[00:00:01]
[Planning Commission on May 22, 2024.]
EVERYONE.I'D LIKE TO WELCOME EVERYONE TO THE MAY 20TH, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE FOR SUSTAIN LEADERSHIP FLAGSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES OF HONOR.
CONSIDER ENT POINT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD IN INVISIBLE OF LIBERTY AND JUSTICE LAW.
UM, THE ADOPTIONS OF THE MEETING AGENDA, UH, ENTERTAIN A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT, UH, MEETINGS AGENDA.
DARE I MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THE MEETING AGENDA AS PRINTED PROPERLY.
MOVE THE SECOND THAT WE, UH, ADOPT THE, UH, MEETINGS AGENDA AS PRESENT.
ALL THOSE PRESENTED AS ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.
AYE, UH, CONSENT ITEMS. YOU DON'T HAVE NO CONSENT ITEMS? NO, SIR.
THE NEXT THING IS THE OLD BUSINESS.
AND, UH, THIS IS, UH, SO ORDINANCE AMENDMENT.
SO, UH, MR. WADE, SO BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, UM, AT YOUR LAST MEETING, YOU, YOU, UM, YOU ALL ASKED THAT WE BRING BACK, UH, CONDITIONS FROM, UM, THE PREVIOUS CASE FOR CAVALIER SOLAR, AS WELL AS, UM, TWO OTHER PROJECTS FROM FROM LOBLAW, AS WELL AS THE ONE FOR SIRI SOLAR CENTER.
SIR, BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, YOU DO HAVE CONDITIONS FROM THOSE THREE PROJECTS.
UM, AGAIN, ONE, ONE WAS APPROVED.
THE, THE FIRST ONE THAT YOU SEEN IN YOUR PACKET WAS APPROVED.
UM, BEING THAT OF A CAVALIER SOLAR BY, UM, A ES OR THE TIME, I BELIEVE IT WAS S POWER.
UM, AND THEN YOU HAVE, UH, TWO OTHER CONDITIONS THAT WERE, WERE NOT APPROVED BY THE BOARD, BUT THE CONDITIONS ARE, ARE, ARE HELPFUL.
SO THE, THE PURPOSE OF THIS, UM, MEETING, UH, I'M WITH A GUESS IS TO, UM, TO UPDATE OUR, UM, SOLAR.
SO I, I, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE NIGHT THAT WE LOOK AT SOME OF THE, IF YOU HAVE LOOKED AT THROUGH SOME OF THE CONDITIONS, THINGS THAT YOU WANT TO SEE ON A REPEATED BASIS THAT BECOME, IF YOU LOOK THROUGH SOME OF THE CONDITIONS IN EACH OF THE CASES THAT YOU SEE, SOME OF THOSE CONDITIONS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE REPEATED AS PART OF A NEW REQUIREMENT, THAT WE LOOK THROUGH THOSE AND, UM, WE, WE MAY GAUGE THROUGH IT.
I GUESS GIVE US SOME, MAYBE SOME TIME, THE NEXT FIVE MINUTES OR SO TO KIND OF LOOK THROUGH EACH OF THOSE COLLECTIVELY AND THEN JUST KIND OF, YOU KNOW, WE CAN DISCUSS THAT.
AND, AND I KNOW THAT OUR LAST MEETING, I THINK THERE WAS, UH, SEVERAL OF US, UH, INDICATED THAT WE LIKED THE, UH, WHAT WE SAW IN SOME OF THE OTHER ORDINANCES THAT WAS IN THAT PACKAGE.
ESPECIALLY THE, UM, LOUISA MM-HMM.
UM, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN GET A COPY OF THAT TO GO WITH THIS OR, I DIDN'T BRING ONE.
UM, I CAN, LET SEE IF I CAN'T PULL UP, LEMME SEE IF I CAN FIND ONE LINE THAT, THAT WAS ONE OF THE, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS SEVERAL DIFFERENT ONES THERE, BUT I THINK, UM, YOU AND SOME OF US, YOU KNOW, VOICED THAT OPINION THAT, UH, KIND OF LIKED WHAT THEY WERE DOING OR SOME THINGS.
I, I DID, I DID, WE DID TAKE NOTE OF THAT, THAT OLIVE WHITES WAS SOMETHING THAT, I'M SORRY, THAT LOUIS' WAS ONE OF THE ONES THAT, THAT YOU ALL ENJOYED OR, OR FELT LIKE THAT WOULD BE, I GUESS, SIMILAR TO WHAT, UH, SURY COUNTY WAS LOOKING FOR, THE QUALITY THAT SURY COUNTY WAS LOOKING FOR.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OTHER MEMBERS HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENT ON THAT OR NOT, BUT I'M JUST, WELL, I, UM, I KNOW IT WAS KIND OF LATE THIS AFTERNOON, BUT USING THOSE OTHER ORDINANCES AND THE INFORMATION THAT WE WERE GIVEN FOR THIS MEETING, I COMPILED A LIST OF MY RECOMMENDATIONS
[00:05:01]
THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER.I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S HELPFUL OR NOT.
I HOPE IT IS, IS THE PRINCIPAL.
AND I, I, SO I THOUGHT IT WAS HELPFUL.
WHAT I DROPPED, I DID, SINCE LAST TIME, I, I, I KIND OF GROUPED THEM INTO, YOU KNOW, ITEMS THAT WOULD APPLY TO PLANS THAT WOULD, UM, BE PRESENTED TO THE, THE OFFICE AND TO THE COMMISSION.
AND THEN ONES THAT WERE FOR ROADS, STORM DUST AND DEBRIS, NOISE LIGHTS AND CONSTRUCTION BUFFERS AND DECOMMISSIONING.
I TRIED TO KIND OF BUCKET 'EM, SO THEY WEREN'T ALL OVER THE PLACE WHEN I FIRST PUT MY LIST TOGETHER.
BUT, UM, I PULLED FROM THOSE AND ALSO ADDED THINGS THAT I KNOW THAT WE'VE HAD, YOU KNOW, HARD HEARTACHE OVER THE ROADS.
THAT'S REALLY BEEN AN ISSUE FOR THIS LAST ONE.
IT'S BEEN A LOT OF ISSUES WITH THE ROADS.
SO DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THAT FOR THAT WE COULD SHARE? OR, I MEAN, OTHER THAN, YOU KNOW, I GUESS AS A, AS A GROUP, WE MIGHT WANT TO, TO, UM, YOU KNOW, WE COULD, UH, LOOK AT 'EM AND SEE IF WE, YOU KNOW, I CAN GET
SO MAYBE HE CAN POST IT UP THERE ON THE SCREEN.
OF COURSE, IF YOU HAVE THAT A FILL AND MR. LEE, WHILE, WHILE I GUESS YOU ALL ARE DOING THAT, I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION FOR, I DON'T KNOW WHO IT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO, BUT AS FAR AS ROADS, HOW, HOW MUCH JURISDICTION DOES THE COUNTY HAVE OTHER THAN REQUIRING TRAFFIC PLANS AND, AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE? BECAUSE, AND, AND SOMEBODY, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT TO MY UNDERSTANDING, THE THE ROADS ARE STATE HIGHWAY.
SO I, I KNOW THE PUBLIC ASSUMES THAT IF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVES A NEW, UH, SOLAR FACILITY OR WHATEVER IN THE ROAD IS DAMAGED IN THE PROCESS, I THINK THE GENERAL PUBLIC ASSUMES THAT IT'S THE COUNTY'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ROADS ARE REPAIRED.
BUT MY QUESTION GOES BACK TO WHAT CAN WE DO AS A COUNTY OTHER THAN MAKE SURE WE REQUIRE A TRAFFIC MITIGATION PLAN, UM, REQUIRE STUFF OR HEAVY THE EQUIPMENT TO GO ON CERTAIN SIDE ROADS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
BUT TO THE POINT OF THE STATE OWNING THE HIGHWAY, WHAT CAN THE COUNTY DO? SO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I CAN TELL YOU IN PRACTICE, WHAT WE HAVE DONE WORKING WITH VDOT WAS, UM, THEY WOULD ANALYZE AND ANTICIPATE HOW MUCH CONSTRUCTION, I GUESS, TRAFFIC THEY WOULD GENERATE THROUGH A CERTAIN REGION.
AND THEY WOULD REQUIRE A BOND AMOUNT.
THEY WOULD BOND A, A ROAD BOND, SO TO SPEAK.
AND SO SOME, SOME OF THAT MAY BE, I THINK IN THE LAST ONE WAS CAVALIER AND THEY, THEY HAD A BOND AMOUNT OF LIKE $5 MILLION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT COVERED THE ROADS FOR DIFFERENT REPAIRS.
NOW THEY ARE, THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE, UM, THEY'RE DOING IT AS THEY GO SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THE WAY THAT ORDINANCE OR WHATEVER SAYS IS THAT THEY WOULD BE REPAIRED AFTER.
SO SOME OF THE, SOME OF THE WAYS THE CONDITIONS ARE WORK, THEY TECHNICALLY, YOU, YOU COULD ASSUME THAT THEY, YOU MAY AS YOU COULD MAKE AN ASSUMPTION THAT, OH, THEY MESSED THE ROAD UP AND THEN THEY WOULD BRING IT BACK TO WHAT IT, WHAT IT WAS AFTER THE PROJECT WAS OVER.
BUT IN PRACTICE, THEY'VE BEEN FIXING IT AS THEY GO ALONG OR THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT.
IF THERE'S A BIG POTHOLE, CERTAINLY YOU DON'T WANNA WAIT 18 MONTHS TO FIX A POTHOLE THAT YOU DAMAGE.
AND OF COURSE, THEY DON'T WANT THEIR, THEIR, THEIR NEIGHBORS TO FEEL AS THOUGH THEY'RE, THEY'RE IGNORING THEM THAT MUCH.
SO I, I SEE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN APPLYING IT, IT MAY TAKE SOME TIME TO GO THROUGH IT, BUT IT, THEY DEFINITELY DON'T WANNA WAIT 18 MONTHS TO DO THAT.
THERE'S SOMETHING MS. MS. PERKINS WANTED TO ADD TO THAT.
UM, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IF I COULD JUST, UM, ADD BRIEFLY TO WHAT MR. WADE STATED, UM, FROM A LEGAL LIABILITY STANDPOINT, IF THEY CAUSE THE DAMAGE, THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT.
NOW THE CHALLENGE COMES WITH, YOU KNOW, DID THEY REALLY CAUSE THE DAMAGE? DID THEY NOT CAUSE THE DAMAGE? UM, AND WE CAN CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT IS THE, WHAT'S THE BASELINE? I THINK WE'VE ACTUALLY DISCUSSED THAT BEFORE.
LIKE HOW DO WE GET A GOOD IDEA, A GOOD BASELINE BEFORE A PROJECT EVEN BEGINS OF WHAT THE ROAD CONDITIONS ARE.
SO, UM, IN, IN, IN MY, IN MY DEALINGS THUS FAR WITH THESE, THESE COMPANIES, THESE DEVELOPERS, THEY ARE WILLING TO PAY.
IT'S JUST A QUESTION OF WHEN IT HAPPENS, WHAT THAT
[00:10:01]
BASELINE IS.AND WE CAN CERTAINLY PUT CONDITIONS IN PLACE THAT HELP DETERMINE WHAT THE BASELINE IS, OR IF IT SHOULD BE A PHASED APPROACH, OR IF IT SHOULD BE AT THE END OF THE PROJECT.
BUT AS MR. WADE SAID, IF YOU HAVE A REAL HUGE POTHOLE, YOU DON'T REALLY WANNA WAIT UNTIL THE END OF A PROJECT TO, TO CORRECT THAT.
SO, UM, JUST LIKE IN THE CAVALIER, IT SAYS WITHIN 48 HOURS, UM, OR AS SOON AS REASONABLE, PREDICTABLE.
UM, ALSO WE ASKED ABOUT THIS AT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR LEVEL WHEN THE VDOT A REPRESENTATIVE WAS THERE AND HE INDICATED, YOU KNOW, THE COUNTY CAN PAY FOR ROAD REPAIR.
SO VDO T'S GONNA ONLY HAVE SO MUCH MONEY, RIGHT? THEY HAVE BUDGETS, UH, JUST LIKE US
SO, UM, I DON'T KNOW, AS A COUNTY, WE SHOULD MAYBE LOOK AT RECOMMENDING IF WE'RE GONNA HAVE THESE PROJECTS COME IN, DO SHOULD WE HAVE MONIES TO HELP? I DON'T KNOW.
I MEAN, I THINK YOUR QUESTIONS A GOOD ONE.
I'M LIKE, YOU KNOW, WHO REALLY IS THE ONE? BUT THE ONES THAT TAKE THE HIT, YOU KNOW, ARE EVERYDAY PEOPLE.
THAT'S SO, SO YEAH, THE, THE, THE CITIZENS ARE, THEY'RE THE ONES PROBABLY IMPACT, I THINK, THAT DO WITH CAVALIER.
I HAVE, WE HAVE EXPERIENCED SEVERAL ISSUES FROM THE ROADS.
UM, I THINK SOME OF THE, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT A HAS SHOWN BEFORE, SO JUST TO SET A BASELINE, I THINK WHAT MS. BURKEL WAS SAYING SET IN THE BASELINE BEFORE THE PROJECT, THEY, WHAT THEY DO, THEY GO OUT WITH LIKE A CAMERA, LIKE A VIDEO CAMERA, AND THEY RECORD THE ROUTES THROUGHOUT.
AND THEN WHEN A COMPLAINT COMES IN, THE EXTRA REVIEW THAT PARTICULAR AREA, AND THEY SHOW US THE FOOTAGE OF WHERE THE AREA WAS.
AND THERE HAVE BEEN CERTAIN CASES WHERE THEY SAID, YOU KNOW, WE'LL TAKE CARE OF IT 'CAUSE WE BELIEVE, YOU KNOW, WE CAN, WE COULD HELP OUT IN THAT SITUATION 'CAUSE SOMETHING CAME UP.
BUT THERE, YOU KNOW, FOR, FOR EXAMPLE, UM, THERE WAS LIKE AN AREA WHERE THERE'S, I GUESS SOME DECREASING OF, OF PAVEMENT IN A CERTAIN AREA.
OVER TIME IT BECAME WORSE 'CAUSE IT WAS NEVER ADDRESSED BY VDOT.
AND SO IT, IT BECAME WORSE BECAUSE IT WASN'T ADDRESSED.
SO, UM, THERE ARE CERTAIN AREAS WHERE THEY WOULD FIND A VIDEO FOOTAGE OF, UM, OF A ROAD PREPARED THAT SHOULD, THAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED BY VI.
AND THEY, THEY CALL THOSE IN, THEY CALL V ON THOSE.
SO I THINK WHAT I'M JUST TRYING TO SAY WITH THAT ONE IS THERE IS A WAY THAT THEY HAVE FOUND A WAY TO GET A BASELINE AND THEY MAKE SURE THAT VDOT AND THE, AND THE COUNTY HAVE SEEN THAT FOOTAGE BEFORE, BEFORE THEY START CONSTRUCTION.
SO THEY, THEY SEND IT OUT THERE IN ADVANCE.
SO HOW DO WE PUT THAT IN, IN LIKE A, IN A USED IN IN ONE OF THESE, IN THE CONDITIONS? I THINK THERE IS, I THINK THERE IS A CONDITION FOR THAT ONE.
LEMME, BUT WE CAN'T PUT A, UM, DOLLAR SIGN VALUE ON IT.
AND YOU KNOW, BECAUSE YOU SAID SOMEBODY HAD LIKE A $5 MILLION.
YEAH, U USUALLY V VDOT REVIEWED THAT AND THEY GAVE THEM, THEY GAVE THEM WITH THE BOTTOM AMOUNT VDOT REVIEWED AND GAVE THE BOTTOM AMOUNT FOR THE COVERAGE AREA.
V YES, V VDOT GIVES THEM, AND I MEAN, YOU COULD SAY WE, WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOU HAVING A BOND, A BOND AMOUNT TO COVER THE, THE AREA.
AND SO THAT WOULD BE A COUNTY.
SO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT VDOT WOULD TELL FOLKS, AND THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S KIND OF INTERESTING THAT WE DISCOVERED AFTER THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETE OR CLOSE TO COMPLETION, WHEN THERE WAS ISSUES WITH, UM, VEHICLES TAKING THAT SHOULDN'T BE GOING ON THESE PA THESE, UH, I GUESS THE CONSTRUCTION PATH OR, OR, UM, A DELIVERY ROUTES.
SOME OF THE, SOME OF THE, THE DELIVERY TRUCKS OVER TIME, THEY WERE GOING DOWN ROADS.
THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GOING DOWN, UM, EARLY IN THE PROJECT THAT WAS HAPPENING TOO FAR ON A CONSISTENT BASIS.
UM, AND THEN WE FINALLY, WE WERE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WAS GOING ON.
UM, SOME OF THOSE FOLKS EVEN TALKED TO VDOT AHEAD OF TIME AND ASKED, IS THIS ROUTE APPROVED? AND THE VDOT SAID YES.
UM, SO WHAT WAS HAPPENING WAS, AND I THINK, UM, A COUPLE TIMES, YOU KNOW, THE SHERIFF'S DEPUTIES STOPPED BY, STOPPED FOLKS, AND THEY SAID NO, UM, VITA TOLD 'EM, WE CAN, WE CAN GO DOWN THIS ROUTE.
THEY TOLD US I CAN TAKE THIS ROUTE BECAUSE IT'S A STATE HIGHWAY.
ANYBODY CAN TAKE THESE ROUTES.
SO WHAT THEY DIDN'T KNOW, I GUESS IN TALKING WITH A ES, THEY DIDN'T TALK TO A ES MAYBE THERE'S A DISCONNECT.
AGAIN, YOU HAVE SUBCONTRACTORS OR SUBCONTRACTORS, UM, YOU KNOW, WE TO FIGURE OUT, HEY, SOMEHOW SOME KIND OF WAY, EVEN THOUGH, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT THE FOLKS DOING THAT A-E-S-A-E-S AS A DEVELOPER, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT.
SO THEY HAVE TO FIND A WAY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CONTRACTORS, EVEN IF AS A SUBCONTRACTOR OR A SUBCONTRACTOR KNOWS, UM, THAT THESE ROUTES OR THEIR APPROVED ROUTE TO TAKE, TO TAKE.
UM, BUT YEAH, BUT THE STATE WOULD TELL 'EM, HEY, THESE ARE, THERE'S STATE, THOSE STATE ROADS, YOU CAN, YOU CAN GO DOWN IT, BUT ACCORDING TO THE COUNTY'S LAND USE APPROVAL, IT WOULD BE A ZONING VIOLATION FOR THEM TO CONTINUE GOING THAT WAY.
[00:15:01]
SO THOSE, THOSE ARE SOME THINGS TO, TO CONSIDER WHEN WE'RE TALKING TO DEVELOPERS UP FRONT TO MAKE SURE IF ANYTHING THAT WE KNOW AND MAYBE SOME STRONGER CONDITIONS OF HOW WE CAN ENFORCE THOSE THINGS.UM, BUT I THINK THE CONDITIONS, THEY, I THINK THE ONES THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW AND, AND AS WELL AS WITH LOUISA, WE PROBABLY ADDRESS THAT AND THAT IT WOULD SHOW THAT ANY VIOLATION OF THE CEP CONDITIONS, UM, WE CAN FOLLOW SUIT AND, AND SHOW THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE WAYS TO REMEDY THAT.
SO THERE WE, I THINK WE CAN, WE CAN ADDRESS THAT.
I DON'T, WELL, ONE OTHER THING TO ADDRESS IS THE AMOUNT THAT WAS SOMETHING THEY DIDN'T, UM, FOLLOW WAS THEIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN CITED A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC AND IT WAS, IT'S BEEN WAY HIGHER THAN WHAT THEY ANTICIPATED OR PLANNED.
UM, AND, YOU KNOW, THAT REALLY CONTRIBUTES TO IT ALSO.
IT'S NOT ONLY THAT MAYBE THEY TOOK THE WRONG ROUTE, BUT EVEN ON THE RIGHT ROUTE, IF YOU HAVE TOO MUCH TRAFFIC, I MEAN, IF VDOT EXPECTED WHAT WAS IN THE TRAFFIC PLAN AND THEY SAID IT'S FIVE AND THEN THEY DO TRIPLE THAT, YOU CAN SEE HOW THE, THE BASIS GETS OFF.
AND SO I GUESS, YOU KNOW, TO MAKE A LONG STORY SHORT, I THINK IT IS FROM THIS MEETING, CAN WE
SO, UM, NUMBER TWO, IF YOU LOOK AT CONDITION NUMBER 12 MM-HMM,
UM, SO PRE ASSESSMENT OF PREEXISTING ROAD CONDITIONS AND ABILITY TO HANDLE CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC MUST BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT APPROVED BY VDOT AND THE COUNTY PLAN DIRECTOR PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL, PAVEMENT DAMAGE TO ROADS, INCLUDING SHOULDERS AND APRONS, ATTRIBUTAL TO CONSTRUCTION.
I THINK THAT WAS ONE OF THE, THE ONES THAT SHE WENT OVER.
IT SAYS, UH, SHOULD BE PAIRED WITH BY THE APPLICANT WITHIN 48 HOURS.
SO THAT'S, THAT, THAT WAS THE CONDITION THAT, THAT YOU HAD REFERENCED THERE.
THAT WAS, THAT'S WHAT THEY, YOU HAVE IN THE CAVALIER MM-HMM.
SO THAT, THAT IT, IT, IT TELLS YOU HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE, BUT IT IS NOT IN OUR BASELINE ORDINANCE.
SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS NOT ONLY INCLUDE THAT, BUT INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE ABOUT A BOND I I LEGALLY ABOUT A BOND.
BECAUSE WE CAN HE SIT HERE AND SAY, AND PUT IN AN ORDINANCE THAT IT'S REQUIRED TO BE FIXED IN 48 HOURS AND WE KNOW FULL WELL THAT IT MAY NOT BE FIXED IN FOUR EIGHT HOURS.
THAT'S IF DDOT HAS THE, THE FUNDS AND THE, AND THE, AND THE MANPOWER TO DO THAT.
BUT IF WE REQUIRED THE BOND, THEN IT LEAST WOULD HAVE THE FUNDING FOR V TO BE ABLE TO DO IT.
I, I STILL DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE 48 HOUR PIECE, BUT YEAH, I THINK JUST LIKE YOU MENTIONED, THE 48 HOUR PIECE, UM, I THINK INITIALLY WITH THE PROJECT, I THINK THAT THE DEVELOPERS ARE WAITING ON, ON VDOT TO DO THE IMPROVEMENTS.
AND THAT WAS TAKING, THAT WAS TAKING TOO LONG.
AND THEY REALIZED THAT THEY COULD ACTUALLY GO DO THE IMPROVEMENTS THEMSELVES WITH JUST HAVING VDOT SAY, IS IT OKAY FOR US TO GO DO IT? SO THAT, YOU KNOW, EARLIER ON THEY FIGURED OUT WE CAN'T JUST WAIT FOR VDOT TO DO IT.
WE HAD TO GO, YOU KNOW, SAY WE WANT, WE WANNA MAKE THESE IMPROVEMENTS AND JUST GO DO IT THEMSELVES.
IF I COULD ADD ALSO, JUST HAVING THE BOND ISN'T, ISN'T LIKE A, UM, OOH, WORDS LOLA, UM,
IT JUST HAVING, HAVING THE BOND IS GREAT, BUT JUST HAVING THE BOND IS NOT LIKE BEING ABLE TO GO TO THE ATM MACHINE AND TAKE THE MONEY OUT.
AND SINCE IT'S V DOT'S BOND, VDOT WOULD HAVE TO DO THAT.
WE WOULDN'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT.
NOW, UM, WHETHER OR NOT WE COULD REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL BOND, I'M NOT SURE.
THAT'S SOME CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT I COULD LOOK INTO.
BACK TO MY ORIGINAL POINT OF IT BEING A STATE HIGHWAY.
SO PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT.
AND THEY HOLD A COUNTER RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL OF THOSE THINGS, BUT IT'S A STATE HIGHWAY.
YOU JUST SAID BDO HAD TO CALL THE BOND AT SURY COUNTY.
SURY COUNTY WOULD HAVE NO STANDING TO CALL, TO CALL THE BOND IN THAT SITUATION.
BUT IF WE HAD A BOND, WE COULD HAVE A BOND.
AND, AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO.
I DO NOT KNOW IF THE COUNTY HAS THE ABILITY TO REQUIRE A BOND ON A ROAD THAT IS NOT OUR ROAD, THAT'S NOT OUR ROAD AND IS ALSO NOT A PRIVATE ROAD.
SO, BUT THAT, THAT'S CERTAINLY A QUESTION I CAN, I CAN LOOK INTO.
'CAUSE THAT WAS WHAT WE HEARD AT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WAS THAT
[00:20:01]
VDOT SAID, YOU KNOW, IF SURREY WANTS TO PUT MONEY UP TO HAVE ROADS IMPROVED, YOU KNOW, THEY DIDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT, BUT, BUT THAT, I DON'T KNOW HOW IT WORKS THROUGH THE VDOT WORLD.YOU KNOW, WE COULD APPLY MONEY, BUT IT STILL MAY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THEM.
I THINK IT STILL HAS TO GO THROUGH THEM FOR APPROVAL AND IT STILL HAS TO MEET ALL THE VO CONDITIONS.
WE WOULDN'T, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO WAIVE ANY OF THE CONDITIONS.
BUT I MEAN, JUST LIKE WE'RE DOING THE PARKING LOT AT THE, UH, GROCERY STORE, VDOT SAID, ALRIGHT, THIS IS OUR REQUIREMENTS, BUT THE COUNTY PAID TO HAVE THAT WORK DONE UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF V DOC.
SO THE QUESTION IS, IF THE COUNTY WANTED TO PAY PERMIT IT FOR IT FROM ITS COFFERS, THEN THAT, THAT'S FINE.
THAT'S CERTAINLY THERE, NO, THERE ARE NO LEGAL CONCERNS.
AND IF VDOT DOESN'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS, THEN, THEN THAT'S WONDERFUL.
THE QUESTION IN MY MIND WOULD BE, CAN THE COUNTY REQUIRE THE DEVELOPER TO TAKE OUT A BOND BENEFITING THE COUNTY AND THEN THE COUNTY WOULD STILL HAVE TO CALL THE BOND, BUT THEN THE COUNTY WOULD HAVE THE CONTROL OVER THE CALLING OF THAT BOND AND WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO THE FUNDS.
SO I MEAN, THEY HAVE TO DO THAT FOR THE DECOMMISSION, RIGHT? I BELIEVE SO, YES.
BUT I, I'M JUST RELATING IT TO SOME OTHER EXAMPLE.
THE, THE DISTINCTION IS THAT THE ROADS OUR ARE NOT OURS.
AND THEY'RE ALSO NOT PRIVATE ROADS.
IF THIS WERE A PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT, WE ABSOLUTELY COULD, COULD TAKE OUT ALL KINDS OF BONDS FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE, FOR THE ROADS, ALL, ALL OF THAT.
UM, SO, BUT THE, BUT THE, THE QUESTION IN MY MIND IS SINCE THESE ARE STATE ROADS, STATE ROAD, ARE WE ABLE TO DO THAT? BUT I, I CAN CERTAINLY, UM, ASK THAT QUESTION AND SEE WHAT, SEE WHAT I CAN FIND OUT ABOUT THAT.
I'VE GOT A QUESTION FROM MS. PERKINS WHILE SHE'S UP THERE.
UM, ON THE CAVALIER UH, CONDITIONS, UM, DO YOU HAVE THOSE? I DO.
COULD YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PARDON PARENTHESES WHERE IT SAYS, EXCLUDING ANY CESSATION CAUSED BY AN EVENT OF FORCE MAJEURE.
AND WOULD THAT MEAN THE PROJECT WOULD NOT HAVE TO BE DECOMMISSIONED AT ALL, OR WOULD IT JUST NOT HAVE TO BE DONE WITHIN 12, UH, 12 MONTH PERIOD? IF YOU COULD AND WHAT, AND WHAT WOULD BE AN EVENT IN YOUR OPINION? WHAT, I MEAN, COULD YOU GIVE US AN EXAMPLE OF THAT? IF YOU COULD GIVE ME SURE.
LIKE TWO MINUTES TO READ OVER THE SECTION.
'CAUSE THIS WAS BEFORE MY TIME, SO YEAH.
SO, UM, HOW I WOULD INTERPRET THAT CONDITION IS THAT, UM, SO THE, IT'S THE REQUIREMENT WITHIN 12 MONTHS AFTER IT'S, IT STOPS WORKING FOR A CONTINUOUS 12 MONTH PERIOD.
LET, LET'S SAY THAT THERE WAS SOME, UM, YOU KNOW, FORCE MAEU MEANS AN ACT, SORRY, MEANS AN ACT OF GOD.
SO HAILSTORM, HAILSTORM, GLOBAL PANDEMIC, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT NEVER HAPPENS.
UM, TORNADO, HURRICANE, SOME OTHER TYPE OF EVENT THAT TR UH, THAT, THAT INTERRUPTS THAT SCHEDULE.
SO, UM, I INTERPRET IT AS IT JUST GIVES THEM A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO GET THE, TO GET EVERYTHING IN PLACE.
NOT THAT IT ELIMINATES THE REQUIREMENT COMPLETELY.
AND THEN ALSO ALONG, UH, IN THAT SAME SECTION THAT IT SAYS, UH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 4.1, ONE OF THE SOLAR ENERGY ORDINANCE, UM, THE SOLAR ENERGY ORDINANCE I'M LOOKING AT HAS SECTIONS 10 DASH, YOU KNOW, 1 50, 1 57.
SO IS THERE A SECTION 4.11? IS THAT JUST, UH, JUST WONDERING WHERE THAT CAME FROM OR, UM, AND WHAT THAT MEANS? I DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.
MR. RAY, DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW? I DO NOT KNOW.
I THINK IT MIGHT HAVE COME FROM YOUR, MAYBE YOUR 2018.
IT HAPPENED 2018, THERE WAS A, THERE WAS A SEPARATE COPY THAT AT THE TIME I DIDN'T, I, I'M BE HONEST WITH YOU.
I, I DIDN'T FOLLOW, I, I LOOKED AT THE DECOMMISSIONING WHAT WAS DONE WITH THE SOLAR ENGINE ORDINANCE.
THAT'S THE ONLY THING I COULD, I COULD GO BACK TO WAS ABOUT, WAS ABOUT DECOMMISSIONING.
I THINK THAT WAS, THAT WAS IN THE ORDINANCE.
[00:25:01]
PULL THAT ONE UP.SO IF THE CONDITION UNIT REFERS TO SECTION 4.11, UH, AS FOR DECOMMISSIONING, BUT I, I DON'T THINK THERE IS A SECTION 4.11.
WE CAN LOOK AT, AND WHAT WE WOULD DO IS WE WOULD, WE WOULD START BY TAKING A LOOK AT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING WHERE THESE CONDITIONS WERE APPROVED AND SEE IF PERHAPS THE, THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE ATTACHED, UM, AS TO, TO THAT AGENDA PACKET, UM, HAVE A VERSION OF THE SOLAR ENERGY ORDINANCE THAT HAS A SECTION 4.11.
IT'S, UH, DECOMMISSIONING IS SECTION 10 DASH 1 61.
AND WHAT I'M LOOKING AT, THAT WOULD BE WHAT I WOULD, I WOULD GO AFTER WAS THE DECOMMISSIONING THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN IN THE WORDS FOR THE SAY MM-HMM.
I WOULD, I WOULD LOOK AT WHEN IT SAYS SOLAR YEAH.
FOR, FOR ONCE, LIKE YOU SAID, 10 DASH 1 61, THAT WOULD BE WHAT I'D GO OFF OF.
I THINK THAT 4.4 0.101 WAS THE ONE THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2018.
IT WAS A SEPARATE VERSION BEFORE THEY PUT IT INTO VECA.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I COULD BE, THAT'S MY BELIEF.
I MEAN, IT SOUNDS GOOD RIGHT NOW.
WE, I, AND, UM, MR. WADE, I THINK AT THE LAST MEETING, MS. CHEEKS ASKED ABOUT, ASKED MS. PERKIN TO LOOK UP SOME INFORMATION ON WHICH ONE IS THE CONTROLLING, UH, IS IT, UH, CUP OR THE OINTMENTS? WHICH ONE HAS THE MOST CONTROLLING? SO THE, THE, THE TOP DOG ARE THE APPROVED CUP CONDITIONS.
THERE IS ACTUALLY CASE LAW MOST RECENTLY FROM 2020 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA, THAT, UM, THAT STATES, WHEN A GOVERNING BODY DOES, ITS, I'M PARAPHRASING, UH, BUT WHEN A GOVERNING BODY DOES ITS LAND USE APPROVALS, IF IT APPROVES A CONDITION OR ACCEPTS A PROFFER THAT IS, UM, NOT EXACTLY IN LINE WITH THE LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE, BUT IS STILL ABLE TO MEET ALL THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS LIKE IN, IN SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
AND, UM, BUT IF THE GOVERNING BODY HAS DEVIATED FROM THE EXACT LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE FOR SOME, FOR SOME REASON BECAUSE THEY THINK IT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF, OF THE CITIZENS, UM, THEN THAT IS ACCEPTABLE.
UM, AGAIN, IT WAS A, IT WAS A CASE OUT OF THE TOWN OF WARRINGTON, AND IT WAS IN 2020.
AND I'M HAP I'M HAPPY TO SEND YOU ALL A COPY OF THE CASE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT, BUT I DID IN MY RESEARCH.
UM, AND THE SPECIFICS OF THAT CASE WERE THAT THE TOWN COUNCIL APPROVED A, UM, A PA PUD PUD, WHAT DOES THAT STAND FOR? PLAN, UH, PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
UM, AND, UH, PER THE ORDINANCE, IT HAD CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS OF WHAT PERCENTAGE HAD TO BE COMMERCIAL, WHAT PERCENTAGE HAD TO BE RESIDENTIAL, UH, WHAT WHAT PERCENTAGE, UM, YOU KNOW, HAD TO BE LIKE PAR PARK LAND OR COMMUNAL COMMUNAL LAND THAT ANYONE COULD USE.
AND WHEN THE APPROVALS OCCURRED, THEY ACTUALLY REDUCED THE PERCENTAGE OF THE, OF THE RESIDENTIAL, AND THEY ONLY REDUCED IT BY 10%.
AND THEN THEY, THEY TOOK THAT 10% AND SPLIT IT UP AMONGST THE OTHER USES.
UM, AGAIN, VERY READER, READER'S DIGEST VERSION OF THE CASE.
UH, BUT SOME, SOME RESIDENTS SUED THE TOWN, SUED THE TOWN, CA SUED THE DEVELOPER, SUED THE TOWN COUNCIL, AND IT WENT, THE CASE WENT ALL THE WAY UP TO THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA.
AND THE SUPREME COURT'S ANALYSIS IS THAT THE, THE VIRGINIA CODE SECTIONS THAT TALK ABOUT, UM, CONDITIONAL ZONING AND, AND PROFFERS AND, UM, CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, UH, PROVIDE A LOCALITY THE FLEXIBILITY TO, TO APPROVE CONDITIONS THAT MAY DEVIATE.
UM, AND THAT, THAT WILL BE SPECIFIC TO THAT PROJECT.
NOW, IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE ORDINANCE FOR EVERY SINGLE PROJECT THAT COMES DOWN THE PIKE, BUT IT DOES CHANGE IT FOR PURPOSES OF THAT ONE SPECIFIC PROFFER.
[00:30:01]
APPROVED CONDITIONS, THAT'S, THAT'S THE TOP DOG.UM, AFTER THAT, WELL, AND I SHOULD SAY REALLY THE TOP DOG IS VIRGINIA CODE.
UH, 'CAUSE WE CANNOT DO ANYTHING THAT ISN'T PERMITTED BY VIRGINIA CODE, BUT THEN IT WOULD BE THE APPROVED CONDITIONS.
UM, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MR. WADE AND I HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, KIND OF, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, TRYING TO PUT US IN, IN, IN AN EVEN BETTER POSTURE MOVING FORWARD ARE SOME, UM, WE'VE, WE'VE UNDERTAKEN AS A GROUP SOME PROCEDURAL IMPROVEMENTS, SOME PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS, SOME CHANGES TO, TO, UM, OUR SYSTEMS. AND ONE THING THAT WE ARE GOING TO IMPLEMENT MOVING FORWARD IS THAT WHEN PROJECTS COME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE'RE GONNA PROVIDE, UH, ALMOST LIKE A TEMPLATE BEFORE YOU ALL VOTE.
AND THAT WOULD BE WHETHER YOU'RE VOTING TO APPROVE OR VOTING TO DENY.
SO THAT IF YOU ARE APPROVING, IF YOU, BUT MOST ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE DENYING, WE ARE BEING VERY CLEAR IN SETTING UP OUR LEGISLATIVE RECORD AS TO WHY THE COMMISSION MADE THE DECISION TO DENY, DENY RECOMMENDING THE PROJECT FOR APPROVAL.
AND WE THINK THAT WILL HELP MAKE THINGS A BIT CLEARER.
AND ALSO, UM, WE'RE GOING TO START DOING RESOLUTIONS, UM, FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
AGAIN, INSTEAD OF HAVING, YOU KNOW, MR. BROCK WRITE A LETTER TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, OR HAVE THAT COMMUNICATION HAPPEN THROUGH MR. WADE, LET'S MAKE THINGS A LITTLE BIT MORE OFFICIAL.
UM, AND THAT WAY, THE SAME, UH, THE SAME RATIONALE THAT WAS INCLUDED AS PART OF THE MOTION CAN ALSO BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THAT RESOLUTION.
SO THAT, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, WE THINK THAT WILL BE, WILL BE BENEFICIAL.
UM, AND AGAIN, IT WON'T CHANGE ANYTHING YOU ALL ARE DOING.
IT'LL JUST HELP ESTABLISH THE LEGISLATIVE RECORD AND MAKE THAT A LITTLE BIT CLEARER.
UM, AND MAYBE, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THERE'VE BEEN SITUATIONS IN THE PAST WHERE THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS RECOMMENDED THE DENIAL AND THE BOARD HAS APPROVED, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, MAYBE IT'LL, IT'LL, IT'LL MAKE IT CLEARER TO THE BOARD.
ULTIMATELY, THEY MAKE THE DECISION THAT THEY FEEL IS BEST, BUT IT'LL BE A LITTLE BIT CLEARER WHY THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE THE DECISION IT MADE AND WHAT ITS RATIONALE WAS.
SO, UH, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
AND THEN, UM, IN THE HIERARCHY OF THINGS, CERTAINLY, CERTAINLY THE ORDINANCE, THE ORDINANCE IS GONNA GOVERN WHAT IS IN THE SITE PLAN AND WHAT THE SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS ARE.
AND THAT WILL ALSO BE, THE SITE PLAN WILL ALSO BE IMPACTED BY WHAT THE CONDITIONS ARE, UH, WHAT THE PROFFERS ARE.
BECAUSE AGAIN, THERE COULD BE A REQUIREMENT THAT ISN'T IN OUR ORDINANCE.
IT COULD BE MORE STRINGENT THAN WHAT OUR ORDINANCE REQUIRES.
IF THE DEVELOPER, UH, SAYS THEY WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND DO THAT, AND THAT THERE MIGHT BE AN IMPACT TO, TO WHAT WE SEE IN THE SITE PLAN BEFORE IT'S APPROVED.
SO THAT, THAT'S KIND OF THE HIERARCHY.
AND THEN OF COURSE, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS, IS, IS OUR GUIDELINE.
IT'S NOT, UM, YOU DON'T HAVE TO, EVERYTHING IN A PROJECT DOESN'T HAVE TO MATCH UP.
YOU KNOW, I, I DOTTED T'S CROSSED TO EVERYTHING THAT'S IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
SO, UM, THAT, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IF, IF, IF WE HAVE TO PUT IT IN A HIERARCHY, I WOULD SAY THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS PROBABLY THE LOWEST.
'CAUSE AGAIN, IT JUST KIND OF HAS THAT, HAS THAT GUIDELINE.
IS THAT, IS THAT HELPFUL? YES.
DOES THAT HELP ANSWER YOUR QUESTION AS WELL? OH, YES.
I, I'M VERY GLAD TO HEAR WHAT YOU HAD PLANNED TO.
I THINK IT'LL BE IMMENSELY HELPFUL.
SO THE SUR COUNTY, SO ORDERS, PROPOSAL UPDATES, THEY'RE ONES THAT Y'ALL COMPILED FROM? NO, THAT, THAT WAS MY LIST.
THAT, THAT WAS MR. SHE'S LIST.
I GOT A, I GOT ONE QUESTION ON THERE FOR YOU THEN.
MS. CHEEKS, NUMBER SIX, SIT BACK TO WHY'D YOU COME UP WITH THE 1300 FOOT FROM ALL RESIDENCE? WELL, UM, I BASE THAT ON MY OWN, UH,
UM, I JUST THINK ABOUT IF A SOLAR PROJECT WAS NEAR ME, I'D WANT IT AT LEAST HOW FAR AWAY? SO I DIDN'T, THE 1300 FOOT IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S ABOUT A QUARTER MILE
SO, UM, I, I MEAN, I WASN'T TRYING TO BE FLIPPANT OR ANYTHING.
I, I JUST FELT LIKE, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST A QUARTER MILE.
AND I JUST KIND OF ROUNDED DOWN
[00:35:01]
ON WHAT THAT VALUE WAS.BUT, UM, BECAUSE I MEAN, YOU'RE ONE ABOVE, WE'RE A HALF A MILE FROM, UM, HISTORICAL SITES AND ALL RIGHT.
AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WE MENTIONED THAT IN THE COMP PLAN, UM, ABOUT BEING FURTHER AWAY FROM PUBLIC SITES, WHICH INCLUDED HISTORIC SCHOOLS, CHURCHES, GRAVEYARDS, AND TOWNS.
THE HALF A MILE VERSUS A QUARTER.
BUT WE TALKED ABOUT AT ONE TIME, WE WANTED IT A MILE.
SO, UM, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOUR, YOU'RE IMPACTING MAYBE MORE PEOPLE, UM, SINCE THEY'RE PUBLIC AREAS.
UM, SO I, I GUESS IN GENERAL, I, I GUESS I'M RECOMMENDING THAT WE LOOK AT LARGER SETBACKS, UM, FROM RESIDENTS AND, UM, FROM THE PUBLIC SITES, RIGHT? BECAUSE ON THE, IN THE FIRST ONE THAT WE GOT HERE, THE, UM, THE A ES ONE, UM, THEIR SETBACKS WERE 75 FEET MM-HMM.
THAT WAS ITEM THREE ON PAGE TWO.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, AND, UH, AND THEN ON ONE OF THE OTHER, UM, PROJECTS, LOCAL ALLEY, I THINK WE WERE 250 FEET.
SO WE, YOU KNOW, WE, WE WERE ALL OVER THE PLACE AND WHAT WE WERE REQUESTING FOR SETBACKS.
AND, UM, SO, YOU KNOW, THE 250 FEET.
AND THEN, UM, I THINK THIS ONE ALSO HAD, UH, FROM THE CHURCH WE WERE 400 FEET, YOU KNOW, PROPERTY LINE.
SO I'M, I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, I'M LOOKING AS A, UH, IT, IT, IT'S, IT'S ALL IN THE PLEASURE OF THE, OF THIS, UM, BOARD.
BUT TO, UM, IS IS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 250 AND 1300 FEET IS, UH, I'M, I'M NOT SURE THE BOARD SUPERVISES THEM ON THEM, YOU KNOW, APPROVE OF 1300 FEET.
I THINK YOU, YOU, WHAT YOU WANNA PUT IN PLACE IS SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH BEING YOUR MINIMUM.
BECAUSE KEEP IN MIND, UM, AFTER YOU PUT A, A MINIMUM IN THERE, THERE'S NO FLEXIBILITY IN THE ORDINANCE WHEN IT SIT, WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT A SPECIFIC SETBACK.
AND, AND I, YOU KNOW, TO ME, I UPWARD A 500 FEET IS, YOU KNOW, UH, AND, AND UP.
I'M NOT SAYING THE 250 FEET, UM, I LIKE THE 500 FEET.
UM, I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT, UM, JUST 1300 FOOT FROM THIS EARTH OVER HERE AND 1300 FOOT FROM THIS EARTH OVER HERE.
THERE'S, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD BE MEETING IN THE MIDDLE HERE.
AND, AND, AND MAYBE THAT'S SOME OF OUR OBJECTIVES TO, YOU KNOW, KIND OF MAKE IT AS HARD AS POSSIBLE.
BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, TO FAIRNESS, I GUESS IS, UM, YOU KNOW, OR MAKE IT SUSTAINABLE.
I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU, WHAT YOU THINK, LIKE YOU SAID, YOU DON'T WANNA WALK EACH OTHER.
I DON'T WANNA WALK FROM THEIR HOUSE AND SEE ONE, BUT RIGHT.
AND 500, OR WE GOTTA COME UP WITH SOMETHING, YOU KNOW.
UM, YOU NEED A HEADS UP ON WHEN TO PUT THE SALE FOR SALE SIGN UP.
I, BUT THE 1300 COULD BE A CONDITION IN A UNIQUE SITUATION.
WELL, OR I MEAN, IF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DOESN'T AGREE WITH IT, THEY COULD TAKE IT DOWN.
I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT RULES YOU JUST DON'T WANT.
UM, I, I GUESS MY OTHER THING IN THERE IS, IS, OKAY, WE AIN'T GONNA DO 1300 FEET.
WE FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE 175 FEET IS, IS IS REASONABLE AND, AND, UH, AND REALLY NOT.
SO I, I, YOU KNOW, I GUESS THERE'S CONDITIONS LIKE, LIKE, UH, STEVE SAID, MR. BARBER SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, TUCK THE HUNDRED FEET MIGHT FEE, BUT IT, ADD TO THAT ONE, YOUR CURRENT SETBACKS ARE PRETTY MINIMAL THAT YOU HAVE AS A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT.
I THINK YOU DEFINITELY WANT TO GO HAVE MORE SETBACKS THAN IS REQUIRED FOR SURE.
UM, THE CURRENT SETBACKS ARE WHATEVER YOUR MINIMUM ZONING SETBACKS FOR YOUR ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE REASONING TO M1 OR M TWO, YOUR SETBACKS ARE DRASTICALLY DECREASED.
SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU PREVIOUSLY HAD A, UM, A, UH, A RURAL AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT, YOUR SETBACKS ARE A LITTLE BIT GREATER, BUT NOW YOU HAVE M1 DISTRICTS, YOUR SETBACKS ARE, HAVE DECREASED SIGNIFICANTLY.
UM, AND SO WHEN YOU, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU HAVE A USE LIKE THAT AND YOU STILL HAVE REQUIRED M1 OR M TWO ZONING DISTRICTS, UM, YOU'RE GONNA WANT TO, YOU'RE GONNA WANNA PUT SOME PARAMETERS IN PLACE THAT WILL INCREASE BASED ON THE CURRENT LANGUAGE YOU HAVE RIGHT HERE.
I THINK ON YOUR SCREEN RIGHT HERE, IF YOU, IF YOU CAN SEE THAT, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN OR NOT, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO SEE IT WITH, WITH THIS SCREEN.
UM, BUT IT SAYS THAT, THAT THE MINIMUM IS OUR SETBACKS, WHERE THE DISTRICT THAT'S LOCATED IN, IN M1, M TWO, THEY'RE DEFINITELY LESS THAN WHAT'S IN THE, UM, AND, AND ANOTHER,
[00:40:01]
UM, MY THINKING THERE IS, IS, YOU KNOW, WE, WE, IF, IF YOU ARE A 500 FOOT OR MORE, THEN YOU'VE GOT ROOM THERE TO PUT YOUR TRAIL THAT YOU WANTED TO GO PATH, YOU WANTED TO HAVE FOR THE FIRE ON THE SIDE, THE FENCE UHHUH.RIGHT? SO, UH, YOU CAN'T DO THAT WITH THE, THE 75 OR A HUNDRED OR EVEN THE TWO 50, YOU KNOW, UH, SO THE 500 IS DOUBLING, YOU KNOW, THAT, AND YOU GET YOUR 10 FOOT PATH, OR, OR, YOU KNOW, ON THE OTHER SIDE FENCE TO GET AROUND FOR FIRE.
SO, AND, AND PREPARING FOR A DRAFT FOR YOU ALL TO LOOK AT, I'LL PLAY AROUND WITH SOME NUMBERS UP FRONT.
AND THEN, YOU KNOW, JUST NOTED THAT NUMBERS AREN'T SET IN STONE.
JUST, HEY, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE, THESE ARE SUGGESTIONS FROM STAFF AND LOOKING AT, AT THE NUMBERS OF SETBACKS AND WHAT WE SEE FROM OTHER LOCALITIES, UM, AND SOME OF THE THINGS, THE CONDITIONS THAT WE'VE SEEN SO FAR.
SO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT, YOU CAN PUT, WE CAN PUT HIGHLIGHTS AROUND THE NUMBERS, JUST SO WE CAN GO BACK AND SAY, YOU KNOW, DOES THAT, DOES, DOES THAT NUMBER SEEM APPROPRIATE? THAT MIGHT BE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAVE.
IS, DOES THAT, DOES THAT SEEM APPROPRIATE? IS, IS THIS, IS THERE A SUBCOMMITTEE TO WORK ON THIS? NOT AT THIS POINT.
I'LL, I'LL, I'LL GO THROUGH AND, BECAUSE I THINK WE, WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT IT AS A GROUP, AS A, A GROUP ON WHOLE GROUP THIS TIME INSTEAD OF DOING A SUBCOMMITTEE.
BUT ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT WE AT THE SUBCOMMITTEE REVIEW IT BEFORE, BEFORE THE REST OF THE COMMITTEE? RISK NOT OPINION.
SO MAY, MAYBE THE NEXT MEETING WE LOOK AT MAYBE JUST A SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING INSTEAD OF A FULL, ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW WHAT, UH, TAKE THAT BACK.
'CAUSE THE NEXT MEETING WE HAVE, WE DO HAVE A, A FA FULL ON ACTUAL MEETING.
WE JUST MAY NOT BE ABLE TO REVIEW THE ORDINANCE AT THIS TIME.
SO MAYBE WE HAVE A SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING AND THEN WE REVIEW THE FULL WARRANTS WITH THE REST OF THE, THE, UM, PLANNING COMMISSION, PROBABLY THE MEETING THEREAFTER.
BECAUSE MY OPINION, A SUBCOMMITTEE COULD TAKE THESE UPDATES THAT MS. CHICA, UH, PROVIDED FOR US AND, AND ACTUALLY LOOK AT 'EM MORE INTIMATELY AND SEE IF, RIGHT.
I KNOW IT'S A LONG LIST APPLY TO AUDIT.
WELL, AND NOT PRESENT, BUT UPDATE THE, YEAH.
IT, IT, IT IS, IT IS A LOT OF WORK FOR BOTH STAFF AND THE COMMISSIONING TO TAKE, TAKE THIS, TAKE THIS CHALLENGE ON.
SO I, WE DON'T WANNA NECESSARILY WASTE ANYBODY'S TIME WITH WORTH REVIEWING, BUT IT IS, IT IS A LOT OF MATERIAL FOR YOU GUYS HAVE REVIEWED A LOT OF MATERIAL OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF MONTHS.
SO, AND TO DIGEST IT ALL AND PROVIDE COMMENTS WHEN IT, THAT, THAT IS VERY CHALLENGING.
SO I THINK YOU GUYS REVIEWED OTHER ORDINANCES, UM, OTHER CEP CONDITIONS AS WELL AS OUR OWN ORDINANCE TO SEE WHAT THINGS ARE, ARE, ARE DEFINITELY A CHALLENGE.
AND ALSO EXPERIENCING THINGS THAT YOU'VE HEARD, YOU'VE SEEN IN THE, IN THE PUBLIC THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.
YOU SEE WHAT CHALLENGES WE HAVE NOW, UM, AND WHAT THINGS WE CAN ACTUALLY IMPROVE UPON.
SO, SO WAS, I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.
UH, JUST A QUESTION FOR CLARIFICATION.
DO WE, DO WE WANT TO ASSIGN THIS TO ONE OF OUR EXISTING SUBCOMMITTEES? OR DO WE WANT TO CREATE A, A SUBCOMMITTEE THAT'S JUST GONNA LOOK AT THE SOLO ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE.
THIS IS THE ZONING SUBCOMMITTEE RIGHT NOW.
REVIEWS, UM, IS THERE ANY WORDS, UPDATES AS WELL AS ANY PROJECTS THAT COME AROUND? THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN USING.
BUT I THINK THAT COMMITTEE'S BEEN IN PLACE FOR I THINK TWO YEARS NOW.
WE, I THINK THE, AT SOME POINT YOU, YOU MAY, YOU MAY WANT TO RENEW SOME THINGS.
OR, YOU KNOW, SO I, I DON'T, WE DON'T KNOW YET.
SO DO YOU, SO YOU WANT, DID YOU WANT A, UM, SUBCOMMITTEE COMING OUTTA THIS FOR THE, OR I MEAN, AFTER THIS MEETING FOR THE ORDINANCES OR? I THINK SO, YEAH.
SO THEN THAT WAY WE CAN, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE I MEAN WE'RE JUST SITTING HERE.
UM, I THINK THE SUBCOMMITTEE CAN NARROW THESE THINGS DOWN OR, YOU KNOW, KIND OF PUT 'EM TO LIGHT.
'CAUSE I KNOW WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF BASICALLY MORE THAN TWO FOLKS, WE HAVE TO, WE HAVE TO HAVE A PUBLIC MEETING, SO WE HAVE TO ADVERTISE FOR IT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A CHANCE THAT YOU WANTED TO DO, JUST HAVE, ASSIGN TWO PEOPLE FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DO IT.
THEREFORE WE CAN KIND OF MEET WHENEVER, WHENEVER, WHENEVER WE CAN.
THAT'S, THAT'S A RECOMMENDATION FOR YOU ALL TO CONSIDER.
UM, WE'RE, WE'RE OPEN TO ANY SUGGESTIONS THAT YOU ALL MAY HAVE.
SO DO WE'RE HAVING THE VOLUNTEERS? WELL, I'D LIKE TO BE ON
I MEAN, I WOULD LIKE TO BE ON IT SINCE I MADE THE LIST.
I MEAN, OUR SUBCOMMITTEES IN THE PAST HAVE HAD MORE THAN TWO AND IT REALLY HASN'T BEEN A PROBLEM.
THEY, THEY, THEY HAVE NOT BEEN A PROBLEM.
THE ONLY THING I WAS SUGGESTING WAS IF THERE WAS A NEED TO, A LOT OF TIMES WHAT YOU WIND UP HAVING WHEN YOU HAVE MORE THAN TWO, WE HAVE TO, WE HAVE TO DO A PUBLIC MEETING.
SO THERE, THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF TIME PLANNING FOR THAT PARTICULAR MEETING.
[00:45:02]
WOULD, WOULD IT BE HELPFUL SINCE THEY'RE KIND OF USING THIS AS A SKELETON, YOU KNOW, TO START WITH, IF WE SEE STUFF ON HERE TONIGHT THAT WE WANT TO DISCUSS, CAN WE, I LIKE THOSE JUST TO, YOU KNOW, LIKE MR. BROCK SAID ABOUT 15, I, I THINK IT'S A VERY LEGITIMATE THING, YOU KNOW, CONSIDERATION THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE TO ONE I SAW WAS, UM, THE WORKING HOURS, YOU KNOW, FROM NINE TO FOUR, YOU KNOW, THESE GUYS, I MEAN THESE HARDWORKING GUYS, 10 HOUR DAYS IS WHAT MOST GUYS WORK IN ORDER TO MAKE, YOU KNOW, TO MAKE A LIVING SEVEN O'CLOCK, YOU KNOW, SEVEN TO FIVE IS A, IS A GOOD WORK DAY.YOU KNOW, NINE O'CLOCK'S, KINDA LIKE A BANKER IF YOU LIVED IN THE CITY, MAYBE, OR A NEIGHBORHOOD.
BUT OUT IN THE COUNTRY, IN MY OPINION, I THINK, YOU KNOW, TRACTORS ARE ROLLING AT DAYLIGHT, YOU KNOW, IN FIELDS, YOU KNOW.
LIMITED TO SOME BACKGROUND ON WHY I WROTE THAT.
SO I SAID LOUD CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, NOT, NOT ALL CONSTRUCTION.
SO I, YOU KNOW, I WAS THINKING ABOUT HOW THEY DRIVE THESE PILES ONE AFTER ANOTHER AND YOU HAVE THOUSANDS OF 'EM BEING DRIVEN.
UM, YOU KNOW, MIGHT NOT WANT THAT STUFF.
THAT COULD, IF THAT COULD START AT LEAST WHEN PEOPLE ARE UP AND OUT OF THEIR HOMES, IT MIGHT HELP, UM, WITH, YOU KNOW, THE LOCAL PEOPLE.
UM, AND ALSO LIKE THE LARGE DELIVERY VEHICLES, SOMEHOW BEING A LITTLE, GIVING SOME TIME FOR PEOPLE TO GET OUTTA THEIR HOMES AND GO TO WORK AND NOT HAVING TO DEAL WITH THE LARGE, LARGE.
SO THE LARGE THINGS IS WHERE I WAS TOUCHING ON THAT.
UM, YOU KNOW, IN SUNDAYS,
UM, BUT I THINK IT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
SO I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING UP, SO BACK TO ANOTHER COMMITTEE.
WELL, COULD I ASK YOU STILL VOTING ON PEOPLE TO BE ON THE COMMANDMENTS? THERE IS ONE THING I DEFINITELY WOULD LIKE THIS WHOLE GROUP TO AT LEAST TALK ABOUT.
I'M ON THE, I'M HELPING 'EM WITH THE, UM, THE SMALL RIGHT.
SO STEVE, I THOUGHT YOU WERE TRYING TO KEEP IT TO TWO, UH, OR YOU DON'T HAVE, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE TWO.
SH SHARING FROM MY PERSPECTIVE OF WHICH YOU CAN DO.
SO, UH, SO ORDINANCES, UH, SUBCOMMITTEE IS THIS CHEEKS, MR. MR. SEWARD, I MEAN VO HELLO.
YOU DON'T HAVE MR. SEWARD HERE.
I WAS THINKING STEVE AND, AND YOU KNOW, TRYING TO BE CORRECT AND COME OVER WITH LAST
BUT ANYWAY, I, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT.
UM, I'D LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING PROTECT OPEN FARMLAND A LITTLE BIT MORE.
AND I THINK A LOT OF THE RESIDENTS WOULD GO ALONG WITH THAT.
I, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A PERCENTAGE OF A PRO, LIKE IF YOU COULD COME IN AND SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW, ONLY 5% OF THIS, THE PROJECT CAN BE OPEN LAND OR, OR 10%.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NUMBER IS, BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT, UH, OPEN LAND PROTECTED MORE THAN IT'S, THAT MIGHT BE A CONDITION THAT Y'ALL WORK OUT HERE.
MS. CHEEK, YOU HAVE ONE OTHER THING THAT, WELL, I DID WANNA BRING UP, 'CAUSE THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION ABOUT THIS.
WE, WHEN WE PUT IT IN THE COMP PLAN, I, UM, I THOUGHT WE, WE ALL UNDER KIND OF UNDERSTOOD IT, BUT THE THOUGHT THAT ONE SOLAR PROJECT WOULD BE ABLE TO HOOK INTO AN EXISTING SOLAR PROJECT.
UM, AND SO I THINK WE WANT, MY THOUGHT WAS THAT WE DIDN'T WANT THAT, WE DID NOT WANT TO HAVE THESE PROJECTS HOOK INTO EACH OTHER AND THEN THEY COULD GET FURTHER AND FURTHER AWAY FROM THE POWER LINES THAT WAY, THE TRANSMISSION LINES.
AND SO I WAS HOPING MAYBE WE COULD BE PRETTY CLEAR ABOUT THAT IN THIS ORDINANCE.
AND I, UH, IN THE PLAN SECTION, UM, ITEMS EIGHT AND NINE, UM, AND 10 WERE SOME WORDING I PUT DOWN JUST FOR CONSIDERATION ABOUT IT.
THE, WELL THE, THE NUMBER EIGHT IS, UH, THAT'S THE A ES TRYING TO COME TO US AND GET A CONTINUATION ON CAVALIER, ON THE CAVALIER ONE, I MEAN, RIGHT.
WELL THAT ONE CERTAINLY IS OUT THERE.
BUT WE WERE, REMEMBER WE WERE KIND OF CONCERNED EVEN, YOU KNOW, MAYBE, UM,
[00:50:01]
STRATA, MAYBE SOMEBODY'S GONNA WANT TO HOOK IN AND THEY WOULD RIGHT.YOU KNOW, BANKROLL IT WITH STRATA AND UM, AND THEN YOU'D HAVE SOMEBODY ELSE.
UM, I, YOU KNOW, THEY DO ALREADY HAVE THAT ACROSS THE ROOF.
SO DO WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO HAVE THAT TYPE OF LINKING OF, I THINK ONE OF THE ISSUES WE'VE ALREADY, AS A COUNTY OR COMMISSION DESIGNATED ON A MAP WHERE WE THINK THESE PROJECTS SHOULD TAKE PLACE.
I THINK WITH WITH YEAH, WITH YOUR, WITH YOUR COMPANY MAP IN, IN MY OPINION, IT'S HARD ENOUGH TO TRACK BACK OR BACKTRACK AND SAY YOU CAN'T PUT A PROJECT IN BECAUSE IT'S NOT A CONTINUOUS POSSIBLE OR IT'S GONNA CONNECT WITH ANOTHER, OR IT HAS THE POTENTIAL OF CONNECTING WITH ANOTHER PROJECT.
'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE A ES PROJECT NOW.
SO UHHUH IN MY OPINION, IT'S NOW HARD FOR US.
LIKE I SAID, TO BACKTRACK AND SAY YOU CAN'T PUT IT THERE.
WELL, THEY CAN PUT, IF THEY WANT TO PUT IT ON THE PIECE WE'VE ALREADY DONE, BUT CAN THEY CONNECT NOW THOUSANDS MORE ACRES TO IT? WELL, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT'S IN THE, IN THE PLAN.
THEY HAVEN'T COME TO US FOR CONNECTING THOUSANDS MORE ACRES.
THEY'VE COME TO US FOR CONNECTING, WHAT, 200 MORE ACRES OR THREE ACRES? NO, THAT'S WHAT THE ONES THAT THEY'VE TALKED TO US OUTSIDE.
WELL IT'S COMING AND UH, THEY, THEY WANT WHAT THEY FOUND, THE 200 AND SOME ACRES MM-HMM.
AND THIS WAS LAND THAT WAS ALREADY APPROVED.
AND THEY, THEIR COMMENT TO, TO ME WAS THAT THEY DIDN'T NEED THAT TO GET TO THE 350 MEGAWATTS OF THE EXISTING PROJECT.
AND SO NOW THEY GOT THIS LAND THERE THAT THEY COULD USE.
SO THEY FOUND OTHER TRACKS OF LAND THAT'S ON DOWN THE ROAD FROM IT AND THEY WANT TO ADD THIS 200 SOME ACRES TO GET TO THE, THE NEXT 350 MEGAWATT.
DOES THAT HAVE, DO Y'ALL UNDERSTAND THAT MR. WAY YOU DID THE BEATING? THAT THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S, UM, BUT IT'S, BUT SOME OF THAT'S IN ALL OF WHITE COUNTY AND SOME'S IN SURY COUNTY.
BUT IT'S, IT'S STILL TO GET TO THE 350 MEGAWATT TO TIE INTO, UH, ANOTHER WHATEVER IT'S CALLED TO THE POWER LINES.
THE PROJECT WAS A 240 MEGAWATT PROJECT.
I THINK THE ONE THAT FOR, FOR A CAVALIER THAT WAS 240 MEGAWATTS.
UM, A LARGE PORTION ALL IS GETTING ON THE LAND THAT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED IS 20 SOMETHING MEGAWATTS.
I BELIEVE IT'S APPROXIMATELY, UH, 20 MEGAWATTS FOR THE ONE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED, BUT RIGHT.
UM, THAT THEY THEN THE, UH, PROPOSAL IS TO LOCATED ON THREE PARCELS AND THE CONNECTING LINES WOULD BE ANOTHER THREE PARCELS.
SO IT'S A TOTAL OF SIX PARCELS THAT ARE, THAT ARE BEING CONSIDERED.
IT'S NOT FOR, FOR, FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
BUT, UH, IT'S DONE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF ACREAGE.
HOWEVER, IT IT IS, I THINK IT'S, I THINK THEY, THEY DID OVER COVERAGE.
THINK IT'S 107 ACRES FOR THOSE SIX PARCELS, BUT IT'S USING THE SAME FOOTPRINT OF THE PARCELS THAT WERE REZONED BY THE CAVALIER PROJECT.
SO THAT'S WHAT THEY'VE GIVEN US SO FAR.
UM, WE DO ANTICIPATE THAT COMING TO YOU ALL, UM, FOR A SUBSTANTIAL COURT DETERMINATION AT YOUR NEXT JURY MEETING, WHICH IS ANOTHER POINT, UH, MAYBE WE'LL GET TO A LITTLE BIT LATER OF THE, OF THE, OF THE CORRECT PROCESS.
SO THAT'S THAT, THAT STATE TUNED FOR LATER
WELL, SO AND SO IT'S NOT ONLY THAT THEY CAN PUT MORE PANELS, BUT THEY WILL ALSO USE THE, UM, INFRASTRUCTURE THEY'VE PUT IN TO GET TO THE, UH, SUBSTATION.
SO, WHICH JUST KIND OF BRINGS YOU BACK TO DO WE WANT, WHETHER IT'S THIS PROJECT OR ANOTHER ONE DOWN THE ROAD TO BE ABLE TO LINK LIKE THAT AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN WE'RE GETTING AWAY FROM WHAT I THOUGHT WE SAID, LOOK, YOU GOTTA BE THIS CLOSE TO THE TRANSMISSION LINES.
'CAUSE WE DIDN'T WANT TO SEE THIS POPULATION GROWTH.
THINK, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
I THINK, I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE POINT OF THE COUNTY OR THE COMMISSION MAKING THE MAP THAT SAID THIS LAND IS USABLE, IF YOU WILL, FOR SOLAR DEVELOPMENT.
AND THIS IS NOT BECAUSE IT'S LOCATED ALONG THE TRANSMISSION LINES.
SO THAT, I GUESS THAT'S STILL MY ORIGINAL QUESTION.
WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO PROPOSE IS IT IN THAT CORRIDOR OF WHAT WE HAVE APPROVED AS LAND THAT IS USABLE FOR SOLAR DEVELOPMENT.
BUT SEE, THEY GET FURTHER AWAY FROM THE LINES.
I I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT MY QUESTION STILL IS IF THEY'RE GETTING FURTHER, IS IT STILL IN THE ZONE THAT WE HAVE? OH, I WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT WE HAVE APPROVED FOR USABLE SOLAR DEVELOPMENT? 'CAUSE WHAT? AND I'M NOT, PLEASE DON'T.
DON'T THINK I'M ADVOCATING FOR PROJECT.
[00:55:01]
QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, IS IT WITHIN THAT ZONE? AND I THINK IT, I HEARD HIM JUST SAY IT'S LAND THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN REZONED FOR DEVELOPMENT BY CA CAB.SO THOSE ARE THE ISSUES THAT I I'M BRING UP.
NOT THAT I'M ADVOCATING FOR THE PROJECT AT ALL.
BUT IF WE HAVE MADE A DECISION ON CERTAIN THINGS, ARE THEY STILL WITHIN THOSE PARAMETERS? AND, AND THIS ALSO YOU'LL FIND DOUG, THAT THIS GROUP IS, IS, UH, THEY ARE STILL A ES BUT THEY GOT A DIFFERENT NAME.
SO, SO, AND THEY'RE GONNA PUT DIFFERENT POWER LINES IN.
AND UH, THEY DON'T NEED IT IS, IS WHAT HE TOLD ME IN THE MEETING UP THERE ONE DAY.
SO, YOU KNOW, BUT WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IS THEY WANT TO GET THAT 22 ACRES SO THAT THEY CAN ADD AN ADDITIONAL, YOU KNOW, HOWEVER MANY ACRES THEY GOTTA GET TO THE MEGAWATTS.
THE 22 ACRES IS, IS, UH, 22 MEGAWATTS IS NO SIGNIFICANT, UM, TAX VALUE VALUE FOR SARA COUNTY.
FOR WHAT, WHAT WE GOTTA GO THROUGH TO GET TO IT TWO MORE YEARS OF, UH, BUT, BUT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, I GUESS THAT'S NOT WHY WE'RE HERE.
WELL, I, I THINK BACK TO MY QUESTION AND I I I WASN'T UNDERSTANDING, UM, YOUR POINT ABOUT BEING WITHIN THE AREA.
SO I APPRECIATE YOU YES, MA'AM.
SO I THINK WHAT I'M RECOMMEND AID IS IF MAYBE IF WE'RE MORE CLEARER IN THE ORDINANCE, IT WILL HELP.
ANOTHER IDEA I HAD, UM, JUST TO MENTION TO THE COMMISSION MAYBE, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S LEGAL, BUT IF WE COULD, UM, LIMIT, UH, TO ONE PROJECT GOING ON IN THE COUNTY AT THE TIME, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S PRETTY STRESSFUL FOR A LOT OF THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE IN THAT AREA.
AND YOU KNOW, YOU TALK ABOUT STARTING ANOTHER PROJECT, YOU KNOW, IF WE, IF WE COULD SOMEHOW SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T EVEN APPLY FOR ANOTHER PROJECT UNTIL THE CURRENT ONE IS FINISHED AND, YOU KNOW, JUST AN IDEA.
I, I CAN LOOK INTO THAT, BUT MY GUT SAYS
NOW WE COULD, UM, IF WE NEGOTIATE THIS, WE COULD HAVE A CONDITION THAT SAYS WE'LL NOT START UNTIL A DATE IN THE FUTURE.
I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY CHALLENGING AND NOT LEGALLY COMPLIANT, BUT I CAN CONFIRM THIS.
UM, BUT I THINK WE COULD SAY, YOU KNOW, WE COULD GET OUR BEST ESTIMATE ON WHEN THE FIRST PROJECT IS GONNA FINISH.
AND THEN HAVING THE CONDITIONS THAT THIS PROJECT, THEY WON'T, YOU KNOW, BREAK GROUND OR WHATEVER THEIR PROCESS IS UNTIL A DATE, SIX MONTHS IN ADVANCE OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES.
I THINK ONE OF THOSE OTHER ORDINANCES HAD SOMETHING OF THIS FLAVOR IN IT.
I'LL TRY TO FIND IT AND SEND IT.
BUT JUST, UH, UM, A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION.
OLIVE WHITE ON THE 28TH IS HAVING A HEARING FOR, UM, TWO MORE SOLAR PROJECTS IN THE AREA OF, WAS THE ONE THERE ON WHITEWASH ROAD? CAVALIER.
I THINK THAT ONE IS 200 SOME ACRES.
BUT IT'S, IT'S LIKE THE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO TRAVEL, UH, MOONLIGHT ROAD TO, TO TO GET IN THERE, TO GET OUT OF IT.
IT'S RIGHT ACROSS THE SIERRA LINE.
EDWARDS, GEORGE EDWARDS, HE'S, HE'S THERE AT THE CROSSROADS.
UH, WELL, HIS HOME IS THERE AT THE, UH, YOU GO TO THE CROSSROADS ON MOONLIGHT AND, UH, UM, PEARLS BAY, CROSSROADS THERE, TAKE A RIGHT, AND GOING DOWN AND HEAD ON MILL SWAMP ROAD.
AND, UH, HE'S THERE ON THE LEFT.
BUT I THINK THE 500 ACRES IS, UM, IS, IS GOING TO BE, YOU GO THROUGH THE CROSSROADS AT, ON MOONLIGHT ROAD GOING TOWARDS, UH, SMITHFIELD, BUT IT'S A FREEWAY, A FOUR-WAY STOP IN THERE.
IT'S SOMEWHERE IN THAT VICINITY IN THERE.
AND RIGHT UP THE ROAD, NOT A QUARTER OF A MILE UP THE ROAD IS, IS ONE OF THE ENTRANCES.
IF THEY WANT TO GO INTO THE BACKSIDE, THEY'RE GOING EVERYTHING ON WHITE MARSH ROAD.
[01:00:01]
IT GOES TO THAT PROPERTY ON THE RIGHT UP THERE, YOU KNOW, HEADED TOWARDS WHERE THE, UM, ATKINS BOARD LIVES AT.I MEAN, ACROSS THE TRANSMISSION LINES AND THE TELEPHONE POLES OR WHAT I CALL COMING ACROSS THE ROAD.
THERE'S SOME, HAS IOWA WIDE APPROVED ANY REASON? MM-HMM.
NOT IN THAT, IN THAT, FOR NOT, NOT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE, UH, THE ONE THAT WE'RE SEEING.
I DON'T THINK THEY'VE APPROVED ANYTHING YET.
BUT THEY GOT ONE OUT THERE THAT THEN THEY APPROVED THE ONE, UM, SYCAMORE CROSSROADS.
AND THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A PART OF THE SYCAMORE CROSSROADS, OR I THINK WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT THAT THEIR CASE WOULD BE HELD AT OLIVE WHITE, UM, COME, I BELIEVE IS THIS, THIS MONTH, SIR.
SO I THINK ONE IS WAITING FOR THE OTHER TO SEE WHAT THE OTHER COUNTY DOES, SIR.
IS WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM THE, UH, PEOPLE IN ALL COUNTY PLANNING PEOPLE.
BUT WE'RE WAITING TO SEE WHAT Y'ALL HAVE WANTED.
SO IF WE UPDATE OUR ORDINANCES PRIOR TO THEM SUBMITTING, THEY WOULD HAVE TO ADHERE.
AND THE BOARD SUPERVISORS, WE, WE, WE, WE ALREADY HAVE A SUBMITTAL ALREADY.
WE'LL, WE'LL TALK, WE'LL TALK TO YOU GUYS A LITTLE BIT LATER.
THAT WAS, THAT WAS FURTHER ON WHEN, WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSED WITH YOU ALL.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING? ANY OTHER, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THAT SUBCOMMITTEE IS GOING TO, UH, GO OVER THESE AND IF, BY ALL MEANS, IF ANYBODY HAS ANY OTHER, UM, THING THAT THEY WANT TO PUT ON THERE, LIKE, UH, LOUISA.
WELL, I MEAN, IF ANYBODY LOOKS THROUGH THE LIST AND THEY'RE LIKE, THIS TOTALLY CAN'T, YOU KNOW, SAY NO WAY.
YOU KNOW, IF YOU, IF YOU WANT WELL, I'M, I'M, I'LL GO BACK TO NUMBER SIX.
MY OPINION, BUT THAT'S NOTHING.
WAIT, MR. WADE, I THINK, SAID HE WOULD GIVE SOME SUGGESTIONS.
I, I'LL, I'LL GIVE SOME SUGGESTIONS AND, AND HIGHLIGHT, HIGHLIGHT THE NUMBERS SO YOU CAN GO BACK IF YOU WANT TO, IF YOU WANT TO, I GUESS, UH, WORK WITH THOSE NUMBERS AND MAYBE MAKE SOME ALTERNATIVE, I GUESS CHANGES TO, TO THOSE NUMBERS.
BUT IT GIVES YOU KIND OF A, I I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF I WANT TO THROW OUT SOME, I GUESS, NUMBERS, THEY'RE TOO SHORT OR TOO, OR TOO, TOO, TOO LARGE.
CAN I GIVE YOU A, AN AVERAGE LOOK AND JUST KIND OF SHARE WITH, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT SOME NOTES OF WHERE WE GOT SOME OF THE FIGURES ON, MAYBE WE, WE CAN DISCUSS THAT IN THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF WHERE, WHERE THOSE AND SOME OF THOSE NUMBERS CAME FROM.
UM, I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS, I THINK SETBACKS THAT YOU SAW WHERE IT'S LIKE BETWEEN TWO 50 TO OR TO 300 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, TO, TO KIND OF AT LEAST GIVE YOU SOME OF THE THINGS YOU SAW IN THE CONDITIONS OR FOR SOME OTHER, THE LOCALITIES TO KIND OF THAT, THAT SOME OF, SOME OF THE DEVELOPERS ARE, ARE SOMEWHAT USED TO.
UM, BUT ALSO PROVIDES A LITTLE BIT OF, UH, A LITTLE BIT OF, UH, FLEXIBILITY.
ALTHOUGH, YOU KNOW, AS, AS A CONDITION, I THINK THAT COULD BE ADDED ON AS A CONDITION.
IF, IF WE SEE A CERTAIN RESIDENCE THAT MAY BE AFFECTED, YOU MIGHT SEE IT AS A CONDITION THAT YOU SAY, YOU KNOW, THIS PROJECT RIGHT HERE, YOU KNOW, WE, WE CAN'T HAVE 500 FEET, WE NEED TO HAVE 1300.
'CAUSE THIS IS A LARGE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT YOU CONSIDER AS, AS A CONDITION OR IT'S NEAR MY HOUSE.
AGAIN, NOT, NOT TO DRAG IT OUT, BUT STEVE WAS TALKING ABOUT NUMBER 10 ON THE CAVALIER PROJECT.
AT THE BOTTOM, I THINK THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID THE OTHER NIGHT, BUT ON THIS IT SAYS THE AMOUNT OF THE SURETY BOND OR OTHER FINANCIAL SECURITY INSTRUMENT WILL REFLECT THE NET COST OF DECOMMISSIONING.
THEN IT SAYS, WHICH IS THE REMOVAL COST MINUS THE MARKET VALUE OF MATERIALS THAT CAN BE RESOLD OR RECYCLED.
SO ARE WE IN A, UM, PREDICAMENT NOW THAT AT THE END THEY GO TO DECOMMISSION, THEY SAY, OKAY, WELL WE'RE, THAT'S THE SITUATION.
WE'RE THAT'S THE SITUATION THAT WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW.
SO THEY SAID, WE DON'T OWE YOU SURETY AT ALL NOW.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S THE SITUATION THAT I'VE HEARD FROM ALL OF YOU.
CAN WE CHANGE THAT ON AND THE ORDINANCE? YES, ABSOLUTELY.
I THINK I'VE SEEN IT IN SEVERAL LOCALITIES, RIGHT? THANK ORDINANCES THAT ACTUALLY ADDRESS IT SO THAT IT WOULD BE THE GROSS, THE GROSS COST AND THAT YOU DON'T EVEN LOOK AT THE SALVAGE VALUE AT ALL.
YOU, AND WE'LL, WE'LL DEFINE THAT.
'CAUSE I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU WANT TO LOOK AT, BECAUSE I KNOW FROM A PLANNING COMMISSION STANDPOINT AND FROM A AWARD STANDPOINT, WHEN THE 30 YEARS COMES FROM DOWN TO DECOMMISSION, AND LET'S SAY THAT THE DEVELOPER DROPS THE BALL, YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO GO AND TRY TO GET SALVAGE VALUE FOR A PROJECT.
SO THAT THAT'S, THAT'S A HASSLE IN OF ITSELF WHERE YOU, WHERE YOU CAN ACT, WHERE YOU CAN ACTUALLY JUST CALL A BOND IN WHICH, IF YOU'RE IN THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S LEVEL IS A LITTLE BIT EASIER THAN HAVING TO SAY, OH, WE'RE GONNA GO DECOMMISSION AND GET S VALUE, GET THE SAL VALUE, AND THEN PAY PEOPLE.
[01:05:01]
SEEMS LIKE A NEVER ENDING NIGHTMARE FOR PEOPLE IN ADMINISTRATION.WE STABLISH BUSINESS, RIGHT? NO, WE'RE NOT.
DEPENDS WHO THE BOMBING COMPANY IS.
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP.
I THINK THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT YOU ALL WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU CORRECT IN THE FUTURE.
BUT DECOMMISSION RIGHT NOW, IT LEAVES IT WIDE OPEN AND EVEN THE CONDITIONS FOR FOR, FOR A ES ARE NOT IN THE COUNTY'S FAVOR WHEN IT COMES TO DECOMMISSIONING.
THEN THE ONES THAT ARE BRINGING BEFORE US NOW, CAN, CAN WE ASK FOR THAT? OH, ABSOLUTELY.
WE CAN PUT THAT IN THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THAT WE'RE YES.
SO SOMETIMES YOU DON'T REALIZE HOW BAD YOU HAVE UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY EXPERIENCED IT.
AND THEN YOU, YOU'RE, AS YOU'RE, AS YOU'RE WORKING THROUGH IT, YOU'RE LIKE, MAN, I WISH WE HAD DONE THINGS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY.
AND SO YOU SEEING SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU, THAT YOU MAY HAVE APPROVED IN 2018, YOU'RE LIKE, MAN, I WISH WE HAD DONE THIS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT WE'RE EXPERIENCING NOW.
SO UNFORTUNATELY THAT'S, THAT'S HOW SOME DEVELOPMENTS HAPPEN, ESPECIALLY WITH SOLAR BEING SO NEW TO VIRGINIA.
UM, YOU KNOW, A LOT, A LOT OF OTHER PLACES I'VE EXPERIENCED IT MUCH SOONER THAN I THINK CALIFORNIA, NORTH CAROLINA EXPERIENCED IT MUCH SOONER THAN WE DID.
UH, BUT NOW, NOW VIRGINIA IS LIKE UP THERE WITH SOLAR, SO, SO THERE'S A LOT, THERE'S A LOT MORE EXAMPLES OF OF PROJECTS THAT, THAT YOU CAN TAKE SOME EXAMPLES FROM ARKANSAS.
SO, UM, YOU HAD OTHER THINGS THAT YOU WERE GONNA DISCUSS WITH REQUEST HONOR? I DID, BUT IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT UNDER, IT'S, IT IS NOT ON THIS ELEMENT OF, UM, THE, THE SOLAR ORDERS AMENDMENT.
SO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. WADE OR COMMENTS, OR EITHER, I THINK WE HAVE A PAD NOW FOR THE, UH, SUBCOMMITTEE TO, UH, WILL THIS BE, WHEN DO YOU, UH, THINK THAT THIS, THAT THEY CAN MEET, BRING US RESPECT SOMETHING TO, I WAS PLANNING TO HAVE A DRAFT READY FOR THE NEXT MEETING, SO I CAN MAY CALL A MEETING AFTER, MAYBE AFTER THE, UM, AFTER THE JUNE AFTER.
WHAT MONTH ARE WE IN NOW? AFTER THE JUNE MEETING? AND, AND, AND THEN GET TOGETHER FOR THE WEEK.
YOU CAN GO TALK WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE AND GO OVER ANY CHANGES THERE.
SO, UM, SO THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I'M THINKING NOW IS PROBABLY, UM, ESTABLISHING A MEETING TIME WITH THE, WITH THE THREE FOLKS ON OUR SUBCOMMITTEE AND SEEING WHAT, WHAT THEIR AVAILABILITY AFTER PROB MAYBE WHAT, LIKE A WEEK OR SO AFTER THE, OUR NEXT MEETING.
BUT THAT'S, THAT IS, YEAH, WE'LL FIGURE THAT, WE'LL FIGURE THAT PART OUT, RIGHT? Y'ALL APOLOGIZE THAT BUT BY HOME.
UNLESS YOU, YOU WANT TO, YOU WANT TO BE ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE.
YOU HAVEN'T YOU HAVEN'T CALLED YOUR OWN NAME YET, SIR.
THAT'S THE, THE PURPOSE OF BEING THE CHAIRMAN.
YEAH, WE'VE GOTTA WE GOTTA ADVERTISE FOR IT ANYWAY.
MIKE CAN DO THAT, BUT I'LL, I'LL, I'LL SEND YOU THE INVITE JUST IN CASE.
IS THE JUNE MEETING THE 24TH OR THE IT'S THE 24TH.
IF NO OTHER QUESTIONS, THEN UH, WE'LL GO TO, UH, NEW BUSINESS.
ANY NEW BUSINESS, NO NEW BUSINESS, PUBLIC COMMENTS, EVERYBODY COME FORWARD AT ONCE THERE AND, UH, COMMITTEE UPDATES.
UM, WE DO HAVE SOME ITEMS FOR THE AGENDA FOR THE NEXT MEETING.
THE SUBSTANTIAL COURT DETERMINATION, UM, FOR, UM, A ES SYCAMORE CROSS IS GONNA BE BEFORE YOU ALL.
THE QUESTION THAT MS. PERKINS AND I HAVE FOR YOU TONIGHT, UM, RELATES TO WHAT, UM, SECTION 2232 OF THE, OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA 15.2, 32 32 STATES ABOUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING FOR IT.
UM, IT HAS TO BE REVIEWED FOR SUBSTANTIAL COURT DETERMINATION.
UM, THE QUESTION IS, UM, DO YOU ALL WANNA HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING OR JUST OPENING IT UP FOR A DETERMINATION BY YOU ALL? UM, JUST TO LET YOU KNOW WHAT YOU HAD DONE IN THE PAST BEFORE YOU HELD BOTH SUBSTANTIAL COURT TERMINATION, ALL THE OTHER PROJECTS AT THE SAME TIME AS YOU HAD THE REZONING AND THE CONDITION USE PERMIT.
SO YOU TYPICALLY, YOU DID ALL THOSE THINGS AT ONE TIME, SO YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT HAVING ANYTHING SEPARATELY.
UM, THE PUBLIC HEARING ITSELF WOULD REQUIRE NOTIFICATION
[01:10:01]
OF ALL THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS, UM, IN, IN ADDITION, AND THEN YOU'D OPEN UP A PUBLIC HEARING FOR ALL THOSE FOLKS, ANYONE TO SPEAK FOR AGAINST WHATEVER, OR TO, TO, FOR THE PROJECT.UM, YOUR OPTION IS TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING OR TO JUST REVIEW IT AMONGST YOURSELVES TO SEE IF IT'S
I HAVE A FEELING AS WE'RE AT WHERE YOU ALL WOULD LIEN, BUT I WANTED TO STILL OPEN.
WE WANNA STILL OPEN IT UP TO YOU TO DISCUSS, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE AND IF YOU HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT BEFORE, BEFORE YOU, YOU KNOW, WE, WE WANTED TO VOTE FROM YOU ALL TONIGHT SO WE CAN PROCEED.
DID WE DETERMINE OUR PATH FORWARD WITH THIS PROCESS? OKAY.
WE, WE DETERMINED THAT IT WOULD BE A SUBSTANTIAL COURT TERMINATION.
WE DIDN'T NOT, WE DIDN'T SAY IT WOULD BE A EITHER A PUBLIC HEARING OR NOW.
UH, WE'LL, WE'LL SHARE THIS PART WITH YOU.
YOU MAY CHOOSE TO HOLD PUBLIC HEARING, YOU STILL MUST DETERMINE IF IT'S IN TO STATE OF COURT.
I THINK MS. PERKINS MAY BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN PART OF THE DIFFERENCE THERE.
SO, UM, MR. WADE IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
WE, WE DECIDED THAT OUR PROCESS, WE WERE GONNA HAVE SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD DETERMINATION AS THE FIRST STEP IN THE REVIEW PROCESS SEPARATED OUT FROM, FROM THE, THE REZONING AND THE, THE COMP COMP PLAN AMENDMENT.
AND, UM, JUST LOOK AT IT INDEPENDENTLY AND HAVE THAT BE THE, THE FIRST STEP OF THE REVIEW PROCESS.
NOW, THE WAY THE CODE READS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY, OR AT THE DIRECTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SHALL.
SO WHEN MR. WADE AND I WENT BACK AND WE LOOKED AT WHAT THE HISTORY WAS, WE DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING WHERE ANY, AT ANY POINT IN TIME WHERE THE BOARD HAD REQUIRED YOU ALL TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS SUBSTANTIAL COURT DETERMINATION.
NOW THAT COULD BE, BECAUSE IT NEVER CAME UP SINCE EVERYTHING WAS BUNDLED TOGETHER, UH, UNDER THE OLD SYSTEM.
SO, UM, AGAIN, UNDER THE CODE, IT'S NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE THAT PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, YOU CAN HAVE THAT PUBLIC HEARING OR YOU CAN DECIDE TO NOT HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
BUT HOWEVER, YOU, YOU WOULD STILL GO THROUGH THE, THE REVIEW, THE REVIEW PROCESS.
SO SUBSTANTIAL COURT DETERMINATIONS ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
UM, AS YOU ALL KNOW, YOU'RE, YOU'RE AN ADVISORY BODY AND USUALLY YOU DON'T GET TO BE LIKE, MAKE THAT, THAT THUMBS UP OR THUMBS DOWN.
YOU MERELY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT THEN GOES TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WITH SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD DETERMINATIONS.
YOU ALL ACTUALLY DO GET TO MAKE THE DECISION WHETHER IT IS IN SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD OR IT IS NOT.
NOW THE APPLICANT STILL HAS, UH, STILL HAS A RECOURSE.
IF YOU ALL WERE TO DENY IT, THEY CAN APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
UH, BUT AGAIN, THEN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WOULD DO THEIR OWN INDEPENDENT, UH, ANALYSIS OF THE SITUATION.
SO, UM, I I HOPE THAT CREATES A, A LITTLE BIT OF CLARITY AS TO WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ROLE IS IN THIS SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD DETERMINATION.
BUT AGAIN, BOTTOM LINE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOT REQUIRED.
UM, IT CERTAINLY MEANS THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT NO DISCUSSION IS GOING TO HAPPEN.
UM, AND, AND A, A MOTION AND A DETERMINATION IS NEEDED FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WHETHER YOU HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING OR DO NOT.
IF, UH, IF WE DENY THE SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD AND IT GOES TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR THE APPEAL, DO THEY HAVE TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING? NO.
CAN THEY HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING? I GUESS THEY COULD REQUIRE THEMSELVES.
IT'S NOT THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE LANGUAGE, THE LANGUAGE AND THE ORDINANCE IS NOT, IS NOT CLEAR.
AND ONE MORE, IF, IF THEY, UH, OVERTURN OUR DECISION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT COMES BACK TO US AS NORMAL.
SO WE'RE BASICALLY JUST SAYING IT'S INCOME COMPLY.
WE'RE NOT APPROVING IT OR DENYING IT.
WE'RE JUST SAYING IT'S IN COMPLIANCE WITH WHAT WE HAVE ON THE BUS.
I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK IF CITIZENS, WOULD THEY WANT TO, YOU KNOW, WOULD THEY WANT TO BE INVOLVED? IF IT'S NOT, I'M TRYING TO, TRYING TO FIGURE YES, I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
SO IT, IT'S NOT REALLY AN APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT.
IT'S ALMOST, IT'S ALMOST LIKE THE, UH, DOES THIS MEET THE THRESHOLD TO EVEN KEEP GOING? IF, IF THAT, IF THAT HELPS CLARIFY.
IF WE CAN APPROVE IT IN THAT YEAH, THEY ABSOLUTELY CHECK ALL THE BOXES.
IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT WE APPROVE OF THE PROJECT.
WE'RE JUST CHECKING ALL THE BOXES THAT THEY CAN BRING FORTH THIS PROJECT.
AND, AND IF I COULD, IF I COULD TAKE YOUR ANALOGY AND, AND, AND, AND ADD AN EXTRA LAYER TO IT, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT CHECKING THE BOXES,
[01:15:01]
IT, THE, THE CONCEPT OF SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD, AND I'LL HAVE A LITTLE BIT, A LITTLE BIT MORE LIKE FORMALIZED GUIDANCE FOR YOU ALL, UH, WHEN, WHEN THE JUNE MEETING COMES AROUND, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE EVERY SINGLE REQUIREMENT AND EVERY SINGLE WORD IN THE ORDINANCE OR I I AM SORRY.ON OUR, IN OUR COMPREHEN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS MET, IT'S SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORD.
SO THAT MEANS IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, 90%, I THINK THAT PROBABLY MEETS THE DEFINITION.
IF IT'S 85, 80%, WELL, YOU KNOW, IT, WE, IT, IT'S NOT A MAJORITY.
SO IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT 51%.
UH, BUT AGAIN, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A HUNDRED PERCENT.
AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS VERY, IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR, FOR YOU ALL TO KIND OF KEEP IT, KEEP IN THE BACK OF YOUR MINDS, UH, WHEN THIS IS HAPPENING.
AND WE WILL, WE WILL BE PREPARED TO IMPLEMENT THIS NEW, THE NEW PROCEDURE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER WITH HAVING A, A TEMPLATE FOR THE MOTION, HAVING A RESOLUTION.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND BE READY TO IMPLEMENT THAT FOR THIS MATTER, COME THE JUNE MEETING.
SO, MR. WADE, WHEN, WHEN YOU ALL PRESENTED TO US ABOUT UNPACKING THE WAY THAT WE'VE DONE IT IN THE PAST WITH ALL OF THOSE THINGS TOGETHER AT ONE NIGHT, UM, I THINK WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION, IF I'M, IF I'M CORRECT, MAY, MAYBE WE DIDN'T, BUT I THOUGHT WE DISCUSSED ABOUT THE SUBSTANTIAL IN ACCORD AND HAVING, OR NOT HAVING THE PUBLIC HEARING, BECAUSE WHEN THEY COME BACK TO US FOR THE OTHER COMPONENTS MM-HMM.
SO I THINK WE HAD THAT DISCUSSION AND SAID IT WASN'T NEEDED BECAUSE LIKE YOU SAID, WE JUST PRETTY MUCH DETERMINING WHETHER THE PROJECT HAS ENOUGH MERIT TO MOVE FORWARD.
AND THEN FOR THE PROJECT TO EVER BE APPROVED, WE STILL HAVE TO HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE OTHER COMPONENTS.
AM I CORRECT IN SAYING THAT? YES.
I CAN'T REMEMBER SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE, THE FIRST PIECE TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.
BUT THE PROCESS, BUT THE PROCESS, IT WOULD BE SUBSTANTIAL COURT PAUSE, LET'S SEE IF IT'S SUBSTANTIAL COURT.
MM-HMM,
AND THEN THEY, THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE, THEN THAT WOULD REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING.
THAT WOULD REQUIRE, DEFINITELY REQUIRE A, A, UM, PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS.
SO WHAT, AS WELL AS ALL THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS.
WHAT IS THE PUBLIC HEARING? UM, FOR THOSE OTHER ITEMS? THEY'RE, SO THEY'RE GONNA BE TALKING ABOUT THE REZONING.
SO THE RE REZONING FOR THE PROPERTY HAS ALREADY OCCURRED, UM, WHICH YOU'LL BE REFERRING TO AT THIS TIME.
THEY REPLY FOR IN, IN ADDITION TO THE SUBSTANTIAL COURT ONLY OTHER DOCUMENT, ONLY OTHER THING THEY'RE REPLIED FOR IS THE CONDITION USE REMIT, BECAUSE THE, THE PROPERTY HAS ALREADY BEEN UPDATED WITH THE, UM, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT FOR INDUSTRIAL.
IT'S ALREADY BEEN THE MAP, THE ZONING MAP HAS ALREADY BEEN CHANGED TO M1.
SO THE ONLY THING THEY'D BE APPLYING FOR AT THIS TIME WOULD BE SUBSTANTIAL COURT TERMINATION, WHICH IS, WHICH THEY HAVE DONE AS WELL AS THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
THAT'S ALL THAT THEY WOULD BE, UM, HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON BECAUSE THEY'VE ALREADY HAD THE OTHERS FOR THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
SO I GUESS THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD BE THE ONE THAT WOULD BE REV REVIEWED AND THE PUBLIC NOTICES WOULD BE REQUIRED ADJACENT PROPERTY NOTIFICATIONS, NEWSPAPER ARTICLE, ALL THOSE ITEMS WOULD BE PART OF A PUBLIC HEARING.
SO, SO WHAT PART IF, IF THE GENERAL PUBLIC IS, YOU KNOW, AGAINST IT AND THEY WANT US TO HEAR THAT THEY'RE AGAINST IT AND, YOU KNOW, UM, THEY'RE, THEY'RE AT THE WRONG PUBLIC HEARING, WHAT I'M SAYING, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE ARE, WE'RE HERE TO ACCEPT IT OR DENY WITH THE WAY THE ORDINANCES ARE WRITTEN.
SO LET, LET, LET ME SEE IF I CAN, IF I CAN RE RESTATE YOUR QUESTION TO MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING IT.
UM, SO IF SOMEONE COMES, IF, IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECIDES TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE SUBSTANTIAL COURT DETERMINATION, AND FOLKS FROM THE PUBLIC WANT TO COME AND TALK ABOUT HOW THEY DON'T WANT THE PROJECT, HOW THERE'S GONNA BE A LOT OF CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC, HOW THERE'S GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, A A A LOT OF THINGS, THEY JUST DON'T, DON'T WANT THE SOLAR PROJECT ANYMORE, REALLY, THEY SHOULD BE FOCUSING THEIR COMMENTS.
AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING WE WOULD STOP THEM FROM SPEAKING, BUT THEY WOULD REALLY BE TRYING TO FOCUS THEIR COMMENTS ON WHAT YOU ALL ARE, ARE, ARE LOOKING AT FOR SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD, AND DOES IT MEET SUBSTANTIALLY WHAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS, UH, GUIDELINES ARE.
SO, UM, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE ASKING IS IF IT COULD BE POTENTIALLY CONFUSING TO THE PUBLIC TO
[01:20:01]
HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD.UM, I, AND I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW.
IT, IT COULD BE, WE WOULD HAVE TO DO A REALLY GOOD JOB OF EXPLAINING THAT.
I JUST DIDN'T WANT THE PUBLIC TO GET THE FEELING THAT WE'RE CUTTING THEM OUT OF VOICING THEIR OPINION, YOU KNOW, ON THE PROJECT.
UM, AND, AND REALLY ALL THEY WILL BE DOING IS VOICING THEIR OPINION ON WHAT OUR GUIDELINES ARE.
I MEAN, IF THEY DON'T LIKE WHAT I, YOU KNOW, WE, WE JUST CAN'T DENY THE PROJECT BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE IT.
WE GOTTA DENY IT, OF COURSE, BECAUSE IT'S TOO CLOSE TO THIS CHEEK'S HOUSE.
WE GOTTA DENY IT BECAUSE IT'S TOO CLOSE TO THIS, UH, HISTORICAL, BUT RIGHT.
I MEAN, WE GOTTA HAVE A REASON WHY WE'RE DOING THAT.
UM, SO JUST, YOU KNOW, UM, AND, AND THE REASON AT THE STAGE OF SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD IS THE COMP PLAN, RIGHT? SO WE'RE NOT REALLY LOOKING AT OUR ORDINANCE, AND WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT MEETING THE CONDITIONS IN THE ORDINANCE.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT AT THAT STAGE OF THE GAME.
AT, AT THE, AT THAT, AT THE SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD STAGE OF THE GAME, WE ARE LOOKING ONLY AT OUR COMP PLAN GUIDELINES.
SO THE, IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO SAY, THIS IS JUST TOO CLOSE TO MY HOUSE, YOU'RE SAYING THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS WHERE THEY SHOULD BRING THAT UP? CORRECT.
WE WILL HAVE THAT, THAT IS REQUIRED.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
WHEN DO THEY EFFECTIVELY TELL US WHAT'S ON THEIR MIND ABOUT ABSOLUTELY.
AND THEN WE WOULD MAYBE MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS.
OKAY, IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS PERSON HAS A CASE AND WILL MAKE THE BOUNDARY BIGGER OR WHATEVER.
AND THAT WOULD GO INTO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
BECAUSE AT THE SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD, IT'S JUST A THUMBS UP OR A THUMBS DOWN.
THERE ARE NO, THERE, THERE'S NO NEGOTIATING, THERE ARE NO, THERE ARE NO CONDITIONS INVOLVED.
UM, I MEAN, WOULD YOU, WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT? WELL, I I, I WOULD, I WOULD AGREE.
I THINK YOU, YOU WOULD, YOU WOULD LOOK AT SOME OTHER CONDITIONS THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO SEE IF THEY'RE MEETING THE MEASURES OF THE COMP PLAN FAIR SOMEWHERE BACK.
DO I REMEMBER THERE BEING SOME RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE, UH, CITING AGREEMENT AND THE SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD? I'M, I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP.
SO THE, THE CITING AGREEMENT IS ANOTHER PIECE OF THE PUZZLE.
SO, UH, RIGHT NOW THEY HAVE, UM, FOR, FOR THIS PROJECT COMING UP, THEY HAVE SUBMITTED A DRAFT CITING AGREEMENT THAT IS CURRENTLY ON, ON MY DESK TO REVIEW.
AND WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE NEW PROCESS IS THAT THAT CITING AGREEMENT WILL BE SHARED WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK BACK.
NOW THAT IS NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF A PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE IN THE CONTEXT OF A PUBLIC HEARING THAT IS A LEGALLY BINDING DOCUMENT.
UM, I'VE ACTUALLY TALKED TO MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES WHO SAID, WHY WOULD YOU RELINQUISH CONTROL OF THAT LOLA
SO, UM, BUT THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD REQUIRE PUBLIC INPUT OR REQUIRE A SPECIFICALLY, WOULD NOT REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING.
SO, BUT WHAT WASN'T IT, I READ SOMEWHERE IF, IF THE COUNTY, YOU KNOW, ADOPTS THE CITING AGREEMENT, THEN EXACTLY RIGHT.
THEY'RE KIND OF AUTOMATICALLY SAYING IT'S IN A COURT SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
SO IF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WERE TO APPROVE THE CITING AGREEMENT, UM, THEN THE NEED THAT TRUMPS THE NEED FOR A SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD DETERMINATION.
SO WHEN WILL THE BOARD HAVE THE, UH, YOU KNOW, VOTE ON THE CITING AGREEMENT OR WHEN WILL THEY SEE IT? OR WILL THAT NOT EVEN HAPPEN UNTIL OUR MEETING ON THE SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD OR YES.
GIVEN, GIVEN WHERE WE ARE IN THE PROCESS, UM, IT WILL, THE CITING AGREEMENT WILL GO BEFORE THE BOARD AT THE SAME TIME AS THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT GOES BEFORE THE BOARD.
NOW, IF, IF THE BOARD WISHES TO SEE IT EARLIER MM-HMM.
AND, AND YOU KNOW WHAT I, I GUESS THAT GOES BACK TO WHEN WE WERE DOING EVERYTHING ALL THE SAME.
ALL THE SAME NIGHT, OR, CORRECT.
SO HIS, TO HIS POINT, EITHER WAY WE GET TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION ON THEM THIS PROJECT FOR SUBSTANTIAL ON THE COURT, BECAUSE IT WON'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET BEFORE THE SITE PLAN WON'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET BEFORE CITING AGREEMENT.
CITING AGREEMENT WON'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BEFORE WE MAKE A DETERMINATION.
BARRING SOME UNFORESEEN, I'M JUST TRYING TO REMEMBER WHAT I HAD READ.
[01:25:01]
IN THE PAST, AND YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, MR. BERRYMAN YES.THAT, THAT THAT IS HOW, THAT, THAT IS HOW THE, THE VIRGINIA CODE SECTION READS.
UM, SO, BUT, BUT AGAIN, WE'RE, WE'RE, AGAIN, WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP THIS VERY COMPARTMENTALIZED TO AN EXTENT SO THAT, UM, TO MINIMIZE CONFUSION AND TO GIVE BOTH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE BOARD AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE, PROVIDE FEEDBACK AND BEFORE A FINAL DETERMINATION IS MADE.
ONE MORE QUESTION ABOUT THE SIGNING AGREEMENT.
DOES IT INCLUDE THE CP OR ARE, ARE THEY SEPARATE? I THINK SOME OF THE CONDITIONS I'VE SEEN HAVE INCLUDED THE CP, SOME OF THE CONDITIONS FROM THE CP SAY THAT.
SO WHAT, WHAT I HAVE SEEN SOME STUDY AGREEMENTS ACTUALLY HAVE INCLUDED THE CONDITIONS FROM THE CUP AS PART OF THE STUDY AGREEMENT.
SO THERE, I THINK IT DEPENDS WHAT'S IN THE DOCUMENT.
THERE'S, I THINK SHE, MS. MS. PERKINS CAN PROBABLY SHARE WITH YOU WHAT TYPE OF, WHAT TYPE OF CONDITIONS ARE, ARE IN THE SETTING AGREEMENT.
SOME ATTORNEYS HAVE DRAFTED THEM UP THAT SAYS THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE TO BE AN APPROVED APPROVAL WITH THE APPROVED CUP.
UM, I THINK YOU ALL WILL BE ABLE TO SEE AT SOME POINT IN THE, IN THE NEAR FUTURE OF WHAT THE SETTING AGREEMENT IS.
SO, UM, SO I, I GUESS THE BEST WAY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION IS IT'S NOT A LEGAL REQUIREMENT THAT THE CUP CONDITIONS BE IN THE CITING AGREEMENT.
THEY CAN BE IN THE CITING AGREEMENT IF THE PARTIES DECIDE THEY, THEY WISH TO DO THAT.
I GUESS I, I'M JUST THINKING, OKAY, WE ARE GONNA BE LOOKING AT A CUP AND THEN IT COULD BE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
THEY CALL YOU UP, LOLA, WE WANT TO MAKE A CITING AGREEMENT, YOU KNOW, IN A WEEK.
AND SO YOU GO, YOU HAVE TO YANK THAT FORWARD OUT OF OUR, OUR, UH, THE CITING AGREEMENT HAS TO BE APPROVED AT A, AS A FORMAL BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION.
SO IT HAS TO GO BEFORE THE BOARD HAD A MEETING.
NOW, IF THE BOARD COMES TO ME AND SAYS, WE WANT TO ARRANGE A SPECIAL MEETING TO, TO CONSIDER THE CITING AGREEMENT, I LEGALLY THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO, UM, BEFORE WE LOOK AT THE CUP.
'CAUSE WE'RE NOT GONNA LOOK AT THE CUP UNTIL AFTER WE DO THE SUBSTANTIAL RECORD.
I, YOU'RE ASKING ME TO, TO PUT ON MY NOSTRADAMUS HAT AND I REALLY
I, I DON I DON'T FEEL, I DON'T, I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE MAKING THOSE PROJECTIONS OH.
BECAUSE THIS IS, UM, THIS, THIS AGAIN IS A NEW PROCESS.
AND IT, IT'LL, IT'S ALSO A LITTLE BIT NEW FOR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BECAUSE AGAIN, BEFORE THEY WERE CONSIDERING EVERYTHING, EVERY, BOTH BODIES WERE CONSIDERING EVERYTHING AS A BUNDLE.
SO THIS, YOU KNOW, IF, IF YOU ALL WERE TO MAKE THE DECISION TO, TO, IF YOU ALL WERE DEFINED AFTER DOING THE ANALYSIS THAT, UM, THE PROJECT WAS NOT IN SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD, AND THEY ELECTED TO APPEAL IT TO THE BOARD, THAT'S GONNA BE A NEW CONCEPT FOR THE BOARD AS WELL.
UH, BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE SEEN AN APPEAL OF A SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD DETERMINATION, BECAUSE AGAIN, IT HAS ALL COME TOGETHER IN THE PAST AS A OKAY.
SO WHAT DO YOU NEED FROM US IF WE WANT A HEARING OR NOT? CORRECT? YES.
CAN WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THAT, PLEASE? YES.
YOU NEED A MOTION? I, I JUST GONNA SAY, I, UH, I THINK, I THINK IT'D BE FAIR TO THE PUBLIC TO HAVE A HEARING.
UM, I GUESS THERE'S POINTS TO NOT DOING IT AND, AND ALSO TO HAVE ONE, BUT I GUESS WE JUST NEED TO TALK ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT MORE.
I, I, I THINK YOU'RE CORRECT THAT IT'S FAIR TO THE PUBLIC TO HAVE A HEARING, BUT ALSO I THINK THAT OFTENTIMES THE PUBLIC MAY TAKE AWAY FROM WHAT WE NEED TO DO AS A PLANNING COMMISSION.
AND THAT'S REALLY MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER THE PROJECT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE, TO MOVE FORWARD IN THAT.
OFTENTIMES WHEN YOU HAVE THE PUBLIC HERE, SPEAKING TO OR AGAINST A PROJECT, THEY ARE DOING EXACTLY WHAT, WHAT YOU ALL BROUGHT UP, BRINGING UP POINTS AS TO WHY THEY DON'T WANT THE PROJECT FOR THEMSELVES PERSONALLY, WHICH MAY DISTRACT US FROM DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT IT REALLY MEETS OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT, 'CAUSE THAT'S, THAT'S ALL WE ARE DOING, I THINK IS WHAT I HEARD YOU SAY.
THAT'S ALL WE'RE DOING WITH THE, WITH THE CONFERENCE.
I MEAN, WITH THE, UH, SUBSTANTIAL OF THE COURT DETERMINATION.
AND THERE WILL BE OTHER OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE PUBLIC TO HAVE, UH, COMMENTS OUTTA PUBLIC.
SO I, I'M FINE EITHER WAY WITH WHOEVER MOTION, BUT I, I CAN SEE THE POINTS
[01:30:01]
EITHER WAY.UM, TO TAKE TO, UM, SO DID WE HAVE A MOTION OR I, GO AHEAD, MAKE A MOTION THAT WE NOT HAVE A HEARING, THAT WE JUST, YOU KNOW, GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AND THEN THE PUBLIC WILL COME BACK AFTER WE HAVE THE, I SECOND.
IT'S PROBABLY MOVED A SECOND THAT WE DO NOT, UH, HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE SUBSTANTIAL, SUBSTANTIAL FOR, FOR THE, WHAT DO I NEED TO SAY? WHAT PROJECT? NO, THIS IS JUST YOUR PROCESS IN GENERAL.
AND, UH, AND THIS, THIS, AND JUST TO LET YOU KNOW TOO, JUST, THIS IS FOR, WE'RE LOOKING AT IT FOR SOLAR, BUT THERE ARE PLACES WHERE YOU WOULD HAVE OTHER SUBSTANTIAL CORE DETERMINATIONS FOR OTHER PROJECTS THAT ARE UNRELATED TO SOLAR AS WELL.
AND I GUESS WE FIND THAT IT DOESN'T WORK WHERE YOU CAN CHANGE.
IT'S, UM, MOTION TO CARRIED THAT WE, UH, DO NOT HAVE HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE SUBSTANTIAL COURT.
SO WE, WE WILL BE MOVING THAT FOR AND, AND, UM, FOR YOUR NEXT MEETING, SO WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE, HOW WE SHOULD PREPARE FOR THE JUNE, THE JUNE MEETING.
SO YOU'LL, YOU WILL HAVE A PACKET PREPARED FOR YOU ALL WITH SOME, UH, SOME LANGUAGE TO HELP YOU OUT, TO MAKE YOUR DETERMINATION FOR THAT.
I THINK IS THAT, IS THAT THE ONLY THING WE HAVE FOR, FOR JUNE? WE MAY BE IN A POSITION TO BRING THE SITE AGREEMENT, UH, TO YOU ALL FOR YOUR, FOR YOUR REVIEW AND COMMENT.
UM, I'LL HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF THAT IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS.
AND THE, I'M SORRY, THE SUBCOMMITTEE, UH, WE, WE WILL START GETTING SOME DATES TOGETHER FOR YOU ALL AND SEE IF, WHAT, WHAT DATES WORK BEST FOR ALL OF US.
UM, PROBABLY MORE THAN LIKELY A WEEK AFTER, UM, THE, UH, THE, THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
SO WE'LL GIVE TIME FOR STAFF TO KIND OF WORK THROUGH SOME OF IT THAT YOU GUYS CAN DO YOUR MAGIC AND REVIEW ON WHAT I HAVE.
MAY MAYBE YOU GET IT THE SAME NIGHT AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
UM, SO YOU CAN KIND OF HAVE SOME TIME TO, TO I, I GUESS PUT, PULL OUT YOUR RED MARKERS AND, AND GET AT IT.
SO, UM, BUT I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR TONIGHT.
AM I MISSING ANYTHING? UM, I THINK WE HAVE A, A WETLANDS ORDINANCE COMING UP SOON TOO, THAT WE, THAT THE STATE CODE, IT REQUIRED US TO MAKE SOME CHANGES TO OUR CURRENT WETLANDS ORDINANCE.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DID NOTICE TOO IS THAT THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE IS, IS NOT CODIFIED.
SO THIS PROVIDES THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO AND CODIFY IT.
AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS IT'S NOT CURRENTLY ON YOUR, ON YOUR MUNI CODE SITE THAT YOU SEE UP ON YOUR SCREEN RIGHT THERE.
SO, YOU KNOW, WE'LL WE'RE GONNA ADD IT AND MAKE THE NECESSARY CHANGES THAT THE STATE STATE SAYS WE HAVE TO DO.
SO PROBABLY SEE THAT IN THE NEXT, IN THE NEXT TWO MONTHS, UM, FOR, FOR WETLANDS ORDINANCE.
UM, SO THAT'S, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT BE COMING BEFORE YOU.
UM, I THINK IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD, UM, WITH THE, WITH THE STATE REQUIREMENTS OF THINK THEY EVEN GAVE US A GUIDANCE OF HOW WE SHOULD PUT OUR ORDINANCE.
SO, UM, I DON'T THINK IT'S A WHOLE LOT THAT WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT JUST THIS IS WHAT THE DC WE HAVE TO DO.
UM, AND THEN ON JUNE, UH, JULY 22ND, UM, WE PUSHED THAT MEETING BACK TO THE JULY 15TH MEETING BECAUSE THERE IS, UM, UH, THE A PA CONFERENCES, AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE THAT'S GONNA BE IN WILLIAMSBURG THIS YEAR.
SO IF, IF I CAN GET A RAISE OF HANDS FROM ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO GO TO IT, LET ME KNOW.
'CAUSE I, I KIND, I THINK I GAVE YOU GUYS LIKE THREE DIFFERENT, I PREACHED ON IT PROBABLY IN THE PAST TWO TIMES, BUT IF YOU ALL KINDA LOOKED AT YOUR DATES, I THINK WE HAVE
[01:35:01]
THAT, THAT I THINK IT'S SAT, I THINK IT'S, I'M SORRY, SUNDAY THROUGH WEDNESDAY OF THAT WEEK.THAT'S WHEN WE'RE ACTUALLY HAVING THE CONFERENCE THERE.
AND THERE'S SOME, THERE'S SOME DIFFERENT TRAINING CLASSES IN THERE TOO.
THERE'S SOME, IF, IF, AND I'LL SEND YOU THE, UM, THE LINK TO IT SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT KIND OF CLASSES YOU WANNA DO.
SOME PEOPLE MAY NOT WANNA GO TO EVERY DAY.
YOU MAY LOOK AT A CERTAIN SCHEDULE OF, OF COURSES THERE AND SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, HORACE, I ONLY WANT TO GO ON TUESDAY
'CAUSE THERE, THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT I WANNA LOOK AT.
AND THEY, THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES FOR SOME PLANNING COMMISSION TRAINING THERE TOO.
UH, ONE OF THE PERSON THAT'S, THAT'S NOW, UM, RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LAND USE PROGRAM AT VCU, NOW HE'S GONNA BE AT THE CONFERENCE DOING SOME TRAINING FOR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TOO.
SO OPPORTUNITY TIME, THEY, THEY, THEY DID, YOU KNOW, PROVIDE SOME, YOUR, YOUR, YOU ALL'S REGISTRATION FEES IS SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN UM, STAFF'S REGISTRATION FEES.
SO, BUT STAFF WOULD, YOU KNOW, THE COUNTY WOULD TAKE CARE OF YOU ALL'S FEES IF YOU WERE INTERESTED IN GOING JUST THOSE DATES WERE.
SO IT'S THE 21ST THROUGH THE, WHAT IS THAT? THROUGH THE 24TH? YEAH.
SO LET, LET ME KNOW IF YOU'RE INTERESTED 'CAUSE UH, WE'LL, WE'LL GET YOU STRAIGHT MS. CHEEK.
ANYBODY ELSE? MR. NEWBIE, YOU'RE GONNA SEND THE INFO OUT.
I'LL SEND THE INFO TO YOU FOR SURE.
SO IT MAY BE ONE OF THOSE THINGS OF, HEY HORACE, I JUST WANT YOU TO SIGN ME IT FOR THIS DATE SESSION.
SO IF, IF YOU WANNA GO TO THE WHOLE FULL CONFERENCE, YOU KNOW YOU'RE FREE TO DO THAT AS WELL.
JUST LET ME KNOW IF THINGS YOU'RE INTERESTED IN AND WE'LL GET YOU, WE'LL GET YOU SIGNED UP.
IT MAY, IT MAY JUST BE A, WE LOOK ON THE INTERNET TOGETHER AND WE TRY TO GO OVER AND SET 'EM TOGETHER.
SO WHATEV, WHATEVER IT IS, WE'LL MAKE SURE YOU GET, YOU GET SIGNED UP FOR IT.
I HAVE THIS, THIS, THIS EVENING.
SO, MR. WADE, YOUR STAFF, UH, I'M OBTAIN A MOTION THAT WE ADJOURNED TO JUNE THE 24TH.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? SEE I STAND.
YOU SAID THAT THING STARTS ON THE 21ST.