[00:00:01]
UH, WOULD KIND OF ANSWER HIS[*This meeting was joined in progress.* ]
[Planning Commission on June 22, 2026.]
QUESTION ABOUT THE BINS.WHICH, WHICH, WHICH PARTICULAR SECTION? UH, SECTION THREE B, UH, THREE P CULTURAL SERVICES.
AND THEN IT GOES, AND THEN DOWN IN SECTION THREE, UH, PUBLIC NECESSITY OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OR CONSTRUCTION REUSE, WHICH WOULD HAVE TO BE GRANTED BY CERTIFICATE APPROPRIATE AS WELL.
ALSO, I'M, I'M, I'M THINKING THAT WILL HELP ANSWER MR. BERRYMAN'S QUESTION IF, UH, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, PUBLIC PURPOSE WILL INTEND TO LAND BUILDING TO BE PROTECTED.
I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT ABOUT WHATEVER THIS 1304 OR FIVE.
YEAH, I THINK IT'S FOUR OR FIVE ABOUT, YEAH.
IT SEEMS LIKE THAT WOULD ALLOW HIM TO DO THAT.
THE CUL THE CULTURAL SERVICES.
THAT WAS, THAT IS A, UM, THAT'S A, LIKE IF YOU'RE PUTTING A MUSEUM ON THE PROPERTY OKAY.
IT'S NOT A GRAIN BIN, HISTORIC GRAIN BIN.
WELL, I THINK HE WAS STATING TO PUT ONE ON THERE WITH THE EXISTING THAT WAS RIGHT.
TALKING ABOUT THE OVERLAY OF IT.
I THOUGHT THAT'S WHERE THEY WOULD FALL ON IT.
BUT I, I DOES NOT, THAT MUST NOT BE IT.
IT LOOKS LIKE IF YOU WANTED TO PUT A CRANE BIN THERE, YOU WOULD HAVE TO BRING IT TO THE PARTICULAR BOARD TO, TO DO THAT.
UM, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING MS. PERKINS, WE CAN LOOK AT FOR IF THIS AGRICULTURE EXEMPTION IS, WOULD THIS STILL BE A REQUIREMENT FOR US TO LOOK AT? WE CAN, WE CAN LOOK INTO THAT ONE.
AND YOU'RE SAYING HE WOULD HAVE TO PAY THE 700 EVERY DONE HE NEEDS TO PUT A BRING DOWN ON WELL, THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT.
THE AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION PART.
AND AGAIN, THE REASON WHY WE BRING THINGS BEFORE FOR DISCUSSION IS YOU BRING, WE, WE BRING SITUATIONS UP.
'CAUSE NOT ALL OF US THINK THE SAME WAY OR HAVE THE SAME THOUGHT PROCESSES.
SO YOU, YOU, YOU ALL ARE A BODY OF 11 BEFORE GOING THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGAIN, BEFORE IT EVEN GETS TO U GOAL, THERE'S A BOARD OF A ORTHODOX REVIEW THAT LOOK AT SOME THINGS TOO.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY WE IRON THINGS OUT BEFORE IT GETS TO THE BOARD.
UM, BUT THEY MAY HAVE QUESTIONS TOO.
THIS JUST KIND OF GENERAL INFORMATION? NO.
NO, WE, WE JUST, WE, WHAT WE WANT DO IS JUST REVIEW, HEY, AND IF YOU ALL SAY, HEY, TAKE A LOOK AT THESE OTHER, OTHER SECTIONS OR, UM, I THINK THERE WAS ONE OTHER SECTION THERE TOO.
THE AREA, I THINK YOU HAVE IT, YOU HAVE IT KIND OF, IT'S KIND OF HIGHLIGHTED THERE.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS GONNA HIGHLIGHT THERE.
WE WERE GETTING MS. PERKINS OPINION ON IT.
WE WEREN'T SURE MS. PERKINS WANTED YOU ALL'S OPINION ON IT.
SO WE'LL KNOW WHAT OUR, THAT 1309 YEAH.
BECAUSE WE WERE KIND OF VAGUE ON THAT LAST WEEK.
THAT'S NOT IN THERE NOW, CORRECT? THAT IS IN THERE.
UM, SO THAT IS IN THERE RIGHT NOW.
AND I HAD TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING WHAT ITS TRUE PURPOSE WAS
UM, SO I, I WAS LOOKING TO SEE IF THE BOARD OF HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW HAD ANY, HAD ANY CONTEXT OR ANY EXAMPLES FOR SITUATIONS WHERE THAT WOULD COME UP THAT WOULD HELP, HELP ME TO BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THAT IS.
IT LOOKS LIKE SOME NEGOTIATIONS ARE GONNA BE NEEDED.
THEY'RE GIVING THEMSELVES SOME TIME TO MAYBE WORK IT OUT.
AND, AND, AND AGAIN, I, WITH WITHOUT AN EXAMPLE, I DO NOT HAVE A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF THAT.
SO I, I WAS HOPING THAT THAT, THAT SOME FOLKS THAT HAD MORE CONTEXT WITH HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL TYPE STUFF MIGHT BE ABLE TO PROVIDE ME WITH SOME, WITH SOME GUIDANCE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S NECESSARY.
BECAUSE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ACQUISITION, LIKE IT GIVES THEM TIME TO MM-HMM
SO WOULD THAT FALL INTO SOME SORT OF, UM, WHAT'S IT CALLED? THEY TAKE THE PROPERTY FROM YOU,
NO, NOT, WHAT'S IT CALL EMINENT DOMAIN? YEAH.
THAT, NO, I MEAN, I MEAN, THIS IS NOT THE COUNTY TAKING THE PROPERTY AB ABSOLUTELY.
UM, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I MEAN, I JUST, I MEAN, PER PERHAPS A SCENARIO MIGHT BE, SEE IF THIS MAKES SENSE.
UM,
[00:05:01]
HISTORIC DESIGNATION AND MAYBE PART OF LIKE THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT IS, OKAY, PROPERTY OWNER, YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND MAKE THIS APPLICATION.AND SO MAYBE THE BOARD OF HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW SAYS, YEP, I THINK YOU ALL MEET THE CRITERIA, BUT WE'RE NOT GONNA PUT THIS IN PLACE UNTIL, WE'RE NOT GONNA PUT THESE REQUIREMENTS ON THE PROPERTY OWNER UN UNTIL THE SALE GOES THROUGH.
I MEAN, I, I CAN'T, AGAIN, I HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME EVEN ENVISIONING THIS, THIS TYPE OF SCENARIO, WHICH IS WHY I HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT LANGUAGE.
I MEAN, WHAT, WHAT HORACE AND I CAN DO IS WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, SOME OTHER JURISDICTIONS AND TALK TO OUR COLLEAGUES IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS AND SEE IF THEY HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE WITH THIS OR CAN LIKE, GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF WHEN THIS HAS COME UP.
BUT I'M, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M KIND OF PREDISPOSED TO TAKE LANGUAGE OUT IF IT DOESN'T HAVE A PURPOSE, IF WE'RE ALREADY GOING IN AND, AND MAKING AMENDMENTS TO THE ORDINANCE.
AND IF, IF, IF NEITHER HORACE NOR I CAN EXPLAIN WHY THIS, WHAT, WHAT THIS, THE PURPOSE OF THIS LANGUAGE IS.
I, I REALLY DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH US CONTINUING TO HAVE IT IN THERE.
SO, UH, UNLESS SOMEONE HAS A TIME MACHINE, AND WE CAN GO BACK TO WHEN THIS WAS FIRST PUT IN.
I WONDER IF IT GOES BACK TO WHEN PRESERVATION VIRGINIA, WHICH WAS A PVA, THEN I GUESS BOUGHT BACON'S CASTLE OR THE ROTH HOUSE OR OKAY.
I MEAN, THEY'RE THE ONLY TWO I CAN THINK OF THAT OWN PROPERTY THAT, YOU KNOW, HAS IT OPEN OR BOUGHT IT SPECIFICALLY TO PRESERVE OR PUBLIC USE.
BUT I, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW THAT BEFORE MY TIME.
GIVE GIVE US GIVE US A STARTING POINT.
BECAUSE IN, IN MY MIND, I WOULD SAY, WELL, WHY DON'T YOU JUST WAIT TO BRING IT BEFORE THE BOARD UNTIL YOU HAVE ACTUALLY ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY OR HAVE THE PROPERTY.
BUT AGAIN, THERE'S, THERE'S CLEARLY SOME NUANCE THAT WE'RE MISSING, UM, THAT, THAT PROMPTED SOMEONE TO PUT THIS LANGUAGE IN THERE.
SO, WELL, IT, YOU KNOW, MR. WADE, THAT, UM, THE OLD HOUSE THAT'S ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE ROTH HOUSE MM-HMM
AND THERE WAS A COUPLE, THEY WERE IN THE PROCESS OF DECIDING TO BUY IT, I THINK.
BUT THEY HAD SOME GRANT STUFF.
THEY WERE LOOKING, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY PASSED OVER THAT 'CAUSE WE GOT MORE INQUIRIES ABOUT, ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
I SAID THEY DID PA BUT I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE THAT WOULD BE A SIMILAR SITUATION MM-HMM.
LIKE YOU SAID, MAYBE THEY CAN GET GRANTS AND HELP THEM GET THE PROPERTY.
THAT'S BEEN VERY HELPFUL CONTEXT WITH YOU.
UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, UH, FROM THE COMMISSION FOR THE DRAFT HP ORDINANCE FOR MR. WADE? UH, NO.
UH, MR. WADE, UH, B DRAFT AR DISTRICT AMENDMENT TO 10 ACRE MINIMUM.
AND OUR, AT OUR LAST COMMISSION MEETING, WE DID DISCUSS, UM, ABOUT IN AT THE INCLUSION, UM, OF, OR AMENDMENT OF, UM, A FEW SECTIONS IN THE AR DISTRICT, NAMELY, UH, INCREASING THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE TO 10 ACRES.
UM, THERE'S ALSO A DISCUSSION OF, UH, I THINK THERE'S A SECTION IN, IN, I BELIEVE THERE'S A CODE SECTION THERE THAT ALSO REMOVES THE LIMIT REQUIREMENT OF, UM, ANYTHING THAT'S UNDER 10 ACRES.
REMOVING THAT REQUIREMENT, UM, AS WELL, I THINK IT WAS SECTION THREE DASH 3 0 3.
UH, REMOVE REMOVING THAT SECTION REQUIRING IF SPECIFICALLY THREE DASH 3 0 3, A ORIGINAL USE OF A LOT LESS THAN 10 ACRES IN AN AGRICULTURAL FIELD OR PASTURE SHALL MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA.
REMOVING ALL THAT LANGUAGE THERE, BECAUSE WE ARE INCREASING, REQUIRED THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE TO BE 10 ACRES.
SO THAT WAS IN A NUTSHELL FOR THAT PARTICULAR ITEM.
ALTHOUGH SOME OF THESE ORDINANCES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE SOMEWHAT CONNECTED INTO THIS, ISN'T THIS, IT WAS THIS PARTICULAR CODE SECTION IS, UM, INCREASING THE LOT SIZE TO 10.
UM, OR, AND BEFORE WE, ONE OF THE THINGS WE WANTED TO HAVE FOR THE COMMISSION WAS, I JUST, YOU WERE YOU ALL'S AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH TO DRAFT THAT LANGUAGE, MAKE CORRECTIONS TO THE ORDINANCE SO THAT WE CAN ADVERTISE FOR THE, AT YOUR NEXT JULY MEETING, UM, SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING AND THEREAFTER A DECISION THAT NEC THAT NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE REACHED BY THE COMMISSION AT THAT TIME.
BUT AT LEAST YOU HAVE INFORMATION, UM, FROM THE ORDINANCE AND SOME, SOME PUBLIC FEEDBACK ENOUGH TO START SOME, UM, CON CONVERSATIONS, UM, AFTER, AFTER HEARING FEEDBACK.
AND JUST ANY, ANY THOUGHTS, QUESTIONS, I THINK AS, AS A SUBCOMMITTEE OR SUBDIVISION
[00:10:01]
SUBCOMMITTEE MET.AND, AND IF ANYONE FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE WANNA, CAN I SPEAK WITH WHERE, WHERE WERE YOU LEFT OFF WITH THAT? THAT'D BE GREAT.
MR. MR. UH, VICE-CHAIR? UH, WELL, I THINK I, WELL, I HAD ONE OPINION TO IT, BUT IF MR. COGGINS WANTED TO EXPLAIN HIS SIDE, UM, AND WE CAN KIND OF GO IN SOME OF THE DIALECT WE, WE DID HAVE BEFORE THE MEETING, UH, IF, IF YOU WILL, I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE 10 ACRE MINIMUM.
YOU KNOW, IT ALL, IT ALL STEMS FROM IN OUR CURRENT SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, YOU CAN'T CREATE A LOT IN A FIELD IN AN OPEN FIELD OF LESS THAN 10 ACRES UNLESS IT MEETS CERTAIN CRITERIA.
AND I THINK STAFF WAS HAVING A, WOULD BE OKAY TO HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME.
WE TRYING TO DRAW THE LINE ON THE REQUIREMENTS OF ALLOWING A SMALLER THAN 10 ACRE LOT IN A FIELD.
SO THEY SAID, WELL, IF WE JUST DO IT ALL 10 ACRE, AND I THINK THROUGH THE SUBCOMMITTEE WE HAD TALKED ABOUT AGRICULTURAL IS AGRICULTURAL, YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T EXPECT TO SEE ONE IN TWO ACRE LOTS.
THEY SHOULD BE FARMS OR SMALL FARMS OR, YOU KNOW, IN AR IF YOU WANT TO DO RESIDENTIAL, SET UP A SUBDIVISION, YOU KNOW, UM, DO IT R ONE AND, AND HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE SMALLER LOTS.
SO I THINK THAT'S KIND OF THE GENERAL CONSENSUS.
WE WERE TRYING TO, IF I COULD SAY, KILL TWO BIRDS IN ONE STONE, TAKE CARE OF THE ISSUE WITH CHOPPING UP FARMLAND FOR HOUSES AND STILL LEAVING AR, AR YOU KNOW, AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL AND THAT, THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS.
UM, SO I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE IT ALL STEMMED FROM.
AND THEN I THINK MR. WADE HAD A GREAT IDEA OF KIND OF TYING IT IN WITH THE FAMILY SUBDIVISION.
'CAUSE WE DIDN'T WANT TO PUT A HARDSHIP ON FAMILIES THAT WANTED TO CUT OFF A LOT, YOU KNOW, FOR THEIR CHILD OR THEIR AUNT, I MEAN, FOR THEIR CHILD OR THEIR, YOU KNOW, MOTHER-IN-LAW OR SOMEBODY, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY, A FAMILY MEMBER TO BE ABLE TO STAY ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY AND CUT OFF AN ACRE OF THEIR LOT.
SO, YOU KNOW, WE HAD DISCUSSED AT THE MEETING, AND YOU KNOW, IT'S OPEN FOR DISCUSSION, I GUESS NOW, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, IF, IF YOU DID SUBDIVIDE THAT UP, THAT YOU WOULD KEEP A MINIMUM OF FIVE ACRE RESIDUAL AGAIN.
SO YOU DON'T HAVE LITTLE ONE ACRE TRACKS JUST POPPING UP EVERYWHERE.
OR SOMEBODY CIRCUMVENTING THE FAMILY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE BY TAKING A FIVE ACRE PARCEL AND MAKING FIVE ONE ACRE PARCEL AND MAKING A LITTLE MINI SUBDIVISION AND SELLING IT OFF.
SO THAT, THAT'S KIND OF, YOU KNOW, THE DIALOGUE THAT WE WERE HAVING.
BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HEARD, YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO WITH MY LAND, BUT, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD DATE IT WHENEVER WE PASS THE ORDINANCE.
SO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PASS THE ORDINANCE.
ANYTHING THAT WAS PRIOR TO THAT, YOU COULD SUBDIVIDE IT UP IN SMALLER LOTS AND NOT KEEP THE FIVE ACRE RESIDUAL.
BUT AFTERWARDS, AFTER THE DATE, IF YOU CAME IN, YOU WOULD KNOW COMING IN, HEY, I THINK I MIGHT WANT TO GIVE MY KIDS A PIECE OF LAND SOMEWHERE DOWN THE ROAD.
WELL, YOU NEED TO BUY MORE THAN FIVE ACRES IF YOU WANNA DO THAT.
YOU NEED TO, YOU KNOW, BUY SEVEN ACRES.
YOU COULD GIVE THEM EACH, YOU KNOW, TWO KIDS AN ACRE, AN ACRE, AND YOU STILL KEEP THE FIVE ACRES.
SO IT KIND OF PROTECTED THE EXISTING LANDOWNERS IN SURY COUNTY, YOU KNOW, TO STILL BE ABLE TO DO WITH WHAT THEY'VE ALREADY PURCHASED AND BOUGHT THEIR LAND FOR.
BUT ALSO PROTECT FUTURE, KIND OF PROTECT AGAINST FUTURE MANY SUBDIVISIONS, UM, BEING CREATED.
AM I OUTTA LINE THERE? IS THAT, AM I KIND OF, I'M RIGHT THERE.
AND THEN SOME OTHER DIALECT CAME FROM, IT WAS WHERE WE HAD THE, UM, TO THE PEOPLE THAT WEREN'T HERE, WE HAD SOME CONVERSATION THAT, YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T REALLY WANT TO PUT A HARDSHIP ON MEMBERS HERE, BUT IT WOULDN'T PARTICULARLY PUT A HARDSHIP ON THE PEOPLE THAT, THAT ARE HERE.
IT'LL BY THE DATE, BY THE DEADLINE DATE, IT WILL PUT, WELL, WE'RE SAYING, I'M SAYING HARDSHIP.
ANYONE ELSE THAT WANTS TO MOVE INTO THE COUNTY, THEN THEY HAVE TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF A LOT SIZE AND YOU KNOW, HOW WE WANT TO FARE IT OUT.
AND THEN, UH, MS. PERKINS AND MR. WADE WAS SAYING, HEY, WELL WE HAVE TO PUT SOMETHING ON PAPER TO APPROVE YAY AND NAY, UM, FOR A PUBLIC HEARING SO THE PUBLIC CAN HEAR WHAT WE HAVE TO DO.
SO THERE'S NOTHING SET IN STONE.
THOSE ARE JUST SOME OF THE THINGS, SOME OF THE CONVERSATION WE WERE HAVING AROUND, UM, THE, UH, THE 10 ACRE, THE, UH, DRAFT AR DISTRICT AMENDMENT.
SO THAT KIND OF SUMS IT UP, IF I HAVE IT, IT KIND OF SUMS IT UP BETWEEN IF, UH, IF, IF THAT'S ENOUGH.
COULD I WANNA ADD ONE MORE THING YES.
IS THAT YOU CAN STILL, I GUESS, HAVE THESE LITTLE MINI SUBDIVISION, BUT YOU HAVE TO READ
BECAUSE THERE'S PROTECTIONS UNDER AR.
YOU CAN DO A LOT, YOU CAN HAVE HORSES, COWS, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN DO A LOT OF STUFF IN AR.
BUT IN THE R ONE, THERE ARE LIMITATIONS.
[00:15:01]
IF YOU COME IN AND YOU'VE GOT A, I USE THE EXAMPLE WE LIVE, WE HAVE FIVE ACRE LOTS IN OUR LITTLE SUBDIVISION WAS CREATED BACK IN THE MID EIGHTIES, UM, WHERE WE LIVE AT NOW.AND, YOU KNOW, AND THERE'S, IT'S, YOU CAN'T SEE YOUR NEIGHBOR.
YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU GOT A LITTLE BIT OF PRIVACY AND YOU GOT A LITTLE, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN GO OUT AND SHOOT A GUN, YOU KNOW, ON YOUR PROPERTY.
BUT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'VE GOT A ONE ACRE LOT AND THERE'S SOMEBODY BESIDE YOU WITH A ONE ACRE LOT AND KNOW THERE OUGHT TO BE SOME RESTRICTIONS WHERE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE WE ARE A FENCE OUT COUNTY, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR DOG RUNNING ON, YOU KNOW, THEY GOTTA KNOW THAT YOU GOTTA FENCE IN YOUR PROPERTY IF YOU DON'T WANT MY GOATS ON YOUR PROPERTY.
YOU KNOW? AND, AND THAT'S, THAT'S FOREIGN TO PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY.
YOU GOTTA FENCE IN AND KEEP YOUR COWS IN YOUR PROPERTY.
AND SURREY COUNTY, AM I CORRECT, IS A FENCE OUT? I THINK IT'S CHANGED TO BE A FENCE IN FENCE OUT COUNTY, HASN'T IT? I DON'T THINK SO.
DO YOU KNOW STEVE? NO, I DON'T KNOW.
YOU KNOW, WE HAVE ALL THE ISSUES WITH DOG HUNTING AND, YOU KNOW, NOT TO MENTION QUITE A FEW STRAIGHT COWS, RIGHT.
ANYWAY, THE POINT BEING IN AR THERE'S CERTAIN EXPECTATIONS THAT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO DO.
BUT IN AN R ONE, YOU KNOW, WITH, THERE WOULD BE OTHER RESTRICTIONS THAT YOU COULDN'T HAVE YOUR ROOSTER MAYBE AT ONE, AT FOUR O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING CROWING IN SOMEBODY'S WINDOW AT ONE ACRE.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THAT'S LIKE THE CITY YOU CAN YELL FROM ONE HOUSE TO THE OTHER.
SO ANYWAY, AND THEN IT WAS, TO PIGGYBACK SOME OF THAT WAS ALSO TO, UH, TO THE, YOU KNOW, THE, SOME OF THE YOUTH THAT WE WANT TO TRY TO ATTRACT BACK TO THE COUNTY THAT AREN'T FROM HERE OR TRACK ATTRACT TO THE COUNTY.
YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD THE SEVEN ACRES OR 10 ACRES OF WHAT WE MAY HAVE.
SO IT, IT IS JUST UP FOR DISCUSSION ON HOW, HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT IT.
AND PLEASE CHIME IN AND IF, IF, YOU KNOW, WE, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT ALREADY, BUT PLEASE CHIME IN IF YOU GOT SOME FEEDBACK OR ANYTHING ELSE.
BUT, UM, I, I THINK WE ARE GONNA MOVE FORWARD WITH, UM, DOCUMENTING IT, HAVING A PUBLIC, UH, UH, PUBLIC ON THE AGENDA FOR SOME FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY.
UM, BUT I THINK THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE STOPPED AT BEFORE THE SIX O'CLOCK MEETING.
AND I THINK THAT THE DIALOGUE WE WERE ALSO HAVING IS IF DEVELOPERS WANT TO COME IN AND, AND WE WANT AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR THE, YOU KNOW, FOR PEOPLE THAT THEY CAN'T AFFORD, WE SELL 'EM A LOT FOR $50,000 AND THEN THEY GOTTA COME IN AND PUT AN $18,000.
WELL, AND A $20,000 SEPTIC SYSTEM.
THEY'VE SPENT IT, YOU KNOW, THE INFRASTRUCTURE, IT NEEDS TO BE ZONED R ONE WHERE THE DEVELOPER PUTS THAT MONEY UP FRONT BECAUSE HE CAN, HE CAN SPEND A LOT, YOU KNOW, HE CAN PUT, INSTEAD OF PUTTING 25 INDIVIDUAL WELLS AT SPRATLEY MILL, HE COULD PUT ONE WELL SYSTEM FOR PROBABLY A THIRD OF THE, YOU KNOW, WITH HIS POCKET.
HE COULD GO AHEAD AND BUY IT UP FRONT.
AND THEN THE LAND WOULD GO BACK TO BEING AFFORDABLE.
YOU KNOW, IT WOULD TAKE THE COST OF THE LAND DOWN FROM THE PEOPLE COMING IN INSTEAD OF HAVING TO SPEND THAT 35, $40,000 UP FRONT, YOU KNOW, ON A LAND THAT THEY ONLY SPENT 40,000 ON THE DEVELOPER COULD, COULD KIND OF, WHAT DO YOU CALL IT? SIFT IT OUT BETWEEN ALL 25 LOTS RATHER THAN REALLY BURDENING DOWN, YOU KNOW, A YOUNG PERSON, YOU KNOW, YOUNG FAMILY, YOU KNOW, HAVING TO PUT THAT MONEY UP FRONT, YOU KNOW, AND, AND MOST OF THE DEVELOPERS WE'RE SEEING AREN'T FROM SURY COUNTY.
YOU KNOW, THEY'RE, THEY'RE COMING FROM OTHER PLACES.
SO THEY NEED TO, THEY NEED TO GET SOME SKIN IN THE GAME.
THEY NEED TO INVEST SOME MONEY.
IF THEY REALLY WANT TO COME INTO SURREY COUNTY AND BE A PARTNER WITH US, THEN THEY NEED TO PARTNER WITH THEIR WALLETS, YOU KNOW, TO MAKE IT AFFORDABLE FOR OUR, OUR YOUNG PEOPLE TO STAY HERE AND WORK HERE.
IS THERE A CONSENSUS WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE OR HAS IT BEEN STUDIED BY ANYBODY ELSE THAT THEY THINK THIS WILL HELP PRESERVE OR CONSERVE, UH, OPEN FARMLAND BY GOING TO A 10 ACRE MINIMUM? I, I THINK IT'S A GIVEN.
BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY SEEN, YOU KNOW, SEVERAL LOTS POPPING UP ON FARMLAND NOW THAT NO WAY TO STOP IT, YOU KNOW, IF WE DON'T, IF WE DON'T DO IT.
I GUESS WE, WE ALSO SAW IT IN SOME SURROUND, SOME SURROUNDING COUNTIES AS WELL TOO.
THEY GOT, THEY HAD, IT WAS, IT'S SOME DATA OUT THERE.
I THINK IT WAS IN ONE OUR PACKET, UH, A COUPLE PEOPLE AGO.
UM, BUT YEAH, IT IS SOME, IT IS SOME DATA AROUND THERE WITH SOME OF THE SURROUNDING COUNTERS ON WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
WE'RE JUST KIND OF, UM, MEMOING AND SAYING, HEY, WHAT DO WE WANT TO DO? YEAH.
SO MAYBE WE CAN GET THAT PACKET BACK OUT THERE TO EVERYBODY.
MAYBE EMAIL IT TO 'EM SO THEY CAN GET THEIR EYES ON IT.
AND I CAN, THEY COULD, IT, IT'LL RUN THROUGH MY MIND ONCE TO, YOU KNOW, 10 AC MINIMUM IS GREAT, BUT, YOU KNOW, I I ALMOST WANT TO SAY A 20 ACRE MINIMUM IN A, IN A OPEN FIELD, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD, I, I THINK THAT WOULD HELP CONSERVE EVEN MORE FARM.
BUT WE GET THE PACKET BACK UP SO WE CAN KIND OF SEE SURROUNDING, I, I CAN SHOW YOU THAT.
I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE TRYING TO DO TOO, AT LEAST FROM STAFF POINT OF VIEW, IS
[00:20:02]
TO PROVIDE SOME TYPE OF COLLABORATION WHERE, KIND OF, ALMOST LIKE A COMPROMISE KIND OF, SO TO SPEAK OF.'CAUSE I, I DO UNDERSTAND LARGE TRACK LAND, ESPECIALLY I, I KNOW YOU'RE A FARMER, A LOT OF TIMES WHEN YOU'RE, WHEN YOU'RE FARMING, YOU DON'T WANT TO GET TO A 10 LEAST, LIKE I, I'M NOT CHOOSING TO FARM THAT ONE 'CAUSE IT'S TOO SMALL OF A LOT.
I TAKE THAT, AND I, I'VE TALKED TO SOME FOLKS THAT, THAT ARE IN THE INDUSTRY.
IT'S LIKE FARMERS WILL NOT CHOOSE SMALL LOTS BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO SET UP ALL THEIR EQUIPMENT.
IT TAKES FOREVER TO SET UP AND THEN YOU GET NOTHING OUT OF IT.
AND IT'S, I I, I DO UNDERSTAND THE BURDEN OF HAVING SMALL LOTS VERSUS LARGER LOTS.
UM, I DO SEE, I THINK FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE, A LOT, A LOT OF, UH, THE THINGS THAT WE'VE SEEN NOW, AGAIN, WHAT MR. HARDY WAS SAYING WAS WHAT SOME OTHER LOCALITIES THAT ARE DOING RIGHT NOW TO ADDRESS THAT, THE RURAL NATURE IS WHAT THEIR MINIMUM LOT SIZES ARE.
SO I THINK WE CAN LOOK AT SOME OTHER LOCALITIES AND, AND I THINK IT MIGHT HAVE, I THINK WE MIGHT HAVE ALREADY SENT IT OUT THERE TOO.
BUT I'LL, I'LL, I'LL RE THINK.
TAKE A RE-LOOK AT THAT AND SEND IT OUT.
UM, IT, IT'LL AT LEAST SHARE WHAT THE MINIMUM LOT SIZES ARE FOR A SELECT FEW, UM, RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES THAT ARE SIMILAR TO SUR.
UH, IF THERE IS NO MORE COMMENTARY ON THE DRAFT AR, DISTRICT AMENDMENT FOR LIEUTENANT ACRES WILL MOVE DOWN TO CAVEAT C UH, DRAFT FAMILY DIVISION AMENDMENT.
AND I THINK THIS IS A SIMILAR ITEM THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED WITH THE, WITH THE, UH, SUBDIVISION SUBCOMMITTEE WAS I THINK WE'RE LEFT DOWN TO, I THINK IT'S IDEALLY THREE, THREE OPTIONS.
UM, AND I THINK THAT THE PURPOSE WOULD BE TO ADVERTISE FOR THE MOST, UM, I GUESS FOR THE OPTION TO HAVE A FIVE ACRE RESIDUAL.
UM, THE OPTIONS WERE, WERE THIS, UM, HAVE IT SO THAT YOU KEEP IT THE SAME AS IT IS NOW.
YOU, YOU BASICALLY SAY, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ONE ONE ACRE RESIDUAL, THAT'S IT, UH, FIVE ACRE RESIDUAL OR A COMBINATION, WHICH I THINK THAT WE, WE, WE SAW AS A, A COLLABORATION OR A COMPROMISE IN THAT FOLKS THAT OWN PROPERTY NOW THEY COULD KEEP THE THINGS, THE WAY THINGS ARE WITH BEING ABLE TO, UM, HAVE A RESIDUAL OF ONE ACRE.
AND FOLKS THAT HAVE A CELL DATE THAT IS AFTER THE DATE OF OUR ORDINANCE, THEY WOULD BE, HAVE TO HAVE, THEY CAN DO THE FAMILY DIVISION OF AN ACRE FOR PARCEL, BUT THEY HAVE TO HAVE THEIR, FOR THEIR PARENT PARCEL, THEY HAVE TO AT LEAST MAINTAIN A FIVE ACRE MINIMUM.
AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE WE ARE AT THIS POINT.
I, I BELIEVE THE RECOMMENDATION RIGHT NOW IS TO HAVE THAT PARTICULAR ORDINANCE OR THAT SECTION WRITTEN BY STAFF TO BE ADVERTISED.
UM, THE PORTION WITH HAVING A WHATEVER DATE THAT WOULD BE A CELL DATE OF THE DATE THAT I THINK WE HAVE TO, MS. PERKINS AND I WILL DRAFT THAT LANGUAGE UP.
UM, BUT I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE, AS, AS A SUBCOMMITTEE, THAT'S WHAT AM I, AM I CORRECT SUBCOMMITTEE? I'LL, I'LL LET, I'LL LET YOU COMMENT ON WHAT, WHAT WE DECIDED ON.
BUT I THINK, I THINK THAT'S AS, AS A SUBCOMMITTEE, YOU ALL DECIDE ON THAT.
I'D RATHER YOU ALL SAY THAT INSTEAD OF ME,
UM, BUT I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE WE LEFT OFF THERE.
AND THEN PART TWO OF THAT WAS, UM, WITH FA DIVISIONS, WE DO HAVE PEOPLE WHO COME INTO THE COUNTIES.
RIGHT NOW, THERE'S NO REAL INCENTIVE TO DO A FA DIVISION IN SURY COUNTY RIGHT NOW.
'CAUSE EVERYTHING'S MINIMUM LOT SIDE ONE ACRE.
SO THERE'S REALLY NO INCENTIVE TO DO THAT.
BUT ONCE WE HAVE A MINIMUM ACREAGE OF 10 ACRES IN PLACE, YOU WILL SEE A INCREASE IN APPLICATIONS FOR FAMILY DIVISIONS.
AND WHAT YOU WILL FIND, YOU WILL FIND SURVEYORS AND DEVELOPERS THAT HADN'T PREVIOUSLY DONE ANYTHING IN SURY COUNTY CHOOSE TO DO FAMILY DIVISIONS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY HAVE LARGE, THEY MAY HAVE LARGE FAMILIES AND CHOOSE TO SIT ON WHOSE PROPERTY FOR FIVE YEARS BEFORE THEY SELL TO SOMEONE ELSE.
UM, BECAUSE OF THAT, THE THOUGHT PROCESS TOO WAS, UM, OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE NOW SAYS, IS IT, IT LISTS WHO'S IS A RELATIVE, UM, BUT STATE CODE DOES ALLOW THE ADDITION OF NIECE, NEPHEW, AUNTS AND UNCLES.
UM, MS. PERKINSON DID, DID DO SOME RESEARCH BEFORE AND FOUND THAT SUR COUNTY DID AT ONE POINT, BRING IT BEFORE THIS PARTICULAR BODY TO EXPLORE.
AND THEY LEFT IT SURREY INTENTIONALLY DID NOT WANT TO ADD AUNTS, UNCLES, NIECES, AND NEPHEWS.
UM, AND THAT IS A CONSIDERATION FOR YOU ALL TO KEEP IT THAT WAY OR TO, OR TO INCLUDE THAT AS FAMILY.
BUT I DO THINK THERE, YOU KNOW, IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS TO CONSIDER, UM, IN THE FUTURE COULD BE, YOU KNOW, IF, SO
[00:25:01]
IF SOMEONE HAD, IF IF THEY WERE AN AUNT OR UNCLE, UM, AND THEY HAD NO, NO, NO ONE TO LEAVE THEIR PROPERTY TO, OR THEY THEY WANTED TO GIFT THEIR PROPERTIES TO A, TO A NIECE OR A NEPHEW, UM, WOULD THAT BE CONSIDERED SOMETHING FOR AN EXCEPTION THAT REVIEW ADMINISTRATIVELY? OR DO WE WANT TO INCLUDE THAT THE WHOLE TERM THERE? I DO THINK THAT YOU'RE LEFT WITH A, A SIGNIFICANT, UM, NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT YOU WOULD HAVE UNDER THAT UMBRELLA OF FAMILY WHEN YOU START ADDING THOSE ADDITIONAL BODIES THAT YOU MAY WANNA CONSIDER CONSIDERING THAT YOU WILL HAVE PEOPLE FROM THE OUTSIDE COMING INTO SURREY, THAT BY ALL INTENTS, THAT THAT IS A WAY TO CIRCUMVENT THE ORDINANCE.THEY HAVE D IT'S NOT JUST, IT'S NOT JUST SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE CHOSEN IN SURY COUNTY.
THEY DO IT EVERYWHERE, UM, DEVELOPERS.
AND THEY, IF THEY KNOW YOUR ORDINANCE, THEY, THEY, THEY FOUND DIFFERENT WAYS TO MAKE MONEY.
AND THAT'S, THAT MAY BE ONE OF THEM.
THEY WILL, THEY WILL BUY PIECES OF LAND AND THEY WILL HOLD IT FOR HOWEVER LONG YOUR ORDER SAYS THEY GOTTA HOLD IT.
UM, IT'S, IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT WE'VE, THAT WE, THAT WE'VE DEALT WITH AND, AND, AND OTHER LOCALITIES AND CERTAINLY WOULDN'T BE BY ITSELF IN THAT, IN THAT CATEGORY.
I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU WANT TO CONSIDER THAT LANGUAGE OF ADDING THOSE ADDITIONAL RELATIVES IN THERE, BUT I DO WANT TO, MAYBE IT'S SOMETHING IN THERE FOR SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES YOU PUT IN THERE, SOMETHING ABOUT ADDITIONAL RELATIVES UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR SPECIAL PURPOSES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
SO, UM, AS A COMMISSION, JUST WANNA KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS.
WELL, MR. WADE, YOU DID GIVE THE EXAMPLE OF, YOU KNOW, YOU HAD AN UNCLE THAT HAD NO CHILDREN MM-HMM
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, LEAVING IT TO HIS FAVORITE NEPHEW OR ABSOLUTELY.
THAT WAS DEFINITELY HIS FAVORITE NEPHEW,
I THINK, LIKE YOU SAY, WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT WHAT DOOR WE'RE OPENING.
AND, AND THAT'S WHERE I WANT YOU ALL TO CONSIDER TOO.
AND MAYBE THERE COULD BE A WAY TO, IF THERE WAS A WAY TO PROVE MAYBE A WRITTEN PROCESS THEY HAVE TO DO, IF THEY'RE LEAVING IT TO THEIR ONLY NEPHEW, IF THEY'RE, THEY DON'T HAVE ANY HEIRS TO LEAVE IT TO, MAYBE THEY HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT THAT THEY DRAFT UP THAT'S REVIEWED BY COUNTY ATTORNEY.
BUT I I, I LOVE THE, TO HAVE MS. PERKINS COMMENT ON THAT.
I MEAN, CERTAINLY WE COULD USE THE AFFIDAVIT APPROACH, BUT JUST, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS BEING ABLE TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY AS A FAMILY UNDER A FAMILY DIVISION.
SO IT WOULDN'T PREVENT, LIKE, YOU KNOW, LIKE I DON'T HAVE ANY CHILDREN.
IT WOULDN'T PREVENT ME FROM, YOU KNOW, LEAVING IT IN MY WILL TO MY NIECE.
IT WOULDN'T PREVENT ME FROM SELLING IT TO MY NIECE OR GIFTING IT TO MY NIECE FOR A DOLLAR.
WHAT IT WOULD PREVENT ME FROM DOING IS SUBDIVIDING AND GIVING MY NIECE TO OUT OF MY, YOU KNOW, 10 ACRES THAT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
SO I, I JUST KIND OF WANTED TO PUT THAT, PUT THAT OUT THERE.
SO IT IS A NARROW SCOPE, NOT TO SAY THAT IT ISN'T A SITUATION THAT COULD COME UP.
UM, BUT ANYWAY, BUT IF, IF WE WERE TO DO IT, I, I WOULD SAY AN AFFIDAVIT WOULD BE THE WAY TO APPROACH IT.
AND, AND THAT ALSO PLACES THE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN ON THE INDIVIDUAL INSTEAD OF PLACING MORE WORK ON US TO LIKE DO A GENEALOGY REPORT.
YOU KNOW, WE DON'T, WE DON'T WANNA GET INTO THAT BUSINESS.
UM, BUT, AND IT MAKES IT, AN AFFIDAVIT IS A LEGALLY BINDING DOCUMENT.
SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT IF I'M SAYING THIS PERSON IS MY LEAN NIECE AND THIS PERSON IS THE, THE ONLY, UM, HEIR THAT I HAVE, THEN THAT IS BINDING UPON THAT PERSON.
UH, MEMBERS OF COMMISSIONER, IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY, UH, ANY COMMENTS FOR THE DRAFT FAMILY DIVISION, UH, WE CAN MOVE FORWARD TO NEW BUSINESS.
MR. WADE, DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE COMMENTS ON NO, NO, THAT'S IT.
ALRIGHT, SO THE RIGHT INFORMATION.
SO RIGHT CURRENTLY WE ARE WORKING ON A ORDINANCE AMENDMENT WITH OUR CHESAPEAKE BAY PRESERVATION ACT.
UM, THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE REQUIRES US TO, UM, AMEND THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PRESERVATION ORDINANCE, UM, TO ADDRESS RESILIENCY.
SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE BRINGING FORTH A MOTION FOR HIS
SO WHAT WE NEED FROM YOU ALL IS A, IS A MOTION.
AND I HAVE SOME DRAFT LANGUAGE TO ANYONE WHO'S INTERESTED,
[00:30:02]
PLEASE.THANK YOU TO ANYBODY WHO'S INTERESTED.
WHY DID YOU NOT TAKE, I'M JUST MESSING
AND SO THE, THE, THE INTENT OF THIS PARTICULAR ORDERS AMENDMENT IS TO BRING THIS FOR YOU AS SOON AS WE HAVE OUR, OUR REVIEW OF OUR ORDINANCE COMPLETE BY DEQ STAFF.
UM, WE'LL BRING THIS TO YOU ALL.
UM, I'D LIKE TO HAVE IT AS SOON AS, AS MAYBE THE JULY MEETING, BUT I THINK IT DEPENDS ON HOW FAST THE, UH, DQ IS REVIEWING IT AND IF THERE ARE, IF, IF WHEN THEY REVIEW IT THAT WE HAVE ANY CORRECTIONS TO MAKE.
UM, SO, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS IS AN ORDINANCE IN FRONT, UH, A MOTION IN FRONT OF YOU AS REQUIRED BY OUR, OUR ORDINANCE.
THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IS, IS, UH, DO THIS PROCESS FIRST BEFORE WE BRING AN ACTUAL ORDINANCE AT, AT A AS A PUBLIC HEARING.
WOULD YOU NEED SOMEONE TO READ THIS? IF, IF THEY'RE MAKING, IF THEY'RE MAKING A MOTION.
SO IF THERE'S ANYONE TO MAKE A MOTION, THEY WON'T LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATED UPDATES, THE DEFINITION OF THE SECTIONS AND ZONING ORDINANCE.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE, UM, WE AMEND THE CHESAPEAKE BAY ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AND RELATED UPDATES TO DEFINITIONS AND OTHER SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
UH, THE MOTION IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VIRGINIA CODE SECTION 15.22286 A SEVEN.
I MAKE A MOTION THAT PUBLIC NECESSITY, CONVENIENCE, GENERAL WELFARE AND GOOD ZONING PRACTICE REQUIRE THAT THE AMENDMENTS TO THE S COUNTY, CHESAPEAKE BAY ORDINANCE AND ZONING ORDINANCE IN ORDER TO ALIGN WITH RE REGULATORY UPDATES, ADDRESSING RE I CAN'T SAY IT, RESILIENCE RESILIENCY BE BROUGHT FORTH TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION ON SUCH AMENDMENTS FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ALRIGHT, UH, MOVING ON DOWN TO, WELL, I APOLOGIZE.
DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER FEEDBACK? NO, NO, I'M GOOD.
THANK, UH, MOVING DOWN TO PUBLIC COMMENTS, MOVING DOWN TO COMMITTEE UPDATES, MR. WADE.
AND WE CAN ALSO INCORPORATE PC, UH, SECRETARY COMMUNICATIONS IF YOU'D LIKE.
UM, AT THIS POINT RIGHT NOW, I'M, I'M, I'M CONTENT WITH WHAT WE HAD WITH OUR, I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT WHAT WE HAD IN OUR, OUR SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATES WITH THE SUBDIVISION.
UH, I THINK, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A, IT'S A, IT'S A LONG PROCESS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH EVERYTHING RIGHT NOW WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE.
UM, THERE'S PLENTY OF WORK FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO DO RIGHT NOW AS, AS WE ARE ALL AWARE THAT THERE'S A, THERE'S A, THIS IS A PHASE APPROACH FOR A SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE UPDATE.
UM, WE'RE GETTING THROUGH THIS PART FIRST BEFORE WE GO TACKLE THE, THE MOST ROBUST AREAS OF THE, OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.
UM, SO I THINK, I THINK, WE'LL WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE DOING FINE.
WE AS STAFF, I THINK WE HAVE ALL THE FEEDBACK THAT WE NEED FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE AT THIS TIME, BUT WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA NEED MORE IN THE, IN IN THE FUTURE FOR SURE.
UM, AS FAR AS PC SECRETARY, UM, I, I THINK I, I THINK, I THINK WE'RE, I THINK WE'RE GOOD.
WE, WE, WE, WE, WE, I THINK THE, FROM THE LAST MEETING WE DID PASS OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WITH THE BOARD SUPERVISORS AS IS NOW ON OUR WEBSITE NOW.
UM, SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE WEBSITE, YOU WILL SEE THE MOST UPDATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE.
SO IF ANYBODY IN FEATURE IN, OUT IN THE PUBLIC WANTS TO KNOW WHERE'S THE, WHERE'S THE NEW COMP PLAN? IT'S ON THE WEBSITE.
UM, DO, IS THERE A PUBLIC HEARING? ARE WE SCHEDULING ONE FOR A JULY MEETING? IS THAT, WHAT DID I HEAR THAT? OR? THE INTENT IS TO SCHEDULE ONE FOR JULY TO HAVE ONE IN JULY.
[00:35:01]
YEAH.AND TECHNICALLY IT WOULD BE AT LEAST TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS BECAUSE ONE WOULD BE FOR THE HISTORIC OVERLAY AMENDMENTS, DISTRICT OVERLAY AMENDMENTS.
AND THEN THE OTHER WOULD BE FOR CHANGES TO THE SUB SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.
SO EVEN THOUGH WE BROKE THEM UP AS, AS TWO, WE TALKED ABOUT THE FAMILY DIVISION AND WE TALKED ABOUT THE 10 ACRE MINIMUM.
UM, IN AR SINCE THEY FALL UNDER THE SAME ORDINANCE, WE WOULD PROBABLY JUST DO LIKE ONE PUBLIC HEARING FOR, FOR ALL OF THOSE SUBDIVISION RELATED PHASE ONE AMENDMENTS.
AND JUST THE OTHER COMMUNICATION PART TOO, JUST FYI, THIS UPCOMING MEETING IS ON THE THIRD MONDAY OF THE MONTH.
SO INSTEAD OF THE 27TH THIS MONTH, THIS UPCOMING MONTH.
SO IT'S, IT'S GONNA BE JUMPED UP A WEEK EARLIER THIS, THIS UPCOMING MONTH JUST TO MAKE SURE YOU PUT YOUR CALENDARS THERE.
I'M NOT, IT'S NOT THE FOURTH MONDAY THIS TIME.
SO JUST, JUST FY JUST WHAT'S THE DATE AGAIN? 20TH.
AND, UH, THAT LEADS US TO ADJOURNMENT.
I I I'M SORRY, I GOT ONE MORE QUESTION FROM THIS WAY.
JUST THE INFORMATIONAL QUESTION.
THE SUBDIVISION DOWN OFF OF 10, WELL, WE GO INTO CHIP OAK ROAD MM-HMM.
THEY PUT SOME HOUSES, GOLD JOHNSON PLACE, THEY PUT SOME HOUSES ON THE BACKSIDE THERE.
THEY GOT A SINGLE WHITE TRAILER SITTING UP THERE.
IS THAT GOING TO BE AMONGST THOSE TWO STORE HOUSES? YEAH, THIS MANUFACTURED HOMES ARE PERMITTED BY IN THE AR DISTRICT.
THAT'S NOT JUST A, A WORKSHOP THAT'S, YEAH.
I I, I WILL SHARE WITH YOU IS STATE CODE HAS CHANGED TOO.
SO WE MAY HAVE TO START ADDRESSING OUR HOUSING AND THIS IS SOME OF THE THINGS THAT MS. PERKINS I AROUND TO TALK ABOUT TOO.
AND THEN AS A COMMISSION, YOU ALL WILL HEAR THIS TOO, THE STATE CODE CHANGED.
SO ANYWHERE THAT THERE IS SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING ALLOWED, MANUFACTURED HOUSING IS SUPPOSED TO, IS SUPPOSED TO BE REQUIRED, IS SUPPOSED TO BE IN PLACE AS WELL.
SO, AND I, AND I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT LIKE A MANUFACTURED DOUBLE WIDE WOULD WOULD'VE BEEN MORE APPEALING TO ME WANTING TO GO BUY A TWO STORY HOUSE RIGHT BESIDE, BUT THAT'S ME.
BUT SOMEBODY THAT, THAT WOULD BE A GOOD CANDIDATE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
'CAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW HE'S GOING TO GET HIS THREE OR $400,000 FOR THAT.
THE, THE, THE UM, REGULAR HOUSE, I MEAN THE TRAILER, I'M GONNA CALL IT TRAILERS DISTRICT.
AND UH, THAT'S, THAT'S GOING TO BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THERE PROBABLY FOR SOMEBODY.
BUT, BUT, BUT AGAIN, IF WE'VE HAD THE 10 ACRE MINIMUM IN PLACE, I MEAN, BECAUSE WE COULDN'T PROTECT IT AGRICULTURALLY.
'CAUSE IT WAS A FIELD BEING FARMED AND NOW CHOPPED UP FOR HOUSES.
I'LL, I'LL, I'LL SPEAK ON THE AGRICULTURAL PIECE RIGHT NOW TOO.
WHILE WE'RE, WHILE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT WE'VE ASKED USDA, WE'VE ASKED THE EXTENSION OFFICE AND EVEN DCR, THEY WILL NOT SUPPORT THAT ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW IN PLACE.
I DON'T EVEN THINK IT'S ENFORCEABLE.
'CAUSE THEY WILL NOT GIVE US ANY OPINIONS.
THEY, THEY DO NOT WANT US TO GIVE US OPINION ABOUT PLANNING.
I'M NOT EVEN SURE HOW WE GOT IT BEGIN WITH.
THEY, THEY SAID THEIR ATTORNEYS WILL NOT ALLOW THEM TO GIVE US OPINIONS ON THAT ANYMORE.
SO THEY, THEY, WE SHOWED THEM LANGUAGE THAT THEY WERE GIVING US OPINIONS BEFORE IN THE PAST.
THEY SAID, YOU KNOW, FOR EXTENSION OFFICE, VIRGINIA TECH TOLD THEM, DO NOT GIVE THAT OPINION OUT.
SEE THAT, THAT'S WHERE I THINK YOU GOT IT WRONG.
ME AS A LANDOWNER, IF I WANT TO SELL MY AGRICULTURAL, I NEED TO PROVE TO YOU THAT IT'S NOT UNPROFITABLE.
IT'S NOT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVE THAT MY LAND'S UNPRO.
I MEAN, I THINK NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.
THE WAY IT SAY IT'S FROM A STATE AGENCY.
NO, I KNOW, BUT I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO GO TO THE STATE.
I MEAN, I, I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE EVER NEED, I THINK IT'S BEHOOVES ME AS A OWNER OF A AGRICULTURAL PIECE OF LAND THAT'S 10 ACRES OR LESS AND I WANNA SELL IT.
I NEED TO PROVE TO YOU, SO I NEED TO GO TO THEM OR I NEED TO SHOW YOU SOME RECORDS SHOWING THAT IT'S A NOT PROFITABLE PIECE OF LAND.
SO I DON'T THINK IT'S THE COUNTY'S BUSINESS TO PROVE THAT IT'S 'CAUSE THEY CAN'T, LIKE I SAID, I, I KNOW WHY THEIR LAWYERS ARE NOT DOING, HOW COULD THEY PROVE IT? WELL THAT, YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? I'LL SHARE THIS PART THEN.
IS ONE OF THE THINGS IS WHEN YOU HAVE A PIECE OF LAND, YOUR SOIL TYPE SAYS THAT YOU HAVE BAD SOIL, BUT YOU'RE FARMING PEANUTS.
YOU DON'T NEED TO HAVE GREAT SOIL FOR, FOR THAT TYPE OF CROP.
BUT WHO'S TO SAY, WHAT IF YOU'RE JUST A BAD FARMER AND YOU DON'T PRODUCE YOUR CROP IS, YOUR CROP IS HORRIBLE BECAUSE YOU'RE A BAD FARMER.
BUT IT ALMOST LIKE DISINCENTIVIZES A GREAT FARMER FROM BEING ABLE TO DO ANYTHING.
SO THERE, THERE'S THAT, THERE'S THAT BALANCING
[00:40:01]
ACT THAT THEY'RE, THAT THEY'RE TAKING THERE.UM, THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE KIND OF LIKE, THIS IS NOT FAIR TO PUT THAT, THAT ON I, AND BE FRANKLY HONEST, I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY OTHER, ANY OTHER LOCALITY HAS THAT IN PLACE.
I DO SEE THIS AS A WAY, IF YOU WERE TO SAY WE'RE GONNA GO THROUGH AND REQUIRE A REZONING REQUIREMENT, THAT YOU'D BE ABLE TO USE THAT LANG THAT, THAT AS PART OF THE REZONING REQUEST TO SAY, OKAY, THIS LAND IS USED FOR, FOR, YOU KNOW, UH, FORMING OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE THAT WE DON'T THINK WE SHOULD RE BE HAVING TO REZONE THAT.
I DO SEEM TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A, A POLICY DECISION TO REZONE, BUT TO ACTUALLY HAVE IT AS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE SECTION THAT SAYS STAFF HAS TO GET SOMETHING FROM A STATE AGENCY, WHICH THAT SAY AGENCY BASICALLY SAYS, WE'RE NOT GIVING YOU INFORMATION.
THERE'S NOTHING I CAN DO ABOUT THAT.
SO I MEAN, FOR, FOR US, THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE SAID THAT SECTION USED TO GO, UM, THERE'S, THERE'S, THERE'S SEVERAL REASONS BEHIND THAT.
I, AGAIN, I'M GONNA EXIT STAGE LEFT
BECAUSE I COULDN'T SUBDIVIDE IT.
BUT THEY, BUT I WAS TOLD, AND SOME OF YOU HAVE BEEN ON THE BOARD LONGER, THIS HAS BEEN 10, 15 YEARS AGO.
IF I LET THE LAND SIT DORMANT FOR THREE YEARS, NOT FARMED FOR THREE YEARS, THEN YOU COULD SUBDIVIDE IT UP ANY WAY YOU WANTED.
SO AGAIN, THAT, THAT KIND OF PROTECTS AGAINST THE LAND GRABBERS.
YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY JUST WANTS TO SELL OFF LAND TO BUILD A BUNCH OF HOUSING THERE.
I MEAN IT, LIKE YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE FIVE YEAR WAIT LIST, THEY HAD TO, IT HAD TO SIT THREE YEARS AND THEN YOU COULD SUBDIVIDE IT UP SMALLER.
SO THE, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS, I, I DON'T KNOW WHEN IT CHANGED TO GET THAT CLAUSE THAT YOU'VE GOT IN THERE, BUT WHEN I DID IT, IT WAS, IT HAD TO SIT FOR THREE YEARS.
IT HAD NOT TO HAVE BEEN CULTIVATED OR FARMED OR SOMETHING.
IN THREE YEARS THAT, THAT'S THE WAY IT WAS BEFORE THIS, THAT ONE THAT WE'VE GOT.
SO I GOT, BUT I'M GONNA LET THAT HORSE YOU STAGE LEFT AND I'LL STAGE RIGHT
WE'LL, I'M GONNA GO AND GET SOME DINNER.
UH, ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? UH, WITH THAT WE WILL, UH, I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT TO THE JULY 20TH, 26TH MEETING.
THIRD WEEK IN JULY, JULY 20TH.
UH, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE.
UH, ALL, UH, ALL PUT ANYWHERE OPPOSED.