE.

AND YOU CAN SEE IT'S IN A YOU KNOW BRANCHESTER LAKE SUBDIVISION SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.

ON THIS SLIDE, YOU CAN SEE THE ZONING MAP, THE PROPERTIES OUTLINED IN BLUE.

THE YELLOW COLOR IS FOR R-1 ZONING.

ORANGE COLORS FOR R 2 ZONING.

IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE DENSE, SMALLER LOT THAN R 1.

THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW.

YOU CAN STILL SEE THE PROPERTY OUTLINE IN BLUE.

AND SO A SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST.

THE APPLICANT ALREADY PROVIDES CARE FOR UP TO FOUR CHILDREN, WHICH IS A BUY RIGHT USE, MEANING YOU DON'T NEED A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.

AND THEY SAID THEY HAVE A BUSINESS LICENSE AND THEY ALREADY THEY ALREADY DO THIS AT THE HOUSE.

THE APPLICANT, AMELIA, IS A FORMER TEACHER OF PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY SCHOOLS FOR TEN YEARS, AND SHE'D LIKE TO HAVE ONE EMPLOYEE OR VOLUNTEER OTHER THAN HER AT THE HOUSE FOR THE CARING FOR THE TEN CHILDREN.

SO THE AGES OF THE CHILDREN ARE BETWEEN TWO AND TEN.

AND SHE CONCENTRATES ON PRESCHOOL AGE CHILDREN AND THE HOURS OF CARE WOULD BE FROM 8 A.M.

TO 5 P.M.. MONDAY TO FRIDAY, THE OWNER AND THE EMPLOYEE WOULD PARK IN THE DRIVEWAY AND PICK UP AND DROP OFF OF CHILDREN OCCURS

[00:25:06]

AND WOULD OCCUR IN THE STREET.

THE ACTIVITIES PRIMARILY OCCUR IN THE ATTACHED GARAGE, WHICH IS PART OF THE HOUSE AND THE BACKYARD IS A PLAY AREA, YOU KNOW, DURING PART OF A PORTION OF THE DAY FOR THE CHILDREN.

HERE YOU CAN SEE A CLOSER UP AERIAL VIEW.

THE HOUSE FACING THE STREET ON THE RIGHT, BIG FRONT YARD, BIG DRIVEWAY FOR THEIR PARKING.

THE OWNER AND THE APPLICANT, I MEAN THE EMPLOYEE.

AND THERE'S PLENTY OF STREET PARKING AND THERE'S A POOL IN THE BACKYARD.

THEY HAVE A FENCE TO BLOCK THAT OFF SO THE KIDS DON'T GO IN THERE.

BUT YOU CAN SEE WHAT THE PROPERTY LOOKS LIKE.

THERE'S ANOTHER VIEW OF WHAT THE PROPERTY LOOKS LIKE FROM THE STREET.

PLANNING STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS.

WE JUST CLARIFY THIS IS WHAT IT'S CLASSIFIED AS BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE, IS A FAMILY DAYCARE HOME LARGE.

BASICALLY MEANS CHILD CARE AND IT'S PERMITTED BY SPECIAL EXCEPTION AT THE DEFINITION THERE.

THIS THIS LAND USE ALLOWS FOR UP TO 12.

IF THERE'S A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THAT.

THIS APPLICANT'S ONLY REQUESTING TEN UP TO TEN OTHER THAN THEIR OWN CHILDREN AND.

YEAH. THEY'LL NEED TO HAVE A LICENSE FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES.

WE ALSO COMMENTED THIS APPEARS TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING CURRENT AND FUTURE RESIDENTIAL USES.

IT SHOULD NOT CHANGE THE OUTSIDE CHARACTER OF THE HOUSE BY ANY SIGNIFICANT LEVEL.

THE EXPECTED IMPACTS WOULD BE MAINLY TRAFFIC DURING PICKUP AND DROP OFF TIMES, AND THIS IS MITIGATED BY ITS MAXIMUM OF TEN CHILDREN AND A BRIEF PERIOD OF THE DAY.

AND THERE'S LIMITED HOURS OF OPERATION.

THERE'S ONLY A WEEKDAY ACTIVITY, AND WHEN THE CHILDREN ARE PLAYING, IT SHOULD BE SIMILAR TO CHILDREN PLAYING IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND THERE'S ALSO LIMITED HOURS OF OPERATION.

OTHER STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS PRIMARILY WERE FROM THE BUILDING INSPECTIONS DIVISION AND THEY SAID BASICALLY IT'LL GET RECERTIFIED THAT THE STRUCTURE COMPLIES WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS IT NEEDS TO.

THE INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN WOULD NOT REQUIRE A CHANGE IN THE CLASSIFICATION.

THE. OF COURSE, THEY REITERATED IT MUST BE LICENSED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES AND THEY'LL HAVE TO DO SOME EMERGENCY PLANNING AND PREPAREDNESS TO COMPLY WITH THE FIRE PREVENTION CODE, AND THAT WILL BE INSPECTED ANNUALLY.

VDOT SAID THAT THE EXISTING ENTRANCE IS FINE FOR THE USE THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING.

AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS ARE IN THE STAFF REPORT AND IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE AND THE HIGHLIGHTS ARE HERE FOR YOU.

ONE OF THE CONDITIONS JUST SPECIFIES IT'S FAMILY.

IT'S FOR THIS PARTICULAR LAND USE FOR UP TO TEN CHILDREN AS A HOME OCCUPATION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.

SO BASICALLY THAT MEANS THE OWNER HAS TO LIVE THERE.

IT CAN'T JUST BE A COMMERCIAL LOCATION THAT PEOPLE COME TO AND PROVIDE SERVICES WITHOUT SOMEONE LIVING THERE THAT OPERATES THE BUSINESS.

THE HOURS OF OPERATION WOULD BE LIMITED AS THEY WERE DISCUSSED IN THAT APPLICATION.

THERE'S TIME PERIOD FOR DROP OFF AND PICK UP.

ONE ADDITIONAL PERSON MAY BE EMPLOYED.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S BY CONDITION.

IT NEEDS TO BE BY CONDITION AND A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.

AND THERE'S SOME CONDITIONS ABOUT PARKING JUST TO HAVE FOR REFERENCE.

AND THE STREET PARKING WOULD BE USED FOR PICK UP AND DROP OFF OF CHILDREN.

THEY'LL HAVE TO KEEP A DEPARTMENT, A SOCIAL SERVICES LICENSE.

THERE'S NO SIGNAGE THAT THEY WANT TO DO, NOR WILL THEY BE ABLE TO DO PERMANENTLY.

AND THEY'LL COMPLY WITH THE NOISE ORDINANCE, WHICH IS REQUIRED EITHER WAY, WHETHER OR NOT THE CONDITION IS INCLUDED.

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS REQUEST IS APPROVAL.

IT APPEARS TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.

WE HAVEN'T HEARD ANY NEGATIVE FEEDBACK AND STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED VARIOUS CONDITIONS THAT WE JUST WENT THROUGH TO MAKE SURE IT MEETS ALL CODE REQUIREMENTS AND LIMIT ANY IMPACTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AN APPLICANT HAS REVIEWED THESE AND DIDN'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THESE CONDITIONS.

I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.

THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE.

AMELIA AND JASON. THEY'RE HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THEM.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. GRAVES OR THE APPLICANTS? THESE CHILDREN WE PICKED UP AND DROPPED OFF AT THE STREET THERE.

WELL, CAN YOU.

[00:30:01]

OKAY, I'LL LET HER ANSWER THAT.

YES, WE CURRENTLY JUST HAVE THE PARENTS PULL UP AND THEN WE JUST WALK THEM OUT IN THE LINE.

AND THE PARENTS, THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO COME OUT OF THE LINE UNTIL THE PARENTS ARE AT THE TOP OF THE DRIVEWAY.

AND SO THEN THEY GO. SO PICKUP IS LIKE 3 MINUTES MAX.

SO IT'S NOT EVEN THEY'RE NOT THERE FOR A LONG TIME.

THEY JUST COME PICK UP THEIR KIDS AND GO.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. THIS BEING A I HAVE A QUESTION.

JUST TO CLARIFY ONE POINT, ALL WE'RE DOING, IF WE PASS THIS ON TO THE BOARD, ALL WE'RE DOING IS SAYING THAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE TEN CHILDREN THERE.

THE FACT THAT THEY CAN HAVE TEN CHILDREN WILL BE DETERMINED BY SOCIAL SERVICES.

IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, THEY HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY BOTH THE COUNTY AND BY SOCIAL SERVICES TO HAVE THAT NUMBER OF CHILDREN.

THIS BEING A PUBLIC HEARING, I HEREBY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ANYONE THAT WISHES TO COME FORWARD TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION.

IF YOU COME FORWARD, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND LIMIT YOUR TALK TO 3 MINUTES.

NOW HE WILL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING.

THERE WOULD BE NO NO ONE.

I HEREBY CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TURN IT OVER TO THE COMMISSIONERS.

OR MOTION FOR APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL.

DO I HEAR A MOTION? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT I MOVE TO FORWARD THE REQUEST SC 2211 TO THE BOARD WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS AND THE STAFF REPORT.

AND THE REASON FOR THIS RECOMMENDATION AS IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND CURRENT SURROUNDING USES AND ZONING.

MOTION BY MS..

ELDERS. SECOND BY MR. BROCKWELL. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT OA-22-03.

MR. WHITTEN.

YES. CHAIRMAN BRESKO MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

STAFF IS REQUESTING TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE IN ORDER TO CLARIFY AND WEDGE ZONING DISTRICTS.

PRIVATE ANIMAL BOARDING PLACES ARE PERMITTED BY RIGHT VERSUS IN WHICH DISTRICTS THEY ARE PERMITTED, WITH A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.

AND THERE'S A HANDY CHART THAT MR. GRAVES PUT TOGETHER IN YOUR PACKET AT THE END OF YOUR PACKET THAT SHOWS IN THE A1RAR2 ACTUALLY SHOULD BE RA RAR1R2 AND R3 DISTRICTS.

IF IT'S A PARCEL OF MORE THAN ONE ACRE IN SIZE, THEN IT'S BY RIGHT.

SO [INAUDIBLE] BY RIGHT.

IF IT'S ONE ACRE OR LESS, THEN IT'S A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.

AND THEN FOR THE B ONE, M ONE, M TWO AND M THREE DISTRICTS, IT WOULD BE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.

THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.

SO THIS THESE CHANGES ARE SHOWN IN THE ORDINANCE BASICALLY SHOW WHEN A SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD BE REQUIRED AND WHEN IT WOULD BE BY RIGHT TO HAVE A PRIVATE KENNEL, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

ANY QUESTIONS? THERE IS NONE.

[00:35:12]

IS THIS A PUBLIC HEARING OR IT IS.

SO THIS BEING A PUBLIC HEARING, I HEREBY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT.

ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK.

COME FORWARD, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND LIMIT YOUR TALK TO 3 MINUTES.

I HEREBY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THERE BEING NO ONE, I HEREBY CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TURN IT OVER TO THE COMMISSIONERS FOR A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL.

I'D LIKE TO ASK ONE QUESTION.

I'M STILL CONFUSED.

THIS IS FOR BOARDING ANIMALS, RIGHT? CORRECT. PRIVATE ANIMAL BOARDING PLACES IF YOU HAVE FOUR OR MORE.

IT'S NOT FOR LIKE ANIMALS THAT I MAY OWN.

OH, IT IS FOR THE SAME THING.

YES. KEEPING ANIMALS.

IF YOU HAVE FOUR OR MORE ANIMALS IN YOUR HOUSE, IF YOU HAD FOUR ANIMALS IN YOUR HOUSE, YOU HAVE LESS THAN AN ACRE, YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.

OH, I GET YOU IF YOU HAVE LESS THAN I GOT YOU.

THE BOARDING BOARDING FOR SOMEBODY ELSE, THEN.

ME TOO. BUT NO, BASICALLY, UNDER THE DEFINITION, IT'S BASICALLY IF YOU JUST HAVE FOUR ANIMALS, EVEN IF YOU OWN THEM YOURSELF, OWN THEM YOURSELF.

YEAH, I GOT YOU.

DO I HEAR A MOTION.

YES, I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

I MOVED TO FORWARD A REQUEST TO OWN A 2203 BOARD WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE.

AND THE REASON FOR THIS RECOMMENDATION IS IT WILL CLARIFY THE EXISTING REQUIREMENTS IN THE COUNTY CODE.

MOTION BY MS.. ELDER, SECONDED BY MR. JOYNER. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

THANK YOU, MR. WHITTEN. SURE.

NEXT IS THE ORDERS AMENDMENT 0822-04.

MRS. WALTON IS GOING TO BRING THAT ONE TO US.

EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN.

MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

MR. WHITTEN. UNDER TAB SEVEN, IN YOUR PACKET IS AN ORDNANCE AMENDMENT DRAFT.

THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE COUNTY UPDATE THE CURRENT FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE TO REFLECT THE NEW FEMA FLOODPLAIN MAPS FOR PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY AND TO ADD ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE RECOMMENDED AND OR REQUIRED BY THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION REGARDING FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCES. THE FIRM MAP UPDATES WERE RECENTLY COMPLETED THIS YEAR, AND THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED THOSE MAP UPDATES THAT ARE PRODUCED BY FEMA.

OUR FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE WOULD BE AMENDED TO ADOPT THOSE NEW MAPS FOR THE COUNTY, AS WELL AS TO INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE RECOMMENDED BY FEMA AND THE STATE TO BE INCLUDED IN ALL FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCES IN THE STATE OF VIRGINIA. SO THESE ARE THERE ARE A COUPLE OF OPTIONAL THINGS THAT WE DO INCLUDE, BUT THESE ARE, IN GENERAL MANDATORY REQUIRED UPDATES.

I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE, AND THE COMPLETE ORDINANCE IS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET FOR REVIEW.

WELL, ACTUALLY, BY UPDATING THIS, THEN THE PEOPLE WILL BE A WHOLE LOT EASIER TO GET FLOOD INSURANCE.

YES, THIS IS A REQUIREMENT FOR THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE POLICY.

SO, YES, IT DOES HELP YOUR CITIZENS AND IS REQUIRED IN ORDER FOR THEM TO GET FLOOD PLAIN INSURANCE.

ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

[00:40:01]

THANK YOU. THIS BEEN A PUBLIC HEARING.

I. MM HMM.

YEAH. EVERYTHING. SEE WHAT IT SAYS.

PUBLIC HEARINGS. SO I WAS ASKING YOU.

YEAH, IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING.

GOTCHA. THERE'S BEEN A PUBLIC HEARING.

I HEREBY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT. COME FORWARD, STATE YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, AND LIMIT YOUR TALK TO 3 MINUTES.

I HEREBY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THERE BEING NO ONE, I HEREBY CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TURN IT OVER TO THE COMMISSIONERS FOR MOTION FOR OR AGAINST THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR MY APPROVAL.

THERE'S A MOTION BY MR. JOYNER, IS THERE A SECOND.

SECOND BY MR. BROCKWELL.

MR.. DID HE SAY IT WAS A RECOMMENDATION TO A I DON'T I THINK HE SAID TO APPROVE.

I THINK IF YOU COULD READ THE READ, YOU COULD READ THE MOTION TO BE HELPFUL.

I MOVED TO FORWARD 082204 TO THE BOARD WITH RECOMMENDATIONS OR APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE.

AND THE REASONS IS FOR THE UPDATE THE COUNTY CODE IMPROVES ADMINISTRATION OF FLOOD LANDING REQUEST FOR THE COUNTY.

SECOND. MOTION BY MR. JOYNER. SECOND BY MR. BROCK WILL CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

YES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. NEXT IS COMMUNICATIONS, MR.

[COMMUNICATIONS]

GREAVES.

OK IF YOU TURN TO TAB EIGHT.

FIRST OF ALL, THERE WAS NO ACTIONS OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.

THE MEETING FOR NOVEMBER WAS CANCELED BECAUSE THERE WERE NO CASES.

AND IF YOU UNDER TAB EIGHT, YOU HAVE A RECAP FROM THE OCTOBER 25TH.

WE DIDN'T GET THAT JUST IN TIME TO GIVE IT TO YOU BEFORE LAST MEETING.

SO HERE IT IS NOW, THERE WEREN'T ANY PUBLIC HEARINGS THAT THAT YOU HAD FORWARDED AT THAT MEETING.

OH, I'M SORRY THERE WERE.

YOU FORWARDED REQUESTS OF DEVELOPMENTS TO REZONE TEN ACRES FROM M ONE TO M TWO, AND THEY APPROVED THAT AND THEY YOU FORWARDED THE GRANT TIME LLC SPECIAL CARE HOSPITAL REQUEST AND WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL.

AND THEY DENIED THAT AND THEY THAT THOSE WERE THE TWO THAT THAT RELATE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

ALSO, IF YOU TURN TO TAB NINE, THERE'S A COPY OF ROUTE 105 156 INTERSECTION SAFETY STUDY PREPARED BY VDOT.

THAT'S THERE FOR YOUR REFERENCE.

DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO ADD ABOUT THAT? I JUST WANTED TO LET THE COMMISSIONERS KNOW THAT AS VDOT PRODUCES THESE TRANSPORTATION STUDIES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY, THAT WE WILL PROVIDE YOU COPIES OF THEM AS WE LOOK TOWARDS UPDATING OUR COMP PLAN NEXT YEAR.

I FEEL IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO SEE WHAT SAFETY STUDIES HAVE BEEN DONE THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY.

THANK YOU. AND ALSO THAT WE WERE JUST GOING TO COMMUNICATE THAT THERE TENTATIVELY ARE FIVE CASES FOR DECEMBER, THOUGH FOUR OF THEM ARE VERY MUCH TENTATIVE AT THIS TIME.

THE ONE THAT YOU CAN BE MOST CONFIDENT WILL BE IN FRONT OF YOU IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR A ANIMAL BOARDING PLACE, NOT A PRIVATE ANIMAL BOARDING

[00:45:01]

PLACE, A COMMERCIAL ONE.

IT DOES HAPPEN TO BE AT SOMEONE'S HOUSE, BUT THEY'RE ACTUALLY BOARDING ANIMALS FOR EXCHANGE OF MONEY.

SO THEY'RE OVER AN ACRE.

THAT PART DOESN'T APPLY, BUT THEY ARE OVER AN ACRE.

YOU CAN DIVE INTO THAT ONE NEXT MONTH.

ALL RIGHT. THAT'S THAT'S ALL STAFF HAD.

DID YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF WHILE YOU HAVE US? QUESTIONS ANYONE? OKAY, THANKS. YOU KNOW WHERE THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD TO WALLERMAN COMPANY.

WALLERMAN? THERE'S AN EXISTING BUSINESS ON A PROPERTY, AND THEY'RE JUST EXPANDING THE BOUNDARIES BY PURCHASING SOME LAND FROM THIS THE COUNTY. IT'S PURCHASING 3.66 ACRES.

THEY ALREADY HAVE AN EXISTING BUSINESS THERE OF SIX ACRES.

THEY'RE JUST BUYING AN ADDITIONAL 3.6 ACRES.

IT'S IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK.

IT'S OFF HARDWARE DRIVE.

WHAT? RIGHT WHERE THE OLD [INAUDIBLE] FARM USED TO BE WHERE THEY'VE BUILT THIS HUGE BUILDING.

WHAT IS. WHAT IS THAT? SO THAT'S THE NEW FACILITY FOR SERVICE CENTER MEDALS.

THEY MAKE ALUMINUM PRODUCTS EXTRUSION.

THEY'RE IN THE BUSINESS PARK.

AND THEY BOUGHT THAT PROPERTY TO BUILD A SECOND FACILITY.

SO THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TWO AND I KNOW IT'S A HUGE BUILDING.

YEP. YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHERE THE HOUSE WAS, WHERE THE OLD HOUSE PLACE USED TO BE.

I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, NOTHING ELSE.

I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

SO, SECOND MOTION BY MR. SIMMONS, SECOND BY MR. BRONCO. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

WE'RE IN A LIBRARY IN HERE.

WAKE UP, EVERYBODY. MEETING ADJOURNED.

I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT I DIDN'T.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.