Link


Social

Embed


Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:01]

OKAY. GOOD EVENING. TODAY IS THE 22ND OF OCTOBER.

IT IS NOW 6 P.M. FIRST THING WE NEED TO DO IS BOARD MEMBERS.

BOARD SUPERVISOR MEMBERS. I NEED A MOTION TO ALLOW MR. WEBB TO AT10D THIS MEETING VIRTUALLY. HE IS IN DAYTONA, FLORIDA.

SO AT THIS TIME, I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION. SO MOVED.

MOVED TO LET MR. WEBB SECOND AT10D VIRTUALLY.

OKAY. IT'S BEEN PROPERLY MOVED BY MRS. WAYMACK AND SECONDED BY MR. COX TO ALLOW MR. WEBB TO AT10D THE MEETING VIRTUALLY.

YOU'VE HEARD THE MOTION. MISS KNOTT, WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL? MR. BROWN? YES. MRS. WAYMACK? YES. MR. COX? YES.

MR. PUGH? YES. MOTION CARRIED. AT THIS TIME, I WOULD CALLING THE MEETING TO ORDER.

AND, MRS. KNOTT, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL FOR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS? MRS. WAYMACK? HERE. MR. COX? HERE. MR. PUGH? HERE.

MR. WEBB? HERE. MR. BROWN. MR. WEBB, CAN YOU STATE WHERE YOU'RE CALLING IN FROM FIRST, PLEASE? YES. I'M IN DAYTONA, FLORIDA, AT THE CURRENT TIME.

OKAY. AND HERE FOR ME. THANK YOU. OKAY. AT THIS TIME, I WILL CALL PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING TO ORDER AND ASK. ASK THE CLERK TO PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

MR. WAYMACK? HERE. MR. HOWELL? HERE. MR. MCDONOUGH? HERE. MISS ANDERSON? HERE. MISS CANEPA? HERE.

MR. BROCKWELL? ABSENT. MR. BRESKO? HERE. OKAY.

AT THIS TIME, I WOULD ASK THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR A MOTION TO ADOPT THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT.

SO MOVED. IT'S BEEN PROPERLY MOVED BY MR. COX AND SECOND, BY MRS. WAYMACK THAT WE WOULD ADOPT THE AGENDA AS SO STATED.

YOU'VE HEARD THE MOTION. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? MRS KNOTT.

WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? MR. COX? YES.

MR. PUGH? YES. MR. WEBB? YES. MR. BROWN? YES.

MRS. WAYMACK. YES. THE ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA MOTION HAS BEEN CARRIED.

[B. Business Meeting]

SO, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE NOW MOVE INTO THE BUSINESS PORTION OF OUR MEETING.

I WILL DO THE BOARD'S INVOCATION TONIGHT. AND I'VE ASKED MR. HOWELL IF HE WOULD DO THE LEAD, THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AFTER THAT.

SO I'LL LEAD THE INVOCATION. HEAVENLY FATHER, WE COME TO YOU THIS EVENING JUST SIMPLY TO SAY THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO YET BE TOGETHER AGAIN TO HANDLE THE BUSINESS OF THIS COUNTY.

AND THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING THIS MEETING TONIGHT TO BE A JOINT MEETING ALONG WITH THE PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION.

HEAVENLY FATHER, WE ASK YOU TO WATCH OVER EACH AND EVERY PERSON HERE IN THIS COUNTY, WE ASK YOU TO WRAP YOUR LOVING ARMS OF PROTECTION AROUND ALL OF OUR PUBLIC SAFETY, OUR FIRE, OUR EMS, OUR POLICE AND ALL OTHERS THAT PUT THEMSELVES IN HARM'S WAY EACH AND EVERY DAY.

AND WE ASK ALL OF THIS IN YOUR NAME THIS EVENING.

AMEN. AMEN. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS.

ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

ALL RIGHT. SO THANK YOU, MISTER HOWELL, THERE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

[C. Work Session]

WE'RE NOW GOING TO MOVE INTO THE WORK SESSION OF FOR TONIGHT, AND I'LL TURN THIS MEETING.

IS THAT OVER TO YOU, MR. GRAVES? YES, SIR. ONLY BRIEFLY.

JUST A FEW WORDS. GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. GOOD EVENING.

SO, YES, OF COURSE. IT'S BEEN A LONG JOURNEY TO GET TO THIS POINT, BUT YOU NOW HAVE A DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT IS APPROACHING THE PUBLIC HEARING STAGE.

PRIOR TO TONIGHT, YOU ALL RECEIVED A MEETING PACKET CONTAINING A COPY OF ALL PUBLIC COMMENTS AND PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW COMMENTS THAT THE PROJECT TEAM RECEIVED DURING THE DRAFT REVIEW PHASE AND WITH RESPONSES FROM THE PROJECT TEAM ON THOSE COMMENTS.

YOU ALSO RECEIVED A MEMO SUMMARIZING KEY INSIGHTS FROM THIS PUBLIC REVIEW PHASE AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT THE BOARD REQUESTED AT ITS PREVIOUS WORK SESSION IN AUGUST.

WE GAVE YOU INFORMATION ON THAT, AND OF COURSE, YOU RECEIVED ACCESS TO VIEW THE FULL REVISED DRAFT PLAN AND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

SO TONIGHT YOU'LL HEAR A SUMMARY UPDATE FROM THE BERKLEY GROUP, AND WE'LL PREVIEW THE NEXT STEPS.

AND THE PROJECT TEAM THANKS YOU FOR ALL OF YOU, FOR YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS AND INSIGHTS THAT YOU'VE PUT INTO THIS PLAN TO GET US HERE.

AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR FEEDBACK TONIGHT.

SO WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO CATHERINE REDFEARN WITH THE BERKLEY GROUP FOR HER PRESENTATION.

OKAY. THANK YOU SIR.

[00:05:09]

GREAT. THANK YOU TIM, AND THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING.

GIVE A MINUTE FOR THE POWERPOINT TO LOAD, BUT THIS IS OUR FINAL WORK SESSION AS PART OF THE PRINCE GEORGE 2045 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE. LIKE TIM SAID, IT'S BEEN A LONG ROAD TO GET HERE AND WE ARE ALL VERY EXCITED.

I THINK THIS IS A GREAT PLAN AND A GREAT STEP FORWARD FOR THE COUNTY.

AS SOON AS THE POWERPOINT LOADS, WE'LL GO OVER THE AGENDA FOR THE PRESENTATION AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO STRUCTURE THINGS AND TALK ABOUT NEXT STEPS.

THERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT. SO OUR AGENDA, AS YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN IS TO REVIEW THE SCHEDULE AND NEXT STEPS FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE. I'LL SUMMARIZE THE PUBLIC REVIEW WHAT WE HEARD THROUGH THE PUBLIC REVIEW PHASE OF THE PROJECT.

LIKE TIM SAID YOU ALL RECEIVED A MEMO AND A FULL COMMENT LOG IN YOUR MEETING PACKET.

MY IN10T IS NOT TO GO THROUGH THAT LINE BY LINE, BUT RATHER TO PRESENT SOME OF THE KEY ISSUES AND QUESTIONS THAT WE HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC THROUGHOUT THAT REVIEW PHASE OF THE PROJECT. FROM THERE, WE'LL TALK ABOUT NEXT STEPS AND HOW WE GET TO THE HEARING PHASE.

SO WHERE ARE WE IN THE PROCESS? SO WE ARE VERY, VERY CLOSE TO THE FINISH LINE.

YOU'LL RECALL WE KICKED OFF THIS PLANNING PROCESS ALMOST EXACTLY 19 MONTHS AGO.

MARCH 21ST, 2024. WE HAD A JOINT WORK SESSION BETWEEN PRINCE GEORGE'S PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

FROM THERE, WE MOVED INTO THE DATA GATHERING AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PHASE OF THE PROJECT, FOLLOWED BY NEARLY 12 MONTHS OF PLAN DRAFTING, BOTH WITH COUNTY STAFF AND RECURRING WORK SESSIONS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

FROM THERE, WE BROUGHT THE PLAN TO THE COMMUNITY FOR FEEDBACK, AND REALLY, THIS FINAL STAGE IS ABOUT REVIEWING THAT FEEDBACK AND INCORPORATING EDITS SO THAT WE CAN MOVE THE PLAN INTO THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION PHASE, AND YOU ALL CAN START IMPLEMENTING AND USING THE DOCUMENT.

I'LL ALSO REMIND YOU THAT THIS PLANNING PROCESS INCLUDES A LAND USE TOOLS DIAGNOSTIC, WHICH WE ACTUALLY STARTED IN PHASE ONE, THE FIRST PHASE OF THIS PROJECT, AND WE'LL MOVE TOWARDS FINALIZING IN THIS FINAL STAGE, WE'LL BE LOOKING AT THE COUNTY'S CURRENT ORDINANCES AND REVIEWING HOW BEST TO UPDATE THEM BASED ON THE STRATEGIES AND POLICIES INCLUDED IN THE DRAFT DOCUMENT.

THERE WE GO. SO WHAT DID WE HEAR THROUGH THE PUBLIC REVIEW PHASE? THIS SLIDE IS INCLUDED TO REMIND YOU THAT THE DRAFTING PHASE OF THE PROJECT WAS REALLY BOOKENDED BY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT.

THE FIRST PHASE WHERE WE SOLICITED INPUT AND GATHERED DATA.

WE HAD FOUR HANDS ON WORKSHOPS, 5 TOPICAL FOCUS GROUPS, AND ONE COMMUNITY WIDE PUBLIC INPUT SURVEY.

AND THE RESULTS OF THAT IS SUMMARIZED IN THE APPENDIX OF THE DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

AND ALL OF THAT DATA WAS USED TO HELP DRAFT THE CON10T STRATEGIES AND THE POLICIES AND THE DOCUMENT.

PHASE TWO IS REALLY ABOUT SOLICITING FEEDBACK AND REFINEMENT FOR THE DRAFT PLAN.

WE SUBMITTED THE DOCUMENT FOR REVIEW BY PUBLIC AGENCIES AS WELL AS REVIEW BY THE PUBLIC.

SO WHAT DID WE HEAR? THE PLAN WAS SUBMITTED TO THE CRATER PDC FOR REVIEW TO VDOT, THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR REVIEW AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS KNOWN AS THE 729 REVIEW PROCESS, AND TO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE CHESAPEAKE BAY ACT. COMMENTS FROM THESE AGENCIES REALLY WERE LIMITED TO CLARIFICATION AND EDITORIAL CHANGES TO THE DOCUMENT, AS WELL AS REQUESTS TO INCLUDE SOME ADDITIONAL DATA AND MAPS.

AND ALL OF THESE CHANGES WERE INCORPORATED INTO THE OCTOBER 14TH DRAFT OF THE PLAN, WHICH YOU ALL HAVE BEFORE YOU.

SOME OF THE DATA THAT THEY REQUESTED WERE ITEMS SUCH AS IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CRASH DATA MAP, THE INCLUSION OF A POLLUTION NON-POINT AND POINT SOURCE POLLUTION MAP, MAPPING OF WATER ACCESS POINTS, AND THE INCLUSION OF A CONGESTION MAP, WHICH I BELIEVE WAS ON PAGE 93 OR 97.

YOU WILL SEE WAS PENDING. WE DID NOT RECEIVE THAT DATA IN TIME FOR DISPATCH, BUT IN10D TO INCORPORATE THAT AFTER THIS MEETING.

AGAIN, THE COMPLETE LIST OF COMMENTS. WHAT EACH OF THOSE AGENCIES HAD TO SAY REGARDING THE DOCUMENT IS IN THAT COMMENT LOG, AND EXACTLY HOW WE INCORPORATED IT INTO THE PLAN IS ALSO DOCUMENTED THERE.

[00:10:05]

SO THE PUBLIC WAS ABLE TO REVIEW AND COMMENT ON THE DRAFT PLAN BOTH ONLINE AND IN PERSON.

THE DRAFTED PLAN WAS POSTED ON THE COUNTY WEBSITE ABOUT JULY 19TH, AND AN ONLINE COMMENT FORM WAS AVAILABLE FOR FOLKS TO POST COMMENTS WHICH WERE THEN SUBMITTED OR SENT TO A MASTER LIST THAT WE MONITORED.

I WILL SAY THAT THAT COMMENT FORM WAS ACTUALLY OPEN THROUGHOUT THE DRAFTING PROCESS.

SO THE EARLY PHASES OF DRAFTING WHERE WE WERE DRAFTING INDIVIDUAL CHAPTERS AND POSTING THEM ONLINE THAT COMMENT FORM WAS ALSO OPEN, BUT WE ONLY RECEIVED MAYBE 3 OR 5 COMMENTS, MOST OF WHICH WERE RESOLVED BY THE TIME THE DRAFT PLAN WAS POSTED.

WE ALSO CONDUCTED TWO IN-PERSON OPEN HOUSES ONE ON SEPTEMBER 10TH, RIGHT HERE AT THE LIBRARY AND ONE ON SEPTEMBER 13TH AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER.

THESE OPEN HOUSES WERE ORGANIZED WITH INTERPRETIVE POSTERS, INTERACTIVE POSTERS WHERE PEOPLE COULD PUT FEEDBACK REGARDING PLAN, GOALS, CATALYST INITIATIVES AND OF COURSE, COUNTY STAFF AND BERKLEY GROUP STAFF WERE THERE TO DISCUSS THE PLAN AND ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT FOLKS HAD ABOUT THE DOCUMENT.

OVERALL, WE RECEIVED 71 COMMENTS, BOTH ONLINE AND IN PERSON AND IN PERSON REGARDING THE DRAFT PLAN.

AND AGAIN, EACH OF THOSE COMMENTS IS IN THAT MATRIX AND EXACTLY HOW WE ADDRESS THEM IN THE PLAN IS ALSO CATALOGED IN THAT DOCUMENT.

I'D SAY OVERALL SUPPORT FOR THE GOALS AND CATALYST INITIATIVES WERE STRONG.

THERE ARE MANY COMMENTS THAT WERE EDITORIAL IN NATURE OR AGAIN, ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION OR ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT EXACTLY THIS OR THAT MEANT.

BUT ON THE WHOLE, SUPPORT FOR THE PLAN WAS WAS PRETTY STRONG.

THERE WERE, HOWEVER, FOUR KEY ISSUES OR QUESTIONS THAT AROSE DURING THE PUBLIC REVIEW PHASE.

AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT I WANT TO FOCUS MY TIME ON WITH YOU ALL TONIGHT IS TO REVIEW THOSE ISSUES AND THOSE QUESTIONS AND REALLY GET YOUR DIRECTION, HOW BEST TO INCORPORATE THEM INTO THE DRAFT PLAN.

ACTUALLY, BEFORE I MOVE ON TO PRESENTING THOSE, THOSE TOPICS, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT SCHEDULE PROCESS, HOW REVIEW HAPPENS BEFORE WE MOVE ON? ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS? NONE. OKAY, GREAT. SO I SAID THERE WERE FOUR PRIMARY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS THAT AROSE DURING THE PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE OF THE DOCUMENT.

AND WE HEARD THESE FROM MULTIPLE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, AS WELL AS SOME MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD.

AND TO SUMMARIZE, THOSE ARE OUR FIRST. HOW WAS THE UPDATED PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY DETERMINED? AND IN PARTICULAR, WHY IS DISPUTANTA NOW INCLUDED IN THE PLANNING AREA? SECOND, CONCERN OVER HOW THE COMP PLAN ADDRESSES PRIVATE ROADS.

NEXT, A DESIRE TO SEE MORE LANDS INCLUDED IN THE RURAL PRESERVATION LAND USE CATEGORY.

AND THEN FINALLY, A CONCERN THAT THE EXAMPLE 5 ACRE LOT SIZE MINIMUM IN THE RURAL LAND USE CATEGORY IS REALLY NOT ENOUGH TO CURB SPRAWL IN THE RURAL AREA OF THE COUNTY. SO WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO AGAIN IS I'LL LOOK AT, WE'LL LOOK AT EACH OF THOSE IN DETAIL.

I'LL PRESENT WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE COMMUNITY, SOME DATA AND INFORMATION BEHIND EACH OF THOSE TOPICS.

WE'VE PREPARED A RECOMMENDATION ON HOW THEY CAN BE INCORPORATED INTO THE DRAFT PLAN.

BUT AGAIN, WE'RE REALLY LOOKING FOR DIRECTION AND INPUT FROM YOU ALL ON HOW BEST TO DO THAT.

OKAY, SO DISPUTANTA. AND IN FACT, BEFORE I LAUNCH INTO THE THE DISCUSSION HERE, I JUST WANT TO ORIENT YOU TO THE MAP THAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN. THIS IS A ZOOM IN ON THE DISPUTANTA AREA AS INCLUDED IN THE DRAFT FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE OF THE DOCUMENT WE'VE OUTLINED. OUTLINED. EXCUSE ME, OUTLINED DISPUTANTA IN RED HERE.

THAT DOESN'T APPEAR ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

THAT'S JUST HERE TO HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT AREA WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

THE LET'S SEE THE YELLOW AREAS ON THE SCREEN ARE THE SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES.

THE RED IS NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. THE LIGHT TAN COLOR IS COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL, THE LIGHT GREEN IS RURAL AND THE DARK GREEN IS RURAL PRESERVATION, AND THEN HARD TO SEE, AT LEAST ON THE SCREEN I'M LOOKING AT.

THERE IS THE DASHED BLACK LINE THAT KIND OF FOLLOWS THE RED BOUNDARY HERE THAT IS THE PROPOSED PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY IN THE DRAFT PLAN.

IT KIND OF HUGS FOR 60 KIND OF NORTH OF DISPUTANTA AND THEN TAKES IN THE SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOODS AROUND DISPUTANTA.

SO THE QUESTION WE RECEIVED WAS WHY IS DISPUTANTA NOW INCLUDED IN THE PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY? AND TO ANSWER THAT, I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO THE FIRST PHASE OF DRAFTING THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PHASE, WHERE WE WERE HOSTING WORKSHOPS. PEOPLE WERE DRAWING ON MAPS, ANSWERING QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THEY WANTED TO SEE IN THE COMMUNITY.

[00:15:06]

AND DURING THAT PROCESS, DISPUTANTA WAS REGULARLY IDENTIFIED AS A PO10TIAL VILLAGE CENTER OR HUB FOR FOR THE COUNTY.

AND A LOT OF THAT WAS REALLY REFLECTION OF HOW DISPUTANTA FUNCTIONS TODAY.

WHAT'S THERE ON THE GROUND NOW? HERE IN AND YOU CAN SEE ON THE MAP HERE, THERE'S A CONCENTRATION OF COMMUNITY AMENITIES. WE'VE GOT LIBRARY, COMMUNITY CENTER, EMERGENCY SERVICES.

WE'VE GOT THE SCHOOL. WE'VE ALSO GOT A CONCENTRATION OF COMMERCIAL USES ALONG 460.

AND WE'VE GOT A CONCENTRATION OF SUBURBAN STYLE NEIGHBORHOODS OFF OF 460.

THERE'S ALSO SEWER SERVICE UTILITIES IN THIS AREA OF THE COUNTY AND ACCESS, OF COURSE, TO PRETTY MAJOR TRANSPORTATION ROUTE 460.

AND OF PARTICULAR IMPORTANCE TO NOTE HERE IS THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS.

THERE'S A MIX OF LAND USES IN DISPUTANTA, AND THERE ARE A VARIETY OF LOT SIZES, BUT THE AVERAGE LOT SIZE IN THIS AREA, THIS AREA DESIGNATED IN RED, IS 5 ACRES, WHICH MATCHES THE SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS AND THE REST OF THE PLANNING AREA AND MATCHES THE DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY IN THE DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

SO REALLY, WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS A BOUNDARY THAT'S DRAWN REFLECTING CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS AND LOOKING TO MAINTAIN THOSE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS. THE BOUNDARY WAS DRAWN TO TAKE IN THOSE EXISTING SUBURBAN STYLE NEIGHBORHOODS, THE SEWER SERVICE AREA AND COMMUNITY ASSETS SUCH AS THE SCHOOL.

AND I'D SAY THAT INCLUSION WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY, THE DESIGNATION THROUGH THESE LAND USE CATEGORIES, DOES NOT PROPOSE TO INCREASE THE DENSITY OR TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT IN DISPUTANTA, BUT AGAIN, TO MAINTAIN WHAT'S ON THE GROUND ALREADY. WHAT INCLUSION WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY AND THE DESIGNATED LAND USES DOES DO FOR DISPUTANTA IS OPEN THE DOOR FOR BETTER PLANNING FOR THE FOR THE COMMUNITY, AND PARTICULARLY THE DESIGNATION AS THE VILLAGE CENTER OPENS UP THE DOOR TO SMALL AREA PLANNING TO IMPROVE THE AMENITIES AND SERVICES IN DISPUTANTA, AS WELL AS IMPROVING SAFETY AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT ALONG ALONG 460.

SO THE RECOMMENDATION HERE WOULD BE TO KEEP DISPUTANTA WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY, TO KEEP THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND THE VILLAGE CENTER DESIGNATION AS CURRENTLY SHOWN IN THE DRAFT PLAN, BECAUSE IT REFLECTS CURRENT LAND USE PATTERNS AND ACTUALLY OPENS THE DOOR FOR SOME IMPROVED PLANNING FOR FOR THE COMMUNITY.

SO WITH THAT, I'LL OPEN IT UP TO YOUR INPUT AND THOUGHTS.

ANY BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE? I HAVE A QUESTION. YES, SIR. GO AHEAD. THIS HAS TO DO WITH DISPUTANTA AGAIN.

ARE WE EXPANDING THE EXISTING AREA? THE CURRENT DRAFT PLAN, THE PROPOSED PLAN PROPOSES THAT DISPUTANTA BE INCLUDED IN THE PLANNING AREA AS SHOWN ON THIS MAP.

THE PLAN, THE CURRENTLY ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOES NOT HAVE DISPUTANTA WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY, IS THAT YOUR QUESTION? DOES DISPUTANTA, IF I UNDERSTAND OR REMEMBER CORRECTLY, IS AN ENTERPRISE ZONE FOR BUSINESS.

YES. SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE REASON OF PUTTING IT INTO THE PLANNING DISTRICT.

SO THE ENTERPRISE, THE ENTERPRISE ZONE IS AN INCENTIVE TO ALLOW BUSINESS GROWTH IN THE AREA.

AND SO INCLUDING IT IN THE PLANNING AREA WOULD ALLOW MORE PLANNING TOOLS TO SUPPORT THE DESIGNATION AS AN ENTERPRISE ZONE.

WE'VE BEEN AN ENTERPRISE ZONE AND I THINK FOR 20 PLUS YEARS, AND AIN'T NOBODY BUILT ANY YET FOR DOLLAR GENERAL.

SO I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A BURNER. AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE TRYING TO MAINTAIN WHAT WE'VE GOT AS FAR AS CONSERVATION VERSUS PLANNING, BUT WE SEEM TO BE EXPANDING PLANNING. RIGHT, AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION, AND THAT'S THE EXACT SAME QUESTION WE GOT FROM THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE THROUGHOUT THE PUBLIC REVIEW.

AND I THINK WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DESCRIBE IS THAT BY INCLUDING IT IN THE PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY, WE'RE NOT SUGGESTING INCREASED GROWTH, INCREASED DENSITY, INCREASED DEVELOPMENT IN DISPUTANTA, BUT INCLUDING IN THE PLANNING AREA, REFLECTS WHAT'S ALREADY ON THE GROUND AND THEN ALLOWS US TO DO SOME PLANNING FOR SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS, FOR AMENITY IMPROVEMENTS, NOT PLANNING FOR FOR GROWTH.

I MIGHT BE ABLE TO SEE GOING WITH THE PLANNING AREA FOR DISPUTANTA, BUT IT NEEDS TO PARALLEL 460 ON BOTH SIDES.

IT DOESN'T NEED TO BRANCH OUT BEYOND THAT, BECAUSE WE DON'T NEED TO INCREASE WHAT WE'VE ALREADY GOT DOWN THERE,

[00:20:04]

WE JUST NEED MORE BUSINESSES ON THE VACANT LANDS WE DO HAVE.

SO THAT'S MY TWO CENTS. THANK YOU. OVERALL, THE PLANNING AREA IS SMALLER, CORRECT.

LIKE IT'S DECREASED IN OTHER PLACES AND ADDED TO OTHER PLACES LIKE IT'S KIND OF GIVE AND TAKE ALL THROUGHOUT IN THE PROPOSED PLAN.

YEAH. THE THE PROPOSED PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY IS DIFFERENT FROM THE EXISTING PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY.

THERE IS A SLIGHT ACREAGE INCREASE, BUT WE'VE TAKEN LAND AWAY KIND OF NORTH OF DISPUTANTA AND THEN ADDED DISPUTANTA IN.

GO AHEAD SIR. MR.. I GOT A QUESTION. ALL RIGHT. I'M LOOKING AT IT'S LOOK, ARE THESE CURRENT LOT SIZES IN DISPUTANTA OR IS THIS A CONCEPTUAL DRAWING? THIS IS CURRENT LOT SIZES. THIS CURRENT LOT SIZES, OKAY.

AND IS THE WHITE LINE 460 OR IS THAT THE RAILROAD TRACK? 460. OKAY. WHERE'S THE RAILROAD TRACK TO THIS? IT IS JUST SOUTH OF IT. WE MAY NOT HAVE THE RAILROAD ON THERE, BUT IT'S JUST SOUTH OF 460, KIND OF WHERE THE RED AND TAN LINES END. OKAY.

ANY OTHER BOS MEMBER HAVE A QUESTION? IF NOT, I'LL.

MY ONLY OTHER QUESTION WOULD BE IS, DO YOU HAVE A MAP OF THIS THAT SHOWS THE RURAL ROADS GOING THROUGH DISPUTANTA? YES. THE DRAFT FUTURE LAND USE MAP THAT'S ONLINE HAS ALL OF THE, ALL OF THAT DATA RAILROAD AND ROADS AS WELL.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I THINK WE'RE GOOD. YOU'RE GOOD SIR.

JUST PART OF THAT. JUST THAT THE, JUST LOOKED AT THE ENTERPRISE ZONE JUST TO DOUBLE CHECK BECAUSE WE HAVE A MAP IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

SO DISPUTANTA AS WE SEE THERE IS NOT IN THE ENTERPRISE ZONE.

JUST TO CLEAR THAT UP, IT'S NOT IN THE ENTERPRISE ZONE.

AN ENTERPRISE ZONE KIND OF ENDS BASICALLY WHERE THAT RED BOUNDARY ON THIS MAP BEGINS.

IS THAT APPROXIMATELY RIGHT? THAT'S WHY I JUST LOOKED AT IT. THAT'S THAT'S WHERE IT IS. DID THAT CHANGE? IT'S BEEN THAT WAY FOR OVER 10 YEARS. I KNEW IT USED TO BE THE ENTERPRISE, WAS IN THE ENTERPRISE ZONE, SO IT MAY HAVE CHANGED. SO. YEAH. OKAY. OTHER QUESTIONS OR.

I THINK WE'RE GOOD FOR RIGHT NOW. ONE QUESTION.

SO IS THIS, THE DARK RED, IS THAT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO WITH BUSINESS AND THE RESIDENTIAL? YEAH, THAT DARK RED IS WHAT'S CALLED NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL IN THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

OKAY. IT'S A MIX OF COMMERCIAL TYPES. I WOULD RATHER SEE THE RED FURTHER DOWN 460, YOU KNOW, JUST NOT ONLY IN THIS AREA, BUT COMING UP VERSUS THE, I GUESS THE, THE YELLOW.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? LIKE I WOULD RATHER SEE WHERE THE WHERE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT LIBRARY IS.

I'D RATHER SEE THAT RED CONTINUE DOWN JUST A TAD BIT FURTHER TO ENCOURAGE BUSINESSES.

SOUTH DOWN 460. YEAH. BUT THEY'RE, FROM WHAT I KNOW OF THAT AREA.

SO DOWN BELOW WHERE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THE LIBRARY YOU DO HAVE, LIKE THE ANTIQUE BUSINESS AND STUFF THAT RUNS DOWN TO HINES ROAD.

I'M TALKING ABOUT LIKE GOING BACK TO. OH, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT GOING BACK TOWARDS, OKAY.

OKAY. OKAY. ALL THAT STUFF, YOU KNOW, BACK TOWARDS QUEENS LABELED IN HERE.

I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF THAT'S INCORPORATING THIS OR NOT.

I'M TRYING TO LOOK ON THE INTERACTIVE MAP NOW.

THAT'S ALL I GOT RIGHT NOW. OKAY. I'M SORRY. WHEN SHE SAID SOUTH, I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING FURTHER DOWN 460.

OKAY. THEY BUILD HOUSES DOWN THERE? YEAH, THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING. YEAH. WE CAN'T DEVELOP THAT WITH BUSINESS NOW. YEAH.

OKAY. WE MAY HAVE A QUESTION LATER, BUT WE'RE GOOD FOR FOR NOW, I THINK.

THE NEXT ONE. OKAY, SO NEXT ISSUE WE HEARD HAS TO DO WITH PRIVATE ROADS.

PRIVATE ROADS ARE ADDRESSED IN THE TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SPECIFICALLY ON PAGE 107 AND TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY NUMBER 15.

AND YOU SEE THOSE ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU.

THE DRAFT PLAN ACKNOWLEDGES THAT PRIVATE ROADS CAUSE MAIN10ANCE, SAFETY AND ACCESS ISSUES AND HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE SUBDIVISION OF LAND IN THE RURAL AREAS OF THE COUNTY. AND A LOT OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT WE HEARD REGARDING PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ROADS RATHER REALLY MIRROR THOSE ISSUES.

AND ON MANY PEOPLE URGING THE COUNTY TO LIMIT OR EVEN ELIMINATE PRIVATE ROADS WITHIN THE COUNTY AS DRAFTED,

[00:25:02]

YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN, THE PLAN DOES NOT SUGGEST NECESSARILY A POLICY DIRECTION OR A POLICY STANCE REGARDING PRIVATE ROADS, BUT SUGGESTS THAT THAT BE ADDRESSED THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION OR THE ORDINANCE UPDATE PROCESS.

AND REALLY, BECAUSE THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT IS REGULATED THROUGH YOUR ORDINANCES, THE RECOMMENDATION HERE WOULD BE TO LEAVE THE LANGUAGE AS IS AND USE THE UPCOMING ORDINANCE UPDATE PROCESS TO DETERMINE THE BEST POLICY DIRECTION FOR THE COUNTY, AND THEN DRAFT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE TO SUPPORT THAT POLICY.

SO I'LL TURN THAT OVER TO YOU ALL TO RECEIVE INPUT AND FEEDBACK.

ANY QUESTIONS FROM THIS BOARD ON PRIVATE ROADS? THEY NEED TO BE DONE AWAY WITH. I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION.

SO IN THE SAME AREA WE WERE JUST LOOKING AT IN DISPUTANTA.

IF YOU LOOK AT THAT AREA BETWEEN 156 AND DISPUTANTA SOUTH OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS, THE MAJORITY OF THE EXISTING STREETS ARE ALL PRIVATE ROADS, AND THAT'S MARKED AS AREAS PROJECTED TO HAVE ADDITIONAL WATER AND SEWER AND COUNTY SERVICES BROUGHT INTO THE AREA.

SO IF WE DO NOT CHANGE A PRIVATE ROAD PROCESSES OR REGULATIONS OR REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIVATE ROADS, HOW COULD THAT BE POSSIBLE? RIGHT. AND THAT AND THAT'S THE ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED, PARTICULARLY DURING THE ORDINANCE UPDATE PROCESS, IS HOW TO HANDLE THAT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? NOT THIS TIME.

OKAY. BUT IF YOU HAVE A LANDOWNER THAT OWNS A PIECE OF LAND THAT HAS NO WAY TO GET INTO IT EXCEPT A PRIVATE ROAD, HOW DO YOU ELIMINATE PRIVATE ROADS? AND I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT RIGHT NOW. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU ALL NEED TO THINK ABOUT AND CONSIDER.

I THINK THE ISSUE THAT I'VE HEARD OVER THE YEARS WITH PRIVATE ROADS HAS BEEN WHERE HOUSING WAS DEVELOPED.

THEY HAD PRIVATE ROADS. PEOPLE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT.

AND THEN ONCE THE ROADS STARTED, YOU KNOW, BREAKING DOWN.

THEIR EXPECTATION WAS FOR THE COUNTY TO, OR VDOT TO DO IT.

AND VDOT WILL ONLY DO IT ONCE IT'S IN THEIR SYSTEM.

SO THAT ROAD WOULD HAVE TO BE BROUGHT UP TO VDOT STANDARDS.

SO I UNDERSTAND WE'VE TRIED TO TACKLE THIS BEFORE AND DID NOT HAVE A GOOD WAY OF DOING IT, BUT I'M HOPING THAT WE'LL GET SOME RECOMMENDATIONS AS WE MOVE FORWARD FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT.

WE GOOD? OKAY. WE'RE GOOD MA'AM. ALL RIGHT. THE THIRD TOPIC QUESTION WE RECEIVED A LOT OF FEEDBACK ON HAS TO DO WITH THE RURAL PRESERVATION LAND USE AREA, WHICH IS SHOWN IN DARK GREEN ON THIS MAP. THIS IS THE LAND USE CATEGORY IN THE DRAFT PLAN THAT IS IN10DED TO BE THE MOST RURAL IN NATURE, SO COMPRISED OF NATURAL LANDS, FARMLANDS, TIMBERLANDS, AND THE DENSITY IN TERMS OF LOT SIZE DESCRIBED IN THE PLAN FOR THESE AREAS IS A 20 ACRE MINIMUM, 20 ACRE LOT SIZE MINIMUM. WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE COMMUNITY IS THAT THERE'S A STRONG DESIRE TO INCLUDE MORE LAND IN THIS LAND USE CATEGORY TO BASICALLY INCREASE THE FOOTPRINT OF THE DARK GREEN AREA THAT YOU SEE ON THE MAP HERE, AS CURRENTLY DRAWN IN THE DRAFT PLAN.

THIS AREA COMPRISES ABOUT 50,000 ACRES, AND THE BOUNDARIES WERE DERIVED BY COMBINING FLOODPLAIN, RPA AND RMA BOUNDARIES, LANDS AND CONSERVATION EASEMENT OR PARKLANDS, AS WELL AS LANDS THAT ARE DESIGNATED BY DCR AS OUTSTANDING OR VERY HIGH VALUE ECOLOGICAL CORES.

I WANT TO TAKE A MINUTE AND TALK ABOUT ECOLOGICAL CORES SO THAT YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THE ADJUSTED CHANGE TO THE MAP.

SO ECOLOGICAL CORES. THIS MAP IS IN CHAPTER THREE OF THE DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND HAS QUITE A BIT OF TEXT SUPPORTING IT, BUT ECOLOGICAL CORES WERE A. THIS IS A DATA SET DEVELOPED BY THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION THROUGH THEIR NATURAL LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT, AND IT ESSENTIALLY ASSESSED THE ENTIRE LANDSCAPE OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA BASED OFF OF A VARIETY OF CRITERIA IN ORDER TO RANK THEM ABOUT HOW INTACT THE NATURAL LANDSCAPE IS. SO THEY TOOK INTO ACCOUNT BIODIVERSITY, ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION, HOW INTACT THE LANDSCAPE IS IN TERMS OF LACK OF DEVELOPMENT OR LOT SIZE, AND THEN HAVE THESE 5 RANKINGS.

SHOWN IN RED HERE ARE AREAS OF OUTSTANDING ECOLOGICAL VALUE.

[00:30:04]

ORANGE IS VERY. YELLOW IS HIGH. AND THEN YOU GO DOWN TO MODERATE IN GENERAL.

SO AS I SAID BEFORE, AS CURRENTLY DRAFTED, THE RURAL PRESERVATION LAND USE CATEGORY COMBINES THE RED AND ORANGE AREAS SEEN HERE, ALONG WITH FLOODPLAIN RPA, RMA AND CONSERVATION EASEMENTS TO DERIVE THE BOUNDARY FOR THE RURAL PRESERVATION LAND USE AREA.

IN RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ABOUT WANTING TO INCREASE THAT FOOTPRINT, WE'VE SUGGESTED WE THINK ABOUT INCLUDING THE YELLOW AREAS, THE HIGH VALUE ECOLOGICAL CORES IN THAT RURAL PRESERVATION LAND USE AREA.

SO LET'S SEE WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE. SO THIS IS AS CURRENTLY DRAFTED IN THE OCTOBER 14TH DRAFT OF THE PLAN, ABOUT 50,000 ACRES OF RURAL PRESERVATION LAND IN DARK GREEN.

IF WE ADD IN THOSE HIGH VALUE ECOLOGICAL CORES.

THEY ARE IN THERE. I CAN FLIP BACK AND FORTH.

YEAH, THERE WE GO. SO ADDING IN THOSE THOSE YELLOW AREAS, THE HIGH VALUE ECOLOGICAL CORES, WE INCREASE THE ACREAGE TO A LITTLE BIT OVER 72,000 ACRES IN THE RURAL PRESERVATION AREA.

AND EFFECTIVELY WHAT THIS DOES IS IT TAKES IN TO THE RURAL PRESERVATION AREA, OUR MOST LARGE UNFRAGMENTED PARCELS IN THE RURAL CONSERVATION AREA. SO FARMLAND, TIMBERLAND, NATURAL AREAS AND NOW INCLUDES THOSE IN THIS 70,000 ACRE FOOTPRINT FOR RURAL PRESERVATION LAND USE. SO THE QUESTION WE HAVE FOR YOU ALL IS, DO WE WANT TO INCREASE THE FOOTPRINT OF RURAL PRESERVATION LAND USE CATEGORY AS SHOWN ON THIS MAP? WHY DON'T YOU FLIP BACK? CURRENT. YEAH, THERE'S YOUR CURRENT. THAT CURRENT AND THEN ALTERNATIVE EXPANDED RURAL PRESERVATION AREA. MR. WEBB. I'LL START WITH YOU.

I'M SORRY I OVERLOOKED YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT ON THIS OR THE OTHER TWO THAT WE COVERED? NOT AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. OKAY. SORRY ABOUT THAT.

BOARD MEMBERS ON OUR SIDE. QUICK QUESTION. YES, SIR.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS BETWEEN RURAL PRESERVATION AND RURAL? YES. THESE ARE THE LAND USE CATEGORIES. EXCUSE ME.

INCLUDED IN THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. AND THERE ARE TWO PAGES THAT HAVE COMPLETE DESCRIPTIONS. I WON'T BE ABLE TO RECITE THEM VERBATIM, BUT ESSENTIALLY THE DARK GREEN RURAL PRESERVATION. THESE ARE OUR MOST RURAL AREAS, OUR MOST SENSITIVE LANDSCAPES.

THESE ARE FARMLAND, TIMBERLAND, NATURAL AREAS, SWAMPS, WATERWAYS.

THE RURAL AREAS, THE LIGHT GREEN ARE STILL OUR RURAL AREAS OF THE COUNTY, BUT, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE RURAL HOME SITES, RURAL HOMESTEADS PLACES WHERE, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE TRANSITIONING AWAY FROM THIS VERY NATURAL LANDSCAPE TO A MORE INHABITED LANDSCAPE.

IT'S LIKE 5 ACRES OR 10 ACRES, RIGHT? CORRECT.

AND THAT'S ONE OF THE NEXT THINGS THAT WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT IS WE RECEIVED COMMENTS ABOUT THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE DESCRIPTION FOR THAT RURAL AREA.

THE LIGHT GREEN AREA. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. MR. QUICK QUESTION. THE LIGHT GREEN AREAS, ARE THOSE ALREADY DEVELOPED OUT OR ARE THEY EXISTING VACANT? A LITTLE BIT OF BOTH. A LITTLE BIT OF BOTH, OKAY.

ONE OF THE THINGS I'D LIKE TO SEE, I LIKE, I LIKE THE MORE DARKER GREEN.

I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU. THAT TRANSITION ZONE, I'D LIKE TO SEE SOME MORE LIGHT GREEN KIND OF BREAK UP, IF WE'RE GOING TO ADD MORE RURAL PRESERVATION.

I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE THAT RURAL BREAK LINE BETWEEN YOUR PLANNING DISTRICT AND YOUR RURAL CONSERVATION DISTRICT, I THINK IT PROBABLY NEEDS TO. THE AMOUNT OF LAND THAT WE TOOK OUT HERE TO ADD TO THE RURAL PRESERVATION, I THINK WE PROBABLY SHOULD TAKE SOME OF THE RULE THAT WE TOOK OUT AND MOVE IT TO THE TRANSITIONAL ZONE.

I'M, MAKING SURE I UNDERSTAND. SO WHERE THE PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY IS NOW YOU'RE SAYING MOVE THAT THE RURAL THE LIGHT GREEN. SO RIGHT NOW YOU'VE GOT THE PLANNING DISTRICT RIGHT.

THEN YOU HAVE THE TRANSITION ZONE BETWEEN THE PLANNING DISTRICT AND THE RURAL DISTRICT, CORRECT? WHAT I'M SAYING IS, WHEN YOU DARKEN THE REST OF THAT GREEN OUT TO TAKE SOME OF THAT LIGHT GREEN AND PUT IN THE TRANSITIONAL ZONE.

SO THE, AS CURRENTLY DRAWN, AND WE'VE KIND OF FADED OUT THE PLANNING AREA ON ON THIS MAP.

SO IT'S HARD TO SEE THAT YELLOW AREA IS REALLY MEANT TO BE THAT THAT TRANSITION.

SO WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS LESS OF THE YELLOW AND MORE OF THE LIGHT GREEN.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBER ON OUR SIDE?

[00:35:10]

SIR. ANY COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS? MY ONLY COMMENT IS THESE MAPS ARE VERY VAGUE. WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE THE ACTUALLY SHOW THE ROADS AND THE ROAD NUMBERS, SO YOU CAN'T REALLY TELL WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. ACKNOWLEDGED. AND IT'S VERY HARD ON A SCREEN THIS SIZE.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE ONLINE INTERACTIVE MAP WHICH HAS ALL OF THE ROAD NAMES ON IT.

SO AM I. ARE WE? AM I HEARING CONSENSUS THAT INCREASING THIS RURAL PRESERVATION FOOTPRINT IS THE PATH FORWARD? WHAT IS THE RULE? WHAT IS THAT GOING TO ENCOUNTER ENCOMPASS TO? THAT'S THE 72,000 THAT YOU'RE SHOWING ON THE MAP NOW.

YEAH, BUT I MEAN, WHAT DIFFERENCE IS IT GOING TO MAKE IN ZONING AND LAND USE? YEAH. AND THAT'S, THAT'S THE NEXT STEP IS UPDATING THE ORDINANCES TO ALIGN ALIGN WITH THESE POLICIES AS AS DESCRIBED IN THE DRAFT PLAN.

NOW, THESE DARK GREEN AREAS ARE DESCRIBED AS A 20 ACRE LOT MINIMUM.

SO VERY RURAL, VERY, VERY NATURAL LANDSCAPES.

SO THE ZONING ORDINANCE WOULDN'T HAVE TO NECESSARILY STICK TO THAT 20 ACRE MINIMUM.

THAT'S THE THAT'S THE DESCRIPTIVE GUIDANCE WHEN YOU WHEN YOU ALL START UPDATING ORDINANCES.

MR. CHAIR. YES, SIR. GOT A QUESTION? WHEN Y'ALL DEVELOP THE RURAL PRESERVATION AND THE RURAL AREA, DID YOU ALL OVERLAY WITH CURRENT LAND USE APPLICANTS WHEN MAKING THIS MAP? SO PEOPLE IN THE LAND USE PROGRAM, DID YOU GO? OKAY. PHILIP USE AND LAND USE PROGRAM. HE'S GOT 100 ACRES.

MISTER COX'S GOT 200 ACRES. ARE THEY IN THIS DARK GREEN OR.

NO. NO, WE DID NOT PUT PROPERTIES IN LAND USE VALUE TAXATION.

IS THAT YOUR. YES. NO, THAT WAS NOT EXPLICITLY A DATA A DATA SET THAT WENT INTO DEVELOPING THIS.

OKAY. THE NEXT QUESTION I HAVE IS CURRENT LAND THAT'S IN CONSERVATION EASEMENTS.

ARE THOSE ALL DARK GREEN? YES. THOSE ARE OKAY.

YOU'RE GOOD? OKAY. I'M WAITING FOR YOU TO GET TO THE ACREAGE TOPIC.

ALL RIGHT. I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO SKIP AHEAD. ONE MORE.

OKAY. IT'S NOT YOU. IT'S THE CLICKER. I KNOW, DOES IT EVERY TIME.

$72 MILLION BUDGET BUT THE CLICKER DON'T WORK.

THANK YOU. TOM. OKAY. NO. GO ONE MORE TOWARDS THE END THERE.

NO. BACK THE OTHER WAY. LET ME GET YOU A DIFFERENT.

HERE WE GO. THIS IS THE ONE I WANTED. WE'VE GOT IT.

SO THE FOURTH AND FINAL TOPIC, THAT OR QUESTION THAT WAS RAISED THROUGHOUT PUBLIC REVIEW HAS TO DO WITH THAT LIGHT GREEN AREA, THE RURAL LAND USE AREA. AS CURRENTLY DRAFTED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE LOT SIZE GUIDANCE FOR THE LIGHT GREEN AREAS PROPOSES A 5 ACRE MINIMUM. WHAT WE HEARD PRETTY CONSIS10TLY THROUGH PUBLIC REVIEW IS THAT THAT'S TOO CLOSE TO CURRENT ZONING AND ISN'T GOING TO DO A LOT TO CURB SPRAWL INTO THESE RURAL AREAS. SO THE ALTERNATIVE TO THINK ABOUT IS INCREASING THAT DESCRIPTION FOR A LOT SIZE MINIMUM TO 10 ACRES. SO ANY AREA SHOWN IN LIGHT GREEN ON THIS MAP, THE DESCRIPTION FOR FUTURE LAND USE GUIDANCE WOULD BE A 10 ACRE LOT SIZE MINIMUM. AND SO THE QUESTION WE POSED TO YOU ALL IS, IS THAT IS THAT THE DIRECTION THAT YOU'D LIKE TO TAKE? BOARD MEMBERS, I'LL LET YOU GUYS SPEAK FIRST.

I'LL SPEAK AFTER YOU. LET ME. I'M GONNA HIT MR. WEBB REAL QUICK SO I DON'T FORGET. MR. WEBB, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT ON THE LOT SIZE? I'M KIND OF CONCERNED ON HOW WE'RE GOING TO CHEW UP WHAT WE HAVE. AND IF WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO PROTECT WHAT WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO PROTECT. THAT'S MY FEAR RIGHT NOW.

OKAY. MR. COX, YOU AGREE? I'M. I'M FINE WITH THE 10 ACRES.

WE NEED TO SLOW THE THE BUILD OUT. MR. PUGH. MY CONCERN IS, IS 10 ACRES ENOUGH TO, I GUESS, END THE SPRAWL? ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN POSED BY ME FROM A LOT OF CITIZENS IS THEIR CURRENT, LARGER PARCELS. RIGHT. ARE WE STILL GOING TO ALLOW FAMILY SUBDIVISIONS? FOR INSTANCE, YOU KNOW, IF I HAD 10 KIDS AND I OWNED 200 ACRES, ARE WE GOING TO ALLOW 10 ONE ACRE LOTS SO MY KIDS CAN BUILD ON THAT?

[00:40:08]

I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO KEEP.

YOU KNOW, IF A FARMER GETS IN HARD TIMES, HE NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO.

IF HE'S GOT TO SELL A PIECE OF LAND, HE CAN DO IT.

OR, YOU KNOW, WHAT HAVE YOU. I THINK IF WE HAD RULES LIKE THAT, WE MAY WOULD BE ABLE TO INCREASE THAT 10 ACRE TO, YOU KNOW, SAY A 20 ACRE WHICH WOULD CURB IT A LITTLE BIT, BUT IT WOULD ALSO GIVE THE LANDOWNERS AND THE CITIZENS THE ABILITY TO BREAK OFF A LOT FOR THEIR KIDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO I GUESS IF WE HAD LITERATURE ON THE BOOKS FOR THAT, I COULD SUPPORT HIGHER ACREAGE.

AND FAMILY SUBDIVISIONS ARE REGULATED BY STATE CODE.

SO THEY'RE GOING TO THEY'RE GOING TO BE THERE. OKAY.

MISS WAYMACK. YES. DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT? NO.

I'LL TELL YOU, I HAVE CONCERN WITH 20 ACRES. I EVEN HAVE CONCERN WITH 10 ACRES.

AND I'M GOING TO TELL YOU WHY. BECAUSE TO ME, YOU'RE NOW PUTTING A REQUIREMENT OUT THERE THAT'S GOING TO REALLY LIMIT PEOPLE'S AFFORDABILITY. I MEAN, DO YOU THINK ABOUT SOMEBODY THAT'S GOT TO HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO HAVE A 10 ACRE LOT OR A 20 ACRE LOT, AND YOU'RE NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE BUILDING IS THAT THEY'LL WANT TO PUT ON IT.

AND I JUST, I DON'T SEE THAT BEING INCLUSIVE.

I'M SEEING THAT KIND OF, IT'S A THING OF THE HAVES AND THE HAVE NOTS.

AND THAT DOESN'T SIT WELL WITH ME. SO THAT THAT'S MY OPINION.

I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. I MEAN, I JUST, I THINK A LOT OF FIRST TIME HOMEOWNERS OR YOUNGER HOMEOWNERS, I DON'T WANT TO LIVE ON 5 ACRES OR 10 ACRES. I LIVE ON A THIRD OF AN ACRE.

I CHOSE TO LIVE IN A SUBDIVISION WHICH I KNOW IS NOT THE CASE HERE, BUT 5 ACRES, IF THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE ARE COMFORTABLE.

I MEAN, TO FORCE PEOPLE TO HAVE 10 ACRES IS CRAZY.

CAN I COMMENT? YEAH. GO AHEAD. WELL, THEN WE'LL COME BACK.

SO TO PIGGYBACK OFF WHAT YOU SAID, I KIND OF I KIND OF CAN'T AGREE WITH YOU.

WITH WE DON'T WANT TO FORCE, AT LEAST I DON'T WANT TO FORCE ANYBODY TO HAVE TO BUY THAT 10 ACRES.

BUT THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE PLANNING AREA TO PROMOTE SUBDIVISIONS ON THOSE QUARTER ACRE, THIRD ACRE LOTS, THINGS LIKE THAT, TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT RURAL CONSERVATION AREA.

BUT THE PROBLEM RIGHT NOW IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE WATER TO SUPPORT THAT. SO PEOPLE ARE HAVING TO BUILD ON 5 ACRES.

SO I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO START ADDRESSING THE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROBLEM, IN MY OPINION. YOU KNOW, UNTIL WE BUILD A WATER PLANT, YOU CAN'T HAVE CERTAIN THINGS.

AND THAT'S JUST THE FACT OF IT. SO, I MEAN, THAT'S A THAT'S A THING FOR THE BOARD TO GO.

HEY, LOOK, WE'VE GOT TO GO DOWN THIS RABBIT HOLE AND START BUILDING OUT THE WATER PLANT THAT WE ALREADY HOLD THE PERMIT FOR.

FAIR, BUT I GUESS ANOTHER ONE OF MY CONCERNS WOULD JUST BE EVEN 10 ACRES.

LIKE, THEN YOU'RE SENDING BUSSES FURTHER AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, LIKE YOU HEAR SO MANY PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT, THERE'S NO AFTER SCHOOL BUSSES HERE, WHICH IS TRUE. LIKE, I MOVED FROM A DISTRICT AND MY KIDS MOVED HERE AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE AFTER SCHOOL BUSSES.

IT WAS JUST, WHEN I WAS OUT OF WORK I COULD DO IT BECAUSE I WAS A SINGLE MOM.

THE ONLY WAY TO DO THAT IS TO HAVE HOUSING CLOSER TOGETHER.

SO IF WE'RE GOING TO SAY, YEP, THAT SHOULD BE IN THE PLANNING AREA, GREAT.

BUT THEN 10 ACRES, THE BUS STILL HAS TO GO 30 MINUTES DOWN THE ROAD TO PICK UP ONE KID.

SO LIKE WE'RE STILL ADDING THAT BURDEN SOMEWHERE.

WELL, I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE GET CREATIVE AND WE RUN VANS, THINGS OF LESSER COST TO PICK UP THESE CHILDREN.

MY PERSONAL OPINION. THAT'S ALL I GOT. YEAH. AND FOR ME, WITH THE WHOLE 10 ACRES OR MORE THAN 5, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT NUMBER IS YET. BUT FOR PEOPLE THAT WANT TO MOVE HERE AND THEY WANT PROPERTY RIGHT NOW, THEY'RE FORCED TO DO 5 ACRES. AND A LOT OF PEOPLE PROBABLY HAVE A HOUSE ON 1 OR 2 ACRES, AND THE REST OF IT IS EITHER SOMETHING THEY HAVE TO CUT OR WHATEVER. AND I JUST THINK PUTTING THAT PUTTING THAT RESTRICTION IN THERE NOW TO SAY IT HAS TO BE 10 ACRES WHEN SOMEBODY WANTS A LITTLE SPACE, BUT THEY DON'T NECESSARILY WANT 10 ACRES, BUT THEY WOULD BE FORCED TO.

SO AGAIN THAT DOESN'T SET WELL FOR ME. GO AHEAD SIR.

GOING WITH THE WITH 10 OR 20 ACRE MINIMUM. YOU, IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU WANT IN THE RURAL AREA.

CORRECT. IF YOU'RE HAVING, IF YOU WANT TO DO THE 10 AND 20, YOU'RE GOING TO DESTROY A WHOLE LOT OF FARMLAND BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE JUST THE 5 ACRE LOTS NOW, THEY BUY THEM, BUILD A HOUSE ON AN ACRE, ACRE AND A HALF, AND THE REST OF IT GROWS UP AND IT'S NOT ENOUGH LAND FOR A FARMER TO WANT TO RENT, SO IT JUST GROWS UP.

TIMBER PEOPLE. YOU CALL IT TIMBER, MAN. TELL HIM I GOT FOUR ACRES I WANT TO CUT TIMBER ON.

AND HE LAUGHS AT YOU BECAUSE HE'S NOT GOING TO SPEND THE TIME MOVING THERE TO CUT IT.

[00:45:01]

SO MY POSITION ON THAT IS THE 10 AND 20 ACRE IS, YOU'RE JUST GOING TO DESTROY FARMLAND.

MR. CHAIR. LET ME SEE IF ANY OF THEIR OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE COMMENTS, BECAUSE YOU'VE SPOKEN TWICE.

I WANT TO GIVE THEM A FAIR CHANCE TO SPEAK. ACTUALLY HAVE ONE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THAT.

SO IF WE'VE GOT THIS NEW DESIGNATED AREA OF DISPUTANTA, LOOKING AT THE MAP, MOST OF THAT LAND AGAIN ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE TRACKS IS CURRENTLY 5 ACRES OR LARGER. SO BY PUTTING ALL THAT LAND IN THIS AREA, DOES THAT MEAN THEN THAT THAT ACREAGE WOULD BE ALL ALLOWABLE AND REDUCED TO ONE ACRE MINIMUMS OR SMALLER LOT MINIMUMS? NO, NO. THE THE DESCRIPTION FOR THE SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL, WHICH IS THE AREA THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IN DISPUTANTA IS STILL AROUND THAT 5 ACRE THE EXISTING, WHAT EXISTS THERE NOW. DOES THAT MAKE DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? CAN I DOUBLE CHECK THE NUMBER? YEAH, I WAS JUST BECAUSE I WAS THINKING THAT THAT PREVIOUSLY WHEN WE DISCUSSED THAT AREA, THERE WAS EVEN TALK THAT, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD ALLOW COMMUNITY GROWTH SUCH AS TOWNHOUSES AND SMALLER TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS AS WELL AS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENTS IN THAT AREA.

IS THAT NOT CORRECT? I THINK THAT WAS LIKE THE VILLAGE CENTER'S TAMMY.

YEAH. MAYBE THAT YOU'RE THINKING. YEAH. BECAUSE I BECAUSE WE'RE THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT THAT SOME. I KNOW AT ONE TIME WE WERE TALKING ABOUT PART OF THAT SAME AREA BEING. YEAH, THE VILLAGE, THE CENTER THAT'S CIRCLED THE VILLAGE CENTER PART WHERE YOU COULD HAVE LIKE APARTMENTS OVER STORES OR WHATEVER, THAT KIND OF THING THAT'S WAS THERE. A DOTTED CIRCLE? YES. YEAH. SO THE SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DESCRIPTION TALKS ABOUT A MINIMUM LOT SIZE AS SMALL TO MEDIUM UP TO UP TO 5 ACRES. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT EVERYTHING THERE IS GOING TO DEVELOP BELOW, BELOW 5 ACRES, RIGHT? LIKE, IT DOESN'T PRECLUDE WHAT'S, WHAT'S ALREADY THERE.

BUT IT'S NO LONGER PREVENTATIVE, CORRECT? CORRECT.

WOULD THAT BE UP TO OTHER PLANS THAT NEED TO BE PUT IN PLACE AND LIKE, LOOKED AT? IS THAT WHAT THAT'S DEPENDENT ON? YES. SO ANY SMALL AREA PLAN FOR DISPUTANTA WOULD BASICALLY LAY OUT A CLEAR VISION FOR WHAT THAT THAT VILLAGE CENTER WOULD LOOK LIKE.

YEAH. YEAH. AND SO AND I'VE SHIFTED MY FOCUS FOR A MINUTE.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THIS WAS CONVEYED. IS THAT THAT FUTURE LAND USE PLAN FOR DISPUTANTA BEING SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL, THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE ZONING. SO IF SOMEONE WANTED A SMALLER LOT SIZE IN THE DISPUTANTA AREA THAN WHAT IT CURRENTLY IS, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BUY UP ALL THE LAND THAT THEY WANT TO CHANGE AND THEN ASK TO REZONE IT.

SO NOTHING, NOTHING WOULD CHANGE. WHAT ANYBODY THAT ALREADY HAS LAND AND LIVES ON IT.

NOTHING WOULD CHANGE THAT UNLESS SOMEBODY, UNLESS THEY SOLD THEIR LAND TO SOMEBODY. AND THEN IT WAS REZONED.

AND SO THE BOARD WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE THAT, THAT WHOLE THING.

SO NOW IT'S MORE CONCERNED ON THE OPPOSITE SPECTRUM, WHERE SOME OF THOSE LANDS ARE 10 OR 20 ACRES CURRENTLY THAT ARE WITHIN THAT AREA, YOU KNOW. SO WOULD IT MAKE IT EASIER FOR THEM TO REDUCE THOSE LOTS.

YEAH. AND I DO WANT TO BACK UP AND TALK ABOUT THE FUTURE LAND USE.

WE'VE INCLUDED FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES. WE'VE INCLUDED.

CAN I JUST GET MR. PUGH'S STATEMENT OR QUESTION OUT? I DON'T KNOW IF IT'LL HAVE AN EFFECT ON WHAT YOU WANT TO. SO HEARING SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AND COMMISSIONERS SPEAK, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE TALKED ABOUT AND WE HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE AS A BOARD TO, TO DISCUSS IT, BUT TO AND IT MIGHT ADDRESS SOME OF YOUR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS.

SAY WE INCREASE THIS ACRE MINIMUM, RIGHT. I THINK THIS BOARD AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD WORK TOGETHER AND CREATE AN AVENUE FOR, FOR INSTANCE, IF YOU'VE GOT 100 ACRES, RIGHT, THAT'S IN THIS ZONE THAT YOU CAN COME WITH A SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR SOMETHING WHERE WE WOULD REDUCE THE LOT SIZE, POSSIBLY. AND YOU BUILD ON A FRACTION OF THAT PROPERTY, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW LET'S DO SOMETHING EASY.

100 ACRES. YOU'RE GOING TO PUT 20 HOUSES ON IT ON A 5 ACRE MINIMUM, RIGHT? INSTEAD OF BUILDING OUT THAT 100 ACRES ON 5 ACRE MINIMUMS WHERE YOU LOSE THAT FARMLAND OR YOU LOSE THAT TIMBERLAND, RIGHT? IF WE MAKE A DEAL WITH A DEVELOPER THAT COMES IN AND WANTS TO REZONE SOMETHING, LET THEM BUILD ON A THIRD OF IT AND THEY CAN PUT IT ON SMALLER LOTS.

BUT THEN THE REST OF THAT LAND CAN ONLY BE SOLD ONE TIME AND GO INTO A CONSERVATION EASEMENT, OR A HOUSE CAN BE BUILT ON IT. IT CAN STILL BE FARMED, IT CAN STILL BE TIMBERED, THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO THAT'S A POSSIBILITY IN MY OPINION, IF WE INCREASE THE ACRE MINIMUMS. YEAH. WELL, THAT'S A GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS, IS THE WEBB FARM IN DISPUTANTA.

YES, 100%. DIVIDED UP INTO 5 ACRE LOTS. AND YOU HAVE ALL THIS OPEN SPACE BETWEEN IT BIG, WHERE IF YOU ALLOWED HIM TO BUILD SO MANY

[00:50:06]

HOUSES ON AN ACRE LOT, THE REST OF THE LAND COULD HAVE STILL BEEN FARMED.

CORRECT. AND I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE IF THIS BOARD AND COMMISSION FEELS UP TO IT, I THINK WE REVIEW IT AND PUT IN POLICY THAT IF THAT WAS TO HAPPEN, THESE ARE THE RULES AND THIS IS HOW IT WORKS.

IF WE CAN AGREE UPON IT. BUT THAT MAY WOULD HELP SOME PEOPLE THAT, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO MOVE TO THE COUNTY AND LIVE ON AN ACRE.THIS IS AN AVENUE WHILE ALSO PRESERVING RURAL LAND, SO. AND I THINK THAT WAS SOME OF SOME OF THE STUFF I'VE SEEN, TALKED ABOUT OF AND I MAY BE USING THE WRONG TERM, BUT LIKE CLUSTERING WITHIN A BIGGER AREA, YOU COULD ALLOW AT THE ROAD FRONTAGE, SMALLER ACREAGE, BUT BEHIND THAT YOU COULD PRESERVE THAT SO THAT IT COULD STILL BE FARMED VERSUS SOMEBODY BUYING A WHOLE 10 OR 20 ACRE LOT AND USING THIS SMALL PORTION OF IT AND EVERYTHING ELSE BEHIND IT REALLY ISN'T BIG ENOUGH TO BE FARMED OR SOMETHING.

THE ONLY THING I DON'T LIKE ABOUT THAT, MR. BROWN, I'D RATHER HAVE A VDOT ENTRANCE COMING IN AND A VDOT MAINTAINED ROAD OR, YOU KNOW, SO WE DON'T GET INTO THE PRIVATE FIASCO OF PRIVATE ROADS AND STUFF, BUT HAVE THEM BUILD IT OUT TO SPEC WHERE THEY CAN.

YOU KNOW, IF IT'S 100 ACRES, THEY CAN BUILD 20 HOMES NOW, SAY, HEY, THEY CAN BUILD 25 OR 30 HOMES TO OFFSET THE COST OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE THEY'D HAVE TO PUT IN THERE, RIGHT. AND THEN THE REST OF IT.

SO, SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE INSTEAD OF ALL DOWN YOUR ROAD WHERE YOU GET YOUR RURAL FEEL WHEN YOU DRIVE DOWN THE ROAD, YOU'RE NOT LOOKING AT 500 HOUSES. INSTEAD, HEY, THERE'S A NEIGHBORHOOD HERE THAT THE BUSSES CAN GO INTO.

PICK UP ALL THE KIDS, AND THEN YOU'VE GOT RURAL LAND IN BETWEEN THE NEXT NEIGHBORHOOD.

YEAH, YEAH. I JUST WOULD LIKE TO SEE US HAVE MORE OF THIS DOCUMENTED OR HAVE IT RIGHT IN THE ZONING OR LAND USE.

OUR WHOLE GOAL AND MISSION BEHIND ALL OF THIS WAS TO GET AWAY FROM ALL THESE.

I DON'T WANT TO CALL THEM SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, BUT SPECIAL LAND USE CASES, AND WE NEED TO HAVE OUR ZONING AND STUFF CLEAR TO SAY WHAT'S ALLOWABLE, SO WE DON'T BE DOING THESE ONE OFFS HERE, ONE OFFS THERE.

SO I MEAN THAT'S WHAT I SEE. THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF ALL OF THIS IS TO HELP REDUCE THAT WORK ON YOU GUYS SPEND PROBABLY MORE ON TIME THAN WHAT WE DO.

YES, SIR. YES, SIR. SO, OKAY. WE'RE GOOD FOR HER TO MOVE ON.

I THINK SHE NEEDS A CONSENSUS IF WE WANT TO. I DO.

I DO HAVE ONE COMMENT BEFORE WE GET TO THE CONSENSUS PORTION.

SO WE'VE, WE INCLUDED LOT SIZE MINIMUMS IN THE DESCRIPTION FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES AS A WAY TO VISUALIZE WHAT DENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT MIGHT LOOK LIKE. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WHEN YOU GET TO UPDATING YOUR ZONING ORDINANCES THAT EVERYTHING IN LIGHT GREEN IS GOING TO HAVE A 10 ACRE MINIMUM.

YOU HAVE OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS WITH UNDERNEATH MULTIPLE ZONING DISTRICTS UNDERNEATH EACH OF THESE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES, WHERE YOU'LL BE DOING JUST THAT. YOU WILL BE HAMMERING OUT EXACTLY WHAT THE LOT SIZES ARE AND WHAT THE LOT, LOT COVERAGE IS. SO THESE ACREAGE MINIMUMS ARE MEANT AS DESCRIPTIONS RATHER THAN REGULATION, IF THAT HELPS ANYONE. I SAW THAT DESCRIPTION OF 20 AND I WAS LIKE, WHEN DID WE DECIDE 20? SO I TOOK IT TO BE MORE THAN DESCRIPTIVE WHEN I FIRST LOOKED AT IT.

ME TOO. SO AN OPTION IS TO TAKE OUT THE LOT SIZE DESCRIPTIONS, IF THAT IS OF CONSTERNATION.

I THINK PEOPLE HAVE SEEN IT NOW TO TAKE IT OUT, BUT I'M JUST SAYING AS LONG AS IT'S CLEAR THAT THAT'S NOT SET IN STONE YET.

YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO SAY, OH, YOU KNOW, THE COUNTY IS LOOKING TO DO 20 LOT OR 20 ACRE MINIMUMS, AND THAT WASN'T SOMETHING WE HAD DECIDED ON. RIGHT.

SO WITH THAT IN MIND, THE THE QUESTION IS FOR THE DESCRIPTION OF DENSITY BASED ON, YOU KNOW, A LOT SIZE DESCRIPTION FOR THIS RURAL LAND USE AREA.

SHOULD WE MOVE FROM 5 TO 10 AS THE DESCRIPTION OF DENSITY? FOR ME I'M GOING TO SAY NO. I WOULD SAY NO. I'LL SAY YES.

YES. NO. YES. MR. WEBB, WHAT'S YOUR THOUGHT? WELL, IS IT CLEANER IF I DO IT LIKE, ARE YOU LOOKING FOR A TOTAL CONSENSUS OR ARE YOU LOOKING FOR CONSENSUS FROM EACH BOARD? SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER WE SAY, IT'S EASY FOR YOU TO INTERPRET.

LET'S DO EACH BOARD. OKAY, SO MR. COX SAID NO.

MR. PUGH. YES. OH, YOU SAID YES. YES. YES. I SAID NO.

MR. WEBB. NO. OKAY, SO IT'S A THREE, TWO, TWO GO FROM 5 TO 10 CONSENSUS.

[00:55:02]

PLANNING COMMISSION. ANDY? YES. NO. NO. YES. YES.

NO. NO. WE'RE THREE. THREE. IS THERE ANOTHER? EXCUSE ME. IS THERE ANOTHER NUMBER THAT'S MORE PALATABLE BETWEEN 5 AND 10? OR DOES IT MATTER? FOR ME, I PREFER TO SEE IT STAY AT THE 5 AND LET THE LET THE REST OF IT BE RESOLVED. IN THE ZONING. IN THE ZONING.

I JUST THINK, I MEAN, WHAT'S WHAT'S THE USE OF CHANGING THE DESCRIPTIVE IF IT REALLY ISN'T SAYING THAT THAT'S WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF IT WOULD BE MORE IF WE WERE SAYING WE WERE VOTING TO FOR THE PLANNING AND STUFF.

BUT THE DESCRIPTIVE PIECE OF IT. YES, SIR. SO IF WE HAVE A COMP PLAN AND IT GOES TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION LIKE IT ALWAYS DOES, AND SOMEBODY GOES, HEY, THIS DOES NOT GO AGAINST YOUR COMP PLAN.

IF IT'S NOT DESCRIPTIVE, DOESN'T THAT LEAVE ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION? I WOULD HAVE TO ASK. YEAH. THAT'S A PROBLEM ISN'T IT.

YEP. WELL, AGAIN, I NEVER HEARD THAT DESCRIPTIVE.

BEING IN HERE REALLY DOES PLAY A BIG FACTOR IF YOU'RE GOING TO SAY IT'S IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

BECAUSE AGAIN, I'M NOT GOING TO AGREE TO 10 OR 20 AS A DESCRIPTIVE IF THAT MEANS THAT DETERMINES WHETHER SOMEBODY IS DOING SOMETHING IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR NOT. I THOUGHT THE ZONING AND STUFF REALLY KIND OF DRIVES THAT, SO THAT THIS IS ALMOST LIKE, TO ME, PUTTING THE CART IN FRONT OF THE HORSE.

YEAH. I MEAN, IF WE'RE SAYING THAT 10, THEN AND SOMEONE COMES AND THEY WANT 5, THEY CAN SAY THE SAME THING THAT IT GOES AGAINST THE COMPREHENSIVE. CORRECT. CORRECT.

YEAH. SO EVEN IF ZONING ALLOWS WHERE WE'RE AT NOW, I'M GONNA SAY WE GOT THE CONSENSUS ON OUR SIDE.

IT'S JUST THE PLANNING COMMISSION NEEDS TO WORK IT OUT. I UNDERSTAND I'M JUST MAKING A STATEMENT THAT I DID NOT TAKE.

I THOUGHT WHAT YOU SAID EARLIER, DESCRIPTIVE JUST SIMPLY MEANT THAT IT WAS JUST A DESCRIPTION IN THE PLAN.

NOT THAT THIS IS WHAT'S GOING TO BE HELD TO SAY WHETHER SOMEBODY WANTS SOMETHING THAT FOLLOWS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR AGAINST THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THAT IS NOT WHAT I INTERPRETED EARLIER ON.

SIR. I'M TOTALLY CONFUSED. SO IF WE, WHAT WOULD THE HARM BE IN REMOVING THE DESCRIPTION OF THE ACREAGE SO THAT IT WOULD ALWAYS NOT BE AGAINST THE COMP PLAN LIKE IT WOULD BE BASED ON ZONING PLAN.

SO YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK AT YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IF YOU HAVE A REZONING APPLICATION COME BEFORE YOU OR A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION COME BEFORE YOU THAT YOU NEED SOME MORE GUIDANCE, THAT ZONING ISN'T GOING GOING TO GIVE YOU.

AND SO THAT'S WHERE, YOU KNOW, IT'S A DOUBLE EDGED SWORD.

YOU CAN BE MORE SPECIFIC IN THE COMP PLAN GIVES YOU MORE SPECIFIC GUIDANCE OR IT SHOOTS YOU IN THE FOOT.

BUT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THE COMP PLAN IF SOMEONE IS PROPOSING A PROJECT THAT MEETS YOUR ZONING ORDINANCE.

AND THE IDEA WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE IS THAT YOU WILL UPDATE YOUR ORDINANCE SO THAT IT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT THE TWO WORK TOGETHER.

WELL, IS IT THE MAJORITY OF YOUR RURAL CONSERVATION AREA ZONED RA, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURE? I THINK IT'S APPROXIMATELY 50-50. TODAY, THE RURAL CONSERVATION AREA IS ABOUT HALF A ONE AND HALF RA, AND BOTH OF THOSE ARE AGRICULTURAL ZONINGS WITH 5 ACRE MINIMUM TODAY.

SO HOW ARE YOU GOING TO REZONE IT SO THAT IT STAYS 5 AND SOME OF IT IS 10 AND SOME OF IT IS 20 OR WHATEVER.

I RECALL THE THING I WAS GOING TO ADD AND IT TOUCHES ON THIS POINT IF YOU TAKE OUT THE DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THE LOT SIZES SHOULD BE FROM THESE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES, THEN WHEN WE COME BACK, WE'RE ALL TOGETHER, YOU KNOW, UPDATING THE ZONING ORDINANCES, WE WON'T HAVE ANY GUIDANCE ON WHAT LOT SIZES ARE APPROPRIATE IN THAT, IN THAT AREA, SO THAT WHEN SOMEONE DOES SUBMIT A REZONING APPLICATION, YOU WON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO GO ON, YOU'LL JUST HAVE A JUST A GENERAL WRIT10 DESCRIPTION, WHICH IS AN OPTION FOR YOU.

BUT WE'LL BE WE WON'T HAVE CLARITY ON WHAT TO PUT INTO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND YOU'LL HAVE A MORE VAGUE TIME WHEN YOU ARE REVIEWING A REZONING APPLICATION. BUT I GUESS TO TOUCH ON THAT, THEN IF SOMEONE'S COMING IN ONE OF THOSE AREAS, AND IT SAYS 10 ACRES HERE THAT IF THEY WANT 5 ACRES, IT WOULD BE AGAIN AGAINST THE COMP PLAN.

NOT NOT UNTIL THE ORDINANCE IS CHANGED. NOT, AND NOT IF THE ORDINANCE IS NOT CHANGED.

[01:00:01]

SO RIGHT NOW THE ZONING SAYS 5 ACRES MINIMUM, NOTHING'S GOING TO CHANGE THAT UNLESS THE BOARD AND THE, YOU KNOW, BOARD CHANGES THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

AND SO IF THE DESCRIPTION IN THE PLAN SAYS 10 ACRES MINIMUM, THEN WHEN WE COME BACK TO UPDATE THE ORDINANCE, WE WOULD SAY, OKAY, ARE YOU READY TO CHANGE THE ORDINANCE? SO IT'S 10 ACRES MINIMUM, OR DO YOU WANT TO DO SOME VARIATION OF THAT? BUT YOU'VE GOT THIS INSPIRATION FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

SO IT'S REALLY UP TO THE COUNTY TO DECIDE, LIKE WHAT DOES IT WANT THESE CATEGORIES TO BE.

AND SO TAKE HER EXAMPLE. IF WE SAY IF IT SAYS 10 AND WE NOW IT COMES TO THE ZONING PART OF IT AND IT'S VOTED NOT TO CHANGE IT.

I'M JUST USING THIS AS AN EXAMPLE. THEN WHAT HAPPENS IS DOES SOMETHING SOMEONE HAVE TO GO BACK AND NOW UPDATE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO NOW SAY 5 ACRES INSTEAD OF 10, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T LEAVE THEM AS A DISCONNECT.

YOU CAN LEAVE IT AS A DISCONNECT. IT WOULD JUST BE A DISCONNECT. DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? NO, THAT WAS JUST.

YOU WANT YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND YOUR ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALIGN? WELL, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. SO I'M GETTING CONFUSED BECAUSE WE'RE SAYING IT CAN BE A DISCONNECT. WHY ARE WE HERE? I DON'T.

I THINK WE'RE MISSING THE ENTIRE POINT. AND THAT WAS TO PUT SOMETHING IN PLACE TO CURB THE GROWTH.

WE'VE GONE DOWN EVERY RABBIT HOLE WE CAN GO DOWN WITH. NO, WE'RE NOT GOING DOWN EVERY RABBIT HOLE. CURBING THE GROWTH AND RESTRICTING PEOPLE TO WHAT THEY CAN AFFORD IS NOT THE SAME. THAT'S, YOU'RE CUTTING OUT A WHOLE GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO MAY NOT BE ABLE TO PURCHASE HERE.

AND AGAIN, THAT'S AGAIN TO ME, THE HAVES AND THE HAVE NOTS.

SEE, MY ISSUE WITH THAT, MR. BROWN, IS VERY SIMPLE.

YOU MOVE WHERE YOU CAN AFFORD TO MOVE TO. IT'S EASY FOR YOU TO SAY THAT.

NO, THAT'S THE FACT. I CAN'T GO SOMEWHERE IF I CAN'T AFFORD TO BE THERE.

OKAY. WE'RE MAKING IT MORE UNAFFORDABLE FOR PEOPLE BY DOING THIS.

WE'RE TRYING TO CONTROL THE GROWTH INTO THE RURAL AREA, THAT'S WHAT THE WHOLE TOPIC IS.

AND I'M TOTALLY IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT. BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT YOU DO THAT BY CUTTING OUT A GROUP OF PEOPLE TO SAY, IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD 10 ACRES, DON'T COME TO PRINCE GEORGE.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING. MR. BROWN, WE GOT THE PLANNING AREA THAT WE'VE GOT, I MEAN, THE.

THAT'S JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION. WE'RE NOT GOING TO SOLVE IT TONIGHT.

YOU KNOW, THIS BOARD HAS DECIDED THAT THEY WANT TO MOVE IT FROM 5 TO 10 BY CONSENSUS.

AND I HAVE TO GO WITH THAT BECAUSE THAT'S THE MAJORITY.

BUT THAT STILL DOESN'T CHANGE MY OPINION. I'M ENTITLED TO MY OPINION.

100%. SO WE CAN HAVE THIS DISCUSSION PART LATER, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT PART OF WHAT YOU NEED TONIGHT FROM THIS BOARD.

I'LL LET YOU HANDLE IT FROM YOUR SIDE, BUT. I DON'T AGREE WITH THEM BY THE PLANNING.

EVERY TIME SOMEBODY COMES WITH A PLANNING AREA.

WELL, WE CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE SEWER AND WATER.

YEP. SO I MEAN, AND AND LIKE YOU SAID, ALL YOU'RE GOING TO IF YOU RAISE THAT THE ACREAGE, ALL YOU'RE GOING TO DO IS MAKE AN ELITE GROUP LIVE IN THE RURAL DISTRICT, RURAL CONSERVATION AREA.

AND YOUR STORY FARMS. THAT'S MY OPINION. I'D LIKE TO SAY FROM OUR SIDE.

AND THEN WOULDN'T THAT MAKE WHAT MR. PUGH SUGGESTED HARDER TO HAVE WHERE YOU COULD HAVE LIKE 100 ACRES AND JUST BUILD 25 HOUSES ON IT.

WOULDN'T THAT MAKE IT HARDER, BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY SAID THEN THAT THEY HAVE TO BE A MINIMUM OF 10? NO, MA'AM. THAT'S WHERE THE SPECIAL. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WE CAN THINK OF, LIKE, EVERY SINGLE SPECIAL EXCEPTION LIKE THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE A LAWYER'S NIGHTMARE.

IT WOULD BE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. WE WOULD PUT IT IN A ZONING TO WHERE BY RIGHT, THEY WOULD HAVE THE OPTION TO BUILD ON 10 ACRE LOTS.

OR THEY COULD DO THIS IF THEY'RE A DEVELOPER FOR PRO RURAL CONSERVATION, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? JUST THEN WHEN YOU HAVE A FARMER THAT THAT'S HIT HARD TIMES LIKE IT'S BEEN THE PAST FEW YEARS AND HE WANTS TO SELL A LOT, YOU'RE GOING TO REQUIRE HIM TO TO SELL A BUNCH OF LOTS? NO, SIR. THAT'S WHAT I SAID EARLIER. WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION WHERE WE COULD PUT SOMETHING IN ZONING WHERE IF THAT WAS THE CASE, THEY COME TO US AND SAY, HEY, LOOK, THIS IS WHAT'S HAPPENED.

I'D LIKE TO BREAK OFF A LOT, AND YOU WOULD JUST DO THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW.

AGAIN, WE HAVE OUR CONSENSUS. I HAVE TO OBSERVE THAT AND RESPECT THAT.

THESE ARE ALL TOPICS THAT YOU GET INTO THE ORDINANCE UPDATE, YOU'LL REHASH IT, YOU'LL REHASH AGAIN.

SO KEEP ALL THOSE IDEAS IN MIND. 3-3 OKAY, SO IT WAS 3-3 HERE AND 3-2 OVER HERE OKAY.

AND THAT'S ACTUALLY THE LAST TOPIC I HAVE TO RAISE WITH YOU ALL.

THE NEXT SLIDE IS WERE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR EDITS TO OTHER COMPONENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS BEFORE WE INCORPORATE EDITS?

[01:05:08]

DOES ANY BOS MEMBER HAVE ANY OTHER TOPIC THEY WANT TO BRING TO HER TONIGHT? NO. THEN JUST SAY THANK YOU. OKAY. I THINK WE'RE GOOD.

ANYBODY ON PLANNING COMMISSION? NO. OKAY. SO THE NEXT STEPS HERE.

IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL REVISIONS OR COMMENTS, PLEASE SUBMIT THEM TO STAFF BY OCTOBER 29TH, WHICH IS THIS TIME NEXT WEEK. AND WE WILL WORK TO FINALIZE THE PLAN.

THE DRAFT PLAN WILL COME FOR PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING ON NOVEMBER 20TH, WHERE YOU ALL CAN RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD THAT THEY ADOPT, THEY ADOPT WITH AMENDMENTS OR THEY NOT ADOPT.

AND THEN THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THE DRAFT PLAN ON DECEMBER 9TH.

WITH THAT, THANK YOU ALL. AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO REACH OUT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DIDN'T MEAN TO GIVE YOU A HARD TIME.

NOPE. THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE. BUT THANK YOU. YOU GUYS HAVE HARD WORK AHEAD OF YOU.

YEAH. SEE YOU COMING. ALL RIGHT. SO YOU GUYS WILL DO YOUR ADJOURNMENT? YES, SIR. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

SO MOVED. SECOND. MOTION BY MISS. CANEPA, SECOND BY MR. HOWELL. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. MISS CANEPA? YES.

MR. BRESKO? YES. MR. WAYMACK? YES. MISS ANDERSON? YES, MR. HOWELL? YES. MR. MCDONOUGH? YES. OKAY.

OKAY.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. FOR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AT THIS TIME, I

[E. Closed Session]

WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR GOING INTO CLOSED SESSION PLEASE.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE GO INTO CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO VIRGINIA CODE 2.23711A8 FOR THE LEGAL ADVICE AND DISCUSSION FROM LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING SPECIFIC LEGAL MATTERS. HOPEWELL AND SUSSEX WASTEWATER TREATMENT EXPANSION CONTRACTS.

OKAY. I NEED A SECOND, PLEASE. SECOND. IT'S BEEN PROPERLY MOVED, AND SECOND, THAT WE WOULD GO INTO CLOSED SESSION FOR CONTRACT NEGOTIATION.

SUSSEX COUNTY AND CITY OF HOPEWELL WASTEWATER AGREEMENTS.

YOU'VE HEARD THE MOTION. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? MRS KNOTT, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? MR. PUGH? YES, MR. WEBB? YES. MR. BROWN? YES. MRS. WAYMACK? YES. MR. COX? YES. MOTION CARRIED, AND WE ARE IN CLOSED SESSION, MR. WEBB. WE WILL. I WILL CALL YOU BACK ON YOUR PHONE.

ALL RIGHT. READY? YEP. LADIES, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE WERE IN CLOSED SESSION, AND WE HAVE RETURNED FROM CLOSED SESSION. AT THIS TIME, I WOULD ASK FOR A MOTION TO RECONVENE AND CERTIFY THE CLOSED SESSION.

PLEASE, MR. CHAIR, I MAKE A MOTION TO RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION CERTIFY THAT ONLY THE MATTERS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED IN THE MOTION TO GO INTO CLOSED MEETING WERE HEARD, DISCUSSED OR CONSIDERED. I NEED A. OKAY. I GOT MR. COX. SO IT'S BEEN PROPERLY MOVED BY MR. PUGH AND SECOND, BY MR. COX FOR US TO RECONVENE AND THE CERTIFICATION OF WHAT WE DISCUSSED IN CLOSED SESSION AS IN THE MOTION.

YOU'VE HEARD THE MOTION. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? MISS KNOTT, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? MR. WEBB? YES, MR. BROWN? YES. MRS. WAYMACK? YES.

MR. COX? YES. MR. PUGH? YES. MOTION CARRIED. BOARD MEMBERS.

AT THIS TIME I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT, PLEASE.

SO MOVED. SECOND. OKAY. IT'S BEEN PROPERLY MOVED BY MR. COX AND SECOND, BY MR. PUGH THAT WE WOULD ADJOURN AT THIS TIME.

MISS KNOTT, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? MR. WEBB? YES. MR. PUGH? YES. MR. COX? YES. MRS. WAYMACK? YES. MR. BROWN? YES. MEETING ADJOURNED. OKAY.

MR. WEBB.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.