Oct 26, 2023 Planning Commission

[00:00:06]

I'D LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR OCTOBER 26TH, 2023.

CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

NOW, IF YOU ALL WILL JOIN US IN THE INVOCATION BY BRIAN WOMACK AND THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE BY MISS BRESKO.

OUR HEAVENLY FATHER, THANK THEE FOR THIS DAY AND ALL OF THE MANY BLESSINGS YOU HAVE BESTOWED AMONG US.

PLEASE GUIDE US AS WE HEAR THE CASES THAT COME BEFORE US TONIGHT.

WE PRAY FOR PEACE IN OUR COUNTRY AND FOR THOSE SERVING AND PROTECTING US AT HOME AND ABROAD.

WE PRAY FOR OUR AMERICANS AND ALL THE HOSTAGES FOR THEIR SAFE RELEASE AND RETURN TO THEIR FAMILIES AND LOVED ONES.

WE PRAY FOR OUR ATTENDEES, SAFE TRAVELS BACK HOME TONIGHT.

IN JESUS NAME.

AMEN. AMEN.

AMEN.

ASK YOU TO LOOK OVER THE VENDOR, AND I NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND TO ADOPT IT.

MOTION TO ADOPT THE WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2023.

SECOND. CALL THE ROLL.

NOW IT'S TIME FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.

ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY TOPIC, NOT ON THE AGENDA.

AS PUBLIC HEARINGS COME TO THE PODIUM, GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.

SEEING NO ONE I CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.

AND NOW'S THE TIME FOR ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS.

ANYONE. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT WE TAKE A MOMENT OF SILENCE TO REMEMBER THE 40 SOME YEARS OF SERVICE GIVEN TO THIS COUNTY BY ALAN FOSTER.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE.

OKAY. WE'LL GO TO THE ORDER OF BUSINESS.

[ORDER OF BUSINESS]

UM. FOR SEPTEMBER THE 25TH.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ADOPT IT.

SECOND. CALL THE ROLL.

NOW WE COME TO THE ADOPTION UNDER THE UNDER TAB THREE.

[ADOPTION OF AGENDA (Part 1 of 2)]

I NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND.

MOTION TO APPROVE.

SECOND. CALL THE ROLL.

THANK YOU. NOW COMES THE TIME FOR OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS.

[PUBLIC HEARINGS]

[00:05:06]

SO THE FIRST ITEM ON THE PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA IS SPECIAL EXCEPTION SC-23-07 REQUEST TO PERMIT A CHILD CARE CENTER IN A B-1 ZONING DISTRICT.

SO THAT REQUEST WAS THE APPLICANT REQUESTED TO DEFER OR POSTPONE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THAT CASE SO THAT THEY COULD UPDATE THEIR APPLICATION TO INDICATE THE PROPERTIES AT A DIFFERENT BUILDING NEARBY.

SO THEY NEED TO UPDATE THEIR MATERIALS SO THAT WILL BE ADVERTISED FOR A UPCOMING PUBLIC HEARING DATE, MOST LIKELY NOVEMBER 16TH WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

SO THAT WOULD NEED A SINCE THAT'S A REQUEST TO DEFER.

IT'S UP TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE OR DENY THAT.

AND THE SAMPLE MOTIONS ARE IN YOUR PACKET.

YOU NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND A MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST AND DEFER THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION SC 23-07 UNTIL THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON NOVEMBER 16TH, 2023, OR A LATER DATE IF ADDITIONAL TIME IS NEEDED BY THE APPLICANT OR STAFF.

SECOND. CALL THE ROLL.

NEXT IS THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, SE 23-08.

JUST A SECOND WHILE WE PULL UP THE SCREEN.

I WISH I COULD SAY THERE'S A MAGIC TOUCH, BUT IT'S JUST COMPLETELY RANDOM.

ALL RIGHT, THIS FIRST, THIS NEXT ITEM IS SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO SC 2308.

AND THAT'S A REQUEST TO PERMIT A SPECIAL CARE HOSPITAL WITHIN A GENERAL BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT.

THE PROPERTY IS SIX AND A HALF ACRES IN SIZE.

IT'S AT 16.905 PARKDALE ROAD.

HERE'S A MAP OF THE PROPERTY.

THE PROPERTY IS OUTLINED IN RED.

LOCATED ON PARKDALE ROAD NEAR THE OFF RAMP FOR INTERSTATE 95.

AND IN THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE COUNTY.

THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW, AND ON THIS YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY OUTLINED IN BLUE.

AND YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING BUILDINGS ON THE PROPERTY.

ON THIS SLIDE YOU CAN SEE A LAYOUT OF THE PROPERTY.

YOU CAN SEE THE THE BUILDING FOOTPRINTS IN DARK BOLD LINES AND PARKING AREAS AROUND ALL THE BUILDINGS.

UM, ON THIS SLIDE, YOU'VE GOT SOME PHOTOS OF THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING AND A PHOTO OF THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING.

SO THE FACILITY WAS FORMERLY OPERATED AS A HOTEL.

IT WAS CALLED THE GATEWAY INN MOST RECENTLY, AND BEFORE THAT IT WAS THE ECONO LODGE.

BUT NOW THE APPLICANT WANTS TO OPERATE AN ADDICTION TREATMENT FACILITY BY THE FACILITY OPERATORS CALLED ONE SOURCE COMMUNITY CARE, AND SO IT WOULD HAVE UP TO 50 ROOMS FOR STAYS OF UP TO 30 DAYS AT A TIME.

AND THERE WOULD BE MEETING ROOMS AND CLASSROOMS FOR THE PARTICIPANTS TO USE.

SO THE REQUEST IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR A SPECIAL CARE HOSPITAL.

AND THAT'S ORDINANCE LANGUAGE SPECIAL CARE HOSPITAL.

AND THE DEFINITION IS DOWN THERE PROVIDED FOR YOU.

PLANNING AND ZONING REVIEWED THIS, AND COMMENTS INCLUDED NOTING WHAT THE ADJACENT USES ARE.

THERE'S VACANT LAND, MOBILE HOME PARK, A CREEK, INTERSTATE 95, AND THERE IS ONE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING NEXT TO THE PROPERTY.

EXPECTED OFFSITE IMPACTS ARE PRIMARILY KNOWN OFFSITE IMPACTS WOULD BE VEHICLE TRAFFIC.

SO THOSE WOULD BE YOU COULD EXPECT THOSE TO BE LESS THAN A HOTEL SINCE PEOPLE STAYING THERE, STAYING THERE FOR A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME.

AND THE, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT EMPLOYEE TRAFFIC TO THE FACILITY.

THERE'S NO REAL MITIGATION NEEDED FOR THE THE VEHICLE TRAFFIC BECAUSE THERE'S EXISTING COMMERCIAL GRADE ENTRANCES.

UM, THOSE ARE THE KNOWN OFFSITE IMPACTS.

THE OTHER INFO WOULD BE THAT WE'VE NOTED HERE IS THAT RECENTLY THERE WAS A SIMILAR SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPROVED BY THE BOARD, AND THAT WAS ALSO RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY THE

[00:10:07]

THAT WAS THE ARROWWOOD ADDICTION TREATMENT FACILITY, WHICH IS LOCATED NEAR THE CROSSINGS SHOPPING CENTER ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE ROAD.

ALL RIGHT. OTHER STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS.

THERE'S COMMENTS FROM BUILDING INSPECTIONS ABOUT THE NEED FOR CHANGE OF USE PERMITS, BUILDING PERMITS, TO BRING THE BUILDINGS INTO COMPLIANCE WITH WHAT BASED ON WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. THERE WOULD ALSO BE HEALTH DEPARTMENT PERMITS NEEDED, AND ALL OF THOSE WOULD NEED TO BE OBTAINED BEFORE THEY COULD BEGIN OPERATIONS.

VDOT NOTED THAT THERE ARE TWO EXISTING COMMERCIAL GRADE ENTRANCES, SO THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT OF THE PROPERTY.

THIS CASE WAS PROPERLY ADVERTISED AND WE REGARDING PUBLIC COMMENTS, WE HAD ONE LETTER WHICH HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU TONIGHT FROM THE OWNERS OF THE MOBILE HOME PARK, AND THERE WERE TWO PHONE CALLS, ONE FROM AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER INDIVIDUAL AND ANOTHER FROM THE OWNERS OF SOUTH 40 CAMPGROUND.

MAINLY ASKING THOSE CALLS WERE ASKING QUESTIONS AND THEY MAY HAVE COME TONIGHT TO SPEAK TO YOU.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS REQUEST, BASED ON THE INFORMATION WE HAVE, IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS.

AND THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS ARE IN THE STAFF REPORT AND IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT WOULD GO TO THE BOARD IF THIS IS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OR DENIAL.

THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS INCLUDE THIS IS EXCLUSIVELY FOR TREATMENT OF PATIENTS FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND OR MENTAL HEALTH ILLNESSES.

SO ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE MENTIONED IN THE DEFINITION OF SPECIAL CARE HOSPITAL WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.

ONLY WHAT YOU SEE THERE.

LODGING ROOMS WOULD BE ONLY BE USED FOR THE STATED PURPOSE.

THEY CAN'T HAVE LIKE SOME ROOMS FOR HOTEL OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

THIS IS JUST WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE TONIGHT.

THIS THE ADDICTION TREATMENT.

THE EXPANSION BEYOND 50 ROOMS WOULD REQUIRE AMENDING THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION.

SO IF THEY WANT TO HAVE MORE THAN THAT, THEY'D HAVE TO COME BACK AND AMEND THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION IF IT'S APPROVED.

AND OF COURSE, THEY WILL NEED TO OBTAIN ALL REQUIRED PERMITS, BUILDING PERMITS, HEALTH DEPARTMENT PERMITS BEFORE THEY WOULD OPEN.

I'VE GOT A KIND OF A GUIDE OF THE NEXT ITEMS HERE.

I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, BUT I WANT TO GIVE THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME UP IF THEY WANTED TO SAY ANYTHING.

IT LOOKS LIKE THEY DO.

SO YOU CAN HEAR FROM THEM AND THEN ASK THEM ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.

AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AFTER THAT.

I HAVE SOME PAPERS FOR YOU.

A GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS.

I AM AN ARCHITECT, LAWRENCE WILLIAMS, A REGISTERED ARCHITECT HERE IN VIRGINIA, AND I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH MY CLIENT, MR. PARSONS. MR. PARSONS HAS BEEN ACTIVE THROUGHOUT THE REGION AND DEVELOPING THESE TYPE OF HOMES AND, AS YOU KNOW, HAS WORKED WITH THE STATE AND HAS WORKED WITH FEDERAL GETTING FUNDING, ETCETERA, FROM FEDERAL AND STATE GUIDELINES AND MEETING FEDERAL AND STATE GUIDELINES.

SO HE HAS EXPERIENCE IN DOING THIS, AND THIS FACILITY WILL PROBABLY BE A GOOD AMENITY FOR YOUR COUNTY.

I THINK IT HAS VERY LITTLE IMPACT ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES BECAUSE OF ITS BOUNDARIES WITH THE HIGHWAY, AND IT'S SOMEWHAT REMOTE COMPARED TO SOME OF THE URBAN HOSPITAL SITUATIONS THAT YOU HAVE.

I'M FROM RICHMOND AND THIS IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN RICHMOND, SO I THINK THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WOULD BE AS NOT AS GREAT AS AN URBAN SETTING, SO I'D APPRECIATE IF YOU WOULD APPROVE IT.

AGAIN, THIS IS FOR A SPECIAL EXEMPTION FOR A SPECIAL CARE HOSPITAL.

IN THE DOCUMENTS THAT YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THAT MOTEL AND WE'RE GOING TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNITS.

AND WE UNDERSTAND CLEARLY THAT IT HAS TO BE 50 MAXIMUM IN TERMS OF HOW MANY RESIDENTS.

AND MY ATTITUDE IS WE CAN LAUNCH A ROCKET TO THE MOON.

AND WITH THESE ALL THESE COMPUTERS THESE DAYS, BUT WE HAVEN'T SOLVED PROBLEMS WITH AT RISK PEOPLE.

AND IT'S NO EXCUSE THAT WE CAN'T FIND SOLUTIONS.

AND I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE OPTIONS AND SOLUTIONS TO, TO DEAL WITH THAT ISSUE.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE PLANS CLOSELY, WE HAVE REDUCED THE UNITS BY HAVING CLASSROOMS, AND THE CLASSROOMS IN THIS CASE ARE ON THE MOBILE PARK SIDE. SO THAT AREA WILL BE PRIMARILY NOT ACTIVE AT ALL.

AND ALSO BECAUSE OF THE CAMPUS ATMOSPHERE, WE ARE FORTUNATE TO HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL AMENITIES, A LARGE CAFE AND COMMERCIAL

[00:15:05]

UM, LET'S SEE HERE.

WHAT ELSE DO WE HAVE? UNIT COUNT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT.

LET'S SEE, I THINK THAT'S BASICALLY MOST OF THE ISSUES.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.

THE NEW DOCUMENT HERE SHOWS PRECISELY HOW ARE WE GOING TO BREAK THE ROOMS UP.

WE HAVE EVEN RESIDENT SECURITY ADVISORS AT THE ENDS OF EACH BUILDING THAT STAY THERE OVERNIGHT.

AND THEY ARE, I WOULD CALL THEM SECURITY/ADVISORS, BUT THERE'S NO BED IN THAT OFFICE AT THE ENDS OF EACH OF ITS THREE MAIN BUILDINGS THERE. AND THEY HAVE WHAT I WOULD CALL THE RESPONSIBILITY TO TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT THINGS GO SMOOTHLY, EVEN IN THE EVENINGS. SO AGAIN, MR. PARSONS HAS A GOOD TRACK RECORD WITH THIS FACILITY, AND THIS IS A DECENT AMENITY.

WE'RE GOING TO TEAR DOWN SOME OF THE ONE OF THE WINGS THAT SHOWS THERE.

SO THAT REDUCES THE ACCOUNT.

AND ALSO THE OTHER FACILITIES ARE SOMEWHAT NEW AND RENOVATED.

SO ANYTHING THAT YOU HAVE SEEN IF YOU'VE DRIVEN BY THERE WILL BE REMOVED.

I THINK ONE CANOPY WAS A LITTLE OFF OFF KILTER.

SO WE'RE GOING TO IT'S CHEAPER TO DEMOLISH IT AND SPEND OUR MONEY ON THE OTHER INTERIORS.

AND SO THAT'S ANOTHER WAY WE REDUCE IT.

SO AS AN ARCHITECT I'VE TALKED WITH THE BUILDING INSPECTOR AND HIM AND OUR CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT WE'VE GOT TO MEET ALL LOCAL CODES AND REQUIREMENTS.

AND THOSE CODE REQUIREMENTS ARE EXISTING BUILDING CODE.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, HE HAS PROVEN TO ME ON OTHER PROJECTS THAT HE'LL GO IN AND GUT THE WHOLE THING AND START FROM SCRATCH, AND YOU'LL HAVE A DECENT, LITERALLY A HOSPITAL THERE.

AND THAT CAN BE AN INSTITUTION FOR THE FUTURE, TOO.

IT'S EVERYTHING IS AN ANCHOR FOR THE FUTURE.

AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GREAT ASSET FOR YOUR COUNTY.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF ME.

YEAH. I MEAN, I GUESS I HAVE QUESTIONS.

WE HAD RECEIVED AN EMAIL, AS TIM ALLUDED TO, FROM THE OWNERS OF A JOINT ADJOINING PROPERTY, SOME OF THEIR QUESTIONS, AND I'M NOT SURE IF YOU WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE PERSON, BUT ABOUT SECURITY, I KNOW YOU MENTIONED IT SOUNDS KIND OF LIKE AN RA SITUATION, RIGHT, IN COLLEGE.

LIKE, YEAH, BUT IS THERE OTHER SECURITY OTHER THAN THAT SECURITY CAMERAS? WHAT IS THE SECURITY GOING TO LOOK LIKE? I THINK THAT'S A CONCERN FOR THE MOBILE PARK.

SURE. WELL, FIRST OF ALL, THE DISTANCE IS THERE AND THE WAY HE OPERATES HIS FACILITIES, HIS TENANTS OR CLIENTS, THEY LITERALLY DON'T GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO LEAVE THE PROPERTY.

AND SO THAT'S FIRST AND FOREMOST, AND I'M CERTAIN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SECURITY CAMERAS AND YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME UP.

HELLO, MY NAME IS STEVE PARSON.

THE PROPERTIES ACTUALLY GOT CAMERAS PRETTY MUCH EVERYWHERE.

WE HAD OVER 40 CAMERAS INSTALLED ALREADY.

WE DO HAVE ACTUAL PATROLLING SECURITY THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE NIGHT.

ALL RIGHT. AND OF COURSE, THE AREA, SAY ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THE CLASSROOMS ACTUALLY ARE, THAT'S ADJACENT TO THE OTHER PROPERTIES AND EVERYTHING.

THOSE ARE AREAS THAT THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED IN DURING THAT TIME.

SO WE WOULD HAVE SOME TYPE OF BARRIER OR FENCE.

THE WHOLE PROPERTY IS GATED.

OKAY. THERE'S GATES ON THE FRONT SO NOBODY CAN JUST DRIVE UP.

AND IF THEY DO, THEY HAVE TO COME THROUGH ONE PARTICULAR ENTRY POINT AND ONE EXTERIOR.

ALL RIGHT. SO AND THEN OF COURSE ON THE CORNER OF EACH OF THE BUILDINGS, IF IT'S UPSTAIRS IS ON THIS SIDE.

IF IT'S DOWNSTAIRS IS ON THIS SIDE.

THERE'S AN ACTUAL OFFICE WITH A RESIDENT ADVISOR NOT LIVING THERE BUT AWAKENED OVERNIGHT.

SO WE'LL HAVE A NUMBER OF OF POSSIBLE SECURITY FEATURES ON THAT OKAY.

AS LIGHTS AND EVERYTHING, IF SOMEBODY WALKS INTO A PARTICULAR AREA, IT LIGHTS UP.

WE HAVE LITTLE CHIMES AND STUFF, YOU KNOW, WE CALL THEM PIEZOS AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

SO WE WE HAVE THOSE.

WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS A WHILE.

WE KNOW THAT SOMETIMES PEOPLE COME IN WITH ONE FOOT IN, ONE FOOT OUT.

SO WE ARE VERY COGNIZANT OF THAT.

AND WE PUT WE DO INTERVENTIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WE MITIGATE THOSE AS BEST WE CAN.

IT'S NOT A PERFECT WORLD, BUT THE FACT IS THAT WE ARE VERY COGNIZANT OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING AND HOW WE DO IT.

ANY MORE QUESTIONS? I WOULD LIKE TO ADD SOMETHING.

ALL THE AGE.

CHILDREN. NO CHILDREN, MA'AM.

OKAY. WHAT ARE THE AGE OF THE PEOPLE?

[00:20:02]

AND THOSE ARE TYPICAL.

YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WE CAN'T TAKE ANYBODY UNDER 18.

WE DON'T LIKE 18 YEAR OLDS.

WE TYPICALLY WANT THEM TO BE MORE LIKE 21.

BUT THE FACT IS THAT, YOU KNOW, OUR TYPICAL AGE RANGE IS BETWEEN 18 AND 65.

I THOUGHT THERE WAS SOMETHING IN HERE ABOUT CHILDREN WHO MIGHT ACCOMPANY THEIR MOTHERS, AND THEY HAVE TO BE UNDER THE AGE OF 11.

SO WE DECIDED SO THAT THAT IS IN THERE.

WE DECIDED THAT WE'RE GOING TO THOSE ARE POTENTIALS.

OKAY. SO WE DECIDED TO START WITH ONE POPULATION OKAY.

AND SEE HOW THAT GOES.

AND THEN WE'LL ADD ON FROM THERE.

THAT IS A VERY SPECIALIZED TYPE OF PROGRAMING THAT WE DON'T WANT TO GET TOO FAR DOWN THE ROAD.

WE BELIEVE OURSELVES INNOVATORS.

WE BELIEVE THAT RIGHT NOW BOTH MY PARENTS ARE PASTORS.

OKAY. MY MOTHER PASSED IN NOVEMBER, BUT SHE WAS A PASTOR.

THIS IS THE CLOSE TO MINISTRY I'VE GOTTEN TO.

I'M NOT ON A PULPIT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT I GET IN A GIVEN DAY SOMEWHERE, 15 TO 20 PHONE CALLS OF PEOPLE THAT ABSOLUTELY NEED HELP.

AND THEY CRY, BEGGED EVERYTHING.

AND I SAY, I'M SORRY, I CAN'T GET YOU IN TODAY.

CAN YOU HOLD OUT TILL MONDAY? I DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T KNOW, AND I THINK THAT EVERYBODY HERE IS TOUCHED BY SOMEBODY THAT'S A PART OF THAT EPIDEMIC OF DRUGS THAT WE HAVE.

IN VIRGINIA, WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH PLACES.

WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH.

SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I BELIEVE IS NECESSARY FOR THE COMMUNITY.

AND WE BELIEVE IN BEING COMMUNITY, GOOD NEIGHBORS.

OKAY? WE BELIEVE IN BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR.

WE DON'T DO ALL OF THIS TO HAVE A STAIN OF BEING IN THE COMMUNITY.

YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WE WANT TO BE KNOWN FOR DOING GOOD WORK, AND WE'RE ACCREDITED, LICENSED AND CREDENTIALED THERAPISTS.

I'M A THERAPIST. SO ON A GIVEN DAY, PEOPLE CALL ME AND TELL ME THEY THANK ME FOR WHAT WE'VE DONE.

SO THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY RIGHT HERE WHERE WE CAN DO MORE FOR THE COMMUNITY.

IT IS A WHAT WE CALL A LOCK PROGRAM, WHICH MEANS THEY CAN'T JUST WALK OUT OFF THE GROUNDS, OKAY? THEY TYPICALLY HAVE TO BE ESCORTED, YOU KNOW, QUITE NATURALLY, WE THEY HAVE TO BE PROCTORED AND STUFF TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE GOOD.

OKAY. SO THIS IS NOT A THING WHERE THEY CAN JUST WALK OFF THE CAMPUS AND BE SOMEWHERE ELSE.

NO, WE HAVE CHECKS AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

WE'LL KNOW WHEN THEY LEAVE, UNLESS THEY CALL [INAUDIBLE] DON'T ALWAYS WORK.

SO. BUT ANY MORE QUESTIONS? AND THE ENTIRE PROPERTY IS FENCED? YES. HOW TALL A FENCE? IT'S AT LEAST EIGHT FEET.

EIGHT FEET.

IS AT LEAST EIGHT FEET.

YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU HAVE INTERVENTIONS.

SO I'M JUST CURIOUS, IS THIS THERAPY OR MEDICALLY ASSISTED PROGRAMS OR WHAT TYPE OF INTERVENTION.

BOTH OF THOSE THINGS.

SO UPON ENTRY AN INDIVIDUAL HAS A PHYSICAL EXAM A DRUG TEST, THEY HAVE LABS ORDERED.

THEY SEE A MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL, WHETHER IT'S A PRACTITIONER OR A DOCTOR.

THEY HAVE A PSYCH EVALUATION AND THEY GET EVALUATED ON, YOU KNOW, JUST OVERALL THEIR SEVERITY OF THEIR DIAGNOSIS.

AND THAT'S ON DAY ONE.

AND ACTUALLY THAT'S DONE AT A WHAT WE HAVE A TRIAGE CENTER.

SO WE DON'T JUST TAKE ANYBODY, YOU KNOW THEY HAVE TO MEET CRITERIA.

AND SO LET'S FACE IT, SOMETIMES THEIR ACUITY IS TOO HIGH IN A CERTAIN AREA.

THEY MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE.

SO THEY COME TO A TRIAGE AREA AND THEY STAY FOR 2 TO 3 DAYS.

THEY'RE GETTING THOSE LABS AND ALL THAT STUFF DONE.

AND THEN WE DECIDE WHAT IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE PLACEMENT FOR THEM AMONGST OUR FACILITIES AROUND THE AREA.

AND SO WE COME TO CERTAIN SITUATIONS WHERE IT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, THAT PERSON'S NOT READY BEHAVIORS THERE AREN'T THERE.

AND SO WE SET OUR OWN LIMITATIONS AND OUR LIMITATIONS ARE YOU HAVE TO WANT TO DO IT, WHICH MEANS YOU HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE YOU WANT TO BE HERE, WHICH IS FOLLOW THE RULES AND THOSE THINGS. AND IF YOU CAN'T DO THOSE THINGS, YOU'RE NOT READY YET.

SO WE MIGHT HAVE TO SEND YOU SOMEWHERE ELSE UNTIL YOU CAN GET READY.

AND WE'LL BE HERE WHEN YOU CALL US.

AND I'M TELLING YOU, WE'VE HAD PEOPLE THAT WEREN'T READY THAT HAVE COME AND GOTTEN READY AND NOW, YOU KNOW, HAVE BEEN DOING REALLY, REALLY WELL.

IT'S THIS DISEASE IS SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE TO GIVE MULTIPLE OPPORTUNITIES AND CHANCES TO.

[00:25:05]

AND THIS IS KIND OF LIKE MY LIFE'S MISSION AT THIS POINT.

SO YOU KNOW, I WANT TO DO A GOOD JOB, YOU KNOW.

SO WE WANT TO DO THINGS WELL AND DO IT RIGHT AND, AND AND BE KNOWN FOR THAT.

OKAY. THANK YOU. MY SECOND QUESTION IS RELATED TO THIS STATING THAT WILL BE PROVIDED IN 30 DAY STAYS.

SO I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH DRUG AND ALCOHOL REHAB FACILITIES IN THE AREA.

AND MOST REQUIRE EITHER SIX MONTH OR ONE YEAR PROGRAMS. WHY 30 DAYS? I MEAN, AND IS THIS WE MAKE THEM COMMIT EVERY 30 DAYS? IS IT RENEWED AT THE END OF 30 DAYS? CAN THEY STAY LONGER THAN 30 DAYS OR IS THIS A STRICT 30 DAY LIMIT? CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW THAT WORKS? SO THIS LOCATION IS A 30 DAY PLACEMENT.

WE HAVE OTHER PLACEMENTS THAT ARE LONGER TERM.

SO THIS ONE IS A 30 DAY WHICH IS THE HIGHEST LEVEL.

SO THE HIGHER LEVEL THE SHORTER IS.

SO THEY'RE ACTUALLY THEY WOULD STAY THERE FOR 30 DAYS AND THEN STEP DOWN TO A DIFFERENT TYPE OF PROGRAM.

IT'S A LONGER TERM.

SO THE WAY YOU KNOW YOU'RE GETTING BETTER ACCLIMATED.

YOU STAY IN ONE LOCATION INITIALLY FOR 30 DAYS.

IT'S STRICT A LOT OF CLASSES.

YOU'RE TALKING 4 TO 5 HOURS OF GROUP, INDIVIDUAL THERAPY, DIFFERENT CLASSES THEY HAVE TO TAKE, YOU KNOW, THEY EAT THERE.

AND THEN AS THEY'RE GETTING BETTER, THEY'RE GETTING BETTER DURING THESE 30 DAYS, WE'RE STEPPING THEM DOWN TO A DIFFERENT TYPE OF PLACEMENT WHERE THEY HAVE MORE LIBERTIES IN THE COMMUNITY, BUT THEY'RE HAVING THE STRUCTURE OF HAVING TO REPORT BACK AND GET DRUG TESTED.

AND STILL IT MAY NOT BE 4 TO 5 HOURS OF DAILY THERAPY, BUT IT MIGHT BE LIKE TWO HOURS, BUT THEY'LL STAY, YOU KNOW, STAY FOR THREE TO, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER 2 TO 3 MONTHS AT ANOTHER LOCATION.

AND THEN FROM THERE THERE'S ANOTHER PART OF THE CONTINUUM IS LIKE, YOU'RE WORKING NOW YOU'RE FUNCTIONING, YOU'RE SAVING MONEY, BUT NOW YOU'RE YOU'RE YOU'RE DOING THINGS FOR YOURSELF. YOU ARE GOING TO STAY AT ANOTHER, ANOTHER TYPE OF ESTABLISHMENT, WHICH IS LIKE A SOBER LIVING HOME.

THEY STAY LONGER.

THEY'RE 6 TO 9 MONTHS.

SO WE HAVE PARTNERS AND STUFF.

WE HAVE OTHER AGENCIES THAT WE WORK WITH.

WE DO WHAT WE DO WELL, AND THEN THEY DO WHAT THEY DO WELL, SO WE'RE NOT ABLE TO TACKLE EVERYTHING.

IT'S NECESSARY.

WE WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT. BUT WE ESTABLISH OUR OWN LIMITATIONS.

AND SO RIGHT NOW, YOU KNOW I KNOW IT SAID CHILDREN BUT THAT'S IT MIGHT BE FURTHER DOWN THE LINE.

WE'RE GOING TO KIND OF STICK WITH ONE THING FIRST, THE ADULTS.

THAT'S KIND OF ENOUGH RIGHT NOW.

SO WE'LL MOVE FURTHER DOWN.

WE DO HAVE OPPORTUNITIES OF DOING THAT AND THAT'S A NECESSARY THING.

IT'S JUST THAT THEN YOU GOT TO HAVE EDUCATION THERE.

YOU GOT TO HAVE A LICENSED DAYCARE AND THOSE TYPE OF THINGS.

SO RIGHT NOW IT IS 50 UNITS, 50 RESIDENTS.

AND THIS POPULATION OF ADULTS, IT CAN BE MALE OR FEMALE.

ANYONE ELSE. THANK YOU.

AND JUST CHECKING. DID YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? AND ON THE TAXES ON IT.

AT THE WORK SESSION, YOU SAID THERE WAS DELINQUENT TAXES.

OKAY, SO YES, HE DID NOTIFY ME THIS PAST WEEK.

THOSE WILL BE TAKEN CARE OF LIKE IN THE NEXT WEEK.

SO THAT JUST HAS TO BE DONE BEFORE THE BOARD MAKES A DECISION.

ANYONE ELSE. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, I WILL OPEN IT UP.

YOU. ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST IS TO COME TO THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.

HI, EVERYONE. HOW ARE YOU? I'M KATHY BENNETT AND I LIVE ON ARWOOD ROAD.

AND JUST. I COME NOW TONIGHT TO SPEAK.

I'VE BEEN SICK WITH PNEUMONIA FOR ABOUT A MONTH.

I STARTED A PETITION AGAINST THE SOLAR PANELS.

THIS IS THE WRONG ONE.

THE WRONG ONE. OKAY.

TALKING ABOUT THE SPECIAL CARE HOSPITAL.

ARE YOU ALL GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT? YES. YES. YEAH.

THAT'S ANOTHER HEARING. YES.

PERFECT. SORRY.

THIS IS FOR THE SPECIAL CARE.

SEEING NO ONE COMING FORWARD, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TURN IT BACK OVER TO THE COMMISSION.

I MOVE TO FORWARD REQUEST SC 23-08 TO THE BOARD WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT.

[00:30:08]

IT IS EXPECTED TO BENEFIT THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY.

SECOND, I'LL CALL THE ROLL.

VOTES FIVE TWO.

NEXT IS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

AMENDMENTS EPA 20 3-04.

ALL RIGHT. THIS IS A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION FOR A SPECIFIC PROPERTY, FROM COMMERCIAL TO COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL.

IF THE REQUEST IS APPROVED, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WOULD SUPPORT INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS AND USES ON THE PROPERTY.

THE PROPERTY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS APPROXIMATELY 44 ACRES IN SIZE, IDENTIFIED BY THE TAX MAP NUMBERS THERE.

AND THIS IS LOCATED AT THE END OF WAGNER WAY.

SO THIS IS RIGHT ON THE BORDER OF PETERSBURG, CITY OF PETERSBURG.

IT'S NEAR THE TRACTOR SUPPLY AND MCDONALD'S ON COURTHOUSE ROAD OFF OF COURTHOUSE ROAD.

HERE'S A MAP. YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY OUTLINED IN RED AGAIN OFF OF COURTHOUSE ROAD ON WAGNER WAY.

AND IT'S IN BETWEEN COURTHOUSE ROAD AND THE INTERCHANGE OF 295 AND 95.

AND IT'S ALSO NEAR ROUTE 460.

THE COUNTY MAP IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER SHOWS IT'S CENTRALLY LOCATED IN THE COUNTY ALONG THE INTERSTATE.

CENTRALLY LOCATED, I GUESS, I MEAN, THE NORTHWEST OF THE COUNTY.

OKAY. AND HERE'S AN AERIAL MAP.

YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY AS IT STANDS TODAY IS CONSISTS OF WAGNER WAY, THE ENTRANCE ROAD AND THE AREA IN THE REAR OF THAT.

IF YOU DRIVE DOWN THAT ROAD AND IT'S FIELDS AND TREES RIGHT NOW AND THE WESTERN BOUNDARY IS BORDERS THE CITY OF PETERSBURG.

SO PART OF THE OVERALL PROPERTY IS IN THE CITY OF PETERSBURG.

BUT THIS REQUEST IS, OF COURSE, JUST ABOUT THE PART OF THE PROPERTY THAT'S IN PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY.

THE PART OF THE PROPERTY THAT'S IN PETERSBURG IS BORDERING ROUTE 460, COUNTY DRIVE.

HERE'S A MAP SHOWING THE ZONING OF THIS PROPERTY IN THE AREA.

THE RED COLOR IS GENERAL BUSINESS.

HERE'S A GLIMPSE AT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

SO THE RED COLOR HERE IS COMMERCIAL.

THE BLACK PROPERTY, BLACK COLOR PROPERTY TO THE NORTH IS THE FORMER WALTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.

AND THAT'S PLANNED FOR PUBLIC OR SEMIPUBLIC USES.

AND THEN THE YELLOW COLOR IS RESIDENTIAL PLAN FOR RESIDENTIAL.

AND THEN IN THE BOTTOM LEFT YOU CAN SEE SOME PROPERTY PLAN FOR COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL.

AND THAT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 460.

THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL MAP OF WHAT A GENERAL IDEA OF WHAT THE APPLICANT ENVISIONS FOR THE PROPERTY IS A VERY LARGE BUILDING THAT COULD BE USED FOR A VARIETY OF INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERCIAL TYPE USES INSIDE OF THE BUILDING.

THE AND YOU CAN SEE PARKING AREAS AROUND IT, BUT THAT WOULD COVER MUCH OF THE PROPERTY.

IT'S JUST CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AT THIS TIME.

AND THIS REQUEST IS AGAIN JUST ABOUT CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE.

IT'S NOT SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THIS BUILDING.

SO THE REQUESTS SUMMARY, THE APPLICANT'S GOAL IS TO DEVELOP APPROXIMATELY OVER 500,000FT² OF INDUSTRIAL FLEX SPACE ON THE PROPERTY TO SERVE POTENTIAL TENANTS THAT THEY KNOW ARE IN THE MARKET LOOKING FOR SPACE.

AND THIS WOULD REQUIRE A REZONING OF THE PROPERTY TO AN INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT.

NOW, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, WHICH YOU SAW, SAYS THAT THIS PROPERTY IS PLANNED FOR COMMERCIAL OR BUSINESS, BASICALLY BUSINESS USE.

AND SO THAT WOULD NOT SUPPORT A REZONING OF THE PROPERTY FOR INDUSTRIAL USE.

SO THE APPLICANT THINKS THAT INDUSTRIAL IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS PROPERTY, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT TO DO ON IT.

SO THEY'VE REQUESTED TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INDICATE THAT THIS PROPERTY IS APPROPRIATE FOR EITHER COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL USES

[00:35:07]

SO THE ACTION FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL BE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DENIAL AND FORWARD THIS TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR AN ACTUAL DECISION.

HERE ARE THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS RELATED TO THIS, WHICH ARE IN THE TAKEN FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

YOU CAN SEE THE DESCRIPTION OF WHAT IS COMMERCIAL.

BASICALLY, IT JUST MEANS WHAT IT SAYS THERE AND INDUSTRIAL.

AND THERE'S A CATEGORY FOR COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL.

THEY'RE NOT SUPER DETAILED, BUT THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT YOU HAVE.

THE APPLICANT'S RATIONALE.

SO IN THEIR APPLICATION, THEY PROVIDED THEIR REASONING ON WHY THEY THINK THAT THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE CHANGE TO MAKE.

SO WE'LL GO THROUGH THEM ONE BY ONE AND WE HAVE A STAFF COMMENT FOR EACH ONE.

SO THE FIRST MAIN KIND OF CLAIM IN OUR IN STAFF'S WORDS OF WHAT THEY'RE SAYING THEY WANT, THEY THINK, IS THAT THAT THE APPLICANT THINKS IS THAT THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN ZONED BUSINESS SINCE 1990 AND IT HAS NOT YET BEEN DEVELOPED, AND THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE AREA DON'T SUPPORT THAT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY ENVISIONED.

STAFF DOESN'T HAVE ANY DISAGREEMENT IT'S TRUE, THE PROPERTY IS HAS BEEN ZONED BUSINESS SINCE 1990 AND HAS NOT BEEN DEVELOPED.

THE APPLICANT NEXT CLAIM BY THE APPLICANT IS THAT THEY HAVE INDUSTRIAL OR FLEX USERS READY TO GO INTO A BUILDING IF THEY BUILD ONE.

AND SO THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT IS REALISTIC AND FEASIBLE FOR THIS PROPERTY.

THE ONLY EXTRA COMMENT FROM STAFF ABOUT THIS IS THAT THERE ARE OTHER POTENTIAL USES THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED, SUCH AS RESIDENTIAL IN THIS IN THE PLANNING AREA PART OF THE COUNTY.

BUT THERE'S NO THERE'S NO PROOF THAT THAT WOULD IF YOU CHANGE IT TO THAT, THAT THAT WOULD RESULT IN DEVELOPMENT OF THAT TYPE.

SO IF ANOTHER CLAIM IS IF DEVELOPED AS PROPOSED, THE ANNUAL REVENUE OF THE TO THE COUNTY WOULD INCREASE QUITE A BIT FROM APPROXIMATELY 13,000 TO APPROXIMATELY TO OVER 500,000 PER YEAR BASED ON PROPERTY TAXES ALONE.

SO THERE'S NO DISAGREEMENT FROM STAFF ABOUT THAT, THAT REALITY.

AND AS A COMPARISON, IF IT WERE DEVELOPED FOR RESIDENTIAL USES, THAT WOULD INCREASE THE PROPERTY VALUES AS WELL.

AND BUT THAT WOULD ALSO BRING ADDITIONAL COSTS THAT YOU DON'T HAVE WITH A COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL TYPE DEVELOPMENT.

THE COSTS FOR RESIDENTIAL TO THE COUNTY INCLUDE FIRE AND EMS SERVICES, POLICE SCHOOLS, ESPECIALLY SCHOOLS.

MOVING ON, ANOTHER CLAIM BY THE APPLICANT AND THEIR REASONING ON WHY THEY THINK THIS IS APPROPRIATE CHANGE IS THAT ALLOWING EITHER COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL USES, NOT JUST ONE OF THOSE, PROVIDES GREATER FLEXIBILITY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY TO RESPOND TO MARKETPLACE DEMANDS.

THERE'S NO DISAGREEMENT FROM STAFF THAT THAT'S THE CASE.

IF THE PROPERTY IS AN ISLAND, THEY SAY THAT THE PROPERTY IS AN ISLAND AMONG MAJOR ROAD NETWORKS, AND IT'S SURROUNDED BY A SWAMP AND SUBSTANTIAL WETLANDS.

AND SO THAT IS TRUE.

AND ANOTHER REASON THEY THINK THIS IS APPROPRIATE IS THAT THEY SAY THAT TRAFFIC WOULD BE MUCH HIGHER FOR COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY ENVISIONED FOR THIS PROPERTY.

THEY SAY THAT TRAFFIC WOULD BE MUCH HIGHER FOR THAT THAN IT WOULD BE FOR AN INDUSTRIAL FLEX SPACE THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DEVELOP ON THE PROPERTY.

AND STAFF, THIS THINKS THIS IS GENERALLY TRUE, THAT TRAFFIC IS HIGHER FOR COMMERCIAL USE.

IF YOU HAD A SHOPPING PLAZA, YOU'D HAVE LOTS OF CUSTOMERS, IDEALLY COMING IN AND OUT AND BUYING GOODS AND EMPLOYEES, AND IT'D BE A LOT OF CARS COMING IN AND OUT.

NOW, IF IT WERE CHANGED TO AN INDUSTRIAL TYPE USE AND THAT THIS YOU HAVE TO FACTOR IN WHAT KIND OF TRUCK TRAFFIC DO YOU GET FROM THAT.

AND THAT REALLY DEPENDS.

AND THAT CAN VARY WIDELY DEPENDING ON WHAT ACTUALLY GOES INSIDE THE BUILDING.

YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT INDUSTRIAL USERS HAVE DIFFERENT NEEDS.

SO THEY SO IT'S WORTH KEEPING IN MIND IF THIS REQUEST IS APPROVED, IT WOULD STILL REQUIRE REZONING.

AND IF THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT TRUCK TRAFFIC OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF CONCERNS WITH AN INDUSTRIAL USE, THOSE KIND OF THINGS CAN BE ADDRESSED WITH REZONING PROFFERS.

WHERE THEY MIGHT RESTRICT CERTAIN USES, OR THEY MIGHT RESTRICT OR OFFER SOMETHING ELSE.

AND THEY COULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC ANALYSIS IF WE NEEDED TO EXAMINE THAT.

BUT THIS IS, AGAIN, JUST WHAT'S BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS JUST A DECISION THAT IF THIS PROPERTY IS APPROPRIATE FOR INDUSTRIAL USES IN ADDITION TO COMMERCIAL USES.

THERE. THIS CASE WAS PROPERLY ADVERTISED AND THERE WEREN'T ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS PRIOR TO THIS HEARING.

STAFF DOESN'T HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OR DENIAL.

WE JUST WE REMIND YOU THIS IS A POLICY DECISION.

IT'S A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MODIFICATION SO THAT POLICY DECISIONS NEED TO BE DECIDED BY THE ELECTED LEADERSHIP.

[00:40:05]

SO THIS FALLS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO MAKE A MAKE A CALL FOR RECOMMENDATION ANYWAY.

AND SO WE DO OFFER AS STAFF, WE DO OFFER SOME GUIDANCE THAT IF OUR THOUGHT PROCESS ANYWAY IS IF THE COUNTY DESIRES FOR THIS PROPERTY TO BE DEVELOPED IN THE SHORT TERM AND INCREASE REVENUE TO THE COUNTY, THEN IF YOU THEN IF YOU RECOMMEND APPROVAL, IT'S MORE LIKELY TO YOU'RE MORE LIKELY TO HAVE THAT OUTCOME.

AND AGAIN, THEY'D HAVE TO REZONE THE PROPERTY STILL, SO THERE'D BE ANOTHER PROCESS REQUIRED FOR THAT, ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING.

ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE COUNTY WANTS TO WAIT FOR A FUTURE COMMERCIAL USER, IF YOU WANT TO WAIT FOR THAT SHOPPING PLAZA TO COME, THEN THEN YOU WOULD WANT TO DENY THIS.

THAT WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT OR IF THAT'S WHAT THE COUNTY WANTS OVERALL.

NOW WITH THAT IN MIND, IF SINCE THE DEMOGRAPHICS FOR THIS AREA DON'T SEEM TO SUPPORT A COMMERCIAL USER, THE COUNTY COULD BE WAITING FOR, YOU KNOW, UNKNOWN AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THAT KIND OF THING TO USER TO COME AROUND.

OR IT MIGHT BE IT MIGHT BE DEVELOPED FOR A LOWER, LOWER END USE LESS LESS INTENSE USE, LESS DESIRED USE EVEN.

IT'S IT'S JUST OPEN ENDED.

AND IT WOULD BE NO CHANGE FROM WHAT WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON SO FAR.

SO THAT'S THIS WILL BE UP TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD EITHER WAY.

AND OF COURSE THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

SO I THINK WE HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE.

DO YOU WANT TO COME UP AND SAY ANYTHING? AND YOU CAN ASK SOME QUESTIONS AFTER.

THANK YOU, MR. GRAVES. MY NAME IS ANDY.

MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION HERE, ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, HAVE WITH ME MALACHI MILLS AND JOHN MASON, AS WELL AS THOMAS CROSS FROM THE PORT OF VIRGINIA PORT AUTHORITY THAT I BELIEVE, YOU KNOW, TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

HE PROVIDED A LETTER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS WELL.

SIMILAR TO WHAT WAS AT THE WORK SESSION, AS HAS ALREADY BEEN DESCRIBED, YOU KNOW, THE LOCATION.

BUT WE DO BELIEVE THIS REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.

FIRST, THIS IS NOT A REZONING.

IT'S ONLY A GUIDE AS TO THE TYPES OF USES THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE AND THE APPROPRIATE USES THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE POTENTIALLY FOR THIS PROPERTY.

OBVIOUSLY, THE REZONING GETS INTO THE DETAILS.

WE WILL BE ABLE TO LIMIT THE TYPES OF USES.

AND I DO THINK THERE IS A DIFFERENCE, QUITE FRANKLY, ASKING FOR COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL VERSUS INDUSTRIAL, AS MR. GRAVES HAD PUT UP THE INDUSTRIAL CALLS FOR HEAVY INDUSTRIAL, MORE FOR THE ROLLS ROYCE PLANT THAT WE DID, THE REZONING FOR THAT AS WELL VERSUS COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL CALLS FOR MORE ECONOMIC IMPACTS.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DO THINK IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS EXACTLY TO REFLECT THE MARKET CHANGES THAT HAS GONE ON, BASED ON OUR ASSESSMENT ON OTHER SIMILAR PROJECTS FROM AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IMPACT, THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT WITH FLEX SPACES, AND WE'RE NOT TALKING HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES.

THESE FLEX SPACES ARE WHAT THE REALITY IS WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SUPPLY CHAIN AND LOGISTICS, THE TYPE OF BUSINESSES THAT ARE LOOKING AT LIGHT ASSEMBLY AND SHOWROOMS, BUT ALSO FOR DISTRIBUTION AND OFFICE WITH A WAREHOUSE, THE ANTICIPATION IS WHILE IT'S A 500,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING, WOULD HAVE 2 OR 3 USERS OR MORE.

TO THAT EXTENT, WE BELIEVE BASED ON OUR EXPERIENCE, BASED ON THE ECONOMIC STUDIES, THAT WE'D HAVE OVER 600 JOBS BEING PRODUCED FROM THIS WITH A $29 MILLION FACILITY, ALMOST THE EXACT SAME SIZE AS THEY'VE BEEN ASSESSED.

AS PART OF OUR APPLICATION, WE PROVIDED FOR A LIST OF POTENTIAL USERS AT THAT TIME, IF I MAY IF I CAN.

I'VE GOT ANOTHER LIST THAT'S UPDATED THIS WEEK.

IF I CAN JUST HAND THIS TO YOU, AND I'M CERTAINLY NOT GOING TO GO OVER IT.

AND THIS IS. IT'S JUST REALLY AN UPDATED LIST THAT SHOWS OVER 60 USERS IN THE MARKET TODAY LOOKING FOR THIS TYPE OF FACILITY TODAY, AND THEY'RE HAVING TROUBLE FINDING IT.

OUR CLIENT IS CONTINUALLY BUILDING AND OPENING THESE FACILITIES UP AND THEN LEASING ALMOST IMMEDIATELY.

AND THESE RANGE ANYWHERE FROM 50, 35, 50,000, UP TO 150,000FT².

AND THERE'S A COUPLE HERE THAT ARE LOOKING IN EXCESS OF 500,000.

BUT AGAIN, THIS WOULD BE FOR MULTIPLE USERS.

SO FROM THAT RESPECT, WE CERTAINLY THINK THAT THE MARKET IS REFLECTING THE CHANGE AND HAVING SOME FLEXIBILITY OF THE TYPE OF USES.

I DESCRIBED THAT IN OUR WORK SESSION.

THIS LIST SHOWS THE TYPE OF USES AND USERS THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE.

AND FINALLY, WE DO THINK THIS IS WELL SITUATED FOR THIS TYPE OF CHANGE, SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE SURROUNDING AND PROXIMITY, SURROUNDING PROPERTY, AND THE PROXIMITY TO 462, 95 AND 95.

WE ALSO PROVIDED WITHIN YOUR PACKET AND OUR APPLICATION.

I'M HAPPY TO HAND THIS OUT, BUT I THINK IT'S IN YOUR APPLICANT'S REPORT OR THE STAFF REPORT.

WHAT WE SHOWED IN YELLOW IS THERE'S ALREADY INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY THROUGHOUT THIS AREA BECAUSE IT IS APPROPRIATE.

IT'S BEEN SITTING VACANT AS A COMMERCIAL USE SINCE 1990, 30 PLUS YEARS, THEY HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO BRING RETAIL IN.

AND WE THINK THAT BECAUSE OF COVID, BECAUSE OF THE SUPPLY CHAIN, CERTAINLY THE MARKET HAS CHANGED.

[00:45:05]

AS YOU KNOW, WITH THE REZONING, IT HAS TO GO TO VDOT AND HAS TO BE REVIEWED BY VDOT.

BUT WE CAN, AS MR. GREGSON POINTED OUT, PROVIDE FOR PROFFERED CONDITIONS AND WE CAN PROFFER THE SPECIFIC TYPES OF USES.

WE CAN ACTUALLY, AS WE DID WITH THE ROLLS-ROYCE PLANT, PROFFER THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED THAT COMES THROUGH THAT BASED ON THE USE BASED ON THE ITE CODE.

WE DO KNOW THAT THERE'S SOME TRAFFIC CONCERNS BASED AT 460 AND COURTHOUSE ROAD.

WE'LL LOOK AT THAT AND ADDRESS THAT THROUGH VDOT AND THROUGH THE COUNTY, AND BRING YOU THE DETAILS OF NOT ONLY THE ELEVATIONS AND THE LAYOUT, BUT ALSO THE TYPES OF USES.

AND AGAIN, NOT HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES, BUT LOOKING AT WHAT WE'VE DESCRIBED IN OUR APPLICATION AND IN THAT LIST THAT YOU SEE THERE.

SO WITH THAT, I COVERED A LOT QUICKLY.

I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

AND WE HAVE, AS I SAID, THE ENGINEER AND THE CLIENT HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

ANYONE. THANK YOU, SIR.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I HAVE. DID YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ONE? YEAH, I HAD ONE.

JUST BASED OFF OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE DEFINITION OF POLICIES AND THE PURPOSE OF POLICIES.

AND THIS IS A POLICY DECISION.

BUT YET WHAT'S COME BEFORE US IS FOR AN AMENDMENT REQUEST, AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR ONE SPECIFIC ADDRESS AND LOCATION.

GENERALLY, POLICIES ARE VERY HIGH LEVEL THAT COVER BROAD THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE HAVE ADDITIONAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES THAT DRIVE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS OR EXCEPTIONS, THOSE TYPES OF ACTIVITIES.

IS THIS HOW IS THE COUNTY POLICY? WOULD THAT BE UPDATED AS WELL? LIKE IS THERE LIKE AN ADDITIONAL REQUEST THAT THE POLICY BE AMENDED TO ALLOW CONSIDERATION WITHIN COMMERCIAL MAJOR THRUWAYS OF THE COUNTY TO BE CONSIDERED ACCEPTABLE TO REVIEWED AS COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND WITH, OF COURSE, EACH PROVINCE FOLLOWING THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR EXCEPTIONS OR WHATEVER REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT NOT USED TO SEEING SOMETHING AS A POLICY DECISION MADE DIRECTED TO ONLY ONE PARTIAL.

SO YEAH, I THINK YOU ALLUDED TO THE, THE KIND OF SHOULD THIS BE KIND OF AN OVERALL BIGGER AREA KIND OF THING, THAT THERE WILL BE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE PROCESS BEGINNING SOON.

WE'RE WORKING WITH TO FINALIZE THINGS WITH THE CONSULTANT, AND THAT WILL DURING THAT PROCESS, THERE'LL BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT WHOLE AREAS AND LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, THE COUNTY AS A WHOLE AND TAKE A LOOK AT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR THE WHOLE COUNTY, AND ALSO ALL THE WORDING IN THE PLAN AND, AND HAVE A FRESH LOOK AT THAT. BUT THAT SAID, THE THERE'S A, THERE'S A PROCESS AND A FEE FOR A PROPERTY OWNER TO REQUEST IF THEY WANT TO A CHANGE TO THE PLAN.

AND IT CAN BE FOR SOMETHING AS SPECIFIC AS THIS, AS SPECIFIC AS A SINGLE PROPERTY.

SO BUT IT IS WORTH CONSIDERING THE WHOLE AREA.

YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THAT DECISION.

THIS IS THIS CHANGE, IF APPROVED, WOULD ONLY AFFECT THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.

BUT IN SOME WAYS IT WOULD BE SOMETHING TO CONSIDER FOR THE WHOLE AREA.

BECAUSE IF SOMEONE MADE THE SAME REQUEST FOR AN ADJACENT PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, YOU MIGHT LOOK AT IT DIFFERENTLY IF THIS PROPERTY IS PLANNED FOR COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL, DOES THAT HELP? YEAH, I JUST KNOW THERE HAVE BEEN PREVIOUS CASES WHERE WE'VE HAD TO REVIEW, ESPECIALLY DURING TH 460 CORRIDOR, THAT JUST BECAUSE OF CERTAIN THINGS LIKE THE BUILDING SIZE THEY WANTED TO BUILD AND OTHER THINGS, IT NEEDED TO BE COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL INSTEAD OF JUST COMMERCIAL.

SO THAT'S WHY I WAS BRINGING UP.

WE'RE LOOKING AT A POLICY.

YOU KNOW, HOW THAT COULD BE POSSIBLY.

I KNOW WE'RE UPDATING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT'S GOING TO TAKE YEARS.

SO I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF THERE WAS ANY WAY THAT POLICY LEVEL DECISIONS LIKE THAT COULD BE BROADENED..

THROUGH THAT PROCESS THAT'S COMING UP.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? SINCE IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING, ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST COME TO THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.

LET'S START TALKING HERE. THE CLOCK WON'T RUN YET.

HOW ARE YOU THIS EVENING? MY NAME IS JIM QUIST.

Q-U-I-S-T. I LIVE AT 9807 COUNTY LINE ROAD.

I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT OF PG NOW FOR ALMOST 12 MONTHS TO THE DAY.

THE BEST MOVE I'VE EVER MADE IN MY LIFE, I LOVE IT HERE.

[00:50:04]

FOR OR AGAINST MR. COLLIN, I TOLD YOU I WAS SPEAKING IN THE MIDDLE.

ALL RIGHT. AND I GO BACK A WAYS ON A COUPLE OF OTHER CASES, MY PRIOR ADDRESS.

BASICALLY, I'M GOING TO START OUT BY SAYING DEVELOPMENT IS GOOD IN THE RIGHT AREA, WITH THE CORRECT CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE RIGHT SAFETY IN PLACE.

460 HAS BEEN A COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC CORRIDOR FOR SINCE 1933.

VERY FEW PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT THAT ROAD USED TO GO TO SAINT LOUIS.

IT'S BEEN HERE FOR A WHILE.

IT'S ALWAYS BEEN COMMERCIAL.

IT'S ALWAYS BEEN TRAFFICKED.

IT'S A HUGE ASSET TO THIS COUNTY.

IF WE CAN, IF WE CAN GET A DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS.

PROBLEM IS, TRAFFIC COMES WITH RISK.

THREE WEEKS AGO, THIS VERY INTERSECTION, YOUNG LADY BY THE NAME OF HANNAH VAUGHN, 25 YEARS OLD, WAS T-BONED AND DIED AT THAT INTERSECTION. THE TRAFFIC AT WAGNER ROAD AND COURTHOUSE IS GETTING OUTRAGEOUS.

THIS YOUNG LADY DIDN'T NEED TO DIE.

THIS INTERSECTION NEEDS TO BE TAKEN CARE OF.

AND I MIGHT BE A LITTLE PREMATURE BY ADDRESSING IT NOW, BECAUSE THIS IS A COMP PLAN CASE.

BUT I'LL BE BACK WHEN THIS BECOMES A ZONING CASE.

AND I WOULD EXPECT THAT THIS BOARD, THIS COMMISSION WORK WITH PETERSBURG.

WE'VE CALLED VDOT.

WE'VE BEEN TOLD THIS IS A PETERSBURG ISSUE.

THEY DON'T WANT TO FIX IT.

THEY DON'T HAVE THE MONEY.

PRINCE GEORGE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

PRINCE GEORGE RESIDENTS ARE DYING AT THAT INTERSECTION.

YOU ALL HAVE LEVERAGE.

I HOPE YOU CAN FIGURE OUT A WAY TO USE IT.

AND CONCLUSION, SEE IF I CAN FIND CONCLUSION.

MY EYES SUCK.

INSTEAD OF INTRODUCING EVEN MORE TRUCK TRAFFIC, MY ASK FOR YOU TONIGHT IS TO EITHER POSTPONE OR DECLINE THIS APPLICATION UNTIL IT CAN BE ADDRESSED AND SAFETY IMPROVED. ISN'T THERE SOME INTER-AGENCY GROUP? SOME COMMISSION? I'VE GOT NO IDEA HOW YOU ALL WORK WITH PETERSBURG.

UM, BUT PLEASE WORK WITH PETERSBURG TO FIX IT ON BEHALF OF PG DRIVERS AND THEIR KIDS.

DO IT FOR MY KIDS. DO IT FOR MY GRANDKIDS.

DO IT FOR THE MEMORY OF THIS YOUNG LADY WHO DIDN'T NEED TO DIE AT THAT INTERSECTION.

I ASK YOU TO EITHER VOTE NO OR POSTPONE IT.

THIS IS A LIFE OR DEATH DECISION.

I'M NOT SURE HOW MANY OF THOSE YOU ALL GET A CHANCE TO DO OVER THE COURSE OF A COMMISSION, BUT I APPRECIATE YOU LISTENING.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

UM GOOD EVENING.

BOARD. MY NAME IS WILLIAM STEELE.

I LIVE AT 9921 COUNTY LINE ROAD DOWN IN SOUTH COUNTY.

FIRST OF ALL, MISS ANDERSON, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

YOU'RE EXACTLY AS I'M THINKING OF.

I DON'T KNOW WHY WE FIND OURSELVES ALWAYS TRYING TO PIECEMEAL THIS.

I AGREE WITH COMPLETELY.

WE NEED TO PUT THIS ON HOLD RIGHT NOW AND DO THE POLICY WORK FOR IT.

LET'S LET THE COMMUNITY HAVE AN IDEA OF, HEY, HOW DO WE WANT THE POLICY IN THIS AREA? HOW DO WE WANT THE POLICY TO WORK? AND THEN LET'S WORRY ABOUT WHAT WE END UP DOING IS PIECEMEALING THESE THINGS OUT OF TIME AND THEN FIGURING, OH, WE'RE NOW WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE POLICY.

BUT DON'T WORRY, IT DOESN'T APPLY TO YOU BECAUSE WE ALREADY GAVE IT TO YOU BEFORE.

I AGREE WITH YOU COMPLETELY.

WE NEED TO BACK UP, LOOK AT THE POLICY FIRST, SEE IF IT FITS THE GENERAL PROGRAM, AND THEN START WORKING ON AGENCIES.

I TRAVEL THAT INTERSECTION EVERY DAY.

IT'S A HECK OF AN INTERSECTION.

WE SEE HOW MUCH BUILDING IS ALREADY UP AT THE WITH ALL THE GAS STATIONS DOWN THERE.

I AGREE WITH YOU COMPLETELY.

LET'S LOOK AT THE POLICY FIRST.

IS THAT WHAT WE WANT OUR COUNTIES TO GO? I DON'T WANT A PETERSBURG CITY.

I DON'T WANT A RICHMOND. I DON'T WANT A CHESTERFIELD.

I WANT A PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, BECAUSE WE LIVE IN AN OPEN SPACE AND WE WANT TO KEEP IT THAT WAY.

SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, YOU'RE SPOT ON AND I HOPE THE BOARD WILL PUT THIS ON HOLD, AS MR. QUIST SAYS, AND LET'S LOOK AT THE POLICY FIRST.

THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE? I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TURN IT BACK OVER TO THE COMMITTEE.

I GUESS I WILL SAY I LIVE LESS THAN A MILE FROM THIS INTERSECTION.

[00:55:03]

WHICH IS WHY IN THE WORK SESSION I HAVE ASKED ABOUT TRAFFIC BECAUSE OF THAT ACCIDENT THAT WAS BROUGHT UP.

BUT AS WE WERE TOLD, WE HAVE A CHANCE TO FIX THAT ISSUE WHEN THE REZONING CASE COMES UP.

AND I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT PIECE HERE AS WE MOVE ON THIS MOTION.

SO I DO MOVE TO FORWARD THIS REQUEST, CPA 2304 TO THE BOARD WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.

AND THE REASON FOR THIS RECOMMENDATION IS THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE ENVISIONED LAND USES FOR THIS SUBJECT, PROPERTY AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES. OKAY.

CALL THE ROLL.

OKAY. OUR NEXT PUBLIC HEARING IS ON SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD DETERMINATION SA 23-01.

ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING ONCE AGAIN.

THIS IS SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD DETERMINATION.

AND THIS IS A DETERMINATION BY THE PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ON WHETHER OR NOT THE LARGE SCALE SOLAR FACILITY PROPOSED BY RWE CLEAN ENERGY IN SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPLICATION, SC 2309 IS IN SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD WITH THE PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

SO IS IT OR IS IT NOT IN SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD? THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP INDICATES THE PROPERTY IS PLANNED FOR RESIDENTIAL OR AGRICULTURAL USES, AND THE COUNTY'S ADOPTED SOLAR ENERGY FACILITY SITING POLICY PROVIDES GUIDANCE FOR THE SITING OF NEW FACILITIES WITHIN THE COUNTY.

THE VISUALLY, THE TOTAL AREA WITHIN A BUFFER AREA FOR THIS PROJECT WOULD TOTAL APPROXIMATELY 506 ACRES, AND THE TOTAL ACREAGE OF THE PARCELS INVOLVED IS OVER IS 1270 ACRES APPROXIMATELY.

THE PROPERTY IS ON SEVERAL TAX PARCELS, AND THIS IS LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF PUMPHOUSE ROAD AND THWEATT DRIVE.

THIS IS A MAP OF THOSE PARCELS.

AND YOU CAN SEE THAT PUMPHOUSE ROAD GOING THROUGH THE MIDDLE.

AND THE REST OF IT IS OUTLINED IN RED.

IT'S NORTH OF THWEATT DRIVE.

THIS IS A ZONING MAP SHOWING THAT THE ENTIRE PROPERTY AND THE AREA AROUND IT IS ZONED RA, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL.

THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW.

YOU CAN SEE THERE'S TREES AND FIELDS.

THIS IS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

SO THE PART OF THE PROPERTY ON THE WEST SIDE, OR MOST OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS ON THE WEST SIDE OF PUMPHOUSE ROAD, IS PLANNED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE.

AND THE PROPERTY ON THE EAST AND TO THE EAST IS PLANNED FOR AGRICULTURAL USE.

AND YOU CAN SEE THE PRINCE GEORGE PLANNING AREA LINE IN PURPLE.

SPLITTING THE PROPERTY OR PORTION OF THE PROPERTY ON BOTH SIDES OF THAT PLANNING AREA LINE.

THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL MAP OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROJECT PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.

YOU CAN SEE THE. THE SOLAR PANELS ARE PROPOSED TO BE ON BOTH SIDES OF PUMPHOUSE ROAD SOME DISTANCE, QUITE SOME DISTANCE FROM THE ROAD.

THERE WOULD BE TREES SURROUNDING IT, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO INTO DETAIL ABOUT THE SITE LAYOUT WE'RE GOING TO.

FOR THIS DISCUSSION, WE'RE FOCUSED ON A FEW THINGS THAT I'LL GO OVER, BUT AGAIN, THEIR GOAL IS TO DEVELOP A LARGE SCALE SOLAR ENERGY FACILITY ON APPROXIMATELY 506 ACRES OF ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, ON A TOTAL PARCEL AREA OF 1270 ACRES.

SO THOSE 506 ACRES THAT WOULD INCLUDE SOLAR PANELS AND ALL OTHER ON SITE INFRASTRUCTURE INSIDE OF THE REQUIRED SCREENING AND SCREENED AND AND BUFFER AREA. SO THAT BASICALLY MEANS TREES BLOCKING VIEW OF THE FACILITY.

SO THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPLICATION TO MAKE THE THE REQUEST.

AND THIS IS BASICALLY THE FIRST PART OF TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS ABOUT THIS PROJECT.

AND THAT'S BECAUSE THE CODE OF VIRGINIA REQUIRES A DETERMINATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON WHETHER OR NOT A PROPOSED FACILITY IS IN SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD, SUBSTANTIAL

[01:00:07]

THIS IS NOT A COMMON TYPE OF REVIEW, BUT THIS TYPE OF REVIEW APPLIES TO OTHER MAJOR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES, AND CERTAIN THINGS ARE EXEMPTED FROM THAT.

BUT THIS IS NOT A COMMON ONE.

IT'S IT APPLIES TO SOLAR FACILITY AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE.

THE SUBSTANTIAL CORE DETERMINATION AGAIN, THIS IS ABOUT THIS SOLAR FACILITY PROJECT.

SO IF THIS PROJECT IS FOUND IN SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD IN PART ONE, BASICALLY THEN A SEPARATE PUBLIC HEARING WOULD BE SCHEDULED TO CONSIDER THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST PART TWO. SO THAT WOULD COVER ANY DETAILS NOT COVERED THAT WE DON'T REALLY DISCUSS TONIGHT IN THIS REPORT THAT WOULD COME UP AT A FUTURE PUBLIC HEARING.

PLANNING STAFF REVIEWED THIS REQUEST.

THIS PROPOSED FACILITY.

SO WE USE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO START.

AND SO AS WE COVERED, PART OF THE PROPERTY IS PLANNED FOR RESIDENTIAL USES AND PART OF THE PROPERTY IS PLANNED FOR AGRICULTURE USES.

IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THERE ARE NOT THERE'S NOT A SEPARATE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY FOR SOLAR FACILITIES.

IN THE DESCRIPTION OF RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURE AND COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL.

NONE OF THOSE DESCRIPTIONS MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT SOLAR FACILITIES.

SO OVERALL, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP ON ITS OWN DOESN'T PROVIDE ENOUGH GUIDANCE ON WHICH TO BASE LAND USE DECISION ABOUT ALLOWING A SOLAR FACILITY IN THE COUNTY.

AND SO FOR THAT REASON, THE BOARD ADOPTED A SOLAR ENERGY FACILITY SITING POLICY TO SET OUT A LOT OF GUIDANCE ON MAKING THESE DECISIONS ABOUT THESE FACILITIES AND THAT RELATE.

SO IN 2020, THEY ADOPTED THAT POLICY.

AND IN 2022 IS FORMALLY ADDED TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SO THAT YOU CAN USE THAT FOR MAKING YOUR DECISION ABOUT A IS IT A SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD WITH THE COMP PLAN.

SO BASICALLY, IF IT'S IN SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD ACCORDING TO THIS POLICY, THEN THEN THAT HELPS MAKE THAT DECISION.

SO THE SITING POLICY COVERS HIGH HIGH LEVEL DETAILS AND IT COVERS SITE DESIGN DETAILS LIKE BUFFERING AND SO ON.

SO TONIGHT WE'RE JUST TRYING TO FOCUS ON THE HIGH LEVEL THE HIGH LEVEL STUFF.

SO IF THE COMMISSION APPROVES BASICALLY APPROVES THIS REQUEST TONIGHT, THEN ALL OTHER DETAILS THAT ARE IN THAT POLICY WOULD BE CONSIDERED AND COVERED DURING THAT SECOND PART TWO PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION.

SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO FOCUS ON TONIGHT IS THE THESE HIGH LEVEL ITEMS. SO WE'RE JUST GOING TO GO THROUGH THEM ONE BY ONE AND LOOK AT THE WORDING AND THE POLICY AND LOOK AT WHETHER THIS PROJECT MEETS THAT THAT GUIDANCE. SO NUMBER ONE IS ABOUT THE COUNTY'S ACREAGE LIMIT IN THE POLICY.

IT SAYS THE COUNTY DESIRES AN UPPER LIMIT OF WHICH WORKS OUT TO BE 4603 AND ONE HALF ACRES, SO THAT THAT'S THE UPPER LIMIT THAT IS DESIRED FOR THE TOTAL LAND ACREAGE OF THE COUNTY, WHICH IS USED FOR SOLAR FACILITIES.

AND THAT DOESN'T THAT EXCLUDES THE M THREE ZONING DISTRICT.

BUT SO SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS PROJECT, DOES THIS PROPOSED FACILITY COMPLY WITH THAT GUIDANCE.

AND SO THAT'S GOING TO BE UP TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

SO THE CURRENT TOTAL LAND ACREAGE APPROVED FOR SOLAR FACILITIES IN THE COUNTY, THE TOTAL THAT WE'RE TRACKING IS THAT THERE'S ABOUT 4120 ACRES.

SO IF THIS PROJECT IS APPROVED WITH THAT 506 ACRES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THEN THAT WOULD RESULT IN THAT UPPER LIMIT OF 4603 ACRES GOING OVER THAT LIMIT BY 22.3 ACRES.

SO THAT'S NOT.

SIGNIFICANTLY OVER LIMIT OR IT'S REALLY UP TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

IT'S OVER THE LIMIT.

SO IT DOESN'T IT DOESN'T CLEARLY MEET THAT POINT OF GUIDANCE.

NUMBER TWO MAIN ITEM IS THE MINIMUM TOTAL PARCEL ACREAGE.

AND THAT'S JUST HAVING A MINIMUM ACREAGE PARCEL SIZE FOR TO EVEN CONSIDER IT OF BEING OVER 70 ACRES OR 70 ACRES OR MORE.

AND THIS IS THIS IS OVER THAT SO THAT THAT MEETS THAT PART OF THE POLICY.

THE NEXT ITEM IS THAT THE POLICY SAYS TO AVOID THE PRINCE GEORGE PLANNING AREA.

THE EXACT WORDING IS SITING OF OF OF A FACILITY WITHIN THE PRINCE GEORGE PLANNING AREA SHOULD BE AVOIDED.

SO THIS WHETHER OR NOT THIS FACILITY MEETS OUR REQUIREMENT THAT'S THAT FALLS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DETERMINE THAT THIS PROJECT IS ON THAT BOUNDARY.

AS WE SAW, IT'S ON THE BOUNDARY OF THE PLANNING AREA.

AND ACCORDING TO THE APPLICATION MATERIALS, IT WOULD IT WOULD HAVE APPROXIMATELY 35% OF THE ACREAGE IN THE RURAL CONSERVATION AREA ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE PLANNING AREA.

[01:05:02]

SO WHETHER OR NOT THAT CONSTITUTES AVOIDING THE PLANNING AREA, THAT'S UP TO THE PLANNING PLANNING COMMISSION.

THE NEXT ITEM THAT WE FOCUSED ON FOR THIS REVIEW IS THE WHETHER OR NOT IT'S OUTSIDE PUBLIC FUTURE PUBLIC SERVICE AREAS.

AND SO THE WORDING IN THE PLAN IS LOCATION OF SOLAR FACILITIES WITHIN AREAS PLANNED TO BE SERVICED BY PUBLIC WATER OR WASTEWATER, AS INDICATED IN THE MOST CURRENT WATER AND WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN WILL BE DISCOURAGED AND WILL NOT BE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.

SO THAT LANGUAGE IS VERY SPECIFIC, BUT IN THIS CASE, THIS THIS PROJECT IS NOT IN ONE OF THOSE AREAS.

SO IT'S NOT PLANNED TO BE SERVED BY PUBLIC WATER OR SEWER LINES.

SO IT MEETS THAT PART OF THE POLICY.

THE NEXT PART IS ABOUT FLAT LAND AND THE THE THE TO MINIMIZE GRADING.

SO WITH THE POLICY SAYS IS MASS GRADING OF SITES SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE.

DEVELOPMENT OF AREAS WITH STEEP CONTOURS SHALL BE AVOIDED.

SO ACCORDING TO THE APPLICATION MATERIALS, THERE IS MINIMAL, IF ANY, GRADING NECESSARY TO DEVELOP THE PROJECT DUE TO THE RELATIVE FLATNESS OF THE LAND.

SO IT APPEARS TO ME THAT PART OF THE POLICY.

AND THEN NUMBER SIX THAT WE'RE FOCUSING ON TONIGHT AVOID KEY PUBLIC RESOURCES.

SO SITES LOCATED NEAR RECREATIONAL, CULTURAL OR HISTORICAL HISTORIC RESOURCES SHOULD BE AVOIDED.

SO THE APPLICANT IN THEIR APPLICATION MATERIALS PROVIDED INFORMATION TO INDICATE THAT THIS IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN THE VIEW SHED OF ANY SCENIC, CULTURAL OR RECREATIONAL RESOURCES. THEY USED A ONLINE DATABASE CALLED THE VIRGINIA CULTURAL RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM TO CONFIRM THAT THERE ARE NO PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RESOURCES INSIDE OF THE SITE, AND THEN WITHIN A HALF MILE DISTANCE OF THE SITE, THERE WERE NO ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES IDENTIFIED IN THAT DATABASE, AND OF THE FOUR ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES IN THAT DATABASE WITHIN THE BUFFER AREA, NONE OF THOSE ARE ELIGIBLE AS FOR AS NATIONAL FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC RESOURCES OR AS A VIRGINIA LANDMARK.

SO NOTHING OF THAT NATURE ELIGIBLE FOR THAT IN THE SEARCH AREA THAT THEY USED.

SO IT APPEARS TO ME THAT PART OF THE POLICY.

SO THAT'S SIX ITEMS THAT WE WENT THROUGH.

AND THEN AGAIN, THERE'S MORE IN THE THE COUNTY'S SOLAR ENERGY FACILITY SITING POLICY, BUT IT GOES INTO MORE DETAIL THAT REALLY YOU HAVE TO TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THE THE SITE LAYOUT AND ALL THAT TO REALLY UNDERSTAND.

AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE RESERVING FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION REVIEW.

WE'RE JUST TRYING TO SEE IF IT GETS, IF IT'S IN SUBSTANTIAL COURT OR NOT.

UH, SO, YEAH.

OF THOSE SIX ITEMS THAT WE WENT THROUGH, IT'S CLEARLY YES FOR FOUR, AND TO BE DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR TWO OF THOSE.

SO IT'S UP TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

UM, THIS WAS PROPERLY ADVERTISED.

THAT INCLUDES LETTERS TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS, A NOTICE IN THE NEWSPAPER AND A SIGN ON THE PROPERTY.

THERE WERE PUBLIC COMMENTS.

I'VE LISTED THOSE THERE FOR YOU THAT WE RECEIVED PRIOR TO THIS PUBLIC HEARING.

AND THEY'VE BEEN PROVIDED AND THEY'VE BEEN PRINTED AND PROVIDED FOR YOU BEFORE THE MEETING.

SO AS FAR AS STAFF'S CONCLUSION ON THIS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD CONSIDER WHETHER THIS IS A SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

PRIMARILY, YOU HAVE THE GUIDANCE IN THIS, THE SITING POLICY TO HELP YOU WITH THAT.

OF THE SIX GUIDELINES, AGAIN, THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH FOUR AND PARTLY CONSISTENT WITH TWO.

STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDER THOSE GUIDELINES IN MAKING YOUR DECISION.

THE TWO THAT ARE IN QUESTION ARE RIGHT THERE FOR YOU, WITH THE LANGUAGE FROM THE PLAN OR THE LANGUAGE FROM THE POLICY.

SO THIS WILL BE A PUBLIC HEARING.

BUT WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT AND THEY WANT TO PRESENT SOME INFORMATION.

SO I'M GOING TO STEP ASIDE FOR THEM TO DO THAT.

AND THEN IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THEM PLEASE ASK THEM AT THAT TIME.

AND THEN WE'LL MOVE TOWARD A PUBLIC HEARING AFTER THAT.

GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU SO MUCH, MADAM CHAIRMAN, AND THE REST OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR ALLOWING US TO SPEAK TONIGHT.

WE PUT TOGETHER A PRESENTATION, BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE THING IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT WE DO JUST WANT TO FOCUS ON THE SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD FOR THE PROJECT FOR BAKER'S POND SOLAR.

SO IF YOU WANT TO. SO I THINK THAT YOU HAVE A LET'S TRY IT.

OH I DO, OH THANK YOU.

[01:10:03]

YES. SO WE ARE REQUESTING A DETERMINATION THAT BAKER'S POND SOLAR PROJECT IS IN SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD WITH THE PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE 22-32 PROCESS IN VIRGINIA. OH MY GOSH.

UH OH. I'LL DO IT FOR YOU.

OKAY. JUST A QUICK BACKGROUND ON RWE.

WE ARE THE FOURTH LARGEST RENEWABLES COMPANY IN THE US.

WE HAVE ABOUT 1500 EMPLOYEES RIGHT NOW IN THE UNITED STATES.

EIGHT GIGAWATTS OF OPERATING ASSETS AND ABOUT 24GW IN THE PIPELINE.

THIS IS SOLAR, WIND AND BATTERY STORAGE.

YOU. UH, YOU CAN KEEP GOING.

WE'LL GO THROUGH THIS VERY QUICKLY.

JUST A BRIEF PROJECT OVERVIEW.

SO IT IS A PROPOSED 100 MEGAWATT SOLAR FACILITY LOCATED IN SOUTHWEST PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY.

AS YOU SAW THERE, IT'S AT THE INTERSECTION OF PRINCE GEORGE DRIVE AND THWEATT AND BISECTED BY PUMPHOUSE ROAD.

IT'S APPROXIMATELY 1260 ACRES.

THE CURRENT USE IS FORESTED AND AGRICULTURAL LAND.

IT IS CURRENTLY BEING MANAGED FOR COMMERCIAL TIMBER PRODUCTION OR BEING FARMED.

THE TOTAL LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE AREA THAT'S INCLUDING PANELS, ROADS, FENCING, STORMWATER BASINS AND THAT 50 FOOT VEGETATIVE BUFFER, IS APPROXIMATELY 506 ACRES.

THE MAJORITY OF THE SITE IS OR DOES HAVE THAT PLANTED BUFFER AS IT IS BEING USED FOR COMMERCIAL TIMBER.

SO THAT WOULD IT'S ALMOST ENTIRELY COVERS THE PROJECT BOUNDARY.

AND AT THE END OF THE LIFE IT CAN BE REVERTED BACK TO COMMERCIAL FORESTRY OR USE FOR AGRICULTURE, DEPENDING ON WHAT IS THE LANDOWNER OR WHAT THEY WOULD PREFER TO DO WITH IT.

AH JUST A VERY BRIEF PROJECT TIMELINE.

AND IF WE WOULD ASSUMING THAT WE WOULD HAVE FULL SCP APPROVAL BY THE END OF THE YEAR, THE TARGETED COMMERCIAL OPERATION DATE WOULD BE Q3 OF 2026. THERE IS A QUITE LENGTHY PROCESS FOR WHICH IS WHY WE'RE JUST COMING HERE NOW.

WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE INTERCONNECTION PROCESS.

THERE IS AN INTERCONNECTION SERVICE AGREEMENT THAT HAS BEEN ISSUED, BUT THE STATE PROCESS FOR THE PBR, WHICH IS THE PERMIT BY RULE AS WELL AS THE STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN, TAKES ABOUT 12 TO 18 MONTHS, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE COMING HERE NOW AND BASED ON THE TARGET COD.

I KNOW WE ARE FOCUSED ON THE SUBSTANTIAL CORE, BUT I REALLY QUICKLY JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE KEY ITEMS FOR ECONOMIC BENEFIT TO THE COUNTY FOR THIS SOLAR PROJECT IN PARTICULAR.

OVER THE LIFETIME, IT'S APPROXIMATELY 40 YEAR LIFE OF THE PROJECT RIGHT NOW FOR ITS CURRENT USE, IT'S ABOUT $1.1 MILLION THAT THE COUNTY WOULD RECEIVE IN TAX BENEFITS IF THE COUNTY WOULD, UM CURRENTLY, THE REVENUE SHARE AGREEMENT HAS NOT BEEN ADOPTED BY THE COUNTY, BUT IF IT WAS, IT WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY $9.9 MILLION OF TAX REVENUES OVER THAT SAME TIME FRAME.

AND THEN THERE ALSO WOULD BE A SITING AGREEMENT COMPONENT THAT THAT WOULD BE NEGOTIATED PRIOR TO THE PROJECT BEING CONSTRUCTED.

RIGHT NOW, WE WOULD PROPOSE ROUGHLY $3 MILLION, AND THAT WOULD BE BEFORE THE PROJECT WOULD EVEN HIT COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS DATES.

THAT WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL $3 MILLION IN UPFRONT PAYMENTS PRIOR TO OPERATIONS OF THE PROJECT.

YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT ONE.

THERE IS A LIKE I MENTIONED, A QUITE LENGTHY PJM INTERCONNECTION PROCESS FOR THESE PROJECTS.

OUR PROJECT WAS ACTUALLY ISSUED AN INTERCONNECTION SERVICE AGREEMENT IN JULY OF 2023.

THERE IS $0 NETWORK UPGRADES ALLOCATED TO OUR Q POSITION, WHICH IS QUITE RARE IN VIRGINIA.

THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF PROJECTS THAT ARE GOING THROUGH THE INTERCONNECTION PROCESS RIGHT NOW.

AND SO WE WERE ABLE TO HAVE FAVORABLE INTERCONNECTION RESULTS, WHICH ONLY INCREASES THE VIABILITY OF THIS PROJECT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE WITH PJM AND INTERCONNECTION.

OKAY. SORRY, THAT'S A LITTLE HARD TO SEE WITH THE LIGHTS, BUT IN THE CURRENT Q AND PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, THERE IS ONE PROJECT THAT IS IN SERVICE AND THAT IS THE FORT POWATAN PROJECT.

THOSE NEXT TO THE TWO ROWS THAT ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN ARE OUR PROJECT.

WE DID HAVE AN INTERCONNECTION SERVICE AGREEMENT ISSUED.

THERE IS A BATTERY STORAGE CUE POSITION THAT WE SUBMITTED, BUT THIS IS JUST FOR THE 100MW OF STORAGE OR SORRY, 100MW OF

[01:15:08]

THEY WOULD NOT BE ISSUING AN I AT THE EARLIEST UNTIL Q4 OF 2027, AND THEIR COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS DATE WOULD NOT BE UNTIL THE END OF THIS DECADE. AND THEIR NETWORK UPGRADES ARE ALSO TO BE DETERMINED JUST BASED ON THE NUMBER OF PROJECTS THAT HAVE ENTERED THE QUEUE.

THIS COULD BE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT HAVE BEEN ALLOCATED, BUT THERE JUST ISN'T ANY CERTAINTY.

LIKE OUR PROJECT, WHICH ALREADY HAS ITS INTERCONNECTION SERVICE AGREEMENT ISSUED.

JUST FURTHER CONFIRMING THAT THE VIABILITY OF THE PROJECT.

SO WE DID WANT TO TOUCH UPON THE SIX CRITERIA FOR THE SOLAR SITING POLICY.

THE FIRST ONE IS THAT THE ACREAGE CAP, THE CURRENT APPLICATION PROPOSES THE 500 506 ACRES, WHICH IS, LIKE MR. GRAVES MENTIONED, 22 ACRES ABOVE THE ACREAGE CAP.

THERE WAS WHEN WE SUBMITTED OUR APPLICATION, IT WAS APPROXIMATELY 3.7 ACRES, ACRES OVER THE CAP.

AND I BELIEVE THERE WAS ONE PROJECT THAT WAS ADJUSTED BASED ON THEIR APPLICATION.

SO WE ARE ROUGHLY 22 ACRES OVER THE CAP, WHICH I KNOW IS IT'S NOT MUCH, BUT STILL TECHNICALLY OVER WHEN YOU ARE CONSIDERING, JUST FOR EXAMPLE, THE FORT POWHATAN PROJECT, THEIR CONSIDERATION FOR THE LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE WAS FOR THE FULL PARCEL ACREAGE.

SO IT'S APPROXIMATELY 3080 ACRES OF THE 4600 ACRES AND THE ACREAGE ALLOWANCE, WHICH IS THE ENTIRE PARCEL ACREAGE, AND NOT WHAT WOULD BE A PART OF THE LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE OR WHAT IS UNDER PANEL.

SO IT IS A DIFFERENT CRITERIA THAT WAS CONSIDERED WHEN THE FORT POWHATAN PROJECT WAS APPROVED.

AND IT WOULD BE JUST FOR INFORMATION 330 ACRES UNDER PANEL.

SO BASED ON THE PRINCE GEORGE PLANNING AREA VERSUS THE RURAL CONSERVATION AREA, IT WOULD BE ABOUT 220 ACRES UNDER PANEL IN THAT PRINCE GEORGE PLANNING AREA. AND THEN AS MR. GRAVES MENTIONED, THE WE DO ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE 70 CONTIGUOUS ACRES FOR ALL OF OUR PARCELS.

AND THE NEXT TOPIC THAT MR. GRAVES BROUGHT UP THAT WE WOULD BE SOMEWHAT IN ACCORD WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IS THAT APPROXIMATELY 35% OF THE TOTAL ACREAGE OF THE PROJECT BOUNDARY IS WITHIN THAT RURAL CONSERVATION AREA.

THE REMAINING ACREAGE JUST OUTSIDE, RIGHT ACROSS THE BORDER IN THE PRINCE GEORGE PLANNING AREA.

THE CURRENT FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN.

THERE IS A BOTH OF THE PARCELS THAT ARE BEING USED FOR COMMERCIAL TIMBER ARE ACTUALLY CONSIDERED RESIDENTIAL, BUT THEY ARE CURRENTLY COMMERCIAL USE AND AGRICULTURAL.

THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY PLANNED SEWER OR WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE IN THIS LOCATION, SO EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE BEEN ZONED FOR FUTURE RESIDENTIAL, THERE ACTUALLY IS NO PLANNED SEWER OR WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE IN THIS LOCATION.

UM, SO WE DID DO AN ANALYSIS ON THIS.

IF SO, LIKE I MENTIONED, NO WATER SEWER EXTENSION.

SO WE DID JUST DO A QUICK ANALYSIS BASED ON THE CRITERIA THAT ARE AS A PART OF THE THIS POLICY FOR THE RURAL CONSERVATION AREA, GO INTO THE NEXT. UM, SO THE CRITERIA FOR SITE IDENTIFICATION WE USED LOCATED IN A RURAL CONSERVATION AREA, CONTIGUOUS PARCELS BETWEEN ABOUT 500 TO 1000 BUILDABLE ACRES AND ALONG A 115 KV LINE OR GREATER.

SO JUST FOR FOR A PROJECT TO MAKE ECONOMIC SENSE, PARTICULARLY FOR THE BENEFIT TO THE COUNTY, HAVING A PROJECT THAT'S ROUGHLY 100MW OR GREATER REALLY DOES PROVIDE THE FULL ECONOMIC BENEFIT THAT THAT THE COUNTIES CAN GET SPECIFICALLY FROM THE SITING AGREEMENT AND THE TAX REVENUES.

SO WE DID A QUICK ANALYSIS, AND THERE ARE BASED ON THIS CRITERIA FOR ELIGIBLE SITES THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE FOR UTILITY SCALE SOLAR IN THE RURAL CONSERVATION AREA.

IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT THE FIRST ONE IS OBVIOUSLY THE FORT POWHATAN PROJECT.

THAT SITE, I BELIEVE, ON A 230 KV LINE.

[01:20:02]

THIS PROJECT AREA WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY OR 6800 ACRES.

HOWEVER, THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY IS VERY CLOSE TO THE FORT POWATHAN PROJECT.

IT'S LESS THAN TWO MILES.

THIS ALSO BORDERS THE JAMES RIVER, SO THAT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT STREAM AND WETLAND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.

AND AS A PART OF BEING IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED.

AND IF YOU WOULD GO TO THE NEXT ONE, PLEASE, YOU CAN SEE THAT THIS SITE HAS SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS AND SLOPE ASSOCIATED.

SO NOT A GREAT SITE THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE FOR BUILDABILITY, PARTICULARLY FOR STORMWATER AND AND WETLAND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.

AND THE THIRD SITE, IT'S ABOUT 960 ACRES.

I WAS SPLIT BETWEEN THREE PARCELS.

THAT DOES HAVE INTERCONNECTION GOING THROUGH IT, BUT THIS SITE ALSO WOULD NOT MAKE SENSE FOR SEVERAL REASONS.

IT'S APPROXIMATELY LESS THAN HALF A MILE FROM THE TOWN OF TEMPLETON.

IT'S ALSO BISECTED BY A WETLAND.

SO THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT REQUIREMENTS AND ADDITIONAL PERMITS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED IF YOU WERE CROSSING A WETLAND.

THERE IS ALSO A FLOODPLAIN THAT IS ADJACENT.

SO JUST HOW THE SITE IS BROKEN UP FROM A BUILDABILITY STANDPOINT, AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL PERMITTING AND WANTING TO AVOID THE WETLANDS.

THIS SITE ALSO WOULD NOT MAKE ANY SENSE BASED ON THE CRITERIA.

AND SO IF YOU GO TO THE LAST ONE, THIS IS OUR SITE THAT IS LOCATED IN THE RURAL CONSERVATION AREA.

IT'S A LITTLE OVER 600 ACRES JUST BASED ON THE BUILDABILITY.

IT IS WHY WE SELECTED ADDITIONAL SITES THAT WERE THAT DO GO INTO THE PRINCE GEORGE PLANNING AREA WHEN THIS SITE WAS ORIGINALLY SITED BACK IN 2017.

WHEN DEVELOPMENT STARTED, THIS POLICY HAD NOT BEEN PUT IN PLACE YET.

SO WE HAD ATTEMPTED MADE A BEST EFFORTS FOR KEEPING THIS IN THE RURAL CONSERVATION AREA, BUT JUST FOR SITE CONTINUITY AND TO BUILD A FULL SITE THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE SENSE FROM A UTILITY SCALE SOLAR STANDPOINT.

THIS WAS THE OPTION THAT WE HAD.

AND THEN THE LAST TWO PIECES OF THE SITING POLICY.

IT IS A VERY FLAT SITE.

WE ARE HAPPY TO PROVIDE YOU WITH A TOPO MAP THAT WOULD SHOW THE CONTOURS.

IT'S IT'S SO THERE WOULD BE VERY LITTLE GRADING REQUIRED.

ANY SLOPES WOULD BE AVOIDED FOR BUILDING OR PUTTING PANELS ON.

AND THEN SITES LOCATED NEAR RECREATIONAL, CULTURAL, HISTORIC RESOURCES SHOULD BE AVOIDED.

WE DID DO A DESKTOP ANALYSIS.

THERE ARE NO PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RESOURCES PRESENT WITHIN THE SITE, AND A FULL CULTURAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCE STUDY WILL NEED TO BE COMPLETED AS A PART OF THE VIRGINIA DEQ PROCESS. SO THE STATE PROCESS TO CONFIRM THAT THERE ARE NO SITES AND TO DO A FULL CHECK.

BUT THIS DATABASE, THERE ARE NO RESOURCES THAT WERE IDENTIFIED.

I MEAN, WE DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE REST OF THESE.

THIS IS A BIT MORE ABOUT THE SITE ITSELF.

THANK YOU.

YES, I HAVE ONE QUESTION.

I KNOW IN HERE IT MENTIONED JOBS, BUT THEN EVENTUALLY THERE WILL BE, I GUESS, MONITORING FROM TEXAS AS OPPOSED TO LOCALLY.

SO IS THERE A REASON FOR THAT AS OPPOSED TO KEEPING JOBS LOCAL? SO THE MONITORING CENTER OR MONITORING CENTER IS OUR LOCATION WHERE IT MONITORS ALL OF OUR SOLAR PROJECTS.

SO IT'S A CENTRALIZED LOCATION WHERE WE HAVE 24/SEVEN STAFF THAT ARE LOOKING AT THE WIND, SOLAR AND BATTERY STORAGE FUNCTIONS OF THE PROJECTS.

SO IT'S JUST A WAY TO KEEP THIS ALL CENTRALIZED.

THERE WILL BE FULL TIME STAFF AVAILABLE IF SOMETHING IS IF THERE ARE ANY ALARMS OR ANY SENSORS THAT WOULD GO OFF THAT WOULD NEED ATTENTION. BUT IT'S JUST THE TEXAS FACILITY IS WHERE ALL OF OUR PROJECTS ARE MONITORED.

AND HOW MANY FULL TIME JOBS IS THAT APPROXIMATELY HERE? IT WOULD BE 2 TO 4.

ANYONE ELSE.

. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ANYONE. SINCE THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, WE ASK ANYONE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST TO COME TO THE

[01:25:05]

GOOD EVENING AGAIN, MADAM CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, AGAIN MY NAME IS WILLIAM STEELE, COUNTY LINE ROAD.

ROUGH GETTING OLD. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

I STAND UP AND ABSOLUTELY ASK YOU TO REJECT THIS SPECIAL EXEMPTION TO THE COUNTY SOLAR.

CURRENT SOLAR POLICY AND ZONING PLANS.

AND NOT BUILD THIS SITE ON BAKER'S LAWN.

THE PROPOSED SITE EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE ACREAGE FOR SAILING SOLAR SITES, CONTRARY TO PARAGRAPH FOUR OF THE COUNTY SOLAR POLICY.

THE COUNTY SET A LIMIT OF 4600 IN 03, OR 2.74%.

THEY WANT TO INCREASE IT BY ONE.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I SAT WITH MS..

WITH THE COMMISSION BEFORE AND ALL THE PUBLIC HEARINGS.

WHEN WE DEVELOPED THIS SOLAR POLICY.

IT WAS A BIG ARGUMENT ABOUT A MAXIMUM LIMIT.

MOST OF THE CITIZENS DO NOT WANT IT AT ALL.

IT CAME UP TO A COMPROMISE OF 2.4% OR 2.74.

IT SET THERE FOR A REASON.

AND TO SAY YES, WE WILL EXCEED.

THAT IS REALLY A SLAP IN THE FACE TO THE COMMUNITY.

WHEN WE SAID, THAT'S TOO MUCH, LET'S NOT EXCEED IT AT ALL.

SO THAT ALONE SHOULD BE ENOUGH FOR YOU TO SAY NO, IT DOESN'T MATCH THE POLICY.

SO WE ASK YOU TO THINK ABOUT THAT.

AS PART OF THE PROPOSED SITE IS BUILT WITHIN THE PG COUNTY CONSERVATION AND PLANNING AREA.

AGAIN IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2-2A OF THE SOLAR POLICY.

AGAIN, SOMETHING WE SPENT A LOT ON WITH JULIE WALTON AND HER GROUP WHEN JULIE WALTON WAS BLESSED WITH US.

WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME TO DEVELOP THIS POLICY TO COME NOW AND FOR A COMPANY TO SAY, OH, NEVER MIND.

YEAH, WE DON'T LIVE HERE. WE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH PG COUNTY.

LET'S GO AHEAD AND ASK YOU TO VIOLATE THAT POLICY.

THAT'S JUST CANNOT HAPPEN.

THE POLICY IS SET FOR A REASON.

LET'S DO IT. LET'S KEEP TO THE POLICY.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS WE DON'T WANT ANY MORE SOLAR IN PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY.

WE JUST DON'T WANT IT. AND END OF STORY, WE HAVE ENOUGH OTHER PROBLEMS NOW.

WE ALREADY SOLVED THE HORRIBLE DEBACLE THAT REEVES ROAD WAS.

WE SAW THE BIG ISSUES THAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN ON THE ARWOOD ROAD SITE, AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN.

NO, WE NEED TO STOP THIS NOW.

BOARD, I'M ASKING YOU TO PLEASE COMPLY WITH COUNTY CODE SECTION 9.090.1.

THAT CODE SAYS YOU MUST BE ABLE TO ARTICULATE HOW GRANTING AN EXCEPTION TO POLICY, HOW THAT WOULD PROMOTE THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE, MORALS, ORDER, COMFORT, CONVENIENCE, APPEARANCE AND PROSPERITY TO THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COUNTY.

I HAVE NOT HEARD ONE PERSON SAY, HEY, THIS IS WHAT WILL BENEFIT THE COUNTY IF WE VIOLATE THE POLICY.

PLEASE, WE HAVE A POLICY FOR A REASON.

WE NEED TO KEEP THE POLICY.

DON'T ALLOW US TO GO AHEAD AND EXCEED THE POLICIES.

AGAIN, THIS IS FOR THE TO THE THE SIX THINGS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT.

IF WE'RE GOING TO START TALKING ABOUT REVENUES AND ALL THE BENEFITS THAT THE COMPANY WAS ALLOWED TO SPEAK TO YOU ABOUT, EVEN THOUGH I THOUGHT FROM WHAT I HEARD, WE'RE NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT. I RESERVE MY RIGHT TO GO AHEAD AND TALK ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE THE ECONOMIC IMPACT THAT THEY SAY WILL AFFECT THE COUNTY HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVEN.

IT DOES NOT HAPPEN.

SO, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I ASK YOU, PLEASE REJECT THIS AND STOP IT IN THE BUD.

AND LET'S NOT WASTE OUR TIME GOING FURTHER WITH IT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.

GOOD EVENING. I'M AARON STORY.

13, SIX, TEN PUMPHOUSE DRIVE.

ACCORDING TO THE MAP THAT I GOT, WHICH, IF Y'ALL COULD BRING IT UP ON THE SCREEN, IS THE ONE THAT WAS MAILED TWO WEEKS AGO.

THE MIDDLE OF THE RED AREA.

THE BOX DIRECTLY IN THE MIDDLE IS MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE WILL BE COMPLETELY LANDLOCKED WITH SOLAR PANELS.

THERE ARE SIX HOMES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

NOT ALL INDIVIDUALS ARE HERE TODAY, BUT I AM.

THE NUMBER ONE FOR ME.

IT CREATES A WELL-ESTABLISHED PUBLIC NUISANCE.

NUMBER TWO, WILDLIFE WOULD JUST DIMINISH.

I DIDN'T MOVE TO PRINCE GEORGE TO BE IN THE MIDDLE OF A SOLAR FARM.

OUR PROPERTY VALUE WOULD DIMINISH COMPLETELY.

WE COULDN'T SELL PERIOD.

THEY SAY THAT THE LAND IS FLAT.

WELL, IF YOU NOTICE, ON THE PUMPHOUSE ROAD SIDE TOWARD THWEATT, THERE'S A LITTLE BLUE LINE.

THAT LITTLE BLUE LINE IS A CREEK ABOUT MAYBE 200 YARDS FROM MY HOUSE, WHICH FEEDS MY, WELL, 16 FOOT DEEP. IN A HEAVY RAIN RUNOFF WILL CONTAMINATE MY WELL.

[01:30:04]

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

IT'S ME AGAIN, KATHY BENNETT, ARWOOD ROAD.

I DID ATTEND THE MEETING THAT WAS AT THE LIBRARY, AND I WAS THE ONE THAT SPOKE UP AS MUCH, AND I CALL HIM MR. HOLLYWOOD. HE DEGRADED ME, PUT PRETTY MUCH BELITTLED ME, WAS RUDE TO ME, AND I DIDN'T CARE FOR IT AT ALL.

THAT REALLY TICKED ME OFF.

FIRST OF ALL, BECAUSE I LIVE IN THIS COUNTY AND WHETHER Y'ALL KNOW IT OR NOT, THIS ENTIRE COUNTY HAS HISTORY.

IT'S HISTORIC.

WHEN I LIVED IN CROSSPOINT, WE ACTUALLY FOUND A CEMETERY OF OFFICERS THAT THEY HAD DAMAGED THEIR HEADSTONES AND EVERYTHING.

WE WENT TO THE COUNTY, TRIED TO GET THEM TO FIX IT.

WE ENDED UP JUST PUTTING STRING AROUND IT, TRYING TO KEEP THE KIDS OUT OF IT FROM MESSING IT UP.

IT WAS NEVER TAKEN CARE OF.

FROM MY RESEARCH, I FIND THAT YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO LIVE 1.3 MILES CLOSE TO A SOLAR FARM FOR A LOT OF REASONS.

NUMBER TWO, I READ THAT IT ACTUALLY CAUSES ANXIETY IN KIDS.

THAT REALLY BOTHERS ME.

AND IF THEY CONTINUE WITH THE ARWOOD ROAD ONE AND THE PUMPHOUSE ROAD ONE, I'M GOING TO BE SURROUNDED.

AND I MOVED OUT TO PRINCE GEORGE TO DISPUTANTA FOR THE BEAUTY OF IT, FOR THE CALM, THE QUIET, THE ANIMALS. I SIT AND WATCH MY BIRDS.

I PLAY WITH MY GRANDCHILDREN.

IT IS JUST SERENE.

BUT ONCE YOU PUT THOSE SOLAR PANELS IN, IT'S GOING TO PRODUCE HEAT.

EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT IT'S GOING TO RAISE THE TEMPERATURE IN THE AREA AS MUCH AS 2020 DEGREES IN A THREE MILE RADIUS.

WHAT GOOD IS THAT FOR ANY TREE THAT'S NEAR IT OR US? AND THERE'S SO MANY OTHER THINGS THAT IF YOU REALLY, REALLY DO YOUR RESEARCH, IT DOES US NO GOOD.

IT'S ONLY 20% OF ENERGY.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE ONE THAT WAS IN NORTHERN VIRGINIA, THEY HAVE SEVERAL FARMERS THAT ARE JUST ABOUT READY TO LOSE THEIR FARM BECAUSE OF THE RUNOFF, BECAUSE OF ALL THE SOIL DAMAGE.

AND THEY PROMISED AND DID EVERYTHING THAT THIS COMPANY SAYS THEY'RE GOING TO DO.

AND LET ME TELL YOU WHAT, FROM WHAT I READ, AS FAR AS WHAT THESE SALES PEOPLE MAKE OFF OF THIS, THEY ARE MAKING SOME BANK OFF OF US.

I KNOW THAT THE COUNTY WILL MAKE MONEY, YES, BUT YOU REALLY NEED TO THINK ABOUT YOUR OWN PEOPLE IN YOUR OWN COUNTY.

WE ARE THE ONES THAT LIVE HERE.

WE ARE THE ONES THAT CHOSE THIS AREA AND WE WOULD LIKE IT TO STAY RURAL JUST BECAUSE IT IS RURAL AND IT'S BEAUTIFUL AND IT JUST ADDS JUST IT GIVES YOU PEACE OF MIND. IT MAKES YOU FEEL PEACEFUL, THOSE KIND OF THINGS.

I KNOW THAT THEY PLAN TO GIVE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT THIS AND THIS AND THAT.

BUT I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WE CAN TRY TO MAKE MONEY FOR THE POLICE AND THE FIRE STATIONS WITH, I DON'T KNOW, ANYTHING OTHER THAN THESE SOLAR PANELS ALL OVER. AND IF YOU GO AND REALLY LOOK AT THE LAND, IT'S NOT AS FLAT AS THEY CLAIM IT IS, AND IT'S RIGHT BY A WETLANDS.

AND WE NEED TO PROTECT OUR WETLANDS.

WE NEED TO PROTECT EVERYTHING ABOUT IT.

MA'AM. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

EVENING, Y'ALL. MY NAME IS WILLIAM HEDGEPATH.

I LIVE AT 6214 THWEATT DRIVE.

THE PICTURE THAT THEY HAD UP HERE EARLIER WITH A TELEPHONE BOX AND THE GRASS POND, THAT'S MY YARD.

SO THEY TOOK THAT PICTURE RIGHT IN MY FRONT YARD, LOOKING BACK WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE AT, I'M.

I LEARNED YEARS AGO A THING CALLED NIMBY.

NOT IN MY BACK YARD.

NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD EVER BRING THAT UP.

I DON'T WANT THIS IN MY BACK YARD.

I SIT ON MY BACK DECK AND I WATCH BALD EAGLES, I WATCH DEER, I WATCH BUNNIES, I WATCH FOXES, I WATCH ALL THESE THINGS SCAMPERING BACK AND FORTH.

I DON'T NEED ALL THIS EXTRA STUFF BACK THERE.

THE TEMPERATURE RAISING IS A THING RIGHT THERE.

BUT AGAIN, WE'VE GOT ANIMALS.

WE'VE GOT LAND THAT IS PLENTIFUL BACK THERE AND TREES, AND THAT HELPS EVERYTHING ELSE.

EVERYONE TALKS ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL STUFF, WANTING TO DO GOOD.

THEY WANT MORE TREES.

WE'RE TAKING ALL THE TREES DOWN.

I THINK IT'S A COMPANY IN CAROLINA THAT OWNS ALL THAT.

AND I BELIEVE SOME OF THE HUNT CLUBS USE THAT BACK THERE AS WELL TO HELP WITH SOME OF THE ANIMAL CONTROL BACK THERE, BUT I DON'T NEED THAT THERE.

[01:35:04]

THE ONLY THING THAT BOTHERS ME IS A COUPLE OF NEIGHBORS GOT TOO MANY BRIGHT LIGHTS, BUT YOU KNOW, THAT DON'T BOTHER ME.

I CAN SIT OUT BACK THERE AND JUST LISTEN TO THE ANIMALS.

SO IF YOU ALL AGREE WITH THAT, THAT'S REALLY A GOOD USE OF IT TO SIT BACK AND ENJOY THE PEACE AND QUIET.

THAT'S WHAT I WANT. AND I WOULD ASK YOU TO PLEASE VOTE NO ON THIS BECAUSE DON'T TAKE THAT AWAY FROM US.

WE MOVED OUT HERE TO GET AWAY FROM ALL THAT AND I DON'T WANT TO MOVE AGAIN.

SO THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.

HI, I'M KATHERINE ROZBICKI.

MY FARM ABUTS THIS SOLAR.

THEY TRIED TO GET OUR FARM AND WE SAID NO, IT WAS WORKING.

IF WE TAKE ALL OUR OPEN LAND, IT'S EAGLES THERE.

HONEST TO GOODNESS THEY HUNT THERE.

THEY LAND IN OUR PROPERTY AND THERE IS WETLAND THERE.

AND IT'S NOT ALL FLAT.

THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF, LIKE THEY SAID, ANIMALS.

THERE'S A BEAR THERE.

WHERE ARE THESE ANIMALS GOING TO GO? WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO OUR FARM? IF THE TEMPERATURE GOES UP 20 DEGREES, WE WON'T BE ABLE TO GROW CROPS.

AND IF WE DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT FARMERS IN THEIR CROPS, NOBODY IN THIS DAMN ROOM IS GOING TO EAT.

YES, YES.

GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYBODY.

I APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE. I'M NOT A GOOD PUBLIC SPEAKER.

CHASE DEAUVILLE, AT LEAST 500 OF THE ACRES THAT ARE ABOUT TO BE TAKEN AWAY FROM US.

I CAN TELL YOU, ONE OF THE GENTLEMEN OVER HERE WAS READING THAT SIGNS WERE POSTED THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY ABOUT THE SOLAR FARM.

I MANAGED THE 500 ACRES.

I CAN GUARANTEE YOU THAT WAS NOT DONE.

SO WE'RE ALREADY SKIPPING STEPS.

SOME OF Y'ALL MIGHT HAVE SEEN WHAT I POSTED ON SOCIAL MEDIA LAST NIGHT ABOUT THE DESTRUCTION OF THE WETLANDS ALREADY.

IF NOT, IT'S ON CONCERNED CITIZENS OF PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY.

PLEASE LOOK IT UP.

THEY'RE ALREADY DESTROYING WETLANDS, TEARING UP THE ROADS, NOT LEAVING ANYTHING IN GOOD CONDITION.

ALSO, WE'VE ASKED THE SURVEYORS THAT WERE IN THERE RECENTLY BECAUSE HUNTING SEASON HAS STARTED.

WE HAVE A SIGN IN BOOK RIGHT THERE AT THE FRONT GATE WHERE YOU COME IN.

THEY HAVE THE COMBINATION.

ALL YOU GOT TO DO IS OPEN A MAILBOX, SIGN THE BOOKS, SAY YOU'RE IN THERE, SO EVERYBODY'S SAFE.

THEY DID NOT DO THAT.

THIS COMPANY IS ALREADY CUTTING CORNERS.

IT'S NOT GOOD FOR US.

IT'S NOT SAFE. THEY'RE NOT WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY.

IT'S JUST NOT A GOOD LOOK FOR THE COUNTY.

WE SHOULDN'T DO IT.

PLEASE HOLD UP TO THAT.

THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING.

I'M SHARON JACKSON AT 6502 THWEATT DRIVE.

AND I'D LIKE TO SAY THE GENTLEMAN MENTIONED THAT LETTERS WERE SENT OUT TO RESIDENTS.

I DID NOT RECEIVE MY LETTER.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S QUITE FAIR.

WE NEED TO BE INFORMED.

WE NEED OUR LAND.

WE NEED OUR ANIMALS.

WE LOVE THE AREA WE LIVE IN.

WE DON'T WANT TO BE BOMBARDED WITH BUSINESSES.

WITH SOLAR SYSTEMS, WE JUST DON'T NEED IT.

WE DON'T WANT IT.

AND WE ASK THAT YOU WILL PLEASE CONSIDER THAT.

ALSO AT THE LAST MEETING THAT I ATTENDED, THEY SAID THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY INTERFERENCE WITH OUR WATER.

YES, THERE IS NO WATER SEWAGE SYSTEM IN PLACE, BUT WE DO HAVE INDIVIDUAL WELLS AND I'M CONCERNED FOR THOSE WELLS AND SEWAGE AREAS.

SO PLEASE, I ASK THAT YOU DO NOT BRING THE SOLAR SYSTEM HERE.

[01:40:02]

HEY, GUYS. ALL RIGHT.

I HATE TO BE BACK UP HERE FOR THIS AGAIN, BECAUSE I THOUGHT WE WOULD NIP THIS IN THE BUD WITH THE WARWICK SWAMP ONE.

BAM! WE ARE NOT DONE.

FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU GUYS FOR NOT CALLING IT A FARM OR A GARDEN BECAUSE WE AREN'T THAT DUMB BECAUSE IT TAKES, YOU KNOW, SOIL SEED.

SOME MARY JOE TYSON, 15303 ARWOOD ROAD, DISPUTANTA, VIRGINIA.

BORN AND RAISED.

FIRST OF ALL, I'M GOING TO JUMP BACK.

I HEAR FROM PEOPLE ALL THE TIME.

WE DON'T TELL PEOPLE WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR PROPERTIES FROM THIS BOARD AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

THEN WHY DO WE HAVE THESE BOARDS? WHY ARE WE HERE IF WE DON'T TELL PEOPLE WHAT TO DO ALL THE TIME WITH WHAT THEY CAN AND THEY CAN'T DO WITH THEIR PROPERTIES? SO Y'ALL ARE IN CONTROL.

THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, THE BUCK STOPS WITH YOU GUYS.

I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO GO TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL BECAUSE YOU GUYS SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.

I'M JUST A MOM. ONE YEAR OF LIBERTY COLLEGE UNDER MY BELT, AND WHEN IT WAS TRYING TO COME IN MY BACKYARD, I STUDIED AND I RESEARCHED.

IT'S TOXIC.

IT'S TOXIC.

PERIOD. THERE'S NO IFS, ANDS, OR BUTS.

IT'S BAD FOR THE SOIL.

IT'S BAD FOR THE AIR.

IT'S BAD FOR THE WATER.

IT'S BAD FOR THE ANIMALS.

YOU DON'T GO GREEN BY DESTROYING GREEN.

WE'RE NOT DUMB. I BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WHEN YOU GUYS APPROVED THE WARWICK.

WE DON'T TELL PEOPLE WHAT TO DO WITH OUR PROPERTY.

WE DO ALL THE TIME. I BROUGHT A DOCTOR OF ENGINEERING.

I SHOWED WHERE EVERYBODY TURNED BLIND EYES, DEAF EARS.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO LET YOU GUYS TURN BLIND EARS, DEAF EARS, WHATEVER.

I'M IRRITATED. I'M NERVOUS TOO.

IF YOU WANT TO TAKE AGRICULTURAL, RESIDENTIAL LAND, REZONE IT, MAKE IT INDUSTRIAL.

IF IT'S ALL ABOUT THE TAX DOLLARS AND THE REVENUE YOU'RE GOING TO GET, IF IT'S ZONED INDUSTRIAL, THEN THE COUNTY WILL MAKE MORE.

THERE'S WETLANDS.

I MEAN, I GOT AN OH MY GOD, SO MUCH CONTRADICTION.

I'M A OH, DID Y'ALL SAY WE DIDN'T HAVE STORMWATER AND IT DIDN'T AFFECT IT.

AND WELL THEN WHY DO ALL OF US HAVE WELLS GET PAID A STORMWATER FEE? IT'S FRAUD. Y'ALL ARE STEALING FROM US.

WHAT'S NEW? OKAY, WHAT ABOUT THIS? Y'ALL ARE GOING TO EVEN TALK ABOUT THIS, AND THEY'RE GOING TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT A BATTERY STORAGE LATER.

DO YOU KNOW HOW IT'S IT'S THEY'RE TEXAS PEOPLE.

I'VE ALREADY TALKED TO ALL THE PEOPLE WHEN THEY WERE TRYING TO DO IT IN MY BACKYARD.

NOT ALL OF OUR BACKYARDS, OKAY? IT'S NOT JUST YOURS. IT'S ALL OF OURS.

YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SAID? WE WOULDN'T DO ANYTHING IF IT WAS A FIRE BEHIND ONE OF THOSE FENCES.

THEY'LL CALL TEXAS AND THEY LET IT BURN.

ASK. GO ASK.

I WENT TO THE PAID FIRE PEOPLE AND THEY SAID THAT'S WHAT THEY WOULD DO.

FIRST OF ALL, WE DON'T HAVE THE PHONE TRUCKS AND THE WHOLE TRI-CITY AREAS TO PUT OUT ONE OF THEM.

IT'S TOXIC.

IT SHOULDN'T EVEN COME BEFORE Y'ALL.

IT SHOULD STOP RIGHT NOW.

IT DOESN'T MEET A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.

STOP IT. END IT ALL.

NOT IN OUR BACKYARDS.

IT. MADAM CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. JOSHUA INGRAM, 7205 THWEATT DRIVE.

THE MAP THEY HAD UP EARLIER, ONE OF THE ENTRANCES TO THE FACILITIES DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM MY HOUSE.

THIS IS ABOUT THE SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD, NOT NECESSARILY ABOUT ALL THE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES AND THINGS THAT I AGREE WITH THEM ON, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT.

THE GENERAL GUIDANCE FOR THE SITING POLICY LISTS SIX TOPICS, WHICH IS WHAT I'LL ADDRESS.

THE COMMISSION PACKET SAYS THAT THERE ARE ONLY TWO THAT THE PROPOSED FACILITY DOES NOT COMPLY WITH, WHEN IN FACT THERE ARE THREE.

AND THAT IS, AGAIN WHAT I'LL ADDRESS WITH YOU TONIGHT.

NUMBER ONE, THE COUNTY ACREAGE LIMIT.

SAYS IT WOULD EXCEED BY 22.3 ACRES.

ONLY IF YOU COUNT THE AREA IMPACTED BY THE PANELS AND BUFFERS.

506 ACRES, THEY SAY.

HOWEVER, IF YOU INCLUDE THE TOTAL ACREAGE OF ALL THE PARCELS IMPACTED THAT WILL BE USED.

THAT WILL NOT BE USABLE FOR AT LEAST 20 YEARS.

THE TOTAL IS ROUGHLY 1200 PLUS OR MINUS.

I THINK THEY SAID 1270 ISH EITHER WAY 1200 ACRES, THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE USABLE FOR ANY USE FOR AT LEAST 20 YEARS OTHER THAN THE SOLAR . NUMBER THREE, AVOID THE PRINCE GEORGE PLANNING AREA.

[01:45:03]

35% IS IN RURAL CONSERVATION.

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU, BUT NOTHING ABOUT SOLAR PANELS SAYS RURAL OR CONSERVATION TO ME.

65% OF THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE PRINCE GEORGE PLANNING AREA, WHICH WILL MAKE THIS UNUSABLE FOR THE PLANNED FUTURE GROWTH OF PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY. WHATEVER WE AS CITIZENS AND YOU AS COMMISSION AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WHO WE ELECT AND THEN APPOINT, YOU ALL DECIDE THAT THE FUTURE OF THIS COUNTY SHOULD GO FOR.

NUMBER FIVE, AND IF I MAY, I'LL APPROACH AND BRING YOU A MAP.

IS THAT OKAY? ON THE MAP.

IT'S JUST KIND OF AN OVERLAY THE RED AREAS, THE PROPOSED AREA AND THE GRAY LINES IS THE TOPO LINES.

THEY CALL IT FLAT.

ALL OF THOSE LINES ARE TWO FOOT CONTOURS.

NOTICE THERE'S NOT FIVE, SIX, EVEN TEN ACROSS THE ENTIRE SITE.

THERE'S MULTIPLE.

SO EVERY LINE REPRESENTS A TWO FOOT CHANGE BETWEEN THOSE.

AND WHEN THEY SAY FLAT FLAT IS KANSAS, NOTHING IN VIRGINIA IS FLAT UNTIL YOU GET OUT ON THE EASTERN SHORE OR DOWN IN SUFFOLK, MAYBE THAT AREA. WHENEVER THEY COME IN, THEY'RE GOING TO DO SOME GRADING.

THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE IT FLAT FOR THESE PANELS TO WORK FOR THEM SO THEY CAN GET THE PROPER SUNLIGHT, WHICH IS GOING TO IMPACT RUNOFF, ETCETERA.

SO PLEASE REMEMBER, VOTE NO, NOT IN SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

I'M ROBERT COX, JUNIOR.

I RESIDE AT 13640 TAYLOR DRIVE, DISPUTANTA, VIRGINIA, JUST ACROSS THE STREET FROM AN ADJACENT HOMEOWNER THAT WAS NOTIFIED.

I WASN'T BEEN A LOT OF GOOD TOPICS TONIGHT.

A LOT OF GOOD THINGS SAID.

THE THING THAT I'M CONCERNED WITH, IF RWE IS SUCH A GOOD COMPANY TO DO BUSINESS WITH AND THEY CARE ABOUT US.

WHY ARE ALL THEIR POSTS ON FACEBOOK? EVERY TIME SOMEBODY MAKES COMMENTS, THEY'RE TAKEN DOWN? I CHECKED IT JUST BACK HERE TONIGHT.

ONE OF THEIR POSTS ON THERE HAD SIX COMMENTS.

IT'S ONLY ONE SHOWING.

THEY REMOVED THE BAD ONES.

THEY DON'T WANT ANY NEGATIVE, NO NEGATIVE COMMENTS ON THEIR PAGES.

BUT YET THEY'RE WORKING FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTY.

THEY'RE NOT LISTENING TO THE CITIZENS OF THE COUNTY.

WE DON'T WANT THIS.

WE DON'T NEED THIS.

WE DON'T NEED TO DESTROY THE AREA.

AGAIN LIKE THE GENTLEMAN FOR ME JUST SPOKE.

WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE PLANNING AREA, BUT 65% OF US GOING IN THERE.

35%, THEY WANT TO PUT IN A RURAL CONSERVATION AREA.

THE THING IS, THIS IS NOT EVEN GOING TO SERVE THE THE ELECTRIC UTILITY COMPANY THAT SERVICES THAT AREA, WHICH IS PRINCE GEORGE CO OP.

DOMINION IS GOING TO BE GETTING THE POWER FROM IT, NOT PRINCE GEORGE CO OP.

WILDLIFE IS ABUNDANT THROUGH THAT AREA.

I CAN SET AT MY HOUSE ANY NIGHT AND LOOK OUT AT DUSK AND SEE 5 OR 6 DEER IN THE YARD.

YOU USED TO SEE FLOCKS OF TURKEYS.

DON'T SEE THEM AS MUCH NOW SINCE THEY'VE TIMBERED THE PROPERTY.

BEAR, HAVEN'T SEEN ANY BEAR YET, BUT I KNOW THEY'RE THERE.

COYOTES, KNOW THEY'RE THERE.

DO SEE OCCASIONAL RACCOONS VISITING ON THE BACK PORCH LOOKING IN THE WINDOW.

I DO SEE POSSUMS AND SUCH.

WE DO SEE EAGLES.

WE DON'T WANT TO LOSE THAT.

PRINCE GEORGE IS A RURAL COUNTY.

THAT'S WHAT WE MOVED OUT HERE FOR.

THAT'S WHY PEOPLE STAYED HERE.

WE WANT IT TO BE RURAL.

SO PLEASE SAY NO TO THIS.

WE DO NOT WANT IT AND WE DON'T NEED IT.

THANK YOU ALL.

HI, MY NAME IS DONNA COYNE, I LIVE AT 13620 TAYLOR DRIVE, ACROSS THE STREET FROM MR. COX, WHO DID NOT GET THAT LETTER.

BUT WE SURE DID BECAUSE WE ORDERED THE FARM THAT'S COMING.

WE MOVED TO THIS COUNTY THREE YEARS AGO.

I'M A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER WHERE WE BOUGHT OUR PROPERTY.

[01:50:04]

I'VE HEARD THAT THEY REALLY WORKED HARD TO SET THOSE LIMITATIONS ABOUT THE ACREAGE OF THE SOLAR FARM, WHICH THIS IS OVER THAT.

AND I THINK THAT THAT SHOULD REALLY CURTAIL THE WHOLE THING.

AND ALSO, OH GOSH, I'M GOING TO GO BLANK.

WHEN WE BOUGHT OUR HOUSE, WE LOOKED FOR THE PERFECT, OUR DREAM HOUSE AND WE FOUND IT.

AND THEN AUGUST OF THIS YEAR, WE GET A LETTER THAT A SOLAR FARM IS COMING.

AND THAT WAS LIKE SO OUT OF THE BLUE AND REALLY SHOCKING TO US.

THE RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION LAND NEEDS TO STAY THAT WAY.

THE PLAN LAND IS GOING TO BE SPILLING INTO THAT, AND THAT'S JUST NOT RIGHT.

WE'RE THERE BECAUSE OF OUR STYLE OF LIVING OUT THERE THAT WE REALLY ENJOY, AND THE SOLAR FARM JUST IS NOT GOING TO GENERATE ENOUGH REVENUE, IN MY OPINION, TO HAVE IT THERE WITH ALL OF THE COMPLICATIONS WE'RE ALL ON WELL, WE'RE ALL ON SEPTIC.

WE ALL HAVE PROBLEMS WITH OUR WELLS WHEN IT RAINS TOO MUCH, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF RUNOFF.

THAT AREA IS SURROUNDED BY WETLANDS.

THEY HAD MAPS AT THEIR MEETINGS THAT SHOWED ALL OF THE WETLANDS.

SO YOU CAN'T TELL ME THAT THIS IS NOT GOING TO RUN INTO THAT AND AFFECT OUR WELLS AND, YOU KNOW, THE WAY WE LIVE.

SO SORRY, EMOTIONAL.

BUT ANYWAYS, I HOPE YOU GUYS VOTE NO.

PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY DOES NOT WANT THIS.

IF YOU'VE BEEN ON ANY OF THE SOCIAL MEDIA SITES, EVERYBODY IS UP IN ARMS ABOUT IT AND IT'S REALLY SOMETHING TO CONSIDER.

THIS IS GOING TO BE DEFERENTIAL TO PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY.

THANK YOU.

YES, I BEFORE WE BORDER THAT AREA AND DO NOT ANTICIPATE OR DO ANTICIPATE A A BIG DROP IN OUR WHAT WE CAN GET FOR OUR HOUSE THERE BECAUSE WHO WANTS TO LIVE NEXT TO THE SOLAR FARM? CERTAINLY NOT THESE PEOPLE.

THEY DON'T LIVE NEXT TO A SOLAR FARM, AND PROBABLY NONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS DO.

OR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, I MEAN KNOW DO YOU WANT THAT IN YOUR BACKYARD? ESSENTIALLY WE DON'T.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING EVERYONE.

AMEN. MY NAME IS BRENDA RENEE GARNETT.

I RESIDE AT 4092 BASSWOOD ROAD.

I AM A DISTRICT ONE RESIDENT AND I'VE BEEN ALSO CANVASING OUR DISTRICT AND I HAVE HEARD FROM MANY, MANY CITIZENS IN DISTRICT ONE THAT THEY DO NOT WANT THIS SOLAR PLANT TO COME TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

NOW, IF THERE IS ANYONE HERE WHO IS IN FAVOR OF THIS, PLEASE STAND.

WE HAVE SPOKEN AND I ASK THAT YOU HEAR OUR VOICE TODAY.

THANK YOU.

DIDN'T WORK LAST TIME, SO I'M GOING TO WAIT TILL I GET.

IF I CAN GET A COUPLE OF EXTRA SECONDS, I'M GOING TO START AT THE END OF MINE, BECAUSE MR. COX BROUGHT UP A REALLY GOOD POINT.

LOOK AT YOUR POLICY.

SECTION SEVEN OF THE SITING POLICY.

THIS APPLICANT IS SUPPOSED TO SUBMIT ANY ORAL OR WRITTEN INPUT RECEIVED FROM MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND MEDIA AT THE COMMUNITY MEETINGS WITHIN TWO WEEKS OF THE SECOND MEETING. HAVE YOU GOTTEN ANY OF THAT? I BET YOU HAVEN'T, BECAUSE EVERY POST ON EVERY SOCIAL MEDIA PAGE THAT THEY'VE PUT UP HAS BEEN DELETED.

THEY HAVEN'T FORWARDED YOU ANY OF THE COMMENTS FROM THE COMMUNITY AS REQUIRED BY THE POLICY.

NOW LET ME GO BACK TO MY BEGINNING.

LET'S DO A LITTLE ENGLISH LESSON.

I DON'T NEED TO TELL YOU ALL THIS BECAUSE YOU WROTE THIS POLICY.

YOU KNOW WHAT THE WORD SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD MEANS.

YOU ALSO KNOW WHAT THE WORDS SHOULD BE MEANS.

PRINCE GEORGE PLANNING AREA SHOULD BE AVOIDED.

YOU WROTE IT.

LET'S PULL ON THAT THREAD FOR A SECOND.

THE WORD SHOULD BE IS PRETTY CLEAR.

IT MEANS TO EXPECT OR ASSUME SOMETHING TO BE TRUE.

THE COMMISSION SELECTED THESE WORDS TO STATE A POSITION OF WHAT OUGHT TO HAPPEN SHOULD BE AS VERY SIMPLE ENGLISH.

IT SHOWS THE READER AND EXPRESSES AN OUTCOME WHICH IS ANTICIPATED AND EXPRESSES AN OBLIGATION TO THE READER.

LET'S EXPLORE THE WORD SUBSTANTIAL.

SUBSTANTIAL. DOES IT MEAN 65% IS ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE LINE?

[01:55:05]

IN ENGINEERING TERMS, SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE.

AND I'M AN ENGINEER, SO BEAR WITH ME.

ALL RIGHT. BUILD CARRIERS FOR A LIVING.

IT MEANS THERE'S NO EMISSIONS OR OF ANY ESSENTIAL PART OF COMPLIANCE.

THERE'S BEEN A FIRM EFFORT TO COMPLY FULLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS.

IS 65% NO FULLY COMPLIANT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS? I DON'T THINK SO.

SOMEWHAT. ACCORDING TO THE YOUNG LADY WHO SPOKE, THERE ARE SOMEWHAT IN COMPLIANCE.

THAT'S NOT THE STANDARD, IS IT? SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE IS THE STANDARD.

THEY'VE ALREADY ANSWERED THE QUESTION FOR YOU IN THEIR PRESENTATION.

THEY ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE.

THEY HAVE NO INTENTION OF BEING IN COMPLIANCE.

AND TONIGHT IS THE FIRST TIME THEY'VE ADMITTED THERE'S GOING TO BE A BATTERY FACILITY.

LET'S TALK ABOUT BATTERY FACILITIES.

SOMETHING I KNOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT.

I HELP DESIGN THE ELECTRONIC LAUNCH SYSTEM ON THE LATEST AIRCRAFT CARRIER AS BASED ON BATTERIES AND ENERGY.

LITTLE WRINKLE THAT THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT.

THEY BRING UP, THEY BRING, THEY BRING OUT ALL THESE PAPERS.

OH, THE PANELS ARE NONTOXIC.

THEY'RE MADE OUT OF SILICONE.

IT'S JUST SAYING WE CAN RECYCLE.

THEY DIDN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE BATTERIES.

THEY BROUGHT IT UP TONIGHT.

THE BATTERIES REQUIRE A FIVE ACRE SET ASIDE.

CAN YOU BRING UP, BY THE WAY, THE MAP THAT SHOWS THE THE SITE PLAN, THEIR CONCEPTUAL PLAN? SORRY. YOUR TIME IS UP.

UP OR GETTING READY TO BE UP IS UP, UP, UP.

OH. THAT'S TERRIBLE. CAN HAVE MY THREE MINUTES.

I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GONNA ALLOW THAT.

ARE YOU? I'M ABOUT FINISHED.

YEAH. LET HIM SPEAK. LET HIM SPEAK.

SPEAK. LET HIM SPEAK.

WE GOT TO SPEAK ABOUT TIME LIMIT.

THAT'S TRUE. THAT'S RIGHT.

THEY ALSO LIED TO YOU.

I DIDN'T. I THINK THIS HAS GONE ON LONG ENOUGH. SO I'M CLOSING THE TIME LIMIT NOW AND I'LL TURN IT BACK TO THE.

YEAH, I GUESS I JUST WANT TO SAY FIRST THAT I DO BELIEVE IN GENERAL IN SOLAR, WHAT I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH HERE AND WHY I WILL MOVE THIS MOTION, NO, NOT IN SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD IS THE 65%. TO ME, THAT IS A CLEAR DISRESPECT TO THE POLICY THAT EXISTS.

SO I MOVE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT THE RESOLUTION DETERMINING THAT APPLICATION NUMBER SE2309 IS NOT IN SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD WITH THE PRINCE GEORGE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.

IT DOES NOT ADHERE TO THE GENERAL GUIDANCE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, INCLUDING THE SOLAR ENERGY FACILITY SITING POLICY, SPECIFICALLY TO AVOID THE PRINCE GEORGE PLANNING AREA.

SECOND. CALL THE ROLL.

DO. OKAY.

AND WE HAVE COMMUNICATIONS.

YOU KNOW THIS IS ALL RIGHT.

SO FOR EVERYONE'S KNOWLEDGE THAT THAT WAS A MOTION TO FIND THAT WAS NOT IN SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD.

SO THAT BASICALLY STOPS THE CASE THAT THE APPLICANTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL THAT DECISION TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WITHIN TEN DAYS.

SO THEY'RE FREE TO CALL US IF THEY WANT TO DISCUSS THE NEXT STEPS IN THAT PROCESS.

BUT THAT'S WHERE IT'S AT RIGHT NOW.

SO WE'RE ON COMMUNICATIONS NOW.

[COMMUNICATIONS]

THERE WEREN'T ANY THE BOARD THAT MEETING WAS CANCELED BECAUSE THERE WEREN'T ANY REQUESTS.

THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTIONS RECENTLY YOU HAVE ON OCTOBER 10TH, THEY RECOGNIZE JOSEPH SIMMONS, A FORMER PLANNING COMMISSIONER, FOR HIS YEARS OF SERVICE. AND THEN ON OCTOBER 24TH, THE BOARD APPROVED THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FOR THE TATTOO AND BODY PIERCING AS A ALLOWED USE IN THE BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT.

SO THE FINAL ITEMS I HAVE TO MENTION IS UPCOMING CASES FOR NOVEMBER 2023.

YES, WE HAVE CASES, SO YOU'LL SEE NEXT MONTH.

THAT'S ALL WE HAVE. YES, I KNOW THAT EARLIER I THINK I SAID THE WRONG THING WHEN WE ADOPTED THE ORIGINAL AGENDA.

[ADOPTION OF AGENDA (Part 2 of 2)]

[02:00:05]

I THINK I SAID THE WRONG THING.

I SAY THE BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES, WE CAN SET ACTUAL AGENDA.

SO WHEN WE ADOPTED THE AGENDA, YOU SAID BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES.

I WAS READING AHEAD. SO DO WE.

OH, WHEN YOU WHEN YOU MADE YOUR MOTION WE CAN DO ANOTHER MOTION.

SO I MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING.

SECOND. OKAY.

GONE. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

OKAY. HOLD ON. YEAH.

YEAH. YEAH. YEAH. JUST.

PERFECT. THAT CONCLUDES THE COMMUNICATIONS.

THANK YOU. THAT WAS A MOTION.

MAKE A MOTION. WE ADJOURN.

SECOND. SECOND.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.